State of Washington Coastal Zone Management Program and Final Environmental Impact Statement ###NEWPAGE n="1" ### State of Washington Coastal Zone ' Management Program Final Environmental Impact Statement U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Office of Coastal Zone Management W Was a V A NOVE SAN WHATCOM X Washington State Coastal Zone ###NEWPAGE n="2" ### UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COIvMMERCE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT STATE OF WASHINGTON COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Prepared by: Office of Coastal Zone Management, NOAA 3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W. Washington, D. C. 20235 ###NEWPAGE n="3" ### WASHINGTON COASTAL ZONE WqNAGEMENT PROGRAM AdMINISTPNION Summary ( )Draft (X) Final Envirormtental Impact Statement Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra- tion, Office of Coastal Zone Management (OCZM) For additional information about this proposed action or this state- ment, please contact: Grant DeHart Pacific Regional Coordinator Office of Coastal Zone Management 3300 Whitehaven Street, N. W. Page I Building - Third Floor Washington, D. C. 20235 Phone (202) 634-4235 This FEIS also meets the State of Washington State Environmental Protection Act Requirements. 1. Type of Action: Proposed Federal approval of State of Washington Coastal Zone Management Program (WCZMP), Olympia Washington (X) Administrative ( ) Legislative 2. Brief Description of Action: 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, CZMA. Approval would permit implementation of the proposed program, allowing program administrative grants to be awarded to the state, and require that Federal actions be consistent with the program. 3. Summary of Environmental Impacts and Adverse Environmental EfftcZs Approval and implementation of the program will intensify the impacts the State has currently felt under the administration of the Shoreline Management Act, (SMA), within the coastal counties and numerous other State authorities. It will provide funds to State and local governments to enhance their capability to manage their coastal zone, provide for special regional coastal zone programs that take large resource areas into account which transcend political jurisdictions, improve the data base on which coastal decisions are made, and enhance coordination and consultation with Federal agencies to better understand and act in the national interest. This is the first chance in the Nation to determine the impacts associated with having Federal, State, and local actions consistent to a large degree with respect to coastal land and water uses. It is the clear intentions of both the Coastal Zone Management Act and the Washington Coastal Zone Management Program that the majority of the impacts will prove beneficial to the i ###NEWPAGE n="4" ### waters and living resources of the coastal zone, as well as the human environment. There will be some economic impacts on certain coastal users and would-be users becaus e of restrictions or prohibitions of land and water uses in some areas, but it will0 not preclude their use in other areas. 4. Alternatives Considered: a. The Secretary could deny approval until all outstanding intergovernmental issues are fully resolved. b. The State could withdraw the approval application and continue either in a status quo or attempt to use other sources of funding to meet the objectives of the State's shoreline and related CZM programs. S. Comments: The final environmental impact statement was revised from the draft statement based on written comments received and statements made at a public hearing which was held April 22,. 1975, in Seattle, Washington. A total of forty comments were submitted from the following: Federal agencies ........16 State agencies . ........ 9 Local and Regional agencies ... 7 Other............. 8 A sun-nary of the comments are discussed below: 1. A number of responses, primarily from Federal agencies, expressed a concern that program approval was premature and requested delay for one of several reasons. Some of the reasons, which are presented in detail in Appendix 10, included the following: -inadequate Federal consultation and coordination -wait until all Local Master Programs are approved -organizational network weak or not adequately described -all Federal lands must be excluded from the State's coastal zone -specific agency interests were not adequately considered -the program did not meet all CZMA requirements and guidelines Largely based on these concerns, Washington was granted pre- liminary, rather than full, approval in accordance with Section 306 guideliness (923.3(b)) in May 1975. The State then requested an extension and supplement of their grant and worked specifically to meet the expressed concerns. Washington has since then had ii ###NEWPAGE n="5" ### and continues to have substantive involvement with the Federal agencies (see Section II), worked on clarifying its organiza- tional network, completing the Local Master P-rograms, improving technical aspects of their program such as maps, Federal consis- tency implementation, and so on. The substantive responses by the State of Washington and NOAA to these concerns are discussed in terms of impacts (Section V) and available alternatives (Section VI). While much of this work has been accomplished, there are some elements that require continued efforts on the parts of State, Federal, local and public participants. While the CZMA requires that the management system be "in place," it does not require nor can it be expected that a system is perfected or running at 100 percent efficiency at the time of approval. DOC has determined that Washington has established the policies and procedures for implementing a management program that is consonant with objectives of the CZMA. Time, effort, and resources are needed to bring the program to total fruition. Barring any fundamental conflicts unresolved during the Federal agency review or the review of this FEIS, DJOC intends to grant approval without substantial further delay. 2. Most of the comments were directed at the Washington Coastal Zone Management Program rather than the draft environmental impact statement. Responses to these comments were addressed on an individual basis (see Appendix 10 and 11 and program supplement). The significant concerns have been evaluated and incorporated in the management program by the State of Washington and an official amendment that accompanies this FEIS. The major concerns can be broken clown into three categories: (a) lack of adequate information to evaluate programmatic elements or the nature of important organizational linkages; (b) lack of clarity in the Federal interaction and consistency policies of the program; (c) and, a legal issue concerning the exclusion of Federal lands from the coastal zone. In addition to a substantially expanded doctument submitted by Washington describing their program, revisions have been made to the program and the FEIS where it was indicated clarification was needed. 3. Several comments requested descriptive and data clarification. In addition, many comments were directed at correcting technical iii ###NEWPAGE n="6" ### errors and updating information. Appropriate comments have been incorporated and.information has been updated. 4. It was suggested that OCZM assess the history and the impacts associated with ae implementation of the Shoreland Management Act, Local Master Program approvals and shoreline permits and appeals. This, then, could be used as a basis for projecting environmental effects due to increased Federal financial assistance and program approval. Section V has been expanded to include impacts associated with the implementation of the SMA. However, with a few positive modifications, the Washington Coastal Zone Management Program (WCZMP) would continue to be implemer Led by the State under the Washington Shoreline Management Act (SMA). Therefore, at a minimum, this statement 3hould address what additional impacts Section 306 funds and Federal consistency will have on the environment as opposed to the existing State situation. While the major impacts associated with this action would occur from these two sources (funding and consistency), DOC feels that this would be a more narrow interpretation of NEPA requirements and has attempted to look at the total picture, the cumulative impacts, where possible. 5. There were several requests to increase the quality of the maps which show the boundaries of the coastal zone. Maps have been improved and included. 6. Several comments questioned the validity of some of the al- ternatives and recommended that they be deleted. The section on alternatives has been changed and updated. Some were not feasible alternatives and have been deleted. 7. A general suggestion to include a State program summary in the FEIS which is geared to the requirements outlined in the 306 regulations. DOC has chosen the approach to describe the program as it works rather than a point by point review of the Section 306 regulations. It would be very difficult to do this in a summary form and do justice to the program. 8. While the majority of the comments felt that the DEIS was adequate for the type of action that was going to take place, some stated that there was insufficient information. The FEIS has been supplemented in many areas, namely: the sections iv ###NEWPAGE n="7" ### on impacts, alternatives, program descriptions and supporting appendices. 9. Because of the possible revisions to be made--in the WCZMP and the lack of information, some commenters suggested another draft EIS be written when the State program elements have been clarified. The main changes that have occurred in the Washington CZMP a-re additions, refinements and expansion to respond to comments and have not affected the basic policies and processes that the DEIS was based on. It is true that a nunnber of substantive elements have been clarified, but it does not change the overall assess- ments made. Therefore, DOC has chosen to file an FEIS with appropriate amendments. 10. A number of comments requested further analysis of the impacts on natural resource agencies, local governments, etc., which can be attributed to implementation of the SMA CZM comprehensive program. This has been done; primarily in the impacts section. 11. Due to a misunderstanding, one person thought that the approach the Department of Ecology took to meeting CZMA requirements was not in accordance with the State constitution. A personal response from the State Assistant Attorney General is enclosed to clarify this misunderstanding. 12. A number of people pointed out that there are unknowns and unfore- seen needs in the future that the current program does not address. A CZM program should not be viewed as a final product. The CZMA (Section 306(g)) allows for amendments. What is important is that the State has an adequate process that can handle changes and conflicts. The State of Washington has such a process. This FEIS should be read in conjunction with the State of Washington's program submission to NOAA entitled, "Washington State Coastal Zone Program, January 1976,?t to fully appreciate and gain a more thor- ough understanding of the Washington program. Federal agencies have been sent a copy because of their responsibility to review the program prior to Secretarial approval. There is at present, however, only a limited number of copies available through the State Depart- ment of Ecology. Copies of the document can be found in the following places: 1. The Planning Office of each of the coastal counties and cities; 2. The following libraries: V ###NEWPAGE n="8" ### 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 COUNTY Snow Isle Regional Library P. O. Box 148 Marysville 98720 206/259-8177 -- Mae L. Schoenrock JEFFERSON COUNTY Port Townsend Public Library 1228 Lawrence Street Port Townsend 98368 206/385-3181 -- Madge M. Wallin KING COUNTY King County Library System 300 8th Avenue, North Seattle 98109 206/344-7465 -- Herbert F. Mutschler KITSAP COUNTY Kitsap Regional Library 612 5th Street Bremerton 98310 206/377-3955 -- Irene Heninger MASON COUNTY Timberland South Mason Library Rte. 5, Box 35 Shelton 98584 206/426-1362 -- Doris Whitmarsch PACIFIC COUNTY Raymond Public Library 507 Duryea Raymond 98577 206/942-2408 -- Jay Windisch PIERCE COUNTY Pierce County Library 2356 Tacoma Avenue, S. Tacoma 98402 206/572-6760 -- Carolyn J. Else vi ###NEWPAGE n="9" ### SAN JUAN COUNTY Eastsound (Meyers) Library Orcas Island P. O. Box 165 - Eastsound 98245 -- Polly Klauder SKAGIT COUNTY Anacortes Public Library 1209 9th Street Anacortes 98221 206/293-2700 -- G. Douglas Everhart SNOHOMISH COUNTY See Island County THURSTON COUNTY Olympia Public Library 7th & Franklin Olympia 98501 206/352-0595 -- Margaret Coopinger WAHKIAKUM COUNTY Cathlamet Public Library P. 0. Box 337 Cathlamet 98612 206/795-3254 -- Eleanor A. Taylor WHATCOM COUNTY Whatcom County Library 5205 N. W. Road Bellingham 98225 206/733-1250 -- Linda Hellyer And at the following locations in the vicinity of Washington, D.C.: 3. Office of Coastal Zone Managment Coastal Zone Information Center 3300 Whitehaven Street, N. W. Page I Building, Room 303 Washington, D. C. 20235 4. Department of Commerce Main Commerce Building 14th and Constitution, N. W. Room 7046 Washington, D. C. 20230 vii ###NEWPAGE n="10" ### 6. List of Entities From Whom Comments Have Been Requested or Received With Responders Indicated By " Federal Agencies *Departmrent of Agriculture Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service Forest Service *Soil Conservation Service Rural Electrification Administration Agriculture Research Service Department of Commerce NOAA EDA Maritime Administration Department of Defense *Aamy Corps of Engineers *U.S. Navy *Department of the Interior (combined response) Bureau of Land Management (public lands) Office of Oil and Gas Bureau of Outdoor Recreation Fish and Wildlife Service (commented at -public hearing) Bureau of Indian Affairs (Tndsrn Inp.HS) Geological Survey National Park Service Office of Land Use and Water Planning Bureau of Reclamation Office of Saline Water Bureau of Mines Power Marketing Administration *Department of Transportation (combined response) *Coast Guard Transport and Pipeline Safety *Office of Environmental Affairs Federal Highway Administration Federal Aviation Administration Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Protection Agency *Regional Administrator, Region X U. S. Water Resources Council Department of Health, Education and Welfare Public Health Service viii ###NEWPAGE n="11" ### TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................... 1 II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ............................... 2 A. The Federal Coastal Zone Management Program .................. 2 B. The Washington Coastal Zone Management Program ............... 6 III. DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT AFFECTED .......................... 57 IV. RELATIONSHIP OF THE PROPOSED ACTION TO LANE USE PLANS, POLICIES AND CONTROLS FOR THE AREA ............................... 81 V. PROBABLE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ON THE ENVIRONMENT . ....... 84 A. Impacts Resulting From the Federal Agency Review Process ............................................... 89 B. Impacts Directly Resulting From Federal Approval ............. 92 C. Impacts Resulting from the State and Local Government Action ............................................101 D. Impacts on Historic Properties ............................... 113 VI. ALTERNATIVES ..................................................... 116 VII. PROBABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED ....................................................... 124 VIII. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY .... 125 IX. IRREVOCABLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE CONVIITMENTS OF RESOURCES THAT WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED ACTION SHOULD IT BE IMPLEMENTED ...... 126 X. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION WITH OTHERS......................... 127 REFERENCES ....................................................... 133 APPENDICES I. Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-583) II. Final Guidelines, Coastal Zone Management Program Administrative Grants III. Washington Shoreline Management Act of 1971 IV. Final Guidelines,Shoreline Management Act of 1971 V. Maps and Matrices VI. Conclusions and Reconmendations from "tWashington State Shoreline Management--An Interim Assessment," by Maureen McCrea and Jim Feldman, August 1975 VII. State of Washington Board of Tax Appeals Decision on Padilla Bay Tracts VIII. Summary of Shoreline Hearings Board Decisions - Revised Dec. 1973 IX. Coordination and Consultation X. Comments From Federal,State and Local Agencies and by Interested Persons Involved in Review Process 0Ae XI. Washington Coastal Zone Management Program Supplement, .it 1976 ###NEWPAGE n="12" ### *Department of Housing and Urban Development (combined response) Federal insurance Administration, Office of Planning and Management Assistance *Nuclear Regulatory Commission Department of Justice *Energy Research and Development Administration *Federal Energy Administration *Federal Power Commission General Services Administration *National Aeronautics and Space Administration *Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Federal- State *Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission State *Washington (Governor's Office) Department of Agriculture Department of Emergency Services Department of Commerce and Economic Development * Department of Ecology Department of Fisheries * Department of Game : Department of Highways * Department of Natural Resources Department of Social and Health Services * Office of Community Development Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation Parks and Recreation Commission * Office of Program Planning and Fiscal Management County Clallam County * Grays Harbor Island Jefferson King Kitsap ix ###NEWPAGE n="13" ### Mason Pacific Pierce San Juan Skagit Snohomish Thurston Wahkiakum Whatcom Other Parties Alpine Lakes Protection Society American Institute of Planners American Water Works Association *Environmental Defense Fund Federation of Western Outdoor Clubs Izaak Walton League *League of Women Voters Mountaineers ***National Audubon Society National Wildlife Federation *Natural Resources Defense Council (phoned in comments) 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 (verbal response at public hearing) Washington Forest Protection Association Washington Public Utility Districts Association Washington State Association of Sanitarians Washington State Association of Water and Sewer Districts Washington State Grange Washington State Sportsmen's Council Date Made Available to CEQ and The Public: Draft Statement: March 21, 1975 Final Statement: April 9, 1976 x ###NEWPAGE n="14" ### 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 Zofie Management Act (P.L. 920583; 86 Stat. 1280; hereinafter referred to as the Act; included as Appendix 1). Signed into law by President Nixon on October 27, 1972,the Act authorized a new Federal program to be administered by the Secretary of Commerce, who in turn delegated this responsibility to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The Act affirms a national interest in the effective management, beneficial use, protection, and development of the coastal zone, and provides assistance and encouragement to the coastal states to develop and implement rational programs for managing their coastal zones. Three financial assistance grant programs are authorized by the Act. Section 305 authorizes annual grants to assist any United States coastal state or territory in the development of a management program for the land and water resources of its coastal zone (program development grants). Under Section 306, after developing a management program, the state may submit it to the Secretary of Commerce for approval; if approved, the state is' then eligible for annual grants to administer its management program (program administration grants). A third section (Section 312) provides grants for an estuarine sanctuary program, to preserve a representative series of undis- turbed estuarine areas for long-term scientific and educational purposes. As an additional incentive for state participation, the Act stipu- lates that Federal actions within the coastal zone shall be, to the maximum extent feasible, consistent with approved state management programs (the "Federal consistency" requirement of Section 307). Guidelines defining the procedures by which states can qualify to receive development grants under Section 305 of the Act, and the policies for development of a state management program, were published on November 29, 1973 (15 CFR Part 920, Federal Register 38(229):33044-33051). Guidelines for the implementation of the estuarine sanctuary program were published on June 4, 1974 (15 CFR Part 921, Federal Register 39 (108): 1922-1927), and the first estuarine sanctuary grant was awarded to the State of Oregon on June 27, 1974. 1 ###NEWPAGE n="15" ### On January 9, 1975, NOAA's Office of Coastal Zone Management (OCZM) published criteria to be used for approving state coastal zone management programs and guidelines for program administrative grants (15 CFR Part 923, Federal Register 40(6):1683-1695; see Appendix 2). These criteria an-gu-idelines set forth (a) the standards to be utilized by the Secretary of Commerce in reviewing and approving coastal zone management programs developed and submitted by coastal states for approval, (b) procedures by which coastal states may qualify to receive program adminis- trative grants, and (c) policies for the administration by coastal states of approved coastal zone management programs. Pursuant to the Section 306 guidelines, OCZM has now received for review and Secretarial approval proposed coastal zone manage- ment programs, in varying stages of completion for: Washington, Oregon, and the San Francisco Bay Area Conservation and Develop- ment Commission (seeking segmented approval). The OCZM has determined that approval of a state's coastal zone management program, with resultant impacts of potential funding, consistency of Federal actions and permits, and ultimately land- use in toto, has the potential for causing a significant impact on te environment, and that, therefore, an environmental impact statement (EIS) should be prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This EIS is intended to present for review by interested parties the State of Washington's coastal zone management program and its application for approval under Section 306 of the Coastal Zone Management Act. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION A. The Federal Coastal Zone Management Program The enactment of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 culminated a lengthy history of Federal interest in and concern for the coastal zone and its resources. Significant national interest can be traced from the Committee on Oceanography of the National Academy of Sciences' (NASCO) 12-volume report "Oceanography 1960-1970," (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 2 ###NEWPAGE n="16" ### conflicting demands upon our Nation's coasts. Together these reports stressed the need to protect and wisely use these import- ant national resources, and concurred that a specific program designed to promote the thoughtful protection and management of our coastal zone was necessary. In response to these recommendations, the first legislative pro- posals for coastal management programs were introduced in 1969. Long and extensive hearings were held on these and subsequent bills during the next three years (e.g.: House 91-14, 91-46, and 92-16; Senate 92-15, 92-753, and 92-1049). The overwhelming support for the final Act (P.L. 92-583), which passed 68-0 in the Senate and 376-6 in the House, clearly reflected the need for decisive action in the coastal zone. The Act opens by stating that "there is a national interest in the effective management, beneficial use, protection, and develop- menti. of the coastal zone.'" (Section 302(a)). The statement of Congressional findings goes on to describe how competition for the utilization of coastal resources, brought on by the increased demands of population growth and economic expansion, has led to the degradation of the coastal environment, citing the "loss of living marine resources, wildlife, nutrient-rich areas, perma- nent and adverse changes to ecological systems, decreasing open space for public use, and shoreline erosion." The Act then states that the "key to more effective protection and use of the land and water resources of the coastal zone is to encourage the states to exercise their full authority over the. lands and waters in the coastal zone by assisting the states ... in developing land and water use programs... .including unified policies, criteria, standards, methods, and processes for dealing with land and water use decisions of more than local significance." (Section 302(h)). While local governments and Federal agencies are required to cooperate, coordinate and participate in the development of the management programs, the state level of government is clearly given the central role and responsibility for this process. 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, on a voluntary basis, to receive grants from NOAA to cover two-thirds of the costs of developing coastal zone manage- ment programs. Broad guidelines and minimum requirements in the Act provide the necessary direction for developing these programs. For example, during the program development, each state must address specific issues such as the boundaries of its coastal zone; geographic areas of particular concern; permissible and priority land and water uses, and areas for preservation or restoration. During the planning process, the state is directed to consult with local, regional, and relevant Federal agencies and govern- ments, and general public interests. These annual grants can be 3 ###NEWPAGE n="17" ### renewed twice, so that Federal support can be provided to states for up to three years for this program development phase. Upon completion and adoption of the management..program by the state, and after approval by the Secretary of Commerce, states and territories are eligible under Section 306 to receive adminis- trative grants (presumably in greater amounts than for program development) to cover two-thirds of the costs of implementing these programs. The criteria for approval of state coastal zone management programs and guidelines for applying for program administrative grants are provided in Appendix 2. The states' administration of their programs will be reviewed annually by OCZM and, as long as they are administered consistent with the approved management program, the states will remain eligible for annual administrative grants. The Act provides that the views of Federal agencies principally affected by such programs must be adequately considered by the Secretary of Commerce in his -review and approval of the --iagement program. The Department has established a formal review process to receive the comments from such Federal agencies ancą , which serious disagreements may be resolved (15 CFR Part 925, Interim Regulations. Federal Register, Vol. 40, No. 41, February 28, 1975). NOAA evaluation of the statutory requirements established in the Act and guidelines will concentrate primarily upon the adequacy of state processes in dealing with key coastal problems and issues. It will not, in general, deal with the wisdom of specific land and water 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 know- ledge, public participation and unified governmental policies, for making reasoned choices and decisions. Management programs will be evaluated in the light of the Congres- sional findings and policies as contained in Sections 302 and 303 of the Act. These sections make it clear that Congress in enacting the legislation was concerned about the environmental degradation, damage 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 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 zo'ne." 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 4 ###NEWPAGE n="18" ### well as the need for economic development in preparing and imnple- menting management programs through which the states, with the participation of all affected interests and levels of government, exercise their full authority over coastal lands and waters. In addition, the Act provides coastal states and territories with the opportunity to apply for grants to cover one-half of the costs of acquisition, development and operation of estuarine sanctuaries, wherein natural field laboratories are established in order that scientists and students may be provided the oppor- tunity to examine over a period of time ecological relationships in representative undisturbed estuaries of the coastal zone. Although signed in October 1972, implementation of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Program was delayed by the Administration's decision not to request appropriations for the remainder of FY 1973 or FY 1974. This decision was made on the grounds that more information on the nature and extent of state activities and needs was required before committing funds, and because of the desire by the Administration to coordinate or subsume the operation of the coastal zone management program with or under the then pending land use legislation. Eventually in response to the pressing needs and demands in the coastal zone, and in view of negative action on the land use legislation, the President in August 1973, forwarded an amended budget request to Congress for $5 million to begin implementation of the Coastal Zone Management Act. This request was amended by Congress to provide a final appropriation of $12 million for FY 1974, and was signed by the President on November 27, 1973. About $7.2 million of this total was for program development grants (Section 305), $4 million for estuarine sanctuary grants, and $800,000 for pro- gram administration within NOAA. The OCZM budget for FY 1975 remained at $12 million, distributed however as $9 million for program development, $2.1 million for state program administration grants, and $900,000 for internal NOAA program administration. About $3.2 million remained available in the estuarine sanctuary program as carry over funds from FY 1974. Currently all eligible states, and three of four eligible territories have received grants under the program. Two estuarine sanctuary grants have been awarded to the States of Oregon and Georgia. ###NEWPAGE n="19" ### B. The Washington Coastal Zone Management Program (WCZMP) INTRODUCTION Z The CZMA defines "management programt' as "a comprehensive state- ment in words, maps, illustrations, or other media of communication, prepared and adopted by the state in accordance with the provisions of this title, setting forth objectives, policies, and standards to guide public and private uses of lands and waters in the coastal zone." (Section 304(g)). On February 14, 1975, Governor Daniel J. Evans, submitted on be- half of the State of Washington, the first coastal zone management program to the Office of Coastal Zone Management/NOAA. The program consisted of documentation of state laws, administrative regula- tions, description of programs and processes on how the state was going to manage its coastal zone. A thorough review of the WCZMP by OCZM, other Federal agencies probably affected by the program, and the public, identified certain aspects of the program needing further development prior to the Secretary of Connerce approving the program. The major concerns expressed dealt with Federal/state relationships, the State's organizational network, and a lack of clarity in the description of some of the substantive program elements. Preliminary approval was granted the State in May 1975, and the State was given a supplemental development grant to intensively work on the concerns stated above. Realizing that coastal zone management is a dynamic process just as the issues identified, the State has further developed a pro- cess of communication with Federal agencies in order to better understand their missions and actions in the coastal zone, how they can cooperatively work together on such arrangements as the Federal consistency requirements, and to get a better under- standing of what the national interests are in the siting of facilities. Similarly, efforts have been made to complete the review of Local Master Programs and approve them prior to Section 306 approval. Arrangements were made with other State agencies to increase the coordination of the various programs. And finally, several program elements have been improved. On December 12, 1975, Governor Evans submitted the WCZMP for final approval. In his cover letter to NOAA, Governor Evans stated the following: "I have reviewed the Washington coastal zone management program, and, as Governor, approve the program and certify to the following: 6 ###NEWPAGE n="20" ### 1. The state has the required authorities and is presently implementing the coastal zone management program; 2. The state has established, and is operating, the neces- sary organizational structure to implement the coastal zone management program; 3. The Department of Ecology is the single designated agency to receive and administer grants for implementing the coastal zone management program, and further the Depart- ment of Ecology is hereby designated as the lead agency for the implementation of the coastal zone management program; 4. The state, in concert with local governments, has the authority to control land and water uses, control develop- ment, and resolve conflicts among competing uses, S. The state presently uses the methods listed in Section 306(e) (1) of the Coastal Zone Management Act for controlling land and water uses in the coastal zone, including: (a) the authority derived from the Shoreline Management Act, the Act's implementing regulations including the Final Guide- lines and local master programs; (b) state adminis- trative review of local programs, and permits a associated with the Shoreline Management Act; and (c) direct state regulatory authority for control of air and water pollution; 6. The state has sufficient powers to acquire lands, should that become desirable or necessary under elements of the coastal zone management program; 7. Those state laws cited in the program have been passed by the legislature and enacted into law. Administrative regulations required to implement the laws have been formally adopted by the respon- sible state agencies; and state approved local master programs have been formally adopted by the appropriate local government; S. The state's air and water pollution control programs, established pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 and the Federal Clean Air Act, insofar as those programs pertain to the coastal zone, are hereby made a part of the state's coastal zone management program. The regulations appurtenant to the-air and wate-r programs are incorporated into this program and shall become the water pollution control. requirements and air pollution control requirements 7 ###NEWPAGE n="21" ### applicable to the state's coastal zone management program. Further, any additional requirements and amendments to air and water pollution programs shall also become part of the state's coastal zone management program; and 9. I further certify that the Washington coastal zone management program is now an official program of the State of Washington and the state, acting by and through its several instrumentalities, will strive to meet the intent of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, and the state's corollary legislation; and to do so in a uniform, cooperative and aggressive spirit.' The Shoreline Management Act provides for the basis of managing the coastal zone. The following section, taken from the WCZNP, explains how this significant and comprehensive piece of legislation works. 8 ###NEWPAGE n="22" ### THE SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1971 govern their treatment in operating shoreline pro- grams. The Act defines "shorelines of statewide Requirements and Range of Applicability of the significance" as follows Act The Shoreline Management Act requires and (1) The Area between the ordinary high water The Shoreline Management Act requires and mark and the western boundary of the state defines a planning program and a regulatory permit from Cape Disappointment on the south to system, both of which are initiated at the local Cape Flattery on the north, including har- level under state guidance. The planning program bors, bays, estuaries, and inlets; for each local government consists of a com- prehensive shoreline inventory and a master pro- (2) Those areas of Puget Sound and adjacent gram for the regulation of shoreline uses. The salt waters and the Strait of Juan de Fuca inventory covers existing land and water uses, gen- between the ordinary high water mark and eralized ownership patterns, and natural shoreline the line of extreme low tide as follows: characteristics. The master program utilizes the in- (a) Nisqually Delta-from DeWolf Bight to ventory information and is essentially a com- Tatsolo Point, prehensive land use plan with a distinct environ- (b) Birch Bay-from Point Whitehorn to mental orientation. The master program includes basic goals and objectives, the designation of all shoreline areas into a categorization system, and (c) Hood Canal-from Tala Point to Foul- specific regulatory language. The entire planning weather Bluff, function is conducted in conformance with guide- (d) Skagit Bay and adjacent area-from lines prepared and adopted by the Department of Brown Point to Yokeko Point, and Ecology (DOE). The resulting local master pro- (e) Padilla Bay-from March Point to grams are subject to state review and approval and William Point; are then adopted as state regulations. The regula- tory permit system is overseen by a state adminis- (3) Those areas of Puget Sound and the Strait trative appellate body created for the purpose by of Juan de Fuca and adjacent salt waters the Act. north to the Canadian line and lying sea- ward from the line of extreme low tide; The management program established in the Shoreline Management Act applies to all "shore- (4) Those lakes, whether natural, artifical or a lines of the state," including both "shorelines" and combination thereof, with a surface acreage "shorelines of statewide significance." In a nutshell of one thousand acres or more measured at the Act applies to all marine water areas of the the ordinary high water mark; state, to streams with a mean annual flow of 20 (5) Those natural rivers or segments thereof as cubic feet per second or more, and to lakes larger follows: than 20 acres. It also applies to adjacent land areas extending landward 200 feet from the (a) Any west of the crest of the Cascade ordinary high water mark and to all marshes, bogs, range downstream of a point where the swamps, floodways, river deltas, and floodplains as- mean annual flow is measured at one sociated with water bodies subject to the Act. In thousand cubic feet per second or more, all, there are 791 lakes, 965 rivers and streams, (b) Any east of the crest of the Cascade some 2,400 miles of marine shoreline, and over range downstream of a point where the 3,000 square miles of marine waters subject to annual flow is measured at two hundred the Act. cubic feet per second or more, or those portions of rivers east of the crest of the Special legislative concern was expressed in SMA Cascade range downstream from the first for those shorelines identified as of statewide con- three hundred square miles of drainage cern and special use priorities were established to area, whichever is longer; () g ###NEWPAGE n="23" ### (6) Those wetlands associated with (1), (2), (4), master programs where a local government and (5) above. declined or refused to do so. Only two counties and two small towns refused to complete Two interrelated time schedules were set up in programs. The Department has completed and the Act for the Department of Ecology and local adopted programs for all four jurisdictions. adopted progmams for all four jurisdictions. governments to establish the framework, guide- lines, and plans which will collectively constitute Policy Direction from the Act the management system. The Department was directed to undertake and complete the following Management goals in SMA place a strong em- no later than the dates indicated: phasis upon a balance between conservation and use of the shorelines. In RCW 90.58.020 the September 28, 1971-initial draft of the guide- use of the shorelines. In RCW 90.58.020 the lines and submission to local governments for Legislature declares that "unrestricted construc- comments. tion on the privately owned or publicly owned shorelines of the state is not in the best public February 26, 1972-completion of a final guide- interest," which should be protected through co- line daft ad subissionfor rview.interest," which should be protected through co- line draft and submission for review. ordinated planning, while "at the same time, recog- March 26, 1972-completion of public hearings nizing and protecting private property rights on final draft. consistent with the public interest." The Legisla- June 24, 1972-holding of a public hearing ture further declares that it is the policy of the to adopt final guidelines. state to provide for the management of the state's shorelines "by planning for and fostering all Local governments were to fulfill their basic reasonable and appropriate uses" and that this responsibilities-the completion of an inventory policy is designed to of their shorelines and the drafting of the master program-on the following schedule: "insure the development of these shorelines November 30, 1971-submission of a letter of in a manner which, while allowing for limited reduction of rights of the public in the navigable intent to the Department of Ecology indicating waters, will promote and enhance the public that the governmental unit will undertake and waters, will promote and enhance the public complete the shoreline inventory and the master interest. This policy contemplates protecting program. against adverse effects to the public health, the land and its vegetation and wildlife, and the January 26, 1972-last date for responses to the waters of the state; while protecting generally Department of Ecology initial draft of guide- public rights of navigation and corollary rights lines. incidental thereto." November 30, 1972-shoreline inventory to be completed. More specific priorities are given for shorelines of statewide significance. DOE and local govern- December 24, 1973-submission of master plan ments are directed to give preference to uses in to the Department of Ecology at least eighteenm e dr c v preference t months after the effective date of the guidelines the following order of preference which: (this was later amended to June 20, 1974). (a) Recognize and protect the statewide interest over local interest. In general terms, then, the process of creating (b) Preserve the natural character of the shore- the system was to be completed within three-and- line. a-half years. The state was directed to cooperate fully with local governments in meeting their (c) Result in long-term over short-term benefit. responsibilities. In addition, there is a provision in (d) Protect the resources and ecology of the the Act which authorizes the Department to distri- shoreline. bute grant funds appropriated by the Legislature to assist local governments. DOE was also authorized (e) Increase public access to publicly owned to undertake the completion of inventories and areas of the shorelines. 10 ###NEWPAGE n="24" ### (f) Increase recreational opportunities for the Similarly, the final guidelines recommend that public in the shoreline. "water-dependent industries which require frontage on navigable water should be given The Legislature further specifies that where priority over other industrial uses." - alterations of the natural condition of such shore- - lines are permitted, priority should be given to the While it is not the Intent of the Act to catego- following uses: (1) single family residences; (2) rically prohibit all non-water dependent uses, there ports; (3) shoreline recreational uses; (4) industrial is clear intent to establish a preference for water- and commercial developments that are particular- dependent uses. The concept of preference of use ly dependent upon their location on or use of is particularly applicable to shorelines under shorelines; and (5) other developments which will intense development pressures for port- and provide an opportunity for substantial numbers of harbor-related industrial activity where availability people to enjoy the shorelines. of that shoreline resource is limited and the Whilethe olicycitaionsaboveare uiteresource is extremely valuable. generl, theraranubro policyitaios abov the quite The Shorelines Hearings Board (see pages 41-43) which are considerably more specific. Timber hsfrhrepne n eie h ocp n cutting regulations for shorelines of statewide policies of water dependency. The Board, in DOE significance were specifically included within the and 'Yount vs. Snohomish Co., defined water 200 foot zone ofthese areas; only selective corn- dependency in the following terms: mercial cutting is allowed so that no more than 30 A water-dependent commerce or industry, to per cent of the saleable trees may be harvested in which priority should be given, is one which any ten-year period. Authorization is provided cannot exist in any other location and is depen- .Cr other harvesting methods when they are neces- dent on the water by reason of the intrinsic y for regeneration. Surface drilling for oil or nature of its operations. A water related r6as is prohibited in the waters of Puget Sound industry or commerce is one which is not north to the Canadian boundary and the Strait of intrinsically dependent on a waterfront location Juan de Fuca seaward from the ordinary high but whose operation cannot occur economically * water mark and on all lands within 1,000 feet without a shoreline location. from the mark. There is also a height limit on structures. Permits cannot be issued for any new In light of the fact that the Department of or expanded building or structure of more than Natural Resources' policies for the leasing of thirty-five feet that will obstruct the view of a sub- state-owned tidal areas further supports the stantial number of residences on areas adjoining concept of water dependency, the policy of the shoreline except where a master program does specifying water dependent uses as priority uses not prohibit such a height and only when over- has solidified considerably over the past four years. riding considerations of the public interest will be However, an emerging concept of "water served. relativity" promises more difficulty in interpreta- tion. Consistent with these concepts, many local The concept of preferred shoreline uses is as- master programs have established the following serted in both the Shoreline Management Act and preferences for three classes of uses. the Department of Ecology's final guidelines. The Act states that (1) Water-dependent uses are those uses which . .uses shall be preferred which are... .unique to cannot logically exist in any other location or dependent upon use of the state's shoreline. but on the water. Alteration of the natural condition of the shorelines of the state, in those limited instances (2) Water-oriented uses are uses which are when authorized, shall be given priority for in- helped by their location on the shoreline, dustrial and commercial development which are but it is possible for them to locate away particularly dependent on their location or use from the waterfront with existing of the shorelines of the state." technology. ###NEWPAGE n="25" ### (3) Non-water oriented uses are all uses which determination of which environment designation can locate equally well away from the water- should be given to any specific area was made as front. follows. Policy Direction from the DOE Guidelines (1) The resources-df the shoreline areas were(1 Te rsorcs'f te hoelne res er Policy Dirction fro the DOE uidelinesanalyzed for their opportunities and limita- Final DOE rules and regulations governing the tions for different uses. Completion of a development of local master programs were comprehensive shoreline inventory was a adopted on June 20, 1972, as Chapter 17 3-16 of prerequisite for the development of local the Washington Administrative Code (WAC). The shoreline master programs. rules and regulations constituted strong policy (2) Each of the plan elements was analyzed for guidelines to local governments on how to con- its effect on the various resources in shore- struct master programs. Of particular interest here line areas. Since shorelines are only a part of are the parts of the guidelines which set forth the system of resources within a local state policy relating to the classification of shore- jurisdiction, it was particularly important line environments, permissible and priority uses, that planning for shorelines be considered and the treatment of shorelines of statewide an integral part of the area-wide planning. significance. Further plans, policies, and regulations for The guidelines set forth a system of categorizing ladwdaenttote shreliwdine acordnc wthe stat shoreline areas for local governments to use in their wee0evewdinacoracewih.C master programs. The system was designed to pro- 9 -830 vide a uniform basis throughout the state for (3) Public desires were considered through the applying policies and use regulations to different citizen involvement process to determine shoreline locations. The guidelines suggest cate- how local values and aspirations related to gorization into four distinct environmental types- the development of different shoreline natural, conservancy, rural, and urban-based on areas. the existing development pattern, the biophysical capabilities, and the goals and aspirations of the The management objectives and features by local citizenry, In actual fact, some local programs which the DOE guidelines characterize each of the have identified more than the basic four environ- environments (WAC 173-16-040(4)(b)(i)-iv)) are ments and others have only three, depending on quoted in full in what follows because of their. the character and diversity of conditions along the central importance as the basis for environment shoreline in question, but the guidelines did designations within local jurisdictions. achieve a basic standardization. Natural Environment: The natural environment The categorization system is designed to en-isitnetopsrvadrsoethentul courage uses in each type of environment whichisitnetopsrvadrsoethentul enhance the character of that environment and to rsuc ytm xsigrltvl reo u utilize performance standards which regulate usemainlec.Lalpiistochvehs activities in accordance with the locally defined objective would aim to regulate all potential goal andobjctivs raherthanto smpl excudedevelopments degrading or changing the natural ganylsefo any objecie rtenvronment. simply thlue characteristics which make these areas unique any us fromany oe envionmen. Thu, theand valuable. particular uses or types of developments al- lowed in each environment must be designed and The main emphasis of regulation in these areas located to minimize detrimental effects thereby is on natural systems and resources which re- leading to the achievement of the objectives of the quire severe restrictions of intensities and types local shoreline development goals for each type of of uses to maintain them in a natural state. environment. The system results in the superimpo- Therefore, activities which may degrade the sition of an overall environment class over local actual or potential value of this environment *planning and zoning along the shorelines. The are to be restricted. Is 12 ###NEWPAGE n="26" ### The primary determinant for designating an area The conservancy environment is also the most as a natural environment is the actual presence suitable designation for those areas which pre- of some unique natural or cultural features sent too seyere biophysical limitations to be considered valuable in their natural or original designated als'ural or urban environments. Such condition, which are relatively intolerant of limitations include steep slopes presenting intensive human use. Such features are defined, erosion and slide hazards, areas prone to flood- identified, and quantified in the shoreline in- ing, and areas which cannot provide adequate ventory. The relative value of the resources is water supply or sewage disposal. based on local citizen opinion and the needs Rural Environment: The rural environment is and desires of other people in the rest of the intended to protect agricultural land from urban state. expansion, restrict intensive development along Because of its restrictive regulations, the natural undeveloped shorelines, function as a buffer environment has been utilized sparingly throughout between urban areas, and maintain open spaces the state. Publicly owned fragile and ecologically and opportunities for recreational uses corn- valuable shorelands are more likely to be desig- patible with agricultural activities. nated as natural than privately owned similar The rural environment is intended for those shorelands. areas characterized by intensive agricultural Conservancy Environment: The objective in and recreational uses and those areas having a dt.,ignating a conservancy environment is to high capability to support active agricultural protect, conserve, and manage existing natural practices and intensive recreational develop- resources and valuable historic and cultural ment. Hence, those areas that are already used areas in order to ensure a continuous flow of for agricultural purposes, or which have recreational benefits to the public and to achieve agricultural potential, should be maintained sustained resource utilization. for present and future agricultural needs. Designation of rural environments also seeks to The cnserancyenvionmen is or tose reasalleviate pressures of urban expansion on prime which are intended to maintain their existing frigaes character. The preferred uses are those which New developments in a rural environment are to are nonconsumptive of the physical and bio- reflect the character of the surrounding area by logical resources of the area. Nonconsumptive limiting residential density, providing permanent uses are those uses which can utilize resources open space and by maintaining adequate on a sustained yield basis while minimally building setbacks from water to prevent shore- reducing opportunities for other future uses of line resources from being destroyed for other the resources in the area. Activities and uses of a rural types of uses. nonpermanent nature which do not substantial- Public recreation facilities which can be located ly degrade the existing character of an .area are and designed to minimize conflicts with agricul- appropriate uses for a conservancy environment. tural activities are recommended for the rural Examples of uses that might be predominant in environment. Linear water access which prevents a conservancy environment include diffuse out- overcrowding in any one area, trail systems for door recreation activities, timuer harvesting on safe nonmotorized traffic along scenic corri- a sustained yield basis, passive agriculturaldosadpvionfrreetoaliwngf uses such as pasture and range lands, and otherdosadpvionfrreetoaliwngf related uses and activitieswater areas illustrate some of the ways to related uses ad activities.ensure maximum enjoyment of recreational The designation of conservancy environments opportunities along shorelines without con- also seeks to satisfy the needs of the community flicting with agricultural uses. In a similar as to the present and future location of recrea- fashion, agricultural activities are to be con- tional areas proximate to concentrations of pop- ducted in a manner which will enhance the op- ulation, either existing or projected. portunities for shoreline recreation. Farm ###NEWPAGE n="27" ### management practices which prevent erosion have designated the water differently from the and subsequent siltation of water bodies and uplands but still using shoreline classes, and a few minimize the flow of waste material into water have added a separate marine or aquatic environ- courses are encouraged by the master programs. ment. Z_- Z Urban Environment: The objective of the urban Many counties have also identified a fifth shore- environment is to ensure optimum utilization of line environment which is between the intensively shorelines within urbanized areas by providing developed urban and the agricultural rural environ- for intensive public use and by managing ments. This environment is called either suburban/ development so that it enhances and maintains semirural or rural-residential and is intended to shorelines for a multiplicity of urban uses. identify those shoreline areas with low-density The uban nvirnmen is a are of igh-residential development ususally with individual ithensityband-s incuingresidentisal , ara ofmig- water and sewage disposal systems. The objective intesitylanduseincldingresdental, om-of the designation is to preserve the low-density mercial, and industrial development. The caatr environment does not necessarily include all caatr shorelines within an incorporated city, but is The DOE guidelines also provided policies for particularly suitable to those areas presently shoreline activities which served as the basis for subjected to extremely intensive use pressure, the development of the local shoreline master as well as areas planned to accommodate urban programs (WAC 17 3-16-060). The development expansion. Shorelines planned for future urban guidelines were also used as criteria for the evalua- expansion should present few biophysical tion of proposed shoreline developments at both limitations for urban activities and not have a the local and state levels while local master pro- high priority for designation as an alternative grams were being developed. The following is a environment. brief summary of DOE's development policies. Because shorelines suitable for urban uses are a limited resource, emphasis is given to develop- Agricultural Practices: Agricultural practices ment within already developed areas and should not lower water quality by causing particularly to water-dependent industrial and erosion and permitting chemicals or animal commercial uses requiring frontage on navigable wastes to enter water bodies. waters. In te materprogams pririt is lsogive toArchaeological Areas and Historic Sites: The plning fh atrpogras pubicrt visua anphscls access to National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and platering the purblic evironent Idndtphysicanacsst Chapter 43.51 RCW provide for the protection, naeer an ning o the acurbanenvionmet Idntfyirbng rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction of nedsandfo peranentpbicngcs tor the wacusterioofubn districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects thlrando penvromaent shuldlic accomlsstthedwtri significant in American and Washington history, inthe curban eniofnmentius shoreldibe maagcmlse- architecture, archaeology or culture. The ment.T enhane watersofrcontianuou eshoreln maxig- Washington State Parks and Recreation Commis- mum public use, industrial and commercialsinsrepsblfothsrgam facilities shall be designed to permit pedestrian Shoreline permits should contain provisions waterfront activities. Where practical, various which would require developers to notify access points are to be linked to nonmotorized authorities if any possible archaeological data transportation routes, such as bicycle and hiking are uncovered during construction, and the sites paths. should be preserved if possible. The counties have varied in their approach to Aquaculture: Aquaculture is a preferred use in environment designation for the water areas in suitable water areas but should be conducted their jurisdiction. Many counties have extended the with due consideration for navigation rights shoreline environments over the water areas, others and visual quality. 14 ###NEWPAGE n="28" ### Breakwaters: Breakwaters should be con- In the limited instances when fill is authorized structed in such a way that detrimental effects the fill material should be of such quality that on the movement of sand, circulation of water, it will not cause problems of water quality. and public use of the water surface are re- - duced or eliminated. Marinas: Marinas-ghould be located near high use areas and should be designated in a manner Bulkheads: Bulkheads and seawalls are to be that will reduce damage to fish and shellfish Bulkheads: Bulkheads and seawalls are to be resources and be aesthetically compatible with constructed to protect upland property fromces and be aesthetically compatible with the adjacent areas. imminent erosion and should not cause adverse the adjacent areas. effects on nearby beaches, damage fish and Mining: Removal of sand and gravel from shellfish habitats, or detract from the aesthetic marine beaches should not be permitted. When quality of the shoreline. authorized, removal of rock, sand, gravel, and minerals from shoreline areas should be con- Commercial Development: Shoreline-dependent ducted in the least sensitive biophysical areas, commercial development and developments with adequate protection against siltation and which will provide shoreline enjoyment for a erosion. large number of people should be preferred. New commercial activities should locate in Outdoor Advertising: Off-premise outdoor urbanized areas. advertising signs are discouraged from shoreline locations. Where permitted, signs should be Dredging: Dredging should be controlled in located on the upland side of transportation order to minimize damage to existing ecological routes and should not impair vistas and view- values and natural resources of both the area points. to be dredged and the area for depositing of dredged materials. Single-purpose dredging to Piers: In general, the continued proliferation of obtain fill material shall be discouraged. single-purpose private docks is to be discouraged and the use of community piers or offshore Forest Management Practices: Forest manage- floating devices for boat moorage is encouraged. Forest Management Practices: Forest manage- ment practices are to guard against siltation, Ports and Water-Related Industry: Industry increased water temperature in spawning streams which requires frontage on navigable waters and lakes, pollution due to application of chem- should be given priority over other industrial icals, and destruction of scenic quality. Only uses. Prior to allocating shorelines for port selective timber cutting is permitted within the uses, regional and state-wide needs for such uses 200-foot area abutting shorelines of statewide should be considered. significance. (RCW 90.58.150) significance. (RCW 90.58.150) Recreation: Priority will be given to develop- ments which provide recreational uses and other Jetties and Groins: The effects on sand move- ments wh ich provide recreational u ses and other ment from these structures, when proposed, improvements facilitating public access to shore- should be carefully evaluated and, when neces- lines. Water-oriented recreation is a preferred ment fom thse stucturs, whn proosedlines. Water-oriented recreation is a preferred stepsshould be takentoinvestigatenea- use along the shorelines, but it should be located sary, steps should be taken to investigate nega- and conducted in a way which is compatible tive effects. and conducted in a way which is compatible rive effects. with the environment. Landfill: Priority should be given to landfills Residential Development: Residential develop- for water-dependent uses and for public uses. ment should protect the aesthetic quality and In evaluating fill projects and in designating natural character of the shoreline by preserving areas appropriate for fill, such factors as total vegetation, controlling density, using a planned water surface reduction, navigation restrictions, unit development approach when practical, and impediment to water flow and circulation, re- promoting access to the shorelines within a duction of water quality, and destruction of subdivision. Over-water residential structures habitat should be considered. should not be permitted. 15 ###NEWPAGE n="29" ### Road and Railroad Design and Construction: mendations in developing use regula- Whenever possible, major roads and railroads tions. should be located away from shorelines and (c) Solicitxomments, opinions, and advice shoreline locations should be reserved for slow- from individuals with expertise in moving recreational driving and nonmotorized ecology, oceanography, geology, traffic. limnology, aquaculture, and other Roads should be designed to fit the topography scientific fields pertinent to shoreline and to prevent erosion and water pollution from management. direct runoff. (2) Preserve the natural character of the shore- Shoreline Protection: Bank stabilization line. measures should be constructed so as to avoid Development Guidelines: the need for channelization and to protect the natural character of the streamway. Flood pro- (a) Designate environments and use regula- tection measures, such as dikes, should be ons to minimize manmade intrusions placed landward of the streamway, including associated swamps, marshes, and other related (b) Where intensive development already wetlands. occurs, upgrade and redevelop those Solid Waste Disposal: Shoreline areas should areas to reduce their adverse impact on the environment and :o accom- not be used for garbage dumps or sanitary on the environment and to accom- landfills. modate future growth rather than allowing high intensity uses to extend Utilities: Utility pipes and lines should be in- into low intensity use or underdeveloped stalled with minimum disturbance to the shore- areas. line. After installation, the sites should be re- (c) Ensure that where commercial timber- stored to their preconstruction condition and cutting is allowed as provided in RCW facilities should be placed underground if 90.58.150, restoration will be possible and accomplished as soon as practicable. One other important contribution of the DOE guidelines to establishing a solid foundation of state policy to underlay the needed diversity of Development Guidelines: local master programs was the provision of a set of (a) Prepare master programs on the basis development guidelines for implementing the use of preserving the shoreline for future preferences established in the Act for shorelines of generations. For example, actions that statewide significance. What follows is a summary would convert resources into irreversible of the development guidelines given for each use uses or detrimentally alter natural con- preference in WAC 173-16-040(5). ditions characteristic of shorelines of (1) Recognize and protect the statewide interest statewide significance should be severely over local interest. limited. Development Guidelines: (b) Evaluate the short-term economic gain (a) Solicit comments and opinions from or convenience of developments in groups and individuals representing state- relationship to long-term and potential- wide interests by circulating proposed ly costly impairments to the natural master programs for review and com- environment. ment by state agencies, adjacent juris- (c) Actively promote aesthetic considera- dictions' citizen advisory committees, tions when contemplating new develop- and statewide interest groups. ment, redevelopment of existing (b) Recognize and take into account state facilities, or for the general enhancement agencies' policies, programs, and recom- of shoreline areas. 16 ###NEWPAGE n="30" ### (4) Protect the resources and ecology of shore- incorporated towns. Many counties prepared pro- lines. grams in a cooperative arrangement with the cities which allows one document to apply to several Development Guidelines: jurisdictions. Fiffecn cities used the coastal county (a) Leave undeveloped those areas which programs which reduces the number of separate contain a unique or fragile natural documents to 38 - 15 county and 23 city pro- resource. grams. (b) Prevent erosion and sedimentation that would(b) Prevent erosio the natural function of thate As required by the Act and the final guide- walter system. In areas where erosion oa lines, master programs are to include goals, watsediment control practices werosill not be policies, a map of generalized shoreline environ- effective, excavations or other activities mental designations, and specific use regulations. which increase erosion are to be severely Local government preparation of shoreline inven- limited. tories to provide the data base is the first phase of master program formulation. The second phase (c) Restrict or prohibit public access onto involved the formulation of shoreline goals and areas which cannot be maintained in a policies. This is to be established through close natural condition under human uses. cooperation with citizen advisory committees, (5) Increase public access to publicly owned which worked closely with local planners in es- areas of the shorelines. tablishing the goals and policies of the shore- line. Development of specific shoreline environ- ment designations and use regulations by citizens (a) In master programs, give priority to and planners comprises the third phase of the developing paths and trails to shoreline process. areas, to linear access along the shore- lines, and to developing upland parking. (b) Locate development inland from the THE FORMULATION OF LOCAL MASTER PROGRAMS ordinary highwater mark so that access is enhanced. PHASE 1 - SHORELINE INVENTORY (6) Increase recreational opportunities for the public on the shorelines. Development Guidelines: ESTABLISH CITIZEN (a) Plan for and encourage development of ADVISO COMMITTEE facilities for recreational use of the } shorelines. (b) Reserve areas for lodging and related PHASE 2 EA-WIE GOA facilities on uplands away from the AREA-WIDE GOALS shorelines with provisions for non- motorized access to the shorelines. DEVELOP SHORELINE POLICY STATEMENTS The Planning Process and the Local Master Programs The formulation of master programs is the most DEFINE ENVIRONMENTS critical task of the shoreline planning process. Each ON ALL SHORELINES local government has been responsible for formula- PHASE 3 ting a development plan to guide proposed :tivities along its own shorelines. Within the USE REGULATIONS .oastal zone, this includes all 15 counties and 38 17 ###NEWPAGE n="31" ### Local governments were directed by the Act to The Act required local governments to provide complete shoreline inventories to provide a data opportunities for all citizens and governmental base for effective planning and administration, agencies with-shoreline interests or responsibili- Inventories were to be compiled by December ties to participate in- the development of master 1, 1972, for ownership patterns, existing land and programs. The final guidelines gave direction to water use patterns, and natural shoreline this broad mandate with the recommendation that characteristics. citizen advisory committees be formed as a vehicle The Dpartent o Ecoogy ssuedinvetoryfor citizen participation. Key features of citizen guielie sugesatmenght lofcaloyiue inventorieyoti advisory committees delineated in the final guide- guidline sugestig tht lcal nvenorie conain lines include the following: a map or series of maps depicting existing land 1. Members should represent a diverse set of uses, ownership patterns, topography, and other interests ranging from commercial to preser- information which lends irself to presentation vationist. in graphic form; and a series of descriptive analyses of the water charac- 2. Citizen advisory committees should guide teristics and the natural features of the shorelines, the formulation of the master programs Descriptive analyses should be done on an area-by- through a series of public meetings. area basis and should be keyed to the map element 3. Citizen advisory committees should work in a clear and direct manner. in close cooperation with local government. The majority of counties used large-scale maps 4. Citizen advisory committees are not inten- with overlays to present their inventory. Several ded to substitute for general citizen input. counties stored information on computer cards and Tegieie ute tpltdta h alr tape. Data was often gathered by volunteer task Tegieie ute tpltdta h alr forces and agency publications rather than by of local governments to encourage and utilize citi- extensive field work. DOE has since compiled this zen involvement, without proper justification, may data for the marine shorelines on U.S.G.S. maps be considered as failure to comply with the Act. on a common base and format. Citizen advisory committees were generally* The procedure of cataloging ownership patterns appointed by local governments in the summer ofW and existing land and water uses is adequately 1973. Usually citizen participants were chosen covered by local government inventories - past from those who represented a specific interest data bases and previous studies aided in the com- group and members of the public at large. County pletion of this task. But there has been a lack of committee size in the coastal zone varied from 12 analysis of use patterns in local inventories. More- in Mason County to 85 in Pierce County. over, the complex task of inventorying naturalCizeadsoycmteswrkdihlcl characteristics was beyond the staff capabilities p lnnrsduizng madvstery progrmite formulatitlocal of most local governments within the limited time plnesdrgmatrroamfmuti. frame and available resources. There was a general Somewhere between ten and fifty public meetings lack of useful information relating to marine and and hearings were held in each locality, as man- intertidal areas. dated by the Act and final guidelines. Outside citi- zen advice was solicited. Frequently citizen ad- Inventory information has been used primarily visory committee meetings have included outside in the master program formulation stage of desig- comments from statewide groups and federal nating environments. Inventories have been too and state agencies. general to use during the issuance of shoreline per- mits. Site visits currently provide the detailed in- Generally the range from economic to environ- formation necessary for issuance of permits. There mental interests were well represented by the citi- is also a continuing need to compile usable infor- zen advisory committees. If the composition of mation in a useful format over areas larger than committees was initially unbalanced, committees individual jurisdictions. were usually altered to accommodate the interests ###NEWPAGE n="32" ### left out in the initial selection process. Both cities and counties. In all, the state has disbursed environmental protection and private property approximately $860,000 of state and federal rights were well represented. In addition, several monies to assist local governments to comply with counties, such as Whatcom, Snohomish and Kitsap, the state Shoreline Management Act of 1971 and appointed technical advisory committees com- the federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. posed of agency, industrial, and commercial representatives. Over the past three years, approxi- The Act gave to the Department of Ecology mately 2,000 persons with various interests have the authority to designate regional planning units been directly involved in the shoreline management to help coordinate local governments in the formu- planning process throughout the state. lation of master programs and the Department used this authority to designate Lake Washington During the summer of 1973 the state arranged as a region at the request of its eleven local juris- for a workshop to be conducted in each of its dictions. The resulting regional goals and policies four state regions to deal with problems en- were adopted as state regulations and have since countered by local governments in implementing been incorporated in several local master programs. the Act. The instruction at the workshops was As such they become the primary policy tool for directed toward resolving basic difficulties in local, state, and federal actions on Lake Washing- interpreting the requirements of the Act and final ton. guidelines. The Department attempted to be responsive and available to local governments in- State review and approval of local master pro- formally, providing substantial information on grams is the final and most significant step in im- specific questions. plementation of the program. DOE has 90 days to approve or reject proposed local programs. After a Consistent with the state's supportive role in local program has been prepared and appropriate implementing SMA, the Department attempted to implementefuding SMA, the Department attempted to public hearings held, it is submitted to the Depart- make adequate funding available for local govern- ment for review. The Department then distributes ment to carry out their shoreline management. ...esponsibil. n their sea rel s tagemfen it to a review task force consisting of representa- responsibilities. In the early stages of develop- tives from interested state and federal agencies. ment, this activity was carried out in cooperation Federal and other state agency comments are often Federal and other state agency comments are often with the Office of Community Development, the withthe Office of Community Development, the the basis for Department requests for changes in designated state agency for the distribution of the local program. Within 90 days, based on HUD 701 funds. HUD and OCD rated the shore- Ecology staff review findings and the comments line management program high priority for re- received from task force members, the local ceiving HUD monies in 1972, 1973, 1974, and ceiving HUD monies1972, 1973, 1974, and program is either approved or denied. If denied, it is returned to the local government with sug- The Department was authorized by the Office gestions for modifications. The local government of Community Development to administer and then has another 90 days in which to prepare the disperse grant funds for the purpose of assisting changes and consider the recommendations. For local units of government in undertaking an in- shorelines of statewide significance, the Act ventory and preparation of their master programs. specifically authorizes the Department of Ecology In excess of $580,000 of HUD and state monies to prepare an alternative if the local program have been made available to local units of govern- repeatedly fails to be consistent with the Act. ment. Approved programs are then adopted as state regulations under the Washington Administative In addition, the state received $388,820 through Code. Section 305 of the Coastal Zone Management Act in 1974, of which approximately $65,000 went to At this time, all major jurisdictions which were local governments in the coastal zone. In June of to prepare a master program within the coastal 1975, $500,000 was awarded the state, of which zone have a functioning local shoreline program. approximately $215,000 went to coastal zone As of October of 1975 seven counties have yet to 19 0 ###NEWPAGE n="33" ### submit programs to the Department of Ecology matrixes were assembled. There is a possibility for review, though all seven expressed their intent that local governments will amend the programs, to submit programs by the end of the year. Most or that changes will be made at DOE's request were held up in the final local government pro- between now and tfe time of adoption. ceedings and public hearings. All local programs Many of the policies and regulations allow for have been developed and completed for some Many of the policies and regulations allow for time - that is, the program documents are com- some discretion or provide for some judgment plete and the work has been completed by the on the part of the administrator. Also, many of staff, the citizen advisory committees, and the the performance standards require judgment, planning commissions. Those that remain out and the actual determination of permissibility require final legislative action by the county or must be made based on such judgmental factors city commissioners and councils. During this as the scale of the project, aesthetics, and interim period prior to program approval, the DOE nondegradation of the environment. guidelines are in effect for permit administration In all cases the requirements of other programs *and planning. (Som Ipprnzil b.)and regulations must be complied with. While It should be emphasized that the Act provides many of these, such as local health, zoning, sub- that the master programs are the basis for permit division, and state and federal regulations are administration and activities at every stage of specifically adopted by reference into the master their development. SMA states (90.58.140): program, the master program does not affect the applicability of other authorities. A permit shall be granted: (a) From June 1, 1971, The shoreline permit must be viewed as a until such time as an applicable master program process to determine permissibility, The pro- has become effective, only when the developmente bili proposed is consistent with: (i) The policy of ject design itself, or the ability to redesign or RCW 90.58.020; and (ii) after their adoption, condition the permit to meet standards can make the guidelines and regulations of the department; a given use permissible. and (iii) so far as can be ascertained, the master program being developed for the area. Most programs were written to recognize the natural systems and features found within the To provide an overview of some of the substance broad environment management classification. of the master programs prepared for the coastal Thus, a fragile feature, such as a sand spit, with zone, shoreline use matrices have been assembled a broader environment classification, may for all fifteen coastal zone counties and are in- require the application of additional standards. cluded along with coastal county environment maps in AppendixSCto this document. The mat- The Shoreline Regulatory Process rices should help to make clear what kinds of uses The regulatory phase of the shoreline manage- are considered permissible in the several shore- ment program consists of a permit system for all line environments, though caution should be substantial developments and shoreline modifica- exercised in using the matrices for an actual deter- tions. The system is administered locally subject mination of an allowable use. They are intended to state review. Once a permit application is acted only as a general citation from the regulations of on by local government, and prior to the com- each master program. Attention should be given to mencement of development, that decision and the following considerations before judging a pro- the application must be forwarded to the Attorney posal to be permitted in a given environment: General and the Department of Ecology for Proposals must conform to the goals, policies, review. The Department does not have approval and generoposal regulations which apply to all or denial authority over the local decisions, but it and general regulations which apply to all does have a specified period of time in which to appeal the decision to an independent hearings Seven of the fifteen programs were not approved board created by the Act called the Shorelines by the Department of Ecology at the time the Hearings Board. 20 e ###NEWPAGE n="34" ### Although all shoreline developments must be To aid the courts In the anticipated increase in consistent with the policy of the Act and the local shoreline litigation resulting from the Act, SMA master program, certain exemptions are provided created the quasi-judicial Shorelines Hearings from the substantial development permit require- Board. The Boar-d-provides an avenue of review for Is ment. Substantial developments are those of those aggrieved byTi local government permit deci- which the fair market value exceeds $1,000 or sion and for local governments which take excep- which "materially" interfere with normal public tion to regulations and guidelines adopted by the use of the water or shorelines of the state. Ex- Department of Ecology. It has also played a signifi- emptions are granted for repair and maintenance of cant role in formulating and articulating policy and existing structures, docks costing no more than in resolving conflicts relating to the implementa- $2,5 00, protective bulkheads for single family tion of the Shoreline Management Act. residences, certain agricultural and irrigation pro- 6 jects and structures, navigational aids, single The six-member Shorelines Hearings Board is family residences built by the owner for his use, made up of the three members of the Pollution and emergency construction. The permit require- Control Hearings Board, the Commissioner of Pub- ment is also waived for construction under a certi- lic Lands, a representative of the Association of ficate obtained in conformity with the state's Washington Cities, and a representative of the Thermal Power Plants Act (RCW` Chapter 80.50)WahntnSteAsctinoCute.Trm (see pages 92-9 3) and for certain actions under the Wareingontat Aspecife.TeCatirmn of thColuntiesoTrm state's Forest Practices Act (RCW` Chapter 76.09) Control Hearings Board also acts as the Chairman (see pages 78-81). of the Shorelines Hearings Board. An applicant must publish two public notices a week apart upon filing for a substantial develop- The Shorelines Hearings Board, together with -nent permit. Local governments must wait a the Pollution Control Hearings Board, is recognized minimum of 30 days before taking action on the as one of the nation's most successful administra- permit. There is no maximum time limit on when a tive appeal bodies. The Board provides a judicial local government decision is to be rendered. After process whereby an impartial body with resource fnal action is taken, the local jurisdictionms expertise can hear matters without becoming en- notify the applicant, the Department of Ecology, tangled in the costly and time-consuming court and the Office of the Attorney General. The system, The Board is intended to, and does in fact, Department and the Attorney General have 45 deal with substantive as well as procedural issues. days to determine whether an appeal should be Moreover, the Board has been able to avoid lengthy made to the Shorelines Hearings Board. The ap- appeal backlogs. Efficient operating regulations plicant and all other interested persons have 30 have enabled the Board to handle certified appeals days after a permit decision to request a review in an average time of seven months now as of that decision. Appellants must obtain certifica- compared to a nine month average for the appeals tion of the review request from DOE and the certified in 1972. Attorney General before the Shorelines Hearings. Board can hear the appeal. Assuming that the per- The Board is widely recognized as a credible mit is approved without an appeal, the applicant body in terms of environmental expertise, which is may proceed with his proposed activity 45 days no doubt at least partially due to the Board's after receipt by DOE. Thus, the minimum time relationship with the Pollution Control Hearings possible to complete the permit process is 82 Board (see pages 83-84), which provides a close bond days. For larger or controversial projects the between the state's shoreline management program process may take longer depending on such things and its other programs for ensuring environmental as whether or not an EIS is required under SEPA protection. By creating the Board, SMA both or NEPA. The substantial development permit pro- encourages greater citizen access to the appeal pro- cess is presented graphically in the flow chart on cess and provides a substantive environmental ;he following page. foundation for the shoreline management program. 21 ###NEWPAGE n="35" ### Aggrieved parties seeking Board review of a State Superior Court. Approximately one Board shoreline permit must file appeais within 30 days decision in every five is appealed to the judicial after the local decision being appealed. As men- system. Because most appeals are settled prior to tioned above, the Department of Ecology and final Board orders, these appeals which move on Attorney General have 45 days upon receiving the to the judicial system represent only 7% of all shoreline permit to request review. After receiving certified appeals received by the Board. a request for review, the state has 30 days to ex- ercise one of three options: (1) certify the review The state has taken a lead role in the initiation request as valid; (2) certify and intervene (on either of shoreline appeals. As of October of 1975, 102 side) in the request for review; or (3) refuse to out of 201 requests have been made by the Depart- certify the review request for procedural or sub- ment and the Attorney General. The vast majority stantive reasons. All certified requests for review of these appeals concerned development on shore- and state appeals go to the Shoreline Hearings lines of statewide significance. The special Board. Any Board decision can be appealed to statutory attention given to these shorelines by Superior Court, as can any request for review not the delineation of use priorities has been a factor certified. in their constituting such a high percentage of The apealprocss i initatedwhenthe oardstate appeals. In 26 other appeals the state joined Thecie apDpealrtment or Antitorey wheneral Bapp e a aggrieved parties or intervened on behalf of the orecie a DparopenorlAtony certfeda appealintaebyn defending local government. These appeals have agrieve party.erly Actequrtfedsppa inthatted burden included a high percentage of non-water-dependent aggrofresithteve party. Theeking requirew. Thahe budn development involving landfills or over-water con- ofiproof rste with the hodnfapare-hsearing review.eThe struction, and most have been on marine shores of frto obtanaageepn as tohe holding of law preheaigcnene statewide significance. While the state had been fcsto obtai pnareemented and proctedua rsules, ob-ah involved in 102 out of 142 requests for review jections and motions. The pre-hearing conferenceproto17,ciznaelsrebomgi- has served to clear up procedural delays before the creasingly significant. The table below summarizes formal hearing, and more importantly, this process appeal activity to date. of clarifying the issues and facts has frequently resulted in a settlement before the formal hearing. In general, the state has taken an active leader- is The next two steps include the actual formal ship role in applying the Shoreline Management hearing and the circulation of proposed findings Act during the review of local permit decisions. of fact and law to the participants involved. The Creation of the Shorelines Hearings Board has in- information obtained by circulating the proposed creased the accessibility of permit review while at findings is utilized in the preparation of the final the same time substantially reducing shoreline order. litigation to be dealt with by the courts. The re- view process has been both reasonable and efficient Persons aggrieved by a Shorelines Hearings in handling the increased shoreline litigation Board final order may appeal the decision to the brought about by the passage of the Act. Shorelines Hearings Boards Appeal Resolved Pending Appealed Total Certified Prior to SHB SHB SHB Appeals Appeals SHB Hearing Decision Action Decisions Department of Ecology 102 102 65 32 5 7 Private Applicant 26 24 2 18 4 5 Public Applicant 14 13 1 10 2 4 Other Aggrieved Parties 74 57 14 34 9 7 Total 201 196 82 94 20 23 As of October 1975 Total Permits Reviewed by DOE: 3242 22 ###NEWPAGE n="36" ### SHORELINE PERMIT PROCEDURE APPLICANT SUBMITS TIME SCHEDULE APPLICATION TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT - '0 ! APPLICANT PUBLISHES 7 DAYS NOTICE IN LOCAL NEWSPAPER TWICE I I COMMENTS BY a j INTERESTED CITIZENS 137 DAYS LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACTION I' ! PERMIT GRANTED, PERMIT DENIED !! DOE & STATE ATTY. GEN. NOTIFIED ! y APPLICANT APPLICANT PERMIT RECEIVED PERMIT APPEALS REVISES PLANS i BY DOE APPEALED BY AGGRIEVED I * CITIZENS APPEAL J CERTIFIED PERMIT NOT PERMIT BY DOE/AG APPEALED APPEALED m APPEALEJ BY DOE BY DOE i I I CERTIFIED ! BY DOE/AG NO FURTHER APPEALS V 182 DAYS HEARINGS BOARD ACTION START CONSTRUCTION PERMIT UPHELD PERMIT REPEALED I I NO FURTHER APALS APPLICANT APPLICANT APPEALS APPEALS REVISES PLANS START SUPERIOR COURT ACTION CONSTRUCTION 23 ###NEWPAGE n="37" ### Problems, Goals, and Objectives of the WCZMP In accordance with Section 923.4 of the Section 306 Regulations, the WCZM1P set forth problems, goals, objecEives. and policies. The policies for the protection and conservation of the coastal zone natural systems were explained previously. Following are a list of p- blems the Program is attempting to alleviate, the goals and objectives of the Program. Problem Statements (a) The coastal shorelines of Washington are unique and fragile resources, which if not carefully managed, could be subject to destructive changes which will have undesired environmental, economic, and functional consequences for the State. (b) There are a variety of demands on the coastal resource, each competing for certain segments of the resource. Certain resources can withstand and support the demands; some cannot. (c) There are many classes of interest or activity which use and involved coastal resources such as, recreation, environmental protection, power generation, defense, commerce, resource pollution, industry, communication, transportation, historical significance, protection from destructive natural forces, food, and aesthetic preservation. Each of the above interests uses or affects coastal resources, but balancing each need, knowing how much of the resource to allocate to each interest, and knowing what the proper responsi-0 bilities for each level of government for each interest is difficult. An example of the problem could be phrased thusly: Recreation is a local, state, and national interest but the questions are: (1) how much of the coastal resources should be allocated to recreation, and (2) which recreational activities, duties, and authorities are those of Federal agencies, which for state agencies, and which for local agencies? These same questions arise for every category of interest. (d) There are State, National and local interests which either depend on or may impact on, the State's coastal zone capability for each interest to be served. (e) There are a variety of public and private organizations which manage, use, and/or depend on the coastal zone. The needs of these entities may conflict, are not always known, are not always coordinated, and not always met. 24 ###NEWPAGE n="38" ### (f) The needs of various competing interests are not always clearly and comprehensively known, thus creating conflicts and preventing the best prioritization for use of the coastal is resources. (g) Various areas in the coastal zone are pre-empted by uses which do not need, are not related to, or are destructive of the coastal management and such conditions will worsen without comprehensive management and control of the use of the coastal zone. (h) Significant portions of the State's economy and ecology depend on special areas in the coastal zone which have high biologic production and importance, but low tolerance to the impact of many human activities. These areas will be lost without special attention by all levels of government. (i Much of the Coastal Zone and adjacent areas are in private ownership, and unguided, unrestrictive construction of and priviately and publicly owned areas is not in the best interest of the public. (j) Knowledge of the nature, extent, tolerance, capability, value, and importance of the zoastal resources is incomplete, out-of- date, and fragmented. Goal Statements Each of the above listed problems is worthy of solution, with 0 such resolution becoming goals in and of themselves. However, in order to provide more positive direction and to lead into policies, additional statements of goals which combine some of the problems and address matters are presented below. (a) To actively identify and coordinate the diverse interests in the coastal zone, in order to provide the resources necessary to meet the various demands. (b) To promote and encourage by all available means the con- tinued productivity and desired expansions of the biologic -resources of the coastal zone. (c) To consult and coordinate with other states, Federal agencies and nations which use or are 'related to the state's coastal zone. (d) To manage the total resource such that each need is met to the maximum extent feasible, and such that the total resource is maintained, prospers,. and continues to meet the needs. ###NEWPAGE n="39" ### (e) To protect and encourage the natural processes of the coastal zone. Obj ectives By means of identification of problems, declaration of goals, and the promulgation of policies, the state has set its direction and provides common grounds upon which to pursue Coastal Zone Management. Before progress can be made or measured, objectives must be estab- lished. These are measurable tasks which relate to the problems, goals, and policies which, when accomplished, will indicate the solution of the problems, accomplishment of the. goals, and imple- mentation of the policies. It is not suggested that the following list will solve all the problems, but it is a list of presently perceived tasks. Many of these have been addressed already with the passage and recent history of the Shoreline Management Act and others will be accomplished through the continuing management program. (a) Establish regulatory systems to control the use and impact on the Coastal Zone. (b) Establish, enhance, and maintain coastal planning, management, and regulatory programs at the local level. (c) Promulgate appropriate regulations at all levels which carry out the policies. (d) Determine the coastal needs and demands. (e) Continually monitor and determine the characteristics of the Coastal Zone. (f) Establish conflict resolution mechanisms and procedures. (g) Involve all interested parties in planning and development decisions. (h) Provide methods for appeal and relief. (i) Support and fund local management and administration efforts. (j) Define permissible uses in the coastal zone. (k) Define boundaries for the coastal zone. (1) Provide sufficient authorities and organizations. 26 ###NEWPAGE n="40" ### (m) Designate and protect areas of particular concern. (n) Provide procedures for, and accomplish the designation of areas for preservation and restoration. (o) Determine appropriate sites and criteria for the deposition of dredge spoils. (p) Accomplish strict regulation of ocean beach sand removal for commercial purposes. (q) Establish criteria for location and development of second homes. (r) Provide increased public access to and along the water, par- ticularly to State-owned tidelands. (s) Increase emphasis on the acquisition and development of water- oriented parks and recreation facilities. (t) Develop criteria and techniques for enhancing and restoring urban waterfronts. (u) Identify appropriate sites for aquacultural development and resolve problems of conflicting uses. (v) Establish siting criteria for deep draft port facilities. (w) Provide location and design criteria for major industrial uses, especially petrochemical facilities. (x) Establish criteria for regulating high rise structures. (y) Provide methods for mitigating the impact of marina develop- ments and accommodate the demand for such facilities. (z) Establish critera for bulkhead location and construction. (aa) Establish criteria for the length, spacing and density of single family residential piers and docks. (bb) Provide dredging guidelines and identification of appropriate locations. (cc) Establish criteria for siting and developing major industrial wood products facilities. (dd) Establish criteria for oil and gas drilling. (ee) Provide for the enhancement of the commercial and recreational fishery. 27 ###NEWPAGE n="41" ### (ff) Establish definitive guidelines for landfills. (gg) Provide criteria for regulating forest management practices within the coastal zone. Z_ (hh) Determine assimilative capacity of Puget Sound for municipal and industrial wastes. (ii) Establish provisions for the preservation of estuaries and key habitat areas. (jj) Protect and improve water quality. (kk) Preserve the natural shoreline character. (11) Recognize erosion-accretion processes in the management program. (mm) Maintain scenic vistas. (nn) Preserve wildlife values. (oo) Provide primary and secondary data requirements. (pp) Maintain close and continuing coordination with all affected agencies and jurisdictions. (qq) Enhance provisions for public access and involvement. (rr) Delineate the coastal zone based on best available information. (ss) Provide mechanism for assessing the impact of major Federal developments and actions in the coastal zone. The solution to the problems and the achievement of goals and ob- jectives will take time and concerted effort of all governmental institutions and the public. For instance, the objective to achieve greater public access to the shoreline cannot be achieved on a short-term basis. It may, however, be gradually achieved through the policies and process the State has established. The WCZMP as the major management tool will serve as a coordinative mechanism to achieve successful results. The transition from program development to implementation and administration will not occur in total immediately upon approval of the Program. The many substantive objectives and the program enhancement objectives which show the concerns of the WCZMP staff in administering the program follow (see also Appendix 11, Program Supplement). 28 ###NEWPAGE n="42" ### PROGRAM ENHANCEMENT OBJECTIVES 1. While control of land and water uses In the coastal zone is considered adequate, ther.e is a need to augm-ent state and local administration' with better articulated policy, a better data base, and more thorough reviews through the managerial network. 2. At a policy level, there is a continuing need for an analysis of the parent legislation which makes up the components of the managerial network. Legislative deficiencies and the over- lapping of authorities should be remedied through corrective legislation. 3. The program should assure adequate investi- gation into certain coastal zone management issues much as outer continental shelf develop- ment, energy generally, utility corridors, and water surface usage. Wherever possible, the comprehensive umbrella of the coastal zone management program should be brought into play to relate these investigations to the entire coastal zone. 4. At the interstate and international level, policy interests in the Columbia River, the outer continental shelf, the Strait of Juan de Fuca, the northern San Juan Islands, the fisheries re- source, maritime commerce, and other resources. Again, the coastal zone manage- ment umbrella should be used in all appro- priate discussions to relate the consideration to the coastal zone as a whole. 5. The state's coastal zone program includes a number of processes for the identification of areas of particular concern and areas for pres- ervation. There is a need to consolidate and coordinate these ongoing efforts and to further incorporate them into the coastal zone program. 6. If acqusition of some areas should be seen as desirable, the coastal zone program should reinforce and be consistent with state recrea- tion acquisition programs, energy and economic development programs. 29 ###NEWPAGE n="43" ### 7. The state will attempt to establish an estuarine sanctuary through Section 312 of CZMA. Similarlv, the state will continue to examine all of those coastal esturaine aregs which have a particular biological significance for their possibilities as a sanctuary. 8. The Department will continue to assess the use capabilities of wetlands and identify areas of high biological productivity. To do this and concurrently assure their conservation will re- quire detailed knowledge and adequate man- agement criteria. 9. The state will continually monitor and evalu- ate the effectiveness of the program and carry out specific in-depth evaluations of key por- tions of the program. The state intends to conduct such specific evaluations in conjunc- tion with other state, federal, and local agencies and the general public. Only in this way can the Department know with any cer- tainty that the program is indeed carrying out the broad policy and intent of the program. To this end it may be necessary and desirable to establish review evaluation committees. 10. The coastal zone program is at the present time the primary vehicle in the state for assuring that the state's interest is con- sidered in oil exploration, transport, and facility siting. While future legislative action may establish other mechanims, for dealing with those issues, it is the policy of the pro- gram to more fully develop data, analysis capabilities, and specific policies that will assure that this interest is recognized. I11. Coastal zone management is a series of de- cisions, in terms of both program develop- ment and implementation. It is desirable that all decisions be founded on as strong a scien- tific basis as possible. Decisions should be made with as much knowledge as possible of the policies and opinions of others. Scientific knowledge and policy knowledge are data and must be organized such that they can be inter- preted and used by everyone with a concern 30 ###NEWPAGE n="44" ### in the coastal zone. Much data has been col- lected and used thus far in the state's coastal zone management efforts and more will be collected as the program continues, but there is general agreement that the svsterii§ novv. used in collection, handling, and deliverN, should be improved. 12. Local government is also faced with a multi- tude of decisions that would be better made with more detailed and reliable information. A large effort will be made, to determine how local decisions could be assisted with scientific information and to determine the type and display of such information that will be most useful to local government. This ef- fort will be coupled with the overall data man- agement program which integrates state and federal informational needs and systems. 13. Several of the activities listed herein, will re- suit in special reports which, if appropriate, would become additions or amendments to the program. Other special reports can be- come the basis of agreements or guidelines to the parties in order to solve a coastal zone concern. 14. As a training and informational device, period- ic workshops will be held to bring together large groups to deal with specific coastal zone management affairs. 15. Recognizing that the purpose and thrust of the state's coastal zone program is to assure for future generations an environmentally and economically desirable place to live it is the policy of the state, through the coastal zone program, to keep its citizens aware of the need to protect and plan for its coastal resources. With regard to public awar eness it should be noted that policy is not directed at the pro- cesses and tools which have been developed and are being implemented, but at the educa- tion and information phases as to why it is necessary to manage the coastal zone. 31 ###NEWPAGE n="45" ### Elements of the Washington Coastal Zone Management Program Many comments received on the DEIS requested that a better descrip- tion of the WCZMP and how it works be provided--in the FEIS. Therefore, Chapter V of the WCZMP, which gives a good description of a very complex management program, is reproduced here in full. Because of the complexity of a comprehensive CZM program and the brevity with which it is presented, there are some aspects that are not fully covered. Chapter III of the WCZMP contains 80 pages describing the State's managerial network that cannot be easily summarized here. There are, however, some examples of how the State process can and does work. These are developed further in the Program supplement. Changes in the appendices have been made to reflect the appendix numbers in this FEIS. 32 ###NEWPAGE n="46" ### CHAPTER V. WASHINGTON COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AND THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMIENT ACT INTRODUCTION state interests must be recognized and that there is state's a local, state, and national interest in the use and The first four chapters have described the s aesconservation of the coastal resources. Additionally, coastal resources and its programs for managing i saplc ftesae(C 05.6)ta ties and watrouses.mos, inluin ithe priarytegslauthoiv e where plans, activities, or procedures conflict with tiesand rogrms, ncluingits rimay leislaive state policies, all reasonable steps available shall be mandae fo coatal mnageentthe 171 Sore- taken by the state to preserve the integrity of its line Management Act, existed prior to enactment of thefederl Coatal Zoe Mangemen Act.policies. This policy is consistent with and rein- forces the policy contained in the Coastal Zone However,, the ,pere existence of these programs, in Mngmn c oecuaeadass h and of themselves, do not provide the broadly- states to exercise effectively their full responsi- based coordinated efforts that Congress envisioned bitesnthcotazn. in the federal Act. The purpose of the presentbitisnthcotazne chapter is to relate the state program to the spec-THCOSAZNEBUDR ific requirements of the Coastal Zone Management TECOSA ZNEBUDR Act, amplifying the previous discussions as neces- The Washington State coastal zone management sary. The chapter is structured to emphasize the area embodies a two-tier concept. The first or pri- relations of the state program to the key policies mary tier, bounded by the "resource boundary," and requirements of Section 306 of the Act and is that area legislatively defined by the Shoreline CFR 923.11-923.44 of January 9, 1975 relating to Management Act of 1 97 1; that is" all of the state's coastal zone uses, boundaries, areas of particular marine waters and their associated wetlands, includ- concern, areas for preservation and restoration, ing at a minimum all upland area 200 feet landward state/federal relations, public participation and from the ordinary high water mark. The second intergovernmental involvement, the state's mana- tier, bounded by the "planning and administrative gerial network, and some miscellaneous provisions boundary," is co'mposed of the area within the fif- of the statute. teen coastal counties which front on saltwater. GENERAL POLICY The first tier, an area of permit authority under The overriding philosophy of the State of Wash- the Shoreline Management Act that is bounded by ington is that the coastal zone is among the most the resource boundary, can be defined through se- valuable of resources and that a comprehensive and lective application of definitions in RCW Chapter coordinated program of management is essential to 90.58 to consist of all marine water areas of the prevent damages resulting from uncoordinated and state and their associated "wetlands" together with piecemeal development. This philosophy presumes the lands underlying them out to the western that the coastal resource is viewed as an interrelated boundary of the state in the Pacific Ocean, where uni, iresectve f onerhip juisdctin, r cr- "wetlands" means those lands extending landward unit irespctie ofownrshp, urisictonor ur-for 200 feet in all directions as measured on a hor- rent individual agency goals and policies. izontal plane from the ordinary high water mark The approach to be used by the state in pursuing and river deltas and tidal waters which are subject coastal zone objectives is that both federal and to the provisions of the Shoreline Management Act. 33 ###NEWPAGE n="47" ### WASHINGTON STATE - COASTAL ZONE RESOURCE BOUNDARIES Shoreline Management Boundary 200' Measured Horizontally Saltwater From Normal Intrusion Limit Annual High B (Upstream Limit of Water Mark the Coastal Zone Management Resource Boundary) Edge of Estuary (Or Could Be Marsh, Bog, Swamp, Mud Flat, E RY Or Other Wetland Area) 200' Measured l Horizontally DELTA - i Resource Boundary From Normal f Annual High / 1 i: Water Mark i 3SALT WATE Ril::: 34 ###NEWPAGE n="48" ### "Ordinary high water mark" for all lakes, streams, The planning and administrative or second tier and tidal water is defined in RCW 90.58.030(2)(b) boundary is the eastern boundary of the fifteen to be coastal counties which front on marine waters. The basis for the inclusion of \Ľahkiakum County on that mark that will be found by examining the bed and banks and ascertaining where the presence and action of the Columbia River estuarN is the presence of waters are so common and usual. and so long continued measurable quantities of salt water up the Columbia in all ordinary vears. as to mark upton the soil a charac- River to Pillar Rock. The second tier is intended to ter distinct from that of the abutting upland. in respect be the maximum extent of the coastal zone and as to vegetation as that condition existledl on June 1. such is the context within which coordinated 1971 or as it may naturally change thereafter; Provided, coastal policy planning will be accomplished that in any area where the ordinary high water mark can- through the framework of this program. not be found, the ordinary high water mark adjoining salt water shall be the line of mean higher high tide and The use of the two tiers provides the state a basis the ordinary high water mark adjoining fresh water shall to differentiate in terms of both the need for con- be the line of mean high water. trol and the intensity of control. The most immed- iate and direct control is exercised in the tier The state enacted regulations specifying criteria adjacent to the water's edge and on water bodies for the designation of wetlands and associated wet- through processes established by the Shoreline lands and mapped those designations for the shore- Management Act. Should a proposal in the second tier line of the state under Chapter 173-22 WAC. The have the potential to have direct and significant im- pertinent provisions are summarized here: pact on coastal waters or directly affect the coastal (1) "Associated wetlands" means those wet- zone, the other state programs described in Chap- lands which are strongly influenced by ter IIl can be invoked. The state network and its and in close proximity to any tidal water. applicability to the two-tier system is described later in this chapter, as is the applicability of the (2) The wetlands shall be measured on a hori- boundary system to federal lands. zontal plane two hundred feet in all direc- tions from the line of vegetation. If there EXCLUDED FEDERAL LANDS * is no vegetative cover, the measurement will be, whenever possible, from a line The technical definition of the coastal zone under will be, whenever possible, from a line connecting the lines of vegetation on either Section 304(a) of the federal Coastal Zone Manage- csidne lof an area; otherwise, themeasuremet ment Act of 1972 states that lands the use of which will be from the mean higher tide on salt is by law subject solely to the discretion of or which water and the mean high water on fresh is held in trust by the federal government, its offi- water. cers, or agents are excluded from the coastal zone. The Washington coastal zone includes many acres (3) On river deltas and flood plains where of land and many miles of marine shoreline which dikes have been placed by governmental fall within the perimeter of lands managed and agencies for public benefit and reasonably owned by various federal agencies. protect against floods, the wetlands will be designated as follows: Those federal lands fall within several categories of jurisdictional status. Technically, all lands under (a) Where the dike is located within two hun- the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the U.S. dred feet of the ordinary high water mark, Government are excluded from Washington's the wetlands shall be that area within two the wetlands shall be theat oarea with two coastal zone since the State of Washington does not hundred feet of the ordinary high water exercise any discretion over the uses which take place on these lands. Those lands held by the feder- (b) Where the dike is located more than two al government under a concurrent, partial, or pro- hundred feet beyond the ordinary high water prietorial jurisdictional status may be included in mark, the wetlands shall be that area lying the state's coastal zone since the state retains vary- between the apex of the dike and the ordi- ing degrees of discretion as to the uses which take nary high water mark. place on those lands. * superseded by statement in Program supplement 35 ###NEWPAGE n="49" ### The state will emphasize the requirement that broad guidelines on priority of uses in particular the closest possible coordination and cooperation areas. Prior to CZMA and the subsequent Section between the state and federal agencies be main- 306 regulations. Washington had already established rained during the administration of the state's through SMA a process, policies. and guidelines coastal zone program. In this spirit, the state will which enable rTo meet the intentions of these two work with federal land managers. regardless of the requirements. jurisdictional status of the lands in question to de- This section describes the proces This section describes the process as it meets the velop mechanisms whereby the federal land man- requirements of the 306 regulations and how permix- agers agree to manage their lands in a manner con- a. h . It s sistent with the substance and merits of the state's in actualit coastal zone management program to the maximum believed that these management principles, as reflect- extent practicable. The state will work with federal ed by the overall coastal zone program, are not only agencies to arrive at a definitive policy and iden- adequate to meet the particular needs of the State tification of excluded lands. The state will make of Washington, but indeed were used in developing every effort to enter into memoranda of under- the CZMA requirements. Since SMA is already in standing with all federal agency land managers as to the implementation stage. the adequacy of the pro- the applicability of the state program to the various cess can be verified in practice. The following sec- parcels of federal land or private holdings within tions of SMA and the state guidelines are of partic- federal lands within the state's coastal zone. ular relevance to determining uses in the coastal zone: As a matter of policy, the state may elect to ex- clude certain federal lands regardless of their juris- (1) RCW 90.58.020. State Policy Enunciated-- dictional status. For example, lands held by the Use Preference. U.S. Government for readily identifiable national (2) RCW 90.58.100 Programs as Constituting security purposes will be excluded from the state's Use Regulations coastal zone. However, the state intends to work in close cooperation and consultation with the Depart- (3) RCW 90.58.150. Selective Commercial ment of Defense so that its various agencies within Timber Cutting the coastal zone are aware of the substantive poli- (4) RCW 90.58.160. Prohibition Against Sur- cies and standards of the state's coastal zone man- face Drilling For Oil or Gas agement program and will seek consistency, with (5) RCW 90.58.270. Nonapplication to Certain those policies and standards to the maximum ex- Structures, Docks, Developments, Etc. tent practicable. It is expected that if this close (6) RCW 90.58.340. Use Policies For Land cooperation and consultation takes place the feder- Adjacent to Shoreline s al land managers will have no difficulty in fully complying with the federal consistency provi- (7) WAC 173-16-040(3). Master Program sions of Section 307 of the Coastal Zone Manage- Elements ment Act. (8) WAC 173-16-040(4). Environments For those federal lands excluded from the state's (9) WAC 173-16-060(1)-(21). The Use Activit- ies coastal zone, it should be made clear that the state ies has not relinquished any of its existing authority al Uses over those federal lands by not including them with- in the boundaries of its coastal zone management in the boundaries of its coastal zone management The Legislature set forth principles and policies to guide actions that would or could occur within the USES IN THE COASTAL ZONE state's shorelines. Briefly stated, all "reasonable and appropriate uses" would be permitted under spec- Sections 305(b)(2) and (5) of CZMA require ified conditions which would protect against that a management program define permissible land "adverse effects to the public health, the land and and water uses within the coastal zone and develop its vegetation and wildlife, and the waters of the 36 S ###NEWPAGE n="50" ### state and their aquatic life." This laid the ground- occurring completely or partially within the resource work for a performance-standards approach to boundary is operationally considered to have a di- land and water use decision making. Two notable rect and significant impact on the coastal waters. exceptions were included by the Legislature, namely: Most developments in the first tier require a sub (1) that within the resource zone, only selective stantial development permit. Other uses falling un- commercial timber cutting would be allowed, and der the definition of development are managed on a (2) that surface drilling for oil and gas within a case-by-case basis but must be consistent with the specified geographic area would not be permitted. policies of SMA. Further, uses of the lands adjacent Far from being arbitrary, these policies were based to the resource boundary are to be consistent with on previous experience and scientific studies which the policy of SMA as well, in accordance with showed the potential and real adverse impacts such RCW 90.58.340. A summary of the regulations foi uncontrolled uses may have on resources SMA was the 21 defined use activities relating to the envi- designed to manage. ronment classifications and a general environment map are included in Appendix A to this document. Master programs are to use a systematic inter- ap are included in to this document. disciplinary approach to ensure a comprehensive Permissibility and priority of uses are closely in- integration of uses. Seven use elements which in- tegrated in the management system. SMA establish- clude all different shoreline uses are included in ed broad guidelines on priority of uses in particular master programs as appropriate: economic, public areas. Certain shorelines were designated in SMA access, recreation, circulation, use, conservation, as shorelines of statewide significance because of historic/cultural/scientific, and education. their importance to the entire state. Local master WAC guidelines required local governments to programs were required to give preference to uses inventory their coastline and designate environments in accordance with the principles stated in WAC (natural, conservancy, rural, and urban) based 173-16-040(5). upon the existing development pattern, the bio- Preference was further given to those uses which physical capabilities and limitations, and the goals are consistent with control of pollution and preven- and aspirations of the citizenry. The system was tion of damage to the natural environment or are designed to encourage uses in each environment unique to or dependent upon use of the state's which enhance the character of that environment shorelines. When alteration of the natural condi- and to utilize performance standards which reg- tion of the shoreline is authorized, ulate use activities in accordance with state goals and objectives. priority is given to single family residences, ports, shoreline recreational uses including but not limited to Based upon studies and analyses, the guidelines parks, marinas, piers, and other improvements facilitat- established 21 shoreline use activities which were ing public access to shorelines of the state, industrial ant. to be included within the local master programs. commercial developments which are particularly depend- (WAC 173-16-060). Using the CZMA terminology, ent on their location on or use of the shorelines of the it was determined that these uses have a "direct and state and other developments that will provide an oppor- significant" impact not only on the coastal waters tunity for substantial numbers of the people to enjoy tlh but on the environment in general and on the users shorelines of the state. (RCW 90.58.020) of the coastal resources. In addition, the process requires that shoreline use activities not specific- To assist in an overview of uses of highest and ally identified and for which policies and regula- lowest priority, fifteen county shoreline use matrices tions had not been developed would be evaluated were assembled and have been placed in Appendix a on a case-by-case basis and would be required to along with the environment map to provide a satisfy the goals and general development policies summary of the types of uses considered to be per- ,,of SMA. general development policies missible in the various shoreline "environments." Caution should be exercised in using the matrices To summarize, a permissible use is basically a use for an actual determination of an allowable use. of the coastal land or waters that is consistent with They are intended only to be a general definition of the policies and guidelines governing the Washington the more specific regulations that are part of each State coastal zone management program. Any use master program. 37 ###NEWPAGE n="51" ### The process of determining permissibility and (3) Plan Review/Approval/Consistency priority of uses has been used by the state during (4) Project Review the interim period while local governments were developing their master programs. Each approved master program has designated environments and The generafiow of how these elements relate is uses which are consistent with those environments shown below: and has set priorities of uses within those environ- ments, particularly for shorelines of statewide sig- The broadest description without identifying the nificance. There are a number of court cases which actors would be as follows: have sustained the state's stand on permissibility and priority of uses as they meet the objectives of STEP 1: Studies and information are analyzed SMA and related state policies. SMA and related state policies, and the knowledge thus gained is a primary in- THE STATE'S MANAGERIAL NETWORK * put into the development of policy. Chapter II discusses in detail the means and au- STEP 2 Policy is developed and is utilized by thorities available to the state and the Department local, state, and federal agencies in the develop- of Ecology to administer and manage a comprehen- ment of plans and programs. sive coastal zone program. The management net- STEP 3: Such plans and programs are reviewed work consists of a variety of formal and informal by the state for determination of adherence to complex interrelationships among agencies, DOE policy. Approvals, certifications, conditions, or offices, and individuals. The following discussion other types of coordination are made as appro- describes how the interrelationships occur, with priate. particular emphasis on DOE's managerial role. STEPS 4 & 5: Projects for review or specific per- In describing this network it is obviously impossible mits when required are handled by the state and to indicate every formal and informal aspect of the appropria te action is taken. system and still retain cohesiveness and understand- ability. Thus, while this network description is ac- STEP 6: The results of permit actions (including curate it is not designed to cover all details of the judicial or quasi-judicial decisions) and project network system. review are used in the refinement of policy. Before entering into a more detailed discussion of The management network system can best be each of the above network elements it should be described as consisting of the following elements: each of the above network elements it should be noted that the Department of Ecology has the pri- (1) Studies and Information Base mary authorities for coastal zone management and (2) Policy Development for Coastal Zone Man- intends through its Shorelands Division to remain agement the primary focal point for the program. STUDIES PERMITS DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROJECT REVIEW *amplified in Program supplement 38 ###NEWPAGE n="52" ### Studies and Information Base taken by the Office of Land Programs. where recom- mendations are reviewed and refined. The Assistant In a variety of ways the Shorelands Division Director for Land Programs is a member of the De- as a routine matter becomes knowledgable of -e- partment's Executive Policy Committee, which con- ports, plans, and studies that might have a signi- sists of the several Assistant Directors, the Deputy ficant relationship to the coastal zone. These doc- Director, and the Director. A major agency policy uments may be initiated by federal, state, local, or or proposed state policy is brought to the weekly private entities within or outside of Washington meeting of the Executive Policy Committee with a State. The Division serves as a focal review center recommendation for action. If such policy has for this material and thus becomes both the co- a broad impact on other offices of the Department ordinator for coastal zone matters and the primary the Assistant Director may request an independent formulator and integrator of policy for review and review by the Office of Comprehensive Programs. subsequent adoption by the state. This Office would then review that policy and its While obviously there are an almost endless potential and probable impacts on other programs. variety of means to acquire material, some specif- The report prepared through such a review would ic examples of the type and flow of such material olicy Committee scrutiv. to the Division are provided below. The coastal zone management program under this to the Division are provided below. approach benefits in two ways. First, the policy (1) The Office of External Affairs serves as the impacts of the coastal zone program on other pro- Department's office representative on a grams can be determined, and second, other offices' variety of boards, commissions, and coun- policies are reviewed and considered by the Office cils. The Assistant Director in charge of this of Land Programs for coastal zone implications. office is, for instance, the Department's representative on the Thermal Power Plant Some policy statements derived through the Site Evaluation Council (TPPSEC). Studies above-described network are considered by the resulting from or related to TPPSEC activ- Department to be beyond the scope of a single ities would be available to this office. Those agency. In those cases the policy determination is which would have significance to the coast- escalated to the Natural Resources Cabinet of the al zone program would be forwarded to the Governor's Office. The Natural Resources Cabinet Office of Land Programs, Shorelands Divi- consists of Directors of the natural resources sion. The same flow would result from other agencies (the Departments of Game, Fisheries, boards, commissions, or councils represent- Natural Resources, Ecology, and Commerce and ed by the Office of External Affairs, as well Economic Development) and the Governor, so that as from other offices within the Department. all agencies would bring to bear their interests, resources, and expertise in terms of overall state (2) The state library, DOE branch, as a matter policy. It is quite conceivable that another state of standard operating procedure routes to agency may bring an issue to the Cabinet meeting all divisions in the Department lists of re- with significance to the coastal zone management ports and studies that are available. Upon program. request these are ordered and routed to pro- gram staff. Generally, after review they are maintained in the state library facilities located at DOE headquarters. This aspect of the coastal zone management net- Policy Development work rests primarily in the Department's Shore- lands Division, Office of Land Programs. Local As indicated above, the initial formulator of coast- master programs and federalplans and programs al zone management policy (aside from direct policy are and will continue to be reviewed within the legislative action and action under direct legislative Division for consistency with the policies of the policy guidance) is the Shorelands Division. The management programs. The Department intends second step in the policy development network is to develop more formalized arrangements with the 39 ###NEWPAGE n="53" ### Office of Field Operations to assure more direct The following responsibilities are assigned to the input from the regional offices on plan review. Shorelands Division of Land Programs: Recommendations for plan approvals, denials, or (1) There is a direct assignment of a program modifications are made by the Division after exten- staff person-tobe the contact individual sive staff review. These are forwarded to the and work directly with the regional offices. Assistant Director, Office of Land Programs, for final review and approval. If problems are antici- (2) Program staff are responsible for providing pated, the Office will coordinate with other offices necessary information to regional offices and the Deputy Director or the Director. pertaining to program philosophy, guide- lines, operating policies, and information Permits contained in the master plans. The shoreline management permit program is (3) Program staff will develop policies to assure implemented by two offices in DOE: Land Pro- the uniformity of actions statewide. grams, and Field Operations. Within the Office of In summary, the dav-to-dav contact under the Field Operations (described below in greater detail) shorelines program with the local agencies which art: four regional DOE offices which have the fol- issue substantial development permits is maintained lo.ving responsibilities in the shoreline management by the regional offices. But appeals arising from agencies, citizens, or applicants may be joined by (1) They have full responsibility for DOE DOE and become an integrated Department review and screening of substantial develop- function. ment permits. Other functions in which the Department is (2) They consult with the Office of the Attor- involved with SMA operations and implementation ney General on permit reviews, negotiations, include assistance to local communities in the con- DOE appeals, and certification of citizen tinuous updating of inventories and local master appeals. plans, the approval of master programs which have been developed but not vet adopted, and providing (3) In cases where local actions appear to be a continuous forum for public information and inconsistent with either the intent of SMA involvement through presentations, workshops, and or adopted master programs, they make public hearings for master programs and the adop- every effort to negotiate agreement with . tion of use regulations. local government prior to initiating an appeal. In addition to SMA permits, other permits are also used to assure the implementation of a sound (4) If they deem that an appeal action is appro- management program. Assurance that the network priate, the regional staff and the program takes significant actions into account is guaranteed staff (in Land Programs, Shorelands Divi- in three ways. The first is the EIS review process, sion) jointly review the permit. If both which covers all major projects with significant staffs agree that an appeal is appropriate, effects. Secondly, most major projects will require the appeal action is initiated by the regional one or more permits from DOE. And thirdly, the office. If agreement cannot be reached, the personnel in the regional offices not only work on Assistant Directors in charge of Field Opera- shoreline/coastal zone matters, but the same indi- tions and Land Programs make the final vidual may be working on water quality and other decision. environmental matters as well. If there is to be a significant impact on the coastal zone, which may Conditional uses and variances coming under not be directly covered under SMA, such impact SMA authority are handled by the regional offices will be considered in terms of SMA as a matter of in the same manner as appeals. Department practice. 40 ###NEWPAGE n="54" ### Project Review or an issue that is beyond the scope of one particu- lar office, say of the Office of Land Programs. the While in many cases a project review also involves While in many cases a project review also involves Assistant Director for that office will request from the permit network, it is worthy of separate treat- the Office of Comprehensive Programs an analsi the Office of Comprehensive Programs an analysis ment here because the network is substantially dif- of the issue in termsof how it fits with other pro- ferent. The fact that there is an overlap in terms of grams, what impacts other programs will have on a process offers an advantage in that it serves as a decision, and what impacts that decision will have fail-safe system for projects having significant on other programs and processes within the Depart impact among DOE and related agencies. ment. An objective analysis is then made and a Basically, projects for review enter the network recommendation, along with the Assistant Direc- in one of two ways. They are part of the SEPA/ tor's recommendation of the particular office NEPA system or they are part of the A-95 system. requesting review, go to the Executive Commit- They come to the attention of DOE in the Environ- tee which is comprised of the top departmental mental Review Section housed in the Office of Com- management. The issue is examined by the Execu- prehensive Programs. This section handles all en- tive Committee and a final decision is made. It vironmental impact statements in terms of review concurrence is not obtained it goes to the Direc- and comment for the state. Any major project or tor or the Deputy Director for an ultimate decision. any project having a significant effect on the en- This procedure enables the Department to assure vironment goes through this process. They are that, for example, a facility being built within a reviewed internally by the Environmental Review coastal county but not within a shoreline boundarv Section and distributed throughout the Department jurisdiction will not have an adverse direct and to the sections, divisions, and offices that have or significant impact upon the coastal zone. might have an interest in and input into the envi- ronmental review process. Consequently, the There are means to assure that projects will be ronmental review process. Consequently, the Office of Land Programs receives information on subject to this process. Essentially such assurance is based upon two things: (1) the integrative approach any project or any development that would have a significant impact on the coastal zone. The Environ- recognized throughout the agency and (2) the mental Review Section has been directed to keep authority contained within the Office of Land Programns itself. Most. if not all, projects that will in mind in all reviews that any direct or significant oj impacts on the coastal zone are to be reported for have a direct and significant impact on the coastal eview to the Office of Land Programs, Shorelands zone will require some analysis or action by the review to the Office of Land Programs, Shorelands Division. The environmental review process, of Office of Land Programs or through the field opera- tions and the shoreline management controls at that course, covers not only projects and developments ons and the shoreline management contols at that but also plans and programs, local rezones, and level. Se shoreline management not other legislative and administrative actions. only the coastal waters, but rather almost all the other legislative and administrative actions. lakes and streams in the state, mos, if not all, lakes and streams in the state, most, if not all, Integrative Network * projects that would have a significant effect on the coastal zone would be within the jurisdictional While the focal point for the coastal zone man- boundaries of the Shoreline Management Act for agement program is the Office of Land Programs, which the Office of Land Programs has direct Shorelands Division, the major integrative mecha- responsibility. nisms for facilitating the coordination of intra- departmental concerns are contained within the In terms of very large-scale proposals such as Office of Comprehensive Programs. This is done in deep water ports, energy facility siting, and mono- several sections within the Office of Comprehen- buoy systems, the issue would not only be addres- sive Programs, but primarily through the Environ- sed by the Department of Ecology, through the mental Review Section and the Major Authori- shoreline/coastal zone and other programs, but zations Section. The Major Authorizations Section would also go through the Natural Resources is a key element in this process. If there is a project Cabinet and the Governor's Office. *amplified in Program statement 41 ###NEWPAGE n="55" ### Chapter III details several other forums for inter- is to provide a broad look at the sort of thing that actions among agencies which are integral parts of happens in the State of Washington when a propos- the overall management network. Not only do they al with the potential to impact the coastline is provide coordinative and discussion vehicles for made. And second, all of the agency programs specific topical issues and policies. they also serve referred to in the exam-ples are discussed in greater for broader formal and informal interaction among detail in Chapter Ill. In order to facilitate agencies. Though the Cabinet system is the broadest readability, page references have been omitted. and most significant vehicle for policy development and issue resolution the following forums play a Example 1 somewhat similar and very significant role in this area: (1) TPPSEC (see pages 92-93);(2) theMarine Development of an Offshore Petroleum Resource Advisory Committee (see page 75); Transfer Station (3) IAC (see pages 84-86); and (4) ECPA (see pages 47-50) A not so typical but certainly important exam- ple of how the state's coastal zone management The state's management network can probably network comes into play for an industrial aquatic best be seen in operation, however, as it reponds to use is the development of offshore petroleum specific proposals. Roughly speaking, the response transfer stations. Faced with the dilemma of meet- of the management system varies according to two ing ever-growing energy demands while at the same parameters: the type of proposal made and the time answering a compelling citizen ultimatum to location of the proposed action. For explanatory protect fragile marine environments, state officials purposes here it will be useful to take a brief look turn to a management network which appears to at several different types of proposals in a variety work rather well. of environmental settings relevant to the coastal zone. Examples of the responsiveness of the man- The first phase of network responsiveness relates agement network can be generated endlessly, of to policy determinations and citizen input. The course, but the present discussion will be limited to Legislature would be the Final decision-making the presentation of the following five: authority, would draw conclusions from research and studies developed by such agencies as the (1) an industrial project in an aquatic environ- Oceanographic Commission of Washington and the ment (the development of a petroleum Governor's Energy Policy Council. Citizen partici- transfer station); pation would come in the form of programs such as the Alternatives for Washington recommenda- (2) a commercial project on tidelands (the tions and public statements from industry groups, development of a saltwater marina); environmentalist organizations, and maritime assoc- iations, as well as from citizens at large. (3) a recreational project on saltwater shore- line (the development of a public recrea- tion area); As policy development continues - ever chang- ing and adjusting to new problems and needs - the (4) a residential development on upland shore- existing framework of state laws and regulations line (a residential subdivision); and would be applied. Certainly the very size, location, and public awareness of an offshore petroleum (5) a forest practice on the uplands (a logging) transfer facility would require preparation of an operation). environmental impact statement under the State Environmental Policy Act. Because the facility Two other comments are appropriate here with would require construction in navigable waters, respect to the discussion that follows. First, no Army Corps of Engineer permits would also be attempt has been made to provide a complete necessary. In both cases a broad review of the account of the processes that would be triggered project by a number of state agencies would be or the authorities invoked in each case. The point triggered. 42 ###NEWPAGE n="56" ### The Department of Ecology would be called boats operating in state waters now and the num- upon to implement regulations under such state ber is expected to increase to more than half a laws as the Water Resources Act, the Water Pollu- million by the year 2000. With this boating popu- tion Control Act, the Washington Clean Air Act, larity has comec'coac.urrent demand for additional and the Solid Waste Management Act. In addition, moorage facilities and for development of new the proposer of the transfer station could elect to private and public marinas. But at the same time use the procedures made available by the Environ- there is growing public concern about protecting mental Coordination Procedures Act administered and preserving open shorelines. Marinas, because by DOE. Since in most cases an offshore transfer they often by necessity must be located in fragile system would require leases of underwater bed- estuaries, are considered by some to be an un- lands for both the installation of the station itself wanted intrusion on tidelands and adjacent uplands. and the pipeline to the shore, the Department of The state's coastal zone management program must Natural Resources as manager of state-owned bed- respond to both the need and the concerns for pro- lands and tidelands would fulfill its responsibilities tection. Tideland commercial activities such as under the Public Lands Act and statutes relating marinas are a test for the state's management to tidelands, shorelands, and harbor areas. This is network. an instance where the Legislature might have to Policy considerations are tackled at the state enact new statutes because DNR's authority to level through activities of the Legislature as well as lease bedlands from outer harbor lines seaward is at the local governmental level in the development presently unclear. Provisions of the Seashore Con- of land use measures such as comprehensive and servation Act would be implemented by the Parks shoreline management plans. As previously men- and Recreation Commission. Hydraulic permits shtioned, marinas could ben planroposed for envirously men- would have to be obtained from the Departments toemrnscudb rpsdfrevrn would have to be obtained from the Departments mentally sensitive estuarine areas, and they also of Fisheries and Game. may be sought in the harbors of both large and Several interactions with local agencies would small communities. In any case, nearby residents, occura in lracindbse developm aentasciaed withd occur in land-based development asso boat owners, and marine industry spokesmen gen- offshore facilities. Permits would have to be ob- erally make their feelings known during the pro- tained from the appropriate county or city under posal and development stages. the Shoreline Management Act and appropriate The state has provided a network through which zoning ordinances and building codes would have this public interest can be addressed. Under SEPA, to be satisfied. If ownership of the proposed off- an EIS may be required for a marina development. shore transfer station were to be public instead of The project definitely would require an SMA sub- private several alternatives would have to be con- stantial development permit from a county or city. sidered. The state could operate the facility Unless the tidelands are privately owned (none through either an existing or a new agency but such have been sold by the state since 1969) the owner an arrangement would require legislation. Or the would have to lease the tidelands and any bedlands system could be operated by a public port district either from DNR or from a public port district. or a combination of districts. Port districts in By statute DNR cannot sign the lease until the Washington have broad capabilities although in this applicant has received appropriate Army Corps instance as well new legislation probably would be permits. Such permit applications trigger a full re- required. view of the project (coordinated by DOE) by state agencies. The Departments of Fisheries and Game Example 2 generally look closely at marina proposals to see if natural fish runs are affected (particularly in the Development of a Saltwater Marina mouths of streams and rivers) or if activities such Washington State with its 2,337 miles of salt- as dredging, bulkheading, or landfills are harmful water shorelines is considered to be a boater's para- to fish or bird or waterfowl habitat. Both agencies dise. There are more than 180,000 recreational would have to approve a hydraulic permit. 43 ###NEWPAGE n="57" ### In addition to coordinating the necessary Army facilities. The Legislature has also moved in the Corps permits and reviewing the appropriate sub- policy area by giving the State Interagency Conm- stantial development permit, DOE could be called mittee for Outdoor Recreation (IAC) expanded upon to issue a state water quality permit if a authority in park-!nd recreation planning. The IAC package sewage disposal system were utilized with administers both state and federal funds for park effluent discharge directly to the adjacent waters. site acquisition and funding and prepares and up- Also, a water rights permit would be issued if a dates the Washington Statewide Comprehensive domestic water supply system hook-up were not Outdoor Recreation and Open Space Plan (SCORP). available. Noise regulations, established by DOE This plan gives saltwater recreational development and enforced by local governments, would be appli- a high priority and in any case proposals for new cable to the boating activities. public facilities would have to fit in with SCORP if they are to be funded through the IAC. The Department of Social and Health Services they are to be funded through the IAC. has established a set of guidelines relating to marina The most likely agency to develop major public construction and has delegated authority to local recreation areas along saltwater shorelines would health agencies to enforce them. The guidelines be the State Parks and Recreation Commission, stipulate provisions for public water supplies and although some other agencies also have authority sewage systems, sewage pumpout stations for boats, to do so: DNR, particularly in tideland areas; potable water supply for boats, and other sanitary port districts in harbors; and cities and counties facilities and procedures. within their respective boundaries. It is quite possible that the proper zoning would The State Parks and Recreation Commission is not be existent for development of the marina, and authorized to acquire recreation sites by outright consequently the proposed development would purchase or through leases from public agencies or likely be required to obtain a rezone from the private individuals. The tidelands and shorelands appropriate city or county jurisdiction. Also, if the owned by DNR provide an interesting example development were in a flood control zone, as iden- case. The present procedure is for State Parks to tified by either DOE or the local government, the purchase the site from DNR, which almost always appropriate flood control permit would have to be withdraws the abutting tidelands and the bedlands obtained if the development were to be allowed to out to one-quarter mile in favor of the Parks and occur at all. Recreation Commission for development and management with the shoreline park. Example 3 If the IAC is involved, the filing of a specific Development of a Public Recreation Area park acquisition or development plan is required on a Saltwater Shoreline prior to site acquisition. Once the plan has been acquired, the State Parks and Recreation Commis- As the state's population grows and more leisure sion would begin the development work. If the time becomes available, the need for recreational site falls within the SMA 200-foot boundary, a facilities also increases. The State of Washington substantial development permit must be obtained has some of the most beautiful and rugged marine from either a city or a county, whichever is appro- shoreline in the world. The development of public priate. If any work is to be done in the waters off- recreation areas - parks, campgrounds, open space - shore from the park site - boating docks, break- on or near the state's ocean and inland beaches and waters, dredging of areas for swimming - then an adjacent uplands is a task which challenges the Army Corps permit would also be obtained. In state's coastal zone management system. either case the development would be subject to formal review by many state agencies. The initial policy considerations have been undertaken by the people in their approval by state- Prior to acquiring the site for construction, or wide vote of several funding measures to support before funding, the proposing agency would have the acquisition and development of recreational to make a determination of environmental signifi- 44 ###NEWPAGE n="58" ### cance and prepare an EIS if the development were A subdivider must first ensure that the proposed determined to be significant. DOE woul, De in- development is compatible with the appropriate volved in the review of the SMA substantial devel- local government's comprehensive plan and, where opment permit application and the SEPA EIS if applicable, theSMA master program. The next step one is prepared and would also function as the would be to see that the proposed location is prop- coordinator for the Army Corps permit review. erly zoned if a zoning ordinance exists for the In addition, if a local, municipal, or private water locality. The city or county max' also require by supply system were not available and the park ordinance that the subdivider provide public open necessitated the drilling of a new well for its opera- space, individual front and rear yard setbacks, tion, appropriate water rights permits would have drainage ways, street paving, parks, and other to be obtained from DOE. public improvements. The site plan is also subject to review by the 'A residential use in a shoreline area would also Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) be reviewed by state and local agencies with respect relating to such things Us numbers of sanitary facil- to its influence upon public access to beaches and ities in relation to the park's capacity, the layout tidelands. The state's comprehensive park and of camp sites to prevent overcrowding, waste dis- recreation plan places high priority on acquiring posal procedures, recreational vehicle disposal saltwater shorelines for public use. While con- pump-out stations, and on-site sewage disposal struction of a single family dwelling by the owner systems. Regulations of DSHS, which may be en- is generally excluded from the permit system under forced through local health units, are contained in SMA and from the requirement to file an EIS under the Chapter 248-72 WAC. SEPA, it is possible that a major subdivision which is planned for an environmentally sensitive area and which has not already been affected by the provi- Example 4 sions of a local comprehensive plan or zoning might A Residential Subdivision in a Shoreline Area be subject to the preparation of an EIS. And the subdivision would most certainly require an SMA Of all the competing land uses within the coastal substantial development permit. zone, the one which poses the most critical chal- lenge in terms of siting factors is probably residen- If lots are to be sold without improvements, tial development. The building of housing has sig- then the subdivider must register the development nificant impact on numerous nearby uses like with the Real Estate Division of the Department of shopping facilities, factories, schools, and parks. Motor Vehicles under the Land Development Reg- When the residential site is adjacent to a shoreline, istration Act. another element of complexity is added. How the state is meeting this challenge will in many respects views the subdivision plans for compliance with give a clue to the effectiveness of the coastal zone statutes relating to water supply and sewage dis- posal. If no public sewage system exists, the sub- Although the State of Washington has not yet divider might be required to install a package sewer established a comprehensive statewide land use system in lieu of septic tanks. It would in all-likeli- program, it has addressed the subject through a hood depend upon soil conditions, surrounding number of individual statutes such as the Planning uses, and planning policies of the local government. and Enabling Act, the Shoreline Management Act, If a local water supply system were not available and the Platting and Subdivision Act, all of which to provide the domestic water and consequently grant rather broad land use authority to local wells or surface water appropriations were neces- governments. In addition, the state and local regu- sary, a water rights (ground or surface) permit latory network serves to monitor residential would have to be obtained. Further, if a new water development with respect to public health, air, and supply system serving more than 1,000 users was water quality, building codes, solid waste manage- planned, DOE would notify DSHS which in turn ment, noise regulation, and utility installations. would require a comprehensive plan for the pro- 45 ###NEWPAGE n="59" ### posed development approved by DSHS. If a new ties of the Army Corps of Engineers, and meticu- water supply system were built by a local muni- lous review by the Departments of Fisheries and cipality or water district to serve the subdivision, Game. Washington Future Referendum 27 monies would -. be available to assist in developing the system. In this example, let us assume that the logging operation is to take place on state-owned lands Most of the above reviews are triggered when the managed by DNR. Under the latter's management subdivider files a preliminary plat with the county program the forest has been assessed for its market or city government. In most cases the coordination potential and subjected to a variety of silvicultural of the review process is by the locality's planning practices including pre-commercial thinning, fertili- deparmt Tpractices including pre-commercial thinning, fertili- department. The developer, if confronted by two zation, and application of herbicides and pesticides. or more state permits, could elect to use the ECPA A specific logging plan is prepared. The timber cut- procedures, which would be initially implemented ting project mav be scrutinized by a departmental by the affected county at the time of preliminary team for its environmental impact although in most plat filing. cases a formal EIS is not prepared. Then the timber is sold at public auction and a contract prepared. Example 5 The contractor is required to obtain a number of permits and approvals - from the Armys Corps if A Logging Operation on Upland Property the logging operation affects a navigable stream or Within the coastal zone uplands are some of the river, from the county under SMA if the project involves a stream or river or the construction of a most productive forest lands in the world. How these lands are controlled is extremely important road of more than 500 feet in length, from DOE in the state's coastal zone management system. The frompliance withe local Air ulit reuirements, environmental impact from industrial uses of these lands - primarily logging - has significant implica- Authority for any burning, and from DSHS for tions for the coastal area. Non-point sources of sanitary facilities. water pollution, disruption of streams used for DNR has a master agreement with the Depart- anadromous fish runs, air pollution from slash ments of Fisheries and Game regarding hydraulic burning or timber processing activities, and the permits. However, in cases where logging might conservation techniques used in the actual logging affect a sensitive fish habitat, one or both of the operation all are cause for concern. departments may require that-a specific hydraulic The people of the state and the State Legislature permit be obtained. By general guidelines, loggers have addressed these concerns in several ways. The must follow special instructions in construction of most far-reaching action was the passage of the culverts in anadromous fish use waters, must keep Forest Practices Act (RCW Chapter 76.09), which debris out of the streams, and are not allowed to spells out acceptable procedures for virtually all "yard" through or fall trees into streams. Timber types of logging activity on both public and private contractors also must comply with safety regula- forest lands. Implemented through the Department tions as promulgated in RCW Chapter 70.74 and if of Natural Resources, this statute not only calls helicopters or other aircraft are used must meet for enlightened management of forest practices but safety requirements of the State Aeronautics Com- also brings into play considerable coordination of mission as well. When logging is completed and the appropriate regulatory functions of a number burning of slash is begun, the logging operator of state agencies and county governments. But must receive approval from DNR for the burning other regulatory mechanisms are triggered too - of waste on the day it is to be burned. DNR in the water quality requirements of DOE, health and turn coordinates its approval with the DOE Office of sanitary guidelines from DSHS, the responsibili- Air Programs in order to minimize smoke impact. 46 ###NEWPAGE n="60" ### GEOGRAPHIC AREAS OF PARTICULAR Two classifications, the natural and the conserv- CONCERN AND AREAS FOR ancy, and particularly relevant for the identifica- PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION tion of areas to be preserved or restored. The natural environmen't classification is intended to Chapter II identifies the state's areas of particu- preserve and restore those natural resource systems lar concern according to stated selection criteria. existing relatively free of human influence, permit- In addition, management programs are required by ting an activity only if it contributes to the preser- CZMA to show evidence that the state has devel- vation of the existing character. The primary oped and applied standards and criteria for the determinant for designating an area as a natural en- designation of areas of conservation, recreational, vironment is the actual presence of some unique ecological or esthetic values for the purpose of natural or cultural feature considered valuable in preserving or restoring them. The state has made its natural or original condition which is rela- provisions for the identification of such areas pri- tivelv intolerant of intensive human use. The ob- marily through the shoreline management process. jective in designating a conservancv environment is The state guidelines for local program prepara- to protect, conserve, and manage existing natural tion specify that local programs include the follow- resources and valuable historic and cultural areas in ing plan elements which pertain to restoration and order to ensure a continuous flow of recreational preservation: benefits to the public and to achieve sustained (1) Public access element for assessing the resource utilization. The environment classification needrproviding public acc. ess to shore- system is explained in Chapter III and the maps in lineed for D I Appendixf5lprovide the location of approximately *2)Rreational elementforte preservation 140 miles of marine shoreline designated natural. (2) Recreational element for the preservation and expansion of recreational opportuni- The State of Washington does not identify all ties through programs of development and areas of preservation and restoration as areas of acquisition including less-than-fee acquisi- particular concern. Areas of particular concern are tion. Master programs were also to recog- designated by state and federal legislation to give nize existing state parks, wildlife recreation prominence to certain large resource areas threat- areas, national parks, national wildlife ened by alternative or competitive uses. By con- refuges, and other areas identified for pres- trast, an area for preservation or restoration is ervation. usually a specific site. It may or may not be within (3) Conservation element for the preservation an area of particular concern. of the natural shoreline resources, consider- With the final adoption of all local master pro- ing such characteristics as scenic vistas, grams, the Department will coordinate the designa- parkwavs, estuarine areas for fish and wild- tion of these identified areas along with other state life protection, beaches, and other valuable programs to provide a consolidated list of candi- natural or esthetic features. date areas. In this regard, the Department has re- (4) Historical/cultural elements for protection strained its preservation and restoration activities, and restoration of buildings, sites, and areas recognizing that numerous other state and federal having historic, cultural, educational, or programs effectively address the problem. While scientific values. the state programs are discussed in detail in Chapter (5) Restoration element for the restoration of 111, some of the more significant programs of pres- ervation and restoration are summarized here. blighted areas and abandoned or dilapi- dated structures to a natural or useful con- Under the authority of RCW 79.70.630, the dition. Department of Natural Resources is authorized to The guidelines also called for local programs to acquire and maintain natural areas or areas of scien- classifv the shorelines into four environment cate- tific or educational value. Sand Island and Goose gories (urban, rural, conservancy, and natural), each Island in Grays Harbor have been designated under with its own range of permissible uses. this Act. The Department of Game has established 47 ###NEWPAGE n="61" ### a natural area for rhinocerous auklets on Protection History of Federal Participation in the Washington Island in the Strait of Juan de Fuca and on upland Program natural areas adjacent to Padilla Bay in Skagit The state has provided several means for federal County. agency involverne-nt in the development of its In 1972 the Legislature passed the Natural Area coastal zone management program. Prior to the Preserves Act to "...establish a state system of passage of the Coastal Zone Management Act. in- natural area preserves and a means whereby the terested federal agencies were invited to review and preservation of these aquatic and land areas can be comment on the guidelines for shoreline manage- accomplished" and provide for the acquisition of ment. Final guidelines for the Shoreline Manage- unique and natural lands for inclusion in a state - ment Act reflected many of the views contributed wide preserve system. The Act also created a by federal agencies. Early participation of agencies natural area preserves advisory committee within was also solicited through the creation of a state/ the Department of Natural Resources to assist the federal task force to review local master programs. Department in carrying out the intent of the Act. Since early 1973, this task force has grown to in- clude more than twenty interested federal agencies. The State of Washington historic preservation Some agencies that were afforded this opportunity program legislation is patterned after the National unfortunately lacked sufficient personnel to parti- Historic Preservation Act of 1966. The state law cipate fully. created an advisory council similar to the National Advisory Council. The state legislation also estab- the coastal zone inreased substantia with the lishes a State Register of Historic Places. The State the coastal zone icreased substantially with the Register will include all nominations to the National 1972 passage of the Coastal Zone Management Act. Re a. As a result and in recognition of the need for addi- Register and other nominations deemed sufficiently tional federal involvement, the program was expand- significant by the state advisory council. Of the t ional federal the progr am was expand- 159 properties in Washington State that have been ed to establish a better understanding of and rela- 159 properties in Washington State that have been placed on the National Register of Historic Places since June 18, 1975, 97 sites are located in the 15 A major effort to increase federal involvement coastal zone counties. began in the fall of 1974. Many agencies were un- informed about the Act and national program and STATE/FEDERAL RELATIONS few agencies were prepared to work with it. While some agencies were developing policy at the nation- While the state's shoreline and related programs al level, others were uncertain as to how it would have traditionally involved inter-action with a impact their programs. The Department of Com- variety of federal agencies, participation in the merce had not yet finalized the Section 306 pro- national coastal zone management program height- gram guidelines, nor had the considerable legal un- ened the importance and broadened the scope of certainties relating to the interpretation of many of this interaction. The Coastal Zone Management the provisions of CZMA itself been resolved. Act stresses the pivotal role of the states in coastal management and imposes reciprocal coordination An early effort was made to identify as many of the federal agencies as possible that would be, as duties upon the states and federal agencies. States w must provide for federal agency participation, ade- CZMA states, "principally affected" by the quate consideration of their views (including state's program. The original two dozen identified 'national interests"), incorporation of water pollu- agencies have since grown to over forty (see tion and air pollution control requirements, and an Chapter IV), although the "principally affected" effective mechanism for continuing state/federal agencies are approximately half that number. No consultation and coordination. This chapter and effort was made to eliminate agencies from the e Appendices B, D, and F set forth the Washington program, though some clearly have only a peri- State coastal zone management program activities, pheral interest in coastal management. approaches, and results associated with these ob- Specific contact people for the program were jectives and requirements. selected by the agencies and correspondence was at (s , App. e3,.myd Ib*) 48 ###NEWPAGE n="62" ### directed to the contacts. Early in 1975, a meeting Development of a State/Federal Coordination was held at the Federal Regional Council offices to System (see Appendix 11, Program Supplement) discuss the state's program and to identify areas The Washington coastal zone management pro- which would be of particular concern to a group of gram has attempte&-to consider adequately the federal agencies with common concerns. The con- views of relevant federal agencies through a number cept of several subcommittees of federal and state of the participatory devices discussed above: in- agencies with common interest. was explored and volvement in key guidelines preparation; review of later rejected when it became apparent that corn- local master programs; questionnaire instruments; mon interests were difficult to identify, that such bilateral discussions; formal review of the initial an approach would be unwieldy, and that there was program document; responses to agency comments; more need for individual agency consultation. A and acknowledgement of agency and national in- questionnaire was sent out in February of 1975 and terests. This experience, however, made it clear several of the agencies responded with details about that a more structured and continuing mechanism their coastal zone management concerns, activities, for state/federal interaction is needed to implement programs, problems, and expectations. These have effectively the state's program. The essentials of been considered in the refinement of the Washington this system are set forth below. program. program. State coastal zone management policy concern- The preliminary Washington program document ing federal views and interests has been adopted in was made widely available in late March of 1975. light of the positive spirit embodied in the Coastal Distribution of the document stimulated extensive Zone Management Act, that is, "to cooperate and participateifuteigteproeoftittl. federal review of the state's efforts. Many problems participate in furthering the purposes of this title." were revealed or clarified and positions and poli- Washington finds, as did the Congress, that there is a direct national interest in the effective manage- cies of federal agencies became known to the state, et atal n n th t a e ment of the coastal zone and that its carefully many for the first time. Many of the federal views ment otect on and ta i identified legitimate deficiencies or desirable modi- planned development, protection, and public use is of concern to all of the citizens of the United States. fications to the program. Others were based on a Nationwide public interest is manifested in many Nationwide public interest is manifested in many misunderstanding of the state's program or a dif- eisnterpstanion of the Costat Zon Mag- ways: through the use of the coastal zone for inter- ferent interpretation of the Coastal Zone Manage- national commerce, national defense and security, national commerce, national defense and security, ment Act. A few were based on unrealistic expec- mentAct.A fe wer basd onunrelistc exec-and active and passive recreational pursuits; and in tations of the state's capability--or legal obligation-- and active and passive recreational pursuits; and in recognition of the need for managing the natural to provide detailed analyses or projections and recognition of the need for managing the natural systems and the uses of man-modified segments of affirmative functional program initiatives. the coastal zone. Generally, the objections addressed the following: Many of the federal agency missions, responsibil- lack of involvement in the development of the pro- ities, and activities directly share in this reflection gram; the need for a concise description of the of national concern and interest. National defense overall program; the definition of coastal zone and security, for example, are among the highest boundaries; lack of information on specific kinds priority of uses of Washington's coastal zone. of "permissible uses," "priorities of use," and Similarly, the needs and concerns of a broad spec- "areas of particular concern"; inadequate expression trum of federal agencies such as the National Park of regional and national interests; and administra- Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, the tive or operational mechanisms for coordination Federal Energy Administration, the Army Corps of and consistency. State consideration of specific Engineers, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the views is contained in Appendix lathough the fed- Coast Guard must be recognized and reflected in eral comments received have been addressed the program. throughout this document. It is the intent and desire of the state to mini- Participation of relevant agencies will continue mize any form of adversary confrontation when and be refined as part of the state's packet system the legislated responsibilities, duties, or procedures that is now in place as described in detail below. of a federal agency conflict with those of the state 49 ###NEWPAGE n="63" ### coastal zone program. Every effort will be ex- (8) A discussion of the permits and licenses hausted through communication and informal issued by the agency which have CZM rele- channels before resorting to formal procedures for vance and a proposal for determining the conflict resolution. consistenc.oqf those permits and licenses The state has committed itself to a continuing with the statfprogram. effort to understand and actively consider federal (9) A discussion of any grant programs of CZM interests in the further refinement and implemen- significance offered by the agency and a tation of its coastal zone management program. proposal for determining consistency. A major tool to achieve mutual understanding. (10) A map or series of maps which show those develop consistency of activities, and resolve differ- lands and water areas whin the Washington lands and water areas within the Washington ences is the coordinative packet system adopted by coastal zone which the agency owns, leases, the Department of Ecology. The packet system has rents, holds in trust, manages. regulates. been designed specifically to assure that a single operates in, or otherwise directly influences. documented basis for considering individual agency views and concerns is established and maintained in Design and development of this system was fully the future. It is also designed to be a dynamic underway by September of 1975 drawing upon a record and focal point for at least the following ten substantial amount of prior experience documented elements of policy and programmatic relevance: earlier. Twenty-nine agencies were identified by OCZM as having potential interests in coastal zone (1) The policy of the state regarding the major management; by late November this number had state/federal interfaces caused by, or part of, increased to forty-seven as a result of state initia- CZM. tives. The packets are available in the Department (2) Organization charts of the agency and the of Ecology central offices in Olympia and range in state, showing the components of both that length from 20 to 100 pages. While it is neither are particularly concerned with CZM. feasible nor desirable to reproduce these tools in (3) A statement about the mission of the this document, a representative packet is presented agency and the CZM implications of that in AppendixCtfor interested reviewers. The mission. packets are summarized briefly in Appendix Bf.˘t;,,"l2J) (4) A discussion of the plans, policies, and Although the development of the packet system programs of the agency relative to CZM and involved a substantial and concentrated expenditure a proposed methodology designed specifi- of resources, it is considered an essential in-progress cally to the agency whereby coordination beginning of an ongoing state/federal process. The and consultation may occur. process will be maintained and enhanced by the (5) A listing and discussion of the facilities assignment of specific staff resources in the future. which the agency does not control but which affect its mission. The facilities may Consideration of the National Interest in Facility be either in the coastal zone or near enough Siting to it to impact it. The Coastal Zone Management Act at Section (6) A discussion of the types of activities the 306 (c) (8) and its approval regulations (Section agency undertakes having CZM significance 923.15) require the state to consider adequately and a proposed methodology for determin- the national interest in the siting of facilities neces- ing the consistency of those activities with sary to meet requirements which are of greater than the state program. local concern. The Washington coastal zone man- (7) A discussion of the CZM-related develop- agement program and its related state network of ments of the agency which are in the coastal policies and authorities establish a reasoned means zone and a proposed methodology for deter- to consider the siting of facilities of local as well as mining *consistency with the state program. national import. Similarly, SMA and the other ###NEWPAGE n="64" ### components of the coastal zone management net- though perhaps ultimately impossible task. The work are adequate to deal with uses of regional range of interests expressed by various federal benefit. agencies (see Appendixilo ranged from tore- seeable needs to-.meet national security emer- A fundamental criterion to be met is that the gencies, through sitliig of energy facilities in state program neither arbitrarily exclude nor undeveloped areas, to stringent requirements to unreasonably restrict the siting of facilities or uses enhance living marine resources and protect of regional benefit. This performance test is met natural habitats. Some of these national interests primarily through the open planning process are incompatible in the finite reaches of the establishing the shoreline program, the appeals coastal zone. Nevertheless, the state has established process available through the Shorelines Hearings a process and has acknowledged in its identifica- Board (one basis of appeal being failure to consider tion of areas of particular concern that it is the greater-than-local interests), recognition of the primary objective of coastal zone management statewide over local interests with respect to shore- to deal openly with these needs and conflicts- lines of statewide significance, and the checks, including those stemming from national per- balances, and procedures associated with the Forest spectives-in the implementation of its program. Practices Act, TPPSEC, water and air quality standards, and related programs. Incorporation of Water Pollution and Air Pollution Requirements In addition, DOE has been refining and will Section 307(f) of CZMA and Section 923.44 of continue to refine its research and policy develop- the approval regulations call for the "incorporation" ment concerning the development of outer conti- of the requirements of the Federal Water Pollution nental shelf resources and the potential effects of Control Act as aended and the Clean Air Act as Control Act as amended and the Clean Air Act as amended into coastal zone management programs. The Department of Ecology as the lead state agency While the state's coastal zone management pro- for all three programs is the single institutional gram is not a physical siting program, tangible evi- locus for integrating the standards, regulations, and dence of the state's coastal zone accommodation guidelines necessary to achieve the related goals of of national and regional interests and uses is found these programs. The internal network of DOE poli- in the identification of substantial federal facilities cies and management practices assures that this and lands mapped in Appendix S'The range of important relationship has been established. permissible uses accommodated and designated in ,the coastal zone is also readily apparent from an The Governor has certified that the state coastal examination of the aggregate of shoreline environ- zone management program incorporates both fed ments described and mapped in Appendix Ei. eral water quality and federal air quality standards. Furthermore, any action or proposal which would violate air or water quality standards or regulations Perhaps the most essential ingredient in meeting is considered to be inconsistent with the Washington national or regional needs is the commitment to a State coastal zone program. coastal zone management program acknowledging national values and needs in Washington's coastal The State Position on the Consistency Provisions The State Position on the Consistency Provisions zone; establishing a responsive system of consulta- of CZMA tion and coordination; and committing the state to a continuing process of interaction with these Sections 307(c) and (d) of CZMA set forth the interests. The state/federal coordination system duties and general processes for federal agency con- is explicitly designed to deal with this dimension sistency with the state's program. The state intends of coastal zone management. to develop further understanding of these require- ments in consultation with the affected agencies The state believes that the full accommodation during the initial period of program implementation. of all perceived national interests is an evolving Developing such understanding will involve such ###NEWPAGE n="65" ### matters as: which activities should be subject to the approved state program. The primary mecha- consistency and under what circumstances: work- nism for notification to the state will be the use of able organizational arrangements: the appropriate and consistencv with the procedures of Title IX' and reasonable procedures to be employed by the of the Intergovernnenral Cooperation Act of 1 968 various parties involved: and methods to resolve (the A-95 process). disputes in a reasonable fashion. CITIZEN AND GOVERNMENTAL INVOLVE- A record of these interactions will become part MENT IN PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT of the federal/state coordinative packet system. In the interim, before joint understandings have been Involvement in the Shoreline Management Process reached, it is the state's position that federal agen- cies should begin to examine their activities in The various state programs which make up the light of the Shoreline Management Act and its state coastal zone program have been developed guidelines, as well as the Congressional findings under specific requirements relating to citizen and policies in Sections 302 and 303 of CZMA. involvement. The state's shoreline management Uses in or activities affecting the "resource bound- program is probably a national model for maxi- ary" are generally considered by the state to be mizing involvement at all stages of development. within the purview of the consistency provisions. Not only did the Act itself require and foster citizen involvement, but the controversial nature of For coastal zone management purposes, deter- the program made it newsworthy, which kept mination of consistency and anv determination citizens aware of the program as it was being relating to the process of permit and license certifi- implemented.. cation shall be undertaken by the State of Washing- ton (Department of Ecology) with the federal agen- The Act originated from the involvement of cy involved, either jointly or by methods proposed concerned citizens. As a direct result of the in the packets or established at a later date. The Washington Environmental Council's Initiative 43. state will be responsible for assuring that local the State Legislature passed the Shoreline Manage- desires and concerns are considered by the state in ment Act of 1971, Alternative Measure 43B, and determining the consistency and conformity of enacted it as an emergency lagw on June 1, 1971. federal developments, grants, activities, and the On November 7, 1972, the voters went to the polls certification of licenses and permits. The policy of and affirmed the present law. Prior to the election the state is that any applicant for a federal license and in order to inform the electorate of the issues or permit to conduct an activity affecting land and involved in the two management proposals, an water uses in the coastal zone shall provide the informational program was established throughout Department of Ecology with a copy of the certifi- the state: cation that the proposed activity complies with the state program. Methods for determining which Information pamphlets were distributed widely state program. Methods for determining which activities are subject to the certification process throughout the state. and how certification procedures will be developed A state voters pamphlet was published which will be addressed on a high priority basis with the provided concise explanations of the opposing affected agencies. The state will make every effort issues. to notify the concerned federal agency that the state concurs with or objects to the applicant's certifica- Workshops were sponsored by county extension tion in a timely fashion. offices to inform citizens about the Act and an article comparing the proposals was written and State and local government requests for federal distributed in mass throughout the state; a slide assistance will be made consistent with the state show was developed by the county extension program. Local and state government agencies will service and used extensively to educate the furnish their views to the federal agency as to the public on the issue of and need for shoreline relationship of such federally funded activities to management. 52 ###NEWPAGE n="66" ### In addition, workshops were held with county With the conclusion of the public meetings assessors, legal representatives, county and city further modifications were made to the draft. officials, and federal agency representatives Prior to the public hearings, a mailing list was who would be directly affected by the Shoreline put together consisting of all individuals who had Management Act, and newsletters. newspapers, attended the public meetings or had responded In and professional magazines were all provided some other way to the drafts that had previously with articles comparing the two shoreline oeen distributed. A cop)' of the final draft was management alternatives. then sent to each individual for one final review and two public hearings were held, one in Olympia *The eo u and one in Spokane. Final adoption of the guide- Act which stressed the necessity for citizen input to shoreline programs with administration at the local level and review and advisory authority at the Participation in Local Master Programs state level. Citizen involvement is stressed as a required inte- The Shoreline Management Act at 90.58.130 gral part of local shoreline master programs. In RCW provides that in order fact, the final guidelines stipulate that failure of "It] o insure that all persons and entities having an inter- local governments to encourage and utilize citizen est in the guidelines and master programs developed involvement without proper justification will be under this chapter are provided with a full opportunity considered as a failure to comply with the Act. for involvement in both their development and implement- The guidelines for citizen involvement were quite ation, the department and local governments shall . . explicit and have been adhered to by local govern- iml ake reasonable efforts to inform the people of the ments throughout the state. state about the shoreline management program of this chapter and in the performance of the responsibilities To insure that the needs and desires of the provided in this chapter shall not only invite but actively people were reflected in local master programs, encourage participation by all persons and private groups local governments were required to appoint and entities showing an interest in shoreline management broadly based citizen advisor' committees, repre- programs of this chapter..." senting both commercial interests and environ- Participation in Establishment of the Final Guide- mentalists, to define goals and to draft policy lines statements for the master programs. Selection procedures and the size and number of committees With the passage of the Shoreline Management have varied among the participating jurisdictions, Act of 1971, the Department of Ecology staff had reflecting the unique needs and resources of each. 90 days to draft a set of guidelines for local govern- Each local committee was to conduct a series of ments and citizen advisory committees to utilize public meetings and encourage the participation of in the formulation of their shoreline programs. governmental agencies and private groups. Local committees were encouraged to issue newsletters The first draft was mailed out and all interested to describe the results of the meetings and to give to describe the results of the meetings and to give persons, groups, and agencies had 90 days to sub- information about policy statements and program information about policy statements and program mit their comments and criticisms. The Depart- development. ment of Ecology staff then had another 90 days to modify the original draft and mail the modified During the process, which included the drafting draft out again for further comment. After receiv- of goals, policies, and regulations, the committee ing the second set of comments, the draft was took the draft of the master program to public amended for the second time and public meetings meetings for discussion. The committee then were held at various locations within the state. revised the draft and submitted it to local planning Federal and state agency participation in guide- commissions and legislative bodies for action. line preparation was considerable. Local government then sent the master programs 53 ###NEWPAGE n="67" ### and a report of public involvement to the Depart- consecutive weeks. An affidavit of publication ment of Ecology for approval. must be transmitted to the local government by the applicant. The affidavit is then attached to the The response by local government to the chal- application. - lenge presented by the public participation require- ments of the Act has been impressive. Of 224 cities All persons interested in the proposed project and counties directly affected by the Act, only have 30 days from the final publication of the four declined to take on the task of preparing a notice within which they may submit, in writing. master program. Program development has often all comments, views, and criticisms to the appro- extended over an 18-month period and required priate local agency. Local governments may anywhere from five to 40 citizen advisory commit- establish a mandatory or optional public hearing tee public meetings. In the lengthy process over procedure to precede the issuance or denial of 2,000 citizens have been directly involved in permits in order to allow citizens the opportunity developing the shoreline program in the State of to present their views. Washington. As applications for permits increased, the state, local governments, and local committees recog- While the state has bernments, cal to rectha While the state has been careful to assure that nized a need for professional expertise in the area local interests have had an opportunity to partici- of technical assistance in reviewing permits and pate in the formulation of shoreline policy, the pate in the formulation of shoreline policy, thae in developing master programs. This resulted in the need for balance and assurance that "greater than formation of the Interdisciplinary Advisory Com- local interest" has been recognized has been pro- mittee (IDAC) in December of 1972. The IDAC vided through state and federal review. To assist provided counseling to local governments and local the Department of Ecology in review of local committees on a volunteer basis and provided an shoreline master programs, review task forces were opportunitt for the academic communitr in formed, representing various state and federal addition to the general public to become involved agencies. These task forces provided the oppor- in the permit system. tunity for all interested agencies to comment on the master programs. Public Hearings The state was divided into four review areas, Major state programs which comprise the thus reducing the number of programs any one Washington State coastal zone management pro- task force would be required to re'iew and to gram have met state hearing and public involve- ensure that field personnel most familiar with the ment requirements. Hearings were held for the area could be involved in the review. The technical Shoreline Management Act itself, as well as for all expertise of the task force members and their the regulations and local master programs as knowledge of the geographical areas have greatly required by the Administrative Procedures Act of aided the Department of Ecology staff in arriving Washington (RCW Chapter 34.04). In the imple- at their decisions to approve or deny the shoreline mentation of SMA, several state regulations have master programs. been adopted in the Washington Administrative Code. Hearing procedures under the Code require Involvement in the Permit Process notice of the hearing in advance of the date and availability of materials prior to the hearing. There The regulatory portion of the program involves is a period for written comments to be received a permit system which cities and counties have the and considered before the decision is made. These responsibility for administering. It is the responsi- written comments match or exceed oral comments bility of local government to instruct the appli- in utility to the decision maker and are often more cant for a substantial development permit and to voluminous than the content of oral presentations publish notices in a local newspaper within the at hearings. Attendance figures for these hearings county of the proposed development. The notices should not be taken as a lack of interest since must be published at least once a week for two most of the comments received were written. The 54 ###NEWPAGE n="68" ### following table shows the hearing dates for relevant Chapter 173-20 Shoreline Management Act- chapters of the Washington Administrative Code: Lakes Constituting Shorelines of the State Chapter 17 3-14 Permits for Substantial Develop- Chapter 173-22zAdoption of Designations of ment on Shrelines ofthe StateWetlands Associatea'with Shorelines of the ment on Shorelines of the StateSte Hearing date: December, 1971 173-18,-20 and -22 were all heard together. Location: Olympia, Washington Hearing date: June 28, 1972. Location: Attendance: 80 Olympia, Washington. Attendance: 10 Additionally, a joint NOAA/DOE hearing on Chapter 17 3-16 Shoreline Management Act the entire proposed program was held on April Guidelines for Development of Master Program 22, 1975, following press notification and indi- Preliminary vidual invitations. A draft environmental impact hPreiingIdaeMarch2y17 statement was distributed at the hearings, in pub- hearing #1 date March 21, 1972lic libraries, and by mail to a number of citizen Location: Spokane, Washington groups, federal agencies, and individuals. Sentiment at the hearing generally fell into two classes: recoin- Attendance: 80 mending approval and recommending against ap- Preliminary proval, the latter stemming generally from concern hearing # 2 over a lack of environmental protection in the pro- date: March 23, 1972 gram. Location: Olympia, Washington Washington's chief interstate involvement has Attendance: 150 been with the State of Oregon, which shares the Columbia River estuary. DOE and other state Final hearing and local people have participated in CREST date: June 20, 1972 (Columbia River Estuary Study Team), a special Location: O lmiWashington organization created to examine and plan for the Olympia, Columbia River estuary. Involvement with other Attendance: 50 states has been through correspondence and occasional meetings hosted by OCZM. In addition, Chapter 17 3-19 State Master Program Washington has had contact with Alaska at meet- Hearing #I ings hosted by the Federal Regional Council and date: October 15, 1974 DOE and through telephone and written communi- catio ns. Location: Spokane, Washington Attendance: 40 DESIGNATED AGENCY AND AUTHORITY FOR PROPERTY ACQUISITON Hearing # 2 date: October 23, 1974 Section 306 of the Coastal Zone Management Act requires that a single agency be designated to Location: Olympia, Washington manage the coastal zone program. That agency Attendance: 30 must have the power to administer land and water uses, to control development, and to resolve con- Chapter 17 3-18 Shoreline Management Act- flicts among competing uses. The Governor's Streams and Rivers Constituting Shorelines letter submitted with this document designates the of the State Department of Ecology as the single agency and 55 ###NEWPAGE n="69" ### certifies that the Department has the necessary In addition, state agencies and locai governments authorities. This designation is particularly appro- have certain limited powers of eminent domain as priate in view of the fact that the key to follows: Washington's coastal management. the Shoreline Management Act, declares in relevant part that Department of Ecology authority to acquire shorelines and related It] he department of ecology is designated the state wetlands. (RCW\ agency responsible for the program of regulation of 90.58.2-40) the shorelines of the state, including coastal shore- lines and the shorelines of the inner tidal waters Department of Natural of the state, and is authorized to cooperate with the Resources: authority to acquire federal government and sister states and to receive natural areas, natural benefits of any statutes of the United States when- area preserves or ever enacted which relate to the programs of this areas of scientific or chapter. IRCW 90.58.3001 educational value. The Act further identifies the Department's (RC" 79.70.630) responsibilities in the relationship to the federal Department of Game: authority to acquire government in 90.58.260: for sprictuary and The state, through the department of ecology and other purposes. the attorney general, shall represent its interest (RCW 77.12.200) before water resource regulations management, Parks and Recreation development, and use agencies of the United States, including among others. the federal power commis- Commission: sion, environmental protection agency, corps of for parks and park- engineers, department of the interior. department ways. (RCW of agriculture and the atomic energy commission, 43.5 1.040) before interstate agencies and the courts with regard to activities or uses of shorelines of the state The state does not currently consider it neces- and the program of this chapter. sary to have outright power of condemnation to implement the coastal zone management program. The Co astal Zone Management Act also states The authorities cited above, in conjunction with that where necessary for program implementation, the overall program, prevent inappropriate uses of the state must acquire "fee simple and less thanl zone fee simple interests in...property....' The Department of Ecology is empowered in RCW 90.58.240 to " la] cquire lands and easements within shorelines of the state by purchase. lease, or gift, either alone or in concert with other governmental entities, when necessary to achieve implementation of master programs adopted hereunder... ." 56 ###NEWPAGE n="70" ### 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 ijouth of the Columbia River as far as tidal influence, Washington's roughly 2700 mile coastal zone is one of the richest and most varied in the nation. It extends from the crest of the Cascades to the Pacific Ocean and includes some of the State's most valuable assets. Within its bound- aries lie the centers of population and industry for the State as well as important living marine resources and large areas of striking natural beauty. Puget Sound, the West Coast's largest deep water protected port and the focus of shipping and industry in the Pacific Northwest, is of central importance. Its excellent harbors and proximity to Alaska make the Puget Sound area a prime candidate for receiving oil from Alaska. The Sound is also vitally important to the marine life which both utilizes the Sound as habitat and which provides one of the maj or bases for the important commercial fishing and tourist industries. The close -proximity and increasing interaction of the population to and with these natural resources has in recent years meant increasing demands on and conflicts for the area and its re- sources. The major competing uses include timber harvest, industry, commercial fishing, recreation, tourism, second home development, and to a lesser extent, agriculture. These uses are interrelated in a complex manner and highlight the need for coastal zone management. The coastal zone encompasses two types of land formation: glaciated regions in the north and coastal plains to the south and west. The northern area, including Puget Sound, the north shore of the Olympic Peninsula, and the Pacific Coast south to Quinault River, was strikingly molded by glacial activity and is characterized by -rugged mountains and glacial valleys. The beaches are narrow, rocky and are backed by high forested bluffs. Rocky outcrops aind 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 57 ###NEWPAGE n="71" ### 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 heavi-est-from October to March and reaching a minimum in July and August. Extensive snowfall in the mountains, however, prolongs the seasonal river discharge into the coastal areas. The Washington coast may be conveniently divided into three general regions: the Puget Sound-San Juan Island-Straits of Juan de Fuca; the Pacific coastline; and the Columbia River. Each region has dif- ferent resources, use patterns, and problems. Puget Sound The Puget Sound region is the most valuable asset in Washington's coastal zone. The following discussion of Puget Sound's character- istics has been adapted with few changes from the National Estuary Study: Puget Sound, an extension of the Pacific Ocean, involves approximately 2,700 square miles of water area within the United States. This area of deep channels, passages, inlets, bays and numerous major and minor islands forms a scenic area surrounded by snow-capped mountains of the Cascade range on the east and the Olympic range on the west. About 10 major and 14 minor rivers and numerous small streams flow into Puget Sound and its adjacent waters. The Sound is basically a deep body of water with depths of 100 to 600 feet less than 1 mile offshore. In many shoreline reaches, shoal areas are nonexistent. Large tideflats and marshland areas are restricted to mouths of the major rivers, with Skagit Bay and Samish Bay flats on the north and Nisqually River delta on the south, the most noteworthy areas. Small tideflats and marshes occur at the head of many inlets in South Puget Sound and Hood Canal. The rest of the shoreline is characterized by forested bluffs 50 to 500 feet high. The climate of Puget Sound is classed as mid-latitude marine with cool, moist winters and warm summers. The Olympic and Cascade mountain ranges modify the weather of Puget Sound. Port Townsend, in the rain shadow of the Olympic range, receives about 17 inches of precipitation annually. Seattle has an average annual precipitation of about 36 inches. Seventy-five percent of the precipitation occurs in the 6-month period, October through March. At Seattle, the average daily temperature in January is about 400 F., while in July it is about 650F. Maximum recorded is 1000F., and the minimum is 0°F. Puget Sound's major freshwater sources are the Nooksack, Skagit, Stillaguamish, Skokomish, Cedar, Elwha, Snohomish, Lake Washington, Green, Puyallup, and Nisqually Rivers. Numerous other streams, both large and small, flow into the Sound. Freshwater inflow, as a 58 ###NEWPAGE n="72" ### 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 ii1 the great productivity of Puget Sound. Tidal circulation varies throughout the area. It is best in the North Sound, where relatively constricted channels arnd 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 Townsend, at the north end of the Sound. Tidal amplitude also varies, being greatest in the southern portion of the Sound and decreasing generally toward its mouth. The tidal currents are -variable and strong, and where affected by narrow passages or shallow sills, may exceed 7 knjots. Most areas of Puget Sound are usually well mixed. During periods of continuous heavy rainfall, the areas near the mouths of major rivers will approach freshwater condition. Mixing by strong winds occurs in some areas of the South Sound. Stratification occurs during the late summer in sheltered bays of the South Sound. Census figures for 1974 indicate that about 2.2 million people live in the Puget Sound area. Areas such as the Duwamish Waterway and Commencement Bay have been modified by human activities. Channel modifications, diking, filling, port facilities and industrial complexes have substantially altered these two areas. Other areas, such as Bellingham, Anacortes, and the Snohomish River, have been modified to a lesser extent. Residential and industrial complexes add both domestic and industrial waste-to the Sound. Agricultural runoff from the major river valleys add nutrients to the system. Puget Sound has historically supported substantial fish and wildlife use. Major commercial and recreational fisheries for salmon, bottom- fish, herring and smelt, oysters, shrimp, hardshell clams and crab occur on the Sound. With the development of the surrounding area, some of these fisheries, particularly in the Southern Sound, have declined. The principal causes of the 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 land fills, as well as construction of upstream water development pro- jects and poor timber harvesting practices. The effect of dike and fills on fish populations is understood to damage or destroy nursery, rearing and spawning habitat. Loss of wildlife habitat has not been quantified; however, a noticeable deterioration of wildlife resources has occurred which can be attributed to habitat disruption. Decline in shellfish production in southern Puget Sound can also be related 59 ###NEWPAGE n="73" ### to economic conditions. The shellfish stocks in this region are increasing and could be significantly expanded for commercial and recreational harvest. Discharges of waste material, whether of industrial, xtomestic or thermal character, including the effects of logging, provide the single most important existing stress and threat to the environment of fish and wildlife resources of Puget Sound. The most important anadromous fish species include chinook, coho, sockeye, chum and pink salmon; steelhead and searun cutthroat trout; and searun Dolly Varden. All of these species use Puget Sound as a migration and nursery area. Many spend the entire saltwater phase of their life cycle in the Sound. Bait and forage fish include Pacific herring, smelt and anchovies. Herring use the shallow end of many inlets and bays of the Sound for spawning purposes. Some species, like surf smelt, spawn only in beach areas having particular substrate composition and water regime. All of these species are important food sources for other fishes. Major 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. A large variety of shellfish inhabit the Sound. Valued species include Pacific and native oysters; Dungeness crabs; littleneck, horse, jacknife, butter, Manila, geoduck, softshell, and cockel clams; rock and Puget Sound pink scallops: pinto abalone; and several species of shrimp. Puget Sound has long been recognized by oceanographers as a unique body of water characterized by great fertility and food producing potential. Primary productivity rates are among the highest observed in marine waters around the world. Because of the high rates of pri- mary productivity, Puget Sound has the potential to produce an estimated 6 billion pounds of bivalve mollusk meats per year. Shellfish stocks support major recreational fisheries in Puget Sound. Approximately 1 million user trips are spent harvesting intertidal shellfish during the low tides of spring and summer each year. The recreational harvest of crab and shrimp with traps (pots) accounts for an estimated 250,000 user trips each year. Puget Sound is an important resting place, feeding area and wintering ground for many thousands of birds in the Pacific Flyway. This is due largely to the significant belt of tidelands around the Sound. Major waterfowl species include: Mallard, pintail, canvasback, ruddy, harlequin, ring-necked, and wood duck, widgeon, scaup, goldeneye, green-winged teal, shoveler, Canada, lesser Canada and snow geese, 60 ###NEWPAGE n="74" ### and black grant. Merganser,scooter and American coot also occur. Gulls and terns are the most common shorebirds. Great blue herons are common salt marsh birds. The major wintering areas for waterfowl in Puget Sound.are the Skagit, Snohomish and Nisqually flats, and Padilla-Samish Bays. Each small bay and inlet provides a discreet area for a portion of the total water- front inhabitants population. For example, twenty to thirty thousand snow geese winter in Skagit Bay -- the only concentration of these geese found in the State of Washington. Waterfowl hunting is a major recreational activity on the Sound in fall and early winter. Nearly one-third of Washington's duck and goose hunting occurs in Puget Sound. Harbor seals, killer whales and porpoise are commonly found in Puget Sound, and mammals inhabiting adjacent freshwater areas include beaver, muskrat, minik, weasel, otter and raccoon. 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, 1.3 million angler-days of salmon fishing, 850,000 angler-days of bottom fishing, and 1.2 million man- days for sport shellfish 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 recreational fishing effort exceeds that of the commercial fishery, but an estimate of total recreational use of Puget Sound and its resources is not available. (U.S. DOI National Estuary Study, Vol. 5, 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 natural features have also made it ideal for the location of defense installa- tions to satisfy the needs of Navy and Coast Guard. These industries (including Defense), which form the economic base for most of the region's population, have located on the main river plains, filled and diked much of the valuable natural habitat, and chemically polluted the waters upon which the living population of the bay depend. The narrow channels and often fast tidal currents create navigational hazards to shipping; fogs are common and can obscure visual land- marks used in navigation. The potential future use of the Sound by larger tankers is an additional problem facing the state. Oil refineries, which will almost certainly be used more heavily in the future, and the lumber mills are also major industrial activities in the Sound. 61 ###NEWPAGE n="75" ### Agriculture in this region is primarily restricted to the northeast and southeast sections 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 behind0 food, manufacturing and forest products, the tourist industry alone may assume the number one position by the year 2000. The three indus- tries tend to center around the water resources of the area; the physical (waterways, bays, etc.), the biological (fish and shellfish), and esthetic resources of the Sound serve as the major attractions. The role of these water resources is indicated by the fact that the resident population has the highest boat ownership per capita in the nation. Because of the increase in tourism and recreation, and the number of watercraft, much of the Puget Sound area previously inaccessible by land has recently begun to feel the result of man's impqact. The National Estuary Study identified filling, dredging and diking; pollution; public access; industrial, commnercial 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 maj or types: the' rocky, mountainous terrain in the north and the flat coastal plain in the south. The northern coast from Cape Flattery and to the Quinault River is similar biophys- ically to the Straits of Juan de Fuca west of Port Angeles, and consists of narrow, 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 (north coast and uplands adjacent to the north coast) are owned by the Federal government or are part of Indian reservations. There are large estuaries, good harbors, or industrial sites. The major use of the area is recreational; hikers, campers and climbers use the area, primarily Olympic National Park, on a seasonal basis. Intertidal hardshell clams and razor clamis form an important and widely harvested resource along this region's coast. Commnercial salmon fishing occurs off the whole coast, but sport fishing activity is concentrated off Cape Flattery and the mouth of the Quillayute River. 62 ###NEWPAGE n="76" ### From the Quinault River south to the Columbia River, the coastal lands are characterized by wide sandy beaches and extensive dunes backed by grasslands and forests. Two major estuaries occur in this region: Grays Harbor at the mouth of the Chehalis River, and Willapa Bay at the mouth of the Willapa River. These two resaurces 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 exten- sive discussion of the resources and management of Willapa Bay is pre- sented in the National Estuary Study (Vol. 3, Appendix B., pp. 213-248). Although the entire Pacific coast region is considered a favorable geologic environment for petroleum production, the area has yet to demonstrate a petroleum resource potential. Prior to 1970, 14 wells had been drilled along the continental margin of Washington and Oregon; all were dry holes. In a recent industry ranking of 17 offshore sites along the United States coasts, the Oregon-Washington coast placed last in desirability of leasing in order to initiate drilling activity. Columbia River For implementing the coastal zone management program, Washington has defined its coastal boundary as extending up the Columbia River to the eastern boundary of Wahkiakum County, which approximates the limit of measurable salt water influence. Although major port and industrial activity occurs upriver from this boundary (primarily in the Portland, Oregon area on the opposite bank of the Columbia), this portion of the Columbia has been little affected by man's activities. The Columbia is the largest river in the Northwest United States, and is the only one with sufficient freshwater discharge to appreciably influence the neighboring Pacific. The portion within the state coastal zone can be classified as a positive coastal plain estuary, displaying 63 ###NEWPAGE n="77" ### Canada .United States Bellingham Vancouver # kYJ Island iAnacortes Straits of Juan de Fuca A PortAAngeles Everett *.ˇ * Grays A'o A Olympia Harbor A Willapa-- LEGEND Bay * Lumber Mills o Bulk Petroleum Storage o Refinery ^ egos * A Municipal Waste Columbia tKiver 0 Food Processing + Other Industry Present Taken from: Washington Marine Atlas, State of Wash- ington, Dept. Natural Resources, Vol. 1-4, 1974. and Coastal Ecological Systems of the United States, Ed. H.T. Odum, et. al., Conservation Foundation, Wash- ington, D.C. 1974. Figure 1- Major Industriai Sites MA ###NEWPAGE n="78" ### Canada United States Bellingham Vancouver t Is land Anacortes Straits |'- of Juan de Fuca i-Fl Al- Potingeles Everett K 2r Seattle i Hood */ ^ V oma Grays Harbor +\ ':8 " "LEGEND Bay +I WBlaya AV. . Rocky Beaches : Sandy Beaches Mud Flats A Offshore Rock Outcrops = High Velocity Channels Columbia 1Kivrˇ * 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. Figure 2 Selected Natural and Physical Resources 65 ###NEWPAGE n="79" ### POPULATION DISTRIBUTION, WASHINGTON 4, ..' .. -'-C ,:,... t"? ' ..... ,.-. D . .:'..': ...: F ˇ . ˇ:;'ˇ ˇ .;. j ˇˇ K. -. ,.,,, --....: ; /, 1, :' '.. . ...'. . .. s ..*.,:. U(bˇ U1*T.; :4'----- '- \ i: ˇˇˇˇˇ ii!..,-." ' ' : '" ' I ', ' " . ' 0' tOOoCCUM I.. ,'"-. *.. L ?' ' ˇ " i "" "' ",' ......... ' ˇ . . ' ˇ.' i. ' ˇ"bˇ 'H' .Ill CM , ' ' ' ..... Jˇ:: :. ˇ. - ,... '*, . , ˇ ' -, -.:" .. - i Agecy Olmi,199___ o\ ˇ...; ˇrˇˇ ˇˇ i ˇ ˇiic'. Symbols ' .....ed" on ...."s map ar the dimeniona. Figur ....:3'-." ::..h,,. * 'L19 J .- ° ˇ ' ;.-' ;: :.k- b' t 4 ...t.!'.B..- : . .:.' L /... ::ˇ:..U... \ ˇ ' . .... ..-. . . .. il' ' ut 'IE ',,F .ˇˇii ' '' )ˇ ",' I ˇ " I. '.. '' ˇ i ˇˇ . , MU I.. . ..;' .'.... r!;:.˘;;, ....." ˇ; ˇ '" """''""''" O I:.';. 10.'.11 ˇ ˇ ˇore Grvho ..ie :4. / '. .N,...,.. O. ', :.co 'ahngo .;a ..nnn '. .omnt Afis O . ..,... ... , ###NEWPAGE n="80" ### SELECTED SO.-. ECONOMIC DATA Shoreline3 Shoreline3 Population Ownership Use (in miles) (in miles) o4 Region o ajorl County I 2 f2 e X, 4 'if, , Industries City 19601 19701 Change 190For t Of Region North Coast Region 39,661 45,431 14.5 Clallam 30,022 34,770 15.8 40,348 35.4 8.0 112.6 8.9 0 6.0 141.1 Forest Pj-oducts Port Angeles 12,653 16,367 29.4 Tourism Jefferson 9,639 10,661 10.6 11,562 35.4 3.3 155.3 15.6 2.2 2.0 174.2 Farming Port Townsend 5,074 5,241 3.3 Commercial Fishing South Coast Region 69,139 75,349 8.9 Forest Products Grays Harbor 54,465 59,553 9.3 69,230 1.1 8.9 136.0 29.0 8.1 8.0 100.9 Fisheries Aberdeen 18,761 18,489 (1.3) Tourism Hoqulam 10,762 10,446 (2.8) Dairy & Cranberry Pacific 14,674 15,796 (7.6) 17,066 35.4 7.9 141.7 46.8 0 1.0 137.2 Farming Raymond 3,301 3,126 (5.8) Wahkiakum 3.573 4,141 0 0 8 0 0 0 8 North Puget Sound 144,177 165,198 14.6 Forest Products Whatcom 70,317 81.950 16.5 89,347 1.1 11.2 89.2 8.9 0 5.0 88.1 Oil Refining Bellingham 34,688 39,375 13.5 Aluminum Production Ferndale 1,442 2,164 50.1 Logging Equipment & Skagit 51,350 52,381 2.0 69,871 2,2 3.3 121.5 4.5 3.5 6:0 113.0 Holst Manufacturing Electronics Mt. Vernon 7,921 8,804 11.1 Electronics Sedro Valley 3,705 4,548 24.1 Food Processi ng & Boat Anacortes 8,414 7,701 (8.5) Building San Juan 2,872 3,856 34.5 3,145 4.4 9.1 345.5 7i7 0 1.0 350.3 Government Island 19,638 27,011 37.5 35,414 13.4 8.9 171.7 5.6 3.5 1.0 183.9 Dairy & Vegetable Farsing Oak Harbor 3,942 9,167 132.5 Central Puget Sound 1,512,974 1,937,370 28.1 Transportation ring 935,014 1,159,375 24.0 1,355,544 2,2 12,2 98,6 6,7 0 14,0 92.3 Aerospace Seattle 557,087 530,831 (4.7)Shipbuilding & Repair Bellevue 12,809 61,196 377.8 Lumber & Wood ProductS Paper b Allied Product Mercer Island - 19,819 - Metals and Hachinerq Redmond 1,426 11,020 672.8 Food Processidn litsap 84,176 101,732 20.9 110,405 11.0 8.9 191,1 4.5 0 4.0 202.5 Retail and kIdlesale Bremerton 28,922 35,307 22.1 Trade Pierce 321,598 411,027 27.8 467,683 13.4 14.3 207.3 3.3 0 9.0 222.7 Coverement Tacoma 147,979 154,407 4.3 Puyallup 12,063 14,742 22.2 Snohomish 172,149 265,236 54.0 2q9,174 0 2.2 40.8 1.1 0 15.0 26.9 Ednmonds 8,016 23,998 199.4 Everett 40,304 53,622 33.0 Lynnwood 7,207 16,919 134.8 Forest Products South Puget Sound r Mason 16,251 20,918 28.1 21,048 0 5,5 168.5 3.3 22.7 1.0 147.0 Agricultu Shelton 5,651 6,515 11 ove ent Thurston 55,049 76,894 39.7 0 3.3 86.7 1.1 0 4.0 84.9 Olympia 18,273 23,296 27.9 Tunater 3,885 5,373 38.3 1 - Washington State/The Beauty of IL, The Fact of the Hatter Datat From Department of Commerce & Lconomic uevelopment, Olympia lI'q TABLE 1 2 - "Oil on Puget Sound" 3 - USCB National Shoreline Stdpy, Wasbdhgton ###NEWPAGE n="81" ### slight horizontal and vertical salinity gradients, but no sharp strati- fication. The bottom sediments are largely mud or mixed sand and mud, and are subject to continual natural deposition and erosion patterns. The area is one of shifting sand bars, variously eroding and accreting islands and banks. The climate remains maritime-hntil the Cascades, well beyond the boundaries of the state's defined coastal zone. Fishery resources have been adversely affected by such upriver activi- ties as dredging and spoil disposal, irrigation withdrawals, and problems created by dam construction. But the Columbia remains an important habitat for fish and waterfowl; it is probably best known for its extensive salmon fishery. The river has been subject to extensive dredging for navigation purposes. Upriver hydroelectric dams have had significant effects on downstream water temperature and sediment loads; in fact, these impoundments have changed sediment deposition and discharge patterns in the area which may eventually lead to erosion along the beaches on the Pacific coast. Within Washington's coastal zone, large stretches of the Columbia have been used for log storage. There are few, small industrial and domestic waste discharge sites in the area. Further information on a description of the physical environment is located in the WCZMP and the Washington Marine Atlas. Socio-Economic Factors In general, Washington has experienced a growth rate in excess of the national average since World War II. This increase has been due primarily to the employment 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 demon- strating how the volatile economic condition of the aerospace industry affected the population of the state. In fact, from 1970 through 1973, the state experienced a net emigration, with an actual decline in total population in 1972. This trend has apparently now reversed, and the state, at least in terms of unemployment, is now healthier than the national average. Figure 3 graphically shows that the majority of the state's popula- tion is concentrated in the central and southern region of Puget Sound. The four coastal counties of King, Kitsap, Pierce and Snohomish contain over 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 metropolitan Seattle experienced a 4.7% decline (See Table 2 ). 68 ###NEWPAGE n="82" ### TABLE 2 POPULATION IN THE COUNTIES OF THE PUGETSOUND REGION. 1950. 1960 1970, AND PROJECrED 1980 1950 1960 1970 Projected 1980 % Change In Totais % of ! % Ofof _- * or PSR PSR PSR " PS County Number Total Number Total Number Total ' Number Total 1950-0 1090.70 1970-80 Clallam 26,396 1.9 30.022 1.7 34.770 1.6 .6.000 1.5 13.7 15.8 3.5 Island 11,079 0.9 19.638 I.i 27.011 1.2 31.200 1.3 77.2 37.5 | 15.5 Jefferson 11.618 0.8 9.639 0.5 10.661 0.5 11,500 0.5 17.1 10.6 7.8 King 732.992 51.7 935.014 52.9 1.156.635 51.6 1.225.000 51.5 27.5 23.7 5.9 Kitsap 75.724 5.3 84.176 4.8 101.732 4.5 107.700 4.5 11.1 20.8 5.8 Mason 15.022 1.0 16.261 0.9 20.918 0.9 24,000 1.0 8.l 28.7 14.7 Pierce 275.876 19.4 321,590 18.2 411,027 18.3 428.800 18.0 16.5 27.8 4.3 San Juan 3.243 0.2 2,872 0.2 3.856 0.2 4.000 0.2 -11.5 34.2 3.7 Skagit 43.273 3.1 51,350 2.9 52.381 2.3 54.000 2.3 18.6 2.0 3.0 Snohomish 311.580 7.9 172.199 9.7 265.236 1.8 24.00V 11.9 54.2 54.0 7.0 Thurston 44.884 5.2 55,049 3.1 76.894 3.4 88.000 3.7 22.6 39.6 14.4 Whatcom 66,733 4.7 70.317 4.0 81,950 3.7 85,000 3.6 5.3 16.5 3.7 PSI( 1 oral 1,418.424 {00.0 1,768,117 100.0 2.243.069 100.0 2.379.2 00.0 24.7 26.9 6.1 Washington State Total 2.378.963 2,853.214 3,404.169 3.615.000 19.9 19.3 6.2 PSR as y% of Washington Sta re 59.6 61.9 65.8 . 65.8 Soure'. US Bureau of the Census. Cesuww or Population (1950, 1960, 1970). and Pacfic Northwest Bell, Popuidlion and Household Trends in Washington, Oregon, and Northern Idaho 1970-1983. A more thorough discussion of the population, urbanization, employlment and income in the Puget Sound region can be found in "Coastal Resource Use - Decisions on Puget Sound" (see references). One of the more interesting observations made by the authors dealing with socio-economic trends is found in this summary statement. "While we observed that population growth, urbanization, and higher incomes are related to the degree to which counties have moved away from dependence upon fisheries, forestry, and agriculture, the traditional natural resource base of the region, population, urbanization, and income growth are closely related to the availability of excel- lent harbors and adjacent land for industrialization and urbanization. Northern Puget Sound, or the main basin, which provides the best harbors and most suitable adjacent land, is also the site of the largest, most urbanized, and highest income counties. Lesser development has occurred at other harbor sites, namely Olympia, Bellingham, and Port Angeles, and the least development has occurred elsewhere on the Sound where harbors are not nearly as good and there are no major port cities." p.33 On the other hand, with the exception of a few favorable port sites, the Olympic Peninsula and the Pacific Coast regions are sparsely populated. The population along the Pacific coast and mouth of the Columbia is far more stable, and in fact is actually slowly declining in Wahkiakum County. S6 ###NEWPAGE n="83" ### 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 tideland. Of the -remaining coastline, the Federal government owns about 155 miles, including the Olympic National Park and various wildlife refuge areas and defense facilities. Non-Federal public ownership totals 107 miles, primarily state, county and city parks (see Table I ). When tidelands (between extreme low tide and 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. Some of the non-Federal public land is owned by port districts and utilized for waterborne coninerce facilities. Additionally, about 40 miles of privately owned shoreline is used for recreational purposes, such as resort areas and privately owned marinas. Most of the 3,000 square miles of marine beds out to the three mile limit are owned by the state under management by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources, which also owns and administers leases for nearly 40% of the intertidal areas. State-owned intertidal areas often abut uplands owned by another land owner. Thus, within the shoreline/tideland interface., there are many miles of marine resources with a private or local port district upland owner and a state bed- land or tidal owner. This situation leads to inherent conflicts be- tween the aspirations and desires of the upland owner, as often-expressed in local land use planning, and the state's interests as the manager of the bedlands or tidelands. Each of the fifteen coastal counties and thirty-eight coastal cities is responsible for applying a variety of building, land use, and health codes to shoreline segments. Many localities, supported by separate local taxing port districts, compete for commerce and industry in the0 coastal zone. In these same areas county and regional efforts are often thwarted by city annexations which promote proposals inconsistent with local regional objectives. And on the other hand, well founded town and city development plans and programs are all too often dis- regarded or bypassed in favor of physically unsuited county locations where codes may be less stringent. Moreover, some counties and Indian reservations have established working relationships for managing the coastal zone, while others remain at odds over jurisdictional questions. The major users of the coastal resources are the residential and devel- opment users; the timber industry; the commercial and sport fishing interests; the manufacturing industries; and tourist and recreational users. About 77 miles of shoreline have nonrecreational development such as commercial and industrial areas. Heavy industry is concen- trated along the shores of Commencement Bay and Elliott Bay, on the tideflats of the Puyallup River, and in the lower Duwamish River area. Irrigated croplands, urban and industrial land use, surface water storage, and water related recreation facility development are all 70 ###NEWPAGE n="84" ### projected to increase at the expense of forest land, nonirrigated agricultural land, and fish and wildlife lands. The vast aesthetic resources of the Washington coastal zone are of benefit to the local, state and national populac&-as-well. The coastal zone of Washington contains a tremendous variety of landforms, seascapes, vegetation and panoramic views which provide rich enjoyment and inspiration to those who view them. An appreciation of this resource as well as the other rich coastal resources, has led the residents of Washington to be concerned about maintaining a quality environment. The recognition that the State's coastal resources were a limited comuodity, while the pressures on them were increasing, led to the passage of the State Shoreline Management Act as well as other environmental laws, and in turn is a contributing reason why Washington is one of the first states to apply for approval of its coastal zone management program. 71 ###NEWPAGE n="85" ### AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN uplands are reserved through state legislatlon and local zoning for navigation and commerce. General- Ihough a broad survey of the coastal zone in r JUt ei uroetd surnv of the coandastal zonse in Iv speaking. large-scale investments in terms ot uget oun re and \ashintons harbor improvements, channel improvements and Pacific Coast can serve to isolate some important deepeninc, dockinfacilities. and lonF-range pro- lucstions. manr of the issues which constitute crams tor lengral ort enhancement ensure that probtems tor eftectlve management of the starte's uses other than navigation and commerce will not ati,;i resources arey of unique or at least special be seriously considered. Such commitments do significan;ce in much smaller geographical areas. not fcrmalil preclude other public uses within the The state has given recognition to areas of particu-eas. but non-maritime commercial and lar concern in a great many ways, in response to industrial uses are considered secondar and industrial uses are considered secondary and both state concerns and those identified in the usuallv allowed only when thev do not Interfere 0o2st:l Zone Management Act. Special problems wi. th the primary uses of commerce and navigation. are rreauentlv the subject of specific legislation or While manv interesting issues relating to ports of specific regulatory or administrative action bv remain to be addressed. the basic issue of primary -esource ownership and management agencies.s is already settled. port uses is a!readv settled. Identified areas of particular concern will receive 'rest attention under the Washington coastal zone identification of areas of particular concern is that nanaugement program. Because of the controversies Znarrrien^ . ro- am. .. - se of the conrrover s uch areas must be of greater than local interest ;urrounding their management and ultimate uses, LIrˇ-ˇ---- ,----- '. - rand offer a live issue of competing uses and ,uch arcas merit special study and Mill become foci management options. More specifically, selection : attention for the resolution of management . of the areas of particular concern discussed below irotl\'em atat- 0 ments shall be incorporated in any pro-ram developed pursuiant to 42 this title and( shall he tIle watter pollution con troll and air pollution "" control requ irenients applicable to such programn. (g) AXN'len any state's coastal] zone iniallgenwalnt program. submlitted for approval or proposed for nmodification pursuant to section 300 of this title. includes requirements as to shiorelands which also wvould be subject to any Federally sulPported national land use program which miay he hepreafter enacted, the Secretary, Prior to approving such pro- I-7 ###NEWPAGE n="156" ### 86 TA. 187Pub. Law 92-583 -8 -October Z7, 1972 gr-aill. Shall obtain tile Concurrence of tile Secretary of tile Interior, or such other Federal official as may be designated to administer the national land use program, withi respect to that portion of thle coastal zonle managemlent program affecting such inland areas. PUBLIC HIEARINiGS S F(-. :1oS. All public, hearings required 11ider. thils title elitst hie annouced.At leafst, thirty dayvs prior to the hearing date. At tile time Of the anoucmet all ageny materials lpertiient to thle hearincs, including documents, studie's, and other data, must. ]e mlade avaihible to the public for review siud study. As similar miaterials are subse- qiently dleveloped, they sball hie t made available to the public as they i"elH'ive availahle to the awenicy. SI :c. ;;tn9. (a) The Secretary shall conducvt a colitinuling reviewv of thle iu;niugement. prograim of thle coastal states aind of the performance of eu.1i stalte. rtnancial (11 The sII r-Mf-tary Shall have thit' authority to term11inate amiv finanrcial assistanmes assst'lnce extendedi under' s-ction :306 and to wVithdraw aumlIV Unexpended ttm ;natinr.. 1)oltimop of siuih assistance if (I) lie determines that tile state is failing ti adihiere to and is not justified inl deviating from the( programk :11-prve)Vd bY thet Secretary. and (-)) the state has btfen given notice If file proposedl term11ination and withdrawn] and given an opportunity to presenlt evidence of adherence or justification for alitering its rog-ranm. .Srr:. 3IO. (a) Fach recipient of a .-rant under this title shall keel) suhrecords as the Secretary Shall prescribe. including records -which fiIlly diisclose the aniolunt and disposition of the flunds received under the ..grawi. time total] cost of the project or undertaking supplied by otherl Sources0. 1imii1 SI[(+ otherl r-ecordls as wvill facilitifte anl effective auldit.0 ""Ait. (I)) Thme 'ecrefit- ,v anil tile C ormptroller General of the U nited States. or. anyv of their dufly authorized representatives, shall have M 11e1is for the( purpose of audit andl vxaminaxtion to any books. docu- taklents.% paperS. and i e--a - ords of the( recpienit of the grant that are perti- imemt to the de-terujinationi that fitnds griantedl are used in accordance %with this title. 'rtaj 7Cy-e Si:.1H. (1a) 'h erill, SM1-.11 'S W ithori"ed and liii ceted to estabish MInft:,e (m Ioastal Zone Manaiumnument Adv-isor v Commnittee to advise, consult , -%, sory WithI. 111141 ]talke eoiu dtin to the sevret-11-Nv oil mavtters of Policy aittee I 1,oiuce0imiiiug the --oastal zone. Such -omm itte salt I 1w- (composed of not establi 9simneyt; muioct, thiaim fiftee iuV IIs desi--irted byv thle Secretary anid shall per- r.- embe rshi p. fol-iiu suclh relamtions amid operate, ill :1ch manliter . is thle Secretary may dlirect. The Secrptary shall insure theat the( cnniiittep member- ship a i %. --roup jossessePs a broad14 manmge of experience anid knowliedgre reluiniiil to probi emis involving-t mmaninumt, e, conservation, pro- tectinim.-1m mi developmlient of coastal zonle resourr(s.. - ar pt.n-gati -!. ( b) Menthers of thle committem' who are- not rmeg-ular full-time tMVC, Y.- 1-1nmployees of the Untited States. while serving onl the business of the nss. con111imttee. including traveltime. mlay receive onmpenlsation at rates riot exc-eeding $100 per diem; Find W'hile so serving away from their ###NEWPAGE n="157" ### October 27, 1972 - 9 - Pub. Law 92-583 86 STAT. 1288 homes or regular places of business may be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as authorized by section 57)03 of title 5, United States Code, for individuals in the Govern- 80 Stat. 499; ment service employed intermittently. 83 Stat. 190. ESTUARINE SANCTUARIES SEC. 312. The Secretary, in accordance with rules and regulations Grants. promulgated by him, is authorized to make available to a coastal state grants of up to 50 per centum of the costs of 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 Federal share. 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. AXXUAL REPORr 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 prec eding fiscal year. The report shall include but not be restricted to (1) an identifi- cation of the state programs approved purlslant 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 and its accom- plishments during the preceding Federal fiscal year; (3) an itemiza- tion of the allocation of funds to the various coastal states and a breakdown of the major projects and areas on which these funds were expended; (4) an identification of any state programs which ha ve 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- grram: (6) a summary of the regulations issued by the Secretary or in effect during the preceding Federal fiscal year; (7) a sunlmary 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 smllnlary of outstanding problems arising in the administration of this title in order of priority; and (9) such other information as may be appro- priate. (b) The report required bv subsection (a) shall contain such recom- mendations for additional legislation as the Secretarv deems necessary to achieve the objectives of this title and enhance its effective operation. RUL.ES AXI REGtIArTIOXS SEC. 314. The Secretary shall develop and promulgate, pursuant to section 553 of title 5, United States Code, after notice and oppor- 80 Stat. 383. tunitv for full participation hv 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. I-9 ###NEWPAGE n="158" ### Pub. Law 92-583 - 10 - October 27, 1972 86 STAT. 1289 AUTHORIZ.TION OF APPROPRIATIONS SEc. 315. (a) There are authorized tobe 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 stums. not to exceed $30,0)0,000, 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 incident to the administration of this title. Approved October 27, 1972. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: HOUSE REPORTS: No. 92-1049 aooompalring H.R. 14146 (Conm. on Merohant Marine and Fisheries) and No. 92-1544 (Comm. of Confprenoe). SENATE REPORT No. 92-753 (Comm. on Commerce). CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 118 (1972): Apr. 25, oonsidered and passed Senate. Aug. 2, considered and passed Houses amended, in lieu or H.R. 14146. Oct. 12, House and Senate agreed to oonferenoe report. WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, Vol. 8, No. 44. Oot. 289 Presidential statement. 0 1-10 ###NEWPAGE n="159" ### 0 APPENDIX 2 COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM APPROVAL REGULATIONS I is ###NEWPAGE n="160" ### Reprinted from FEDERAL REGISTER THURSDAY, JANUARY 9, 1975 WASHINGTON, D.C. Volume 40 Number 6 PART I DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ADMINISTRATIVE GRANTS NOTICE OF FINAL RULEMAKING ###NEWPAGE n="161" ### tULES AND REGULATIONM 163 The regulations below set forth (a) was amended to reflect the requirement criteria and procedures to be utilized in of the National Environmental Policy reviewing and approving coastal zone Act environmental impact statement management programs pursuant to see- requirements. tion 306 of the Act, and (b) procedures 3. Several comments indicated that the by which coastal States may apply to States did not have a clear understand- receive administrative grants under sec- ing as to what was meant under , 923.11 tion 306(a) of the Act. The criteria and (bi (4) which refers to Federal lands sub- procedures under (a) constitute the Ject solely to the discretion of. or which "guidelines for section 306" referred to is held in trust by. the Federal govern- in 15 CFR 920. ment. Its officers and agents. This section The National Oceanic and Atmospheric has been amended in order to provide a Alnministration is publishing herewith procedure for identifying those lands the final regulations describing proce- which are within the framework of this dures for applications to receive adminlis- section. trative grants under section 306 of the 4. Several commentators indicated Act. The final regulations and criteria that there was uncertainty as to what the published herewith were revised from the requirements of the national interest proposed guidelines based on the com- were pursuant to § 923.15. This section ments received. A total of thirty-two (32) has been amended In order to more suc- States, agencies, organizations and indi- cinctly state what the requirements are viduals submitted responses to the pro- pursuant to this section and how a posed section 306 guidelines published in State must meet these requirements dur- the FEDERAL RzGISrra on August 21, 1974. ing the development and administration Of those responses received, nine (9) of its coastal zone management program. were wholly favorable as to the nature At the request of several commentators, and content of the guidelines as they ap- several additions have been made to the peared in the FEDERAL REGCISTER on list of requirements which are other than August 21, 1974. Twenty-three (23) com- local in nature. Title 15-Cormerce and Foreign Trade mentators submitted suggestions con- 5. Several commentators indicated cerning the proposed Section 306 guide- that § 923.26, which pertains to the de- CHAPTER IX-NATIONAL OCEANIC AND lines. gree of State control needed to imple- ATMOSPHERIC ADMNI"STRATION The following analysis summarizes key ment a coastal zone management pro- PART 923--COASTAL ZONE MANAGE- comments received on various sections gram, did not offer sufficient guidance in MENT PROGRAM APPROVAL REGULA. of the draft regulations and presents a Interpreting the legislation. In response TIONS rationale for the changes made: to these comments. § 923.26 has been ex- The National Ooeanlc and Atmospheric 1. Several commentators asserted that panded to include specific examples of Administration (NOAA) on August 21, the guidelines did not adequately reflect how a State may implement this section. 1974. proposed guidelines (originally the environmental considerations con- S. Comments received indicate there published as 15 CFR Part 923). pursuant tained in the Act. No changes were made was some misunderstanding in interpret- to the Coastal Zone Management Act of in response to these comments since the ing § 923.43. which deals with geographi- 1872 (Pub. L. 92-583, 86 Stat. 1280) guidelines more than adequately reflect cal segmentation. This section has been hereinafter referred to as the "Act." for the environmental concerns in the legis- substantially amended in order to indi- the purpose of defining the procedures by lation as evidenced in part by the com- cate that the segmentation issue refers to which States car. qualify to receive ad- ment section under § 923.4: geographical segmentation of a State's ministrative grants under the Act. Management programs will be evaluated in coastal zone management program. The Written comments were to be sub- the light of the Congressional findings and requirements for a State to receive ap- mitted to the Office of Coastal Zone policies as contained in Section 302 and Sec- proval on a segmented basis are clearly Management, National Oceanic and At- tlon 303 or the Act. These sections make it set forth in the amendment to the regu- mospheric Administration, before No- clear that Congress, In enacting the legisla- lations. vember 22, 1974. and consideration has tion, was concerned about the environmental 7. Extensive discussions have taken been given these comments. egradation. damage to natural and scenic place with various elements of the U.S. areas. loss of living marinle resources and The Act recognizes that the coastal widlife decreasing open space for public use Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) zone is rich In a variety of natural. corn- and shoreline erosion being brought about by concerning the applicability of air and mercial, recreational, industrial and population growth and economic develop- water pollution requirements to the esthetic resources of immediate and po- ment. The Act thus has a strong environ- development, approval and implemen- tential value to the present and future mental thrust, stressing the 'urgent need to tation of State management programs well-being of the nation. Present State protect and to give high priority to natural pursuant to § 923.44 of the proposed reg- and institutional arrangements for plan- sistems In the coastal zone. ulations. State coastal zone management ning and regulating land and water uses 2. Several comments were received on p'rorams have also been surveyed in or- in the coastal zone are often inadequate the necessity of the Secretary of Com- der to determine current and anticipated to deal with the competing demands and merce preparing and circulating an en- problems, issues and opportunities asso- the urgent need to protect natural sys- vironmental impact statement on each ciated with carrying out the require- tems in the ecologically fragile area. Sec- individual State application as required ments of section 307(f) of the Coastal tion 305 of the Act authorizes annual by . 923.5. The National Environmental Zone Management Act, and § 923.44 of grants to any coastal State for the pur- Policy Act. 42 USC 4332, and imple- the draft approval regulations. Con- pose of assisting the State in the devel- menting regulations. 38 FR 20562. August solidated EPA comments have been re- opment of a management program for I' 1973, require an environmental im- ceived. together with State reviews. and the land and water resources of its pact statement be prepared and cir- one comment from the private sector. coastal zone (development grant). Once culated on each individual State's ap- Specific clarifications and changes as a a coastal State has developed a manage- plication. An environmental impact result of these reviews are contained in ment program, it is submitted to the Sec- statement shall be prepared on each in- M§ 923.4, 923.12. 923.32 and § 923.44 of retary of Commerce for approval and, if dividual State's application by the Sec- these regulations. approved. the State is then eligible under retary, primarily on the basis of an 8. One commentator objected to the Section 306 to receive annual grants for environmental assessment, and other amount of detail required in section 306 administering its management program relevant datea. prepared and submitted applications and the undue administra- (administrative grants). by the individual States. This section tive burden proposed pursuant to Sub- II-2 FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 40, NO. 6-THURSDAY, JANUARY 9, 1975 4 ###NEWPAGE n="162" ### 1684 RULES AND REGULATIONS part F of the proposed regulations. The Au-raoarrY: 86 Stat, 1280 (16 U.S.C. 1451- 305 of the Act, and which does not revisions attempt to both clarify and re- 1464). make the State eligible for grants under du ce those requirements. while still re- Subpart A--General Section 306 of the Act. quiring sufficient Information for the "Use of regional benefit" means a land Office of Coastal Zone Management to § 923.1 Purpose. or water use that typically provides approve management programs and (a) This part establishes criteria and benefits to a significant area beyond the make sound funding decisions. procedures to be employed in reviewing boundaries of a single unit of the lowest Accordingly, having considered the and approving coastal zone management level of local, general-purpose govern- comments and other relevant informa- programs submitted by coastal States ment. tion, the Administrator concludes by and for the awarding of grants under adopting the final regulations describing Section 306 of the Act. § 923.3 Submission of management the procedure for application to receive (b) The Act sets forth in sections 305, pwgrams. administrative grnts under section 308 306 and 307 a number of specific re- (a) Upon completion of the develop- of the Act, as modified and set forth quirements which a management pro- ment of its management program, a belaiv. s gram must fulfill as a condition for ap- State shall submit the program to the below. proval by the Secretary. These require- Secretary for review and final approval Fffe-tive date: January 8, 1975. meats are linked together as indicated in accordance with the provisions of DDmczi: Jan ar in the subparts which follow. Presenta- these regulations. A program submitted uary 6, 1975. tion of the State management program for final approval must comply with all ROBERT M. WIHITE, in a similar format is encouraged since of the provisions set forth in Subparts Administrator, National Oceanic it will enable more prompt and sys- A-E of this part, including, in partic- and Atmospheric Administra- tematic review by the Secretary. How- ular, Subpart C. which requires that cer- lion. ever, there is no requirement that a tain authorities and plans of organiza- Subpart A-General State present its management program tion be in effect at the time of the sub- Sec in the format which corresponds exactly mission. 923.1 Purpose. to the listing of categories below. The (b) Optionally, the State may submit 923.2 Definitions. broad categories are: Land and Water for the preliminary approval of the See- 923.3 Submission of management pro- Uses. Subpart B; Authorities and Orga- retary a program complying with the grams, 2AEauinfmgrams enr. nlzation, Subpart C; Coordination, Sub- substantive requirements of this part, gr923.4 Evaluation of mns--gemeneralt pr part D; and Miscellaneous, Subpart E. but for which the proposed authorities grams--general. 923.5 Environmental impact assessment. Subpart F. Applications for Admlnistra- and organization complying with the Subpart -Land and Water Uses tive Grants, deals with applications for provisions of Subpart C are not yet legal- Subpart D--kand and Water Uses administrative grants upon approval of ly effective. In reviewing a program sub- 323.10 General. State coastal zone management pro- mitted for preliminary approval, the 923.11 Bonndefy of the coastal zone. Q23.11 Boundarv of the coastal zOn e. grams which will be subject to periodic Secretary may grant such approval sub- 923.12 Permisrible land and water uses. Secretary may grant such approval sub- 323.13 Areas of p articula r concern. review by the Secretary in accordance ject to establishment of a legal regime with Arecton30 of ph ct naddticuaoncen 923.14 Guidelines on priortes with Section 309 of the Act. In addition providing the authorities and organiza- 923.15 National Interest facilities. to providing criteria against which State tion called for in the program. If the 023.16 Area designation for preservatlon and coastal zone management programs can State elects this option, it shall continue restoration. be consistently and uniformly judged to be eligible for funding under Section 923.17 Local regulatlons and uses of re- in the approval process and establish- 305 but it shall not yet be eligible for &iolal benefit. ing procedures for the application by funding under Section 306 of the Act Subpart C-Authorities and Organization States for administrative grants, it is until such time as its program is finally W923.20 General, the intent of this part to provide guid- approved. Upon a showing by the State 923.21 Nlear3 of exerting State control over lnce to coastal States in the develop- that authorities and organization neces- llnd and water uses. 928.22 Oranizational structure to imple. ment of management programs. There- sary to implement the program which meat the manllagerment program. fore, many of the sections dealing with has received preliminary approval are in 923.23 Designation of a single agency. approval requirement in the subparts effect, final approval shall be granted. 923.24 Authorities to administer land and are followed by a "comment" which re- water uses, control development fes to a section or sections of the Act Comment. The purpose of the optional a d resolve confcts. anindicatees tohecinterpre ction s o t he Atprocedure is to provide a State with an op- and resolve conflicts. and indicates the interpretation placed portunity for Secretarial review of its pro° 023 25 Authorities for property acquisition, otnt o ertra ewo t r. 23 2 Autehorities for nroperty fcqldsitaond upon the requirements of the Act or the gram before State legislatlon Is enacted to -23 20 Techniques for control of land and water uses. regulation by the Secretary. put the program into legal effect. Some §Subpart D--Coordinato 9States may prefer not to utilize the optional Subpart D-Coordination §923.2 Definilions. procedure, especially those which have leg- 923.30 General. In addition to the terms defined in Islative authority enabling tbe coastal zone 923.31 Full participation by relevant bodies the Act and 15 CFR 920.2. the following agency of the State to put the program into in the adoption of management terms shall have the meanings indicated effect by administrative action. In any event. programs. below: the Office of Coastal Zone Management will 923 32 Consultation and coordination with "Final approval" means, with respect be available for consultation during aU other planning. to a coastal zone management program, phases of development of the program. Subpart E-Miscellaneous approval of a program which terminates (c) States completing the require- 933.40 General. the eligibility of the State for grants ments set forth in Subpart B-Land and 923.41 Public hearings. under Section 305 of the Act and makes Water Uses, and Subpart D--Coordina- 923.42 Gubernatorial review and approvaL the State eligible for grants under Sec- tion. will be deemed to have fulfilled the 923.43 Segmentation. tion 306 of the Act. In cases where a statutory requirements associated with 923.44 Applicability of aIr and water pollu- State has elected to follow the geo- each criteria. If, however, a State chooses finn control requirements. gon control requirements graphical segmentation option pursuant to adopt alternative methods and proce- Subpart F-Applications for Administrative to § 923.43. final approval will app" dures, which alre at least as comprehen- Grants 923Z0 Geneal.Grts only to that specific geographical seg- sire as the procedures set forth below, 930General. 923.51 Administration of the program. ment. The State will continue to remain for fulfilling those statutory require- 923.52 State responsibility. eligible for development grants pursuant meats contained in Subparts B and D, 923.53 Allocation. to Section 305 of the Act for the re- they may do so upon prior written ap- 923.54 Geographical segmentation. mainder of the State's coastal zone. proval of the Secretary. The States are 23.55 Application for the initIal adnminis- "Preliminary approval" means, with encouraged to consult with the Office of trative grant. respect to a coastal zone management Coastal Zone Management as early as 923.58 respeC t oastal Zone Managementaserya 92.6Approval of applications. osbe 923.57 A program, approval of a program whichApossible. 923 58 Applications for second and eubse- does not terminate the eligibility of the Comment. The thrust of the Act is to en- quent year grants. State for further grants under Section courage coastal States to exercise their full II-3 FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 40, NO. 6-THURSDAY, JANUARY 9, 1975 ###NEWPAGE n="163" ### RULES AND REGULATIONS 16 authority over the lands and waters in the Gongres, in enacting the legislation, was and considered. In this connection, develop' coastal zone by developing land and water coL.cerned about the environmental degrada- ments outside the coastal zone may often use programs for the zone, Including unl- tion, damage to natural and scenic ares., loss have a significant impact within the coastal fled policies, criteria. standards, methods of living marine resources and wtdlLie, de- zone and create a range of public problems and processes for dealing with land and creasing open space for public use and shore- and issues which must be dealt with in the water uses of more than local significance line erosion being brought about by popula- coastal zone management program. While the Act mandates a State to meet spe- tion growth and economic development. The The Secretary encourages the States to cific statutory requirements in order f-r the Act thus has a strong environmental thrust, develop objectives toward which progress can State to be eligible for administrative 4nts, stressing the "urgent need to protect and to be measured and will review program sub- it does not require the State to foll, ' spe- give high priority to natural systems in the missions in this light. While It is recognized cfic processes In meeting those r,,ulre- coastal zone." A cloe working relationship that many essential coastal zone manage- ments. The Secretary will review any State between the agency responsible for the ment onjectives are not quantifiable (e.g management program that meets the re- coastal zone management program and the ptublic aspirations, "quality of Ille"), others quirements contained in Subparts B and 1 agencies responsible for environmental pro. are, and should be set forth in measurable in addition to the other subparts contained tection is vital in carrying out this legis- terms where feasible (e.g. shore erosion, herein. lative intent States are encouraged by the beach access, recreational demand, energy Act to take into account ecological, cultural, facility requirements)al. Identifying and an- § 923.4 Evaluation of menagenlenl pro- historic and esthetic values as well as the alyzilg problems and issues in measurable grams--g-eneral. need for economic development In preparing terms during the program development phase (a) In reviewing management pro- ald nmplemer.ting management programs will facilitate the formulation of measur- grams submitted by a coasta l State through which the States, with the particl- able objectives as part of the approval sub- grams submitto d by a coas9th tar ty ptro pation of all affected lnterests and levels of mission. suant to § 923.3, the Secretary will eva - government. exercise their full authority over 9235 Envorn al impa asss uate not only all of the individual pro- coastal lands and waters. gram elements required by the Act and Further assistance in r ting the intent ment. set forth in Subparts B-E of this part, of the Act may be fcmnd 1 . the Congresslon- Individual environmental impact but the objectives and policies of the al Committee Reports associated with the statements will be prepared and circu- State program as well to assure I.t .t they passage of the legislation (Senate Report 92- lated by NOAA as an Integral part of the are consistent with national policieReport 2-104). It s clde- review and approval process for State care inf Sec ft ntion 303 of the Act.from these reports that Congress Itended dared in Section 303 of tile Act. management programs to be comprehensive coastal zone management programs pur- (b) Each program submitted for ap- and that a State must consider all subject suant to the Natlonal Environmental proval shall contain a statement of prob- areas which are pertinent to the particular Policy Act (Pub. L. 91-190, 42 USC 4321 lems and Issues, and objectives and poli- circumstances which prevail in the State. A et seq) and its Implementing regulations. cies. The statements shall address: comprehensive program should have eon- The Administrator of NOAA will circu- (1) Major problems and issues, both sidered at least the following representative late an environmental Impact statement within and affecting the State's coastal elements: prepared primarily on the bs.is of an en- zone; (1) Pesent laws, regulations, and appli- vironmental imact assessment and other Obetvstob tane nitr cable programs for attainment -of air and (2) Objectives to be atained in inter- ater quality standards, on land and water relevant data snbmitted by the individual agency and intergovernmental coopera- uses, and on environmental management by applicant States. tion. coordination and instl,,ational ar- all levels of government; rangements: and enhancing manage- (2) Present ownership patterns of the land Sbart -and and Water Uses ment capability involving issues and and water resources, including adminlstra- § 923.10 Generasl. ',roblem Identification, conflict resolu- tion of publicly owned properties; :on.regul tonaadministriative effie - (3) Present populations end future trends, () This sbprt deals with land and ion. regulation and inincluding as'essments of the Impact of pop- 'ater uses in the coastal zone which are clency at the L;ate and local level; ulatlon growth on the coastal onse and es- subject to the management program. (3) Objectives of the program in pres- tuarlne environments: (b) In order to provide a relatively ervatlon, protection, development, resto- (4 'Present uses. known proposals for simple framework upon which discus- ration and enhancement of the State's changes and long-term requirements of the sion of the specific requirements asso- coastal zone: coastal zone; elated with this subpart may proceed, (4) Policies for the protection and con- 5) Energy generation and trsmisslon it may be hepul to categorize the vari-d, (6) Estuarine habitats of fish. shellfish and t may be helpful to categorize the va- servation of coastal zone natural sys- wildlife; ous types of land and water uses which tems, cultural, historic and scenic areas, (7) Industrial needs: the Act envisions. renewable and non-renewable resources, (8l Housing requirements: (1) The statutory definition of the and the preservation, restoration and is1 Recreation, Including beaches, parks, landward portion of th% coastal zone economic development of selected coastal wlldlife preserves. sport fishing, swimming staes that it "extends Inland from the zone areas. and pleasure boating shorelines only to the extent necessary (c) The Secretary will review the t10 Open space. including educational t control shorelands, the uses of which and natural preserves, scenic beauty, and management program for the adequacy p access, both visual and phdcal have a direct and signifbcant Impact on public ac ces s bt disuc t and phsignificato hmacteo of State procedures utilized In its devel- coastlines and coastai estuarine areas: the coastal waters." Thus, the coastal opment and will consider the extent to (111 Mineral resources requirements: zone will include those lands and only which its various elements have been (121 Transportation.and navigation needs: those lands where any existing, pro- integrated into a balanced and compre- (13) Floods and flood damage prevention, jected or potential use will have a "di- hensive program designed to achieve the erosion inCluding the effect of tides and cur- rect and significant impact on the coastal airets upon beaches and other shoreline waters." Any such use will be subject to above objectives and Policies. areas), land stability, climatology and me- the terms of the ma-epment program, Comnment. Evaluation of the statutory re- teorolgv: quirements established in this subpart will (14' communication facilities: pursuant to Section 305(b) (2, concentrate primarily upon the adequacy of tiIS) Commercial fishing: and (2) There may well bo uses of certain State processee in dealing with key coastal (16) Requirements for protecting water lands inrluded within the coastal zone problems and issues. It will not, in general, quality and other important natural re- which will not have sich "direct and sig- deal with the wisdom of specific land and sources. nifticant imnact." Such uses may be sub- water use decisions, but rather with a deter- The list of considerations is not meant to be ' ject to regulation hvby local units of gov- mination that in addressing those problems exclusive, nor does it mean that each con- ernment within the framework of the and issues, the State is aware of the full sideration mnust be given ecual weight. State management program. range of present and potential needs and initiative to determine otner relevant factors (3) The Act also requires that man- uses of the coastal zone, and has developed and consider them in the program is essen- aeent rorams contain a method o procedures, based upon scientific knowledge, tial to the management of the coastal zonethd public participation and unified govern- as envisioned by Congress. assurn that lcal and and water use mental policies, for making reasoned choices In assessing programs submitted for ap- regulations within the coastal zone do and decisions. proval, the Secretary, in consultation with not unreasonably restrict or exclude Management programs will be evaluated in other concerned Federal agencies, will ex- land and water uses o regional benefit," the light of the Congressional findings and amine such programs to determine that the policies as contained in Sections 502 and 303 full range of public problems and issues af- This requirement is described more fully of the Act. These sections make it clear that fecting the coastal zone have been identified in § 923,17, II-4 FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 40, NO. 6--THURSDAY. JANUARY 9, 1975 ###NEWPAGE n="164" ### lot )RULES AND REGULATIONS (c) As part of the State's manage- the Act regardless of whether those uses (3) A State's coastal zone must in- ment program. it must address and ex- are found, upon analysis, to be "per- elude transitional and intertidal areas, ercise authority over the following: missible." The coastal zone must Include salt marshes, wetlands and beaches. (1) Land and water uses which have within it those lands which have any Hence the boundary determination pro- a direct and significant impact upon existing, projected or potential uses cedure must include a method of Identi- copstal waters. These uses are described which have a direct and significant im- tying such coastal features. In no case, more fully In § 923.12. pact upon the coastal waters and over however, will a State's landward coastal (2) Areas of particular concern. Sec- which the terms of the management zone boundary Include only such areas tlon 305(b) (3) specifies that the man- program will be exercised. In some in the absence of application of the Pro- agement program include an inventory States, existing regulations controlling cedure called for herein or in I 923.43. and designation of areas of particular shoreland uses apply only in a strip of (4) Since the coastal zone excludes concern within the coastal-zone. Section land of uniform depth (e.g. 250 feet, lands the use of which is by law sub)ect 923.13 deals more thoroughly with this 1.000 yards. etc.) behind the shoreline. solely to the discretion of, or which is statutory requirement. Such areas must Such a boundary will be acceptable If held in trust by the Federal government, be considered of Statewide concern and it approximates a boundary developed its officers and agents, the coastal zone must be addressed in the management according to the procedure outlined boundary must identify such lands which program. above and extends Inland sufficiently for are excluded from the coastal zone. In (3) Siting of facilities necessary to the management program to control order to complete this requirement, the meet requirements which are other than lands the uses of which have a direct State should indicate those Federally local in nature. The management pro- and significant impact upon coastal owned lands, or lands held in trust by the gram must take "adequate consideration waters. States may wish, for administra- Federal government, and over which the of the national interest involved in the tive convenience, to designate political State does not exercise Jurisdiction as to siting of facilities necessary to meet re- boundaries, cultural features, property use. In the event that a State fails to quirements which are other than local lines or existing designated planning and identify lands held by an agency of the In nature" (Section 306(c) (8)). This re- environmental control areas, as bound- Federal government as excluded lands, quirement Is more fully discussed in aries Oc the coastal zone. While the Sec- and the agency, after review of the pro- t 923.15. retary will take Into account the desir- gram under Section 307(b). is of the § 923.11 Boundariesof thecoastal one. ability of Identifying a coastal zone opinion that such lands should be ex- which is easily regulated as a whole, the eluded, the disagreement will be subject (a) Requirement. In order to fulfill selection of the boundaries of the coastal to the mediation process set forth in said the requirement contained in Section305 zone must bear a reasonable relation- section. (b) (1), the management program must ship to the statutory requirement. Noth- show evidence that the State has devel- ing in this part shall preclude a State §923.12 Permissible lad and water oped and applied a procedure for Iden- from exercising the terms of the man- Uses. tifying the boundary of the State's agement program in a landward area (a) Requirement. In order to fulfill coastal zone meeting the statutory deft- more extensive than the coastal zone the requirements contained In Section tltion of the coastal zone contained In called for in this part. If such a course 305(b)(2), the management must show Section 304(a). At a minimum this pro- is selected, the boundaries of the coastal evidence that the State has developed cedure should result in: zone must nevertheless be identified as and applied a procedure for defining (1) A determination of the inland above and the provisions of the Act will "permissible land and water uses within boundary required to control, through be exercised only in the defined coastal the coastal zone which have a direct and the management program, shorelands zone. It should be borne in mind that the significant impact upon the coastal wa- the uses of which have direct and sig- boundary should include lands and ters," which Includes, at aminimum: nificant impacts upon coastal waters, waters which are subject to the manage- (1) a method for relating various spe- (2) A determination of the extent of ment program. This means that the cific land and water uses to Impact upon the territorial sea, or where applicable, policies, objectives and controls called coastal waters, including utilization of of State waters in the Great Likes, for In the management program must be an operational definition of "direct and (3) An identification of transitional capable of being applied consistently significant impact," and intertidal areas, salt marshes, wet- within the area. The area must not be so (2) an inventory of natural and man- lands and beaches, extensive that a fair application of the made coastal resources, (4) An identification of all Federally management program becomes difficult (3) an analysis or establishment of owned lands, or lands which are held in or capricious, nor so limited that lands a method for analysis of the capability trust by the Federal government, ifs of- strongly influenced by coastal waters and suitability for each type of resource fleers and agents in the coastal zone and and over which the management pro- and application to existing, projected or over which a State does not exercise any gram should reasonably apply, are potential uses. control ea to use. excluded. (4) an analysis or establishment of a (b) Comment. Statutory citation: Sec- (2) Inasmuch as the seaward bound- method for analysis of the environmen- tion 305(b) (1): ary of the coastal zone is established In tal impact of reasonable resource uti- Such management program shall Include the Act, the States will be required to zations. *ue * aaemn *rga all miude b omntificationofy ctthe oundso 4 0 an identiftcation of the boundaries of utilize the statutory boundary. i.e. in the (b) Comment. Statutory citation: the coastal zone subject to the management Great Lakes, the international bound- section305(b)(2): programs. ary between the United States and Can- Such management program shall include ada. and elsewhere the outer limits of the a* ' a definition of wbat shall constitute Useful background information con- United States territorial sea. At present. permissible land and water uses within the United States territorial sea. At present, cerning this requirement appears In Part coastal zoane which have a direct and sig- 920.11, which is incorporated into this tplimit is three nautical miles from the ncant impact upon the coast4l waters. appropriate baselines recognized by in- part by reference. ternstonal law and defined precisely by Useful background information concern- (1) The key to successful completion the United States. In the event of a stat- ing this requirement appears in 15 CFR of this requirement lies in the develop- utory change in the boundary of the ter- 920.12, which is incorporated into this ment and use of a procedure designed to ritorial sea, the question of whether a part by reference. Completion of this re- Identify the landward extent of the corresponding change In coastal zone quirement should be divided Into two coastal zone. Included in this procedure boundaries must be made, or will be distinct elements: a determination of must be a method for determining those made by operation of law, will depend on those land and water uses having a di- "shorelands, the uses of which have a the specific terms of the statutory change rect and significant impact upon coastal direct and significant impact upon the and cannot be resolved in advance. In waters, and an Identification of such coastal waters." These uses shall be con- sidered the same as the "land and water the waters of Lake Michigan, the bound- uses which the State deems permissible. uses" described in i 923.12. reflecting the ary shall extend to the recognized bound- (1) Section 305(b) (4). In identifying requirements of Section 305(b) (2) of aries with adjacent States. those uses which have a "direct and sig- ..II-5 FEŁDrr.Al REGISTER, VOL. 40, NO. 6--THURSDAY, JANUARY 9, 1975 ###NEWPAGE n="165" ### RULES AND REGULATIONS IC67 nificant impact," the State should define surrounding resoerce utllizalon and Useful background information concern- that phrase in operational terms that which will have a tolerable impact ing the requirement appears in 15 CFR can be applied uniformly and consist- upon the environment. These analyses, 920.13, which Is incorporated here bY ently, and should develop a method for in part, will be provided through exist- reference. It should be emphasized that relating various uses to impacts upon Ing information on environmental pro- the basic purpose of inventorying and coastal waters. Existing, projected and tection programs, and should be sup- designating areas of particular concern potential uses should be analyzed as to plemented to the extent necessary for within the coastal zone Is to express some the level and extent of their impact, be determining the relationship between measure of Statewide concern about It adverse, benign or beneficial. Intra- land uses and environmental quality. them and to include them within the state or interstate. These impacts should Where a State prohibits a use within purview of the management program. then be assessed to determine whether the coastal zone, or a portion thereof, it Therefore, particular attention in re- they meet the definition of "direct and should identify the reasons for the pro- viewing the management program will be significant impact upon coastal waters." hibition, citing evidence developed in directed toward development by the State (These are the ones by which the bound- the above analyses. It should be pointed of implementing policies or actions to aries of the coastal zome are defined.) out that uses which may have a direct manage the designated areas of particu- Those uses meeting that definition are and significant Impact on coastal lar concern. automatically subject to control by the waters when conducted close to the management program. shoreline may not have a direct and 923.14 Guidline on priri of u (2) In determining which land and significant Impact when conducted (a) Requirement. The management water uses may be deemed permissible, further Inland. Similarly, uses which program shall include broad policies or a State should develop a method for as- may be permissible In a highly Indus- guidelines governing the relative priori- suring that Such decisions are made in trialized area may not be permissible in ties which will be accorded in particular an objective manner, based upon evalua- pristine marshland. Accordingly, the areas to at least those permissible land tion of the best available iniormation definition may also becorrelated with and water uses identified pursuant to concerning land and water capability and the nature (including current uses) and i 923.12. The priorities will be based upon suitability. This method should inqlude location of the land on which the use an analysis of State and local neds as at a minimum: to take place. The analyses which the well as the effect of the uses on the area. ) An inventory of stignimicant natural State will undertake pursuant to this Uses of lowest priority will be specifically ) An inv-m ade coastal resources, includ-ral section should also be useful in satisfy- stated for each type of area. and man-made coastalo e , hres ncde in g the requirements of § 923.13 through (b) Comment. Statutory citation: Sec- lg but not imite.d to, shorelands, 1 tlon305(b)(5) beachles, dunes, wetlands, uplands, bar- 23 1 pg 5 - rier islands, waters, bays, estuaries, har- '§ 923.13 Areas of particular concern. Such ' badgemenl program shall in. elude ˇ * * broad gludelines on priority of bors and their associated facilities. This (a) Requirement. In order to fulfill the uses in partictular areas. including specifically should not be construed as requiring requirements contained in Section 305 thosee uees of lowest priority. long-term, continuing research and base- (b) (3), the management program muist line studies, but rather as providing the show evidence that thetate has made As pointed out In 15 CFR 920.15, the basic information and data critical to an inventory and designation of areas priority guidelines will set forth -the successful completion of a number of re- of particular concern within the coastal degree of State interest In the preserva- quired management program elements. zone. Such designations shall be based tion. conservation and orderly develop- States are encouraged, however, to con- upon a review of natural and man-made ment of specific areas including at least tinue research and studies as necessary coastal zone resources and uses and those areas of particular concern identi- to detect early warnings of changes to upon consideration of State-established fled in i 923.13 within the coastal zone, coastal zone resources. It is recognized criteria which include, at a minimum, and thus provide the basis for regulating that in some States a complete and de- those factors contained in 15 CFR 920.13, land and water uses in the coastal zone, tailed inventory of such resources may namely: as well as a common reference point for be expensive and time consuming in re- (1) Areas of unique, scarce, fragile or resolving conflicts. Such priority guide- lation -to the value of information vulnerable natural habitat, physical fea- lines will be the core of a successful gathered in the development of the man- ture, historical significance, cultural management program since they will agement program. Much information, of value and scenic importance; provide a framework within which the course, already exists and should be in- (2) Areas of high natural productiv- State, its agencies, local governments tegrated into the inventory. The Secre- ity or essential habitat for living re- and regional bodies can deal with tary, in reviewing this particular sources, Including fish, wildlife and the specific proposals for development activ- requirement, will take into account the various trophic levels in the food web Ities in various areas of the coastal zone. nature and extent of the State's coast- critical to their well-being: In order to develop such broad guidelines, line, the funding available and existing (3) Areas of substantial recreational the management program shall indicate data sources' value and/or opportunity; that a method has been developed and (Ui) An analysis or establishment of (4) Areas where developments and applied for (1) analyzing State needs method for analysis of the capabil- facilities are dependent upon the utlliza- which can be met most effectively and ities of each resource for supporting tion of, or access to, coastal waters; efficiently through land and water uses various types of uses (including the (5) Areas of unique geologic or topo- in the coastal zone, and (2) determining capability for sustained and undimin- graphic significance to industrial or corn- the capability and suitability of meeting Ished yield of renewable resources), as mercial development; these needs in specific locations in the well as of the suitability for such re- (6) Areas of urban concentration coastal zone. In analyzing the States' source utilization when evaluated in where shoreline utilization and water needs, there shoukl be a determination conjunction with other local, regional uses are highly competitive; made of those requirements and uses and State resources and uses. Resource (') Areas of significant hazard fi de- whieh have Statewide as opposed to capability analysis should include veloped, due to storms, slides, floods, ero- local, significance. Section 302(h) of the physical, biological and chemical param- sion, settlement, etc.; and Act states in part that land and water eters as necessary. (8) Areas needed to protect, maintain use programs for thW coastal zone should (ii) An analysis or establishment of or replenish coastal lands or resources, include "unified policies, criteria, stand- a method for analysis of the Impact of including coastal flood plains, aquifer re- ards, methods and processes for dealing various resource uses upon the natural charge areis. sand dunes, coral and other with land and water use decisions of environment (air, land and water). reefs, beaches, offshore sand deposits and more than local significance." The in- Based upon these analyses and appli- mangrove stands. ventory and analyses of coastal resources cable Federal, State and local policies (b) Comment. Statutory citation: Sec- and uses called for in § 923.12 will provide and standards, the State should define tion305(b)(3). the State with mnst of the basic data permissible uses as those which can be Such management progr hall nc needed to determine the specific loca- reasonably and safely supported by the . .. an aventory and designation tion wher coastal resources are resource, which are compatible with of partlcuiar concern within the coat xone. capable and suitable for meeting State- FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 40, tf_. THURSDAY, JANUARY 9, 1975 ###NEWPAGE n="166" ### 16S8 RULES AND REGULATIONS wide need-. In addition these analyses than one locality (generally, the lowest can be suppUlied only through the use of shculd permit the State to determine unit of local, general-purpose govern- facilities In the coastal zone in order possible constraints on development ment, excluding situations such as with to make reasonable provision for such which may be applied by particular uses. cities and counties which- exercise con- facillties in light of the lase and popu- 'Tne program should establish special current jurlsdiction lor the same geo- lation of the State. the length and char- procedures for evaluating land use deci- graphic areas). In order to provide as- acteristics of its coast and the contribu- sions. such as the siting of regional sistance to the States in completing this tion such State is already making to energy facilities. which may hlave a sub- requlrement. a listing is presented below regional and national needs. This will stantial impact on the environment. In which Identifies those requirements require the State to enter into discus- such cases, the program should make which are both (1) other than local in slons with appropriate Federal agencies provision for the consideration of avail- nature, and (2) possess siting character- and agencies of other States In the re- able alternative sites which will serve the Istics in which, in the opinion of the gion, a process which should begin early need with a minimum adverse Impact. Secretary, there may be a clear national in the development of the management The identifying and ordering of use PM- interest. For each such need, there is a program so that the full dimensions of oritlis in speclfi coastal areas should listing of associated facilities. In addi- the national in.erest may be considered ]anti to thb development and adoption of tion. the principal cognizant Federal as the State develops its program St.ate policies or guidelines on land and agencies concerned with these facilities (§ 923.31 and §923.32). The management water use in the coastal zone. Such pal- are also listed. This list must not be con- program should make reference to the icies or guldelines should be part of the sidered. inclusive. but the State should views of cognizant Federal agencies as managercent programrn as submitted by consider each requirement and facility to how these national needs may be met the State and should be consistent with type in the development of its manage- in the coastal zone of that particular the State's specified management pro- ment program. Consideration of these State. States should actively seek such gram oblectives. Particular attention requirements and facilities need not be guidance from these Federal agencies. should be given by the State Wo applying seen as a separate and distinct element particularly in view of the fact that all these guidelines on use priorities within of the management program, and the management programs will be reviewed those "areas of particular concern" dee- listing is provided to assure that the with the opportunity for full comment ignated pursuant to § 923.13. In acldi.- siting of such facilities is'not overlooked by all affected Federal agencies prior to tion. States shall Indicate within the or ignored. As part of Its determination approval. It is recognized that Federal management program uses of lowest of permissible uses in the coastal zone agencies will differ markedly in their priority in particular areas, including (i 923.12). as well as of priority of uses abilities to articulate policies regarding guidelines associated with such uses. (§ 923.14), the State will have developed utilization of individual. State's coastal a procedure for Inventorying coastal re- zones. NOAA's Office of Coastal Zone q 923.15 National interest in the siting sources and identifying their existing or Management will encourage Federal of facilities. of facilities., potential utilization for various purposes agencies to develop policy statements re- (a) Requirement. A management pro- based upon capability, suitability and garding their perception of the national gram which integrates (through develop- impact analyses. The process for re- interest in the coastal zone and make ment of a body of information relating sponding to the requirements of Section these available to the States. The States to the national interest involved in such 306(c) (8) should be identical to, and should also consult with adjacent and siting through consultation with cogni- part of, the same procedure. No separate nearby States which share similar or zant Federal and regional bodies, as well national interest "test" need be applied common coastal resources-or with re- as adjacent and nearby States) the siting and submitted other than evidence that gional interstate bodies to determine how of facilities meeting requirements which the listed national Interest facilities have regional needs may be met in siting fa- are of greater than local concern into been considered in a manner similar to cilities. Specific arrangements of "trade- the determination of uses and areas of all other uses, and that appropriate con- offs" of coastal resource utilization Statewide concern, will meet the re- sultation with the Federal agencies listed should be documented with appropriate quirements of Section 306(c) (8). has been conducted. As a preliminary to supporting Vridence. The importance of (b) Comment. Statutory citation: Sec- adequate consideration of the na- this type of interstate consultation and tion 306(cl (8) : tional interest, the State must determine cooperation in planning cannot be over- Prior to granting approval of a manage- the needs for such facilities. Manage- emphasized for it offers the States the mrent program submitted by a coastal State, ment programs must recognize the need opportunity of resolving significant na- the Secretary shall find that ...ˇ ˇ the man- of local as well as regional and national tionl problems on a regional scale with- aeement propram provides for adequate con- alderatlon of the national interest Involved populations for goods and services which out Federa: intervention. rin the siting of facilities necessary to meet Ru frmnti wh are oehn ytl n naur ad flng ofwcm he a clear natil latres (vU requirements which are other tianr local In o.moclrd lcgtl and oplrzard Pedeml aeactu) nature. This policy requirement is intended to Requirements Associated [ailities Cognisant Federal Aencies assure that national concerns over fa- cility siting are expressed and dealt with i. Energy production Lnd transmis- Oil and gas wells: storage and dlsitt- Federal Energy Administration, in the development and implementation son. blson facilities: reineries: nill Federal Power Commission. Bu- clear. conventional, and hydr)- reau of Land Management. Atomilo of State coastal zone management pro- electric powerplants; derpwatr Energy Commission. Marltime Ad- grams. The 'requirement should not be ports mis t ao nranGsgirsurv, Dnpatment of Transportation, construed as compelling the States to Corps o Engineers. propose a program which accommodates 2. Becreation (of aninterstatenature).. National seashores. parks, forests; National Park Service. Pore.st Serv- lare and ontstanding beaehes ar d lea, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. certain types of facilities, but to assure recreational watselronts; wildlife that such national concerns are included reserves. at an early stage in the State's planning Interstate transplrtstlon............ Interstate hIrhways, airports, aids Federal lihway Administration. to navigation; pans and hbrbori, Federal Aviation Administration. activities and that such facilities not be railroads. Coast Guard. Corps of Engineers, arbitrarily excluded or unreasonably re- Maritlmme Administmtion. Intt- state Commerce Commission. stricted in the management program L Production of food and fiber........ Prime agrlcrutlrunat land and feel I- Soil Conservation Service. Forest without good and sufficient reasons. It tLis: forests; mnanculture ialiltcs. s ervice. Fish and Wildlilre Service. fisheries. Naltional Marine Fisheries Service. is recognized that there may or may not S. Preaervation of life and property .... Flood and storm protecltion acilU- Corps of Engineers. Federal Insmr- be a national interest associated with sIes; disaster warning facilities anrcAdsninisraln. NOAA, Soil Con.ervation Service. the sitin of facilities necessary to meet & National defenee and aerospaee ...... Mllilary Insiailatlons; defense man- Department of I)efsnso, NASA. requirements which are other than local uaturlottmn c litino; a eroPa'- in nature. Requirements which are other cuneline and tmckin rliti. 7. 3lstorte, cultural. esbetcandeon- iElrisoises natural areas;areas of National Regster of Hlistorle Pisaces, than local in nature shall be considered servation values. ul.irque culLural significane; will.- National Park Service. Fish and those requirements w whihwden lul- life 'reIges; areas ol species and Wildlile Service. National Marine those requirements which,. w)hen -itatl preservatlon Fisherie Service. filled. result in the establishment of fa- s. Mtneral resources- --------- lurl e iraction facilities needed B.ur.eauof Min., Oeological Survey. tO dilrell) 'support aclivity. cilities designed clearly to serve more FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 40, NO. 6-THURSDAY, JANUARY 9, 1975 II-7 ###NEWPAGE n="167" ### 'BULe AND REGULATIONS 1689 § 923.16 Ass desgsauasa Joe pe-inwt a udo land and water uses of regional the State has Identified a means for con- tion and restoration. trolling each permissible land and water (a) Requirement. In order to f'dmn the 'mTh uirement is intended to prevent use specified in 1 923.12. and for preclud- requirement contained In ection 306(c) loca land and water use decisions from ig land and water uses in the coastal (9), the management progam must ahow arbltrartly excluding certain land and on which are not permissible. The evidence that the State has developed water use which are deemed of impor- management program should contain a and applied standards and criteria foe tance to more than a single unit of lo-l list of relevant constitutional provisions, the designation oFarea of cnserv ation, government. For the purposes of this re- legislative enactments. regulations. Judl- recreational, ecological or sethete value quirement. a use of regional benefit w cial decisions and other appropriate offi- for the purpose of preserving and regor- be one which provides services or other cial documents or actions which estab- Ing them. benefits to citizens of more than one uit lsh the legal basis for such controls, as (b) Comment. Statutory citation: Sece of local. general-purpose government well as documentation by the Covernor tion 306(c) (9): (excluding situations such as In cities or his designated legal officer that the Prior to panting approval O a manage- and counties which exercise jurisdiction State actually has and is prepared to tm- Prnor to program submitted by a coasta Sge, ov e r the same geographic areas). In plement the authorities. including those merit program submitted by i coMstl Btt&T, oe h aegopi ns.I the Secetary shall find that ˇ ˇ the man- order to assure that arbitrary exclusion contained in SectIon 306(d). required to agement program matkes provision for pro- does not occur, the State must first implement the objectives, policies and cedurua whereby specific areas may be dselg- identify those uses which It perceives individual components of the program. natred for the purpoe of preserving or wil affect or produce some regional (b) Comment. Statutory citation: restoring them for their cornservaton, rea- benefit. This designation would normally Section 305(b) (4): ation. ecological or sthetic vlu. be derived from the inventory and anal- Such management program shall include (1) This requirement is closely linked ysis of the uses contained in § 923.12. In * an identification of the means by to that contained in 923.1, deallng with any event, however. these uses should which the State proposes to exert control designation of areas of particular eon- include those contained in the table of over the land and water uses referred to In cern. Unless the State can make a com- 923.15. In addition, the State may paragraph (2) of tlis'subsection. Including a Pelling case to the contrary, all ar determine that certain land and water listing of relevant constitutional provisions, designated according tg the methods uses may be of regional benefit under legslatlv e enactments, regulations and judl- called for in this part shall also be con- certain sets of circumstances; the State decisions aidered as areas ol particular concern. should then establish standards and Statutory citation: Section 306(c)(7): (2) This requirement is reasonably criteria for determining when such con- Prior to granting approval of a manage- self-explanatory. The State must de- ditions exist There should be no blanket mOnt program submitted by a coastal State. velop procedures for the designation of exclusion or restrictions of these uses in the Secretary shall find that ˇ ˇ ˇ the areas with certain characteristIcs. The areas of the coastal zone by local regu- State has the authorities necessary to im- State, In doing so. must: lation unless it can be shown that the plement the program. Including the author- (I) Establish standards and criteria for exclusion or restriction is based upon ity required under subsection (d) of this the possible designation of coastal areas reasonable considerations of the suit- section. intended for preservation or restoration ability of, the area for the uses or the Useful information concerning this re- because of their conservation, recrea- carrying capacity of the area. The re- quirement appears in 15 CFR 920.14, tional, ecological or esthetic values, and quirement of this section does not ex- which is incorporated into this part by (11i) Apply those standards and criteria clude the possibility that In specific areas reference. The key words In this require- to the State's coastal resources. (In this, certain uses of regional benefit may be ment are, "to exert control over the the inventory associated with the re- prohibited. However. such exclusions land and water uses." This reflect6 the quirement of I 923.13 will be most help- may not be capricious. The method by Congressional finding that the "key to ful.) which the management program will more effective protection and use of the (3) The requirement of the statute assure that such unreasonable restric- land and water resources of the coastal goes to the procedures rather than sub- tions or exclusion not occur in local land zone is to encourage the States to exer- stance; the fact that a State may be and water use decisions will, of course, cise their full authority over the lands unable to move rapidly ahead with a be up to the State, but it should Include and waters in the coastal zone ˇ *." program of preservation or restoration the preparation of standards and criteria It is not the Intent of this part to specify Will not prevent the program from being relating to State interpretation of "un- for the. States the "means" of control; approved. The State should also rankin reasonable restriction or exclusion", as this is a State responsibility. The State order of relative priority areas of Its well as the establishment of a continuing must, however, describe in the manage- coastal zone which have been designated mechanisms for such determination. ment program its rationale for develop- for the purposes set forth in this section. Subpart C-Authorities and Organization Ing and deciding uqn such "means." As funds become available, such a rank- The "means" must-be capable of actually ins will provide a set of priorities for § 923.20 General. Implementing the objectives, policies selecting areas to be preserved or re- This subpart deals with requirements and individual components of the man- stored. that the State possess necessary authori- agement program. As such, requirements ties to control land and water uses and shall be reviewed in close conjunction § 923.17 Local regulations and uses of that it be organized to implement the with § 923.24, 923.25 and § 923.26, relat- regiomdl benefit. management. It should be emphasized ing to actual authorities which the Stato (a) Requirement. In order to fulfill that before final approval of a coastal must possess. The management program the requirement contained In Section zone management program can be given should also indicate those specific land 306(e) (2), the management program by the Secretary of Commerce. the au- and water uses over which authority. must show evidence that the State has thorities and organizational structure jurisdiction or control will be exercised developed and applied a method for de- called for in the management program concurrently by both State and Federal termintng uses of regional benefit, and must be in place. Preliminary approval, agencies, particularly those uses affecting that it has established a method for as- however, can be given to a proposal water resources. submerged lands and suring that local land and water use which will require subsequent legislative navigable waters. The management pro- controls In the coastal zone do not un- or executive action for Implementation gram must provide for control of land reasonably or arbitrarily restrict or ex- and eligibility for admlnlstrative grants and water uses in the coastal zone. al- clude those uses of regional benefit,. under Section 306. though the exercise of control may Le (b) Comment. Statutory citation: Sec- vested in. or delegated to. various ager.- tion 306 (e) (2) § 923.21 Means of exerting State control ton 306(e) (2): over land and water uqes. cies or local government. As part of th3 or to granting appral. the Secretary approval of a management program, the (a) ttequirernenl. In order to fulfill shall also aind t hat th pr ogram providesr to fi Secretary must find that the means fcr the requirements contained in Sections ˇ * for an methatod of ng th e requirements contained ln Sections controlling land and water uses identi- land and water use regulatlons within the 305(b)(4) and 306(c)(7), the manage- fled In § 923.21 are established and in coastal sone do not unreasnably r ctrict or ment program must show evidence that place, and that the means include the II-8 FIEDERAL IEGISTER, VOL 40, NO. 6-THURSDAY, JANUARY 9, 1975 ###NEWPAGE n="168" ### 1690 RULES AND REGULATIONS authorities contained in i 923.24 and the Act. Review of the management pro- sad to resolve on0icts among competing 923.25. This finding will be based upon gram for compliance with this require- ue * documentation by the Governor of the ment will be undertaken as a single re- This requirement shall be reviewed in coastal State or his designated legal off- view with review of the-requirements close conjunction with that of If923.21. cor that the State possesses and is pre- contained in J 923.31, full participation 923.25 and § 923.26, dealing with author- pared to implement the requisite au- by interested bodies in adoption of man- itles which the State's organizational t.norities agement programs. and § 923.23, desig- structure must possess in order to ensure § 923.22 Organizational structlure to im- nation of a single State agency. implementation of the management pro- plement the management program. § 923.23 Designation of a single agency. gram. The language of this requirement makes it clear that the State may choose (a) Requirement. In order to fulfill the (a) Requirement. In order to fulfill the to administer t Program using a va- requirement, contained in Section 305(b) requirement of Section 306(c) (5), the riety of levels of governments and agen- (6), tie management program must con- management program must contain ap- cies but that if it does, the State must tain a description of how the State is or- propriate documentation that the Gov- have available to it e thorities spec- have available to it the authorities spec- ganized to implement the authorities ernor of the coastal State has designated ifted. identified in § 923.21. In addition, the a single agency to be responsible for re- management program must contain a ceiving and administering grants under § 932.25 Authorities for properLt aequi- certification by the Governor of the Section 306 for implementing an ap- sition. State or his designated legal officer that proved management program. (a) Requirement. The management the State has established its organiza- (b) Corpment. Statutory citation: Sec- program shall contain documentation tional structure to implemen* the man- tion 306(c) (5): by the Governor or his designated legal agement program. Prior to granting approval of a manage- officer that the agency or agencies, in- (bi Comment. Statutory citation: Sec- ment program submitted by a coastas State, eluding local governments. areawide tion 305tb) (6): the Secretary shall find that * * I the Gov- agencies, regional or interstate agen- Such management program shall In- ernor of the State has designated a single cies, responsible for ImplementatIon of elude *ˇ -ˇ a description of the organizational agency to receive and administer the grants the management program have available structure proposed to implement the man- . implementing the management pogat the power to acquire fee simple and less agement program, including the respotnsl- reohred under paragraph (1) of this subsec tha, fee simple Interests in lands waterst bilities and interrelationships of local, area-tn lands, waters wide. State. regional and inter statei, agenies and other property through condemna- wide. State regional and iterstate agene T requirement is closely elated to tion or other means where necessary to in the management process. that contained In f 923.22, relating to a achieve conformance with the manage- Statutory citation: Section 306(c) (6): descriptlon of the organizational struc- ment program. Where the power in- Prior to granting approval of a manage- ture which will implement the manage- cludes condemnation, the State shall so ment program submitted by a coastal State. ment program. While this requirement is indicate. Where the power includes other the Secretary shall find that * I I the State self-exp!anatory, it should be pointed out means, the State shall specifically iden- is organized to implement the management that States will undoubtedly come for- tify such means. programrequlired under paragraph (1) of this ward with a wide variety of organiza- (b) Comment. Statutory citation: Sec. subsection. tional structures to implement approved tion 306(d) (2): Useful background information and management programs. Some willprob- guidance concerning this requirement ably be quite complex, utilizing a variety 'ror to granting approval of the manage- ment proffram, the Secretarg shall find that appears in 15 CFR 920.16. which is in- of control techniques at a number of gov- the tate, acting through ts c hosen agency appears . . . the State, acting through its chosen agency corporated into this part by reference. ernmental levels. Nothing in this part or agencies, including local governments. Tfe legislati;'e history of the Act makes should be construed as limiting the op areawide agencies designated under Section it clear that the States should be ac- tions available to a State for implement- 204 of the Demonstratlon Cities and Metro- corded maxmnum flexibility in organiz- ing its program. The purpose of the re- politan Development Act of 1966. regional ing for implementation of their coastal quirement is simply to identify a single agencies or interstate agencies, has authority zone management programs. Thus, agency which will be fiscally and pro- for the management of the coastal zone in ineither the Act nor this part provide an grarmmatically responsible fo' receiving accordance with the management prograim. organizational model which must be fol- and administering the grants under Sec- cutre fee simple ad incd than fee stmple tion 306 to implement the approved man- acqu' iOin eeta ssml lowed. While individual State programs tIn306 toimplnterests in lands. .waters and other prop- may have a wide range of interstate. agement program. erty through condemnatlon or other means State, local or areawide agency roles to § 923.24 Authorilies to adminqiwer land when neesmary to achieve conformance with play, the program will be reviewed closely and water uses, control development the management proram * I . for assurance that it constitutes an or- and resolve conflicts. In most cases, it win not be necessary ganized and unified program. Consistent (a) Requirement. (1) The manage- to acquire fee simple ownership. Nor- with this principle, there must be a clear ment program must contain documenta- mally, appropriate use restrictions will point of responsibility for the program, tion by the Governor or his designated be adequate to achieve conformance with although program implementation may legal officer that the agencies and gov- the program. In other cases. an' ease- be undertaken by several State entities. eraments chosen by the State to admin- ment may be necessary to achieve con- In those cases, where a complex inter- slater the management program have the formance with the management pro- agency and intergovernmental process is authority to administer land and water gram. Where acquisition is necessary. established, the State must submit a de- regulations, control development in ac- this section contemplates acquisition by scription of roles and responsibilities of cordance with the management program condemnation or through other means. each of the participants and how such and to resolve use ctc nflicts. However, the mere authority to acquire roles and responsibilities contribute to a (b) Comment. Statutory citation: Sec- an interest in lands or waters by pur- unified coastal zone management pro- tlon 306(d) (V: chase from a willing vendor will not be gram. This description should be suf- Prior to granting approval of the manage- sufficient In cases where the acquisition ficiently detailed to demonstrate that a meat program, the Secretary shall find that of interests in real property Is a neces- coherent program structure has been the State, acting through its chosen agenc sary and integral part of the program. proposed by the State and the State is or agencies, including local governments, prepared to act in accordance with the areawide agencies designated under Section In such cases, the power of condemna- objectives of the management program. 204 of the Demonstration Cities and Metro- tion need be no broader than necessary Although the Act does not prescribe the politan Development Act of 1966, regional to achieve conformance with the pro- agencies, or interstate agencies. has authority gram. For example, if a State's program creation of a central management agency for the management of the coastal zone in includes provisions expressly requiring at the State level, it envisions the accordance with the management program, that power transmission lines and pipe- creation of a coastal zone management Such authority shall Include power * I I to entity that has adequate legislative and/ administer land and water use regulations, lines be located in specified energy and or executive authority to implement the control development in order to ensure transportation corridors to minimize en- policies and requirements mandated in compliance with the management program vironmental Impact, and for State ae- II-9 FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 40. NC. 6-THURSDAY, JANOARY 9, 1975 ###NEWPAGE n="169" ### RULE5 AND REGULATIONS 1691 quisitlon of such transportation corrni ment plans. projects, or land and water sultation and cooperation with such dors, then the State should have the regulations, including exceptions and bodies has takenplace and will continue power to acquire corridors for such pur- variances thereto proposed by any Stiate In the future. poses through condemnation. It is not or local authority or private developer, 923.31 Full participation by relevant necessary that the power to acquire real with power to approve or disapprove af- bodie. in the adoption ox manage. property be held by any one particular ter public notice and an opportunity for ment progsams agency involved in implementing the hearings." This option leaves the local (a) Requirement. In order to fu the management program. The authority unit of government free to adopt zoning must, however, be held by one or more ordinances or regulations without State requirement contained in section 306(c) agencies or local governments with a criteria and standards other than the (1), the management program must statutory responsibility to exercise the program itself, but subjects certain ac- sh0w evidencethat: authority without undue delay when tions by the local unit of government to (1) The management program has necessary to achieve conformance with automatic State review, including public been formally adopted in accordance auwtomti State review, i i asnclu dmingubi the management program. notice and a hearing when requested by with State law or, in its absence, admin- a party. Such actions Include: Istrative regulations. 923.26 Techniques for control of land (1) Adoption of land and water use (2) The State has notified and pro- and water uses. regulations, ordinarily in the form of a vided an oppo rtunity for full participa- (a) Requirement. The management zoning ordinance or regulation. tion In the development of its manage- program must contain documentation by (I) Granting of an exception or vari- ment program to all public and private the Governor or his designated legal of- once to a zoning ordinance or regulation. agencies and organizations which are i- ficer that all existing, projected and po- (11) Approval of a development plan able to be affected by, or may have a tential land and water uses within the or project proposed by a private develop- direct Interest in the management pro- coastal zone may be controlled by any er. This may be defined to exclude ap- grm. The submission of the manage- one or a combination of the techniques proval of minor projects, such as small ment progrjm shall be accompanied by a specified In Section 306(e) (1) residences or commercial establish- ist.identifying the agencies and organl- (b) Comment. Statutory citation: ments, or those which do not have a zatlons referred to in paragraph (a) (2) Section 306(e) (1): significant impact. of this section, the nature of their in- (4) It should be noted that state re- terest, and the opportunities afforded Priot to granting approva. the Secrety view is for consistency with the manage- such agencies and organizations to par- shall also find that the program, not of the merits or of tcipate in the development of the man- ˇ ˇ for any one or a combination th ment ro gram, not of the merits or ofi following general techniques for control of the facts on which the local decision I s gement program. These organizations lend and water uses within te coartai based. should include those identified pursuant zone: (5) The State may choose to utilize to i 923.32. which have developed local, only one of the specified techniques, or areawide or interstate plans applicable (1) Section 306(e) (1) (A) "State es- more than one . or a combination of them to an area within the coastal zone of the tablishment of criteria-and standards for In different locations or at different Btate as of January I of the year in which local implementation, subject to admin- times. Within the parameters set forth the management program is submitted istrative review and enforcement of comrn- in the requirement, there is a large va- for approval; and In the requirement, there Is a large va-foaprvlan pliance." This option requires the State rlety of tools which the management (3) The management program will to establish general criteria and stand- program could adopt for controlling land carry out the policies enumerated In sec- ardswitin he ramwor oftheCoatal program could adopt for controlling land R ards within the framework of the coastal and water uses. The program should tion 303 of the Act. zone program for implementation by identify the techniques for control of (b) Comment. Statutory citation: Sec- local government. Such criteria and land andwater uses which It intends to tion 306(c) (1): standards would provide for application use for existing, projected and potential Prior to granting approval of a manage. of criteria and standards to specific local uses within the coastal zone. This re- meat program submitted by a coastal State, conditions. Implementation by a local quirement will be reviewed in close con- the Secretary ahall find that I ˇ * (t)he State unit of government would consist of Junction with those contained in It 923. h developed and adopted a management adoption of a suitable local zoning ordl- 21. 923.24 and 923.25. dealing with State program far its coastal zone in accordance nance or regulation, and enforcement with rules and regulations promulgated by on a continuing basis. Administrative authorities to implement the manage- the Secretary, after notice, and with the op- meat Pi08mf portunity of full participation by relevant review at the State level requires pro- portuity of full participation by relevant vision for review of local ordinances and Subpart D--Coordination Pqderal agencies. State agencies, local gov- regulations -and local enforcern. c-ernments, regional organizations, port au- et § 923.30 General. thoritles, and other Interested parties, pub- tivity for consistency with the criteria and standards as well as progmrams not One of the most critical aspects of thn o d private, which is &t e r to carry Ofteout the) purpse of this title r.:, - is consist. review of specific cases on the merits. In development of State coastal zone man- ent with the policy declared i motilon 303 the event of deficiencies either in regu- agement programs will be the ability of of this title. lation or local enforcement, State en- the States to deal fully with the network forcenent of compliance would require of public, quasi-public and private bodies TIs requirement embodies the actual either appropriate changes in local reg- which can assisat in the development approval by the Secretary of Commerce ulation or enforcement or direct State process and which may be significantly of a State's coastal zone management intervention. impacted by the implementation of the program pursuant to all of the terms (2) Section 306(e) (B) "rect program. Each State will have to develop of the Act, plus associated administrative (2) Section 306(e) elani) "Direct aits own methods for accommodating, as rules and regulations. As the operative State land and water use planning and appropriate, the varying, often conflict- section, it subsumes all of the require- regulatin.' de i in the t ing nterests of local governments, water ments included in this part, which shall wouldn bnecoedrects flyc inolved ents tter would become directly Involveand In the and air pollution control agencies, be considered the "rules and regulations establishment of detailed land and water regional agencies, other State agencies promulgated by the Secretary" men- use regulations and would apply these ein ancs oh St gnis use regulations and would apply these and bodies, interstate organizations, tioned in section 306(c) (1). The citation, regulations to individual cases. Intial commissions and compacts however, also includes some specific ad- deterominations readn and cmands watFeera determinations regarding land and water gover nment and interested private ditional requirements, for which guld- use in the coastal zone would be made bodies. It Is the intent of these require- once and performance criteria are at the State level. bois T ihisntn options pror- at the State level. This option pre- meats for coordination with govern- necessary. These additional requirements erupts the traditional role of local gov- emptI the traditional role of local gov- mental and private bodies to assure that include: eminent in the zoning process involving the State, in developing its management (1) Adoption of the management pro- lands or waters within the coastal zone. program, is aware of the full array of gram by the State. The management pro- (3) Section 306(e) (1) (C) "State ad- interests represented by such organiza- gram must demonstrate that it repre- ministrative review for consistency with tions, that opportunity for participation sents the official policy and objectives of the management program of all develop- was provided, and that adequate con- the State. In general, this will require II-10 FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 40,-NO. 6-THURSDAY, JANUAR Y 9, 1975 0 ###NEWPAGE n="170" ### 1692 RULES AND REGULATIONS documentation in tile management pro- (2) A listing of the specific contacts them. or which are commonly recognized gram that the State management entity made with all such entitles in order to by the entity as a guide for action. The has formally adopted the management coordinate the management program list of relevant agencies required under program in accordance with either the with their plans, § 923.31 will be of use in meeting this rules and procedures established by (3) An identification of- the conflicts requirement. It will enable the State to statute. or inll the absence of such law, with those plans which -have not been identify those entities mentioned in AP Sadministrative regulations. resolved through coordination, and con- which have such plans and to provide (2, Opportunity for full participation tinuing actions contemplated to attempt evidence that coordination with them by relevant Federal agencies. State agen- to resolve them, and has taken place. The process envisioned cies. local governments. regional orga- (4) Indication that a regular consul- should not only enable a State to avoid nizatioin.. part authorities, and other tive mechanism has been established and conflicts between its program and other interested parties. public and private. A is active, to undertake coordination be- plans applying within its coastal zone. nmajor thruut of the Act is its concern for tween the single State agency designated but to draw upon the planning capabili- full partcimation and cooperation in the pursuant to § 923.23, and the entities in ties of a wide variety of local govern- development and implementation of paragraph (B) of Section306(c) (2). ments and other agencies. In developinc management prosrams by all interested (b) Comment. Statutory citation: and implementing those portions of the and affected agencies. organizations and Section 306(c) (2) program dealing with power transmiistr.1n individuals. This is specifically included lines, pipelines, interstate transportation "Prior to granting approval of a facilities and other facilities -hich mill in the statement of national policy in ment program submitted by a coastal Stat which ill section 302,c,. The State must provide the Secretary shall find that the State significantly impact oi ndi*ha orne the Secretary signi ficntly imptact one nei-hbrm evidenc: that the listed agencies and has: States of a region. particular attention parties ,,ere. in fact. provided with an (A) Coordinated its program with local, should be paid to the requirements of th!- opportuntw. for full participation. It will areawide and Interstate plans applicable to section. be left to the States to determine the areas within the coastal zone existing on method and form of such evidence, but January 1 of the year in which the State's Sbart E-Misellaneous it should contain at a minimum: management program is submitted to the § 923.40 General. (i A i comprehensi ve a s pos Secretary, which plans have been developed The requirements n this subp (iJ A listinlg. as comprehensive as pos- by a local government, an areawide agency sible. of all Federal and State agencies, designated pursuant to regulations estab- not fall readily into any of the above local governlments. regional organiza- lished under section 204 of the Demonstra- categories but deal with several impor- tions, port authorities and public and tion Cities and Metropolitan Development tant elements of an approvable man- private organizations which are likely to Act of 1966, a regional agency, or an inter- agement program. They deal with public be affected by. or have a direct interest state agency; and hearings in development of the mnnnge- in, the development and implementation (B) Established an effective mechanism ment program, gubernatorial revievw ,and for continuing consultation and coordina- approval, segmentation of State - of a management program (including tion between the management agency desig. those identified in § 923.32, and nated pursuant to paragraph (5) of this grams and applicability of water a-nd (ii) A listing of the specific interests subsection and with local governments, air pollution control requirements. of such organizations in the development interstate agencies. regional agencies and § 2341 Public hearings. of the management program. as well areswide agencies within the coastal zone to assure the full participation of such local (a) Requirements. In order to fulfill an identifirntion of the efforts made to governments and agencies .n earrying out the requirement contained in section involve such bodies in the development the purposes of this title." 30(c) (3). the management program process. (17 '0 ortnitfofulRelevant background information on must show evidence that the State has "Onpyorltunity for full participa- this requirement appear in 15 CFR held public hearings during the devel- tion" is irtnrpreleetd as requiring particl- t h i s r e q u i r anaement appers n 1 CF ion is prtcd as requiring partl- 920.45(f). and is incorporated by refer- opment of the management program pation at 'll appropriate stages of man- ence herein. While the State will exercise following not less than 30 days notifican- agement program development. The as- ts authority over land and wateruses of tion. that all documents associated with sistance which ca n be provided by these Statewide significance in the coastalzone the hearings are conveniently available tact w hic a e prvddb hese :apiabetprtiongs ofthrtme convenientlyo affcevouatilable public ai:d private organizations can by one or more of the techniques set to the public for review and study at often be significant, and therefore con- forth in § 923.28, the State management least 30 days prior to the hearing, that tact with them should be viewed not proram mustbecoordinated withexist- the hearings are held in places and at only as a requirement for approval, but ing plans applicable to portions of the times convenient to affected populations. as an opportunity for tapping available coastal zone. It should be noted that this that all citizens of the State hae a sources of infornmation for program de- section does not demand compliance of opportunity to comment on tile total velopment. Early and continuing con- the State program with local plans, but management program and that a report the Staatemn program widthloal pans repot M tact with these agencies and organiza- the process envisioned should enable a on each hearing be prepared and made tions is both desirable and necessary. In State not only to avoid conflicts and am- available to the public within 45 days. many cases it may be difficult or impos- biguities among plans and proposals, but lb) Comment. Statutory citation: Sec- sible to identily all interested parties to draw upon the planning capabilities tion 306(c)(3): early in the development of the State's of a wide variety of governments and prior to granting approval of a manage- program. However. the public hearing agencies. Coordination implies a high meat program submitted by a coastal State. requirement of § 923.41 should afford an degree of cooperation and consultation the Secretary shall find that * * * (t)he opportunity to participate to interested among agencies, as well as a mutual will- State has held public hearings on the de- persons anld organizations whose interest ingness on the part of the participants velopment of the management program. was not initially noted. to accommodate their activities to the Extensive discussion and statements of (3) Consistency with the policy de- needs of the others in order to carry out policy regarding this requirement ap- clared in section 303 of the Act. In order the public interest. Perceptions of the pears in §§ 920.30, 920.31 and 920.32. to facilitate this review, the State's man- public good will differ and it is recognized which is incorporated herein by refer- agement program must indicate specifi- that not all real or potential conflicts can ence. cally how the program will carry out the be resolved by this process. Nevertheless, policies enumerated in section 303. it is a necessary step. Effective coopera- § 923.42 Cubernatoria reiew amsl p- 923.32 C ti and coordination tion and consultation must continue as proval. § 923.32 CArnuliatlon and roordiatlulon (,Rgieet nodrt ufl h with other pnning. the management program is put into (a) Requirement. In order to fulfill the operation so that local governments, in- requirement contained in section 306tc) (a, Requirement. In order to fulfill the terstate, regional and areawide agencies (4., the management program must con- requirements contained in section 306(c) can continue to participate in the carry- tain a certification signed by the Gover- (21, the management program must in-. elude: ing out of the management program. The nor of the coastal State to the effect that ( An identification of those entities "plans" referred to In (A) shall be con- he has reviewed and approved the man- (1) An identification of those entities mentioned which have plans in effect on sidered those which have been officially agement program and any amendments January I of the year submitted, adopted by the entity which developed thereto. Certification may be omitted In FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 40, NO. 6--THURSDAY, JANUARY 9, 1975 TT-11 ###NEWPAGE n="171" ### RULES AND REGULATIONS 1693 the came of AP Prolmn 901Ad fr tYPr- ments of a management program. Re- § 923.44 Applicability of air and water lminary approval. gional agencies and local governments pollutlion control requirementm. (b) Commelt. Statutory citation: See- may play a large role in developing and (a) Requirement. In order to fulfill tion 306(c) (4): carrying out such segmented programs, the requirements contained In Section Prior to granting pprodcval m ˇ auge but there must be a continuing State 307(f) of the Act the management pro- ment program submitted by a oastal Bstat voice throughout this process. This State gram must be developed in close coordi- the Secretary shall Ind .hat ˇ ˇ * the man- involvement shall be expressed in the nation with the planning and regulatory gement program and any changes thereto first segment of the management pro- systems being implemented under the have been rvovawed ad Rpprovod by the gram in the form of evidence that (i) the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and Governor. boundaries of the coastal zone for the Clean Air Act, as amended, and be con- This requirement is self-explanatory. entire State have been defined (pursuant slstent with applicable State or Federal to § 923.11) and (1il) there has been ade- water and air pollution control stand- I 925.43 Sregentdioed quate consideration of the national in- ards in the coastal zone. Documentation (a) Requirement. If the State intends tarest involved In the siting of facilities by the official or officials responsible for to develop and adopt its management necessary to meet requirements which State implementation of air and water program In two or more segments, it shall are other than local in nature (pursuant pollution control activities that those re- advise the Secretary as early as prac- to § 923.15) for the State's entire coast- quirements have been incorporated into ticable stating the reasons why segmen- al zone. These requirements are de- the body of the coastal zone management tatlon is appropriate and requesting his signed to assure that the development of program should accompany submission approval. Each segment of a management a Statewide coastal zone management of the management program. program developed by segments must program proceeds in an orderly fashion (b) Comment: Statutory citation: show evidence (1) that the State will and that segmented programs reflect ac- Section 307(f): exercise policy control over each of the curately the needs and capabilities of segmented management programs prior the State's entire coastal zone which are Nothis tite nothstanding any th title shall in any this title. nothing in this title shall In any to, and following their Integration into represented in that particular segment. way affect any requirement (1) established a complete State management program, (3) The Act's intent of encouraging by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. such evidence to include completion of and assisting State governments to de- as amended, or the Clean Air Act, as amend- the requirements of I 923.U (Boundaries velop a comprehensive program for the ed. or (2) established by the Federal govern- of the coastal zone) and J 923.15 (Na- control of land and water uses in the meat, or any State or local government pur- tional interest in the siting of facilities) coastal zone is clear. This intent should suant to such Acts. Such requirements shall for the State's entire coastal zone, (2) therefore apply to segments as well, and be Incorporated in any program developed pursuant to this title. and shall be the water that the segment submitted for approval segmented management programspursuant to this title and shall be the atr pollution control requirements and air pot- includes a geographic area on both sides should be comprehensive in nature lutlon control requirements applicable to of the coastal land-water interface, and and deal with the relationship between such program (3) that a timetable and budget have and among land and water uses. No ab- been established for the timely comple- solute minimum or maximum geographic I The basic purpose of this require- tion of the remaining segments or size limitations will be established for ment is to ensure that the management segment. the area of coverage of a segment. On program does not conflict with the na- (b) Comment. Statutory citation: Sec- the one hand, segments should include tional and State policies, plans and regu- tion 306(h) ): an area large enough to permit compre- lations mandated by the Federal Water At the discretion of the state a"wiPth hensive analyses of the attributes and Pollution Control Act, as amended, and the approval or the fiecretay, a manage- limitations of coastal resources within the Clean Air Act as amended. The pol- mert program my be developed and adopt- the segment of State needs for the util- icies and standards adopted pursuant to ed In segments so that immediate attention ization or protectlon.of these resources these Acts should be considered essential may be devoted to thom arme within the and of the interrelationships of such util- baselines against which the overall man- coastal zone which moat urgently need m- izations. On the other hand, It is not agement program is developed. This is a agementprograms: Provtdd. That, the State contemplated that a segmented man- specific statutory requirement that re- adequately provides for the ultimate roordl- agement program will be developed sole- fleets the overall coastal zone manage- nation of the various sagmenta ot the man- ly for the purpose of protecting or con- meat objective of unified state manage- 119e=6ent program Into a dingle, unified pro. yfrteproeo rtcigo o- agementhrgat Ith e singeu ed pro-a wlbetr olling a single coastal resource or use, ment of environmental laws, regulations fam, and that the unified program will be completed as soon as reasonably practica- however desirable that may be. and applicable standards. To this end. bie. (4) One of the distinguishing features management programs should provide of. a coastal zone management program for continuing coordination and cooper- (1) This section of the Act reflects a is its recognition of the relationship be- ation with air and water programs dur- recognition that It may be desirable for tteen land uses and their effect upon ing subsequent administration of the ap- a State to develop and adopt Its man- coastal waters, and vice versa. Segments proved management program. agement program in segments rather should likewise recognize this relation- (2) There are also significant oppor- than all at once because of a relatively ship between land and water by includ- tunities for developing working relation- long coastline, developmental pressures Intug at least the dividing line between ships between air and water quality or Public support in specific areas, or them, plus the lands or waters on either agencies and coastal zone management earlier regional management programs side which are mutually affected. In the programs. These opportunities include developed and adopted. It is important case of a segment which is predominant- such activities as joint development of to note, however, that the ultimate ob- ly land, the boundaries shall include Section 208 areawide waste treatment Jective of segmentation is completion of those waters which are directly and sig- management planning and coastal zone a management program for the coastal nificantly impacted by land uses in the management programs: consolidation zone of the entire State in a timely segment. Where the predominant part and/or incorporation of various plan- fashion. Segmentation is at the State's of the segment is water, the boundaries option, but requires the approval of the shall Include the adjacent shorelands ning and regulatory elements into these Secretary. States should notify the Sec- strongly influenced by the waters, includ- closely related programs: coordination retary at as early a date as possible re- ing at least transitional and inter-tidal of monitoring and evaluation activities; ardng intention to prepare a manage- area,, salt marshes, wetlands and increased management attention being ment program in segments, beaches (or similar such areas in Great accorded specifically to the coastal (2) Centinufin= involvement at the Lkae) (2) Continuing involvemnevt at the Lake States). waters; consultation concerning tlh de- State as well as local level In the de- (5) Segmented management programs (5) Segmented management programs velopment and implementation of seg- submitted for approval will be reviewed sirability of adjusting state water quallty SUbmitted for approval will be reviewedstnadadcreiaWomlet mented programs Is essential. This em- and approved in exactly the same man- standards and criteria to complement phasis on State participation and co- ner as programs for complete coastal coastal zone management policies; and ordination with the program as a whole zones, utilizing the same approval cri- designation of areas of particular con- should be reflected in the individual eeg- teria, plus those of this section. cern or priority uses. II-12 FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 40, NO. 6--THURSDAY, JANUARY 9, 1975 ###NEWPAGE n="172" ### 1694 tULES AND ItEULATIONS Subpart F--Applications for AdninlbtraUv § 92353 Allocaia. taneously with the distribution of the Grants plication form. Bection 306(5C allows a S&W to Al- prM aspcharon torm. § 923.50 GeneraL locate a portion of Its a -mins itrati e to the The primary purpose of administrative grant to sub-tate or multl-State itis grant project must be beneficial and grants made under section 306 of the Act if the work to result from the allocation necessary to the objectives of the grant is to assist the States to implement oontributes to the effective implementa- project. The aowabilty of costs will be coastal zone management programs fol- tion of the State's approved coastal zone determined in accordance with the provi- lowing their approval by the Secretary of management program. The requirements sions of FMC 74-4. Administrative grants Commerce. The purpose of these guide- for Identifying such allocations are set made under section 306(a) of the Act lines is to define clearly the processes by forth in 923.55(e) are clearly intended to assist the Sates which grantees apply for and administer 1I in administering their approved man- grants under the Act. These guidelinesr 923.54 Geographical segmentation. agement programs. Such intent precludes shall be used and interpreted in con- Authority is provided in the Act for a tasks and related costs for long range junction with the Grants Management State's management program to be de- research and studies. Nevertheless it is Manual for Grants under the Coastal veloped and adopted in segments. Addi- recognized that the coastal zone and its Zone Management Act, hereinafter re- tional criteria for the approval of a seg- management is a dynamic and evolving ferrtd to as the 'Manual." This Manual mented management program are set process wherein experience may reveal contains procedures and guidelines for forth in Subpart E i 923.43. Application the need for specially focused,. short-term the administration of all grants covered procedures for an administrative grant studies. leading to improved management under the Coastal Zone Management to assist in administering an approved processes and techniques. The OCZM will Act of 1972. It has been designed as a segmented management program will be consider such tasks and their costs, based tool for grantees, although It addresses the same as set forth in this subpart for upon demonstrated need and expected the responsibilities of the National applications to administer an approved contribution to more effective manage- Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra- management program for the entire ment programs. tion and its Office of Coastal Zone Man- coastal zone of a State. {d) The Form CD-292, Application for agement, which is responsible for admin- § 923.55 Appliion for the initial d Federal Assistance (Non-Construction istering programs under the Act. The inistivegnte. Programs), constitutes the formal appli- Manual incorporates a wide range of cation and must be submitted 60 days Federal requirements, including those (a) The Form CD-288, PreaPplica- prior to the desired grant beginning date. established by the Offce of Management tion for Federal Assistance, required The application must be accompanied by and Budget, the General Services Ad- only for the initial grant, must be sub- evidence of compliance with A-95 re- ministration, the Department of the mitted 120 days prior to the beginning quirements including the resolution of Treasury, the General Accounting Office date of the requested grant. The preo- any problems raised by the proposed and the Department of Commerce. In application shall include documentation, project. The OCZM win not accept appll- addition to specific policy requirements signed by the Governor, designating the cations substantially deficient in adher- of these agencies, the Manual includes State office, agency or entity to apply for ence to A-95 requirements. recommended policies and procedures for and administer the grant. Copies of the te) The State's work program iraple- grantees to use in submitting a grant approved management program are not menting the approved management pro- application. Inclusion of recommended required. The preapplication form may gram is to be set forth in Part IV, Pro- policies and procedures for grantees does be submitted prior to the Secretary's gram Narrative, of the Form CD-292 and not limit the choice of grantees in select- approval of the applicant's management must describe the work to be accom- ing those most useful and applicable to program provided, after consultation plshed during the grant period. The local requirements and conditions. with OCZM, approval Is anticipated work program should include: within 60 days of submittal of the (1) An identification of those elements § 923.51 Administralion of the pro- preapplicatio. of the approved managenent program gram. (b) All applications are subject to the that are to be supported all or in part The Congress assigned the responsal- provisions of OMB Circular A-95 (re- by the grant and the matching share, bility for the administration of the vised). The Form CD-288, Preapplica- hereinafter called the grant project. In Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 to tion for Federal Assistance. will be any event, activities related to the es- the Secretary of Commerce. who has des- transmitted to the appropriate clear- tablishment and implementation of State ignated the National Oceanic and Atmos- Inghouses at the time it is submitted to responsibilities pursuant to Section 307 pheric Administration (NOAA) as the the Office of Coastal Zone Management (c) (3) and Section 307(d) of the Act, are agency in the Department of Commerce (OCZM). If the application is deter- to be Included In the grant project. to manage the program. NOAA has estab- mined to be Statewide or broader in na- (2) A precise statement of the major lished the Office of Coastal Zone Man- ture, a statement to that effect shal be tasks required to implement each ele- agement for this purpose. Requests for attached to the Preapplication form ment. information on grant applications and submitted to OCZM. Such a determlna- (3) or each task, the following should the applications themselves should be tion does not preclude the State clear- be specified: directed to: inghouse from Involving areawide (I) A concise statement of how each Director. Office of Coastal Zone Management clearinghouses In the review. In any task will accomplish all or part of the (OczrT) event. whether the application is con- program element to which it is related. National oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis- sidered to be Statewide or not, the Pre- Identify any other State. areawide, re- tratlon. application form shall Include an attach- US. Department of Commerce meat indicating the date copies of the glonal or interstate agencies or local gov- Uck. Dep Maryland e icate copies of the ernme nts thIat will be allocated respon- Rocklle. Marnd 2085 Preapplication form were tran smitted to sbillty for carrying out all or portions of § 923.52 Slate responsibility. the State clearinghouse and If apll- the task. Indicate the estimated cost cable, the Identity of the areawide clear- of the subcontract/grwnt for each (a) The application shall contain a Inghouse(s) receiving copies of the Pre- allocatior. designation by the Governor of a coastal application form and the date(s)f. State of a single agency to receive and tr mitted. The Preapplication form (i) For each task indicate the esti- have fiscal and programmatic responsi- trap have fiscal and programmati c respoinse- may be used to meet the project notifi- mated total cost. Also Indicate the estl- ment the approved management pro- cation and review requirements of OMB mated total man-months, if any, allo- gram. Circular A-95 with the concurrence of ctted to the task from the applicant's ) A single State application willcover the appropriate clearinghouses. In the in-house staff. all program management elements, absence of such concurrence the project (fi) For each task, list the estimated whether carried out by State agencies, notification and review procedures, cost using the object class categories 6a. areawide/regional agencies, local govern- established State and areawide clearing- through k., Part 1m, Section B-Budget ments, interstate or other entities. houses, should be implemented simul- Categories of Form CD-292. II-13 FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 40, NO. 6.-THURSDAY, JANUARY 9, 1975 ###NEWPAGE n="173" ### BULBAND ItGULAIOW (4) The am of all ONe tak ne* In Iewmyb at OawnwMS MM NW 0- sub-paragraph (3) of Ii aPRp ges amu10dmenis Ia "won" a" has should eqOaI the tOta etMad r ct bee Materally &tltUd nuh abl8e- project costs. MMt wiln p"Mfld the buasi for an Wannu (5) Using two categories, Professional OMM certiiatian tat goe Approved and Clerical. Indicate the total number management program Yeang" lb, aet. of personnel in each category on the ftp- thus fulfilling. In part. fte 4quiraMaMl plicant's In-house staff, that will be as- of section 309(a) for a contlnulmg re- stoned to the grant project. Additionally view of management programs Indicate the number asslgned full time (3) The Governor's document dasig- and the number assigned less than fufl natingf the ftppllcat &agem Is Mt re- time In the two categories. quired. unless there has bms at chAnge (6) An Identification of those manage- of designation. meat programn elements. If any, that wIll (4) Capins of th approved manage- not be supported by the grant project, ment Program or approved -amndments and how they will be Implemented. theretoD are not required. * 923.56 Approval of applicmilona. [PS DOO.73-738 File 1-";:46 Sal (a) The application for an ad-in'is trative grant of amy coastal State with a management program approved by-the Secretary of Commerce, which complies with the policies and requirements of the Act and these guideline. shall be ap- proved by OCZK. assuming Available 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 falls to conform to the requirements of the Act or this subpart. Conference may be held on these matters. Corrections or adjust- mente to the application will provide the basis for resubmIttal of the application f or further consideration and review. (c) OCZM may. upon finding of exten- uatlng circumstances relating to *pplica- tions for assistance, Naive appropriate administrative requirements contained herein. *923.57 Amendment&. Amendments to an approved applica- tion must be submitted to, and approved by. the Secretary prior to initiation ot 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 00ZW. most such requests will be relatively minor In scope; therefore, approval may be presumed for minor ame ndments If the State has not been notifed of objections within 30 working days of date of postmark of the request, * 923.58 Applications for. secod and subsequent year grants. (a) Second and subsequent year ap- plIcations will follow the procedures Bet 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 1 923.55 (b) will be followed and the preappllc4- tion Is to be submitted 120 diys prior to the beginning date of .the requested grant. If the preapplicatlon 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 lift designee that the manage- ment program as approved earlier by the II-14 MIRM asSM. VOL 40, NO0. &-IIIUISO, UANAW9. 1975 ###NEWPAGE n="174" ### APPENDIX 3 WASHINGTON SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1971 0 eo ###NEWPAGE n="175" ### 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 RCW Short title. 90.58.020 RCW Legislative findings--State policy enunciated--Use preference. 90.58.030 RCW Definitions and concepts. 90.58.040 RCW Program applicable to shorelines of the state. 90.58.050 RCW Program as cooperative between local government and state--Responsibilities differentiated. 90.58.060 RCW Timetable for adoption of initial guidelines--Public hearings, notice of. 90.58.070 RCW Local governments to submit letters of intent--Department to act upon failure of local government. Amd 90.58.080 RCW Timetable for local governments to com- plete shoreline inventories and master programs. 90.58.090 RCW Approval of master program or segments thereof, when--Departmental alterna- tives when shorelines of state-wide significance--Later adoption of master program supersedes department program. 90.58.100 RCW Programs as constituting use regula- tions--Duties when preparing programs and amendments thereto--Program contents. 90.58.110 RCW Development of program within two or more adjacent local government juris- dictions--Development of program in segments, when. 90.58.120 RCW Adoption of rules, programs, etc., sub- ject to RCW 34.04.025--Public hearings, notice of--Public inspection after approval or adoption. Ill-i ###NEWPAGE n="176" ### 90.58.130 RCW Involvement of all persons and entities having interest, means. 90.58.140 RCW Development permits--Grounds for grant- ing--Departmental appeal on issuance-- Administration by local government, con- ditions--Rescission--When permits not required--A.pproval when permit for var- iance or conditional use. 90.58.150 RCW Selective commerical timber cutting, when. 90.58.160 RCW Prohibition against surface drilling for oil or gas, where. 90.58.170 RCW Shorelines hearings board--Established-- Members--Chairman--Quorum for decision-- Administrative and clerical assistance-- Expenses of members. 90.58.175 RCW Shorelines hearings board may adopt rules. 90.58.180 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. 90.58.190 RCW Review and adjustments to master programs. 90.58.200 RCA Rules and regulations. 90.58.210 RCW Court actions to insure against conflict- ing uses and to enforce. 90.58.220 RCW General penalty. 90.58.230 RCW Violators liable for damages resulting from violation--Attorney's fees and costs. 90.58.240 RCW Additional authority granted department and local governments. 90.58.250 RCW Department to cooperate with local govern- ments--Grants for development of master programs. 90.58.260 RCW State to represent its interest before federal agencies, interstate agencies and courts. 90.58.270 RCW Nonapplication to certain structures, docks, developments, etc., placed in navigable waters--Nonapplication to cer- tain rights of action, authority. 90.58.280 RCW Application to all state agencies, counties, public and municipal corpora- tions. 90.58.290 RCW Restrictions as affecting fair market value of property. 90.58.300 RCW Department as regulating state agency-- Special authority. 90.58.310 RCW Designation of shorelines of state-wide significance by legislature--Recommenda- tion by director, procedure. 90.58.320 RCW Height limitation respecting permits. 90.58.330 RCW Study of shorelines of cities and towns submitted to legislature--Scope. Ill-il ###NEWPAGE n="177" ### 90.58.340 RCW Use policies for land adjacent to shore- lines, development of. 90.58.350 RCW Nonapplication to treaty rights. 90.58.360 RCW Existing requirement for permits, certi- ficates, etc., not obviated. 90.58.900 RCW Liberal construction. 90.58.910 RCW Severability. 90.58.920 RCW Effective date. 90.58.930 RCW Referendum to the people--1971 act-- Determining if act continues in force and effect. ###NEWPAGE n="178" ### 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 is and may be cited as the "Shoreline Management Act of 1971." [1971 1st 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 governments, to prevent the inherent harm in an uncoordi- nated and piecemeal development of the state's shorelines. it is the policy of the state to provide for the manage- ment of the shorelines of the state by planning for and fos- tering all reasonable and appropriate uses. This policy is designed to insure the development of these shorelines in a manner which, while allowing for limited reduction of rights of the public in the navigable waters, will promote and enhance the public interest. This policy contemplates pro- tecting against adverse effects to the public health, the land and its vegetation and wildlife, and the waters of the state and their aquatic life, while protecting generally public rights of navigation and corollary rights incidental thereto. The legislature declares that the interest of all of 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: ###NEWPAGE n="179" ### (1) Recognize and protect the state-wide interest over local,!Aterest; ('2) Preserve the natural character of the shoreline; t3) Result in long term over short term benefit; Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline; te eincrease public access to publicly owned areas of the 4erelines; (6) Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline; (7) Provide for any other element as defined in RCW 90.58.100 deemed appropriate or necessary. In the implementation of this policy the public's oppor- tunity to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of natural shorelines of the state shall be preserved to the greatest extent feasible consistent with the overall best interest of the state and the people generally. To this end 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, iDust-tra-iand- comercial develApuents which endant on their loca- tion on or use of the shorelines of the state and other development that will provide an opportunity for substantial numbers of the people to enjoy the shorelines of the state. Permitted uses in the shorelines of the state shall be designed and conducted in a manner to minimize, insofar as practical, any resultant damage to the ecology and environment of the shoreline area and any interference with the public's use of the water. [1971 1st ex.s. c286 S 2.] Reviser's note: In subsection (7), a literal translation of the session law's reference " . . . section 11 of this 1971 act . . ." would read "RCW 90.58.110". The above reference to "RCW 90.58.100" which codifies section 10 of this act is believed proper in that (1) section 10 lists the elements includable within the master programs while section 11 neither defines nor mentions such elements, and (2) in the course of passage of the bill, section 7 was deleted causing old section 11 to be renumbered section 10, but the above reference was not amended in consonance with the renumbering. 90.58.030 DEFINITIONS AND CONCEPTS. As used in this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires, the following definitions and concepts apply: (1) Administration: (a) 'Department" means the department of ecology; 111-2 0 ###NEWPAGE n="180" ### (b) "Director" means the director of the department of ecology; (c) "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) 'ordinary high water mark" on all lakes, streams, and tidal water is that mark that will be found by examining the bed and banks and ascertaining where the presence and action of waters are so common and usual, and so long con- tinued in all ordinary years, as to mark upon the soil a char- acter distinct from that of the abutting upland, in respect to vegetation as that condition exists on June 1, 1971 or as it may naturally change thereafter: Provided, That in any area where the ordinary high water mark cannot be found, the ordinary high water mark adjoining salt water shall be the line of mean higher high tide and the ordinary high water mark adjoining fresh water shall be the line of mean high water; (c) "Shorelines of the state" are the total of all "shore- lines" and "shorelines of state-wide 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; III-3 ###NEWPAGE n="181" ### (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 i 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, CB) 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 Ci), (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 an 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; Cd) "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 III-4 ###NEWPAGE n="182" ### 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 markers and anchor buoys; (vi) Construction on wetlands by an owner, lessee or contract purchaser of a single family residence for his own use or for the use of his family, which residence does not exceed a height -f thirty-five feet above average grade level and which meets all requirements of the state agency or local government having jurisdiction thereof, other than requirements imposed pursuant to this chapter. (vii) Construction of a dock, designed for pleasure craft only, for the private noncommercial use of the owner, lessee, or contract purchaser of a single family residence, the cost of which does not exceed two thousand five hundred dollars. [1973 c 203 $ 1; 1971 ist ex.s. c 286 S 3.1] 90.58.040 PROGRAM APPLICABLE TO THE SHORELINES OF THE STATE The shoreline management program of this chapter shall apply to the shorelines of the state as defined in this chapter. (1971 1st ex.s. c 286 5 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 1st ex.s. c 286 S 5.] 90.58.060 TIMFTABLE FOR ADOPTION OF INITIAL GUIDELINES-- PUBLIC HEARINGS, NOTICE OF. (1) Within one hundred twenty days from June 1, 1971, the department shall submit to all local governments proposed 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. III-S ###NEWPAGE n="183" ### (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 1st ex.s. c 286 § 6.] 90.58.070 LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO SUBMIT LETTERS OF INTENT ---DEPARTMENT TO ACT UPON FAILURE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT. (1) Local governments are directed with regard to shorelines of the state in their various jurisdictions to submit to the director of the department, within six months from June 1, 1971, letters stating that they propose to complete an inventory and develop master programs for these shorelines as provided for in RCW 90.58.080. (2) If any local government fails to submit a letter as provided in subsection (1) of this section, or fails to adopt a 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 1st ex.s. c 286 § 7.] 90.58.080 TIMETABLE FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO COMPLETE SHORELINE INVENTORIES AND MASTER PROGRAMS. Local governments are directed with regard to shorelines of the state within their various jurisdictions as follows: (1) To complete within eighteen months after June 1, 1971, a comprehensive inventory of such shorelines. Such inventory shall include but not be limited to the general ownership patterns of the lands located therein in terms of public and private ownership, a survey of the general natural character- istics thereof, present uses conducted therein and initial projected uses thereof; (2) To develop, within twenty-four months after the adop- tion of guidelines as provided in RCW 90.58.060, a master program for regulation of uses of the shorelines of the state consistent with the guidelines adopted. (1974 3rd ex.s. c 61- S1, 1971 1st ex.s. c 286 § 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.] 111-6 ###NEWPAGE n="184" ### 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 submission by local govern- ment is not approved, the department shall suggest modifica- tions to the local government within ninety days from receipt of the submission. The local government shall have ninety days after it receives said modifications to consider the same and resubmit a master program to the department. Thereafter, the department shall adopt the resubmitted program or, if the department determines that said program does not provide for optimum implementation, it may develop and adopt an 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 1st ex.s. c 286 S 9.] is III1-7 ###NEWPAGE n="185" ### 90.58.100 PROGRAMS AS CONSTITUTING USE REGULATIONS--- DUTIES WHEN PREPARING PROGRAMS AND AMENDMENTS THERETO--PROGRAM CONTENTS. (1) The master programs provided f or 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; Cd) Conduct or support such further research, studies, surveys, and interviews as are deemed necessary; Ce) 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; Cc) 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; Ce) A use element which considers the proposed general distribution and general location and extent of the use on .:horelines and adjacent land areas for housing, business, indus- try, transportation, agriculture, natural resources, recreation, education, public buildings and grounds, and other categories of public and private uses of the land; (f) A conservation element for the preservation of natural resources, including but not limited to scenic vistas, aesthetics, and vital estuarine areas for fisheries and wild- life protection; 111-8 ###NEWPAGE n="186" ### (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 arnd the public interest suffers no substantial detrimental affect. The con- cept of this subsection shall be incorporated in the rules adapted by the department relating to the establishment of a permit system as provided in RCW 90.58.140(3). [1971 1st ex.s. c 286 S 10.] 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 1st ex.s. c 286 S 11.] 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: ###NEWPAGE n="187" ### (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 immediately0 preceding the hearing in one or more newpapers of general circulation in the county in which the hearing is to be held. (2) All guidelines, regulations, designations or master programs adopted or approved under this-chapter shall be available for public inspection at the office of the department or the appropriate county auditor and city clerk. The terms "adopt" and "approve" for purposes of this section, shall include modifications and rescission of guidelines. [1971 1st ex.s. c 286 5 12.] 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 and 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 government, 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 1st ex.s. c 286 S 13.] 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 applicable master program has become effective, only when the development proposed is consistent with: (i) The policy of RCW 90.58.020; III-lo ###NEWPAGE n="188" ### 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 department 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 program and the policy of RCW 90.58.020. (3) Local government shall establish a program, consis- tent with rules adopted by the department, for the admnini- stration and enforcement of the permit system provided in this section. Any such system shall include a requirement that all applications and permits shall be subject to the same public notice procedures as provided for applications for waste disposal permits for new operations under RCW 90.48.170. The administration of the system so established-shall be performed exclusively by local government. (4) Such system shall include provisions to assure that construction pursuant to a permit will not begin or be author- ized until forty-five days from the date of final approval by the local government or, except in the case of any permit issued to the state of Washington, department of highways, for the construction and modification of the SR 90 (1-90) bridges across Lake Washington, until all review proceedings are ter- minated if such proceedings were initiated within forty-five days from the date of final approval by the local government. (5) Any ruling an 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: ###NEWPAGE n="189" ### (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 co-munity 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. c 286 $ 15.1 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 ###NEWPAGE n="190" ### CLERICAL ASSISTANCE--EXPENSES OF MEMBERS. A shorelines hearings board sitting as a quasi judicial body is hereby established which shall be made up of six members: Three members shall be members of the pollution control hearings board; two members, one appointed by the association of 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 may require. The members of the shorelines appeals board shall receive the compensation, travel, and subsistence expenses as provided in RCW 43.03.050 and 43.03.060. [1971 1st ex.s. c 286 S 17.] 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- s 3.1 90.58.180 APPEALS FROM GRANTING, DENYING OR RESCINDING PERMITS, PROCEDURE--BOARD TO ACT, WHEN--LOCAL GOVERNMENT 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 otherwise, 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. III-13 ###NEWPAGE n="191" ### (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 (v) 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.] 111-14 ###NEWPAGE n="192" ### 90.58.190 REVIEW AND ADJUSTMENTS TO MASTER PROGRAMS. The department and each local government shall perial1y revkew .ny master programs under its jurisdiction and make such adjust- ments-ttmra-f6-as-e necessary. Each local government shall submit any proposed adjustments, to the department as soon as they are completed. No such adjustment shall become effective until it has been approved by the department. [1971 1st ex.s. c 286 S 19.] 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 1st ex.s. c 286 S 20.] 90.58.210 COURT ACTIONS TO INSURE AGAINST CONFLICTING USES AND TO ENFORCE. The attorney general or the attorney for the local government shall bring such injunctive, declaratory, or other actions as are necessary to insure that no uses are made of the shorelines of the state in conflict with the pro- visions and programs of this chapter, and to otherwise enforce the provisions of this chapter. (1971 1st 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 1st 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, ###NEWPAGE n="193" ### the court in its discretion may award attorney's fees and costs of the suit to the prevailing party. [1971 1st ex.s. c 286 S 23.] 90.58.240 ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY GRANTED DEPARTMENT AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT.= In addition to any other powers granted hereunder, the department and local governments may: (1) Acquire lands and easements within shorelines of the state by purchase, lease, or gift, either alone or in concert with other governmental entities, when necessary to achieve implementation of master programs adopted hereunder; (2) Accept grants, contributions, and appropriations from any agency, public or private, or individual for the purposes of this chapter; (3) Appoint advisory committees to assist in carrying out the purposes of this chapter; (4) Contract for professional or technical services required by it which cannot be performed by its employees. [1972 1st ex.s. 53 S 1; 1971 ex.s. c 286 5 24.] 90.58.250 DEPARTMENT TO COOPERATE WITH LOCAL GOVERNMENTS --GRA14TS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF MASTER P'ROGRAMS. The department is directed to cooperate fully with local governments in discharg- ing their responsibilities uader 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 1st 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 commission, before interstate agencies and the courts with regard to activi- ties or uses of shorelines of the state and the program of this chapter. Where federal or interstate agency plans, activities, or procedures conflict with state policies, all reasonable steps available shall be taken by the state to preserve the integrity of its policies. [1971 1st ex.s. c 286 § 26.] III-16 ###NEWPAGE n="194" ### 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 S 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. III-17 ###NEWPAGE n="195" ### 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 significance. Prior to making any such recommendation the director shall hold a public hearing 'in the county or counties where the shore- line under consideration is located. It shall be the duty of the county commissioners of each county where such a hearing is conducted to submit their views with regard to a proposed desig- nation to the director at such date as the director determines but in no event shall the date be later than sixty days after the public hearing in the county. [1971 1st ex.s. 286 5 31.] 90.58.320 HEIGHT LIMITATION RESPECTING PERMITS. No per- mit shall be issued pursuant to this chapter for any new or expanded building or structure of more than thirty-five feet above average grade level on shorelines of the state that will obstruct the view of a substantial number of residences on areas adjoining such shorelines except where a master program does not prohibit the same and then only when overriding con- siderations of the public interest will be served. [1971 1st 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 be limited to the following: (1) Events leading to the establishment of the various harbor lines pertaining to cities of the state; (2) The location of all such harbor lines; (3) The authority for establishment and criteria used in location of the same; (4) Present activities and uses made within harbors and their relationship to harbor lines; (5) Legal aspects pertaining to any uncertainty and incon- sistency; and (6) The relationship of federal, state and local govern- ments to regulation of uses and activities pertaining to the area of study. The report shall be submitted to the legislature not later than December 1, 1972. [1971 1st ex.s c 286 § 33.] 90.58.340 USE POLICIES FOR LAND ADJACENT TO SHORELINES, DEVELOPMENT OF. All state agencies, counties, and public and 111-18 ###NEWPAGE n="196" ### 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 S 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 $ 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 Is 111-19 ###NEWPAGE n="197" ### state is directed to place this 1971 act an 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. 0 [1971 let ex.s. c 286 S42.] III-200 ###NEWPAGE n="198" ### APPENDIX 4 FINAL GUIDELINES FOR THE WASHINGTON SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1971 is ###NEWPAGE n="199" ### State of WXhhirton oroTAl'ogy .4 0 FINAL GUIDELINES SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1971 June 20, 1972 IV-1 ###NEWPAGE n="200" ### STATE OF WASHINGTON OLYMPIA DANIEL J. EVANS GO'E RNnp The State of Washington possesses shoreline areas whose uniqueness and diversity are unequalled in the Nation. We have inherited a treasure of untamed rivers, peaceful lakes, and bountiful marine areas. Such grandeur lured our forefathers here and continues to attract tourists in ever-increasing numbers. We have all had the opportunity to explore these natural areas - to 'swim and boat in the waters, observe the marine life, and fish in our cold, clear mountain streams. Experiences in other parts of the Country, however, and increasingly so here in Washington, show that we cannot continue to take our shoreline resources for granted. our shorelines are a limited asset - we cannot increase them, but we can lose them if we fail to protect them through a sound, comprehensive management program. The Shoreline Management Act of 1971, which was passed by our Legislature and became effective on June 1, 1971, provides the means for developing the necessary planning and management program between local government and the state. Local governments have the primary responsibility for0 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 IV- 2 ###NEWPAGE n="201" ### June 2, 1972 \-I 1 f Enclosed is a copy of the Final Guidelines for local government, prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971. AS required by the Shoreline Act, these Guidelines will be formally adopted in a public hearing, to be held in the Olympia City Hall on June 20, 1972, at 9:30 A. M. Following the time table set forth in the Act, the first set of proposed guidelines was distributed to local governments on September 28, 1971. Local governments then had a period of ninety days to review the guidelines and submit comments and suggestions to the Department of Ecology for consideration in the revision of the guidelines. Final proposed guidelines were then submitted to local governments and interested citizens and groups on January 26, 1972. An extensive series of public information meetings were held to discuss the final proposed guidelines and to obtain additional input for their refinement. Two public hearings were held on the final proposed guidelines-one in Spokane on March 21, 1972, and one in Olympia on March 23, 1972. The enclosed Final Guidelines are a result of comments received in those hearings and from the correspondence and comments of concerned individuals, citizen groups and industry. We feel confident that these Final Guidelines are expressive of the concerns of the citizens of the State for the management of their shorelines and of the intent of the Legislature in framing the Shoreline Act. The primary duty for implementing the plan- ning phase of the shoreline program, based on the direction set by these Guidelines, now rests with the cities and counties of our State. Sincerely, Director JAB: gk IV-3 ###NEWPAGE n="202" ### 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 due notice and in a meeting open to the public, held in the City of Olym. pia Commission Chambers, City Hall, 8th and Plum, Olympia, Washington, on June 20, 1972, do promul- gate and adopt the annexed rules and regulations, to wit: The adoption of guidelines for the development of master programs for regulation of the uses of shorelines of the state pursuant to the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, Chapter 286, Laws of 1971, First Extraordinary Session, Chapter 90.58 RCW, adopting a new chapter 173-16 WAC. as permanent rules of this agency. (21 This order after being first recorded in the order register of this agency, shall be forwarded to the Code Reviser for filing, pursuant to chapter 34.04 RCW and chapter 1-12 WAC. APPROVED AND ADOPTED June 20, 1972. By JOHN A. BIGGS Director IV-4 ###NEWPAGE n="203" ### PURPOSE WAC 173-16-010 PURPOSE. This regulation is adopted pursuant to chapter 90.58 RCW, in order to: (1) Serve as standards for implementation of the pol- icy of chapter 90.58 RCW for regulations of uses of the shorelines; and (2) Provide criteria to local governments and the department of ecology in developing master pro- grams. WAC 173-16-020 APPLICABILITY. The provisions of this chapter shall apply state-wide to all shorelines and shorelines of state-wide significance as defined in RCW 90.58 and WAC 173-16-030. IV-S5 ###NEWPAGE n="204" ### TABLE OF CONTENTS Washingto' Aclmnstrotlve Page Coae Number INTRODUCTION 1 THE MASTER PROGRAM 2 WAC 173-16-040 0 CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT 2 WAC 173-16-040(1) POLICY STATEMENTS 3 WAC 173-16-040(2) MASTER PROGRAM ELEMENTS 3 WAC 173-16-040(3) ENVIRONMENTS 4 WAC 173-16-040(4) Natural Environment 4 WAC 173-16-040(4)(i) Conservancy Environment 5 WAC 173-16-04014)(ii) Rural Environment 5 WAC 173-16-040(4)(iii) Urban Environment 5 WAC 173-16-040(4)(iv) SHORELINES OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE 6 WAC 173-16-040(5) THE NATURAL SYSTEMS 6 WAC 173-16-050 MARINE BEACHES 6 WAC 173-16-050(1) SPITS & BARS 7 WAC 173-16-050(2) DUNES 7 WAC 173-16-050(3) ISLANDS 8 WAC 173-16-050(4) ESTUARIES 8 WAC 173-16-050(5) MARSHES, BOGS AND SWAMPS 8 WAC 173-16-05016) LAKES 8 WAC 173-16-050(7) RIVERS, STREAMS AND CREEKS 8 WAC 173-16-05018) FLOOD PLAINS 9 WAC 173-16-050(9) PUGET SOUND 9 WAC 173-16-050(10) PACIFIC OCEAN 9 WAC 173.16-050(11) THE USE ACTIVITIES 10 WAC 173-16-060 AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES 10 WAC 173-16-060(1) AQUACULTURE 11 WAC 173-16-060(2) FOREST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 11 WAC 173-16-06013) COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT 11 WAC 173-16-060(4) MARINAS 12 WAC 173-16-060(5) MINING 12 WAC 173-16-060(6] OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, SIGNS AND B;LLBOARDS 12 WAC 173-16-060171 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 13 WAC 173-16-060(8) UTILITIES . 13 WAC 173-16-06019) PORTS AND WATER-RELATED INDUSTRY 13 WAC 173-16-060110) BULKHEADS 14 WAC 173-16-060)11) BREAKWATERS 14 WAC 173-16-060112) JETTIES AND GROINS 14 WAC 173-16-060113) LANDFILL 15 WAC 173-16-060(14) SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL 15 WAC 173-16-060(15) DREDGING 15 WAC 173-16.060(16) SHORELINE FLOOD PROTECTION 15 WAC 173-16-060[17) ROAD AND RAILROAD DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION 16 WAC 173-16-060(18) PIERS 16 WAC 173-16-060(19) ARCHEOLOGICAL AREAS AND HISTORIC SITES 16 WAC 173-16-060(20) RECREATION 17 WAC 173-16-060(21) VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USES .17 WAC 173:16-070 GLOSSARY 18 WAC 173-16-030 APPENDIX 19 WAC 173-16-200 IV-6 0 ###NEWPAGE n="205" ### INTRODUCTION The Shoreline Management Act of 1971 is based eral terms so that they can be used by all local on the philosophy that the shorelines of the State are governments, regardless of size or geographical loca- among the most valuable, and fragile, of its natural tion. The critical point of the entire program is the resources and that there is great concern throughout manner in which local governments interpret and uti- the State relating to their utilization, protection, resto- lize these guidelines in the development of their mas- ration, and preservation. Therefore, coordinated plan- ter programs. ning is necessary in order to protect the public interest associated with the shorelines of the State, while at The information in this guideline package has the same time recognizing and protecting private been presented in three parts: The Master Program, property rights consistent with public interest. This which sets forth the procedures required for comple- planning is to be a rational and concerted effort, tion of the master programs; The Natural Systems, jointly performed by federal, state and local govern- which provides a brief look at each of the natural ment. It is further felt that the interest of all of the phenomena which is part of the total shoreline envi- people shall be paramount in the management of ronment; and, The Use Activities, which presents the shorelines of statewide significance, and that the pub- actual standards for the establishment of master pro- lic should have the opportunity to enjoy the physical grams and provides direction for shoreline develop- and aesthetic qualities of natural shorelines of the ment until master programs are completed. Each of State. the parts is preceded by an explanatory paragraph which relates that part to the others in the program. The express purpose of the Shoreline Management Act is to provide for management of Washington's These guidelines are the beginning of a program shorelines by planning for and fostering all reason- which will become more meaningful as our knowl- able and appropriate uses. This policy is directed at edge of our environment increases. Our knowledge is enhancement of shorelines rather than restriction of not yet sophisticated enough to precisely determine uses. the nature of the complex and interrelated chemical biological, physical and aesthetic factors within our As required by the Shoreline Management Act of environment. 1971, these guidelines have been written to serve as standards for implementation of the policy of this The guidelines were written with a spirit of opti- legislation for regulation of uses of the shorelines, mism, with the hope that our legacy of natural gran- prior to adoption of master programs, while also pro- deur in Washington will be used more wisely in the viding criteria to local governments and the Depart- brief period of time it is entrusted to us, so that ment of Ecology in developing master programs. succeeding generations may have it to enjoy and ex- The guidelines have been written in relatively gen- tend our concern into their future, IV-7 ###NEWPAGE n="206" ### THE MASTER PROGRAM The act requires that prior to approval or adoption of a master program, or a portion thereof by the IWAC 173-16-040) deportment, at least one public hearing snail be heid The master progrcim is to he developed by local in each county affected by the program for the pur- government to provide an objective guide for regulot- pose of obtaining the views and comments of the ing the use of shorelines The master program should public. clearly state local policies for the development of The act charges the state and local government shorelands and indicate how these policies relate to with not only the responsibility of making reasonable the goals of the local citizens and. to specific regula- efforts to inform the people of the state about the tions of uses affecting the physical development of shoreline management program, but also actively en- land and water resources throughout the local govern- courages participation by all persons, private groups, ments jurisdiction. and entities, which have an interest in shoreline man- The master program developed by each local gov- agement. ernment will reflect the unique shoreline conditions To meet these responsibilities, the local govern- and the development requirements which exist and ment agencies responsible for the development of the .are projected in that area. As part of the process of master program should establish a method for obtain- master program development, local governments can ing and utilizing citizen involvement. The extent of identify problems and seek solutions which best sat- citizen involvement in the formulation of the master isfy their needs. program will be considered by the department in the A master program, by its definitibn, is general, review of the program. A failure by the local govern- comprehensive and long-range in order to be applica- ment to encourage and utilize citizen involvement, or ble to the whole area for a reasonable length of time to justify not having done so, may be noted as a under changing conditions, failure to comply with the act. Though the department recognizes various forms "General" means that the policies, proposals and Though the department recognizes various forms "General' means that the policies, proposals and of citizen involvement as viable approaches for in- guidelines are not directed towards any specific sites. of citizen involv ement as viable approaches for in- volving the public in the master program, the local "Comprehensive" means that the program is di- government will be encouraged to utilize the method rected towards all land and water uses, their impact as suggested in these guidelines. If a local government on the environment and logical estimates of future does not follow these guidelines, it should provide an growth. It also means that the program shall recog- explanation of the method used. The department will nize plans and programs of the other government be available to explain and help organize the sug- units, adjacent jurisdictions and private developers. gested approach to citizen involvement upon request. "Long-range" means that the program is to be The suggested approach to citizen involvement to directed at least 20 to 30 years into the future, look be utilized by the local government agency responsi- beyond immediate issues, and follow creative objec- ble for the development of the master program in- tives rather than a simple projection of current trends cludes the following: and conditions. (a) Appoint a citizen advisory committee whose Finally, chapter 90.58 RCW requires that the ms- function will be to guide the formulation of the master Finally, chapter 90.58 RCW requires that the mas- ter program shall constitute use regulations for the program through a series of public evening meetings various shorelines of the state. Specific guidelines are and at least one publ ic hearing. The committee mem- outlined in RCW 90.58.100o1ei for preparing the master bers should represenlt sboHowever the advisory cam- programs to accomplish this purpose. It is the inten- mitteewell s environmentalis to be a substitute for general citizen tion of these guidelines, especially those related to mittee itself is not to be a substitute for general citizen tion of these guidelines, especially those related to involvement and input. The aim of the committee will citizen involvement, and the inventory to aid in carry- be to utilize citizen inputtee will ing out this section of the act. be to utiiz citizen input in: (i) Studying existing public policies related to To facilitate an effective implementation of chapter shorelines. 90.58 RCW throughout the state, the procedures on (iil Defining the needs to satisfy local demands for the following pages shall be observed while develop- shorelines. ing master programs for the shorelines. Exceptions to Studyng the type and condton of local some of the specific provisions of these guidelines shorelines relative to needs. may occur where unique circumstances justify such departure. Any departure from these guidelines must, (v) Developing goals and policies for the master however, be compatible with the intent of the Shore- program with the local government fulfilling the line Management Act as enunciated in RCW specifications of the master program, including des- 90.58.020. Further, in all cases, local governments ignation of the environments. must meet the master program requirements specified (v) Identifying use conflicts. in the Shoreline Management Act of 1971. (vi) Proposing alternatives for the use of shore- lines. (vii) Examining the effects of the master program Citizen Involvement (WAC 173-16-040(1 )) on the environment. While public involvement and notification is re- (b) The citizen advisory committee should hold at quired of the master program at the time of adoption least three public meetings during development of the by the act, the general public must be involved in the master program and designation of the environments initral planning stage during formulation of the mas- according to the following guidelines: ter plan. 'i) Public notice las stated in subsection 1 below) VT- 8 ###NEWPAGE n="207" ### must be provided seven days prior to the evening (i) Public notice shall include: meeting. (i) Reference to the authority under which the rule lii) All meetings must be open to the public for is proposed. free discussion. Iii) A statement of either the terms or substance of liii) Meetings should be held in the evening at a the proposed rule or a description of the subjects location accessible to the general public. and issues involved. Ilv) Record of all meetings should be filed with liii) The time, place and manner in which inter- the local government and made available to the ested persons may present their views thereon (as public. stated in RCW 30.04.025). (vI Local government should provide resource per- sons to assist in the preparation, organization Policy Statements (WAC 173-16-04012)) and diffusion of information. Each local government shall submit policy state- (vi) The final evening meeting should be held at ments, developed through the citizen involvement least seven days prior to the public hearing. process, regarding shoreline development as part of Icl A newsletter should be published by the advi- its master program. Because goal statements are often sory committee in cooperation with the local govern- too general to be useful to very specific decision prob- ment. lems, the policy statements are to provide a bridge for (i) The information sheet should be available to formulating and relating use regulations to the goals also developed through the citizen involvement proc- the public at posted locations. ess. In summary, the policy statements must reflect the liil It should be available after the first evening intent of the act, the goals of the local citizens, and public meeting and prior to the second. specifically relate the shoreline management goals to liiil The date, time, and location of future meet- the master program use regulations. ings and hearings should be stated. Clearly stated policies are essential to the viability (ivI A phone number should be provided to obtain of the master programs. The policy statements will not further information. only support the environmental designations ex- (v) Public notice should be made of the availabil- plained below, but, also being more specific than goal ity of the newsletter as stated in subsection (d) statements, will provide an indication of needed envi- Idl Publicity of the master program should utilize: ronmental designations and use regulations. (il Public notice postings as per subsection (i) The following methodology for developing policy below. statements is recommended: (ii) Newsletter. (a) Obtain a broad citizen input in developing (iii) Radio, T.V. and local news media. policy by involving interested citizens and all private (iv) A local paper of general circulation. and public entities having interest or responsibilities relating to shorelines. Form a citizen advisory commit- tee and conduct public meetings as outlined in WAC lel At least one public hearing should be held by 173-16-040(1) to encourage citizens to become in- the local government after the three public meetings volved in developing a master program. have been held to discuss the proposed master plan. (b) Analyze existing policies to identify those pol- ii) Public notice (as stated in subsection (i) below) icies that may be incorporated into the master pro- must be made a minimum of once in each of three gram and those which conflict with the intent of the weeks immediately preceding the hearing in one act. Further, identify constraints to local planning and or more newspapers of general circulation in the policy implementation which are a result of previous area in which the hearing is to be held, government actions, existing land-use patterns, ac- (ii) The master program should be available for tions of adjacent jurisdictions or other factors not sub- public inspection at the local government office and ject to local control or influence. available upon request at least seven days prior to (c) Formulate goals for the use of shoreline areas the public hearing. and develop policies to guide shoreland activities to (f) Prior to adoption of the master program, all achieve these goals. reasonable attempts should have been made to ob- tain a general concurrence of the public and the advi- The policies should be consistent with RCW sory committee. The method of obtaining or measur- 90.58.020 and provide guidance and support to local ing concurrence must be established by the local gov- government actions regarding shoreline management. ernment and must provide a clear indication of how Additionally, the policies should express the desires of citizen input is utilized. local citizens and be based on principles of resource (g9 If the level of concurrence on the master pro- management which reflect the state-wide public inter- grom-ns not considered adequate by the advisory com- est in all shorelines of state-wide significance. mittee at the conclusion of the public hearing, the local government should hold subsequent public meet- Master Program Elements (WAC 173-16-040(3)) ings and public hearings until such time as adequate Consistent with the general nature of master pro- concurrence as per subsection (f) above is reached. grams, the following land and water use elements are (h) Attached to the master program upon its sub- to be dealt with, when appropriate, in the local mas- mission to the department of ecology shall be a rec- ter programs. By dealing with shoreline uses, system- ord of public meetings and citizen involvement. A atically as belonging to these generic classes of activi- discussion of the use of citizen involvement and mea- ties, the policies and goals in the master programs surement on concurrence should be included. can be clearly applied to different shoreline uses. In IV-9 ###NEWPAGE n="208" ### the cbisr-nci' of this kind of specificity in the master and urban! which provi:e the framework fo" imole- Droarcirr the application of policy and use regula- menting shoreiine Doilc:es and regulator,' measures lions could bon inconsistent and airbitrory. This system is seaoned to encourage uses in each The poln elements are- environment which enhance the character of that envi- Ia: Economic development element for the location ronment. At the same time, loca government may and desan of industries, transoortation facilitites, port place reasonable standards and restrictions cn devel- facil:ie, tourist facilities, commercial and other dlevel- opment so that sJch development does not disrupt or crpments that are particularly dependent on shoreland destroy the character of the environment locations. The basic intent of this system is to utilize per- !h! Public access elements for assessing the need formonce standards which regulate use activities in for providing public access to shoreline areas. accordance with goals and oblectives defined locally Ic) Circulation element for assessing the location rather than to exclude any use from any one environ- and extent of existing and proposed major thorough- ment. Thus, the particular uses or type of develop- fares tronsportation routes, terminals and other public ments placed in each environment must be designed facilities and correlating those facilities with the shore- and located so that there ore no effects detrimental to line use elements, achieving the objectives of the environment designo- Idl Recreational element for the preservation and tions c d local development criteria expansion of recreational opportunities through pro- This approach provides an 'umbrella" environ- grams of acquisition, development and various means ment class over local planning and zoning on the of less-than-fee acquisition. shorelines. Since every area is endowed with different le) Shoreline use element for considering: resources, has different intensity of development and li) The pattern of distribution and location require- attaches different social values to these physical and ments of la nd uses on shorelines and adjacent economic characteristics, the environment designations areas, including, but not limited to, housing, com- should not be regarded as a substitute for local plan- merce, industry, transportation, public buildings ning and land-use regulations. and utilities, agriculture, education and natural re- The basic concept for using the system is for local sources. governments to designate their shorelines into envi- (ii) The pattern of distribution and location re- ronment categories that reflect the natural character of quirements of water uses including, but not limited the shoreline areas and the goals for use of character- to, aijuaculture, recreation and transportation. istically different shorelines. The determination as to li) Conservation element for the preservation of which designation should be given any specific area the natural shoreline resources, considering such char- should be mode in the following manner: octeristics as scenic vistas, parkways, estuarine areas ii) The resources of the shoreline areas should be for fish and wildlife protection, beaches and other analyzed for their opportunities and limitations for valuable natural or aesthetic features. different uses. Completion of the comprehensive in- (g) Historical/cultural eelment for protection and ventory of resources is a requisite to identifying restoration of buildings, sites and areas having his- resource attributes which determine these opportu. *oric, cultural, educational or scientific values. nities and limitations. (h} In addition to the above-described elements, (ii) Each of the plan elements should be analyzed hI Iovenmedditont the above-described to eincludein t for their effect on the various resources throughout .ocal governments are encouraged to include in their aster programs, an element concerned with the re shoreline areas. Since shorelines are only a part of master programs, an element concerned with the res- toration of areas to a natural useful condition which the system of resources within local jurisdiction, it is particularly important that planning for shore- -re blighted by abandoned and dilapidated struc- s be considered an integra planning fof area-wide rures. Local governments are also encouraged to in- nes be considered n inter prt of re-wide lude in their mastger programs arny other edements planning. Further, plans, policies and regulations :ude in their master programs any other elements, for lands adjacent *o the shorelines of the state which, because of present uses or future needs, areent to the shorelines of the stte deemed appropriate and necessary to effectuate the should be reviewed In accordance with RCW 90- Shoreline Management Act. (iii) Public desires should be considered through the citizen involvement process to determine which Environments (WAC 173-16-040(4)) environment designations reflect local values and in order to plan and effectively manage shoreline aspirations for the development of different shore- resources, a system of categorizing shoreline areas is line areas. required for use by local governments in the prepara- The management objectives and features which ton of master programs. The system is designed to characterize each of the environments are given below orovide a uniform basis for applying policies and use to provide a basis for environment designation within regulations within distinctively different shoreline local jurisdictions. ureas. 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- Natural Environment (WAC 173-16-040(4)(b)i)) The bilities and limitations of the shoreline being consid- natural environment is intended to preserve and re- ered for development and the goals and aspirations _ bstbn atural resource systems existing relatively of local citizenry. 'ee rhitnn influence. Local poltcies to ch his objective should aim to regulate all potential develop- The recommended system classifies shorelines into ments degrading or changing the natural characteris- four distinct environments (natural, conservancy, rural tics which make these areas unique and valuable. ###NEWPAGE n="209" ### lib, I,,.,,,, (.*l-i.hrrf.,- u1i regulcition in these urerls spaces and opportunities for recreational uses compat should be on natural systems and resources which ible with aaricultural activities. require severe restrictions of intensities and types of The rural environment is intended for those areas uses to maintain them in a natural state. Therefore, characterized by intensiv e gricultur and recrea activities which may degrade the actual or potential tionl uses a nd those areas h avi ng a high cdabre vdui,, of this rmvironment shouldl be strictly regulated. vili of tvly nvirinment showd lring be strictly regulintehe. to support active agricultural practices and intensive IAny irnivily which would bring about a change in the recreational development. Hence, those areas that are existing situation would be desirable only if such a lready used for agricultural purposes, or which have change would contribute to the preservation of the agricultural potential should be maintained for pres- existing character. ent and future agricultural needs. Designation of ruroa The primary determinant for designating an area environments should also seek to alleviate pressures of as a natural environment is the actual presence of urban expansion on prime forming areas. some unique natural or cultural features considered New developments in a rural environment are to valuable in their natural or original condition which reflect the character of the surrounding area by lm t- are relatively intolerant of intensive human use. Such features should be defined, identified and quantified ing residential density, providing permanent open in the shoreline inventory. The relative value of the space and by maintaining adequate building setbacks from water to prevent shoreline resources from being resources is to be based on local citizen opinion and rom w ater to prevent shoreline res the needs and desires of other people in the rest of estro yed for other rural types of uses. the state. Public recreation facilities for public use which can be located and designed to minimize conflicts with Conservancy Environment (WAC 173-16-04014)(b)(ii)) agricultural activities are recommended for the rural The obiective in designota!g a conservancy environ- environment. Linear water access which will prevent ment is toprotect, conserve and manage existing not- overcrowding in any one area, trail systems for safe ural resources and valucoble historic an-d-lturot' areas nonmotorized traffic along scenic corridors and provo. i_.ietord.oesure. a cortinyuous flow ofT recreational sions for recreational viewing of water areas illustrate benefits to the public and to .achieve sustained re- some of the ways to ensure maximum enjoyment of source utilization. recreational opportunities along shorelines without conflicting with agricultural uses. In a similar fashion, The conservancy environment is for those areas agricultural activities should be conducted in a man- which are intended to maintain their existing charac- ner which will enhance the opportunities for shoreline ter. The preferred uses are those which are noncon- recreation. Farm management practices which prevent sumptive of the physical and biological resources of erosion and subsequent siltation of water bodies and the area. Nonconsumptive uses are those uses which minimize the flow of waste material into water can utilize resources on a sustained yield basis while courses ore to be encouraged by the master program minimally reducing opportunities for other future uses for rural environments. of the resources in the area. Activities and uses of a nonpermanent nature which do not substantially de- UrbanEnvironmentlWAC 173-16-040(4)1b)(ivl.RThenhb- grade the existing character of an area are appropri- jective of the urbn environment is to ensure optiLnum ate uses for a conservancy environment. Examples of utilization of shorelineL wi thnn ._urbgrLized._re.asby uses that might be predominant in a conservancy providing for intensive public use and by managing environment include diffuse outdoor recreation activi- development so that it enhances and maintains shore- ties, timber harvesting on a sustained yield basis, lineisf r a multiplicitZ of urban uses.- passive agricultural uses such as pasture and range lands, and other related uses and activities. The urban environment is an area of high-intensity land-use including residential, commercial, and in- The designation of conservancy environments dustrial development. The environment does not nec- should seek to satisfy the needs of the community as essarily include all shorelines within an incorporated to the present and future location of recreational areas city, but is particularly suitable to those areas pres- proximate to concentrations of population, either ex- ently subjected to extremely intensive use pressure, as isting or projected. For example, a conservancy envi- well as areas planned to accommodate urban expan- ronment designation con be used to complement city, sion. Shorelines planned for future urban expansion county or state plans to legally acquire public access should present few biophysical limitations for urban to the water. activities and not have a high priority for designation as an alternative environment. The conservancy environment would also be the most suitable designation for those areas which pre- Because shorelines suitable for urban uses are a sent too severe biophysical limitations to be desig- limited resource, emphasis should be given to devel- noted as rural or urban environments. Such limitations opment within already developed areas and particu- would include areas of steep slopes presenting ero- larly to water-dependent industrial and commercial sion and slide hazards, areas prone to flooding, and uses requiring frontage on navigable waters. areas which cannot provide adequate water supply or sewage disposal. in the master program, priority is also to be given to planning for public visual and physical access to water in the urban environment. Identifying needs Rural Environment IWAC 173-16-040141(b)(iii)) The and planning for the acquisition of urban land for rural environment is intended to protect agricultural permanent public access to the water in the urban lIj prmanentppubic restrict intensr ieve urba n Ie urbal on __expolnson, restro ct intens ve eveio p- environment should be accomplished in the master ment along. u_ndelyetov ed _h.oreinesfunction as a program. To enhance waterfront and ensure maximum buffer between urban areas, a-nd mai-ntaiin open public use, industrial and commercial facilities should IV-11 ###NEWPAGE n="210" ### he designed to Dermit pedestrian waterfront activities. term and ootenttally costly impairments to the Where prictcaible. various access points ought to be natural environment linked to nonmotcrized transportation routes, such as (iii) Actively promote aesthetic considerations wher bicycle and hiking paths. contemplating new development, redevelopmert Shorelines of State-wide of existing facilities or for the general enhancement Significance (WAC 173-16-040(5]) of shoreline areas. The act designated certain shorelines as shorelines (dl Protect the resources and ecology of shorelines. of state-wide significance. Shorelines thus designated Development guidelines: are important to the entire state. Because these shore- (i) Leave undeveloped those areas which contain lines are major resources from which all people in the a unique or fragile natural resource state derive benefit, the guidelines and master pro- lii) Prevent erosion and sedimentation that would grams must give preference to uses which favor public alter the natural function of the water system In and long-range goals. areas where erosion and sediment control practices Accordingly, the act established that local master will not be effective, excavations or other activities programs shall give preference to uses which-meet the which increase erosion are to be severely limited. principles outlined below in order of preference. (iii) Restrict or prohibit public access onto areas Guidelines for ensuring that these principles are incor- which cannot be maintained in a natural condition porated into the master programs and adhered to in under human uses. implementing the act follow each principle. lel Increase public access to publicly owned areas (a) Recognize and protect the state-wide interest of the shorelines. Development guidelines: over local interest. Development guidelines: (i) In master programs, give priority to developing (i) Solicit comments and opinions from groups and paths and trails to shoreline areas, linear access individuals representing state-wide interests by along the shorelines, and to developing upland circulating proposed master programs for review parking. and comment by state agencies, adjacent juris- (ii) Locate development inland from the ordinary dictions' citizen advisory committees, and state- highwater mark so that access is enhanced. wide interest groups. (See appendix, Reference (f) Increase recreational opportunities for the pub- No. 32.) lic on the shorelines. Development guidelines: (iil Recognize and take into account state agencies' ii) Plan for and encourage development of facilities policies, programs and recommendations in devel. for recreational use of the shorelines. oping use regulations. Reference to many of these lii) Reserve areas for lodging and related facilities agencies policies are provided in the appendix. on uplands well away from the shorelines with This information can also be obtained by contacting provisions for nonmotorized access to the shore- agencies listed in the Shoreline Inventory Supple- lines. ment Number One. (iii) Solicit comments, opinions and advice from individuals with expertise in ecology, oceanog- raphy, geology, limnology, aquaculture and other THE NATURAL SYSTEMS scientific fields pertinent to shoreline management. Names of organizations and individuals which can provide expert advice can be obtained from the This section contains brief and general descriptions department's resource specialist listing. of the natural geographic systems around which the lb) Preserve the natural character of the shoreline. shoreline management program is designed. The intent Development guidelines: of this section is to define those natural systems to Ii) Designate environments and use regulations to which the Shoreline Management Act applies, to high- minimize mon-made intrusions on shorelines. light some of the features of those systems which are (ii, Where intensive development already occurs, susceptible to damage from human activity, and to upgrade and redevelop those areas to reduce their provide a basis for the guidelines pertaining to hu- adverse impact on the environment and to accom- man-use activities contained in WAC 173-16-060. modate future growth rather than allowing high It is intended that this section will provide criteria intensity uses to extend into low intensity use or to local governments in the development of their underdeveloped aras. ,to local governments in the development of their underdeveloped areas, master programs, as required in RCW 90.58.030(a). (iii) Ensure that where commercial timber-cutting is allowed as provided in RCW 90.58.150, refor- 11) Marine Beaches-Beaches are relatively level land estation will be possible and accomplished as areas which are contiguous with the sea and are soon as practicable. directly affected by the sea even to the point of origin- (el Result in long-term over short-term benefit. De- ation. The most common types of beaches in Washing- velopment guidelines: ton marine waters are: (i) Prepare master programs on the basis of pre- Sandy beaches: Waves, wind, tide and geological serving the shorelines for future generations. For material are the principal factors involved in the forma- example, actions that would convert resources into tion of beaches. The beach material can usually be irreversible uses or detrimentally alter natural con- traced to one of four possible sources: The cliffs behind ditions characteristic of shorelines of state-wide the beach; from the land via rivers; offshore wind; significance, should be severely limited. and finally from longshore drifting of material. Long- (ii) Evaluate the short-term economic gain or con- shore-drifting material must have been derived ini- venience of developments in relationship to long- tially from the first three sources. Most beach material IV-12 l ###NEWPAGE n="211" ### In Puget Sound is eroded from the adjacent bluffs is characterized by less stressful tidal influences but is composed ol glaocil till subject to the forces of waves and currents which affect the distribution and kinds of organisms in this The effect of wove action on the movement and rlmrpo,,tion of bejch material varies depending upon the szize of the material. Hence, in most cases, beaches -Muddy shores: Muddy shores occur where the composed of different sized material are usually char- energy of coastal currents and wave action is mini- acterized by different slopes and profiles. The entire mal, allowing fine particles of silt to settle to the bot- process of beach formation is a dynamic process re- tom. The result is an accumulation of mud on the suiting from the effect of wave action on material shores of protected boys and mouths of coastal transport and deposition. Initially, wave action will streams and rivers. Most muddy beaches occur in es- establish currents which transport and deposit material tuarine areas. However, some muddy shore areas may in various patterns. However, once a particular beach be found in coastal inlets and embayments where form and profile is established it begins to modify the salinity is about the same as the adjacent sea. effects of waves thus altering the initial patterns of material transport and deposition. Hence, in building Few plants have adapted to living on muddy beach structures such as groins, bulkheads or jetties, it shores. Their growth is restricted by turbidity which is particularly important to recognize that subsequent reduces light penetration into the water and thereby changes in wave and current patterns will result in a inhibits photosynthesis. In addition, the lack of solid series of changes in beach formation over time. [See structures to which algae may attach itself and silta- WAC 173-16-060(61, (11), (121 and 113)]. tion which smothers plants effectively prevents much plant colonization of muddy shores. While the lack of In the process of beach formation, sand particles oxygen in mud makes life for fauna in muddy shores are transported up the beach by breaking waves that difficult, the abundance of food as organic detritus wash onto the beach in a diagonal direction and provides nutrition for a large number of detritus feed- retreat in a vertical direction. At the same time, long- ers. shore currents are created in the submerged intertidal area by the force of diagonally approaching waves. 121 Spits and Bars-Spits and bars are natural formo- Beach material suspended by the force of the break- tions composed of sand and gravel and shaped by ing waves is transported in one direction or another wind and water currents and littoral drifting. Generally by the longshore current. Longshore drifting of mate- a spit is formed from a headland beach (tall cliff with ,ial often results in the net transportation of beach a curved beach at the foot) and extends out into the material in one direction causing the loss of material water (hooks are simply hookshaped spits). While in some areas and gains in others. spits usually have one end free in open water, bars generally are attached to land at both ends. These The profile of a beach at any time will be deter- natural forms enclose an area which is protected from mined by the wave conditions during the preceding wave action, allowing life forms such as shellfish, to period. Severe storms will erode or scour much material reproduce end live protected from the violence of the away from the beaches due to the force of retreating open coast. [See WAC 173-16-060(161]. waves. During calm weather, however, the waves will constructively move material back onto the beach. This (3) Dunes-Dunes are mounds or hills of sand which destructive and constructive action, called cut and fill, have been heaped up by wind action. Typically, is evidenced by the presence of beach ridges or dunes exhibit four distinct features: berms. New ridges ore built up in front of those that survive storm conditions as sand is supplied to the Primary dunes The first system of dunes shore- beach in succeeding phases of calmer weather. In ward of the water, having little or no vegetation, time. the more stable landward ridges are colonized which are intolerant of unnatural disturbances. by successional stages of vegetation. The vegetation Secondary dunes: The second system of dunes stabilizes the ridges, protects them from erosion and shoreward from the water, with some vegetative promotes the development of soil. cover. Rocky beaches: Rocky beaches, composed of cob- Back dunes: The system of dunes behind the sec- bles, boulders and/or exposed bedrock are usually ondory dunes, generally having vegetation and some steeper and more stable than sandy shores. Coarse top soil, and being more tolerant of development than material is very permeable which allows attacking the primary and secondary systems. waves to sink into the beach causing the backwash to be reduced correspondingly. On sandy shores a strong Troughs: The valleys between the dune systems. backwash distributes sand more evenly, thus creating Dunes are a natural levee and a final protection a flatter slope. line against the sea. The destructive leveling of, or On rocky shores a zonal pattern in the distribution interference with the primary dune system (such as of plants and animals is more evident than on muddy cutting through the dunes for access) can endanger or sandy shores. The upper beach zone is frequently upland areas by subjecting them to flooding from very dry, limitng inhabitants to species which can heavy wave action during severe storms and destroy tolerate a dry environment. The intertidal zone is a a distinct and disappearing natural feature. Removal iarrow area between mean low tide and mean high of sand from the beach and shore in dune areas ,ide that experiences uninterrupted covering and un- starves dune3 of their natural supply of sand and may covering by tidal action. One of the major characteris- cause their destruction from lack of sand. [See WAC tics of this zone is the occurrence of tidal pools which 173-16-060(16)]. Appropriate vegation can and should harbor separate communities which can be considered be encouraged throughout the entire system for stabil- subzones within the intertidal zone. The subtidal zone ization. [See WAC 173-16-060(21)]. IV-13 ###NEWPAGE n="212" ### ;' Islands-An Island. broadly defined, is a land is high because of the costs involved in making these ;rs c.-Cjnoe by water. Islands are particularly areas suitable for use. Unlimited public access into -'. ... 're *e fcis ashIlnton since ty ol entFre tlhi hO.1A .' n C lMl\1 , l'l.' Ii111i1i 10 1 a,' II .l l llifr cor't CeS cre rm.cde up of islanas and parts of several plant and aninial life icriding there. r-er zc-r res are islands. A fairly small island, such 1(7 Lakes-A lake con be defined broadly as a body mo tnose in our Puget Sound and north coast area, is of standing water located inland. Lakes originate in an Intrrgu.ng ecosystem, In that no problem or area of nstuCI cCr be isolated. Every living and nonliving several ways. Many lakes are created each year by thing ,s an Integral part of the functioning system. man, either by digging a lake basin or by damming a Einc isiInd, along withf the mystique afforded it by natural valley. Natural lakes con be formed in several man is c world of its own with a biological chain ways: by glaciers gouging basins and melting and depositing materials in such a way as to form natural fragile and delicately balanced. Obviously it does not d ams; by landslides in such o way as to form natural dams; by landslides which close off open ends of take as much to upset this balance as it would the valleys; extinct craters which fill with water; changes maonland system. Because of this, projects should be in the earths crust as con happen dring erth- pianned with a more critical eye toward preserving in the earths crust, s can happen dring erth- tne very quamities which make island , .,erving quakes, forming basins which fill with water; or by tne very quslities which moke a eisoln cenvironments changes in a river or stream course which isolate parts viable systems as well as aesthetically captivating to of the old course forming lakes called oxbow lakes. humans. A lake,' like its inhabitants, has a life span. This I5) Estuaries-An estuary is that portion of a coastal lifetime may be thousands of years for a large lake or stream influenced by the tide of the marine waters ljust a few years for a pond. This process of a lake into which it flows and within which the sea water is measurably diluted with freshwater derived from land aging is known generally as eutrophication. It is a natural process which is usually accelerated by man's draoinage. activities. Human sewage, industrial waste, and the Estuaries are zones of ecological transition be- drainage from agricultural lands increases the nu- tween fresh and saltwater. The coastal brackish water trients in a lake which in turn increases the growth of areas are rich in aquatic life, some species of which algae and other plants. As plants die, the chemical are important food organisms for anadromous fish process of decomposition depletes the water's supply species which use these areas for feeding, rearing and of oxygen necessary for fish and other animal life. migration An estuarine area left untouched by man is These life forms then disappear from the lake, and the rare since historically they have been the sites for lake becomes a marsh or swamp. major cities and port developments. Because of their Shallow lakes are extremely susceptible to in- importance In the food production chain and their creases in the rate of eutrophication resulting from natural beauty, the limited estuarial areas require discharges of waste and nutrient-laden-runoff waters. cirefIl attention in the planning function. Close scru- Temperature stratification does not normally occur in tiny should be given to all plans for development in shallow lakes. Efficient bottom-to-surface circulation of estucries which reduce the area of the estuary and water in these shallow lakes moves nutrients to the interfere with water flow. [See WAC 173-16-060(14)]. surface photosynthetic zone encouraging increased Special attention should be given to plans for up- biotic productivity. Large quantities of organic matter stream projects which could deplete the freshwater are produced under these onditions. Upon decompo- are produced under these conditions. Upon decompo- supply of the estuary. sition, heavy demands are made on the dissolved !6) Marshes, Bogs and Swamps-Marshes, bogs and oxygen content of shallow lakes. Eventually, the oxy- swv.amps are areas which have a water table very gen level drops and some fish and other life forms close to the surface of the ground. They are areas die. which were formerly shallow water areas that grad- The entire ecosystem of a lake can be altered by ua!iy filied through nature's processes of sedimenta-oving the surrounding forest for lumber tion loften accelerated by man's activities) and the or to provide a b uilunding forest for lanumb erosion into or to provide a building site or farm land, erosion into decay o' shnllow water vegetation, the lake is accelerated. Fertilizers, whether agricultural Althojgh considered abysmal wastelands by or those used by homeowners, can enter the lake many, these wet areas are extremely important to the either from runoff or leaching along with other chemi- food chain. Many species of both animal and plant cals that interfere with the intricate balance of living life depend on this wet environment for existence. organisms. The construction of bulkheads to control Birds arind waterfowl choose these locations for nesting erosion and filling behind them to enlarge individual places Wet areas are important as ground water properties can rob small fish and amphibians of their recharge areas and have tremendous flood control habitats. The indiscriminate construction of piers, value. docks and boathouses, can deprive all of the water- front owners and the general public of a serene nat- The high-water table and poor foundation support ural view and reduce the lake's surface. [See WAC Drovided by the organic soils in these areas usually 173-16-06015), 18), 11I), 112), (13)1. prevent development on them. The extraction of peat from bogs is possible when it is accomplished in such (8) Rivers, Streams and Creeks-Generally, rivers, a manner that the surrounding vegetation and wildlife streams and creeks con be defined as surface-water is left undisturbed and the access roads and shore- runoff flowing in a natural or modified channel. Runoff lines are returned to a natural state upon completion results either from excessive precipitation which can- of the operation. not infiltrate the soil, or from ground water where the water table intersects the surface of the ground. The potential of marshes, bogs and swamps to Drawn by gravity to progressively lower levels and provide permanent open space in urbanizing regions eventually to the sea, the surface runoff organizes into IV-14 0 ###NEWPAGE n="213" ### a system of channels which drain a paricular geo- connected inlets, boys and channels with tidal sroa graphic area. water entering from the west and freshwater strearms entering at many points throughout the system. Mcst The drainage system serves as a transportation of what is known as Puget Sound was formed icy network for nature s leveling process, selectively erod- glacial action that terminated near lenino in Thurstc n ing materials from the higher ait;tudes and transport- County. The entire system, of which Puget Sound s ing thl, materiuls to lower elevaticns where they are actually a small portion, also includes the Stroat f cdeposited. A portion of these materials eventually Georgia and the Strait of Juan de Fuca. The lar e reaches the sea where they may form beaches, dunes complex may be divided into nine oceanogroph.c or spits. areas which are interrelated: Strait of Juan de Fuc i, Typically, a river exhibits several distinct stages as Admiralty Inlet, Puget Sound Basin, Southern Pug et it flows from the headwaters to the mouth. in the Sound, Hood Canal, Possession Sound, Bellinghaon upper reaches where the gradient is steepest, the hy- Bay, San Juan Archipelago, and Georgia Strait Ifro -n draulic action of the flowing water results in a net Puget Sound and Adjacent Waters, Appendix XV, Plen erosion of the stream bed and a V-shaped cross sec- Formulation). tion, with the stream occupying all or most of the The economic development of the central Pug-t volley floor. Sound Basin has been stimulated by the fact that ti-e Proceeding downstreun, the gradient decreases sound is one of the few areas in the world whicn and the valley walls become gentler in slope. A point provides several deepwater inland harbors. The use rf is eventually reached where erosion and deposition Puget Sound waters by deep-draft vessels is on the equalize and the action of thep tream changes .r.m increase due tc its proximity to the develoning Asici vertical cutting to laterc: meandering. As the lateral counties. Th;i increased trade v ill attract -rore indu-- movement continues, a flood plain is formed, over try and more people which will put more use pressure which tne river meanders and upon which materials on the Sound in the forms of recreation (sport fishing, are deposited during floods. Finally, when the river booting and other water-related sports! and the ri- enters a body of standing water, the remaining sedi- quirements for increased food supply. ment load is deposited. Puget Sound waters are rich in nutrients and sup- Extensive human use is made of rivers, including port a wide variety of marine fish and shellfish spe- transportation, recreation, waste and sewage dump- cies. An estimated 2,820 miles of stream are utilized ing and for drinking water. Rivers are dammed for the by oandromous fish for spawning and rearing production of electric power, diked for flood control throughout the area. Some of these fish ore chinook, and withdrawn for the irrigation of crops Many of coho, sockeye, pink and chum salmon, steelhead, sea. these activities directly affect the natural hydraulic run -cutthroat and Dolly Vardpn trout. All these fish functioning of the streams and rivers as well as the spend a portion of their lives in the saltwaters of biology of the water courses. [See WAC 173-16-060 Puget Sound and the Pacific Ocean before returning to (17)]. streams of origin to spawn. The juveniles of these fist spend varying amounts of time in the shore waters cf (91 Flood Plains-A flood plain is a shoreland area the area before moving to sea to grow to maturity. which has been or is subject to flooding. It is a Aquaculture or sea farming is now in the process of natural corridor for water which has accumulated becoming reality in the Puget Sound complex. The from snow melt or from heavy rainfall in a short mass production of seaweed, clams, geoducks, scal- period. Flood plains are usually flat areas with rich lops, shrimp, oysters, small salmon, lobsters and other soil because they have been formed by deposits from possibilities looms as an important new industry. flood waters As such they are attractive places for Shoreline' management is particularly crucial to thn man to build and farm until the next flood passes success of sea farming. Aquaculture on any scale ca, across the plain. In certain areas, these plains can be be compatible and coexist with maritime shippincg "flood proofed" by diking or building levees along and shoreland industrial activities only by careful the adjacent river or stream, but always with provi- planning and regulation. sions for tremendous amounts of water that will sooner or later be generated by weather conditions. The shoreline resources of Puget Sound includ,. St-eamway modifications can be placed in such a way few beach areas which are not covered at high tide to cause channelization. Channelization tends to de- Bluffs ranging from 10 to 500 feet in height rim stray the vital and fragile flood loain shoreline habi- nearly the entire extent of the Sound making access ti: tats and increase the velocity of waters in times of beach and intertidal areas difficult. Because of the extreme flow. [See WAC 173-16.060(17!1. This may glacial-till composition of these bluffs, they are sus- cause considerable damage downstream even in ceptible to fluvial and marine erosion and present areas already given some flood protection. In unpro- constant slide hazards. Although Puget Sound is pro- tected flood plains, land-use regulations must be ap- tected from the direct influence of Pacific Ocean plied to provide an adequate open corridor within weather, storm conditions can create very turbulent which the effects of bank erosion, channel shifts and and sometimes destructive wave action. Without rec- increased runoff may be contained. Obviously, struc- ognizing the tremendous energy contained in storm tures which must be built on a flood plain should be waves, development of shoreline resources can be of a design to allow the passage of water and, wher- hazardous and deleterious to the resource characteris- ever possible, permanent vegetation should be pre- tics which make Puget Sound beaches attractive. [WAC served to prevent erosion, retard runoff, and contrib- 173-16-060(11), (12), 113)1. ute to the natural beauty of i ie flood plain. (11) Pacific Ocean-From Cape Flattery on the north (10) Puget Sound-Puget Sound is a complex of inter- to Cape Disappointment on the south, there are ap- 0t 0IV-15 ###NEWPAGE n="214" ### proximately 160 miles of beaches, rocky headlands, or types of natural systems las described in WAC ˇnlets and estuaries on Washington s Pacific Coast. The 173-16-0501 within which a use is proposed and shoreline south of Cape Flattery to the Quinault River should impose regulations on those aevelopments and ,, generally characterized as being rugged and rocky, uses which would tend to affect adversely the natural with high bluffs The remaining shoreline south of the characteristics needed to preserve the integrity of the Quinault River is predominantly flat sandy beaches system Examples would include but would not be with low banks and dunes. limited to proposed uses that would threaten the char- acter of fragile dune areas, reduce water tables in During the winter, Pacific currents set toward the marshes, impede water flow in estuaries, or threaten north, while during summer months they set to the the stability of spits and bars. south. Associated with the summer currents is a gen- eral offshore movement of surface water, resulting in These guidelines have been prepared in recogni- upwelling of water from lower depths. This upwelled tion of the flexibility needed to carry out effective local water is cold, high in salinity, low in oxygen content planning of shorelines. Therefore, the interpretation and rich in nutrients. It is this latter characteristic and application of the guidelines may vary relative to which causes upwelled water to be extremely signifi- different local conditions. Exceptions to specific provi- cant in biological terms, since it often triggers sions of these guidelines may occur where local cir- ''blooms of marine plant life. cumstances justify such departure. Any departure from these guidelines must, however, be compatible with Directions of wave action and littoral drift of Sedi- the intent of the act as enunciated in RCW 90.58.020. ments shift seasonally with Pacific Ocean storms. Al- though very little data are available on the net direc- It should be noted that there are several guide- tion of littoral transport, the University of Washington lines for certain activities which are not explicitly de- has offshore data which indicate a northerly offshore fined in the shoreline act as developments for which flow. RCW 43.51.650 declares: substantial development permits are not required (for example, the suggestion that a buffer of permanent "The beaches bounding the Pacific Ocean from the vegetation be maintained along water bodies in agri- Straits of Juan de Fuca to Cape Disappointment at culture areas). While such activities generally cannot the mouth of the Columbia River constitute some of be regulated through the permit system, it is intended the lost unspoiled seashore remaining in the United that they be dealt with in the comprehensive master States. They provide the public with almost program in a manner consistent with policy and intent unlimited opportunities for recreational activities, of the Shoreline Act. To effectively provide' for the like swimming, surfing and hiking; for outdoor management of the shorelines of the state, master sports, like hunting, fishing, clamming, and boat- programs should plan for and foster all reasonable ing; for the observation of nature as it existed and appropriate uses as provided in RCW 90.58.020. for hundreds of years before the arrival of white men and for relaxation away from the pressures Finally, most of the guidelines are intentionally and tensions of modern life. In post years, these written in general terms to allow some latitude for recreational activities have been enjoyed by count- local government to expand and elaborate on them as less Washington citizens, as well as by tourists local conditions warrant. The guidelines are adopted from other states and countries. The number of state regulations, however, and must be complied people wishing to participate in such recreational with both in permit application review and in master activities grow annually. This increasing public program development. pressure makes it necessary that the state dedicate the use of the ocean beaches to public recreation and to provide certain recreational and sanitary facilities. Nonrecreational use of the beach must be strictly limited. Even recreational uses must be regulated in order that Washington's unrivaled Agricultural Practices seashore may be saved for our children in much the some form as we know it today.' ISee Appendix WAC 173-16-0601)) Reference Nos. 30 and 31). 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 (WAC 173-16-060) of these practices require the use of agricultural chem- icals, most of which are water soluble and may wash This section contains guidelines for the local regu. into contiguous land or water areas causing signifi- lation of use activities proposed for shorelines Each cant alteration and damage to plant and animal habi- topic, representing a specific use or group of uses, is tots, especially those in the fragile shoreline areas. broadly defined and followed by several guidelines. Also, large quantities of mineral and organic sedi- These guidelines represent the criteria upon which ments enter water bodies through surface erosion judgments for proposed shoreline developments will when proper land management techniques are not be based until master programs are completed. In utilized. Guidelines: addition, these guidelines are intended to provide the (a) Local governments should encourage the main- basis for the develupment of that portion of the mas- tenance of a buffer of permanent vegetation be- ter program concerned with the regulation of such tween tilled areas and associated water bodies uses. which will retard surface runoff and reduce In addition to application of the guidelines in this siltation. section, the local government should identify the type lb) Master programs should establish criteria for IV-16 ###NEWPAGE n="215" ### the loccition of confinedl aniaol feeding opelc. sediment load and the turbidity of the water. Guide tions, retention and storage ponds for feed lot lines: warstes, rind stook piles of manure solids in (a) Seeding, mulching, matting and replanting shorelines of the state so that water areas will should be accomplished where necessary to not be polluted. Control guidelines prepared by provide stability on areas of steep slope which the U S. Environmental Protection Agency should have been logged. Replanted vegetation he followr',l Also srr, Reference Nos. 3, 4, 5, should be of ni similar type 'and concentration 6, 7 inl 8 1 as existing in the general vicinity of the Icl Local governments should encourage the use logged area. of erosion control measures, such as crop rota- (b) Special attention should be directed in logging tion, mulching, strip cropping and contour cul- and thinning operations to prevent the accu- tivation in conformance with guidelines and mulation of slosh and other debris in contig- standards established by the Soil Conservation uous waterways. Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (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 Aquaculture removal, should be closely regulated so that (WAC 173-16-060(21) the quality of the view and viewpoints in shoreline areas of the state are not degraded. Aquaculture (popularly known as fish farming) is Idl Proper rood and bridge design location and the culture or farming of food fish, shellfish, or other construction and maintenance practices should aquatic plants and animals. Potential locations for be used to prevent development of roads should aquacultural enterprises are relatively restricted due to structures which d ve lopment of roads and specific requirements for water quality, temperature, line resould adversely affect shore- flows, oxygen content, and, in marine waters, salinity. The technology associated with present-day aquacul- lel Timber harvesting practices in shorelines of the ture is still in its formative stages and experimental . state should be conducted to maintain the Guidelines for aquaculture should therefore recognize state board of health standards for public the necessity for some latitude in the development of water supplies. ISee Reference No. 34). this emerging economic water use as well as its poten- (f) Logging should be avoided on shorelines with tiol impact on existing uses and natural systems. Guide- slopes of such grade that large sediment run- lines: off will be precipitated, unless adequate resto- (a) Aquacultural enterprises should be located in ration and erosion control can be expeditiously areas where the navigational access of upland accomplished. owners and commercial traffic is not signifi- (g) Local governments should ensure that timber cantly restricted. harvesting on shorelines of state-wide signifi- (b) Recognition should be given to the possible cance does not exceed the limitations estab- detrimental impact aquacultural development lished in RCW 90.58.150 except as provided in might have on the visual access of upland cases where selective logging is rendered eco- owners and on the general aesthetic quality logically detrimental or is inadequate for prep- of the shoreline area. aration of land for other uses. (c) As aquaculture technology expands with in- (h) Logging within shoreline areas should be con- creasing knowledge and experience, emphasis ducted to ensure the maintenance of buffer should be placed on underwater structures strips of ground vegetation, brush, alder and which do not interfere with navigation or im- conifers to prevent temperature increases ad- pair the aesthetic quality of Washington shore- verse to fish populations and erosion of stream lines. banks. Forest Management Practices Commercial Development (WAC 173-16-060(3)) (WAC 173-16-060(4)) Forest management practices are those methods Commercial developments are those uses which used for the protection, production and harvesting of are involved in wholesale and retail trade or business timber. Trees along a body of water provide shade activities. Commercial developments range from small which insulate the waters from detrimental tempera- businesses within residences, to high-rise office build- ture change and dissolved oxygen release. A stable ings. Commercial developments are intensive users of water temperature and dissolved oxygen level provide space because of extensive floor areas and because of a healthy environment for fish and other more delicate facilities, such as parking, necessary to service them. forms of aquatic life. Poor logging practices on shore- Guidelines: lines alter this balance as well as result in slash and (a) Although many commercial developments ben- debris accumulation and may increase the suspended efit by a shoreline location, priority should be IV-17 ###NEWPAGE n="216" ### ,]...-, 1)o h'fn., rorn1melnral clevelopmrnls which Mining 11-. p'"Illtulku ly dlcpit-,nlt on their locutlon unrl/or use of the shorelines of the state and (WAC 173-16-060(6)) other development that will provide an oppor- Mining is the rerrvol of notura!i' occurr.rn mate. tunity for substantial numbers of the people to riols from the eorih ior VeconomIc use Thr, ie,,ci.,l ". I tnlo0Y tue shorweblnrs of the st;te Se i/ (i'1id ˘iclvrl h{n,- .hoilni- mi% (14 W11l.lii,,.\.,' 1li1 'jw , nt,.,. ,,ll h.v,.h.l,.,,la. ,,,nI '.ir*'..-, .' A.wuillly 1lf, ...t. 111 ,'11,.1.11. 1,1 ItlrJ ind n( s0lhng of writ,, v -.11i 111 iWftl.? I niji I i1U l0utr in those irCus These operations can create silt and kilt bottom !iving where current commercial uses exist. animals. The removal of sand from marine beaches Icl An assessment should be made of the effect a can deplete a limited resource which may not be commercial structure will have on a scenic restored through natural processes. Guidelines: view significant to a given area or enjoyed by (a) When rock, sand, gravel and minerals are re- a significant number of people. moved from shoreline areas, adequate protec- (dl Parking facilities should be placed inland tion against sediment and silt production away from the immediate water's edge and should be provided. recreational beaches. Ib) 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. Id) When removal of sand and grovel from ma- rine beaches is permitted by existing legisla- tion, it should be taken from the least sensitive Marinas biophysical areas of the beach. IWAC 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- Outdoor Advertising, Signs ,ines: and Billboards (a) In locating marinas, special plans should be made to protect the fish and shellfish resources IWAC 173-16060(7)) that may be harmed by construction and oper- Signs are publicly displayed boards whose pur- ation of the facility. pose is to provide information, direction, or advertis- lb) Marinas should be designed in a manner that ing. Signs may be pleasing or distracting, depending will reduce damage to fish and shellfish re- upon their design and location. A sign, in order to be sources and be aesthetically compatible with effective, must attract attention; however, a message adjacent areas. can be clear and distinct without being offensive. (cl Master programs should identify locations that There are areas where signs are not desirable, but are near high-use or potentially high-use areas generally it is the design that is undesirable, not the for proposed marina sites. Local as well as sign itself. Guidelines: regional "need" data should be considered as (a) Off-premise outdoor advertising signs should input in location selection. be limited to areas of high-intensity land use, (d) Special attention should be given to the design such as commercial and industrial areas. and development of operational procedures for fb) Master programs should establish size, height, fuel handling and storage in order to minimize density, and lighting limitations for signs. accidental spillage and provide satisfactory (c) Vistas and viewpoints should not be degraded means for handling those spills that do occur. and visual access to the water from such vistas (e) Shallow-water embayments with poor flushing should not be impaired by the placement of action should not be considered for overnight signs. and long-term moorage facilities. (d) Outdoor advertising signs (where permitted (f) The Washington state department of fisheries under local regulations) should be located on has prepared guidelines concerning the con- the upland side of public transportation routes struction of marinas. These guidelines should which parallel and are adjacent to rivers and be consulted in planning for marinas. (See Ref- water bodies (unless it can be demonstrated erence No. 16). that views will not be substantially ob- (g] State and local health agencies have stand- structed). ards and guidelines for the development of (e) When feasible, signs should be constructed marinas which shall be consulted by local against existing buildings to minimize visual agencies. (See Reference No. 18). obstructions of the shoreline and water bodies. IV- 18 0 ###NEWPAGE n="217" ### Residential Development projects on shorelines, banks should be re- stored to pre-project configuration, replanted IWAC 173-16-060(8)) with native species anidprovided maintenance The following guidelines should be recognized in core until the newly planted vegetation is es- the development of any subdivision on the shorelines tablished. of the state To the extent possible, planned unit Ibl -Whenever these facilities must be placed in a developments (sometimes called cluster developments) shoreline area, the location should be chosen should be encouraged within the shoreline area. so as not to obstruct or destroy scenic views. Within planned uni; developments, substantial par- Whenever feasible, these facilities should be tions of land are reserved as open space or recrea- placed underground, or designed to do mini- tional areas for the joint use of the occupants of the mol damage to the aesthetic qualities of the development. This land may be provided by allowing shoreline area. houses to be placed on lots smaller than the legal (c) To the extent feasible, local government should minimum size for normal subdivisions, as long as the attempt to incorporate major transmission line total number of dwellings in the planned unit devel- rights of way on shorelines into their program opment does not exceed the total allowable in a for public access to and along water bodies. regular subdivision. Guidelines: (d) Utilities should be located to meet the needs la) Subdivisions should be designed at a level of of future populations in areas planned to ac- density of site coverage and of occupancy commodate this growth. compatible with the physical capabilities of the shoreline and water, The Washington State Thermal Power Plant Siting lb) Subdivisions should be designed so as to ode- Law (chapter RCW 80.501 regulates the location of quately protect the water and shoreline a es- electrical generating and distribution facilities. Under theticchroacteristics. this law, the state preempts the certification and regu- .thetic . . lotion of thermal power plant sites and thermal power (c) Subdividers should be encouraged to provide plants. (See Reference No. 28). public pedestrian access to the shorelines within the subdivision. (d) Residential development over water should not be permitted. (e) Floating homes are to be located as moorage slips approved in accordance with the guide- Ports and Water-Related Industry lines dealing with marinas, piers, and docks. IWAC 173-16-060(10)) In planning for floating homes, local govern- ments should ensure that waste disposal prac- Ports are centers for water-borne traffic and as tices meet local and state health regulations, such have become gravitational points for industrial/ that the homes are not located over highly manufacturing firms. Heavy industry may not specific- productive fish food areas, and that the homes ally require a waterfront location, but is attracted to are located to be compatible with the intent of port areas because of the variety of transportation the designated environments. available. Guidelines: Ifl Residential developers should be required to (a) Water-dependent industries which require front- indicate how they plan to preserve shore vege- age on navigable water should be given prior. tation and control erosion during construction. ity over other industrial uses. 1g) Sewage disposal facilities, as well as water lb) Port facilities should be designed to permit supply facilities, must be provided in accord- viewing of harbor areas from viewpoints, once with appropriate state and local health waterfront restaurants and similar public facili- regulations. Storm drainage facilities should be ties which would not interfere with port operao- separate, not combined with sewage disposal tions or endanger public health and safety. systems. (c) Sewage treatment, water reclamation, desolini- (h) Adequate water supplies should be available zation and power plants should be located so that the ground water quality will not be where they do not interfere with and are com- endangered by overpumping. patible with 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 Utilities handling and storage facilities should be (WAC 173-16-060(9)) strongly encouraged in waterfront industrial areas. Utilities are services which produce and carry elec- le) Land transportation and utility corridors serv- tric power, gas, sewage, communications and oil. At ing ports and water-related industry should is time the most feasible methods of transmission follow the guidelines provided under the sec- re the lineal ones of pipes and wires. The installation tions dealing with utilities and road and rail- of this apparatus necessarily disturbs the landscape road design and construction. Where feasible, but coan usually be planned to have minimal visual transportation and utility corridors should be and physical effect on the environment. Guidelines: located upland to reduce pressures for the use (a) Upon completion of installation/maintenance of waterfront sites. IV-19 ###NEWPAGE n="218" ### If) Master program planning should be based on Breakwaters a recognition of the regional nature of port services Prior to allocciting shorelands for port uses, local governments should consider state- Brenkwaters cle another protative stiucture usually wide needs and coordinate planning wtth built offshore to protect beaches, bluffs, dunes or other jurisdictions to avoid wasteful duplica- harbor areas from wove action However, because off- tion of port services within port-service re- shore breakwaters are costly to build, they are sel- gions. dom constructed to protect the natural features alone, (g) Since industrial docks and piers are often but are generally constructed for navigational pur- longer and greater in bulk than recreational or poses also Breakwaters can be either rigid in con- residential piers, careful planning must be un- struction or floating. The rigid breakwaters, which are dertaken to reduce the adverse impact of such usually constructed of riprap or rock, have both bene- facilities on other water-dependent uses and ficial and detrimental effects on the shore. All break- shoreline resources. Because heavy industrial waters eliminate wave action and thus protect the activities are associated with industrial piers shore immediately behind them. They also obstruct the and docks, the location of these facilities must free flow of sand along the coast and starve the be considered a major factor determining the downstream beaches. Floating breakwaters do not environmental compatibility of such facilities. have the negative effect on sand movement, but can- not withstand extensive wave action and thus are impractical with present construction methods in many areas. Guidelines: (a) Floating breakwaters are preferred to solid landfill types in order to maintain sand move- Bulkheads ment and fish habitat. (WAC 173-16-060111)) blb Solid breakwaters should be constructed only where design modifications can eliminate po- Bulkheads or seawalls are structures erected paral- tentially detrimental effects on the movement lel to and near the high-water mark for the purpose of sand and circulation of water. of protecting adjacent uplands from the action of Ic) The restriction of the public use of the water waves or currents. Bulkheads are constructed of steel, surface as a result of breakwater construction timber or concrete piling, and may be either of solid must be recognized in the master program and or open-piling construction. For ocean-exposed loco- must be considered in granting shoreline per- tions, bulkheads do not provide a long-lived perma- mitsfortheirconstruction. 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 Jeties and Groins front of the structures. The following guidelines apply to the construction (WAC 173-16-06013)) of bulkheads and seawalls designed to protect the Jetties and groins are structures designed to mod- immediate upland area. Proposals for landfill must ify or control sand movement. A jetty is generally comply with the guidelines for that specific activity. employed at inlets for the purpose of navigation im- Guidelines: provements. When sand being transported along the (a) Bulkheads and seawalls should be located coast by waves and currents arrives at an inlet, it and constructed in such a manner which will flows inward on the flood tide to form an inner bar, not result in adverse effects on nearby beaches and outward on ebb tide to form an outer bar. Both and will minimize alterations of the natural formations are harmful to navigation through the shoreline. inlet. lb) Bulkheads and seawalls should be constructed A jetty is usually constructed of steel, concrete or in such a way as to minimize damage to fish rock. The type depends on foundation conditions and and shellfish habitats. Open-piling construction wave, climate and economic considerations. To be of is preferable in lieu of the solid type. maximum aid in maintaining the navigation channel, I(c Consider the effect of a proposed bulkhead on the jetty must be high enough to completely obstruct public access to publicly owned shorelines, the sand stream. The adverse effect of a jetty is that Id) Bulkheads and seawalls should be designed to sand is impounded at the updrift jetty and the supply blend in with the surroundings and not to of sand to the shore downdrift from the inlet is re- detract from the aesthetic qualities of the duced, thus causing erosion. shoreline, Groins are barrier-type structures extending from fe) The construction of bulkheads should be per- the backshore seaward across the beach. The basic mitted only where they provide protection to purpose of a groin is to interrupt the sand movement upland areas or facilities, not for the indirect along a shore. purpose of creating land by filling behind the bulkhead. Landfill operations should satisfy Groins can be constructed in many ways using the guidelines under WAC 173-16-060114). timber, steel, concrete or rock, but can be classified IV-20 ###NEWPAGE n="219" ### into basic physical categories as high or low, long or collection, transportation and disposal are of vital short cnrl prmnnhl or impprmpohle rontroin tn nal ililon r, ndl rnirmmil,,tir'. If thr ,1i. -,u.,Jl u1l .I ' hII vVcl Iw'.h' uLr uh ',,u I1o lI III Iully pCII.III't-, wlip.lJ .-1 ridilan i o w ifi 1. dhoret, uni s the x and regulated, it can become not only a nuisance but ,,r,. . tile 1rflrilewint sjowndrift shore, unless the a severe threat to the health and safety of human r'i,,l ..y ..irr . fillerd with sand to its entrapment beings, livestock, wildlife and other biota. Guidelines: ,D,rJ,, ty GO,;rcelines "I"ty G')Ai al- (a) Local master programs and use regulations kIl Muster programs must consider sand move- must be consistent with approved county or ment and the effect of proposed jetties or multicounty comprehensive solid waste man- groins on that sand movement. Provisions con agement plans and regulations of jurisdic- be made to compensate for the adverse effects tional health agencies. of the structures either by artificially transport- ing sand to the downdrift side of an inlet with lb) Local governments must regulate sanitary jetties, or by artificially feeding the beaches in landfills and solid waste handling in accord- case of groins. ance with regulations for solid waste handling when adopted by the department of ecology. lb) Special attention should be given to the effect when adopted by the department of ecology. Ib) Special attention should be given to the effect New regulations restricting sanitary landfills these structures will have on wildlife propaga- within any water course and within flood tion and movement, and to the design of these plains of any water course have been pro- structures which will not detract from the aes- posed for a ny the deprtment. posed for adoption by the department. thetic quality of the shoreline. Dredging Landfill {WAC 173-16-060(16)1 (WAC 173-16-060(141) Dredging is the removal of earth from the bottom Landfill is the creation of dry upland area by the of a stream, river, lake, bay or other water body for filling or depositing of sand, soil or gravel into a the purposes of deepening a navigational channel or wetland area. Landfills also occur to replace shoreland to obtain use of the bottom materials for landfill. A areas removed by wave action or the normal erosive significant portion of all dredged materials are depos- processes of nature. However, most landfills destroy ited either in the water or immediately adjacent to it, the natural character of land, create unnatural heavy often resulting in problems of water quality. Guide- erosion and silting problems and diminish the existing lines: water surface. Guidelines: (a) Local governments should control dredging to (al Shoreline fills or cuts should be designed and minimize damage to existing ecological values located so that significant damage to existing and natural resources of both the area to be ecological values or natural resources, or alter- dredged and the area for deposit of dredged ation of local currents will not occur, creating a materials. hazard to adjacent life, property, and natural (b) Local master programs must include long- resources systems. range plans for the deposit and use of spoils (b) All perimeters of fills should be provided with on land. Spoil deposit sites in water areas vegetation, retaining walls, or other mecha-' should also be identified by local government nisms for erosion prevention. in cooperation with the state departments of Ic) Fill materials should be of such quality that it natural resources, game and fisheries. Deposit- will not cause problems of water quality. ing of dredge material in water areas should Shoreline areas are not to be considered for be allowed only for habitat improvement, to sanitary landfills or the disposal of solid correct problems of material distribution affect- waste. ing adversely fish and shellfish resources, or Id) Priority should be given to landfills for water- where the alternatives of depositing material dependent uses and for public uses. In eval- on land is more detrimental to shoreline re- uating fill projects and in designating areas sources than depositing it in water areas. appropriate for fill, such factors as total water (c) Dredging of bottom materials for the single surface reduction, navigation restriction, imped- purpose of obtaining fill material should be iment to water flow and circulation, reduction discouraged. of water quality and destruction of habitat should be considered. Shoreline Protection Solid Waste Disposal (WAC 173-16-060(17)) IWAC 173-16-060115)) Flood protection and streamway modifications are those activities occurring within the streamway and Generally, all solid waste is a possible source of wetland areas which are designed to reduce overbank much nuisance. Rapid, safe and nuisance-free storage, flow of high waters and stabilize eroding stream- IV-21 ###NEWPAGE n="220" ### banks. Reduction of flood damage, bank stabilization should be done after the environmental Impact to reduce sedimentation, and protection of property of the transportation facilities needed to serve from erosion are normally achieved through water- those areas have been assessed shed and flood plain management and by structural works. Such measures are often complementary to one another and several measures together may be neces- sary to achieve the desired end. Guidelines: (a) Ripropping and other bank stabilization meas- ures should be located, designed and con- Piers structed so as to avoid the need for channeli- zation and to protect the natural character of (WAC 173-16-060(19)) the streamway. A pier or dock is a structure built over or floating l(b Where flood protection measures such as dikes upon the water, used as a landing place for marine are planned, they should be placed landward transport or for recreational purposes. While floating of the streamway, including associated swamps docks generally create less of a visual impact than and marshes and other wetlands directly inter- those on piling, they constitute an impediment to boat related and interdependent with the stream traffic and shoreline trolling. Floating docks con also proper. alter beach sand patterns in areas where tides and (c1 Flood protection measures which result in chan- littoral drift are significant. On lakes, a proliferation nelization should be avoided. of piers along the shore can have the effect of sub- stantially reducing the usable water surface. Guide- lines: (a) The use of floating docks should be encour- aged in those areas where scenic values are high and where conflicts with recreational Road and Railroad Design and boaters and fishermen will not be created. Construction (b) Open-pile piers should be encouraged where (WAC 173-16-060(18)) shore trolling is important, where there is sig- nificant littoral drift and where scenic values A road is a linear passageway, usually for motor will not be impaired. vehicles, and a railroad is a surface linear passage- (c) Priority should be given to the use of commu- way with tracks for train traffic. Their construction can ty piers and docks in all new major wter- limit access to shorelines, impair the visual qualities front subdivisions. In general, encouragement of water-oriented vistas, expose soils to erosion and should be given to the cooperative use of piers retard the runoff of flood waters. Guidelines: and docks. (la) Whenever feasible, major highways, freeways Id) Master programs should address the problem and railways should be located away from of the proliferation of single-purpose private shorelands, except in port and heavy industrial piers and should establish criteria for their lo- areas, so that shoreland roads may be re- cation, spacing, and length. The master pro- served for slow-moving recreational traffic. grams shoalso delieo gth The mas grams should also delimit geographical areas (b) Roads located in wetland areas should be de- where pile piers will have priority over floating signed and maintained to prevent erosion and docks. to permit a natural movement of ground to wpermit anatural movement of ground (el In providing for boat docking facilities in the master program, local governments should (c) All debris, overburden, and other waste mate- consider the capacity of the shoreline sites to rials from construction should be disposed of absorb the impact of waste discharges from in such a way as to prevent their entry by boats including gas and oil spillage. erosion from drainage, high water, or other means into any water body. (d) Road locations should be planned to fit the topography so that minimum alterations of natural conditions will be necessary. le) Scenic corridors with public roadways should Archeological Areas and Historic Sites have provision for safe pedestrian and other nonmotorized travel. Also, provision should be (WAC 173-16-060(20)) made for sufficient view points, rest areas and Archeological areas, ancient villages, military picnic areas in public shorelines. forts, old settlers homes, ghost towns, and trails were (f) Extensive loops or spurs of old highways with often located on shorelines because-of the proximity high aesthetic quality should be kept in service of food resources and because water provided an as pleasure bypass routes, especially where important means of transportation. These sites are main highways, paralleling the old highway, nonrenewable resources and many are in danger of must carry large traffic volumes at high being lost through present day changes in land use speeds. and urbanization. Because of their rarity and the edu- Ig) Since land-use and transportation facilities are cational link they provide to our past, these locations so highly interrelated, the plans for each should be preserved. Guidelines: should be coordinated. The designation of po- (a) In preparing shoreline master programs, local tential high-use areas in master programs governments should consult with professional IV- 22 ###NEWPAGE n="221" ### archeologists to identify areas containing po- the preservation and enhancement of scenic tentiolly valuable archeological data, and to views and vistas. :,trJblish procedures for salvaging the data. (f) To avoid wasteful use of the limited supoly of (l) Where possible. sites should be permanently recreational shoreland, parking areas should preserved for scientific study and public obser- be located inland away from the immediate vation In areas known to contain archeologi- edge of the water and recreational beaches. Cal data, local governments should attach a Access should be provided by walkways or special condition to a shoreline permit provid- other methods. Automobile traffic on beaches, ing for a site inspection and evaluation by an dunes and fragile shorelond resources should archeologist to ensure that possible archeologi- be discouraged. cal data are properly salvaged. Such a condi- Ig) Recreational developments should be of such tion might also require approval by local gov- variety as to satisfy the diversity of demands ernment before work can resume on the project from groups in nearby population centers. following such an examination. (hi The supply of recreation facilities should be Ic) Shoreline permits, in general, should contain directly proportional to the proximity of poou- special provisions which require developers to lotion and compatible with the environment notify local governments if any possible or- designations. cheological data are uncovered during excava- (i) Facilities for intensive recreational activities tions. should be provided where sewage disposal (dl The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and vector control con be accomplished to and chapter 43.51 RCW provide for the protec- meet public health standards without ad- tion, rehabilitation, restoration and reconstruc- versely altering the natural features attractive tion of districts, sites, buildings, structures and for recreational uses. ISee Reference No. 35). objects significant in American and Washing- (j) In locating proposed recreational facilities such ton history, architecture, archeology or culture. as play ng fields and golf courses and other The state legislation names the director of the open areas which use large quantities of ferti- Washington state parks and recreation corm- lizers and pesticides in their turf maintenance mission as the person responsible for this pro- programs, provisions must be made to prevent gram. these chemicals from entering water. If this type of facility is approved on a shoreline location, provision should be made for protec- tion of water areas from drainage and surface runoff. Ik) State and local health agencies have broad Recreation regulations which apply to recreation facilities, (WAC 173-16-060121)) recreation watercraft and ocean beaches which should be consulted by local governments in Recreation is the refreshment of body and mind preparing use regulations and issuing permits. through forms of play, amusement or relaxation. Wa- ISee Reference Nos. 30, 31, 35, 36, 37). ter-related recreation accounts for a very high propor- tion of all recreational activity in the Pacific Northwest. The recreational experience may be either an active one involving boating, swimming, fishing or hunting or the experience may be passive such as enjoying the natural beauty of a vista of a lake, river or saltwater VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USES area. Guidelines: (a) Priority will be given to developments, other WAC 173-16-070) than single-family residences which are ex- The act states that each local master program empt from the permit requirements of the act, shall contain provisions covering conditional uses and which provide recreational uses and other im- variances. Any permit for a variance or a conditional provements facilitating public access to shore- use granted by the local government under approved lines. master programs must be submitted to the department lb) Access to recreational locations such as fishing for approval or disapproval. streams and hunting areas should be a combi- This provision of the act should be utilized in a notion of areas and linear access (parking manner which, while protecting the environment, will areas and easements, for example) to prevent assure that a person will be able to utilize his prop- concentrations of use pressure at a few points. erty in a fair and equitable manner Ic) Master programs should encourage the linkage of shoreline parks and public access points (1) Conditional uses. The objective of a condi- through the use of linear access. Many types tional use provision is to provide more control and of connections can be used such as hiking flexibility for implementing the regulations of the mas- paths, bicycle trails and/or scenic drives. ter program. With provisions to control undesirable (d) Attention should be directed toward the effect effects, the scope of uses within each of the four the development of a recreational site will environments can be expanded to include many uses. have on the environmental quality and natural Uses classified as conditional uses can be permit- resources of an area, ted only after consideration by the local government (e) Master programs should develop standards for and by meeting such performance standards that IV- 23 ###NEWPAGE n="222" ### make the use compatible with other permitted uses to implement the policy of this chapter for regulation within that area of use of tile shoelillenh of tlc. stlIte prio n 01unto):01r of maste, progitlmS. Stith O .tln(Idrlds sluh1ll klso movwi,' Conrlitionril use permits will It, granted only cifiir of niaste' proI ls. l Igturiekirilso slilil cipo imIvnIrI r:t cilpphr(inl ((in rlritlonstrcto (ill of Ilie followilgJ d velop. Lol hovg.litl ti Itcirtpn lol fhe use will cause no unreasonably adverse effects on the environment or other uses. 17) "Hearings board" means the shorelines hear- Ib) The use will not interfere with public use of ings board established by the oct. public shorelines (81 "Local government" means any county, incor- ic) Design of the site will be compatible with the porated city, or town which contains within its bound- surroundings and the Master Program. aries any lands or waters subject to the Shoreline Act Id) The proposed use will not be contrary to the of 1971. general intent of the master program. 19) "Master program" means the comprehensive (2) Variances. Variance deals with specific require- use plan for a described area, and the use regula- ments of the master program and its objective is to tions, together with maps, diagrams, charts or other grant relief when there are practical difficulties or descriptive material and text, a statement of desired unnecessary hardship in the way of carrying out the goals and standards developed in accordance with strict letter of the master program. The property owner the policies enunciated in section 2 of the act. must show that if he complies with the provisions he cannot make any reasonable use of his property. The (10) "Ordinary high-water mark" means the mark fact that he might make a greater profit by using his on all lakes, streams, and tidal waters, which will be property in a manner contrary to the intent of the found by examining the beds and banks and ascer- program is not a sufficient reason for variance. A taining where the presence and action of waters are variance will be granted only after the applicant can so common and usual, and so long continued in all demonstrate the following: ordinary years, as to mark upon the soil a character (a) The hardship which serves as basis for grant- distinct from that of the abutting upland, in respect to ing of variance is specifically related to the property vegetation, as that condition exists on the effective of the applicant. date of this chapter, or as it may naturally change thereafter: PROVIDED, That in any area where the lb) The hardship resunts ofrom the ct and master ion ordinary high-water mark cannot be found, the ordi- the 'requirements of the act and master program and nary high-water mork adjoining saltwater shall be the nary high-water mark adjoining saltwater shall be the not from, for example, deed restrictions or the appli- line of mean higher high tide and the ordinary high- cant's own actions. water mark adjoining freshwater shall be the line of (c) The variance granted will be in harmony with mean high water. the general purpose and intent of the master pro- gram. (11) "Permit" means that required by the act for (d) Public welfare and interest will be preserved; substantial development on shorelines, to be issued if more harm will be done to the area by granting the by the local government entity having administrative variance than would be done to the applicant by jurisdiction and subject to review by the department denying it, the variance will be denied. of ecology and the attorney general. (12) "Shorelines" means all of the water areas of GLOSSARY the state, including reservoirs, and their associated wetlands, together with the lands underlying them, IWAC 173-16-030) except: DEFINITIONS. As used herein, the following words (a) Shorelines of state-wide significance; and phrases shall have the following meanings: (b) Shorelines on segments of streams upstream of a point where the mean annual flow is 20 cubic feet (1) "Act" means Shoreline Management Act of per second or less, and the wetlands associated with 1971, chapter 90.58 RCW. such upstream segments; and 121 "Department" means state of Washington, (c) Shorelines on lakes less than 20 acres in size department of ecology. and wetlands associated with such small lakes. (3) "Development" means a use, consisting of (131 "Shorelines of state-wide significance" means the construction or exterior alteration of structures; the following shorelines of the state: dredging; drilling; dumping; filling; removal of any (a) The area between the ordinary high-water sand, gravel or minerals; bulkheading; driving of pil- mark and the western boundary of the state from ing; placing of obstructions; or any project of a per- Cape Disappointment on the south to Cape Flattery on manent or temporary nature which interferes with the the north, including harbors, bays, estuaries, and in- normal public use of the surface of the waters overly- lets; ing lands subject to the act at any state of water Ib) Those areas of Puget Sound and adjacent salt- waters and the Strait of Juan de Fuca between the (4) "Director" means the director of the depart- ordinary high-water mark and the line of extreme low ment of ecology. tide as follows: (i) Nisquolly Delta-from DeWolf Bight to Tatsolo 15) "Extreme low tide" means the lowest line onlly Delta-from DeWolf ight to Tatsolo the land reached by a receding tide. (ii) Birch Bay-from Point Whitehorn to Birch (6) "Guidelines" means those standards adopted Point; ###NEWPAGE n="223" ### liiil Hood Canal-from Tola Point to Foulweather APPENDIX "A" P.1, IT (WAC 173-16-2001 1,/I '.1I,,I,1 tI'.. ,,,,,1 . ,?,11,,' , (Iw,.I 0vm bluvwnl Polir to Yokeko Point; and Agricultural Practices ;iv Pcirllla Boy--from March Point to William 1. Chapter 15.57 RCW, Washington Pesticide Is f ,,,r,, Act Formulation, distribution and sole of ag- r! l(ri,,. rlreri'. of Piurtf Sound (rnd the Strait of ricultural pesticides. JI,, 'I, I,,,,, I ,,,, ,I (,(,.,Ilt ,iilhwlts inoilh lto the 2. Chaplei 17.21 RCW, Waslngton Peslicide Ap- Conoadiur line and lying seaward from the line of plication Act. Application equipment, licen- extreme low tide; sing, records, handling of and enforcement. Id) Those lakes, whether natural, artificial or a 3. Agricultural Extension Service, Washington combination thereof, with a surface acreage of 1,000 State University, Pullman, June 1964, Cattle acres, or more, measured at the ordinary high-water Manure Handling and Disposal. mark; 4. Cooperative Extension Service, College of Ag- lel Those natural rivers or segments thereof, as riculture, Washington State University, Pull- follows: man, October 1965, Guideline for Sanitary 1Il Any west of the crest of the Cascade range Handling of Animal Manure. downstream of a point where the mean annual flow 5. Cooperative Extension Service, College of Ag- is measured at 1,000 cubic feet per second, or more; riculture, Washington State University, Pull- lii) Any east of the crest of the Cascade range man, June 1969, Guidelines for Handling An- downstream of a point where the annual flow is imal Wastes as Related to Water and Air measured at 200 cubic feet per second, or more, or Pollution Control. those portions of rivers east of the crest of the 6. Cooperative Extension Service, College of Ag- Cascade range downstream from the first 300 riculture, Washington State University, Pull- square miles of drainage area, whichever is longer; man, June 1971, The Stockman's Role in (fl Those wetlands associated with (al through fe) Water Pollution Control. above 7. Eric B. Wilson, University of Idaho, A Pacific 4) "Shorelines of the state" means the total of Northwest Cooperative Extension Publication, PNW Bulletin 53, January 1963, Your Feedlot all 'shorelines" and "shorelines of state-wide signifi- -Build it-Mechanizelt. cance" within the state. 8. Cooperative Extension Service, College of Ag- (15) "State master program" means the cumula- riculture, Washington State University, Pull- tive total of all master programs approved or adopted man, June 1971, Livestock Waste Manage- by the department of ecology. ment Guidelines. 16) "Substantial development" means any devel- opment of which the total cost, or fair market value, ForestMana gement Practices exceeds $1,000, or any development which materially 9. Chapter 76.04 RCW, Forest protection, fire and interferes with normal public use of the water or burning control, permits and enforcement. shorelines of the state except that the following shall 10. Anonymous, Pacific Northwest Cooperative Ex- not be considered substantial developments: tension Publication, March 1971, Building (a) Normal maintenance or repair of existing Woodland Roads, distributed by Washington structures or developments, including damage by fire, State University Cooperative Extension Serv- occident, or elements; ice, College of Agriculture. (bJ Construction of the normal protective bulk- 11. State of Washington Departments of Fisheries, head, common to single-family residences; Game and Natural Resources, Agreement, re- (cl Emergency construction necessary to protect lated to management of projects affecting property from damage by the elements; land and fisheries resources. Id) Construction of a barn or similar agricultural 12. Pacific Northwest Pollution Control Council, structure on wetlands; Task Force Report, August 1971, Log Storage and Rafting in Public Waters. (e) Construction or modification of navigational aids, such as channel markers and anchor buoys; If) Construction on wetlands by an owner, lessee, or contract purchaser, of a single-family residence, for 13. Chapter 75.16 RCW, Food fish and shellfish his own use or for the use of his family, which resi- conservation and propagation. dence does not exceed a height of 35 feet above 14. Chapter 248.58 WAC, State Board of Health, average grade level and which meets all requirements Shellfish. of the state agency or local government having juris- diction thereof. Archeological Areas and Historic Sites 1171 "Wetlands" or "Wetland areas" means those 15. RCW 43.51.750-820, Preservation of sites and lands extending landward for 200 feet in all direc- funding requirements. tions, as measured on a horizontal plane from the ordinary high-water mark and all marshes, bogs, Bulkheads and Breakwaters swamps, floodways, river deltas, and flood plains as- 16. Washington State Department of Fisheries, Cri- sociated with the streams, lakes and tidal waters teria governing the design of bulkheads, which are subject to the provisions of the act. landfills and marinas. IV-25 ###NEWPAGE n="224" ### Landfill 26. WAC 248.50.100 State Board of Health Regu- 17 Wilbour v. Gallagher 77 Wn.2d 306, 462 P. lotion, Disposal of Human Excreta. 2d 232 (19691. See Bulkheads, this page. 27. Chapter 248.96 WAC, State Board of Health Regulation, Individual Sewage Disposal Ito Marinas 'be adoptedi. See Bulkheads, this page. 18. Chapter 248.148 WAC, Marinas Ito be U tilitie s adopted). 28. Chapter 80.50 RCW. Thermal Power Plants-- Site Locations. Mining 29. Ports and Water Related Industries, Washing- 19. RCW 43.51.685, Accreted lands, sale of sand ton Department of Natural Resources, Pro- and lease and removal permits. posed Harbor Area Guidelines. 20. Chapter 78.44 RCW, Surface Mining Act. Re- Pacific Ocean Beaches clamation requirements, site inspection and 30. RCW 79.16.160 Declared a Public Highway. permits. 31. RCW 79.16.172 Declared a Public Recreation Outdoor Advertising Area. 21. Chapter 47.42 RCW, Highway Advertising Environmental Impacts Control Act. Sign locations, scenic areas and 32. Chapter 43.21C RCW, Washington State Envi- permits. ronrmental Policy Act of 1971 requires all branches of government to include in every recommendation or report on proposals for 22. Bach v. Sarich. 74 Wn.2d 575, 445 P. 2d 648 legislation and other major actions signifi. [1968). cantly affecting the environment, a detailed 23. Washington State Department of Social and statement by the responsible official on the Health Services, Health Services Division, environmental impact of the proposed action. Standards for Individual Sewage Waste Dis- posal Systems. Public Health, State Board of Health 24. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservo- 33. WAC 248.50.140 Stagnant Water. tion Service, June 1967, Know the Soil You 34. Chapter 248.54 WAC, Public Water Supplies. Build On, Bulletin No. 320. 35. Chapter 248.72 WAC, Camps and Parks. 25. U.S. Department or Agriculture, Soil Conserva- 36. Chapter 248.92 WAC, Public Sewage Dis- tion Service, (September 1968) Soil Conserva- posal. tion, "Soil and Water Conservation in Subur- 37. Chapter 248.98 WAC, Swimming Pools, Bath- bia" reprints available. ing Beaches and Wading Pools. IV-26 ###NEWPAGE n="225" ### APPENDIX $ MAPS AND MATRICES a. Map of Coastal Zone Counties and Cities b. Status of Master Program for Cities and Counties, October 1975 c. Shoreline Use Matrix by County d. Sun-nary of Shoreline Permits for Marine Waters e. Federal Coastal Lands and Waters f. Indian Reservation Map g. Map of Areas of Particular Concern h. Environment Designation Map NOTE: not included in FEIS distributed to Federal agencies because of limited number of copies available, and are included in WCZMP which was previously submitted for review. ###NEWPAGE n="226" ### Blaine Bellingham WHATCOM foriday'r SKAGIT SANJUA Oak Harbor - ISLAND eStanwood Coupevile Por t Angeles Townsend CLALLe Langley 0 Marysville Everett SNOHOMISH Muitea Edmonds JEFFERSON Bremerton nslo KITSAP Seattle OPrtrchard Normandy Park * MASON Des Moines GRAYSHARBOR SheltonTaoa I Q Steilacoom L,, - Dupont Hoquiam I Ocean Shores Aberdeen lympa PIERCE Westport Cosmpolis THURSTON Raymond South Bend PACIFIC Long Beach liwaco ;WAHKIAKUM COASTAL ZONE COUNTIES AND CITIES 5-a V-1 ###NEWPAGE n="227" ### STATUS OF MASTER PROGRAM FOR CITIES AND COUNTIES, OCTOBER 1975 Master Program Program Resubmitted Amended COUNTY RMaseter Acceptedfor ogDfor Apprvgd LeP or entte Resubmitted Program Program Program ReiwProgram for Approved Letter sentt toDOfoAprvdprve MasteRe v i e w ra to DOE f or Approved Approved CiUNti Program Received City by DOE Local Government CitiesO n Yes/No Date Yes/No Date Date Datew Y Da Y/No Date Date Yes/No Date Yes/No Date *CLALLAM COUNTY 3/6/75 Yes 3/6/75 6/13/75 'Port Angeles 3/6/75 Yes 3/6/75 Yes 6/13/75 *GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY 6/17/74 Yes 6/19/74 9/17/74 7/23/75 Yes 8/5/75 *Aberdeen 12/20/73 Yes 12/20/73 No 3/20/74 6/10/74 Yes 6/30/75 'Hoquiam 12/20/73 Yes 12/20/73 3/20/74 'Ocean Shores 12/20/73 Yes 12/20/73 Yes 3/20/74 6/21/74 Yes 8/12/74 Montesano 12/20/73 Yes 12/20/73 No 3/20/74 *Westport 12/20/73 Yes 12/20/73 Yes 3/20/74 6/24/74 Yes 11/7/74 Elma 12/20/73 Yes 12/20/73 Yes 3/20/74 6/24/74 Yes 9/18/74 Oakville 12/20/73 Yes 12/20/73 No 3/20/74 *Cosmopolis 12/20/73 Yes 12/20/73 Yes 3/20/74 6/24/74 Yes 8/12/74 *ISLAND COUNTY 'Coupeville Yes 'Langley Yes *Oak Harbor Yes *JEFFERSON COUNTY 9/20/74 Yes 9/23/74 12/20/74 'Port Townsend 9/20/74 Yes 9/23/74 Yes 12/20/74 *KING COUNTY Auburn 1/29/74 Yes 1/29/74 No 4/4/74 Beaux Arts 12/19/73 Yes 5/22/74 No 8/12/74 Bellevue 6/21/74 Yes 6/27/74 No 9/17/74 2/17/75 Yes 2/26/73 Black Diamond No Bothell 11/29/74 Yes 11/29/74 No 2/27/75 Carnation 12/20/74 Yes 1/15/74 No 4/14/74 9/12/74 Yes 8/16/74 'Des Moines 1/3/74 Yes 1/3/74 No 4/3/74 Duvall 5/16/74 Yes 5/28/74 No 8/12/74 'Denotes Coastal Zone Counties and Cities on Saltwater ###NEWPAGE n="228" ### STATUS OF MASTER PROGRAM FOR CITIES AND COUNTIES, OCTOBER 1975 Program Resubmitted Amended Master Master Program County Doing Program Program Denied Resubmitted A mended COUNTY PorMAcce pted for Progra m for Approved Letter sent to Resubmi d Program Program Review oato DOE for Approved Approved Received City by DOE Local Government reved Cities Date Yes/No Date Date Rve Dt Yes/No DateYso D ate Yes/No Date Yes/No Date *KING COUNTY (CONT.) Hunts Point 12/20/73 Yes 12/22/73 No 3/19/74 6/20/74 Yes 11/15/74 Yes 7/2/75 Issaquah No Kent 2/1/74 Yes 2/1/74 No 4/9/74 Kirkland 5/31/74 Yes 5/31/74 No 8/27/74 Lake Forest Park 1/28/74 Yes 1/28/74 No 4/19/74 Medina 1/21/74 Yes 1/22/74 No 4/19/74 7/23174 Yes 11/22/74 Mercer Island 6/27/74 Yes 6/28/74 No 9/24/74 'Normandy Park 1/28/74 Yes 2/8/74 No 4/5/74 North Bend 7/9/74 Yes 6/20/74 No 9/14/74 Pacific 2/19/74 Yes 8/26/74 No 9/19/74 Redmond 6/24/74 Yes 6/27/74 No 9/20/74 Renton 6/1/74 Yes 6/12/74 No 9/5/74 *Seattle No Skykomish No Snoqualmie 6/20/74 Yes 6/26/74 No 8/16/74 Tukwila 6/28/74 Yes 7/9/74 No 9/26/74 Yarrow Point 12/26/73 Yes 12/28/73 No 3/26/74 6/21/74 Yes 3/13/75 *KITSAP COUNTY *Bremerton No 'Port Orchard No *Poulsbo No 'Winslow No *MASON COUNTY 12/20/73 Yes 1/28/74 4/26/74 7/30/74 Yes 8/6/75 'Shelton 12/20/73 Yes 1/28/74 4/26/74 12/13/74 Yes 3/18/75 *PACIFIC COUNTY 3/11/74 Yes 3/11/74 6/11/74 8/29/74 Yes 4/8/75 *llwaco 3/11/74 Yes 3/11/74 Yes 6/11/74 8/29/74 Yes 5/2/75 *Denotes Coastal Zone Counties and Cites on Saltwater ###NEWPAGE n="229" ### STATUS OF MASTER PROGRAM FOR CITIES AND COUNTIES, OCTOBER 1975 Master Master Program Coun Doing Program Progroam Resubmitted Amended COUNTY Masccepte d for Pormr A p v e LtePgntoResubmitted Program Program Program Review Program for Approved Letter sent to to DOE for Approved Approved Received City by DOE Local Government Rve Cities Date Yes/No Date Date Review saYes/No Date Date Yes/No Date Yes/No Dnte *PACIFIC COUNTY (CONT.) *Long Beach 3/11/74 Yes 3/11/74 Yes 6/11/74 8/29/74 Yes 5/2/75 *Raymond 3/11/74 Yes 3/11/74 No *South Bend 3/11/74 Yes 3/11/74 Yes 6/11/74 8/29/74 Yes 5/2/75 *PIERCE COUNTY 1/13/75 Yes 1/14/75 4/4/75 Bonney Lake 5/5/75 Yes 8/4/75 No 8/6/75 Buckley 1/13/75 Yes 1/14/75 Yes 4/7/75 Carbonado No shorelines Dupont 6/26/74 Yes 6/26/74 No 9/28/74 6/4/75 Yes 6/11/75 Eatonville 1/13/75 Yes 1/14/75 Yes 4/29/75 Fife 6/11/74 Yes 6/11/74 No 9/6/74 *Gig Harbor 6/30/75 Yes 7/2/75 No 9/10/75 Orting 1/14/75 Yes 1/14/75 Yes 4/8/75 Puyallup 3/13/74 Yes 3/13/74 No 5/31/74 Roy 2/27/75 Yes 2/27/75 Yes 4/9/75 *Ruston 1/23/74 Yes 1/23/74 No 9/20/74 South Prairie No *Steilacoom No Sumner 4/17/74 Yes 9/11/74 No 12/11/74 *Tacoma 1/29/74 Yes 1/29/74 No 4/25/74 Wilkeson No *SNOHOMISH COUNTY 10/16/74 Yes 10/16/74 12/27/74 Arlington 10/16/74 Yes 10/16/74 Yes 12/27/74 Brier 10/16/74 Yes 10/16/74 Yes 12/27/74 'Edmonds 12/21/73 Yes 12/28/73 No 3/19/74 11125/74 *Denotes Coastal Zone Counties and Cities on Saltwater ###NEWPAGE n="230" ### STATUS OF MASTER PROGRAM FOR CITIES AND COUNTIES, OCTOBER 1975 COUNTY Master Master Pf Cont ,BeingH pr ogram Program Denied PProgram Resubmitted Amended Cities Date Yes/No Date Date Review Yes/No Date Date Yes/No Date Yes/No Date SNOHOMISH COUNTY (CONT.) 'Everett 2/25/75 No 3/24/75 No I/5nt1 Gold Bar 10/16/74 Yes 10/16/74 Yes 12/27/74 Granite Falls 10/16/74 Yes 10/16/74 Yes 12/27/175 Index 10/16/74 Yes 10/16/74 Yes 12/27/74 Lake Stevens 10/16/74 Yes 10/16/74 Yes 12/27/74 *Marysville 6/26/74 Yes 6/26/74 No 9/18/74 12/19/74 Yes 1/22/75 Monroe 10/16/74 Yes 10/16/74 Yes 12/27/74 Mountlake Terrace 10/16/74 Yes 10/16/74 Yes 12/27/74 *Mukilteo 6/26/74 Yes 6/26/74 No 9/20/74 Snohomish 6/26/74 Yes 6/26/74 No 9/20/74 Stanwood No Sultan 10/16/74 Yes 10/16/74 Yes 12/27/74 Woodway 10/16/74 Yes 10/16/74 Yes 12/27/74 *SAN JUAN COUNTY Friday Harbor No *SKAGIT COUNTY *Anacortes No Concrete Yes Hamilton ? LaConner Yes Lyman Yes Mount Vernon Yes *THURSTON COUNTY Bucoda Lacey Denotes Coastal Zone Counties and CiYes on Saltwater ###NEWPAGE n="231" ### STATUS OF MASTER PROGRAM FOR CITIES AND COUNTIES, OCTOBER 1975 master Master Program ConyDigPormProgram Denied Program Resubmitted Amended COUNTY PormAccepted for ConyDig Program frApoe et sntoResubmitted Program Program Cities Received Reiwcity by DDE Local Government to DOE for Approved Apoe CiDti es/N aeDt Review Dt es/No D ate Ye/oDt DaeDate YesNo Date YesNo Date *THURSTON COUNTY (CONL 'Olympia Tenino Turnwater Velm *WAHKIAKUM COUNTY 1122174 Yes 1122174 4122/74 1/7175 Yes 6117175 Cathlamet 1/22/74 Yes 1/22/74 Yes 4122/74 1/7/75 Yes 6117175 *WHATCOM COUNTY *Bellinghar n 711/74 Yes 719/74 No 9130174 *Baine 8/4/75 Yes 8/4/75 Whatcom Reg. 9/29/75 Everson 8/4/75 Yes 8/4/75 Whatcom Reg. 9/29/75 Ferndale Whatcom Reg. a'ydn8//5Ys847 hacmRg /97 yNdonka 8/4/75 Yes 8/4/75 Whatcom Reg. 9/29175 Nooksac 8/4175 Yes 8/4/75 Wlhatcom Reg. 9/29/75 'Denotes Coastal Zone Counties and Cities on Saltwater ###NEWPAGE n="232" ### CLALLAM COUNTY MASTER PROGRAM - SHORELINE USE MATRIX Submitted, but not approved ENVIRONMENTS SHORELINE USES NATURAL CONSERVANCY RURAL SUBURBAN URBAN AQUATIC 1. AGRICULTURE Permitted Permitted Permitted and Permitted, limit live- encouraged stock access 2. AQUACULTURE Permitted if it does Permitted if it does Permitted if it does Permitted use in those not interfere with not interfere with not interfere with areas especially suited recreation, navigation, recreation, navigation, scenic quality for aquaculture and scenery and scenery 3. FOREST MANAGEMENT Permitted - Selective Permitted Permitted cutting (30 percent per 10 years) 4. COMMERCIAL Not permitted Not permitted - Permitted if proven ne- Permitted - shoreline Permitted DEVELOPMENT new development or cessary and if located dependent preferred C< expansion of existing near existing. Per- development mitted - log booming 5. MARINAS Not permitted Not permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted 6. BOAT LAUNCHING Permitted if sparsely Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted located 7. MINING Not permitted Not permitted Permitted - condition- Permitted, but no Permitted, but no al use gravel or sand gravel or sand re- removal from moval from marine marine beaches beaches 8. OUTDOOR ADVER- Not permitted - ad- Not permitted - ad- Advertising signs Permitted - directional Permitted TISING vertising signs. vertising signs. generally incompatible signs. Permitted - directional Permitted - directional with environment All other signs - signs signs conditional uses 9. RESIDENTIAL Permitted - individual Permitted - individual Permitted. Permitted. Permitted. DEVELOPMENT single family homes. single family homes Floating homes per- Floating homes per- Floating homes per- Not permitted - all and floating homes mitted if proper waste mitted if proper waste mitted if proper waste other types of if proper waste dis- disposal provided. disposal provided. disposal provided residential develop- posal provided. Not permitted - over- Not permitted - over- ment Not permitted - water residences water residences. subdivisions ###NEWPAGE n="233" ### CLALLAM COUNTY MASTER PROGRAM - SHORELINE USE MATRIX Submitted, but not approved ENVIRONMENTS SHORELINE USES NATURAL CONSERVANCY RURAL SUBURBAN URBAN AQUATIC 10. UTILITIES Permitted (under- Permitted (under- Permitted - en- Permitted - en- Permitted ground) ground) couraged underground couraged underground 11. PORTS AND Not permitted Not permitted Not permitted Not permitted Permitted INDUSTRY 12. BULKHEADS Not permitted Permitted for pro- Generally discouraged. Permitted when neces- Permitted when tection only above Permitted - protective sary, but not to necessary, but not high water line when bulkheads above high create new land to create land property eroding water line only 13. BREAKWATERS Not permitted Not permitted Generally not Permitted for im- Permitted for im- permitted provement of naviga- provement of naviga- tion and channel tion and channel maintenance maintenance 14. LANDFILL Not permitted Not permitted Permitted to raise Permitted. Creation Permitted. Shoreline building site. of new land for water dependent uses Not permitted to dependent uses only preferred create new land 15. SOLID WASTE Not permitted Not permitted Must be consistent Not permitted DISPOSAL with local and state health regulations 16. DREDGING Not permitted Permitted to improve Permitted. Permitted. Conditional Permitted to aid navigation. Not permitted if sole use if the sole purpose navigation, but re- Not permitted if the purpose is to obtain is to obtain fill stricted if purpose sole purpose is to fill material material is to obtain fill obtain fill material material 17. SHORELINE Permitted. For pro- Permitted for pro- Permitted. Permitted. Permitted PROTECTION tection only. Dikes tection only. Dikes Not permitted - chan- Channelization to be not to cause not to cause nelization minimized channelization channelization 18. ROADS AND Not permitted - major Not permitted - major Not permitted - major Permitted. Locate Permitted. Have to RAILROADS highways. highways. highways. Roads in uplands when locate carefully. Permitted - access and Permitted - access and wetlands - conditional practical scenic roads scenic roads use ###NEWPAGE n="234" ### GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY MASTER PROGRAM - SHORELINE USE MATRIX Approval Date: August 5, 1975 ENVIRONMENTS SHORELINE USES NATURAL CONSERVANCY RURAL SUBURBAN URBAN AQUATIC 1. AGRICULTURE Not permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted - conditional use 2. AQUACULTURE Not permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted - conditional use 3. FOREST Not permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted - MANAGEMENT conditional use 4. COMMERCIAL Not permitted Permitted - Permitted - water Permitted - water DEVELOPMENT conditional use related related Permitted - Permitted - conditional uses conditional uses for others for others 5. MARINAS Not permitted Permitted - Permitted - Permitted conditional use conditional use 6. BOAT LAUNCHING Not permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted RAMPS 7. MINING Not permitted Permitted - Permitted Permitted - conditional use conditional use S. OUTDOOR Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - ADVERTISING appurtenant signs appurtenant signs. appurtenant signs. appurtenant signs. only Non-appurtenant Non-appurtenant Non-appurtenant signs permitted - signs permitted - signs permitted - conditional use conditional use conditional use 9. RESIDENTIAL Not permitted Permitted - single Permitted Permitted DEVELOPMENT family All others permitted - conditional uses 10. UTILITIES Not permitted Permitted - Permitted Permitted conditional use 11. PORTS AND Not permitted Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - INDUSTRY conditional use conditional use conditional use ###NEWPAGE n="235" ### CLALLAM COUNTY MASTER PROGRAM -SHORELINE USE MATRIX Submitted, but not approved ENVIRONMENTS SHORELINE USES NATURAL CONSERVANCY RURAL SUBURBAN URBAN AQUATIC 19. PIERS Permitted - generally Permitted - generally Permitted - corn- Permitted Permitted discouraged. discouraged. munity piers Community piers Community piers preferred preferred preferred 20. ARCHEOLOGICAL May suspend construction up to 30 days for evaluation. AREAS AND HISTORIC SITES 21. RECREATION Permitted - low in- Permitted - low Permitted - camp- Permitted Permitted tensity development. intensity. Access sites and parking Access by foot trail. mainly by foot inland Not permitted - trails golf courses 22. EDUCATIONAL Permitted - con- Permitted - con- Permitted - con- Permitted AND SCIENTIFIC ditional use ditional use ditional use RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ###NEWPAGE n="236" ### GRA, miARBOR COUNTY MASTER PROGRAM - SHORELINE USE MATRIX Approval Date: August 5, 1975 ENVIRONMENTS SHORELINE USES NATURAL CONSERVANCY RURAL SUBURBAN URBAN AQUATIC 12. BULKHEADS Not permitted Permitted - Permitted Permitted conditional use 13. BREAKWATERS Not permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted 14. JETTIES AND Not permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted GROINS 15. LANDFILL Not permitted Permitted - Permitted - Permitted conditional use conditional use 16. SOLID WASTE Not permitted Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - DISPOSAL conditional use conditional use conditional use 17. EFFLUENT Not permitted Permitted - Permitted Permitted DISPOSAL conditional use 18. DREDGING Not permitted Permitted - Permitted Permitted coaididntl use 19. SHORELINE Not permitted Permitted - Permitted Permitted PROTECTION conditional use 20. ROADS AND Not permitted Permitted - Permitted - Permitted RAILROADS conditional use conditional use 21. PIERS Not permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted 2Z2. EDUCATIONAL AND - Permitted Permitted Permitted ._ mied ARCHEOLOGICAL - AREAMIAND 0 HISTORICAL SITES 23. RECREATIONAL Permitted - fishing, Permitted Permitted Permitted PRACTICES water sprt, hiking and sight-seeing 24. LOG STORAGE AND Not permitted Permitted - Permitted. Permitted RAFTING conditional use ###NEWPAGE n="237" ### ISLAND COUNTY MASTER PROGRAM - SHORELINE USE MATRIX Not Submitted ENVIRONMENTS SHORELINE USES NATURAL CONSERVANCY RURAL Shoreline RESIDENTIAL URBAN AQUATIC 1. AGRICULTURE Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Not permitted secondary use primary use secondary use secondary use secondary use 2. AQUACULTURE Farming & Farming permitted Processing farming Permitted - Processing per- Permitted - processing per- - primary use. permitted - secondary use mitted - primary primary use mitted - con- Processing per- secondary use use.- ditional use mitted - secondary Farming per- use mitted - secondary use 3. FOREST Not permitted Perniitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Not applicable MANAGEMENT primary use secondary use secondary use secondary use 4. COMMERCIAL Not permitted Permitted - con- Water dependent Water dependent Water dependent Permitted - DEVELOPMENT ditional use, water permitted - permitted - permitted - pri- water dependent dependent only secondary use secondary use mary use.- secondary use or a Non-water dependent subject to -secondary use conditional uses 5. MARINAS Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - conditional use conditional use secondary use secondary use primary use secondary use (includes float- (includes float- (includes float- (includes float- (includes float- plane bases) plane bases) plane bases) plane bases) plane bases) 6. BOAT LAUNCHING Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - conditional use secondary use primary use primary use primary use primary use 7. MINING Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - conditional use conditional use conditional use conditional use conditional use conditional use 8. OUTDOOR Permitted - On premise signs Permitted - on On premise signs On premise signs Not permitted. ADVERTISING conditional use on permitted - promise signs - permitted - permitted - premise. Not per- secondary use. secondary use.- secondary use. secondary use. mitted - off Billboards per- Off premise signs On premise bill- Off premise signs premise. mitted - conditional and billboards per- boards permitted - and billboards use. mnitted - conditional conditional use permitted - Not permitted - use conditional use off premrise signs ###NEWPAGE n="238" ### ISLAND COUNTY MASTER PROGRAM - SHORELINE USE MATRIX Not Submitted ENVIRONMENTS SHORELINE USES NATURAL CONSERVANCY RURAL Shoreline RESIDENTIAL URBAN AIUATIC 9. RESIDENTIAL Permitted - Permitted - Permitted Permitted, including Multi-family Permitted, subject DEVELOPMENT conditional use conditional use for motels - primary use residence permitted - to conditional use all primary use. (boatel) Single-family residence permitted - secondary use 10. UTILITIES Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - conditional use secondary use primary use primary use primary use 11. PORTS AND Not permitted Water dependent Ports and water Permitted - Water dependent Water dependent INDUSTRY industry permitted - dependent use conditional use permitted - primary industry and ports * conditional use permitted - use. permitted - secondary use. Non-water dependent secondary and Non-water dependent - secondary use conditional use. and ports use Not permitted - permitted - non-water dependent conditional use uses 12. BULKHEADS Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Not permitted secondary use secondary use secondary use secondary use secondary use 13. BREAKWATERS Not permitted Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - secondary use secondary use secondary use secondary use secondary use 14. LANDFILL Not permitted Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Conditional use conditional use secondary use secondary use secondary use 15. SOLID WASTE Not permitted Not permitted Not permitted Not permitted Not permitted Not permitted DISPOSAL 16. DREDGING Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - conditional use conditional use secondary use secondary use secondary use conditional use 17. SHORELINE Not permitted Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - PROTECTION secondary use secondary use secondary use secondary use secondary use ###NEWPAGE n="239" ### ISLAND COUNTY MASTER PROGRAM - SHORELINE USE MATRIX Not Submitted ENVIRONMENTS SHORELINE USES NATURAL CONSERVANCY RURAL Shoreline RESIDENTIAL URBAN AOUATIC 18. ROADS AND Permitted, subject Vista parking lots Railroads, vehicular Railroads, vehicular Railroads, vehicular Not permitted RAI LROAOS to conditional use permitted - routes and non-vista routes and non-vista routes and devices primary use. parking lots parks permitted - permitted - Railroads and permitted - conditional use primary use. vehicular routes conditional use Parking lots permitted - con- permitted - secondary ditional use use 19. PIERS Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Connector permit- Permitted - float- conditional use secondary use secondary use secondary use ted - primary use plane bases. Jetties and groins permitted - conditional use 20. ARCHEOLOGICAL Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - AREAS AND secondary use primary use secondary use secondary use primary use secondary use HISTORIC SITES 21. RECREATION Parks, campgrounds Parks, campgrounds Parks, trails and Parks, trails, Parks, trails, path- Underwater parks and camping and camping clubs pathways for non- camping clubs ways for non- permitted - clubs permitted - permitted - vehicular use permitted - vehicular use primary use conditional uses secondary use permitted - primary use. permitted - primary use. Campgrounds and primary use. Campgrounds and camping clubs Campgrounds and camping clubs permitted - camping clubs permitted - secondary use permitted - secondary use secondary use 22. EDUCATIONAL AND Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - SCIENTIFIC secondary use primary use secondary use secondary use primary use secondary use RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 23. TRAILS AND Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - PATHWAYS FOR secondary use secondary use primary use primary use primary use NON-VEHICULAR USE ###NEWPAGE n="240" ### JEFFEHisON COUNTY MASTER PROGRAM - SHORELINE USE MATRIX Approval Date: December 20, 1974 ENVIRONMENTS SHORELINE USES NATURAL CONSERVANCY RURAL SUBURBAN URBAN AflUATIC 1. AGRICULTURE Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - conditional use primary use secondary use secondary use 2. A12UACULTURE Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Processing conditional use primary use. secondary use permitted - (includes Processing primary use. processing) permitted - Farming secondary use permitted - secondary use 3. FOREST Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - MANAGEMENT conditional use primary use secondary use secondary use 4. COMMERCIAL Permitted - Permitted - Hotels, boatels, Hotels, motels, DEVELOPMENT conditional use conditional use motels permitted - boatels and water primary use,. dependent per- Water and non- mitted - primary i-a water commercial use. Ul permitted - Non-water depen- secondary use dent permitted - secondary use S. MARINAS Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted conditional use conditional use secondary use (includes fl[oat (includes float (includes float plane bases) plane bases) plane bases) 6. BOAT LAUNCHING Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - conditional use secondary use primary use primary use 7. MINING Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - conditional use conditional use conditional use conditional use 8. OUTDOOR Permitted - On premise signs On-premise signs On-premise ADVERTISING conditional use permitted - permitted - secon- permitted - secondary use. dary use,. secondary use. Others permitted - Off promise signs Off-premise conditional use and billboards per- permitted - mitted subject to conditional use conditional use ###NEWPAGE n="241" ### ISLAND COUNTY MASTER PROGRAM - SHORELINE USE MATRIX Not Submitted ENVIRONMENTS SHORELINE USES NATURAL CONSERVANCY RURAL Shoreline RESIDENTIAL URBAN AIIUATIC 24. HARVESTING SHELL- Not permitted Not permitted Not permitted Not permitted Not permitted Permitted - FISH AND NATURAL conditional use RESOURCES ###NEWPAGE n="242" ### JEFFERsON COUNTY MASTER PROGRAM - SHORELINE USE MATRIX Approval Date: December 20, 1974 ENVIRONMENTS SHORELINE USES NATURAL CONSERVANCY RURAL SUBURBAN URBAN AQUATIC 18. ROADS AND. Trails for non- Trails for non- Trails for non- Permitted - RAILROADS vehicular use vehicular use vehicular use primary use permitted - and vista parking permitted .- secondary use. lots permitted - primary use. Roads, railroads primary use. Others permitted - and parking lots Non-vista parking conditional use permitted - lots permitted - conditional use secondary use. Roads and railroads permitted - conditional use 19. PIERS Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - conditional use secondary use secondary use primary use 20. ARCHEOLOGICAL Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - AREAS AND secondary use primary use secondary use primary use HISTORIC SITES 21. RECREATION Permitted - Permitted - Parks permitted - Permitted - secondary use. secondary use primary use. primary use. Campgrounds Campgrounds and Campgrounds and permitted - camping clubs vista parking lots conditional use permitted - permitted - secondary uses secondary use 22. EDUCATIONAL Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - AND SCI ENTI FIC secondary use primary use secondary uses primary use RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ###NEWPAGE n="243" ### JEFFERSON COUNTY MASTER PROGRAM - SHORELINE USE MATRIX Approval Date: December 20, 1974 ENVIRONMENTS SHORELINE USES NATURAL CONSERVANCY RURAL SUBURBAN URBAN AQUATIC 9. RESIDENTIAL Permitted - Single family Permitted - Multi-family DEVELOPMENT conditional use and subdivisions primary use residences per- permitted - mitted - primary secondary use. use. Multi-family and Other residential mobile home permitted - parks permitted - secondary use conditional use 10. UTILITIES Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - conditional use secondary use primary use primary use 11. PORTS AND Permitted - Permitted - Water dependent Water dependent INDUSTRY conditional use conditional use industry per- industry permitted mitted - - primary use. secondary use. Non-water Non-water dependent dependent industry permitted industry permitted - secondary use - conditional use 12. BULKHEADS Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - conditional use secondary use secondary use secondary use 13. BREAKWATERS Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - conditional use secondary use secondary use secondary use 14. LANDFILL Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - conditional use conditional use secondary use secondary use 15. SOLID WASTE Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - DISPOSAL conditional use conditional use conditional use conditional use 16. DREDGING Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - conditional use conditional use secondary use secondary use 17. SHORELINE Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - PROTECTION conditional use secondary use secondary use secondary use ###NEWPAGE n="244" ### KING COUNTY MASTER PROGRAM - SHORELINE USE MATRIX Not Submitted ENVIRONMENTS SHORELINE USES NATURAL CONSERVANCY RURAL SUBURBAN URBAN AQUATIC 1. AGRICULTURE Not permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Not permitted 2. AQUACULTURE Aquatic resource Permitted Permitted Permitted Aquatic resource practices restricted riractices restricted to natural adjacent to hatcheries and beds National environ- ment; permitted elsewhere 3. FOREST Generally not Permitted - Permitted - Timber Not permitted MANAGEMENT permitted timber harvest timber harvest preservation is (unless approved encouraged by State Fisheries and Game Depart- ments) 4. COMMERCIAL Not permitted Not permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted under DEVELOPMENT special conditions 5. MARINAS Not permitted Not permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted -- shoreline dependent uses only 6. MINING Not permitted (un- Permitted Permitted Not permitted Not permitted less approved by (unless approved (unless approved by appropriate State by State Fish and appropriate State agencies) Game Departments) agencies) 7. OUTDOOR Not permitted Not permitted Permitted Permitted Not permitted ADVERTISING 8. RESIDENTIAL Permitted with Permitted with Permitted with Permitted Not permitted DEVELOPMENT restrictions restrictions restrictions 9. UTILITIES Permitted only Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted where necessary 10. PORTS AND INDUS- Not permitted Not permitted Permitted - Permitted Permitted subject TRY industries. to policy and Ports permitted - regulations of conditional use "Piers and Moorage" use ###NEWPAGE n="245" ### KING COUNTY MASTER PROGRAM - SHORELINE USE MATRIX Not Submitted ENVRUUIENTS SHORELINE USES NATURAL CONSERVANCY RURAL SUBURBAN URBAN AQUATIC 11. BREAKWATERS Not perirotted Not permitted Not permitted Permitted Permittrd to protect an utbon environment 12. JETTIES AND Not permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted off-shore GROINS of Urban, Rural and Consevancy environments 13. LANDFILL Not permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Not permitted - except for hech feeding 14. SOLID WASTE Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Not permitted DISPOSAL conditionally 15. DREDGING Not permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted 16. SHORELINE Structural Permitted - Permitted Permitted Permitted with PROTECTION protection not with restrictions restrictions permitted 17. TRANSPORTATION Permitted for Permitted Pemitted Permitted Permitted with FACILITIES pedestrian restrictions facilities and use only 18. PIERS Not permitted - Permitted with Permitted Permitted Permitted permanent facilities. restrictions - Permitted - residential piers. floating Not permitted - facilities with commercial and restrictions industrial piers 19. RECREATION Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted ###NEWPAGE n="246" ### KITS,,,. .JUNTY MASTER PROGRAM - SHORELINE USE MATRIX Not Submitted ENVIRONMENTS SHORELINE USES NATURAL CONSERVANCY RURAL SEMI-RURAL URBAN AIIUATIC 1. AGRICULTURE Not permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Not permitted 2. AQUACULTURE Not permitted Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted conditional use conditional use conditional use conditional use 3. FOREST Not permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Generally not Not permitted MANAGEMENT permitted 4. COMMERCIAL Not permitted Not permitted Permitted - Limited use Permitted with Not permitted DEVELOPMENT conditional use permitted - restrictions conditional use 5. MARINAS Not permitted Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted ,,- os SAN JUAN ISLAND CLALLAM SNOHOMISH I I D' J_ x 11 \ PIERCE ]t JEFE THURSTON 8 PACIFIC " WAHKIAKUM I MAJOR COASTAL MILITARY INSTALLATIONS LAND HOLDINGS IN WASHINGTON 5-e V-46 C-1 ###NEWPAGE n="273" ### JEFFERSON COUNTY COAST GUARD STATIONS/HOLDINGS (Major) (1) Indian Island Annex of NTS-Keyport (2) Naval Underwater 3D Range-Dabob Bay (3) U.S. Naval Res.-Bangor NAD (35) Cape Disappointment (31) Destruction Island-USCG GRAYS HARBOR ISLAND COUNTY (36) Point Grenville Sta. on the Indian Res. (4) Lake Hancock Rocket Range (37) Grays Harbor Sta. - Westport (18) Ault Field-Navy See #31 Destruction Island Sta. - Grays Harbor (19) Naval Air Station-Whidbey Island (20) Crescent Harbor-Seaplane Base Naval Res. JEFFERSON COUNTY (21) Naval Outlying Field-Coopesville (38) Marrowstone Point Station - Jefferson Co. KITSAP COUNTY CLALLAM COUNTY (3) U.S. Naval Res.-Bangor NAD See # 27 Cape Flattery Station - (Tatoosh Island) (5) Keyport Naval Torpedo See #26 Neah Bay Station (6) Kingston Naval Degaussing Station (39) Port Angeles Air Sta. - Port Angeles (15) Bremerton Annex of PSNS (40) Slip Point (16) PSNS-Bremerton See# 25 New Dungeness Station (17) Manchester- Fuel Annex NSCPS (22) Chioco Marine Center ISLAND COUNTY (23) Battle Point-USN Res. Bainbridge IslandSmith Island Station (41) Smith Island Station SNOHOMISH COUNTY SKAGIT COUNTY (7) NRC-Everett (28) Paine Field (42) Burrows Island Station (29) U.S. Military Res.-Edmonds (30) Lighthouse Res.-Elliot Point-USCG SNOHOMISH COUNTY (43) Mukilteo Lighthouse KING COUNTY See #30 (8) Naval Reserve Center (Seattle) Lk. Union (9) Naval Support Activity - Sand Point KITSAP COUNTY (44) Point No Point Station PIERCE COUNTY (10) N & MC RC - Tacoma KING COUNTY (11) Acoustic Range (Sec. 2) Fox Island-Navy (45) Fort Lawton (32) Fort Lewis (portion of) SAN JUAN COUNTY WHATCOM COUNTY (46) Turn Point Station (12) NRTF-Bellingham (47) Lime Kiln Light Sta. (above Deadman Cove) (48) Patos Island (No. of Sucia Island) GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY (49) Sucia Island (No. & So.) (13) NMCRC - Aberdeen (14) Naval Oceanographic Facility (Pacific Beach) waterfront 2,675 LF (34) Point Daman CLALLAM COUNTY (26) Waadah Island - Coast Guard (27) Tatoosh Island - U.S. Lighthouse Res. USCG (24) Ediz Hook - USCG Res. (25) Dungeness Spit - U.S. Lighthouse Res. USCG THURSTON COUNTY (33) Fort Lewis - (part of) V-47 ###NEWPAGE n="274" ### C A N A D A o"It Roberts s o y? 0* Birch Point lk 5h Birch say AREAS AE 0 . \ 4 Point WhitehornWH T LPalos I. n 0Sny on ISlandy on T- IL- Suo IndinLad . Island C Z BllnhanAREAS SAN JUA lod MlitryResrvaio '4boce WnCalterVon teasIngo SpiTurn aPt. aaIndianD C ILands N JU A I Militr eseprvuatio /ISeLerg PopTint -ash-mnlaesoFdel U.SC.. r i d y a n s . ..dd and ae efiedinth /ea Costal JZAne M angemntYAt n Habo .SC..i ha r oVhe-a4n8o V CO Turn Pt. Coasta Zone Management ProgramC- ###NEWPAGE n="275" ### cc SAMISH ..ypeSinclair Is.BA s. I Guenes SAN JUAN Is. PADILLA Sish U.S.C.G A K- ANACOI E Burrows Is.K PROGRAM NOT SUBMITTED ,.Decept! U--t.S.N. Ault Field -COUNTY PROGRAM NOT SUBMITTED I U.S.C.G. OAK H R# I PtBrotetin USCG,.FedV\ PORMAPOE PitNPon/'U.S.N. Seaplne STANWOD FilPROG RAM APPROVED OLYMWSDPoint AEStRsration FO RoeSt 3 Range N. NA.DS/ U.Se.yeyprt (D BattU...G lle Pt.I PointNo. a i;S.AF Paiemetn RORMAPROVRMFEl ne IIE / M A tor Reservations c NDgussediihpernoeh Wsigo NCastal Zon RanagemetPogrm K I . S A P ie prxmt rI--- '4,.,OES I *o ango r V-4 ###NEWPAGE n="276" ### / r SNOHOMISH CO, / 0 RelsRon d Sossnsossssh R National Forest - R Bf Indian Landsupport Activity Military Reservation RDA-QEORIIED Sand Poini Wildlife Refuge /k-i AO _ ,'Ktirkoad B. F Lowon JEFFERSON P. SLN in COUNTY 0N. _'or Bay Allk t OLYMPIC 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 M l ZED NATIONAL I I I I I Miles Approximate CRATED FOREST.j Eldo ES T K I T A I ifD1 */ 0 Blf COUNTY M.l 0/ VAHO K IW GOur II Ho dopnrt o ISLAND C PRO iRAM dspo' 0A O rr NOT Pocerty CeSUBMITTED say COU TY 0 tip norbar I\dian l (0 Muckleshoot (7j Gig Harb Indian Reservation PROGRAM APPROVED 6-75 0 Awubarn 0 MASON ' Boy4 N.&M.C.R.C. C 0 u NT .$ % B L TACOMAO A INCORPORATED uStic ARES Range "' Sumle dLo -' PuyoluP Islond 5 'Steilocoom 'f go< a P I ERCE Nisquaoy 9I- Wildlif AINIZED Refuge r' Loy Nisqually A AM APPROVED 4-4-75 Indian T H TON This map Show many .tossos ot Fodoral isPROGRAM NO f lns ouedld r dtFlad ... Ih CcorN YCoa-nol Zone Monoosroon Act .nd dis Cs...d in ChoPt-r V oj the V4.osinonon Cooseal Zono Manooomont Prooram. V-50 C4 ###NEWPAGE n="277" ### / 0 2 4 6 a 10 / I I I II IMiles Approximate LEGEND National Forest Sekiu Slip point p-National Parks I aN Indian Lands a Military Reservation UCA Wildlife Refuge CopeBaBy * Alava Fehae G.I CAitr VSfthWashinon RO Zn ANagmetPrErm IN C-R5ATD ###NEWPAGE n="278" ### CI A La Push a loyie Bogach QUIllayute .R Indian Reservation-- Teahwhlt Head Indi dan Land MInditary ReservationFE S N O I I . I * I * I *'Mileseproxi ate r LMI NThi1a6sosmnycassso eea ad.Eclddlnsae uscGE deFinedT inteCatlZn aaeetAtaddsusdi hp trVothWaintnCatlZnMaaeetPormMOL E G E NDHut1' National Forest5 National Parks- ###NEWPAGE n="279" ### C.G. MocliPs Joe C COUNTY PROGRAM APPR V 8-5- 5 - 00palis Beach H CT No' !rth Brownve. IF "Y WIndlian Res.uLGEN Wildlife Refuge RAMN Leadbetter Point c COUNTY PROGRAM AP VED 4 - 8-75/ Ocean Park This map shows many classes of Federal 0 lands. Excluded lands are defined in the p 4, Ne Coastal Zone Management Act and dis- rnqh cussed in Chapter V of the Washington Coastal Zone Management Program. Reservation COUNTY PORMAPOE -7 DisoReervtin sonU RIVR I I I I IMiles Approximate V- 53 ###NEWPAGE n="280" ### um 1 WASH ING r ON N C 0 u V E 0 j M D CO a T lall PC; Gamble Port Madiso V4 ute Quinualt kokomisw Muckle oot :SqUA u up 11sland y 111. El hoalwater 9 S 'ON -T Reservation Vicinity Washington State 010M n V- 54 ###NEWPAGE n="281" ### C A N A D A - -- - OO Blane- -- - --- - I Uan ORCi haASR ISAN Sland y P ointeva Lopez um BELm Rural F Iday Iuc 1 B qa y ,RcAIE ASISLAND land /SAN JUAN Consrvncy ISLAND opez Rura56 Fri d Aquti ###NEWPAGE n="282" ### 0 S --- SinclirisSAMISH -L Sinla Is BAY SAN JUAN DL AY PORMNOT SUBMITTED a NCO. REERVATE Pss' CONRPOGRAMAPRV NATIONAL K KHTARBRP I I I I MlsAPproitecinCUT 7PRGAAPRVED7 ###NEWPAGE n="283" ### U ) / SNOHOMISH CO. LEGEND chlfl Conservancy RuralCOpRE Suburban Kirklan Urban-- JEFFERSON weANBI COUNTYISADBleu POGRAMPI NOT2EMITE I- 58sppoit CATE SNAINLE ###NEWPAGE n="284" ### C ape Flattery e Nah Bay 0 2 4 6 a 10 *I I Miles Approximate --1 LEGEND ation Natural 7 Seklu Slip Point Cosrac - - Suburban_ Pillar Poinf A I area Freshwater L CapeoEi Hohnok RGA NOLPPOE NATIONAL %-5 ###NEWPAGE n="285" ### V. OORKSI La Push ullaoyute Bogach CALAMCUT Teohwhit Head *oda Cr. LOAKE I T I 0 INMie Aprimt CO N Hoh Head Hoh Indian Resery J EFFERSON C 0 Aq y Thecostashretione Inhs mpaeudrfdrloridanjridcto * OCL0) uu' V-60 *D A-6 ###NEWPAGE n="286" ### Qunut India Moclips Joe Cr. - COUNTY PROGRAM APPR VE 8-5-5 IZED ontBrown Ledte esport ocean Park' / ONoth PRGAMAPOVD6-7 Catua Disappointmernt - -ua -.1 i# ra Leadbett e r-6 ###NEWPAGE n="287" ### ###NEWPAGE n="288" ### S APPENDIX 6 Conclusions and Recommendations from 'Washington State Shoreline Management - An Interim Assessment." - by Maureen McCrea and Jim Feldman, August, 1975. is is ###NEWPAGE n="289" ### CONCLUSI ONS 1. Master program responsibilities were accepted by the vast majority of local governments in Washington State despite their financial and manpower resource limitations in implementing the Shoreline Management Act. In Puget Sound local planners have conscientiously assumed the primary role in the formulation of master programs with minimal state aid. 2. Through public hearings and citizen advisory committees, planners have worked closely with citizens to produce master programs. By providing for repre- sentation of environmental as well as economic interests, these citizen advisory committees have supplied local governments with well-balanced and competent public input. Further, citizen committees have comprised an important constituency for planners, which has made it increasingly difficult for local administrators and conunissioners to delete personally objectionable master program provisions in the name of the public Interest. is 3. The majority of local shoreline inventories were compiled on large-scale maps using overlays with minimal aid fromthe Department of Ecology and university expertise. inventorying ownership patterns and existing land and water uses was well handled by local government, but natural characteristics inventories were beyond their capability. Inadequate knowledge of shoreline processes, particularly in the marine area, has resulted in a deficient biological, hydrological and geolog- ical shoreline data base. In addition, no attempt has been made by the Department of Ecology to organize inventory data compiled by Puget Sound local governments into a workable regional inventory to aid its permit and master program review. Because of the general nature of most shoreline inventories, they have been of VTis ###NEWPAGE n="290" ### limited use in shoreline permit issuance, but have provided useful information in the environmental designation stage of master program formulation. 4. Public support of local and state government action is necessary for the effective implementation of Shoreline Management Act policy. Unfortunately, delays inherent in the permit system for minor projects are eroding public support for shoreline management and threaten to weaken the Act's effectiveness for major or controversial shoreline projects. S. Inadequacies in the shoreline data base and local government manpower have necessitated outside expertise to facilitate effective management of the state's shorelines. Federal and state agencies, special interest organizations and the Interdisciplinary Advisory Commrittee have been the primary sources of outside expertise. Generally, use and availability of experts have been propor- tional to the public's interest in or the size of the proposed project. While experts have usually been willing to help local governments, their own time limitations have often forced them to give general advice or outline an approach to the problem without providing the substantive information necessary to answer the-local inquiry. Further, the Interdisciplinary Advisory Committee, created specifically to provide voluntary assistance to local governments with shoreline problems, acted too slowly to be of practicable aid in the permit process. 6'. In' implementing its review and supportive responsibilities, the Department of Ecology has acted within the bounds of its mandate under the Shoreline Management Act. Both the Department of Ecology and the Attorney General 's Office (DOE/AG) have taken an active role in reviewing local permit decisions; they have been involved jointly in 72 percent of the 142 permit review requests to the Shorelines Hearings Board. Differentiation between the roles of the DOE and AG occurs prior VI-2 ###NEWPAGE n="291" ### to an appeal, with the DOE specializing in the shoreline policy issues and the AG concentrating on the legal aspects. In the certification of appeals by is aggrieved parties, the DOEIAG have adopted a "fair pleading" stance which allows a liberal interpretation as to what constitutes "valid reasons" for Shorelines Hearings Board review. All appeals which are filed correctly and contain a complaint which, if true, could alter the local government permit ruling are certified by the DOE/AG. 7. The Department of Ecology's primary supportive activities to local governments in their compliance with the SMA have consisted of preparing the Final Guidelines and maintaining informal communication channels with local governments. While the department has been responsive and available to local government inquiry, with the exception of permit regulation procedures it has refrained from assuming an assertive role. Local governments in particular received minimal state support in the formulation of master programs, as beyond . the development of the Final Guidelines, the DOE was reluctant to provide any substantive direction. Limited resources and political considerations have hindered the DOE's ability to provide important supportive aid to local government shoreline activities. 8. Conformance is reasonably good between the requirements of the 1972 Federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) and Washington State's Shoreline Management Act. Based on the CZMA and the propoed section 306 federal guidelines, Washington State's shoreline program appears to meet the following key federal requirements: (1) active use of citizen 'and state agency participation in the development of the management program; (2) ability to delineate proposed shoreline uses; (3) capability to administratively regulate the coastal zone; and (4) a ###NEWPAGE n="292" ### conservation-oriented program. Washington State's program, however, does not completely satisfy federal standards because of (1) Inadequate coordination with federal agencies and a process for achieving consistency; (2) problems with aquatic planning and management rovisions in both the master program and Inventories; (3) tardiness of local governments in submitting master programs which are essential for a final evaluation of the Washington coastal zone program. During the interim period the State Department of Ecology has actively pursued compliance with federal standards. 9. Coordination between state and local governments over the management of the state's shorelines has improved since the passage of the Shoreline Management Act. The main reasons for the improvement in coordination are the comprehensive shoreline policy framework established by the Act and its implementation through the substantial permit regulations. Active DOE/AG review of local government decisions has expanded state interests into many traditionally local shoreline decisions. Similarly, local government permit issuance authority has substantially increased local control over state agency projects. Increased state and local coordination has been encouraged to avoid disagreement and delays caused by con- frontation over permit issuance and review. The tools used to aid coordination efforts have primarily been the DOE Final Guidelines and intormal telephone liaison. Conflicts arising from differences in state agency mandates have been a major hindrance to further improvements in shoreline management coordination. '10. A systematic method of SMA permit enforcement has not been implemented by either local governments or the DOE/AG during the interim period. While enforcement of violated SMA permits has generally not been a problem, permit evaders have posed a difficult enforcement problem for state and local governments. V1-4 ###NEWPAGE n="293" ### A lack of field inspectors has forced local governments to rely on citizens, * environmental organizations and the Army Corps of Engineers for the detection of permit non-compliance. In those instances when permit evaders have been found, local governments have usually obtained prompt permit compliance. 11. The Shorelines Hearings Board (SHB) has provided an avenue of redress which is more accessible to the citizen and less expensive and time-consuming than the courts. The SHB's review process has been both reasonable and effi- cient in handling the increased shoreline litigation while reducing litigation to be dealt with by the courts. A particularly useful Board procedure has been the pre-hearing conference which has been effective in clearing up procedural delays and in encouraging appeal settlements prior to a final hearing. Pre-hearing and informal conferences have often circumvented the need for a formal hearing. Permit review decisions by the Board have often been based on pragmatic compromise and have been guided by considerations of equity r'ather than a strict interpreta- tion of the Act. Further, the SHB has required local governments to adequately consider the environment before issuing a shoreline permit, which for many major or controversial projects has resulted in compliance with the impact statement provisions of the State Environmental Policy Act. 12. Minimizing shoreline damage and alteration has been a goal actively pursued by most local and state agencies since enactment of the Shoreline Management Act. Implementation of the environmental policy of the SMA has been aided through the substantive review of environmental considerations by the Shorelines Hearings Board and the environmental expertise of the Department of Ecology. The effect of the Act has been most evident in the reduction of fills and overwater construction for non-water-dependent development, in the provisions made for requiring structural VI-5 ###NEWPAGE n="294" ### setbacks, and in minimizing damages caused by bulkheads. Environmentally damaging shoreline activity proposals were rarely prohibited by local and state agencies but rather were modified through permit compromises or conditions. As a result, permit modifications have enabled state and local governments to minimize ecologi- cal damage without prohibiting growth. 13. Implementation of the Shoreline Management Act has had considerable influence on recreational development on saltwater shorelines. Since the passage of the Act, local governments have acquired substantially more control over state agency recreation proposals through shoreline permit regulation. Many public recreation projects have been halted by local governments and/or the Shorelines Hearings Board. Development-intensive projects have been prohibited by these decisions based upon the development's conflict with the environmental policy of the SMA. Saltwater recreation development, in response to these decisions, has been sharply modified since the enactment of the SMA. 14. Public access to the saltwater shorelines of Puget Sound has increased only minimally since enactment of the Shoreline Management Act. Local governments have generally failed to provide public access components when issuing shoreline development permits. Despite the Department of Ecology's active support for increasing public access to Washington State shorelines, they have had limited success in obtaining greater access as Shorelines Hearings Board decisions have rarely required public access components. In these limited instances when public access has been provided by local government or the SHB, it has been reserved for large-scale developments in urban environments. The failure of local governments to condition shoreline permits upon providing access has curtailed a potentially economical method for increasing recreational use of public saltwater shorelands. VI-6 ###NEWPAGE n="295" ### 15. Water dependency policy ha been implemented contingent upon whether a proposed development occurs in the onshore or offshore environment. Non-water- * dependent development proposed offshore has been strongly opposed by the DOE and frequently prohibited by the Shorelines Hearings Board. In contrast, the criteria of water dependency has not been used to restrict development on the uplands by local government and the SHB. This is verified by an examination of SMA permits and development statistics which show a substantial amount of non-water-dependent development on the shorelines of Puget Sound. 16. Local and state government authority is reduced for developments exempt from the SMA permit requirement. Although exemptions must comply with the policy of the Act and the master program, exempted developments are not subject to the public notification requirements of the Act, DOE/AG review or Shorelines Hearings Board jurisdiction. It is important, therefore, that these developments do not have a substantial impact on the shoreline. However, single family residences and bulkheads common to single family residences were shown to be significant shoreline developments in the three Puget Sound Counties. Single family residences comprise over one-half of all onshore development, and ninety percent of Puget Sound bulkheads were constructed without an SMA permit. Omitting these develop- ments from the permit requirement undermines the scope of the Act, particularly as single-family residences are a non-water dependent use. 17. Implementation of the Shoreline Management Act has improved citizen and agency compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and the Army Corps VI-7 ###NEWPAGE n="296" ### of Engineers permit requirement through additional resources and attention focuseG on the shoreline region. Direct coordination between local governments and the Department of Ecology with the Corps of Engineers concerning SMA and Corps permit issuance has substantially improved the compliance with, and enforcement of, both types of permits. Similarly, the application of SEPA has been augmented by the "discretionary stage" of SMA permit issuance. Frequent Shorelines Hearings Board rulings have demanded SEPA compliance. 18. ,State interests were more actively represented in the review of proposals for development on shorelines of statewide significance than for development on other shorelines in the state. The vast majority of permit review requests made to the Shorelines Hearings Board by the Department of Ecology and Attorney General have involved development on shores of statewide significance. Special attention given by the SMA to these shorelines through the delineation of the seven specific development criteria has been an important reason for this emphasis. The list provides specific criteria on which to base an appeal. VI-8 ###NEWPAGE n="297" ### RECOMMENDAT IONS 1. Shoreline ownership patterns and existing land and water use inventories should be updated every three years, one-third each year. Natural characteristics inventories should be updated at five-year intervals. A. Updated inventories should reflect: (1) New inventory techniques; (2) Improved knowledge of shoreline processes; (3) Cnanges in the physical environment. and (4) Uniform regional approaches. B. The Department of Ecology should develop explicit guidelines for updating local government inventories. (1) Workshops should be held in designated regions, such as Puget Sound, to assist the Department of Ecology in the preparation of the guidelines. is (2) Guidelines should address specific regions to be inventoried as a system. (3) New inventories should be coordinated into a useable state inventory. C. A task force should be appointed at the county level to assist local governments in completing their natural characteristicsinventories. 2. Based upon the large amount of land Jheld by out of county residents (Appendix I) and the recognized national value of the islands, San Juan County uplands should be designated as shores of statewide significance. The Shoreline Management Act should be amended to include these coastal uplands. VI- 9 ###NEWPAGE n="298" ### 3. To overcome the problems encountered in minor shoreline development, a bonding system for minor projects should be established once master programs are approved. Bonding would enable an applicant to commence construction before the expiration of the 45-day review period of the Department of Ecology and the Attorney General. A. Only projects meeting the following criteria would be eligible: (1) The development must be minor and explicitly approved in the local master program; (2) The development must be removable and all signs of it eliminated; (3) The activity must create only short-term perturbations in the natural system with no irreversible effects. D. Bonds'-would be posted with the local government and should cover the cost of removing the project should it subsequently be found in conflict with the policy of the Shoreline Management Act. The bond would be returned to the applicant after the 45-day review period if no appeals were filed. C. Authority must be extended to the local governments and the Department of Ecology and Attorney General to issue stop-work orders. 4. In recognition of the problems encountered at the local level, the Office of the State Attorney General should increase its efforts to enforce the provisions of the Shoreline Management Act when permits are either violated or not applied for. S. The even numbered composition of the Shorelines Hearings Board has been an annoyance to members and litigants. Another member should be added to the SHB to increase its membership to seven to prevent tied decisions. VI-lo ###NEWPAGE n="299" ### 6. Puget Sound is a valuable, highly sought area for development. To assure a rational development of its limited miles of shoreline, local govern- ments and the Shorelines Hearings Board should reevaluate their onshore water- dependency policy in order to discourage the proliferation of non-water-oriented development. 7. Large-scale developments utilizing an extensive amount of shorelines should be encouraged'to contain a public access provision. 8. Exemptions should not be granted to development which comprises a significant use of the shoreline or alters the environment because of limited local and state management authority. The exemption of such development under- mines the implementation of the goals and policies of the SMA. Permit exemptions should be confined to those instances where delays in permit issuance would cause unnecessary hardship or create needless administrative chores. A. Single-family residences are the primary development in competition with public access and recreation for Puget Sound shorelines. The significance of this shoreline development necessitates its regula- tion by the SMA permit requirements. B. Corps permits indicate that a large number of bulkheads are constructed under the exemption clause for single-family residences. Because bulkheads for residences constitute a substantial shoreline use which is frequently detrimental to the environment, this development should be subject to the permit requirements of the SMA. C. Despite the utility-of docks in the San Juan Islands, guidelines should be issued to assure that the proliferation of piers and docks are kept to a minimum in urban areas where access and unobstructed water surface are at a premium. VI -II ###NEWPAGE n="300" ### D. Because of the uncertainty surrounding the responsibility of local governments if property damage results from the refusal to grant an emergency exemption, the DOE/AG should transmit to local governments any information which results from decisions which will help the local government handle emergency exemptions. S. The Sea Grant Advisory Service should establish a program to provide quick response to local government requests for shoreline information on marine shares subject to the following provisions: A. Administrative red tape should be minimized. B. Local governments must actively indicate their support for a program before funds are allocated for that program. VI-12 ###NEWPAGE n="301" ### APPENDIX 7 State of Washington Board of Tax Appeals Decision on Padilla Bay Tracts. 0 ###NEWPAGE n="302" ### *Skagit County Assessor Docket No. 8483 REMAARS: At issue in this appeal is the local board of equalization's redetermined valuation of $126,240 placed on the respondent's 521 tracts of tidelands, upon which the appellant-assessor had found a value of $252,480. The appellant contends the value is $252,480 as previously found. Subject tracts which are platted but unrecorded comprise approximately 5,790 acresor about33,156.4.4a'acerfroantffet and are a portion of second class tide- lands called the Padilla Bay Tracts. Subject property is located within the total of 846 tracts. The Padilla Bay tracts are numbered as follows: beginning with number one at the west tip of Samish Island and continuing with a consecutive numbering to a point south of Bay View, where the last tract number is 846. Host tracts have a baseline distance following the government meander line of approxi- mately 63.64 feet. Each tract is a thin, triangular strip of tidelands with a surveyor's.- control point indicated on the west side of Hat Island, the point where all 846 tracts converge. The second class tidelands extend between the meander line and mean low water line and vary in distance from two to three miles. The size of the tracts vary, for example, tract one is approximately 12,814.67 feet long and consists of 9.37 acres, while the longest tract (number 220) is approximately 17,200 feet and consists of approximately 11.6 acres. The Shoreline Management Act of 1971 (Chapter-90.58), specifically RCW 90.58.030 (2) (e) (ii) (E) lists Padilla Bay from March Point to Williams Point (which included subject property) as a "shoreline of state-wide significance". As such, this area is subject to the guidelines established by a cooperative program of management between the state and local governments. Subsequent implementation of the act is contained in "Final Guidelines", issued by the State Department of Ecology on June 20, 1972, wherein it is directed that the natural character of "shorelines of state-wide significance" be preserved by -designating environments and issuing regulations to minimize man-made intrusions on shorelines. At the present time, the area involved in this appeal is not zoned, although it is most probable that it will be restricted- to a "conservancy environment wherein the intent is that they maintain their existing character". The preferred uses are described as those which "are nonconsumptive of the physical and biological resources of the area" or to their present "natural" state, another classification established by the Shoreline Management Act. With respect to the tracts under appeal, they vary -in length from approximately 13,800 feet to 15,400 feet. The tracts are completely submerged at high tide and have no legal or public access to the uplands which are under different ownership. The major portion of the property is exposed at low tide with a water depth of one or two feet over the iemainddr. There is no direct' access to the property by public road. Legal access is only by water. The land immediately abutting subject property has two major uses. The higher land on a bank varying from 10 to 100 feet in height overlooking the subject is mostly used for occasional single family residential or recreational use. The low flat area abutting subject is used for agricultural purposes, with little likelihood of a change of usage in the ;foreseeable future. Historically, in 1930, an attempt was made to establish an oyster business. In an effort to obtain capital for the venture, the'promoters gave a deed to a tract in lieu of a share of stock. Investors were located throughout the country. The venture proved unsuccessful, and many holders of tract deeds lost title through tax foreclosures. (Some of these deeds were purchased by the'respondent from the txeaaspterafter reverting to county ownership for tax delinquencies.) In 1964, respondent corporation began purchasing tracts and assembling parcels with a view to development. Respondent planned to hydraulically dredge the bay and form a series of fingers of land on which homes were to be built. After an investment of $600,000 and the purchase of the parcels under apppeal, further progress.of the contemplated development was halted in 1968 due to the state of the econbmy and the VII-1 ###NEWPAGE n="303" ### oppositIoa of the Samish Padilla Conservation Association formed to block the projected development by buying some strateginally located tracts to prevent the dredging necessary for the beginning of the development. Appellant assessor testified; (a) That he was not certain that the value attributed to subject was proper, particularly in view of the consequences of the Shoreline Management Act; (b) that the Board should provide guidance as to 0 whether a separate value should be attributed to the easterly 1,000 feet of each tract, since it provided an amenity to the upland owner (this is not gernane to this appeal, since respondent does not Cown any upland); and (c) that in attribut- ing value to subject property he did not take into consideration Sec. 90.58.290 of the Shoreline Act which directs that the assessor consider the restrictions imposed by the act in establishing fair market value. The assessor attributed value on each tract as follows: $420 on the easterly 1,000 feet (area adjacent to the land) and $80 on the remainder of the tract. The assessor introduced documentary evidence of sales which were purchases of tracts by the respondent in 1964 for $500 and $1,153 per tract, a sale by the respondent in 1967 of two tracts fot $500 each and a 1967 transaction for one tract at $1,000. Based on these sales the assessor attributed a value of $500 per tract, which was reduced to $2_50 per.tract.by the local board of equalization- The respondent testified that in assembling the parcels, as time went on, purchases of the tracts became increasingly difficult, and the corporation was forced to pay two to ten times as much as they felt the parcels were worth. They estimated that completion of the project would require 10 to 15 years. The respondent asserted that further acquisition of land and planning was balted due to the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 and its implementing guidelines which presently appear to constitute an insurmountable obstacle to the entire project.. The respondent does not agree with the theory or operation of the act since it feels its properties use has been unconstitutionallv restricted. The Corporation has no other asse.ts, it was formed for the sole purpose of the Padilla.Bay Development.' It derives no income from the tracts and its annual-budget of $18,000 is used far payment of tax levics, payment of option on long term agreements and legal and accounting costs. The respondent intro- duced an appraisal. which concluded with the recommendation that subject property should be valued at $2.00 per front foot for a total value of $56"500 rounded to $57,000. The respondent also introduced evidence of five sales of submerged tidelands in various parts of the state, two of which were transact&ed in 1969, *and three in 1973. All the sales pertained to property which had either a definite economic use 6r public access, which is not true of subject, and also were not comparable with respect to subject in total acreage. The Board is of the opinion that this appeal is sui generis. The evidence clearly indicates that the commonly accepted appraisal techniques normally used to determine value are not applicable in this case. 'The appellant-assessor had presented sales of'comparable property which occurred prior to thep.assage of The Shoreline lnageentArtan"- toerefore, itFi' oard sop!ioRre_noCa vild indicator of value as o-ftb a-WsiisntiS ate.- In view of the legislative infESt,-fdihuevtEoplne- f these parcels by the respondent corporation for the purpose for which the corporation was organized, is not possible. The highest and best use has not yet been determined. The Board also wishes to emphasize that in finding value, criteria are not being established as a basis for valuing other tidelands, since the Board is well aware that such tidelands have varying values and uses, as evidenced by their commercial use in areas such as Seattle and Tacoma. Upon analysis of the evidence, and in recognition of the lack of utility of subject property, theBoard finds thb e ol Fttb- eU;trcTs s$2.0per front foot, for a total value of $663I5--- The Board regrets that this tideland appeal does not afford it the opportunity to give the assessor the guideline to valuing second class tideland that he has requested. Further the Board is of the opinion that there has not been sufficient time interval since the enactment of the Shoreline Management Act to afford an accurate assessment of its effect on the market value of all shorelines except in special factual circumstances, as those in the instant case and in a few other unique cases where the Act has clearly adversely affected market value. V11-2 0 ###NEWPAGE n="304" ### APPENDIX 8 Summary of Shoreline Hearings Board Decisions Revised - December 1973 is ###NEWPAGE n="305" ### SHB #7 Participants: Appellant: Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission (Public) Respondent: city of Mukilteo (Public) Board Members: Arden Olson; Arnold M. Hansen; Matthew Hill; James Sheehy Permit: Type: Substantial Development Perrmit - for an enlarged boat launching facility and make other improvements. Would include dredging of tidelands and placing this material on the inter-tidal area; expansion of launching ramp; installation of groins and a pile and plank breakwater supporting a fishing dock; revision and redesign of existing parking spaces. Location: Mukilteo State Park Conclusions: Denial of Substantial Development Permit to Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission and said commission "should devise a plan for the redevelopment of Mukilteo State Park which recognizes a broader spectrum of recreation needs... with more Park and less Parking." * Findings: 1) Natural accretion beaches are a limited natural resource which are being continuously reduced by accelerated and unrestricted processes intended Lo serve the demands of urbanization. Mukilteo State Park comprises such a beach and it would be further imperiled by the proposed extension of the launching facility. (Natural accretion beaches must be protected from developments which may have deleterious effects on them). 2) Proposed developments must be consistent with the planning objectives for the area as determined by the local compre- hensive plans. 3) In proposing a development such as this, plans must include an alternative for solving the potential traffic and con- gestion problems which would accompany this type of develop- ment. At the present time, the boaters would share the same road with a high volume of ferry traffic, which would only compound the traffic problem. 4) The size and scope of the proposed development would have an uncertain, but potentially detrimental effect on adjacent beach areas. 5) The need for additional boat launching facilities to serve the population is recognized, however, the distribution and VIII-l ###NEWPAGE n="306" ### SHB #7 location of such facilities should be coordinated on a is regional basis with full participation of concerned local governments and consistent with the policies and guide- lines of the Shoreline Management Act. 6) A multi-service park, which is consistent with-the existing comprehensive plan of the area, is of more value to the public and more in the public's interest, than a park which is largely dedicated to a single purpose activity such as boating. VIII -2 ###NEWPAGE n="307" ### SHB #13 is Participants: Appellants: League of Women Voters Respondents: King County and King County Department of Parks (Public) Board Members: Walt Woodard; Matthew Hill; Robert Hintz; Arden Olson, James Sheehy Permit: Type: Substantial development permit for construction of four boat launching ramps (south end of beach); a waterfront parking area adjacent and accessory to the ramps; general landscaping and placing a culvert under the parking lot; c-shaped fishing pier; rock rip-rap bulkhead on seaward side of parking lot; concrete bul khead. Location: Seahurst Park (southend beach area) Conclusions: "Substantial development permit is cancelled in part by reason of the ecologically improvident nature of the proportions of the plans the permit was intended to implement. Findings: 1) An Environmental Impact Statement is required on all proposed developments which will have significant impact on the surround- ing environment. 2) Parking lots are not a use dependent upon the shorelines and therefore are not acceptable developments for shorelines. 3) Any changes to streams or any additional culverts to an area must be consistent with the Washington State Department of Fisheries' policies. 4) Provisions for additional boat launching ramps at multi-service parks where there are already existing ramps will not be allowed due to the influx of people who would be using the park for a single purpose and subjecting others visiting the park to an increase to smell, noise and the inevitable degradation of the waters. These elements, resulting from the additional boat launch- ing ramps would render the entire beach area much less attractive to those who came to the park for other purposes. 5) When there is no showing of any popular demand for the develop- ment of a particular segment of a plan (such as the proposed fishing pier), then we see no reason to permit another structure to be built on the shorelines. 6) The construction of a sea wall and/or bulkhead that would stabilize and protect the existing beach (shoreline) from further erosion and .would facilitate existing recreational uses is quite acceptable and necessary. VIII-3 ###NEWPAGE n="308" ### SHB -I8 Part ici pants: Appellants: Virgil A. Counter (Private) Respondents: Whatcom County (Public) Board Members: Walt Woodard; Ralph Beswick; Robert Hintz; Tracy Owen; James Sheehy Permit: Type: Substantial development permit for construction of a 2-bedroom house on a pier built over the water. Location: Lake Whatcom; Shoreline of Statewide Significance. Lake serves as a municipal water supply for the City of Bellingham. Conclusions: Denial of the substantial development permit by Whatcom County upheld. Findings: 1) Section 2 of the Act provides for the protection against adverse effects to the public health. The proposed sewage system consitutes a threat to the public health, through possible contamination of the city water supply. 2) Section 2 of the Act provides that permitted uses shall be designed and conducted so as to minimize any resultant damage to the ecology and environment of the shoreline. This proposed development had not been designed and conducted to minimize such damage, in that it is entirely practical to construct the dwelling on the available upland, thus, eliminating the threat to the public water supply and minimizing intrusion on the shoreline. 3) Investing in a development that had not been approved by local regulatory authorities does not establish for the appellant any personal rights which would outweigh the public interest. VIII -4 ###NEWPAGE n="309" ### SHB #16 Participants: Is Appellant: Department of Ecology (Public) Respondent: island County (Public) Intervenors: Penn Cove Association (Private) Board Members: Walt Woodard; Ralph Beswick; Matthew Hill; Robert Hintz; William Hunter Permit: Type: Substantial development permit for a marine facility. Certain conditions were appended to the permit to insure water quality protection, public service and access to the beach. Location: Westend of Penn Cove on Whidbey Island Conclusions: The decision of Island County to allow this development, be upheld subject to specific conditions set by the Hearings Board. Findings: 1) Protection against adverse effects to public health. 2) Protect against adverse im1pacts to the land, on wildlife, * to vegetation and on aquatic life. 3) Stressed that developments (according to the Act) be unique to or dependent on the State's shoreline. 4) Developments must provide an opportunity for substantial numbers of people to enjoy the shorelines of the state; must supply a legal public easement to the county, providing public access to the public beach. 5) Developments must minimize insofar as practical, any re- sulting damage to the shoreline area and any interference with public use of the water. 6) In developing this project, 2 acres of public clam beds will be rendered inaccessible; it is the responsibility of the permittee to provide in kind for this loss of public clam beach. 7) A plan of development, operation and maintenance must be submitted to the County and State Department of Fisheries, after it has been approved by the State Department of Social and Health Services. 8) Prior to commencement of construction, the permittee must protide to the Washington State Department of Fisheries, insurance or. personal surety in the amount of $10,000.00 each year for ten years, guaranteeing the public beabh will * not be declared unsafe for public Shellfish collection due ###NEWPAGE n="310" ### SHB #16 to impacts caused by the operation of 3esence of the proposed development. 9) No spoil is to be deposited north of the county road and within 200 feet of the Shoreline Management Act strip. 10) A survey and report of existing conditions on and affecting the public beach prior to construction must be submitted to the Washington State Department of Fisheries at no expense to said agencies. VIII-6 ###NEWPAGE n="311" ### SMB #22 Participants: Appellant: Ballard Elks Lodge (Private) Respondent: City of Seattle (Public) Intervenor: Department of Ecology and Attorney General (Public) Board Members: Walt Woodard; Ralph Beswick; Matthew Hill; Gordon Erickson; James Sheehy Permits: Type: Substantial development permit to construct an assembly room, swimming pool, gymnasium, restaurant and cocktail lounce. This called for over-the-water construction (1st permit denied) 2nd permit called for partial con- struction over unwetted land and partly over water. City of Seattle gave its okay, except that construction must be entirely over unwetter lands. Location: Seattle King County - bounded on the east by Seaview Avenue Northwest and extending on the west to the northeast boundary of Salmon Bay Waterway. Conclusions: Permit remanded to the City of Seattle for amendment of its condition to permit over the water construction on piling southwestward only to an extension of a line drawn 151.5 degrees true from the southwestern corner of the L-shaped pier at the southern end of the Port of Seattle Shilshole Marina. 1) Must recognize the realities of the existing shorelines where intensive development is already in existence. To follow a "dry land only" rule would mean that adjacent property owners and other nearby property owners could take advantage of irregularly filled shorelands and could build structures protruding further than the City's con- dition to appellant would permit appellant to build. 2) We feel tha t the realities of construction both existing and that which may be permitted in the future, will be more clearly defined and a practical approach of the ,principles of the Shoreline Management Act in this area will be achieved more equitably if a no-further-west construction line is created. This line would require appellant to retreat slightly to the east when compared with appellant's permit application, but will be an advance to the west, permitting a minimal over the water construction when compared with the City's condition in granting the Substantial Development Permit. The spirit of the City's condition would be recognized by such a line and the realities of the eastern shore would be given a more logical symmetry. *The above SHB decision was appealed to the Superior Court and the decision overturned. That decision is now being appealed to the Court of Appeals. VIII-7 ###NEWPAGE n="312" ### SHB #24 Participants: Appellants: Citizens of the Port of Friday Harbor; Department of Ecology and Attorney General Respondents: Friday Harbor First Corporation (Private) Board Members: Walt Woodard; Ralph Beswick; Gordan Erickson; Arnold Hanson; Matthew Hill; James Sheehy Permit: Type: Substantial development permit for construction of a five story commercial - residential complex, including a first floor, full-length public esplanade fronting proposed water and tourist-oriented shops and facilities. Location: At Friday Harbor, San Juan County Conclusions: Permit granted subject to the following two conditions: (1) limit structure to 4 stories and (2) first floor tenacy must be limited to shoreline-oriented uses. Findings: 1) The motion to remand is denied for the reason that the environ- mental impacts involved in this substantial development were not complex or obscure, but relatively simple and obvious.0 The evidence shows that the environmental impacts of this pro- posed development were placed before the Town Council just as clearly as they were placed before this Board and a formal environmental impact statement by the appropriate authorities would have added nothing to the information readily available to the Friday Harbor Town Council. 2) Reprimanding citizens and local governments for their lack of initiative in establishing necessary zoning regulations and for not developing a comprehensive land use plan. 3) The first floor public esplanade would be a marked improvement over the present status of the property, which now prevents and discourages pedestrian enjoyment of the shoreland. The first floor tenancy must be restricted to suitable and appro- priate shoreline oriented uses in order for this portion of the structure to meet the prerequisites of the Shoreline Management Act substantial development permit. 4) A reduction in the building's height, from five to four stories, would preserve, in great part, the public's view of the harbor from the top of the cliff. This action would help alleviate the deleterious effect on the public's shoreland rights. VIII -8 ###NEWPAGE n="313" ### SHB *30 * Participants: Appellant: R. C. Carlson and S. J. Kammeyer (Private) Respondent: City of Bonney Lake XPublic) Board Members: Walt Woodard; Ralph Beswick; Robert Hintz; James Sheehy Permit: Type: Substantial development permit for further development of waterfront property for park and recreational use with facilities for boat launching and daytime boat moorage. Location: Lake Tapps in Pierce County - Shoreline of Statewide Significance. Conclusions: Appeal denied and the granting of the permit is sustained. Findings: Substantial development permit not required as provided in Section 14 (9) (A) of the Shoreline-M4anagement Act, of which exemption applies to a final plat approved after April 13, 1961, or the preliminary plat approved after April 30, 1969. The project is consistent with the policy of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 and the proposed guidelines of the Department of Ecology. VIII-9 ###NEWPAGE n="314" ### SHB #29 Partic ipants:-i Appellants. Merle Steinman (Private) Respondents: City of Seattle (Public) Board Members: Walt Woodard; Ralph Beswick; W.A. Gissberg; Tracy Owen; James Sheehy Permit: Type: Substantial development permit for construction of a bulkhead and fill. Location: Seattle, Wn., on Beach Drive S.W. (south ofAlki Point), Conclusions: Denial by City of Seattle for a substantial development permit upheld by the Hearings Board. Findings: 1) The Shoreline Management Act requires the person who is requesting a review of his permit application, shall have the burden of proof. 2) Section 2 of the Shoreline Management Act, clearly states that "unrestricted construction on the privately owned shorelines of the State is not in the best public interest." 3) The Shoreline Management Act further states that "Permitted uses in the shorelines of the State shall be designed and conducted in a manner to minimize, insofar as practical, any resultant damage to the ecology and environment of the shoreline area and any interference with the public's use of the water." 4) The fill , which would create an area for boat storage and boat launching, is not justifiable, in light of the number of individuals (those in the duplex) who would be utilizing it, relative to the amount of unnecessary drainage that would take place in the intertidal area. *The above are the findings of the SHB. This decision is presently being appealed. ###NEWPAGE n="315" ### SHB #45-45A IS Participants: Appellants: M.W. Brachvogal, et al and Randy and Carol McIlrath(Private) Respondents: Mason County (Public); Twanoh Falls Beach Club(Private) Board Members: W.A. Gissberg; Walt Woodard; James Sheehy; Robert Hintz Permit: Type: Substantial development permit for development to "repair and replace piling, float, etc. and construct a new float." Location: Hood Canal seven and eight tenths miles southwest of Belfair, Washington. Shoreline of Statewide Significante. Conclusions: Permit remanded to Mason County Commissioners to consider the environ- mental factors of the project. If the permit is granted, further conditions will be imposed. Findings: 1) The county commissioners must indicate that they did consider the environmental impacts which may result from the proposed development and that an environmental impact statement is or is not required. 2) The site of the proposed development is on a shoreline of statewide significance, therefore: A) Minimal development of facilities will be allowed. B) Community or joint ownership offers the next highest benefit cost ratio (to public ownership), providing an effective means for multiple use and enjoyment of this highly aesthetic, recreational and ecological shoreline resource. C) It is imperative that controls be established so not to allow overcrowding in the beach area and water area. Increase in small boat movement could prove to be hazardous to swimmers, besides contributing further air, water and noise pollution in the immediate vicinity. VIII-11 ###NEWPAGE n="316" ### SHB #62A Participants: Appellants: State of Washington Department of Ecology and Attorney General Respondents: Grays Harbor County - Walter B. Welti Board Members: W. A. Gissberg (presided); Ralph Beswick Permit: Type: Substantial Development Permit to develop recreation building sites and a bulkhead with fill extending over 1800 feet along the ocean beach. Location: At Oceancrest Addition to Moclips, First Addition to Sunset Beach, Section. Shoreline Statewide Significance. Conclusion: The permit is remanded to Grays Harbor County for reissuance of a permit containing the additional condition that the protective bulkhead shall be constructed within five feet seaward, measured from the toe of the existing bank. In all other respects and conditions, the permit is affirmed. Findings: The purpose of Mr. Welti's proposed bulkheading and fill is twofold: (1) for the purpose of creating land by filling behind the bulkhead, and (2) to provide protection to upland area against further erosion. 1) Department of Ecology's guideline with respect to the bulkheads if found at 173-16-060(11), which in part provides: "...(3) The construction of bulkheads should be permitted only where they provide protection to upland areas or facilities, not for the indirect purpose of creating &and by filling behind the bulkhead..." 2) The proposed bulkhead violates WAC 173-16-060(11) (e) and the policy section of the Shoreline Management Act. The primary purpose of this project (to reclaim and recreate land) interferes with the public's opportunity to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of a natural shore- line of statewide significance. There would be no enhance- ment of the public interest, however, a bulkhead within 3 to 5 feet seaward from the line of vegetation would be in compli&nce with and meet the spirit of the Shoreline Management Act. VIII-12 ###NEWPAGE n="317" ### $HB #77 Participants: Appellants: Department of Ecology and Attorney General (Public) Respondents: Grays Harbor County (Public) and Bruce M. Ferquson (Private) Board Members: Walt Woodard; Ralph Beswick; W.A. Gissberg; Robert Hintz Permit: Type: Substantial development permit for harvesting of timber by clear-cutting methods. (Imp. finding - decided a permit was not required for harvesting trees.) Location: Cedar Creek, a tributary to the Copalis River in Grays Harbor, Washington. (1ź mi. from the ocean); Shoreline of Statewide Significance Conclusions: Permit allowing clearcutting is reversed within the area of the site (Cedar Creek). In the area of selective cutting, the present permit requirement of replanting seedlings maybe and is stricken. In other respects, the permit is approved and affirmed. Findings: 1) Commercial timber cutting was believed, by SHB, not to be a "development" subject to the permit system of the Shoreline Management Act. (definition of "development" as found in the Act - RCW 90.58.030(e) (d).), however since parties never raised this issue, SHB decided merits. 2) There are certain activities which are not explicitly defined in the Shoreline Management Act as developments and therefore do not require substantial development permits. However, guidelines have been developed for these activities and it is intended that they (activities) be dealt with in the compre- hensive master program in a manner consistent with policy and intent of the Shoreline Management Act, and timber cutting is one of those areas. 3) On a Shoreline of Statewide Significance, RCW 90.58.150, pro- hibits the cutting of timber by clearcutting (within 200 feet abutting landward of the ordinary high water mark...) unless selective cutting is ecologically detrimental due to topography, soil conditions or silvicultural practices necessary for re- generation. 4) RCW 90.58.020 recognizes that "...the public's opportunity to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of natural shorelines of the state shall be preserved to the greatest extent feasible". Thus the permit to clearcut was reversed within that area of the site which is within 200 feet abutting landward of the ordinary high water mark. The measurement of 200 feet shall begin where the first vegetation having an upland character in this case, by the line of trees and brush bordering the marshy area adjacent to the creek. Within this strip, only selective commercial timber cutting may occur. VIII-13 ###NEWPAGE n="318" ### APPENDIX 9 Sample Responses of States Effort to Coordinate Existing Plans Affecting Areas Within the Coastal Zone A. Local B. State C. Federal The purpose of this Appendix is to show that the State CZM staff has made considerable efforts in attempting to coordinate with the various levels of government concerned. Because of the volume involved, these are only samples. The majority of the docunenta- tion was submitted as part of the State's initial draft program. With respect to Federal agency involvement, most agencies not con- strained by a lack of personnel were considerably involved in the development of the SMA and local Master Programs. ###NEWPAGE n="319" ### A. Local Agencies 1. Clallam County 2. City of Bellingham 3. City of Edmonds 4. Town of Steilacoom IX-1 ###NEWPAGE n="320" ### CLALLAM COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 127 East First Street PORT ANGELES, WASHINGTON 98362 February 11, 1974 Mr. Murray R. Walsh Coastal Zone Management Section Department of Ecology Olympia, Washington Dear Mr. Walsh: As requested in your memorandum dated January 29, 1975, I am sending a listing of all local plans in effect on January 1, 1975. A. (1) Clallam County Comprehensive Plan (2) Clallam County, Washington (3) Clallam County Planning Commission (4) M. G. Poole & Associates (5) A comprehensive land use plan dealing with land use, transportation, and public facilities. (6) It could restrict coastal zone activities to those uses considered consistent with the plan's policies. B. (1) Clallam County Comprehensive Water and Sewerage Plan (2) Clallam County, Washington (3) Clallam County Department of Public Works (4) Stevens, Thompson & Runyon, Inc. (5) A plan outlining the future need and generalized future design of domestic water and sewer systems. (6) The plan proposes certain water system and sewer system facilities in the coastal zone areas, including treat- ment plant sites and outfalls. The location of these facilities could substantially affect land use in the coastal zone. C. (1) Clallam County Resource Recreation Master Plan (2) Clallam County Park Board (3) Clallam County Park Board (4) Leroy A. Jones (5) To guide future recreation developments in a manner IX-2 ###NEWPAGE n="321" ### Letter to Coastal Zone Management Section " re: Local plans in effect on January 1, 1975 Page No. 2 that will produce the most satisfactory results. It provides guidelines for Clallam County in developing its recreation potential. (6) Many of the recreation facilities are proposed along the coastline, in the, coastal zone. These facilities include major roads and highways with roadside parks, scenic drives, beaches, beach access, and boat launching areas. D. (1) Port Angeles Comprehensive Plan (2) City of Port Angeles (3) Port Angeles Planning Commission (4) M. G. Poole & Associates (5) A comprehensive land use plan which considers land use, transportation systems, and public facilities. (6) It would designate those activities which are considered to be compatible in the coastal zone area of the city. Also, generalized locations for certain specific facili- ties are listed. E. (1) Makah Indian Reservation Comprehensive Plan (2) Makah Tribal Council (3) Makah Tribal Council (4) Consulting Services Corporation, Seattle (5) A plan establishing future land use goals which guide overall development of the reservation. (6) Many of the future goals and specific proposed facilities are located in the coastal zone. F. (1) Planning Document One & Two (2) Quileute Tribe of Indians (3) Quileute Tribe of Indians (4) People Space Architecture Company, Spokane (5) Background information and a future land use plan, providing a guide to overall development of the reservation. (6) Many of the future goals and specific proposed facilities are located in the coastal zone. I believe the above represents a complete listing of plans in effect on January 1, 1975. Sincerely, Kenneth W. Sweeney . KWS:jml Planning Director IX-3 ###NEWPAGE n="322" ### I-.'t ... OFFICE OF PLANNING ANi) DEVELOPMENT, 210 Lottie S:reer, 9ellingham, Wah. 98225 7.:, ..-- 7 4 Capital Improve- City Council All Departments Budget ments Plan 1974-78 Shoreline Management Department of Planning Dept. Policy Plan Regulation through permit Haster Program 11/74 Ecology and Use system of all development Regulations in Puget Sound waters within City jurisdiction and uplands 200 ft. from t1HHW. Comprehensive Policy City Council Planning Dept. Policy State- W111ill affect all documents Plan 1974 - in process ments to update related to shoreline use. 1. General Goals and coordinate (adop. 1974) existing plans 2. Circulation Element:Compre- hensive Dovmintown Parking Plan 'Sohomjsh County Sndhomish Engineering Dept. R.W. Beck &Narrative Solid Waste Plan Co. (Inter- Assoc. Snohomish Inventory Oct. 1974 local agreement) County Dept. of Policy Dept. of Public Works & Statements Ecology Planning ###NEWPAGE n="331" ### - -4 -..1 -B 151 . - rags Dj 1 L4.Ise 1715 LAFAYETTE STREET STEILACOOM, WASHINGTON 98388 (2061 588- 3490 13 February 1975 John A. Biggs, Director Department of Ecology Olympia, Washington 98504 RE: Coastal Zone Management Program Dear Mr. Biggs; Local plans which were in effect for the Town of Steilacoom as of January 1, 1975 include the following: A. 1. Comprehensive Plan and Subdivision Ordinance adopted 1962 2. sponsored by Town of Steilacoomr and a 701 grant 3. implemented through zoning by the Town of Steilacoom 4. written by Harstad Associates, Seattle 5. purpose is to guide land use throughout Town including shoreline area 6. CZM implications include recognition of the signifi- cance of the railroad separating the Town from shore- line and recommendations that adjacent use be limited to residential and recreational activities - the Sub- division Ordinance and Zoning Code work to prevent encroachment onto the shoreline via yard requirements B. 1. An Ordinance establishing the Steilacoom Historical District, adopted 1973 2. sponsored by the Town of Steilacoom 3. implemented through a Preservation and Review Board 4. written by the Town Council after consultation with other municipalities 5. purpose is to recognize the significant historical role of the Town and promote education, cultural, aesthetic and social values of the Town 6. CZM implications include the preservation and protec- tion of buildings and places of historical significance along the water's edge C. 1. Park and Recreation Plan adopted 1974 2. sponsored by the Town of Steilacoom 3. implemented through the capital improvement program and subdivision regulations by the Town of Steilacoom IX-14 ###NEWPAGE n="332" ### Mr. John A. Biggs 4. written by Dennis Clarke, Town Planner 5. purpose is to review existing needs and project demands for recreational facilities 6. CZM implications include the recommendation for a waterfront trail system linking existing parks with each other, the Town center and future sites - also programed is a fishing pier which would increase pub- lic access, opportunity for sport fishery and contri- bute to the historical character through use of a former pier site D. 1. Six year capital improvement program for roads, re- vised 1974 2. sponsored by the Town of Steilacoom 3. implemented jointly through State and Federal aid along with the Town of Steilacoom 4. written by Bert Pettitt, Town Administrator after consultation with Harstad Associates and Sitts and Hill Engineers 5. purpose is to create and maintain a rational circu- lation system 6. CZM implication include the priority to improve ChambersCreek road which parallels the shoreline for approximately 2 miles and serves as a scenic route E. 1. Steilacoom shoreline inventory, 1972 2. sponsored by the Town of Steilacoom with the Pierce County Planning Department 3. implemented by the Town of Steilacoom 4. written by Richard Siefert, Pierce County Planning 5. purpose is to identify shoreline characteristics and uses 6. CZM implications include the basis for evaluating pre- sent policy and recommending changes for the future in the shoreline area F. 1. Preliminary Shoreline Management Plan locally adopted 1973, final draft pending We recognize and support your intent to pass the majority of CZM administration funds on to the coastal counties and cities. If we can be of further assistance, don't hesitate to call on us. Cordially, Dennis Clarke Town Planner IX-15 ###NEWPAGE n="333" ### B. State Agencies 1. Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation 2. Office of Community Development 3. Department of Natural Resources 4. Parks and Recreation Conmmission IX-16 ###NEWPAGE n="334" ### STATE OF WASHINGTON January 27, 1975 4[P00 Ci ':l) Bo IcH ...... .. J.,,g," 9:.-'rJL John A. Biggs, Director ro 2061 752 ;140 Department of Ecology St. Martin's Campus Donil J. Evens. Go.emo, Olympia, W4A 98504 Warren A Bishop. Chirmar, Dear Mr. Biggs: PARTICIPATING AGENCIES Dear Mr. Biggs: Deartment oF Cemmtroe and o...no. C,,ome, ..nd In response to a request from Mr. Marvin Vialle, the following JohS Lv Da" information about the IAC's involvement and relationship to the OepatlEoeleg Coastal Zone Management Program is being provided. John A Bggs D,ecto Department of Fisheriei Ihor C Toll.ih,, C , 1tor Coastal Zone Management Related Goals Depariment of Gome fCol :r,"." D -'o fHighway The IAC has adopted several goals which being very broad in nature, Depatlment of Highwaoy, og. ^ A-."s .D... relate to the coastal zone resource. 1) Provide for development Dp.,rtm.nt.olNlN.o, and use of outdoor recreation resources in a manner to maximize 6E,,L C,,-. , CP1- preservation of the natural quality of the environment; 2) provide oaItr' I,- .Is a system of public recreational facilities and opportunities for Snto.P.,kondR...eeoin state residents and visitors; 3) assist local government in pro- Cho.,e 4 o O.goo,J D .o viding the type of facilities which, under its jurisdiction, will CITIZEN MEMBERS best serve the local needs for outdoor recreation; and 4) encour- Adole Anders. on, PhD age programs which promote outdoor education, skill development, L- ... A a,;I1 Wr,,n A Bishop participation opportunity and proper husbandry of recreation re- Mcaefi Broteron Ma. Federick Laeoer sources. ADMINISTRATOR Other goals, more specific in nature, should also be noted: SIonIvy E Froncis *CONSERVE, for the maintenance and improvement of public welfare, those significant scenic, historical and unique lands with rec- reation and/or conservation values. *TAP the wealth of public knowledge and sentiment towards outdoor recreation to assure that the State of Washington will continue on a worthwhile and desirable course of resource conservation and facility development for the future. *PERPETUATE and enhance wildlife and fish resources, for present and future enjoyment. *GUARANTEE that the public, including handicapped and economically disadvantaged, has ample opportunity and access to existing public owned or controlled lands, tidelands and beaches. *STIMULATE and facilitate the flow of information to the public through media and all possible federal, state and local agencies. 4eJ.0o74. e y '.,1 , 0Al ###NEWPAGE n="335" ### Mr. Biggs -Page 2- January 27, 1975 Coastal Zone Management Related Policies The [AC has adopted priorities for local and state agencies participating in the outdoor recreation program. -Local Agencies- Local agency priority objectives provide the basis from which the Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation will implement programs to help alleviate existing recreational deficiencies and to enhance recreational opportunities at the local level throughout the state. This document establishes policy for the allocation of funds from the State Outdoor Recreation Account to local government through the grants-in-aid program. These priorities apply only to IAC participation In supplementing the outdoor recreation programs of local governments. A. General Priorities Acquire and develop fresh and saltwater shorelines intended to provide fa- cilities for multiple water related activities. Acquire, develop, and/or redevelop recreation areas for a wide variety of activities to serve the local population. S. Specific Priorities Listed below is the order of priority for acquisition and development of specific kinds of recreational areas. This list is not all-inclusive in that other types of lands may be considered for fund allocation where local plans or policy substantiate a public need for such lands. Development is intended to include major redevelopment projects where the conditions of existing recreation facilities have eliminated or drastically reduced use of the site. Within each of the seven priorities, facilities designed for multiple use will be given priority over single purpose facilities. 1. Acquisition of Shorelines 2. Development of Local Recreation Areas 3. Development of Shorelines 4. Acquisition of Local Recreation Areas 5. Trail Acquisition and Development 6. Acquisition and Development of Regional Recreation Areas Priorities I and 3 relate to both Freshwater and Saltwater shorelines. They are presented in more detail as follows: Priority I - SHORELINES ACQUISITION First priority is the acquisition of shorelines and necessary uplands to support multiple water related activities accessible to local residents. Priority order is: 1. Acquisitlion of shorelines in urbanized areas where the resource is environmentally endangered or is in danger of being lost to other uses. IX-18 ###NEWPAGE n="336" ### Mr. Biggs - Page 3 -January 27, 1975 2. Development of swimming facilities and water relat-ed upland uses. 3. The development of boating access, destination areas, and upland parking. - State Agencies - These priorities pertain to state agencies. There is no percentage or other factor established for the allocation of set amounts of funds to any given priority. The objective is to maintain a balance between priorities and various classes of recreational lands and waters. A. General Priorities The general priorities for colisideration of state agency capital requests are: Acquire critical, scenic and unique lands with recreation and/or conservation values which are not duplicated anywhere else within the state. Develop outdoor recreation facilities for boating, camping, fishing, hunting, picnicking, sightseeing, trails and related outdoor recreation activities. Acquire water oriented lands especially where potential supply is limited. Provide public access to existing state owned or controlled lands, tidelands and beaches. B. Specific Priorities Listed below is the order of priority for acquisition and development of specific kinds of recreational areas. This list is not all-inclusive in that other types of lands may be considered for fund allocation where the public need for such lands is adequately substantiated. I. Critical Resource Acquisition VI. Freshwater Acquisition 1I. Critical Resource Development VII. Regional Acq. and Dev. Ill. Saltwater Acquisition Vill. Trails IV. Freshwpter Development IX. Scenic Roads V. Saltwater Development X. Forest Portions of priority Nos., :1, and 11, and Priorities Illand V relate to the coastal zone. They are detailed as follows: Priority I - ACQUISITION OF CRITICAL RESOURCE AREAS First priority is given to the acquisitionof critical resource areas that are imminently in danger of being lost to a public recreation use, and for which failure to make such acquisition will result in a defacto reduction of usable acreage available to public use or enjoyment. These lands are critical to maintaining Washington's high quality natural heritage and are limited in potential supply. :rx-19 ###NEWPAGE n="337" ### Mr. Biggs - Page 4 -January 27, 1975 The development of parking and sanitary facilities and such other im- provements as necessary to make the Pacific Ocean beaches in the North and South Pacific Coast Districts accessible for public use within the limits of sound resource management practices. The development of internal vehicular access, trails, sanitary and such other Improvements as necessary to make state owned or administered crit- ical resource areas, accessible and usable for as broad a rarge of rec- reational activities as feasible consistent with sound resource manage- ment in the following Districts: North, Central and South Puget Sound, Lower Columbia, Upper Columbia, Yakima Valley, and the Columbia Basin. The provision of such facilities as necessary to accomodate public access to wetland areas. The geographic priority is statewide. Development of Outstanding Natural Areas statewide for sightseeing, interpretation and hiking. Priority III - SALTWATER ACQUISITION The highest priorities for Saltwater Shorelands will be given to acquisition of beaches and to public rights-of-way for access to publicly-owned beaches which may be used with a minimum of development along the Pacific Ocean, Straits of Juan de Fuca Islands, Hoods Canal, Puget Sound, Willapa Bay, Grays Harbor and along the Columbia River as far inland as Cathlamet. These priori- ties include as well, provision for the acquisition of upland areas necessary for boating access, supportive parking, camping and other facilities which must be physically located away from fragile beach areas. However, the acquis- ition of such upland areas will be high priority only when contiguous to sub- stantial publicly-owned or controlled beach areas. The priority order for acquisiton is: Acquisition of right-of-way for public recreational access to state-owned tidelands and beaches in the North and South Pacific Coast, North, Central and South Puget Sound and the Lower Columbia Districts. The acquisitionof boating access sites in the North Coast and the North Central and South Puget Sound Districts. Acquisition of boater destination areas in North Puget Sound. Acquisition of large saltwater shoreland areas to provide Regional type recreational opportunities on all areas of Puget Sound. Acquisition of saltwater access in the Lower Columbia River District. Priority V - SALTWATER DEVELOPMENT Development priorities for Saltwater Shorelands and for the provision of rec- reational access to saltwater beach, tideland and water areas and necessary ancillary support facilities for fishing, boating, picnicking, camping and related emerging recreational activities. The priority order for development is: IX-20 ###NEWPAGE n="338" ### Mr. Biggs - Page 5 - January 27, 1975 The development of public access to state-owned tidelands and beaches in the South Pacific Coast and North, Central and Sau'th Puget SoundS The development of boating access sites in the North, Central, and South Puget Sound Districts. Development of boating access in the Lower Columbia District. Coastal Zone Related Programs One of IAC's primary programs is the administration of a grant-in-aid program for the acquisition and development of outdoor recreation land. With the high priorities given to saltwater shorelines as indicated above, the impact of this program becomes obvious. A problem encountered in this program deals with the fact that many funded projects are subject to a permit under the shoreline man- agement act. Quite often these projects are delayed or dropped due to action taken by various agencies. This means the funds can be "tied up" for extended period of time before the problems are resolved. Coastal Zone Management - Related Plans and Studies 1. Washington Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation and Open Space Plan - Fourth Edition. This document identifies the Pacific Ocean beaches, the San Juan Islands, and Puget Sound as having some of the greatest Influences on public outdoor rec- reation in the State. Extensive data or demand, need, and inventory, is in-0 2. Accretion, Beach Inventory This study is nearing completion in the sense that it is recognized as only a preliminary effort in this important area. It inventories the significant, undeveloped, Class I accretion beaches in the Puget Sound, San Juan Islands, .Straits of Juan de Fuca, and Hood Canal areas. These beaches are recognized as having great recreational potential, yet they are truly threatened as a resource. Shoreline Management Act While not being actively involved in the formulation of this act, the IAC has always been interested and concerned. We have reviewed the various guidelines issued by the Department of Ecology, and were particularly pleased that in the inventory procedures the local agencies were instructed to use a classification system developed by IAC on the rivers of statewide significance. Local Master Programs The IAC served as a member of the task force established to review local master programs. IX-21 ###NEWPAGE n="339" ### Mr. Biggs - Page 6 - January 27, 1975 Miscellaneous 16 related activities, the IAC has for several years worked for the establishment of a state system of wild, scenic, and recreational rivers. This program-would 'Le compatible with and supplementary to the Shoreline Management Act. I trust this information will be useful in your application to the Department of Commerce. Sincerely, Administrator SEF: RSL: sr 0X2 ###NEWPAGE n="340" ### DANIEL J. EVANS RICHARD W. HEMSTAD GOVIERNOIIRDRI˘'1 STATE OF WASHINGTON : Office of the Governor OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OLYMPIA,. WASHINOTON ls504 Soe/7,SS.200 March 17, 1975 Mr. Marvin Vialle Assistant Director for Land Programs Department of Ecology St. Martin's College Olympia Washingtn 98504 Dear MY-V4ieh: This letter is to summarize for the Coastal Zone Management program of the State of Washington the role that the Office of Community Development (OCD) and its predecessor agency, the Planning and Community Affairs Agency (PCAA) has played in coastal zone planning in the state generally, and in implementation of the Shoreline Management Act specifically. The first part of the letter is a general description of the agency and its functions that impact most directly on shoreline and coastal management and is followed by a more specific description of our shoreline and coastal zone activities. The Office of Community Development, located within the Office of the Governor, is designed to meet both state and local community needs in cooperative planning and development efforts. In doing so, the agency works through the "Washington Partnership", a principle that calls for close working relationships between state and local governments and participation by citizens in the process. More specifically, the Office of Community Development works to: 1. Assist communities in determining priorities for the development of human and physical resources; 2. Achieve a closer working relationship between local and state government in defining needs, establishing priorities, and allocating resources that affect communities; and 3. Encourage citizen involvement in the development of plans and priorities at the local and state levels. IX-23 ###NEWPAGE n="341" ### Mr. Marvin Vialle Mearch 17, 1975 Page Two Agency Services In meeting these goals, the agency carries out a variety of physical resource planning and development responsibilities, both at the state and community levels. These responsibilities essentially smooth the flow of federal and state dollars into designated coninuities and allow trained staff to provide technical assis- tance to those in public agencies, elected officials, and, citizens' groups. The Office of Community Development is an administrative structure within the Governor's Office and is responsible for the functions of the Planning and Community Affairs Agency and the Office of Economic Opportunity. The agency carries out planning and community affairs functions contained in Chapter 43.63A RCW and other state and federal statutes. Functions and Activities of the Office Affecting the Coastal Zone Land Use Purpose: To study land use patterns in the state and to recommend changes in policy and laws as they relate to land use issues; To work with local officials and citizens toward more effective use of land. Environment Purpose: To facilitate the meeting of local governments and state and federal agencies in relationship to pollution requirements and standards for air, water, noise and solid waste disposal. Energy Purpose: To assist local government in recognizing actions needed to prepare for energy-related issues. "701" Planning Program - HUD Purpose: To establish local community planning processes by encouraging the incorporation of planning and management processes in decision-making; To promote interlocal cooperation toward the solution of common concerns. IX-24 ###NEWPAGE n="342" ### Mr. Marvin Vialle March 17, 1975 Page Three Federal Projects Clearinghouse Purpose: To review proposed local government requests for federal assistance in order to determine compliance with federal requirements (A-95). Grants Management: Indian Economic Assistance Purpose: To create long-term reservation employment programs by providing funds for training and enterprise. Trident Coordination Purpose: To coordinate state agencies in responding to secondary impacts created by the construction of Trident Submarine Base. Specific Participation in Shoreline Management Act Program and Related Activities 1. Financial Assistance As the HUD "701" funding agency for Washington, OCD devoted a significant portion of the available "701" money over the last four years to helping local government meet their planning responsibilities under the Shoreline Management Act. Over the four year period, $523,500 was made available to local governments for shoreline planning. This was matched by DOE and local funds. Attached is a county breakdown of the distribution of these funds. In addition to direct financial assistance for shoreline management planning, the office has provided 701 funds to help communities, both within the coastal zone and elsewhere, to meet the land use requirements of the National Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973. This assistance was directed toward: 1) flood plain management regulations for controlling land use and develop- ment in the flood plain, 2) identification of flood and slide hazard areas, and 3) citizen awareness programs. The Office of Community Development provided technical assistance to the DOE in the administration of the shoreline planning grant program, including the development of distribution ratios. 2. CZM-"701" Land Use Coordination As the "701" planning agency for the state, OCD is faced with meeting the new HUD requirements for a land use planning element within the "701" program. IX-25 ###NEWPAGE n="343" ### Mr. Marvin Vialle March 17, 1975 Page Four Because of the recent agreement between HUD and NOAA that an approved coastal zone management program will be accepted by HUD as the land use element applicable to coastal areas, approval of this program is of vital concern to OCD. 3. Technical Assistance Field staff personnel at the office have maintained close liaison with local planners and elected officials during the implementation of the SMA. This included a series of workshops in the summer and fall of 1971 to introduce these local officials to the SMA and what it required of local government. Field staff worked closely with individual local governments to develop a strategy to accomplish the shoreline planning required. Other activities included the preparation of a shoreline planning "cookbook" and the organization of four regional groups of shoreline planners (both state and local) to help expedite interlocal coordination. Also, the agency has cooperated with the DNR to provide a forester-planner field representative to assist local governments with timber management in shoreline areas. 4. Budget Inquiry Kit In January, 1974, OCD distributed the Budget Inquiry Kit to all local governments, regional planning agencies, and Indian tribes in the state asking for their reactions to 107 state programs. Attached is a summary of the responses for the shoreline management program. As a result of the responses received from the questionnaire, the Governor selected shoreline management as a subject for more detailed analysis and follow-up with local governments. That analysis is attached, along with the results of the local response. 5. Participation with DOE The office has participated with the Department of Ecology on a number of ad hoc task forces and projects. This has included assistance in developing, and review of, the statewide SMA guidelines; assisting in the review of local shoreline master programs; participating on the state agency CZM advisory group (including review of the proposed CZM program); and working with DOE to identify cross-impacts and opportunities among various environmental planning programs (e.g., Section 208 water quality planning, air quality planning) and the CZM program. 6. Nisqually Task Force Study In 1970-1971, in response to public outcry over a proposal to build a superport on the Nisqually delta, the office (then PCAA) formed the IX-26 ###NEWPAGE n="344" ### Mr. Marvin Vialle March 17, 1975 Page Five Nisqually Task Force to examine land and water use alternatives for the entire river basin. Although not all recommendations of the Task Force have been implemented, the prime recommendation, that the delta be preserved as a federal wildlife refuge, has been accomplished. Also, the work of the Task Force may have been partly responsible for the designation of the Nisqually Delta as a "shoreline of statewide significance" in the SMA. I hope this brief explanation of OCD's responsibilities and programs will help assure expeditious federal approval of the Coastal Zone Program and subsequent Program Administration Grant. If further information or documentation would be helpful, please notify me. eely,' RicardW.Hems tad Director RWH: j c IX-27 ###NEWPAGE n="345" ### STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES BERT L. COLE, COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC LANDS OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON 98504 Coastal Zone Manaqement related qoals: The Department of Natural Resources is the largest marine land proprietor in the State of Washington. The Department manages 1,300 miles of tidelands, 6,700 acres of constitutionally established harbor areas and 2,000 square miles of marine beds of navigable waters. These lands are managed as a public trust to maximize the benefit to each citizen of the state. Under careful planning and multiple use management a variety of uses and activities, such as navigation; public use; production of food; minerals and chemicals; and Improvement of marine plant and animal habitat, can occur simultaneously or seasonally on Department of Natural Resources' managed land. This concept has incorporated in it, the avoidance of permanent single purpose uses on lands that have multiple use potential. in most cases, the concept includes the identification of the primary use of the land, but provides for compatible secondary uses. Plans for use of these lands will Identify the primary use and establish performance standards which will insure that secondary uses do not conflict with primary use activities. Although oust of the Department's marine land is to be managed for a combination of uses, certain primary uses require that more severe limitations be placed on other uses. For example, marine areas allocated for environmental reserves are to be managed to protect the natural biological productivity of the area. The primary use in this case is to maintain natural conditions and productivity, thus limitations are necessary on human activities that interfere with this process. Coastal Zone Management related policies: The management plan for marine lands includes policies and guidelines for: 1. Navigation and conmmerce IX-28 ###NEWPAGE n="346" ### 2. Public use 3. Food, mineral and chemical production 4*. Protection of the natural marine environment - 5. Uses by abutting upland owners, and 6. Revenue production The policy statements and guidelines apply to all Department of Natural Resources managed tidelands, harbor areas and beds of navigable waters. They are the primary basis on which the Department's multiple use management plan and programs are developed. These policies apply only to Department of Natural Resources lands and not other government agencies that administer programs on marine lands. POLICY 1: Naviciation and Commerce To provide for navigation and commerce on tidelands, harbor areas and beds of navigable waters. Guidelines: 1. Priority consideration shall be given to meeting the expanding need for navigation and commerce on first class tidelands and ex'isting harbor areas. 2. Prior to establishing new harbor areas for deep draft commerce, anlL up-to-date comprehensive study of national dependence on Washington State to provide for commerce must be completed and a statewide harbor development plan based on national and state needs must be developed. 3. Harbor lines will be adjusted, when justified, to provide reasonable oppor- tunity to meet the future needs of commerce. 4. Water dependent uses of the tidelands, harbor areas and beds of nav igable waters shall be given preference over other uses. 5. Several Industries using the same harbor area facility shall be given preference over single industry use. IX- 29 ###NEWPAGE n="347" ### 6. Harbor areas will be reserved for landings, wharves, streets and other conveniences to navigation, commerce, however, where no current constitu- tional use is practical and other public uses are in demand, interim public use may be authorized. 7. Provisions will be made to minimize interference with surface navigation even though other uses have been allocated. 8. Development of additional sites for navigation and commerce will not generally be authorized on second class tidelands if existing first class tidelands can meet the need. 9. Development, such as floating piers and breakwaters, will be encouraged so as to provide alternatives for increasing capacity for waterborne commerce without imposing environmental costs of establishing new harbor areas and their associated dredging and maintenance. 10. Shallow draft uses, such as barge terminals and marinas, will be preferred over deep draft uses in areas requiring extensive maintenance dredging. 11. Anchorages and harbors of refuge may be allocated to provide protection and moorage space for watercraft. 12. To provide for public safety, comprehensive mooring buoy locations, lighting and marking plans and programs will be implemented. POLICY 2: Public Use To provide for the protection and improvement of marine lands for public use. Guidelines: 1. Selected second class tideland tracts of 1,000 contiguous feet or more or smaller areas of special recreational quality, which have not been withdrawn for governmental or aquacultural uses, will be managed for public use. IX-30 ###NEWPAGE n="348" ### 2. Whenever practical, leases of first class tideland will provide for public access to the water. 3. Areas of second class tidelands, designated for public use, will be is identified as public use beaches, properly advertised and marked and will be maintained on a regular basis for public use. 4. Areas allocated for public use will not be managed to produce a profit for a concessionaire or the administering agency without a lease fee being cha rged. 5. Where the State owns the abutting uplands, priority will be given to joint development of the uplands and second class tidelands for public use. 6. Selected second class tidelands will be set aside for development of self-guiding marine nature walks. 7. Selected second class tidelands capable of clam or oyster production, except those designated for aquacultural uses, will be set aside for public use, 8. Provisions shall be made to insure that traditional sports fishing areas5 are protected from competing uses that create obstructions. 9. Notice will be served to the current lessees of tidelands allocated for future public use, that prior to renewal of current leases, such leases will be modified to permit public use or will be terminated. 10. Bedlands abutting upland parks shall be considered for underwater parks. 11. Motorized vehicular travel will not be permitted on Department of Natural Resources' managed public use tidelands. 12. In recognition of the increasing impact by the recreating public on the State's beaches, new programs will be devoted to public education about stewardship of State marine resources. IX-31 ###NEWPAGE n="349" ### POLICY 3: Food, Mineral & Chemical Production To provide for the production of food, minerals and chemicals on marine lands with preference given to renewable resource activities. Guidelines: I. Tidelands and beds of navigable waters, especially valuable for aquaculture, will be so designated and protected from conflicting uses which would limit their utility for this purpose. 2. Information shall be provided to encourage commercial aquacultural activity to expand Iaito proper locations. 3. Provisions shall be made to insure that traditional commercial fishing areas are protected from competing uses that create obstructions. 4. Certain lands will be selected for habitat improvement where such envi ron- ments can be improved by adding structures, materials and plants. 5. Whenever structures are used for aquaculture on the beds of navigable waters, they shall be located in such a way as-to minimize the interference with navigation and fishing and minimize adverse visual impacts. * 6. Marine lands will be inventoried as to the location of significant deposits of minerals and aggregates, and a determination made as to the significance and dependence of the State on such deposits. POLICY 4: Protection of Natural Marine Environment To protect and enhance the quality of the natural marine environment. Guidelines: 1. Provisions for leasing tidelands and beds shall include requirements for protecting the natural marine environment. 2. Areas of special educational or scientific interest or areas of special environmental importance may be withdrawn as reserves and protected from competing uses. is IX-32 ###NEWPAGE n="350" ### 3. Provisions shall be made to insure that structures on Department of Natural Resources managed land are properly maintained. 4. Unsightly abandoned structures shall be removed from Deocartment of Natural Resources marine lands as funds permit. 5. Long term commnitments will be avoided when leasing for water dependent uses which are essential to the economy and public welfare, but have adverse environmental impacts. Leases and permits will not be issued for .non-water dependent uses which have significant environmental impacts. 6. Easements or leases for the development of underwater pipelines and cables will not be granted except where adverse environmental impacts can be shown to be less than the impact of upland alternative, and when granted will include proper provisions to insure against substantial or irrevocable damage to the environment. 7. Structures and uses on marine lands will be designed to provide for safe passage of migrating animals whose life cycle is dependent on such migration. 8.The use of floating breakwaters shall be encouraged as protective structures rather than using permanent earth and rock fills. 9. Second class tidelands will generally be maintained free of bulkheads. 10. Beach material from tidelands and beds will generally not be used to backfill bulkheads and seawalls. 11. Filling on second class tideland will generally not be permitted. 12. When material from tidelands and beds is permitted as back fill and when filling on second class, tidelands is permitted, provisions to stabilize fill material will be required. 13. Spoil disposal sites will be provided on the beds of navigable waters for certain materials that are approved for such disposal by regulatory agencies. IX-33 ###NEWPAGE n="351" ### POLICY 5: Uses by Abuttinq Upland Owners To provide certain tidelands and bedlands for use by abutting upland owners and to consider certain riparian interests in the managementZ-of marine lands. Guidelines: 1. When tidelands are leased to someone other than the abutting upland owner, such leases will provide for the abutting owner to reach the beds of navigable waters. 2. Second class tidelands not allocated for public use may be made available for lease to the abutting upland owner without providing for public use. 3. In those cases where tidelands are managed for public use, the rights of private upland owners abutting public use tidelands will be recognized by suitable marking of the Intervening property lines and properly posting the tidal tract. 4. Anchorage areas on the beds of navigable waters shall be designated for use by upland owners for mooring boats. 5.To reduce the burden an marinas, private mooring buoys and floats associated with shoreline residences will be encouraged. 6. Where there is no interference with normal routes of navigation for watercraft, swim floats and mooring buoys will be authorized on tidelands and bedlands shoreward of the 3 fathom contour or within 500 feet of mean high tide, whichever is appropriate. The placement of floats and buoys beyond the 3 fathom contour or 500 feet will be evaluated on a case by case- basis. POLICY 6: Revenue Production To manage the marine lands under a pricing system which will compensate the public for reduction in the availability of the public lands due to private use and thereby produce revenue to reduce the general tax burden. IX-34 ###NEWPAGE n="352" ### Guidelines: 1. The value of Department of Natural Resources managed tidelands and beds of navigable waters to the general public will be recognized by charging competing lessees the full market price for the land. 2. Lease rates may be reduced depending on the degree to which the use interferes with the public use of the same property. Total withdrawal for private use requires a full rental payment. 3. When the effects of marine uses have an identifiable adverse impact on Department of Natural Resources land, a value will be placed on the loss or impact and charged to the. user. 4. Available revenue from leasing of marine lands shall be used for marine land management programs that are of direct benefit to the public. 5. First class tidelands and harbor areas, unless withdrawn by the Commissioner of Public Lands as recreational use property, will be managed to produce revenue and service to the public. 6. Lease rates may be reduced for up to five years as an incentive when lessees are involved in research or development work which Is in the public interest. Coastal Zone Manaqement Related Proqrams Prior to August 8, 1971, the State of Washington had authority to sell tidelands and shorelands to private individuals, companies and corporations. Chapter 217, Session Laws of 1971, First Extraordinary Session as amended by Chapter 186, Session Laws of 1974, First Extraordinary Session prohibits the sale of any State owned aquatic lands, except to public agencies. However, tidelands and shorelands may be leased for general purposes for terms of up to fifty-five years. ###NEWPAGE n="353" ### PROGRAM 1: Administer First Class Tideland and Beds of Naviqable Water Leases First class tidelands include the beds and shores of navigable tidal waters lying within or in front of, the corporate limits of any city and within one mile thereof upon either side and between the line of ordinary high tide and the inner harbor line, where harbor lines have been established, and within two miles of the corporate limits on either side and between the line of ordinary high tide and the line of extreme low tide. Platted first class tidelands may be leased to anyone for a term of up to fifty- five years upon application, after being inspected in the field and terms and conditions of lease fixed, provided the state finds it in the best Interest of the public to lease. Unplatted first class tidelands may be leased to the owner of the abutting lands for a term of up to fifty-five years upon application, after being inspected in the field and terms and conditions of lease fixed, provided the state finds It * in the best interest of the public to lease. If the abutting uplands are not improved for residential purposes, first class tidelands may be leased to anyone for booming purposes. Beds of navigable waters are defined as that area lying below the line of extreme low tide in waters where the tide ebbs and flows and below the line of navigability in navigable rivers and lakes. Beds of navigable waters in front of first class tidelands may be leased to the owner of the abutting lands for a term of up to ten years upon application, after being inspected in the field and terms and conditions of lease fixed. IX-36 ###NEWPAGE n="354" ### Beds of navigable waters may be leased to anyone for booming purposes. Each applicant for lease of bed of navigable waters is required to obtain a permit to place structures or improvements in navigable waters fro-n'the United States Army, Corps of Engineers or other federal regulatory agency. A copy of such permit must be filed with the State of Washington, Department of Natural Resources. The permit from the United States Army, Corps of Engineers grants authorization only insofar as it concerns navigation and does not include ownership rights. PROGRAM 2: Administer Leases on First Class Shore Lands and Beds of Naviqable Waters First class shorelands include the shores of a navigable lake or river belonging to the state, not subject to tidal flow, between the line of ordinary high water and the line of navigability, and within or in front of the corporate limits of any city or within two miles thereof upon either side. Platted first class shorelands may be leased to anyone for a term of up to fifty- five years upon application, after being inspected in the field and terms and conditions of lease fixed, provided the state finds it in the best public interest to lease. Unplatted first class shorelands may be leased to the owner of the abutting lands for a term up to fifty-five years upon application, after being inspected in the field and terms and conditions of lease fixed, provided the state finds it in the best interest of the public to lease. If the abutting uplands are not improved or occupied for residential or commercial purposes, first class shorelands may be leased to anyone for booming purposes. Beds of navigable waters in front of first class shorelands may be leased to the owner of the abutting lands, or to anyone for booming purposes. IX-37 ###NEWPAGE n="355" ### PROGRAM 3: Administer Harbor Leases Harbor area is a reserved area in navigable waters within or in front of cities and within one mile of the corporate limits on either si-de thereof as established by the State Harbor Line Commission under the provisions of Article XV of the State Constitution. The width of such harbor area varies from a minimum of 50 feet to a maximum of 2,000 feet. Harbor area is forever reserved for landings, wharves, streets and other conveniences for navigation and commerce. The State Legislature, by general laws, provided for the leasing of the right to build and maintain wharves, docks and other structures on harbor areas for the convenience of navigation and commerce. Lease terms are limited to not more than thirty years. Rental rates are based on a percentage of the full and true value of the harbor area as determined by the State of Washington, Department of Natural Resources. The percentage rate is fixed for the duration of the lease. However, the valuation is subject to change every fifth year for the duration of the lease. If the harbor area is within a Port District, the application for lease must be referred to the Port Comvmissioner's for their recommendations. PROGRAM 4: Administer Second Class Tidelands and Beds of Navicjable Water Leases SECOND CLASS TIDELANDS Second class tidelands include the beds and shores of navigable tidal waters outside of and more than two miles from the corporate limits of any incorporated city or town, between the line of ordinary high tide and the line of extreme low t ide. Second class tidelands may be leased to anyone for a term of up to fifty-five years upon application, after being inspected in the field and terms and conditions IX-38 ###NEWPAGE n="356" ### of lease fixed, provided the state finds it in the best Interest of the public to lease. Beds o-- navigable waters in front of second class tidelands may be leased to the owner of abutting lands or to anyone for booming purposes. DEEP SEA OYSTER LEASES Beds of navigable tidal waters below the line of extreme low tide not In front of nor within two miles of an incorporated city or town, may be leased for the purposes of planting and cultivating oysters, clams or other edible shellfish for periods not to exceed ten years. Where the lands are used for the cultivation of oysters, the parcels leased shall not exceed forty acres. Where the lands are used for the cultivation of clams or other edible shellfish, leases may be granted for larger parcels. The application must be referred to the Director of the Department of Fisheries to determine whether it is necessary to retain any part of the lands described in the application, to protect existing oyster beds and to secure adequate seeding thereof. If the answer is negative, then such lands may be leased. GEODUCK CLAM LEASES The State of Washington, Department of Natural Resources, is authorized to lease for terms of 5 to 10 years beds of navigable waters 10.0 feet or more below the line of mean lower low tide and one-fourth mile or more seaward from the line of ordinary high tide for the commnercial harvest of geoduck clams. IX-39 ###NEWPAGE n="357" ### Tracts containing geoduck clams may be selected by the State of Washington, Department of Natural Resources, in cooperation with the State of Washington, Department of Fisheries and after fixing the terms and conditions offer such tracts for lease at auction, after a period of advertisement. PROGRAM 5: Administer Second Class Shorelands and Beds of Navigable Water Leases Second class shorelands Include the shores of a navigable lake or river, not subject to tidal flow, between the line of ordinary high water and the line of navigability and more than two miles from the corporate limits of any city. Second class shorelands may be leased to anyone for a term of up to fifty-five years upon application, after being inspected in the field and terms and conditions of lease fixed, provided the state finds it in the best Interest of the public to lease. Beds of navigable waters in front of second class shorelands may be leased to the owners of the abutting lands or to anyone for booming purposes. PROGRAM 6: Grantinq Right of Way on Aquatic Lands Easements for rights of way for electric power transmission lines, telephone lines, pipelines, etc. upon, over and across state owned aquatic lands may be granted by the State of Washington, Department of Natural Resources upon application, after being Inspected in the field and terms and conditions of easement fixed. AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND REMOVAL OF STATE OWNED ROCK, GRAVEL, SAND AND SILT FROM BEDS OF NAVIGABLE WATERS, TIDELANDS AND SHORELANDS The State of Washington, Department of Natural Resources, may enter Into agreement providing for the purchase and removal of rock, gravel, sand and silt from state owned beds of navigable waters, tidelands and shorelands. Payment for such materials is made upon a royalty basis as fixed by the State of Washington, Department of Natural Regources. IX-40 ###NEWPAGE n="358" ### No paymen t of royalIty i s re qui1red when g ravelI, rock, sand o r s ilIt o r o the r ma ter ialI is removed from state owned beds and shores of any navigable river or stream by public agencies or under public contract for channel or harbor improvement, or flood control unless the same is sold or used for some other purpose. Such public agency shall obtain a permit from the State of Washington, Department of Natural Resources for removal of materials. PROGRAM 7: Public Beach Markinq Selected second class tideland tracts of at least 1000 contiguous feet, or smaller areas of special recreational value which have not been withdrawn for governmental or aquacultural use, have been designated as public use beaches. The Department of Natural Resources is now in the process of marking these beaches to enable the public to identify the public land from the surrounding private land. This program has run into problems with the Shoreline Management Act. The cost of marking a beach is approximately $300.00. In an attempt to appease some of the local land owners who object to the public use of public property, certain county officials have taken the position that since the cost of marking all of the beaches in a county equals more than $1,000.00, a substantial development permit is necessary. Fortunately, we have been able to reason with all of the individuals thus far encountered. PROGRAM 8: Oyster Spat Collection This program has the dual goals of producing oyster seed to be used in stocking public beaches and developing methods of better utilizing the rather limited area capable of producing oyster larvae. Dabob Bay on Hood Canal is the only area in Puget Sound that produces sufficient oyster larvae on a regular enough basis to make collection feasible. The collecting area in sheltered shallow water is presently being utilized nearly to capacity. The Department of Natural IX-41 ###NEWPAGE n="359" ### Resources is attempting to perfect workable spat collecting techniques usable for the deep open waters in the middle of the bay. PROGRAM 9: Habitat Improvement & Buildinq Artificial TFre Reefs The Department of Natural Resources is presently embarking on a program of improving the fishing potential for many species of reef inhabiting fishes in areas where they do not now exist by building artificial tire reefs. This will be done In conjunction with various sportsmans groups, public agencies and the Marine Resources Siting Committee and Corps of Engineers. The Department's role is primarily coordination guldeance and controls through the Corps of Engineers permit system. COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT - RELATED PLANS AND STUDIES PROGRAM 10: Develop Seaweed Aquaculture The Department of Natural Resources is conducting a program of economic analysis and field and laboratory research aimed at the eventual commercial harvest of seaweeds in Puget Sound. Iridaea cordata, a red seaweed containing the commercially important phycocollold, carrageenan, has been the subject of most of the research effort to date. As this alga is of rather limited distribution in Puget Sound and since 'the natural populations are such as to preclude an economically feasible harvest, the major impetus of the Department's effort has been to develop the techniques necessary to produce an economically harvestable crop on an artificial substrate. PROGRAM 11: Develop Shellfish Aquaculture The D.epartment of Natural Resources is currently Investigating methods increasing the amount of space available for growing shellfish, both by rehabilitating existing beach areas and by growing shellfish on structures suspended In the water column. DM/nr 2/19/75 IX-42 ###NEWPAGE n="360" ### February 18, 1975 DeDartment Name: Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission Name of Director: Charles H. Odegaard 0 1. Coastal Zone Manaqement Related Goals: Generally, the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission shall "Permit the use of state parks and parkways by the public . ."RCW 43.51.041(3). RCW 43.51.80 specifically provides for the expansion of existing parks in the island counties. In RCW 43.51 .22 ". . . The Commission is authorized to establish landing and other facilities for small pleasure boats at places on Puget Sound. . where such facilities will be of greatest advan- tage. ." RCW's 43.51.240 and .250 relate to various parcels of tidelands specifically under the jurisidiction of the Commission and development of access to them. Probably, the most significant series of laws is RCW 43.51.650 - 43.51.675 which establishes the Seashore Conservation Area and outlines the principles and purposes under which it is to be managed. The power to control traffic on the ocean beach highways is given to the Commission in RCW 43.51.680. The management of accreted lands is given to the Commission in RCW 43.51.685. Also embodied in this section are several permits that the Commission can grant, including: a. Leasing of lands for oil and gas exploration. b. Sale of accreted sand to cranberry growers. c. Mining leases for "black sands". d. Permits for removal of sand for construction purposes. RCW 43.51.750 through 43.51.820 set up the system for preservation of historic properties which is under the jurisdiction of the Commission. As many historic and archaeological sites are located in close proximity to water, the presence of these sites will need to be considered in the management of the coastal zone. The state boating safety program was given to the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission to administer by Governor's Order in the late 1960's. In December 1971 State Parks became the administering agency for all federal funds relating to recreational boating. Since we are the primary state agency concerned with boatinq programs, any section of the CZM program that would involve marinas, launches, recreation destination sites, or other recreational boating- related activities would be of a concern to us. IX-43 0 ###NEWPAGE n="361" ### 2. Coastal Zone Management Related Policies: The most current statements of agency policy are contained in the 1975-77 budget documents. These statements were examined for specific references to the Coastal Zone.- None were found that specifically applied to CZM. There are a host of general policies that apply to park areas statewide. These include new acquisitions to meet rising demands, careful environmental coordination to ensure that high quality is' maintained, and the establishment of adequate planned maintenance programs to keep the park operating properly. Where any park areas are in the Coastal Management Zone, these general policies would apply. In general, the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission is concerned that CZM will allow for the orderly acquisition, development, and maintenance of park areas to meet the needs of residents and visitors to the state of Washington. 3. Coastal Zone Management Related Programs: Aside from the overall Drogram of acquisition and development of park areas, the only ongoing programs directly related to the Coastal Zone are those permits already described in RCW 43.51 .685. The permits described therein have been available and the process did work without difficulty prior to the implementation of the Shoreline Management Act. Because of that Act's requirements and the environmental questions raised by the Department of Ecology, the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission has temporarily ceased issuing permits. 4. Coastal Zone Management - Related Plans and Studies: * Aside from ongoing plans for acquisition and development of recreation areas along the ocean beaches, several specific studies are available: a. A Report on the Future of the Long Beach Peninsula Seashore by Battelle Northwest, July 1970. This report is designed as a planning too] which the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission and Pacific County can use in evaluating alternative uses of the Peninsula. b. Puget Sound and Adjacent Waters Boating Access by Puget Sound and Adjacent Waters Boating Access Committee, January 1973. This study enumerates the available boating access areas along the Puget Sound area and outlines a program for acquisition of sites to alleviate a demonstrated need. c. Pleasure Boating Study by the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission, November 1968. This study generally discusses the status of pleasure boating in Puget Sound and adjacent waters and recommends expansion of facilities as needs indicate. IX-44 ###NEWPAGE n="362" ### 5. Other Difficulties: None 6. Shoreline Management Involvement: a. Shoreline Act The Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission and staff played no part whatsoever in the formulation and passage of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971. b. Guidelines The Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed and commented on the guidelines as developed by the Department of Ecology by letter of April 3, 1972. State Parks' concern at that time related to what aPDeared to be the possibility for long delays in the permit process. In fact, delays have occurred with nearly every project processed under SMA. c. Permits State Parks has processed applications for substantial development permits for about 100 projects to date. Copies of all pertinent correspondence are available from our offices in Olympia but due to the extremely voluminous nature are not provided. The Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission has experienced substantial difficulty in pursuing a normal program of outdoor recreational facility improvement since the Shoreline Management Act has been in effect. This has apparently been due to the fact that local jurisdictions responsible for enforcing the Act are mostW urgently concerned with local, rather than statewide, interests. Numerous projects'of regional- or statewide interest have been altered or cancelled due to adverse reactions as a result of the Shoreline Act hearing process. In actuality, only a small number of vociferous neighbors to a state park can nullify legislative mandates. In several cases, long delays have caused grossly inflated project costs. In many cases, however, local officials have concerned themselves with statewide concerns and acted affirmatively in spite of some local objection. d. Local Master Program Formulation State Parks' experiences in Master Program formulation were not particularly favorable. Some county citizen shorelines committees were heavily weighted toward preservation and opposed any development. For that reason and the fact that State Parks did not receive any staffing for Shoreline Management coordination until May 1974, it IX-45 ###NEWPAGE n="363" ### seemed more reasonable to respond to Master Program reviews requested by the Department of Ecology after they had certified that the Programs were reasonably adequate. e. Review of Master Programs The Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission has reviewed the following city/county Master Programs and responded to the Department of Ecology: Edmonds - 3/21/74 - No comment Pend Oreille County - 2/22/74 - Objections rais.ed by Parks Grant County - 3/4/74 - Objections raised by Parks Cities in Grays Harbor County - No reply - Maps inadequate Des Moines - 2/21/74 - No comment Medina - 3/25/74 - Objections raised by Parks Mercer Island - 3/21/74 - No comment Mason County - 3/5/74 - Objections raised by Parks Cowlitz County - 3/18/74 - Objections raised by Parks Wahkiakum County - 3/4/74 - Objections raised by Parks Kent - 3/21/74 - No comment Normandy Park -.3/25/74 - Objections raised by Parks Auburn - 3/21/74 - No comment Soap Lake - 2/27/74 - No comment Tacoma - 3/21/74 - No comment Redmond - 3/25/74 - Objections raised by Parks Redmond - 9/20/74 - No comment Douglas County - 8/9/74 - No comment Hunts Point - 2/27/74 - No comment Beaux Arts Village - 2/27/74 - Objections raised by Parks Lake Forest Park - 2/27/74 - No comment Moses Lake - 2/27/74 - No comment Franklin County - 3/4/74 - Objections raised by Parks Lewis County - 3/4/74 - No comment Walla Walla County - 8/9/74 - No comment Pacific County - 5/17/74 - Serious objections Chelan County - 8/9/74 - Objections raised by Parks Okanogan County - 7/10/74 - Objections raised by Parks Kirkland - 7/8/74 - No comment Renton - 7/8/74 - No comment Klickitat County - 7/12/74 - Objections raised by Parks Bellevue - 7/18/74 - No comment Yakima County - 7/12/74 - No comment Garfield County - 8/9/74 - No comment Dupont - 8/6/74 - No comment Tukwila - 8/27/74 - No comment Skamania County - 8/6/74 - No comment Jefferson County - 10/24/74 - Objections raised by Parks Snohomish County - 11/1/74 - No comment Clark County - 11/1/74 - Objections raised by Parks Whitman County - 12/17/74 - Objections raised by Parks Bellingham - 8/19/74 - No comment Spokane County - 9/20/74 - Objections raised by Parks IX-46 ###NEWPAGE n="364" ### The above record may not be totally inclusive but serves to demonstrate that State Parks has attempted to assist in review. Where objections were raised, a significant conflict was evident between the local Master Program and statewide0 recreation. Shoreline Management Guidelines call for substantial consideration of public access and public recreational activity in Master Programs. Staff only commented adversely when a substantial conflict was evident. f. Miscellaneous The inclusion of the Shoreline Management Act within the Coastal Zone Management concept can be very valid and desirable if statewide and regional goals can be achieved. The Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission is vitally concerned about the quality of the recreational experience of the shoreline user. For that reason, it is imperative that the shoreline areas be conserved, commensurate with reasonable development and use. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Charles Oegaard Director sg IX-470 ###NEWPAGE n="365" ### C. Federal Agencies 1. Agenda of Federal Agency Meeting 2. Request by DOE to Affected Federal Agencies 3. Forest Service Response 4. National Park Service Response S. Sample of "Packet" System with Coast Guard (still in draft form) IX-48 ###NEWPAGE n="366" ### January 9, 1975 COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY - FEDERAL A(UENCY REPRESENTATIVES MEETING Thursday, January 16, 1975 - 10:00 a.m. At: Arcade Plaza Bldg. First Floor Second Avenue Seattle 1. Presentation of Draft Management Program 2. Boundaries of Federal Jurisdictions 3. Determination of National Interest and Needs of Washington Coastal Zone 4. Federal Agency plans in Coastal Zone E. Federal Agency involvement in Shoreline Management. Permits, reviews, Master Programs and other. 6. Conflict resolution and identification of existing conflicts. 7. Name of other Federal agencies and people who ought to be involved. 8. Names of people agencies in Oregon, Idaho, British Columbia, and the Pacific Northwest Region generally who should be involved. 9. Identification and description of areas of particular concern, and areas for preservation and restoration. Please confirm attendance with Anne H. Haines - Department of Ecology, Coastal Zone Management, Olympia, Washington 98704. (206) 753-3829. AHH:ss IX-49 ###NEWPAGE n="367" ### January 17, 1975 Coastal Zone Management, State of WashingtonLDepartment of Ecology - Memorandum of Request TO: Federal Agencies Involved or Affected by the Washington Coastal Zone Management Program FROM: Marvin Vialle, Assistant Director""?.) Office of Land Programs SUBJECT: Agency statements regarding Agency's Plans, Policies and Concerns in Coastal Zone and Agency's past participation in Shoreline Management. As you may know, the State of Washington will be applying to the Depart uent of Commerce for section 306 approval of its Coastal Zone Management Program. We wish to insert statements from each affected Federal Agency into our application docu- ment. The purpose of this statement is two-fold, one is to ascertain the goals, policies, plans and programs of the agency that have coastal zone connections or implications, and secondly, it is an effort to document the agency's past involvement with Washington's Shoreline Management Program (Shoreline Management forhs the basis for our approach to Coastal Zone Management). There is an urgent need for these statements; we must have them by February 15, 1975 or earlier. They need not be long nor overly detailed. Also, it may be appropriate for various sub- agencies to prepare separate statements. We will insert state- ments from any level whether Department, Administration, Office, Service, Division or other subdivision. This is the first step in the new involvement and consultative process established by our Coastal Zone Management Program. Following is a suggested outline to assist the preparer of the statement. IX-50 ###NEWPAGE n="368" ### Page Two January 17, 1975 Agency Name: Department Name: Name of Director or Chief: Coverage of Agency's District: Statewide, Region 10, National etc. Coastal Zone Management Related Goals: This would be statements or excerpts from the agency's mission which have implications or could have impacts on the Coastal Zone. References to Federal legislation would be appropriate here. Coastal Zone Management Related Policies: These would be adopted policies or operating policies of the agency which pertain to Coastal Zone Management. Again references to Federal law would be appropriate if there are declarations of policy in the law. These can be policies the agency uses to guide its own actions which it uses in approving, licensing, reviewing, or commenting on proposals and plans of others. Coastal Zone Management Related Programs: This would be a listing of th-., agency's programs which could affect the Coastal Zone. These would be ongoing programs such as permit systems, operations, field responsibilities etc. of an established nature. A brief description of the nature, coverage and important aspects of each wolId suffice. Also, a description of difficulties encountered in the execution of each program. This is important since resolu- tion of these difficulties is a primary objective in the Coastal Zone Management Program. Coastal Zone Management - Related Plans & Studies: This would be a list of adopted plans and expected, completed, or underway studies related to the coastal zone. All that is needed is a bibliographic reference for each document listed plus a short description of the salient points regarding the Washington Coastal Zone. Again, problems and difficulties that arise be- yond agency control should be listed and explained. Other Difficulties: Please list other difficulties that may not fit in the categories above. Any difference of opinion, dispute, or other matter which the agency feels has an adverse effect on its mission. Shoreline Management Involvement Shoreline Act Please list any and all involvements the agency had IX-51 ###NEWPAGE n="369" ### Page Three January 1-7, 1975 in the initial formulation and passage of the Act. (It would Is help to include any letters, opinions, statements, etc. which Guidelines Department of Ecology has adopted several sets of guideliines pursuant to -its duties under Shoreline Management. Please list all involvements here and again, if possible supply any pertintent correspondence. Permits Often Federal agencies have become involved in our Substantial Development Permit system. Please list such in- volvements and supply copies of pertinent correspondence. Local Master Program Formulation in several cases federal agencies were consulted and involved in the formula'tion of local Shoreline Master Programs. Again list such involvements as much as possible and supply copies of pertinent correspondence. Review of Master Program Same as above only in this case the agency would have participated in the master program review process used by Department of Ecology. Please list and document as above. Miscellaneous Please note any other Shoreline Management re- lated involvement or participation which does not fit into t-he above categories. if any help or clarification is needed please call Rod Mrack or Murray Walsh (753-6871) in Olympia. Time is of the essence for this request, so extensive documentation on research is not desired. This consultative process will continue for some time and this is just the beginning. Thank you for any help you can give. These statements will be directly inserted into our application document and should appear as letters signed by the agency chief. DIV: SC IX- S2 ###NEWPAGE n="370" ### f U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Northwest Administrative Service-_Office 1700 Westlake Avenue North Seattle, Washington 98109 March 7, 1975 Mr. John A. Biggs, Director Department of Ecology State of Washing-ton Olympia, Washington 98504 Dear Mr. Biggs: Attached is a response from the Seattle National Weather Service, WSFO, to your preliminary draft coastal zone management program. I am sorry for the lateness of this response and sincerely hope that it does not cause a problem. We do appreciate the opportunity to provide input to the development of your coastal zone plan. Yours truly, Daft Director Attachment IX-53 ###NEWPAGE n="371" ### Agency Name: U. S. Forest Service Department Name: Department of Agriculture Name of Director or Chief: T. A. Schlapfer. Regional Forester Coverage of Agency's District: Oregon and Washington Pacific Northwest Region Coastal Zone Management Related Goals The Forest Service has the Federal responsibility for national leadership in "forestry." I/ This includes participation in setting national prior- ities, formulating programs, and establishing Federal policies that relate to man and his natural environment, especially the forest-related environment. Rangeland, grassland, brushland, alpine areas, water areas, and wildlife habitats are included within the scope of forests and the forest-related environmient. Forestry is the protection and management of this land and its natural resources for the many and varied purposes of mankind. Forests provide raw materials for basic necessities of life as well as natural environments for many leisure and educational activities. The Forest Service seeks to attain a harmonious relation between man and his natural environment. Basic Authorities and Objectives More than 140 Federal laws define various Forest Service authorities. .2/ A few are particularly important to the Agency's basic mission. Creative Act of 1891 - (86 Stat. 1103; 16 USC 471) Established authority for the President of the United States to set aside public lands as public reservations. Organic Administration Act of 1897 - (30 Stat * 34, as amended; 16 USC 473-478,3 479-482, 551) Established authority for Secretary of Agriculture to manage the National Forests. I/ This responsibility is delegated to the Chief of the Forest Service under Administrative Regulations of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (7 CFR 2.60). 2/ These laws are listed in the Forest Service Manual§ Chapter 1000. The major laws are described in Forest Service "The Principal Laws Relating to the Establishment and Administration of the National Forests and to Other Forest Service Activities, "U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook No. 453, Revised January 1974. IX-54 ###NEWPAGE n="372" ### 2 Weeks Law of 1911 - (36 Stat. 961, as amended; 16 USC 480, 500, 513-519, 521, 552, 563) Established authority for cooperation with States and for purchase of lands to add to the National Forest System. Clarke-McNary Act of 1924 - (43 Stat. 653, as amended; 16 USC 505, 515, 564-570) Established authority for cooperative forestry programs with the States. McSweeney-McNary Act of 1928 - (45 Stat. 699, as amended; 16 USC 581, 581a, 581a-1, 581b-581i) PL 90-193 (81 Stat. 579) Established the Forestry Research Program. Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act of 1937 - (50 Stat. 525, as amended; 7 USC 1010-12) Authority under which National Grasslands are administered. Forest Pest Control Act of 1947 - (61 Stat, 177; 16 USC 594-1 to 594-5) Established policy and authority for forest insect and disease control. Cooperative Forest Management Act of 1950 - (64 Stat. 473, as amended; 16 USC 568c, 568d) Expanded authority for cooperation with States by providing technical assistance to landowners and timber processors. Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act of 1960 - (74 Stat. 215; 16 USC 528-531) Established multiple-use and sustained-yield policies. Wilderness Act of 1964 - (78 Stat. 890; 16 USC 1131-36) Established a National Wilderness Preservation System. Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act of 1973 (PL 93-86; 87 Stat. 221). Authorized a forestry incentives program for non-industrial private land. IX-55 ###NEWPAGE n="373" ### 3 Many other Federal laws and regulations further define the purpose and conduct of particular programs. In 1970 the Forest Service specified policy guideline's and objectives in the "Framework for the Future" (Forest Service, 1970). Eleven major ob- jectives were set forth to define the overall Forest Service mission. Promote and achieve a pattern of natural resource uses that will best meet the needs of people now and in the future. Protect and improve the quality of air, water, sail, and natural beauty. Help to protect and improve the quality of the open space environ- ment in urban and coummunity areas. Generate forestry opportunities to accelerate rural comumnity growth. Encourage the growth and development of forestry-based enterprises that readily respond to consumers' changing needs. Seek optimum forest landownership patterns. improve the welfare of underprivileged members of society. Involve the public in forestry policy and program formulation. Encourage the development of forestry throiughout the world. Expand public understanding of environmiental conservation. Develop and make available a firm scientific base for the advance- ment of forestry. These objectives provide a framework to guide Forest Service decision-making. However, they and the associated policy statements identify only the general character and scope of the role the Forest Service should play. Both the objectives and the policies require continuing evaluation. In carrying out its national forestry leadership role, the Forest Service undertakes a wide variety of activities. Major responsibilities include administration of the National Forest System, Cooperative State and Private Forestry Programs, Forestry Research, and Human Resource Development Programs. Coastal Zone Management Related Policies Streamiside Management Units - Forest Service Manual 8223, R6 Supip. No. 2, March 1974, requires that streams and adjacent land areas, designated as IX-56 ###NEWPAGE n="374" ### 4 Streainside Management Units(SMU), will be managed to maintain and improve water quality. This policy provides broad management direction for Na- tional Forest streams. The policies and direction should-be coordinated with the States' policies and directions provided for in State laws such as the Forest Practices Act and Shoreline Management Act. The Department of Ecology was consulted on the initial preparation of the SW11 guides and attended several SMU training sessions presented by the Forest Service. Non-point Pollution - Executive Order 11752 and Public Law 92-500 provide some of the basic authorities for cooperation between the States and federal agencies insofar as non-point pollution is concerned. Fish Habitat - Forest Service Manual 2630, E.D. No. 2 - This policy rein- forces and supplements the Streamside Management Units policy and provides for close cooperation with Stace game and fishery agencies. Assistance - It is the policy of the Forest Service to provide technical assistance to States. An example of this which pertains indirectly to the policies mentioned above involved the Washington State Forest Practices Act, The Forest Service has worked with the Department of Ecology in an advisory capacity on the development of the States Rules and Regulations. Recreation facilities - Forest Service Manual 1500, R6 Supp. No. 20, July 1971. This policy constitutes an agreement between the Washington State Department of Health and the Forest Service. It covers major areas of concern relative to development and operation of campgrounds, picnic grounds and the like. The agreement includes the statement that the "final decision for the means of solution of sanitation problems on National Forest lands is the respon- sibility of the Forest Service." The Forest Service is currently working with the Department of Social and Health Services on the development of another agreement to more adequately cover this area in more detail. This new agreement will focus on areas of mutual concern such as water quality and sanitation. Land Acquisition - It often becomes a landownership policy of the Forest Service to acquire public ownership of lands of National interest in the coastal zone. This policy generally stems from programs which are initiated by a specific Act of Congress. The action usually authorizes the acquisition of private land for: (1) public access to attractive water,, (2) development of recreation facilities, and/or (3) protection of sensitive physical or visual values. Acquisitions of this type are generally sponsored by a local Congressman. They are initiated by conservation or recreation oriented groups because there is adjacent National Forest lands, and because the Forest Service has the ability through existing laws to acquire or exchange for the desired land. IX-57 ###NEWPAGE n="375" ### 5 While there are no programs in Washington State the possibility exists. An example of this type of legislation is Public Law 93-535 of December 22, 1974, which established the Cascade Read Scenic-Research Area as part of the Siuslaw National Forest in the State of Oregon. Coastal Zone Manaizemeflt Related Programs Administration - The Forest Service has legislative, executive, and policy authorities for administering Forest Service waters. The State of Washington also has several legislative authorities for admin- istering practices in and adjacent to State waters (1) Forest Practices Act, (2) Shorelines Management Act, and (3) Coastal Zone Management Act. Because there is often intermingled ownership of land (private and federal) within the National Forest boundary, and since practices on these lands and their effects are not necessarily confined to the land on which they occurred, it is desirable that the administration of forest land use practices, such as logging and road construction, be coordinated with the State. Gonsistent application of practices to some degree is desirable since many of the timber operators cut both on private as well as Federal lands. Mining - There is an agreement dated 3/18/71 between the Forest Service and The Washington State Department of Natural Resources. The agreement is con- tained in Forest Service Manual 2803, R6 Supp. No. 5, July 1971, and defines responsibilities under the Washington Surface-Mined Land Reclamation Act of 1970. A coordination problem could occur when such activity falls within the Shoreline or Coastal Zone Area under the jurisdiction of the Department Subdivisions - Forest Service Guidelines for granting access to private sub- division developments whenever such access is across National Forest lands is contained in Forest Service Manual 2700, R6 Supp. Nos.* 48, 49, and 50. These instructions define the criteria to be used in determining whether such access is valid, what constitutes an appropriate method of access, and how such access will be constructed. There is an opportunity for cooperation with State and local governments which may be especially productive when shorelands are involved. Forest Service Manual Instructions and other corres- pondence dealing with access have been sent to the Washington State Association of Counties, Department of Commerce and Economic Development, Washington State Association of County Officials, and the County Road Administrative Board, Wild and Scenic Rivers Le eislation - The Forest Service has actively parti- cipated in the formulation of Washington State Legislation, Because of the involvement of National Forest land, Archie Mills, Planning Staff officer, Wenatchee National Forest was appointed Forest Service representative to work IX-58 ###NEWPAGE n="376" ### 6 with the Washington State Legislature House Comittee on Ecology and the Wildland Scenic Committee. The relationship of the proposed legis- lation and the State Shoreline Management Act is a major-issue. Coastal Zone Management - Related Plans and Studies Skagit River Study - A current study to determine whether or not the desig- nated segments should be included in the National Wild and Scenic River System. One of the problems in the study is the large amount of non-federal land adjacent to the river. A management alternative based on the Washington State Shoreline Management Act for control of the land within the proposed river corridor is currently being developed by the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, the State of Washington and Skagit County. This approach to management appears to be the solution to the problem of Federal-State coordination in instances where most of the lands are in non-federal owner- ship. Other difficulties (Permits) - Washington State has proposed incorporating permit regulations (Chapter 173-14 WAC) that would require the Federal Government to obtain a permit for substantial developments undertaken on land tot owned in fee by the Government. The Forest Service believes that its permanent easements are Federal property and should be treated in the same manner as other National Forest land. A draft memorandum of understanding has been prepared that incorporates the Forest Service Position on Federal Easements in defining each agency's res- ponsibilities under the Shoreline Management Act of 1971. Forest Service personnel met with Department of Ecology Staff, May 22, 1974, following an early 1974 attempt by Chelan County to require a Shoreline Permit for reconstruction of the Icicle Road. The Forest Service, under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970, prepares an Environmental Analysis Report or impact statement as appropriate for each timber sale or road con- struction project by a cooperator across National Forest land. This issue has not been resolved. The following correspondence is on file regarding this issue: October 9, 1974 letter to Mr. Jensen, Assistant Attorney General, from Mr. Beeman, Acting Director, Lands and Minerals (File 1560); October 1, 1974 letter to C. Merle Hofferber, Staff Director, Lands and Minerals, from Mr. Gish, Attorney; August 23, 1974 letter to Mr. Beeman from Mr. Jensen, Assistant Attorney General; June 10, 1974 letter to Mr. Mack, Department of Ecology, from Mr. Beeman, Acting Assistant Regional Forester, Lands and Minerals (File 1560). IX- 59 ###NEWPAGE n="377" ### 7 Shoreline Management Involvement Shoreline Act - There was no Forest Service involvement in initial for- mulation or passage of the Act. Guidelines. - No Forest Service involvement. Permits - See above "Other Difficulties" section regarding Coastal Zone Management. Local Master Program Formulation There was a considerable amount of Forest Service involvement in several of the Master Programs. This involvement has primarily been from the Na- tional Forests in Washington and often at local County meetings where the Forest Service was represented by the District Ranger and his Staff. This type of involvement was considered to be especially appropriate because of the knowledge these individuals have of local situations and problems. Specific instances of involvement are as follows. This is probably not a complete listing. - A Forest Service forester worked on Master Pi.ograms for Grays Harbor and Pacific Counties while working for local Regional Planning Coummissions under the Intergovernmiental Personnel Exchange Act. Because this was a coopera- tive program with the State, some material was shared with others through- out Washington. - Forest Service-Department of Natural Resources Cooperative Program placed a forester in the Office of Comimunity Development. This individual par- ticipated in the formulation of various Master Programs throughout the State. - Five different specialists from the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest served as members of technical advisory committee. Counties involved were Whatcom, Skagit, Pierce and Snohomish. - Olympic National Forest Lands and Recreation Staff participated in review groups for programs in Mason, Grays Harbor (including principal municipal- ities) and Jefferson Counties. - Wenatchee National Forest personnel served on Technical and Citizen Ad- visory Committees for 'Yakima, Kittitas, and Chelan Counties. - Colville National Forest personnel participated in Pend Oreille and Perry Counties. - The Gif ford Pinchot National Forest had a representative on the Technical Subcommittee in Clark County. IX-60 ###NEWPAGE n="378" ### Review of Master Prozram - The Forest Service may become involved in review of Skagit County's Master Program, since study rivers named in the Wild and Scenic River Act are involved. Skagit C-ounty has not yet submitted its Master Program for review. Wenatchee National Forest personnel were in attendance at the recent Department of Ecology Program Review meeting. IX-61 ###NEWPAGE n="379" ### United States Department of the Interior NATIONAL PARK SERVICE OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK 60 East Park Avenue IN REPLY RZTE TO' Pat Angeles, Washington 98362 A2427 January 24, 1975 (OLYM) S Mr. Marvin Vialle Assistant Director State of Washington Department of Ecology Olympia, Washington 98504 Dear Mr. Vialle: We are pleased to respond to your letter of January 17. Olympic National Park administers some 50 miles of coastline in the State of Washington comprising the great proportion of the Pacific seacoast on the Olympic Peninsula. In this area the National Park Service enjoys "exclusive jurisdiction" (state and local laws and regulations do not apply except in regards to collecting taxes and issuing warrants); administration is by means of federal law, policies'-and regulations as contained in various Codes of Federal'Regulations. The Service'also administers San Juan Island National Historical Park comprising two small parcels of land having a combined length of about nine miles fronting on coastal environments on San Juan Island, San Juan County, Washington. These areas are administered under concurrent jurisdiction (both federal and state laws are equally applicable). The National Park Service's mission as defined by the United States Congress in the Act of August 25, 1916, establishing the National Park Service states that the Service will regulate the use of these federal areas "to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and wildlife therein, and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations." This Act and subsequent federal legislation, including 78 LetLs Clean Up America For Our 2O0th' Birday IX-62 ###NEWPAGE n="380" ### most particularly the Acts establishing Olympic National Park, dated June 29, 1938, (52 Stat. 1241), and subsequent proclamations enlarging the Park, and (80 Stat. 737), 1966, establishing San Juan Island National Historic'al Park as well as such other federal laws and statutes as the Antiquity Act, 1906, the Historic Sites Act of 1935, Public Law 89-249 establishing concessions policies, a great listing of federal regulations and federal law pertaining to manage- ment of federal properties and interests (e.g. environmental legislation), even extending to international Conventions such as Treaty Series 981 between the United States and other American Republics covering nature protection and wildlife preservation in the Western Hemisphere, give legislative direction to our administration. Additionally, of course, National Park Service Administrative Policies as defined by the Director'of the National Park Service and approved by the Secretary of the interior give decision to our activities. Some of these policies are in the form of advisory board reports to the Secretary, as adopted and encompassed within policy dicta; others have evolved or have been sustained from early correspond- ence between the Director and the Secretary extending back to the very first days of the National Park Service. The Park issues permits and contracts, as appropriate, to provide for privately owned developments and commercial use within the Park, in accordance with policy to achieve the mission of the Service. A copy of Administrative Policies for Natural Areas of the National Park System, (revised 1970), as currently in force, can be obtained from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. Olympic National Park currently provides visitor and resource protection within the coastal zone above high water line from about one mile north of the mouth of the Queets River to Ozette (Indian Reservation lands excluded), and exercises full control over all developments within our jurisdiction. Through a Memorandum of Understanding with the State Parks and Recreation Commission we conduct interpretive walks and talks in the beach area below high water, provide beach cleanup, trail maintenance and construction and by means of "deputy" commissions exercise a law enforcement presence on the state owned beach lands. The highway right-of-way between Ruby Beach and Kalaloch is under the joint administration of the State and the National Park Service. IX-63 ###NEWPAGE n="381" ### The only real difficulty encountered in the management of existing cooperative National Park Service programs in this area is that our personnel do not have liability bonding when acting under state law in effecting enforce- ment actions on the beaches. Additionally, it would be desirable for state and federal programs, projects and regulations providing for public use and wildlife and other resource protection within the coastal area to be more closely coordinated. There are no coordinating problems in the San juans. Olympic National Park has recently completed its wilderness and master plans and related environmental statements. It is expected the master plan will be approved and made public within the next few weeks. The wilderness plan has been approved through the various levels of administration and is now awaiting action by the U.S. Congress. it is proposed in the wilderness plan that-the portion of coastal park north of the Hoh River be designated a "wilderness.' The- master plan for San Juan Island National Historical Park is currently under study. This area is not being considered for wilderness. Joint activities and cooperative actions between the federal and state governments are largely related to ecological research. In the San Juan area the Park and the University of Washington are engaged in estuarine studi es and joint investigations and regulations have been promulgated in regard to clams. in Olympic National Park the University of Washington is under permit to develop an interpretive prospectus for the coastal area. Additionally, baseline ecological research is scheduled for early consideration. Personnel from both Olympic National Park and San Juan Island National Historical Park have been observers or informally involved at hearings and work sessions involved in the development of shorelines management plans for their IX-64 ###NEWPAGE n="382" ### respective counties. Formal participation has not been necessary inasmuch as constant contact with state and local planning personnel have assured appropriate zoning and consideration of the federal interests. - Sincerely yours, Roger W. Allin Superintendent 'a . .z ˇ . IX-65 ###NEWPAGE n="383" ### APPENDIX D. SAMPLE PACKET--FEDERAL/STATE CZM SYSTEM INTRODUCTION determination of national interest for federal facilities; (6) the process for determination of The packet system is intended to become a consistency of federal CZM activities with state primary instrument of understanding and coordina- programs; (7) a discussion of CZM-related facility tion between federal and state official counterparts developments by the federal agency and their as they each relate to their responsibilities under consistency with state interests; (8) a discussion coastal zone management. The packets have been of the agency's regulatory functions with CZM prepared to identify ten elements of basic informa- relevance; (9) a discussion of any grant programs tion although it is recognized that the 47 federal offered and their consistency with state interests; agencies which have coastal responsibilities do not and (10) maps of areas within the coastal zone all fit neatly into the packet pattern. The ten basic under jurisdiction of the federal agency. elements within the packet system include: (1) a statement of DOE policy as it relates to the agency's The sample packet included in this appendix has federal coastal zone management resposibilities; been prepared on behalf of the U.S. Fish and Wild- (2) the federal agency's organization and specific life Service. However, please note that the version areas of involvement in the CZM process; (3) a -contained bereinis-only a draft and has not been statement of the federal agency's mission and its reviewed and approved by the Fish and Wildlife CZM implications; (4) mechanisms providing for Service. Likewise, the policy statement by DOE CZM coordination and input from the state on (packet element # 1) is at this time only a draft. federal plans, policies and programs; (5) the process DOE will initiate discussion in the weeks ahead through which each agency provides an opportunity to further refine the packet system and its for the state to understand and participate in the implications.for the various federal agencies. IX-66 D-1 ###NEWPAGE n="384" ### December 1, 1975 General Policy The overriding philosophy of the State of Washington is-that the coastal zone is among the most valuable of resources and that a comprehensive and coordinated program of management is essential to prevent damages resulting from uncoordinated and piecemeal development. This philosophy presumes that the coastal resource be viewed as an interrelated unit, irrespective of ownership, jurisdiction or current individual agency goals and policies. The overall approach to be used by the state in pursuing coastal zone objectives is that both federal and state interests must be recognized and that there is a local, state, and national interest in the use and conservation of the coastal resources. Additionally, it is a policy of the state that where federal or interstate agency plans, activities, or procedures conflict with state policies, all reasonable steps available shall be taken by the state to preserve the integrity of its policies. (Chapter 90.58.260 RCW.) This policy is consistent with and reinforces the policy contained in the Coastal Zone Management Act to encourage and assist the states to exercise effectively their responsibilities in the coastal zone. In enacting the CZM Act of 1972, Congress acknowledged that there is a direct national interest in the effective management of the coastal zone and that its carefully planned development, protection, and public use is of concern to all of the citizens of the United States. Nationwide public interest is manifested many ways: through the use of the coastal zone for international commerce, for national defense and security, for active and passive recreational pursuits, and in recognition of the com- plex and interrelated natural systems and the use of man-modified segments of the coastal zone. In response to the need for recognizing the national interest in the state program, extensive consultation and coordination has been under- taken with federal agencies within a comprehensive management framework to insure that the missions, responsibilities, and activities of those agencies, and their perceptions of the national interest, are recognized in the program. National defense and security, for example, are among the highest priority of uses of Washington's coastal zone. Similarly, the needs and concerns of a broad spectrum of federal agencies such as the National Park Service, the Federal Energy Administration, the Army Corps of Engineers, Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Coast Guard are recognized and reflected in the program. IX-67 ###NEWPAGE n="385" ### It is the intent and desire of the state to minimize any form of adver- sary confrontation when the legislative responsibilities and duties of one agency conflict with those of the state CZM program. Every effort will be exhausted through communication and informal-channels before resorting to formal procedures for conflict resolution. Federal Consultation and Coordination The state will make a continued effort to better understand federal interests and proposed federal actions and to better make its interests known to federal agncies. The State/Federal Coastal Zone Management Coordinative Packet System has been designed specifically to ensure that a basis for considering individual agencies needs and concerns is estab- lished and maintained in the future. The system, developed and main- tained jointly between the individual agencies and the State's Department of Ecology, is intended to provide a continuing mechanism to assure a mutual understanding of one another's programs. The objective of each packet is to arrive at the understanding with each affected agency, that the state does, in fact, have the necessary informa- tion to take into account the national interest in its coastal zone program. Moreover, the packet is intended to provide the federal agency a basic understanding of how the state perceilves federal interests. When the state does, in fact, have the information necessary to take into account the national interest in the coastal zone program, the packet system will also have provided the federal agency with a recipro- cal understanding of how to perceive the state's interest. For the above purposes, the packets will be subject to continual updating and elaboration as subjects arise which warrant more specific and concise understandings. For these reasons the state will, to the maximum extent feasible, assure that the program is carried out in a cooperative and coordinated manner. Excluded Lands and the Coastal Zone Boundary The'Coastal Zone Management Act excludes from the coastal zone" lands the use of which is by law subject solely to the discretion of or which is held in trust by the Federal Government, its officers or agents." It is presumed that the definition applies to both military as well as nonmilitary lands. It is the position of the state that irrespective of "exclusion," developments and activities on those lands should be under- taken with cognizance of and, to the maximum extent practicable, the spirit, intent and policy of the state program and the Federal Coastal Zone Management Program. Excluded lands are considered to be those owned in fee by the federal government or held in trust, but do not include such trust or fee lands 0X6 ###NEWPAGE n="386" ### where the federal government or a court of appropriate jurisdiction has granted or reserved unto the state or its local governments substantial jurisdiction over land and water uses. The decision to approve, disapprove, or condition nonfederal activities and developments proposed adjacent to excluded lands, but not on those lands, should be made only after appropriate consideration of the poten- tial impact of that activity or development on the excluded lands, and the national interest in activities thereon. Developments and activities of federal agencies are not considered to be subject to state or local permit systems when those developments and activities take place on excluded lands. Provided, that federal agen- cies are subject to congressionally-mandated, state-operated permit systems without regard to land ownership when such is required by speci- fic federal law or ruling of federal court. Permit systems shall apply to nonfederal activities and developments undertaken on lands subject to nonfederal ownership, lease or easement, even though such lands may fall within the external boundaries of a federal ownership. The Determination of Consistency of Federal Activities and Developments The state will make a continued effort to define, after mutual agreement with the concerned federal agency, which activities and developments are subject to the relevant consistency requirements of section 307. In the interim, before joint agreements have been consumated, it shall be the responsibility of the federal agency to examine the activity in light of0 the findings embodied in section 302 and.the policies embodied in section 303 of the CZMA and determine if the activity "directly affects" the coastal zone of the state. At a minimum, those activities located in the "Resource Boundary" found in the Washington Coastal Zone Management Program shall be considered to directly affect the coastal zone. Fur- ther, the state should be notified of all such determinations for pro- posed new activities or proposed substantial alterations in existing activities outside the resource boundary, but having a direct and signifi- cant impact on the area encompassed by the resource boundary. The resource boundary is defined as those wetlands under the jurisdic- tion of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 which basically includes the marine waters and their associated wetlands, and those uplands 200 feet back from the ordinary highwater mark. This is considered to be the primary or first tier resource boundary. The second tier, or admin- istrative boundary, is the fifteen coastal counties which abut marine waters, including Wahkiakum County on the Columbia River Estuary. IX-69 ###NEWPAGE n="387" ### It shall be the responsibility of the federal agency, assisted by the state, to determine that a proposed development, or activity is consis- tent with WCZN1P. Notification of such determination to the state shall be the responsibility of the federal agency. The state will work with affected federal agencies through the informational packet exchange system to arrive at mutually agreed upon mechanisms of notification. State Role in Determination of Consistency For Coastal Zone Management purposes, determination of consistency, and any determination relating to the process of permit and license certifi- cation, shall also be undertaken by the State of Washington (Department of Ecology) with the federal agency involved, either jointly or by methods proposed in the packets or established at a later date. The state will be responsible for assuring that local desires and concerns are considered by the state in determining the consistency and conformity of federal developments, grants, activities, and in the certification of licenses and permits. Consistency of Federal Permits and Licenses The policy of the state is that any applicant for a federal license or permit to conduct an activity affecting land and water uses in the coastal zone shall provide the federal agency certification that the proposed activity complies with the state program. The applicant will be responsible for providing the state a copy of the certification. Methods for determining which activities are subject to the certifica- tion process and how applicants will be informed of the need to certify will be developed mutually through the packet information system. The state will make every effort to notify the concerned federal agency that the state concurs with or objects to the applicants certification. Consistency of Federal Grants State and local government requests for federal assistance shall be consistent with the state program. Local and state government will furnish their views to the federal agency as to the relationship of such federally-funded activities to the approved state program. The primary mechanism for notification to the state shall be the use of, and consis- tency with, the procedures of title IV of the Intergovernmental Cooper- ation Act of 1968 (the A-95 process). IX- 70 ###NEWPAGE n="388" ### Element POLICY (cont'd) Specific Policy on U.S. Coast Guard Concerns The state acknowledges the language and intent of Section 307(e), to wit: "Nothing in this title shall be construed to diminish either federal or state jurisdiction, responsibility, or rights in the field of planning, development, or control of water resources, submerged lands, or navigable waters; . . . "and does not expect to manage traditional Coast Guard operations on or in coastal waters in any way. It is ex- pected, however, Coast Guard actions in these areas will be consistent with the CZMP to the maximum extent practicable. U.S. Coast Guard continuing participation in the CZMP processes will, in part, result from reviews and comments on local agency shoreline master programs. These reviews will be facilitated by membership of the DOT SECREP on the local Shoreline Master Program Review Task Force. The state recognizes that: 1. In case of serious disagreement between any federal agency and the state in development of the program, mediation is by the Secretary of Commerce in cooperation with the Executive Office of tbr Prpqident. 2. Any federal agency undertaking a development project in the coastal zone shall insure (for itself) that the project is consis- tent to the maximum practicable extent with CZMP. 3. Federal agencies shall not approve proposed projects (of dtate and local governments) that are inconsistent with the state's CZMP, except upon a finding by the Secretary of Commerce that the project is consistent or necessary in the interest of national security. Coast Guard elevation of problems needing resolution by the Secretary of Commerce will be through channels, i.e., through the Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard and the Secretary of Transportation. IX-71 ###NEWPAGE n="389" ### E em en; POLICY (cont'd) -c i Policy statement about the state/federal relationship enunciated by the Secretary of Transportation and operative for the U.S. Coast Guard: NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION INTEREST IN THE COASTAL ZONE The development of a balanced national transportation system, including well articulated and integrated surface, air, water, and subsurface modes, is a primary element of the national interest. Transportation corridors, inland and coastal ports, and transportation support facili- ties are necessary adjuncts to such a system. When essential in the national interest, the construction, maintenance and improvement of present and future transportation systems on and under the surface of the land, on and under those waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and in the air, shall predominate over less essential interests. The national transportation interest is applicable in the coastal zone. It finds expression in the body of federal laws, regulations and the related programs that influence, shape and support the development and functioning of the nation's tranoportation slrqt-em. Basic to this body of law is the Congressional Declaration of Purpose in the Department of Transportation Act (49 USC 1651): "The Congress hereby declares that the general welfare, the eco- nomic growth and stability of the Nation and its security require the development of national transportation policies and programs conducive to the provision of fast, safe, efficient, and convenient transportation at the lowest cost consistent therewith and with other national objectives, including the efficient utilization and conservation of the Nation's resources." The body of federal transportation law (see attachment) provides for both direct federal actions and federal programs or assistance to state and local government. Direct programs include deepwater port regulatory programs and maritime safety, navigation, and marine pollution programs administered by the United States Coast Guard; air traffic control and air navigation pro- grams administered by the Federal Aviation Administration; 'road con- struction programs in federal lands administered by the Federal Highway Administration; rail safety regulations administered by the Federal. Railroad Administration; pipeline safety regulations administered by the Materials Transportation Bureau; a cargo security program focused in large part on the nation' s principal ports; and operation of the St. Lawrence Seaway by the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation. The IX-72 ###NEWPAGE n="390" ### Element POLICY (cont'd) - national interest in the coastal zone is based on the body of law gov- erning these programs. Each of these direct federal transportation programs has'some impact on at least some portion of the coastal zone. Coastal zone management programs should include explicit acknowledgment of and adherence to existing and future national interest in each of these direct transportation programs. Federal assistance programs include federal grants and loans to state and local government for airport construction, highway construction, railroad financial aid, urban mass transportation construction and operation, and for highway traffic safety. States and localities are involved in these assistance programs, not as mere instruments of fed- eral action, but as policy centers in their own right, with wide lati- tude to shape the transportation systems to serve local needs. But federal statutes governing these assistance programs include constraints reflecting the national interest, such as protection of parklands, and reduction of air, noise, and water pollution. In varying degrees, all federal transportation assistance programs entail the weighing of national and state-local interests. Coastal zone management programs should reflect coordination with and consideration of transportation facilities and programs developed and planned with federal assistance by state and local government. In the application of direct federal transportation progray-s and federal transportation assistance program--, it is in the national interest to provide fast, safe, efficient, and convenient access via one or more modes of transportation (e.g., airway, highway, railway, waterway, bicycle, pedestrian) for the movement of people, goods, and services to, from, along, and through the coastal zone for purposes including.- but not limited to the following: a. providing for the national defense (e.g., access to military installations and ports of embarkation) b. maintaining the public safety and welfare (e.g., hurricane evacuation routes) C. managing public lands in the coastal zone (e.g., access to wildlife sanctuaries) d. providing for public recreation (e.g., beach access) e. facilitating interstate and international commerce (e.g., access to seaports) f. developing and using natural resources in the coastal zone and the outer continental shelf (e.g., oil, fisheries). IX-73 ###NEWPAGE n="391" ### * POLICY (cont'd) The national interest related to the different and varying conditions that exist in the coastal zones of the several coastal stateS will be more specifically addressed as each coastal state consults with the Regional Representative of the Secretary of Transportation during the development of their respective coastal zone programs. ATTACHMENT The body of federal law governing transportation programs with existing or potential impact on the coastal zone, and administered in whole or in part by the U.S. Department of Transportation includes, but is not limited to: Department of Transportation Act (49 USC 1651, et seq.) Federal Aviation Administration Act of 1958, as amended (49 USC 1301, et seq.) Airport and Airways Development Act (49 USC 1701, et seq.) Title 23, USC, "Highways," Section 101, et seq. Urban Mass Transportation Act (49 USC 1601, et seq.) Railway Safety Act of 1970 (45 USC 421) Regional Rail Reorganization Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-236) Water Resources Planning Act (42 USC 1962) Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (33 USC 1151) Ports and Waterways Safety Act ef 1972 (33 USC 1221-1227, 46 USC 391a) Deepwater Port Act of 1974 (33 USC 1501) Outer Continental Shelf Act (43 USC 1331-1343) Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 USC 1431, 33 USC 1401) - Coast Guard, Primary Duties (14 USC 2) National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 USC 1381, et seq.) Highway Safety Act of 1966, as amended (23 USC 401, et seq.) Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation Act of 1954, as amended (33 USC 981, et seq.) Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act (49 USC 2671, et seq.) Transportation of Explosives Act (18 USC 831-835) Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (49 USC 1801-1811) IX-74 ###NEWPAGE n="392" ### Element A CHART OF YOUR FEDERAL AGENCY WHICH INCLUDES REGIONAL AS WELL AS NATIONAL INFORMATION, NAMES OF KEY CONTACT PEO- PLE AND A CODING FOR SPECIFIC AREAS OF INVOLVEMENT. The aim. of this element is to reflect the existing interrelationships between levels of government. The 306 document describes the two networks, federal and state. Charts below illustrate the bigger'picture relating to the one-to-one relationship described in this packet. The big picture in the 306 document requires a bulky appendix to merely give thumbnailI descriptions; to add the substance of all packets would have required 800 pages. These charts below help us to understand where our coastal responsibilities lie. First, note the tabulation of all 47 federal entities on page 2-2; next show your federal and regional organization as it relates to coastal functions. Then consider the state-table of organization and where within the Department of Ecology structure coastal zone management functions are entrusted. To amplify this preliminary packet, you muy Le able -o offer us better ex-xhi.1is thaot ref icct your specific interrelation- ships, existing or needed. Late-, we hope that a three-dimensionalI perspective may evolve to give a better feel for the webs of coordination and participation from which more effective coastal management will result. ELEMENT REFERENCES 6 923.31 Full r-ri;ripchiin L' -dr"oni Adopted Under Section 306 RUtV!S AND REGULATIONS .flet progrorn,. carry out tet policica enumerated An iec- (a) luzitf a- oder to f U1011 the rment vrcrrani shall be accompanicd b., a tion JC'3 of Lie Act. requiremencht contaited In section 3nic'e 11itirtntlifYli the agencles and orlani- ibI CO-11.MIC. Statutoy ctatlon: see. -41). thc rnnaecnn progmam tnusL 2-.11ocsa rc.crred to lin pJra.-raph III) 12) tion 30G0ic 1) u1 show evicdence thant: Of this section. the naltu.-e of their ir'- Pro o"nt prile (1) Thle r.1finaiement progr.am has terent. and tile oppfOrtu.,It!.,s jjlor(!ed nnt o, era- fifntted by a Cawttw: Litata. beef formally adontc-i In uccottiajie such agerneics and orjanizations to ;,ar- tiesECcWreti, a-'all fIsd vti-: '.I I-iIC -%_Ate wittl Slat., Iaw or, in its qibzacue. admuan- ticipate -1 Vile GcC!rseomc1t of the rr.nan. haa dete,ar,,d Bnd rnloptd na nccment 1strativc rcl-uiations: ncrmenwt Proi'rarn. 'Ibee orran:.,ations p: rm ur 15% cwm'tai zone in Ar,:s-d.rce 42) The StatC has retilied and Pro- Shoy d !I CiUde 12%ose Iden .:toil purnuant .Ith ruis sna 1`103-tlor.1 Prjmu::7Ved by vided an op;*rtu n iy for full particiint- tfl 1 923 32. which have deveioped localJ. the 6"restarr. a,,,r nutlme and WIth tie o. 2.ion in tile dcvr! pmueng, Pnf IV. rinafla:- nrr'atde or Inlterstate piano. uiu-atiiel rortUDRrt Of fL::i rnrl'ivtICPXOn b7 rclela,ti ment Iprorrarn to nIl ".Iltj'C ad pII.vace to 'in Ureaf Within tile coa-Ltl g:one o dea fece ti awls.oolc- it ) t h e ernniflts. ferlral oro. ni.-lorn. port au- grnciea and org-_,n.'atuons t.I l ic re Ii- !3=a4 its of Janiuary I of t e yelAr ifl which uthrine.. ane outer mtrmeeiuo Purlo l pte "ble *.o he aftected by. or jnay naive a the truagemeret Prorram LS submitteil Ili ,,ed PrIIAL.. whll, Li ,ldef,e,ate tee cocci' direct interEst in. thre mArini:,-njnt pro- for appe)Val; anti Out thes pur;ooa of Mui title and tIcot C.t.&Z frain. 'nhe 4&ubimtalo of the msanaee- (3) The nngnttfi eneflft prog-ramn %W tint with i.I powele Lteclsrgd In section 3u3 of this title. IWIVEAL IEVIISTIR, VOL. 40, WC. '--THURSDAY. JANUARY 9. 197S (PLEASE ATTACH & CODE OTHER SHEETS FOiR MORE EXPLANATION) it- 24- Y.-IX-75 ###NEWPAGE n="393" ### FEDERAL COORDINATION in thel WASHINGTON STATE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM EXECUTIVE OFFICE CF THE PRESIDENT Office of Management and Budget Council on Environmental Quality Federal Property Council Energy Resources Council INTERAGENCY ORGANIZATIONS Federal Regional Council Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission | Pacific Northwest Regional Council DEPARTN:E NTS AGRICULTURE COMMERCE DEFENSE INTERIOR TRANSPORTATION Farmers Home Admin. Economic DevelopmEnt Corps of .ngineers Bureau of Indian Coast Guard Rural Electrification Administration Navy Affairs Federal Aviation Administration Maritime Administration Army Bonneville Power Administration " Agricultural Stabalization National Oceanic and Air Force Administration Federal Highway and Conservation Sv. Atmospheric Administration . Bureau of Land Administration Forest Service National Marine Fisheries Management Federal Railroad Soil Conservation Sv. Service Bureau of Outdoor Administration Recreation National Highway Fish and Wildlife Traffic Safety HEALTH ED. HOUSING and Service Administration and WELFARE _ URBAN DEVEL. Bureau of Reclamation Urban Mass Trons- Notional Park portation Admin. Service Office of Pipeline Bureau of Mines Safety Geological Survey INDEPENDENT AGENCIES Energy Research ond Development Administrotion Nuclear Regulatory Commission En-ironmental Protection Agency Small Business Administration Federal Energy Administration Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Federal MaritimeD Commission Pacific Marine Fisheries Commission (interstate compact) Federal Power Commission General Services'Administration 11-26-75 ###NEWPAGE n="394" ### DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION W-mr AU.cia slcRrFAQY I OFF'." L-ci Sf(RETARV ASESVTSCRETARY FOR G"_mT ECITRlOU N SRELT.2 AS SIDTl, OSECETARY IU LSśFYJhl R liREtAL AvItiON FEDERAL HErSWATNTAR RMAY UNSEH MASS NENET LAN.olicy OYśAO FFASI TAlAc SAMIT FTACOSWE JLOrVI lem PAII 1C,*c AREA. VcE Aowt -loisps Mgae AN0T .5Z.ctFP REAR ADm. C. A. R'CJ4MVNDr *Mr. Geor-le Flw '38'4 Federa2(lo(i 91- 2-nd Av. Se.Lfl- )e WA ei3,04 Arcit 4fE'vnet Al/ coasta ZoA,s. I ft-ferc-Oy ofthe V. 5.Coavi'- 6i .ard IX-77 ###NEWPAGE n="395" ### WASHINGTON STATE GOVERNMENT Basic Organization for Coastal Zone Managemen: | ELECTORATE _ LEGISLATIVE | EXECUTIVE | JUDICIAL OTHER STATE ELECTED |HOUSE OF SEN AOE'O OFF4CES | SUPREME COURT | REPRESENTATIVES t Lj GOVERNOR SPEE OR OFFICE OF OFFICE OF I PROGRAM COURT OF DCOMLUNITYL OFFICE OF THE PLANNING & APPEALS .(PCAA) GOVERNOR MANAGEMENT SUPERIOR COURT [AGENCIES, DEPART,.lENTS, BOARDS, COM MISSIONS & COUNCILS OF STATE I GOVERNMENT BY AJOR GROUPING GENERAL I I HUMAN f E NATURAL P jGOVERVICNMENT BY MAJOR GROUTPING. GOVERNMENTION DOOR RESOURCESATION NATURAL C SION BSENERALS DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL e HEALTH DEPARTMENT OF TEAGENCY CR- SERVICES C _ FISHERIES_ PLANT SITE EVALUA- SERVICES ITERIE TION COUNCIL 2 DEPARTMENT OF | | DEPARTMENT OF SHORELINES HIGHW:1AYS J ] GAME SHEARINGS BOA DEPARTMENT OF D J OEPART E.N T OF ROL I M V MIC OEVELOPll1ENT | L] HEARINGS BOARD COUNCIL ON ENVI- STATE CZM O RGANIZECREATIONS-- RONMENTAL POLICY IX-78 ###NEWPAGE n="396" ### DEPACTNIENT OF ECOLOGY PBaic Orrljmiization ECOLOGICAL [rr:DIRECTOR ---l COMMISSION EXECUTIVE DEPUTY r-- POLICYCOMMITTEE I D IOIRECTOR PUBLIC AFFAIRS EXTERNAL AFFAIRS LEGAL AFFAIRS OFFICE OF I I L. C1PRE11ENSIVE - OFFICE OF OFI'ICE OF OFFICE OF OFFICE OF PROGRAMS Ain vROGRAMS LAND PROGRAMS WAIER PROGRAMS FIELD OPERATIONS 2;Cn ADINISTRATION AiR RESOURCE I WATER RESOURCE OPERA I.fS. IMOUN MrJAGE?.śEN AMMINITRAI I .,MANAGEMENT NOISE MANAGIEMENT MLANAGEMEN d & LIAISO;; We;atlhr Modification Program Management COMPTROLLER Air MonitoriJg 0LID WASTE/lIE. Policy DelOW101t 110" LITTER CONTROL COcrTROLLR ELug.. Collf.. rpan. SOURCE RECOVERY ata Analysis COPnLLE . ir 1101i11ilg :DLI WTEIIE-Ply CVCOPIInDJI nS. Y I -1 ICOTRO MmNbilu Source IrvrrliiiiioSI I I I COIJlSrATON I COMPR El ENESIVE SHORELAN__ M SUEANAGEMEN COM.lM ISSI ON j ANALYTICAL WAI ER OUALITY EIJVISERVICES I c A MANAGEMENT REcViEWrrETA - Sore13nty/ CM_ kE I ORAL ENVIRONMEUT AL SaoreIjnes/CZHl OFFICES REVIE W 100k Division O INOUST RIAL Northwest Investigation Nort hwest do 14 SaSu;hweslI SE___________ _Monitoring Central newpoxlLmb- - s; io. &Chem. Inv. (1) d PldNack - Shorelands D ivis ion fiead - 753-639 E astern. (2) Don Peterson -Shorelands. Planning Section Head - 753-6865Eaer (3) Murray Walsh -Shorelanids Planner 11 - 753-3828 (4) F:anily RrmY - State/Federal Coordinator - 753-3829 ###NEWPAGE n="397" ### Elemenl CHARTS (cont'd.) The state of Washington, Department of Ecology, recognizes that an under- standing of federal missions and existing coordination mechanisms are essential for good coastal management. The tables of organization reflect levels of hierarchyandinteraction already taking place. lThe narrative in this packet attempts to underscore the what, how and why of these inter- relationships so that any modifications in coordination and participation practices will be consistent with the well-functioning mechanisms found operative as CZM begins at the state level. At the presidential executive level several coordination monitoring instrumentalities exist. While no packet is written about 0MB, CEQ, FPC, and ERC, four (4) appear at the head of the table. Because none have regional administrative roles to interface with DOE, all federal depart- ments and independent agencies must be coordinatively responsive to these levels of executive oversight. Clearly, these four (4) tend to control their respective functions. The 306 document and appendices highlight their significance to coastal management and repetition is not warranted here. Counterparts to this federal oversight at the executive level occur in the state network. The 306 text illustrates how coordination in the broad sense occurs for: a) 04B program reviews such s the A-95 process with coxnnents and reviews occurring through OPPFM and OCD, b) CEQ administration of NEPA through the circulation of an environ- mental impact statement (EIS) occurs through the state and parallel to the SEPA/EIS functions administered by DOE, c) FPC oversight on property disposal and transfer on a policy basis occurs in parallel through the Governor's sub-cabinet on natural resources, and d) ERC oversight on overall energy policy is paralleled by TPPSEC and the new office being established by the Governor as may affect the use of the coastal zone. 11/24/75 IX-80 ###NEWPAGE n="398" ### Element A STATEMENT ABOUT THE "MISSION" OF YOUR AGENCY AND THE CZM IMPLICATIONS OF TH WT MISSION. The following information was excerpted from detailed information pro- vided by C. A. Richmond, Jr., Rear Admiral, USCG, Commander, 13th Coast Guard District, by letter of 19 March 1975. More detail is available in a "Coast Guard Jacket" maintained at the Department of Ecology. Transportation 3.21 April 1, 1967 the Coast Guard with those powers, functions and duties relating to the Coast Guard was transferred to the Department of Transportation (49 USC 1655) from the Department of the Treasury. Under the Department of the Treasury, the Coast Guard developed by transfers and combining of agencies and their functions (14 USC 2) the result was an evolved agency much as now exists. 4. Coastal Zone Management Related Goals 4.1 JURISDICTION 4.11 Primary duties (14 USC 2) "The Coast Guard shall enforce or assist in the enforcement of all applicable federal laws upon the high seas and waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; shall administer laws ar' promulgate and enforce regulations for the promotion of safety of life and property on the high seas and on waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States covering all matters not specifically delegated by law to some other executive department; shall develop, establish, maintain, and operate with due regard to the requirements of national defense, aids to maritime navigation, ice-breaking facilities, and rescue facilities for ELEMENT REFERENCES The mission of each agency is set forth in the enabling legislation. Appropriate citations of the Act, and amendments, administrative codes, any application or review procedures are appropriate for an understanding of how a particular mission relates to the coastal zone interests of others. Excerpts from relevant docu;cnts should be highlighted so that a "marked file" is secured from each affected juris- dfictcon. That file will become part of the DOZ looseleaf reference system. Several programs of coastal zone significance have operational state/federal counterparts. Federally funded/state administrated "pass-through" arrangements are examples. The magnitude and operational relationship of aiy ioint-jurisdic- tional efforts as relate to CZM should be summarized. Policy documents, plans, and programs should be available to broaden the understanding and to harmonize consistency between related missions of other agencies, federal or state. (PLEASE ATTACH & CODE OTHER SHEETS FOR MORE EXPLANATION) IX-81 ###NEWPAGE n="399" ### Element MISSION (cont'd.) the promotion of safety on and over the high seas and waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; and shall maintain a state of readiness to function as a specialized service in the Navy in time of war. August 4, 1949, c. 393, S 1, 63 Stat. 496."' HISTORICAL NOTE Revision Note. This section defines in general terms, for the first time in any statute, all the primary duties of the Coast Guard. It is derived from Title 14, USC,.1946 ed., . . . Title 46 USC 1946 ed. This section contains a codification of functions. It sets forth in general language the primary responsibilities of the Coast Guard: enforcement of all federal laws on waters to which they have applica- tion, safety of life and property at sea, aiding navigation., Section 3 of this title. CROSS REFERENCES Aids to navigation authorized, see Section'81 of this Title. Ice and derelict patrol, see Section 738a of Title 46, Shipping. Jurisdiction, waters under jurisdiction of Coast Guard, see Section 89(a) of this Title. Saving life and property, see Section 88 of this Title. 5 89. 'Law enforcement (14 USC 89) (a) The Coast Guard may make inquiries, examinations, inspections, searches, seizures, and arrests upon the high seas and waters over which the United States has jurisdiction, for the preven- tion, detection, and suppression of violations of laws of the United States. (For such purposes, .. shall be seized). (b) The officers of the Coast Guard insofar as they are engaged, pursuant to the authority contained in this section, in enforc- ing any law of the United States shall: (1) be deemed to be acting as agents of the particular execu- tive department or independent, establishment charged :with the administration of the particular law; and (2) be subject to all the rules and regulations promulgated by such department or independent establishment with respect to the enforcement of that law. IX-82 ###NEWPAGE n="400" ### Element MISSION (cont'd.) (c) The provisions of this section are in addition to any powers conferred by law upon such officers, and not in limitation of any powers conferred by law upon such officers, or any other officers of the United States . . . ." IX-83 ###NEWPAGE n="401" ### MISSION (cont'd.) C O M MI T M E N T The state of Washington, Department of Ecology, recognizes that coordination coming from participation must also relate to the federal interagency organizations. Three interagency organizations are described in the 306 document text: (1) the Federal Regional Council, FRC, (2) the Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission, RRRC, and (3) the Pacific Northwest (3-Governor) Regional Commission, PWRC. Packets are prepared on each, and there may be an interrelationship between them and the elements that follow for your agency. Insofar as mission for your agency is concerned, and to the extent that interrelationship with, or between, these three interagency organizations is important, the DOE takes cognizance here. The three organizations secm important for continuance of participation and coordination as follows: a) FRC .... can be helpful in coastal management as a federal "one- voice" on problems and issues that require a consensus for consistency purposes. b) RBC.... can be helpful from the standpoint of a joint federal/state focus on technical applications of standards and princfpie off iuiti--purpose character stenminog from the Water 18,source Council mandates within interests fostered by the Department of Interior, and c) PNWRC .... can be helpful if their preliminary plan evolves to aid both state and federal "line operations" with coastal policy including criteria and constraints for both growth and energy questions voiced by some federal entities heretofore. Memoranda of understanding or process, if necessary, vertically between the:state and your federal agency in this region, should outline whatever consistency and certification steps seem prudent for timely and responsive inter-action between your office and the DOE on a case-by-case basis. This may require extensive considerations through the 1976 program period. 11/24/75 IX-84 ###NEWPAGE n="402" ### Element A DISCUSSION OF THE "PLANS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS" O&F YOUR AGENCY RELEVANT TO CZPA, AND A PROPOSED MIETHODOLOGY DE- SIGNED SPECIFICALLY TO IT, BY WHICH COORDINATION AND CON- SULTATION MAY OCCUR 'BETWEEN YOUR AGENCY AND THE STATE. The followinga information was excerpted from detailed information pro- vided by the Commander. 13th Coast Guard District, by letter of 19 March 1975. More detail is available in a "Coast Guard Jacket" maintained at the Department of Ecology. 5. Coastal Zone Management Related Policies 5.1 Policy matters pertaining to the Coast Guard are found in part within Title 14, United States Code. 5.2 Policy (14 USC 93) "Commandant; general powers For the purpose of executing the duties and functions of the Coast Guard the Commandant may: (a) maintain water, land, and air patrols, and ice-breaking facilities; (b) establish and prescribe the purpose of, change the locaL_!;_n or, consolidate, discontinue, re-establish, maintain, operate, and repair Coast Guard shore establishments; (c) assign vessels, aircraft, vehicles, aids to navigation, equip- ment, applicances and supplies to Coast Guard districts and shore estab- lishments, and transfer any of the foregoing from one district or shore establishment to another; ELEMENT REFERENCES S 923.32 ii-i,,,andeotian Adopted Under Section 306 RULES AND REGULATIONS . with other pl-.g.nnc (a) RequZTiremet. in order to fulfill the requirements cntainedi In5 sction .100(c) (4) Ind:caton tlhat a regular consul- (2). the management progsans must in- tII- mechanism baA teen etabislatjand Secretary. shictIC plans hae be.,n de,-teed clude: 13I acidi'c. to undertake catoLrntion be- be a local goerninsn. onf i,eft,,dc vency chA nIeniidainofte:etl twcen the sinp(.e State 13cency aeb:gnaled desietnated purznrit to (ention ldertfcto wf hich e pl nttls incic nPmmn to 1 jj3:3 r.L: the en-.jLies I I.bd mccr 5Citf 204 or tr Da S* JanutrYI ofe thec hear OJubmSifl Icd, 00 araflraph (13) of Sethcn 306ie) (2?. tiort Cstic. sod M.etrop-litan, eems January of the ear .ubmttcd, (b Comment. statutory citation: Act of IS-0. a regional sacncy. or an later. (2) A listing of the sr'enlfle contacts Section 306ic) (2,: - srccl`C: and ID)Estbil'.h-d an effectivarechns Msade with all such entitles in ordier to 1'te iranmtng aeppr-ai of a n-nage. Jl, . cotin s.ecCn1tatn *Cd Coordinate WI, management program Mn PTORAns AnnItt'dCTo a eo.Wt,, _%zae. heo bt-en thee aao aec- ee.: with their plans. %be -secreLa.y &rial end . . LlCi..5* nae uon t pamrarm' 51 ofi %C1ti (3) An Identifncitl io of thec confliclts has wvabe"tln and ant 1_1 *nrnnn with those plans whic l"v ntbc (A)[Co rdtnoted It, procrant stth hw li..'s.av Mr.-wa. "clo"W1 .nr and iciolved Ic throu noorsti. a end aon ŁreVswd ;--irstate plans hplw*ti.s. -` -;e- aco-1. oin Che .,n coo.l tD O resolvaedthrogh coriain n o- -Vl.tSLr the eatanl Zon.e, a-i, n &,I-re tne NuU P.7tlciattan cmce Ineat. o tiosu1ing RCtiOnIN ConienPIAtCd to attEMpt January 1 cf Lb. 1;..% 2n sijCi, .h,. Stat,.. go-ernment,S ana me-neirs nf sarrying out to resoliee them, and .plaisaozaent Program La aut'olt.ed 1 in the Puptipo.. of this title., W9092AL 21CISIU.. VOL. 40. no. -Tu$y. MUjuly , 19yS (PLEASE ATTACH & CODE OTHER SHEETS FOR MORE EXPLANATION) IX- 85 ###NEWPAGE n="403" ### Element COORDINATION (cont'd.) (d) conduct experiments, investigate, or cause to be investigated, plans, devices, and inventions relating to the performanceof any Coast Guard function and cooperate and coordinate such activities with other Government agencies and with private agencies; (e) conduct any investigations or studies that may be of assistance to the Coast Guard in the performance of any of its powers, duties, or functions; (f) collect, publish, and distribute information concerning Coast Guard operations; (g) conduct or make available to personnel of the Coast Guard such specialized training and courses of instruction, including correspondence courses, as may be necessary or desirable for the good of the service; (h) design or cause co be designed, cause to be constructed, accept as gift, or otherwise acquire patrol boats and other small craft, equip, operate, maintain, supply, and repair such patrol boats, other small craft, aircraft, and vehicles, and subject to applicable regulations under the Federal Property and Administrative ServicesAct of 1949, as amended, dispose of them; (i) acquire, accept as gift, maintain, repair, and discontinue aids to naviga- ticn, appliances, equipment, and supplies; (j) equip, operate, maintain, supply, and repair Coast Guard districts and shore establishments." 6. Coastal Zone Management Related Programs. Contained within this section are programs which have been authorized and are included in present or future funding programs. Reference is shown for authorizing legislation and/or applicable pertinent section of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (86 Stat. l18, 16 USC 1451-1464). 6.1 The law requires Coast Guard goals, programs and projects must include planning to minimize potential adverse impact. 6.11 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ACT (PUBLIC LAW 89-670; 80 STAT. 931) "AN ACT TO ESTABLISH A DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORATION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. Be it enacted by the Senate'and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That: ...... This act may be cited as the "Department of Transportation Act." IX-86 ###NEWPAGE n="404" ### Element COORDINATION (cont'd.) Section 4(f) The Secretary shall cooperate and consult with the Secretaries of the Interior, Housing and Urban Development, and Agriculture, and with the States in developing transportation plans and programs that include measures to maintain or enhance the natural beauty of the'lands traversed. After the effective date of this Act, the Secretary shall not approve any program or project which requires the use of any land from a public park, recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic site unless (1) there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of such land, and (2) such program includes all possible planning to minimize harm of such park, recreational area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic site resulting from such use." 6.12 (49 USC 1653) "GENERAL PROVISIONS - RESPONSIBILITIES OF SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION; LEADERSHIP, CONSULTATION, AND COORDINATION. (f) Maintenance and Enhancement of Natural Beauty of Land Traversed by Transpor- tation Lines. It is hereby declared to be the national policy that special effort should be made to preserve the natural beauty of the countryside and public park and recre- ation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites. The Secretary of the Interior, Housing and Urban Development, and Agriculture, and with the States in developing transportation plans and programs that include measures to mairtain or enhance the natural beauty of the lands traversed. After August 28, 1963, the Secretary shall not approve any program or project which requireb the use of any publicly owned land from a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge or national, State, or local significance as determined by the Federal, State, or local officials having jurisdiction thereof, or any land from -an historic site of national, State or Local significance as so determined by such officials unless (1) there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of such land, and (2) such program includes all possible planning to minimize harm to such park, recreational area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic site resulting from such use." 6.2 The Coast Guard must approve the location and plans of all bridges over navigable waters and the operating regulations of all drawbridges. Location and clearances (33 USC 401, 491 to 507 and 525 to 534). Drawbridge Regulations (33 USC 499). Alteration of obstructive bridges (33 USC 511 to 524). See also (33 CFR 114, 115, 116 and 117). 6.4 Specific programs with notation of relationship to the Coastal Zone. 6.41 Puget Sound Vessel Traffic System - erect three 90 foot towers to support radar and mirrowave dishes at Bush Point, Point Wilson, Point No Point, State of -Washington. IX-87 ###NEWPAGE n="405" ### Element COORDINATION (cont'd.) "923.2 Definitions (86 Stat. 1280, 16 USC 1451-1464) Substantial Development -- except that the following shall not be considered substantial developments: (e) Construction or modification of navigational aids, such as channel markers and anchor buoys." "923.11 Boundaries of the Coastal Zone. (86 Stat. 1280, 16 USC 1451-1464) Definition -- Excluded from the coastal zone are lands the use of which is by law subject solely to the discretion of or which is held in trust by the Federal Government, its officers or agents. 6.42 Although the VTS towers do not fall within the strict definition of "channel markers and anchor buoys" they certainly fall within the meaning of navigational aids in that these towers will provide the means for insuring the safe passage of marine traffic within Puget Sound. 6.43 Install or construct buoys, daymarks and ranges in various locations in Puget Sound, Anacortes Harbor, Baker Bay, Grays Harbor, Willapa Bay and Columbia River. "923.2(29)(e)" (86 Stat. 1280, 16 USC 1451-1464) cited above applies. 6.44 Lighthouse Automation and Modernization - Program scheduled for 1975 - 79 in *H the State of Washington at: Smith Island Slip Point Cape Flattery New Dungeness Point Wilson Point Robinson Alki Point West Point Mukilteo Point No Point 6.45 Program will replace certain operating equipment within the structures with automated equipment and will enable the removal of the attending crews. "923.2(29)(a)" (86 Stat. 12t0, 16 USC 1451-1464) and "923.11" cited above apply as does the rationale involving the broader definition of an aid to navigation. 6.46 Rebuild Duwamish Head Light, Washington, recently destroyed by commercial marine traffic. IX-88 ###NEWPAGE n="406" ### Element COORDINATION (cont'd.) "923.2 Definitions (66 Stat. 1280, 16 USC 1451-1464) (29) Substantial Development -- except that the following shall not be considered substantial developments: (a) normal maintenance or repair of existing structures or developments, including damage by fire, accident, or elements." 6.47 Construct small-boat moorings within the existing slip- at Pier 3b Seattle for boats assigned to or operating witn Coast Guard Captain ot the Port. "923.13 Areas of Particular Concern. (o8 Star. 12a0, lb USC 1451-1464) Tne department --- snall give, preference to uses 1AX Lne following order of preference which; (c) Increase recreational opportunities for the public on the shoreline." "923.14 Guidelines on Priority of Uses. (66 Stat. 1280, 16 USC 1451-1464 (a) --- Alterations of the natural conditions of the shorelines of the State -o- shall be given priority for single family residences, ports, shoreline recrea- tional uses including but not limited to parks, marinas, piers, and other improve- ments facilitating public access to shorelines of the State --- and other develop- ments that will provide an opportunity for substantial numbers of the people to enjoy the shorelines of the State." AltLough our project does not fall strictly within the preferences or priorities noted, the project certainly is in keeping with the spirit of providing the opportunity for the people of Washington to safely enjoy the waters and shorelines under consideration. The boats we plan to moor at Pier 36 provide services to the public, including search and rescue of boaters in trouble, water pollution patrols, vessel inspection for safe operation, etc. We are planning construction of a Loran-C station between Tacoma and Olympia. This project is already on Federal property at Fort Lewis, is an aid to navigation, and is several miles from any land that can be construed as being affected by the Coastal Zone Management Program. Therefore, it is excluded on several counts. But it's effect will be to increase the safety of all users of the navigable waters of Washington and the Pacific Ocean for hundreds of miles at sea. The agencies interested in Coastal Zone Management should be aware of this program. 6.48 In summary, all of the projects we have in being or planned, fall within the spirit and most fall within the letter of the Coastal Zone Management Program. 6.5 Oil Spill Contingency Program: "Seattle Coastal Region Oil and Hazardous Materials Pollution Contingency Plan - 3 January 1975." This plan is the regional plan developed pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended 1972 (33 USC 1321); included as a section within this docu- ment is the introduction from the plan. 6.6 Puget Sound Vessel Traffic System. This system is located entirely within the Coastal Zone Management Area. IX-89 ###NEWPAGE n="407" ### Element COORDINATION (cont'd.) 6.61 The Puget Sound Vessel Traffic System became mandatory on 30 September 1974. It primarily involves a communications net controlled by the Vessel Traffic Center in Seattle. The system will expand to include the Strait of Juan de Fuca on a voluntary basis on 1 March 1975. Radar coverage of the Admiralty Inlet area is planned to become operational during October 1975. Eventually the system will be coordinated with a similar system being implemented by the Canadian Ministry of Transport with its traffic center in Vancouver, B.C. 6.62 Authority (33 USC 1224) 6.63 Rules of Operation (33 CFR 161, Subpart B). 6.7 The Port Safety and Security Program area of the Coast Guard includes insuring compliance with the following Federal Laws and regulations. 6.71 Safeguarding of vessels, harbors, ports and waterfront facilities of the United States (50 USC 191 - Executive Order 10173 as amended - 33 CFR Parts 3, 6, 121-126: P.L. 92-340, 33 USC 1501). 6.72 Control of anchorage grounds and special anchorage areas for vessels in all harbors, river, bay and other navigable waters of the United States (33 USC 471, 180, 258, 332 - 33 CFR Parts 109, 110). 6.8 The Deepwater Port Act of 1974 (33 USC 1501). 6.81 This Act defines, describes and directs formulation of regultic-ns for the location, ownership, construction, and operations of deepwater ports in waters beyond the territorial limits of the United States"; (33 USC 1501). 6.82 Ports operated under this Act are limited to the handling of oil as the substance is defined within the Act. 6.83 The Coast Guard has circulated Environmental Impact Statements (draft), covering the preparation of design, operation manuals, environmental statements, etc., for deepwater ports as defined within the Act. 6.84 Approval of the Act is so recent, (January 3, 1975) that many questions remain to be resolved; however, several things appear probable as a result of this Act. The Coast Guard will have some role delegated by the Secretary of Transpor- tation, the adjacent state will have a major voice in any deepwater port develop- ment as defined in the Act. 6.85 It appears that there is a very strong interface between the Coastal Zone Management Act and the Deepwater Ports Act; this interface seems to involve design and planning. The following section identifies some of the interfaces found in Deepwater Ports Act of 1974. It should be. noted that no attempt has been made to determine or explain the extent of relationship between the two acts. Related-Plans and Studies. The Thirteenth Coast Guard District has pending project proposals related to the Coastal Zone Management area. These projects must survive the budget process; therefore, their realization is likely but not certain. IX-90 ###NEWPAGE n="408" ### Element COORDINATION (cont'd.) Pier 36, Seattle, Washington, consolidation of units, some future construction/ modification. Quillayute'River Station, LaPush, Washington, construct new station. Port Angeles Air Station, Port Angeles, Washington, build new buildings and rehabilitate administration, hanger buildings. Cape Disappointment Station, Ilwaco, Washington, construct moorage, haulout and repair facilities. SanJuan Island Station, Island County, Washington, construct new station. Areas of Special Import for the Coast Guard. Within the "Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972", the following sections appear to be areas of mutual concern; however, the possible ensuing administrative delay may be avoidable through mutual cooperation. Section 307 (c) (1) "Each Federal agency conducting or supporting activities directly affecting the Coastal Zone shall conduct or support those activities in a manner which is, to the maximum extent practicable, consistent with approved state management programs." Section 307 (c) (2) "Any Federal agency which shall undertake any development project in the Coastal Zone of a state shall insure that the project is, lo the maximum extent practicable, consistent with approved state management programs." Section 307 (c) (3) "After final approval by the Secretary of a state's manage- ment program any applicant for a required Federal license or permit to conduct an activity affecting land or water uses in the Coastal Zone of that state shall provide in the application of the licensing or permitting agency a certification that the proposed activity complies with the state's approved program and that such activity will be conducted in a manner consistent with the program. At the same time, the applicant shall furnish to the state or its designated agency a copy of the certification with all necessary information and date. Each coastal state shall establish procedures for public notice in the case of all such certi- fications and, to the extent it deems appropriate, procedures for public hearings in connection therewith. At the earliest practicable time, the state or its designated agency shall notify the Federal agency concerned that the state concurs with or object to the applicant's certification. If the state or its designated agency fails to furnish the required notification within six months after receipt of its copy of the applicants certification, the state's concurrence is conclusively presumed, unless the Secretary, on his own initiative or upon appeal by the applicant, finds, after providing a reasonable opportunity for detailed comments from the Federal agency involved and from the state, that the activity is consis- tent with the objectives of this title or is otherwise necessary in the interest of national security." 11.2 Fact'sheet, dated: October 1974, Office of Coastal Zone Management, NOAA, Department of Commerce. "Once the Secretary of Commerce approves a state or territory program, all Federal activities in the coastal zone, or which may affect the coastal zone - including IX-91 ###NEWPAGE n="409" ### COORDINATION (cont'd.) grants, loans, licenses, and permits - must be conducted in a manner consistent with the approved program." 11.3 In order that orderly business may procede in an acceptable fashion, the Coast Guard recognizes the desirability for developing a mutually acceptable rapid review system. Reviews, coordination and consultation will utilize the Local Master Program Review Task Force on which the DOT SECREP will be represented, a state CZM notification form and checklist to be developed, and hopefully USCG partici- pation in the DOE data management program both as a contributor and user. The OMB Circular A-95, NEPA, and Section 10 (1899 River and Harbor Act) review processes will also be utilized. IX-92 ###NEWPAGE n="410" ### Element COORDINATION (cont'd.) -. HOW THE DOE PROPOSES TO COORDINATE WITH FEDERAL AGENCIES Where possible, the Department will rely on existing systems such aS NEPA, A-95, and the Federal Register, as well as on mechanisms already established by your agency or the state. In carrying out its functions as lead CZM agency, DOE will 'do its best to be cognizant of your programs and responsibilities. The Department intends to maintain an updated file on your agency's plans, activities, developments and so forth, and will inform you as early as possible of actions by others which could affect your agency. As a general device, DOE will publish bulletins or make existing Department publications available which will provide brief notification of all proposed plans, policies, -programs, facilities, and developments which relate to the coastal zone. These notifications could provide such information as permits under appeal, regulatory actions (fines), public hearing notices, etc., dependent on the agency's needs. The Department will also assist your agency to develop a sumary sheet that- .-' t:U' ap.plicants forpar-.ą:s cr license. i::uc_ by yo"_.- aogc.-.' %..zt 'hs state needs to know in otder to review certifications for consistency. Mbre precise descriv ;ion of mechanisms will be possible following the formal review of the packets by the involved federal agencies. November 28, 1975 IX-93 ###NEWPAGE n="411" ### Element * A LISTING AND DISCUSSION OF "FCLTES HC YOUR AGENCY DOE NO COTRL BT WICHZFFECS HE MISSiON OF THE AGEN- CY. THE FACILITIES MAY BE EITHER IN THE COASTAL ZONE, OR NEAR ENOUGH TO IMPACT IT. THIS ELEMENT IS IN RESPONSE TO THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE STATE MUST SUGGEST A PROCESS WHICH ALLOWS THE AGENCY TO PARTICIPATE IN, OR AT LEAST BE AWARE OF, FACILITY SITING DEICISIONS. The consultants have no knowledge of such facilitites as this draft packet is composed. Please provide a listing of such facilities and appropriate documentation if relevant. ELEMENT REFERENCES Adopted Under Section 306 " O E IM REGISTI. VOL 40. NO. 6-THURSDAT, JANUARY 9. 1715 KULCS.A?4D REGULAVlONS Rheo.l r AlOI .re. aI,*1)..Is e.phce..alnJ a §923.1S National interest inthsiting Itl-teeai. Asoaticauid ("MIuCI)Cn"o Tin n of facilities. (a) Requir Mon.. A managemnent pro- L Ee.m oouie tUjL. ol -d 9 I-111, .,-.d d il F1, - Eru -... gram V-hlch lnt -rates (through develop- p.r'.. .* voent Of a IIody ciI nfarinatlon rclathI3 ......If((0 . ..... to the roatio 1,11 r)nrct *r Inc sl chtDwnn I* *ne siting owardo .ĽrcnwsI, I irn ˘,unH .htu' gAll;'r ll, elwh, IlarnIh IAln , aiu WV aida Brernmerton Elh'nsburg Neatl. C athlaon,. ,En'rt ###NEWPAGE n="596" ### Regional and Local Agencies. Pacific Northwest River Basin Commission Mason Regional Planning Council City of Aberdeen Assistant Attorney General, State of Washington, Response to Mayor of Aberdeen Relevant letter regarding authorities to implement Washington Coastal Zone Management Program Clallum County Planning Department Cowlitz-Wahkiakum Governmental Conference Skagit County Planning Department X-172 ###NEWPAGE n="597" ### pacific -S1 columBia RIVeR ˇ ,. s. BOx o08 RIveR BSilnS commission vancouveR, washinGton *)stoo May 5, 1975 office of the chaiman Mr. Sidney R. Galler Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental Affairs U. S. Department of Commerce Washington, D. C. 20230 Dear Mr. Galler: Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft environmental impact statement for the State of Washington Coastal Zone Management Program. This program is responsive to the needs identified in the Commission's com- prehensive framework study of water and related lands for the Columbia-North Pacific Region which has been approved by the U. S. Water Resources Council and transmitted to the President and to the Congress. The framework study implementation program stated in part: "The coastal zone and each estuary needs coordinated plans to insure that these resources continue to perform their natural function in maintaining ecological balance and yet provide esthetic, recreational, and economic benefits . . The studies would integrate the expertise of educational institutions, State and Federal agencies, and managerial techniques into a program flexible enough to meet changing future conditions and backed by legislation to permit full implementation." The State of Washington's program is consistent with this approach and appears to be a substantial step toward its implementation. It will provide valuable input to the comprehensive, coordinated joint plan for water and related land resources development which is currently being prepared by the Commission. During the past year we have been working with the States of Washington and Oregon, federal and local governmental agencies to assist in development of a coordinated program for the Columbia River estuary. Approval of Wash- ington's coastal zone management program should enable them to participate more actively and extensively in this needed effort. X-173 tSq 206/696-3601 0 503/255-0467 * 200/694-25SI ###NEWPAGE n="598" ### Mr. Sidney R. Galler May 5, 1975 Page 2 The foregoing comments are my views as Chairman of the Commission and do not necessarily reflect those of the Commission as a whole or the other individual members. Sincerely, Donel J. La Chairman DJL:PB:bg X-174 ###NEWPAGE n="599" ### JAMES E. CONNOLLY " '-' i :i . ]--A/? AREA CODE 206 MASON REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL P.O. BOX 400 * COURTHOUSE SHELTON, WASHINGTON 98584 April 15, 1975 Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental Affairs Department of Commerce Washington, D. C. 20230 Dear Sir: This office has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the pro- posed Federal approval of the Coastal Zone Management Program, State of Washington, and find it adequate and acceptable. Approval of the program is requested. Funding then available under Section 306 would particularly assist the many local governments which have been hard pressed financially to do an adequate job on the State Shoreline Management Act. This de- ficiency is noted on Page 17. Thank you for the opportunity to review this document. Sincerely, James E. Connolly Mason Regional Planning Director JEC:ve CC: Office of Community Development X-175 ###NEWPAGE n="600" ### OFFICE OF THE MAYOR HoN. WALTER FAILOR CITY OF ABERDEEN NCORPORATED 1888 ABERDEEN. WASHINGTON 90520 April 24, 1975 Richard Hemstad Office of Community Development State of Washington Olympia, Washington 98504 Attn: Jennifer Parker Re: NOAA EIS Coastal Zone Management Program, State of Washington Dear Ms. Parker: The City of Aberdeen objects to the approval of the Washington State Coastal Zone Management Program. The Department of Ecology does not have authority to define 41what shall constitute permissible land and water uses nor to exert control over them as called for in Sec. 305, PL 92-583. The authority for land use regulation in the State of Washington resides in the counties, cities, towns and townships in accordance with Article XI, Section 11 of the State Constitution. The regulation of land use in the City of Aberdeen is by a "special law" (Zoning Ordinance) and not by a general law. Article XI, Section 10 of the Washington State Constitution prohibits the Legislature from enacting "special laws". The State of Washington can undertake a Coastal Zone Management Program under PL 92-583 only after amendment of the State Constitution. Also, as is apparent in referenced EIS, the State has failed to meet the requirements of Section 923.41, 15 CFR Part 920, Federal Register 38(229):33044-33051) published November 29, 1973. X-176 ###NEWPAGE n="601" ### Ms. Jennifer Parker April 24, 1975 Page -2- In fact, it appears that the cities of the State of Washington and their citizens were specifically excluded from the development of the proposed program. Sincerely, Walt Failor Mayor WF/ac cc: NOAA X-177 ###NEWPAGE n="602" ### . 17 15 MAY 1975 CZM v! ,.r. William Morrison, General Counsel Office of Coastal Zone mlanagement National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration U. S. Dept. of Conmerce I Rockville, Maryland 29352 Dear Mr. Morrison: As per your request we have reviewed the letter from the City of Aberdeen date April 24, 1975, which pertains to this State's Coastal Zone Management Program. We shall comment on the legal interpretations made in that letter regarding the State Constitution, and also we should comment on an apparent misunderstanding of the Department of Ecology's approach to fulfillment of certain Coastal Zone Management requirements. The Department of Ecology has not defined what shall constitute permissible land and water uses except insofar as it has provided guidelines for such definition by local government. No further effort to define permissibility is intended by the Department of Ecology. The work of the local governments (in preparation of their shoreline master programs) constitutes a definition of permissibility and that definition, combined with the Department of Ecology's guidelines, is used to meet the Coastal Zone Management requirements for definition of permissible land and water uses. Further, the permit system acts as a definition device and both state and local government participate in this system. Authority for making police, sanitary and other regulations is indeed granted to municipal corporations in Section 11, Article XI of the State Constitution, but that enabling section specifically limits that power to those regulations that "...are not in conflict with general laws". The Shoreline Management Act is a comprehensive land use statute for shorelines, applicable statewide. As such it is general, as opposed to special law. Counties and Cities are creatures of the State and exercise only those powers and duties given by the State. The State Constitution is enclosed for your information. X-178 ###NEWPAGE n="603" ### Mr. 'lilliam lorrison, General Counsel Page two ;lay 9, 1975 The State is undertaking Coastal Zone Mianagement based on existing authorities, primarily tine Shoreline Mlanagement Act, wJiich is presumed to be constitutional. Thus far, no court in this state has declared the Act to be unconstitutional. The City of Aberdeen has been quite involved in all phases of Shoreline M.anagement and the Department of Ecology is confident that this involvement, including public m,eetings and hearings held in Aberdeen, constitutes compliance with the require- ments of Section 41 of 15 CFR, part 923. Aberdeen has been in receipt of periodic informational mailings sent from the Department of Ecology. The City has recently made a tentative request for funding from the State's anticipated Section 306 grant. In conclusion it appears that the City of Aberdeen may have interpreted the actions of the Department of Ecology to mean that the State is planning to undertake efforts to regulate land and water uses, beyond what is permitted in the Shoreline 1Management Act. That is simply not the case. We hope this clarifies matters pertaining to this letter. Please call me or Murray Walsh if you have any further concerns. Sincerely, R. V. Jensen Assistant Attorney General cc: Walt Failor, fMayor - City of Aberdeen Edward T. LaRoe - 'IOAA, Richard Hemstad - OCD/ lurray Walsh - Dept. of Ecology John Farra - City Attorney, AbŽerdeen Enclosures: (2) X-179 ###NEWPAGE n="604" ### M4 E 3 0 TO: JOHN L. FARRA FROM: GORDON LOGAN DATE: April 21, 1975 Dear John In an application for approval of the Washington State Coastal Zone Management Program, pursuant to PL92-583, the Depart- ment of Ecology has represented to the Federal Government that the DOE has authority to define what shall constitute permissible land and water uses and authority to exert control over such uses. This is a fraudulent application in that its purpose is to obtain a Federal Grant. The Department of Ecology does not legally have such authority. In the State of Washington the determination of permissible land uses and their control is a function of the police power of the state under Art. XI, Sec. 11 of the State Constitution. "Sec. 11, Police and Sanitary Regulations. Any county, city, town or township may make and enforce within its limits all such local police, sanitar} and other regulations as are not in conflict with general laws." The Constitution of the State of Washington cannot be amended by statute, rules, regulations or administrative procedures. It can only be amended by a vote of the people. The illegal arrogation of land use regulatory power by the Department of Ecology has damaged the City of Aberdeen and its citizens and has had deleterious effect on the environment of the City. The assembly of an array of state and federal regulatory agencies in support of the Department of Ecology's effort to seize the police power of land use regulations is in the nature of a conspiracy to violate the Constitution of the State of Washington. The NOAA Environmental Impact Statement states that the principal authority for land use control is the Shorelines Management Act and that additional authority to establish a comprehensive management program (land use regulation) is contained in the Air and Water Pollution Control Acts, X-lI0 ###NEWPAGE n="605" ### Page -2- Flood Zone Control, SEPA, and the Forest Practices Act. Thus, the Water Pollution Act is being utilized on a selective basis fo land use regulation rather than improving the quality of the states. d waters. The United States Army has an administrative procedurealo not issuing the required permits if any of the contacted agenct do-not respond or if they have a-negative response. The Departn of Ecology has utilized this device to delay and prevent landuseI approved by the City of Aberdeen. The Federal Fish and Wildlife Service has also utilized this procedure to aggressively insert itself into the regulation of land use in the City of Aberdeen. Both the Congress and the Legislature have refused to pass land use legislation in the recent past. For the Department of Ecology to attempt to arrogate this is reminiscent of the arrogant disregard of the law and the Constitution recently revealed in the Executive Branch of the Federal Government. Yours very truly, Gordon Logan Development Coordinator GL/ac AFTERN DAYS RETURN TO CITY OF ABERDEEN OFFICE OF DEVELOPMENT CO-ORDINATOR ABERDEEN. WASHINGTON 98520 Mr. Wm. Morrison, General Counsel Office of Coastal Zone Management National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adr U. S. Dept. of Commerce Rockville, Maryland 29852 X-181 ###NEWPAGE n="606" ### NOAA Response to Mayor Failor, City of Aberdeen. 1. There appears to be a misunderstanding of what the Department of Ecology' has or has not done. The Shoreline Management Act provides for a system of local master programs, a permit system, and the responsibility for overview of uses of the coastal zone. Local governments are responsible for exerting control in accordance with the process-set up under the Shoreline Management Act. 2. The central authority of the Washington Coastal Zone Management Program is the Shoreline Management Act. However, other existing state authorities are incorporated and a number of administrative additions have been under- taken (i.e., increased efforts at Federal coordination, state managerial network, and others). Thus, the Office of Coastal Zone Management believes the state program meets the requirements of the CZMA. X-182 ###NEWPAGE n="607" ### CLALLAM COUNTY ' 2 i7 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 127 East First Street PORT ANGELES. WASHINGTON 98362 March 26, 1975 Mr. Sidney R. Galler Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental Affairs U. S. Department of Commerce Washington, D. C. 20230 Dear Mr. Galler: I have reviewed the draft environmental impact statement prepared by the Department of Commerce for the Office of Coastal Zone Management for the proposed Federal Approval of the State of Washington Coastal Zone Management Program. It appears that the draft statement provides an accurate and com- plete analysis of the proposed action, the effects of the proposed action and the alternatives. There are certain questions raised by the statement on page 33 under Subsection A, "Impacts directly resulting from Federal approval." I would agree that- a six month limitation for consistency certification could present an insurmountable administrative burden for local government, particularly if the environmental impact statement is to be prepared by the unit of local government prior to passing on the substantial development permit. This is an area that should receive careful attention and consideration. The fifth paragraph on page 33 concerning closer cooperation and coordination between federal, state and local government is indeed a worthwhile objective. I would hope that Washington's Coastal Zone Management program could accomplish this purpose. Sincerely, Kenneth W Sweeney KWS:jml ( Planning Director X-183 ###NEWPAGE n="608" ### NOAA Response to Clallam County Planning Department. The question raised by the Clallam County Planning Department appears to be founded on a slight misunderstanding. Sections 307(c) and (d) of the CZMA set forth the duties and general process for Federal agency consistency with the state's program. The state as a matter of policy has determined that "for coastal zone management purposes, determination of consistency and any determination relating to the process of permit and license certification shall be undertaken . . . with the Federal agencies involved . . ." (Washington Coastal Zone Management Program, page 134). This does not negate local governments' meeting the requirements of the state permitting system, which may include the preparation of an EIS. X-184 ###NEWPAGE n="609" ### COWLITZ-WAHKIAKUM GOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE COWLITZ COUNTY COURTHOUSE FIFTH AVENUE ANNEX KELSO. WASHINGTON 98626 PHONE 425-6905 COWLITZ COUNTY April 30, 1975 CITY OF LONGVIEW CITY OF KELSO I ; Mr. Sidney R. Galler CITY OF CASTLE ROCK Deputy Assistance Secretary for Environmental Affairs Department of Commerce CITY OF WOODLAND Washington, D. C. 20230 Dear Mr. Galler: CITY OF KALAMA After intensive review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement of the Proposed Coastal Zone Management Program for the State of TOWN OF CATHLAMET Washington, it is found that the general concept and intention of this program will be most favorable and promising. FORT OF LONGVIEW There is, however, one statement that causes particular concern, as it possesses the possibility of local frustration. This is found on page 33, paragraph 6; "Federal approval of a state's PORT OF WOODLAND program would also signify that the state has an acceptable pro- cedure and administrative mechanism to insure the adequate consideration of the national interest involved in the siting of PORT OF KALAMA facilities necessary to meet requirements which are other than local in nature. Such facilities might include energy production and transmission; recreation; interstate transportation; production COWLITrZ COUNTY of food and fiber; preservation of life and property; national 0FU.D. NO 1 defense and aerospace; historic, cultural, aesthetic and conserva- tion values; and mineral resources, to the extent they are dependent on or relate to the coastal zone." LONG'VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 122 Local government is asked to give similar consideration to state interests along rivers of statewide significance under the Shorelines KELSO Management Act. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 403 Now, herein lies the concern and confusion: the state has designated the Columbia River as "Statewide Significance", however, Wahkiakum BEACON HILL County does not have any information outlining the long-range state SEWER DISTRICT interests which may supersede local plans for development along this river. Without such information, local government is placed in the awkward position of "second-guessing" state interests. This tends WAHKIAKUM COUNTY to undermine the long-range planning efforts at the local level. PORT DISTRICT NO. 2 I WAHKIAKUM COUNTY ###NEWPAGE n="610" ### Mr. Sidney R. Galler April 30, 1975 Page 2 It is hopeful that the federal government can achieve greater strides towards alleviating this problem under the Coastal Zone Management Program, than has so far been experienced with the Shorelines Management Act at the state level. Until the local government planning agencies acquire the long-range plans of interest at both the state and federal levels, we must assume you have no interest and plan accordingly until requested to do otherwise, which may cause major alterations and additional expense, which adds up to a total waste of everyone's previous efforts and is contrary to the planning process. Once this problem is solved and close coordination between agencies established, the administration of the Coastal Zone Management Program will increase its efficiency and the overall effectiveness of this program will greatly enhance the Coastal Zone Areas of Wahkiakum County. Thank you for presenting this program for our review and comment. Sincerely, COWLITZ-WAHKIAKUM GOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE FRED L. DAYEARSH, DIRECTOR /7 Don Mathison Associate Planner lp X-186 ###NEWPAGE n="611" ### NOAA Response to Cowlitz-Wahkiakum Governmental Conference The concern raised is very important and may not easily be resolved. The Washington Coastal Zone Management Program approval nay be able to minimize this concern. Federal agencies are to express the national interests with regard to their specific missions((i.e., energy, parks, defense, etc.). As these statements at the national level are formulated, they are to be submitted to the states. In turn, the state should be able to integrate the national interests and state interests into a form useful to local planners. In addition, the Section 306 administrative grants will enable more coordination to occur between state and local governmental agencies, and updating of plans and programs. X-187 ###NEWPAGE n="612" ### TELEPHONE (206) 336-2188 ROBERT C. SCHOFIELD DAVID C HOUGH 120 W. KINCAID. COURT HOUSE ANNEX II DIRECTOR ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MOUNT VERNON. WASHINGTON 98273 May 6, 1975 Sidney R. Galler Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental Affairs Department of Commerce Washinnton, D.C. 20230 Dear Mr. Galler: This department is presently engaged in the development of the Skaoit County Shoreline Master Program, based upon the guidelines and require- ments of the Shorelines Manaaement Act and the nepartment of Ecology. Upon approval by DOE, this program potentially will become part of a statewide master program and subsequently part of the state's Coastal Zone 14anaqement Prooram. At this time, we wish to address certain items discussed in your draft environmental impact statement for Federal approval of Washington's Coasta' Zone Management Program. Our concerns are primarily directed at aspects of the Federal CZM Act and Program which are, unfortunately, predetermined, existing "facts of life" at this time. Specifically, our concerns are: i. The necessity of producing and distributing an environmental impact statement for a purely administrative action such as this program approval. 2. Actions and projects of Federal agencies within the defined Coastal Zone should be subject to direct county review and co- ordination. This may be affected through the implementation and adherence to the Skagit County Master Program. 3. EIS, p. 15, para, 2 - We had no idea federal agencies were directly involved in review of local Master Programs Drior to DOE approval. We are curious as to the degree of impact or influ- ence such a review capacity will have on approval and implementa- tion of local Master Proqrams. 4. FIS, p. 45, VII. - Probable Adverse Environmental Effects Which Cannot be Avoided. Another unavoidable, probable adverse effect could be from Federal facilities or activities established on the basis of national interest ###NEWPAGE n="613" ### Page two - May 6, 1975 Sidney R. Galler or security, or, in the event of local and/or state nonconcurrence, by Secretarial override. However, we realize this provision is already an established part of the CZMA, but it is a critical policy to be of concern to local governments. We have no other comments on this EIS at this time and appreciate the oppor- tunity to review and, somewhat belatedly, comment unon your work. Also, we support and urge the adoption of a Washington State Coastal Zone Manaoement Pronram based upon the existing, comprehensive Shorelines Manaqement Act and Master Proqram guidelines. If you have any comments or questions concerning this correspondence or wish input from the local government SMA implementation point of view, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, R. C. Schofield, lir tor SKAGIT COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT cc: D. PRodney Mack, DOE John Bigqs, DOE X-189 ###NEWPAGE n="614" ### NOAA Response to Skagit County Planning Department. 1. NOAA, in conjunction with CEQ, has determined .that an EIS should be required because of the transfer of Federal funds, implementation of Federal consistency, and the impacts (both favorable and non-favorable) program approval will have. 2. The State Department of Ecology will handle all matters of Federal consistency and consult with local units of government. The procedure is more thoroughly explained in the Washington Coastal Zone Management Program, page 134. 3. Federal review has occurred for several years, although not all Federal agencies have chosen to participate. 4. This is a good point and has been addressed in the FEIS. X-190 ###NEWPAGE n="615" ### April 18, 1975 TO: Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental Affairs 29 APR !975 Department of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 FROM: Thomas R. Randall, Director Whatcom County Council of Governments lflnlfo tikm SUBJECT: Draft E.I.S. - Federal Approval of the i Washington State Coastal Zone Management Program Members of the W.C.C.O.G. have been actively engaged in prepar- ing and implementing Shoreline Management Program in response to the Washington Shoreline Management Act. We believe this act is one of the most important pieces of legislation passed in this state with its objective to enhance the uses of shorelines and protect the public interest. Implementation and administration of the Shoreline MIaster Pro- gram is an expensive and difficult task. The objective of the Wash- ington Coastal Zone Management Program is to aid the state and local governments in their efforts to preserve our shoreline areas. Table II and Table III present a certain degree of inconsistency. Table II shows the relatively small amount of beach area accessible to the public. By adding tidelands as in Table III it would appear that there is available to the public 735 miles of beaches. In effect this is not true. Much of this tideland fronts on privately owned backshore, where access is limited. One of the main goals of the SMP is to provide greater public access to beach area. The beneficial imDact of the Washington Coastal Zone Management Program should greatly exceed any adverse impacts. The W.C.C.O.G., therefore, endorses this program. Sincerely, A Thomas R. an ll TRR:mlm X-191 cc: D.O.E., Shoreline Division ###NEWPAGE n="616" ### NOAA Response to Whatcom County. 1. Due to the questionable nature ofTable III, it has been deleted from the final EIS. The point is that public access is important to the citizens of the state and to the state's economy, and that access has generally declined as population increased and developments have increased along the shoreline. X-192 ###NEWPAGE n="617" ### F. Public Interest Groups Environmental Defense Fund League of Women Voters of Washington National Audubon Society Tahoma Audubon Society Black Hills Audubon Society Northwest National Seashore Alliance X- 193 ###NEWPAGE n="618" ### ENVIRONMENTAL , . ./M DEFENSE {nformati1r. / *.- FUND 1525 18th STREET, NW, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036/202 833-1485 May 19, 1975 / -/ . ../ Dr. Edward T. LaRoe Office of Coastal Zone Management NOAA 2001 Wisconsin Avenue, NW ( . Washington, D.C. 20007 Re: Mid-Coast Maine and Washington State CZM Programs Dear Ted: Attached are a set of very sketchy comments on the above. I'll be happy to talk with you in more detail about our concerns if you want to call. With best personal regards, Very truly yours, Edwa Thompson, Jr. X-194 OFFICES IN: EAST SETAUKET. NY (MAIN OFFICE); NEW YORK CITY (PROGRAM SUPPORT OFFICE); WASHINGTON, DC; BERKELEY, CALIF.; DENVER, COL. Printed on 100% Recycled Paper ###NEWPAGE n="619" ### COMMENTS OF EDF ON PROPOSED FEDERAL APPROVAL OF COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS FOR STATE OF WASHINGTON & MID-COAST MAINE 0 1. Approval of state programs by NOAA is the critical stage in Federal administration of the CZM Act since it is at this point, presumably, that primary responsibility for carrying out the substantive goals of the Act shifts somehow from Federal to state authorities. See, Section 307(c). How and to what degree this responsibility shifts is not clear, however, from the Act. Section 307(e). 2. The basic substantive goals of the Act appear to be protection of coastal ecosystems. This is borne out by both explicit language and the legislative history of the Act. Section 302. This is not to say that development should be excluded from the coastal zone hut, rather, that it must respect critical estuarine and marine resources without wbich the coastal zone would lose much of its rich diversity and unique appeal. In our view, the substantive purpose of the Act can be carried out only if states assume responsibility for guiding development away from intolerant land and water resource areas and into areas which are more tolerant to the particular activity and its expected secondary effects. In effect, what we believe the Act should achieve is a compre- hensive scheme of "natural zoning," whereby the natural ecosystems determine where development should go to minimize environmental harm. This is only a small step from traditional zoning which, in response to easily observable harmful effects of particular activities such as noise or smoke, attempts to protect the public health, safety, and welfare by separating, for example, industrial and residential areas. Where scientific method can predict remote, and not necessarily observable environmental harm as a result of a particular land use, it seems entirely reasonable to attempt to protect the public from suuch uses in appropliata ways. 3. To achieve the substantive goals of the Act, we believe that states must meet three general requirements. First, they must have the technical competence and funding to do the baseline inventory studies necessary as the foundation of a coastal management program. Second, they must be willing and able to develop and implement a plan and policies which 1) harmonize the efforts of land use planners and marine biological experts (the discipline most nearly familiar with functions of coastal ecosystems) and 2) put the public on notice that specific areas are suitable for only particular activities. And third, they must enact and implement legal mechanisms which are able both to control nonconforming uses and to deal fairly with vested property interests which may have attached to particular resource areas. X-195 ###NEWPAGE n="620" ### 2 4. Since we feel that the scope of NOAA review should encompass not only compliance with the letter of its 'regulations but also the ability of state programs to comply with the substan- tive, environmental protection goals of the Act, we cannot see how NOAA can finally approve state programs which lack, as do the Maine and Washington programs, both site-specific planning guidelines 3 and comprehensive legal mechanisms to guide development. We suggest, therefore, that NOAA come up with a mode of conditional approval, perhaps for one year, while wiuld enable states to make additional progress toward implementing the Act's substantive goals through an infusion of Federal funds, while, at the same time, preserving existing relairnshlps between Federal and state reson iibility. 5. Further, we suggest that NOAA encourage all Federal agencies with program or regulatory authority over coastal resources to define precisely how and to what degree they expect to allow primary responsibility for coastal zone management to shift to the states upon approval, how they anticipate coordination of Federal _ and state arainistration with respect to permit approvals, and what they regard as the distinctly national interest in coastal resources which they seek to protect even --if --means overriding state deter- minations of public interest in particular actions. See, Section 307(e). Federal agencies might develop their ideas on these subjects in coordination with the states and interested members of the public and present them in their comments on the states' programs. 6. We are troubled by the approaches to coastal zone manage- ment taken by both Maine and Washington which regulate development only within a uniformly defined, narrow strip of land adjacent to the shoreline. If a coastal management program is to be truly successful in guiding development not only away from intolerant areas but into tolerant ones, we think that it must be able to transfer property use rights beyond a narrow strip of shoreland. 5.. It does not appear to be sufficient merely to prohibit development in one, particularly inadvisable location; one must also be able to encourage development elsewhere by legal systems such as tax incen- tives, transferable development rights, etc. Shorelands and uplands, which may be necessary to absorb development which otherwise would be sited in the "coastal zone," should be administered under the same coastal managaement authority which would have the power to control the entire region, not merely a strip of land. We do not wish to derrogate from the considerable efforts which these states seem to have made to date, but we stress that the narrow approach which they have taken does not seem to us to meet the sub- stantive goals of the Act. 7. There are other, more specific shortcomings of both states' programs, such as the exemption of single-family units from the Washington permit system which might perpetuate, rather than ameliorate the problem of "piecemeal" degradation of coastal ecosystems. We agree with the positions of the environmental impact statements that these are, indeed, weaknesses; but we would go further in X-196 ###NEWPAGE n="621" ### 3 suggesting that these weaknesses may be enough to disqualify the state programs, as presently considered, from NOAA approval. 8. Finally, we comnLend NOAA on the excellent job it has done in preparing environmental impact statements on agency action relating only to programs rather than specific development proposals. However, we think that it might be more profitable, in the future, to prepare an overall program EIS on the CZM program, with supplements on each state program as it is submitted. The supplements would be most useful as a vehicle for public infor- mation and comment if they outlined, in graphic form if desirable, the specific coastal resource regime of each Rtatn. (The degree of detail of the Maine EIS with respect to the Town of Bucksport may not be necessary, but the general maps which are found in the Washington EIS are much too vague to be very useful.) Further, a more thorough attempt to outline the specific manner in which the state program functions--in terms of both control and transfer of uses--should be included in the EIS supplements. Respectfully, Edward Thc npson, Jr. Wetlands I nitor May 15, 1975 X-197 ###NEWPAGE n="622" ### NOAA Response to Environmental Defense Fund. 1. The State of Washington does have a system of "natural zoning' based upon scientific methods as well as other factors. The initial baseline studies will be followed by additional field efforts and an improved system for data retrieval is being developed. An in-depth explanation can be found in the Washington Coastal Zone Management Program, January 1976, Appendix E, "Recent and Current Data Management Activities within the Washington Coastal Zone." 2. NOAA has made the determination through its review process that the state has effectively dealt with the concern outlined. 3. The state has both site-specific planning guidelines (i.e., Shoreline Management Act Guidelines, 173-16WAC, Procedures for Shoreline Inventor,, Environmental Designations, and uses within these environments) and legal mechanisms to guide development (Local Master Programs, State SMA policies, permit review process). 4. Appropriate steps have been taken. S. NOAA has determined that the new boundary/legal authorities/managerial network approach of Washington can be a successful method of meeting the objectives of the CZMA. Shoreline development is encouraged to take place in specific environmental designations of Urban and Rural Classifications and away from the natural and conservancy areas. 6. This has been attempted in the FEIS. The program contains a more complete description of how it is to function. The FEIS attempts to summarize this aspect of the program. X-198 ###NEWPAGE n="623" ### LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF WASHINGTON A-oril 30, 1075 or nI4AY 1975 C2M Edward T. L-sloe Office of Coastal Zone Management -u .Y' / Ł- Uational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Rockville, Miaryland 20852 (f'4j. / 1 Dear 1,r. Laloe: Having actively supported the development of the Shoreline Panagerment Act in the State of Washington, the League of Women Voters of W.Iashington strongly endorses the nrorosed Coastal Zone "'anasgement Prorjraw.- of t'he Federal Covernment. The CZT' nroarari supplements our state plan ani shou1h, helm ameliorate some of the adr-inistrative rroblerts, such as fundin_: anf overall state responsibility. The Lea."ue narticularly su-nor-ts the-ˇ conce;nt of "Jzeciu- r-aor rsnsil t" 21 1:.:Ut:-orit','ˇ for control et t'e ffect;,,.. .-ni- or :-cOrvern-t. -r t' 1 lro-r"'.Tr *Tcs. 'mr1F.r-' state c i-rtiicpt!oi oy>efor lfcerpl per:ii' ctn.:1 isi'A wit'.in tile, effectc-6 arc-a-, furthcr custdairo t i cert. 1-'-r'P.cts on locrl -ov'o'-e,-. ''nt eiri-'t. of "" r3irŽ -n'1t ect r ,nr' the - f -' oo-rl -'r-- -ntio-rJ O:', rl c'-- cm cm. 'e c' t>l^ dr-ft "T' s'-o'ns "T,oc?" 0ovrr.-ˇrt eL o;:n"' r - '"rr evnrˇn i: ˝oi- -rsc.Thlr, ':et i *-'- rct iri2ica'tp th- t(err s'o: 1 fo2"- l. '*c citir-on rlvˇ evi .l rtcou -,rCreationi for -e-r-nil, annlic-tionSp- qx e'yc c'n.tod "u' cell-nt citizen -lartic-jation -Frorre- for tlie dlvelon-en' of -Tlnns. ihic, shoui-1 be continued durirr- the i--lenentation i)-ases. Pecau-, local 'nlanvnirr coinic-ssior's have bus,, schedules already,, it -nvy be -Preferalble to tap tile talent C' th-ose who worhed so ionc- on the Shoreline "anraer-cnt "lans by crentinr !7horeline Per-lt Review Cormnissions rtt the local levels. In addition, to avoid confusion, review procedures should be more snecificall, spelled out with criteria for office review only or for citizen review. The second alternative under "C" on page 42 should be reconsidered. A planning department has a more difficult tire knowing what is happening and setting standards for comprehensive planning when single family, dwellings and barns are excluded from its purview. Large sections of the coastal shoreline would remain completely outside the consideration of planning bodies if permits are not required for these exempted uses. The CZIM Program should specify clear- ly that some kind of permit is required for all uses to insure the leeal authority for local regulations. Not all of the other controls mentioned on page 43 are being enforced or coordinated. Thank you for the opportunity to cormment on this prorosed program. Sincerely, Maxine Krull, President 1406 -18TH AVENUE, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98122 * 329-4646 -ftft X-199 ###NEWPAGE n="624" ### NOAA Response to League of Women Voters of Washington. 1. The alternative was -reconsidered and remains a viable alternative at the state's option; however, it is not required to-meet CZMA requirements. The state is not required to control all uses of the coastal zone, but rather those uses that it determines have a direct and significant impact on coastal waters. An increase in Federal assistance can help in the enforcement and coordination of regulations. X-200 ###NEWPAGE n="625" ### NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY 950 THIRD AVENUE, NEW YORK, N.Y. 10022 (212) 832-3200 Cable: NATAUDUBON April 29, 1975 Dr. Edward T. LaRoe .. Office of Coastal Zone Management National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Rockville, Maryland 20852 Dear Dr. LaRoe: Enclosed are the comments of the National Audubon Society on NOAA's draft impact statement on proposed federal approval of the State of Washington's proposed coastal zone management program. We appreciate the opportunity to review the draft state- ment and to submit our views for your consideration. Sincerely, # ,' 1 / / / _ o Elvis J. Stahr Presdent EJS:SMS c.c.: Dr. Robert M. White X-201 A M E R I C A NS CO M M I T T E D T.O CO N S E R V A T I ON ###NEWPAGE n="626" ### NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY 950 'THIRD AVENUE, NEW YORK, N.V. 10022 (212) 832-3200 Cable: NATAUDUBON April 29, 1975 Comments of the National Audubon Society On NOAA's Draft impact Statement on Proposed Approval Of Washington State's Coastal Zone Management Program The Coastal Zone Management Act and NOAA's regulations for the approval of state coastal zone management programs declare that a state's proposed coastal zone management program must meet several requirements in order to be approved by the federal government and in order to be eligible for federal grants to help administer the program. Among the requirements are the following: * That the state be "organized to implement the management program." * That the state have "the authorities necessary to implement the program." *That the management program make provision "for procedures whereby specific areas may be designated for the purpose of preserving or restoring them for their conservation, recreational, ecological, or esthetic values." *That a single state agency be designated "to receive and administer the grants for implementing the management program." *That the state have authority "to administer land and water use regulations, control development in order to ensure compliance with the management program, and to resolve conflicts among competing uses." * That the state have authority "to acquire fee simple and less than fee simple interests in lands, waters, and other property through condemnation or other means when necessary to achieve conformance with the management program." * That the state have authority for "direct state land and water use planning and regulation" or, if such authority is delegated to local government, that the state have authority to review and the "power to approve or disapprove" local government decisions on development plans, X- 202 AM E RI CA NS COM M I TT ED TO0 CO0NS5E R VA TIO0N ###NEWPAGE n="627" ### -2- projects, or land and water use regulations, including exceptions and variances. *That the coastal zone to be managed "extends inland sufficiently for the management program to control lands the uses of which have a direct and significant impact upon coastal waters." * That the coastal zone to be managed should not be "so limited that lands strongly influenced by coastal waters and over which the management program reasonably apply are excluded." Also, the Coastal Zone Management Act declares that "the key to more effective protection and use of the land and water resources of the coastal zone is to encourage the states to exercise their full authority over the lands and waters in the coastal zone by assisting the states ... in developing land and water use programs for the coastal zone, including unified policies, criteria, standards, methods and processes for dealing with land and water use decisions of more than local significance." (Emphasis added.) Based on our review of the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS), we reluctantly conclude that the State of Washington's proposed coastal zone management program does not appear to meet some of the requirements for approval. We say we have reached this conclusion "reluctantly," for we appreciate and salute the progress made by the State of Washington in moving toward sound management of its coastal areas through enactment of various laws in recent years. But the State's proposed program clearly does not fulfill some re- quirements set forth by Congress for program approval and grants under Section 306. Moreover, some provisions of the State's proposed program raise questions that should be resolved before the program is approved. For example: 1. On Page 7, the DEIS notes that the State lacks veto power over permits issued by local governments. But Section 306 (e)(1)(C) of the Act requires that the State must have power "to approve or disapprove" such actions. 2. On Page 7, the DEIS notes that cities and counties "are now developing *Master Programs for their shorelines." How can the federal government consider Aapproving the program until those city and county Master Programs are com- pleted and reviewed for consistency with the letter and spirit of the CZMA? 3. On Page 10, the DEIS notes that "direct control" of the coastal zone has been established "to a line 200 feet inland from the ordinary high jtide, or further if necessary to include all 'associated' wetlands." We Ifind it difficult to believe that the 200-foot inland boundary is sufficient ''to control lands the uses of which have a direct and significant impact Iupon coastal waters," as required. 4. On Page 10, the DEIS notes that "additional management controls beyond'' the 200-foot inland line "are exerted through air and water quality X-203 ###NEWPAGE n="628" ### -3 - standards and by flood zone permits." 'How do those "indirect" controls give the State the authority required by the federal CZMA "to administer land and water use regulations, control development... .and to resolve conflicts among competing uses" beyond the 200-foot line? We fear that compliance with air and water quality standards will not necessarily provide proper regulation, as required by the federal CZMA, beyond the 200-foot boundary. We fear that reliance on air and water quality standards beyond the 200-foot boundary will inevitably produce unwise development of that portion of the State's coastal zone -- and after-the-fact controversy. 5. On Page 17, the DEIS notes that the State's assessment of its Shoreline Management Act identified several "weaknesses." The DEIS adds that supplementing the SMA program with other State programs and approval of the State's proposed coastal zone management program "will aid in over- coming these weaknesses and in creating a stronger overall program." Approval of the State's proposed program and an infusion of federal grant funds under Section 306 may well help the State overcome some weaknesses in the program. But the question is this: Do the admitted "weaknesses" in the State's proposed program constitute 41failure to meet requirements of the federal CZMA? And how can federal 1approval of the State's proposed program overcome the State's lack of "ex- plicit authority" to undertake shoreline planning on a statewide basis? 6. On Page 30, the DEIS notes that "except for areas in Puget Sound, most of the State's shoreline is not presently zoned." On Page 31, the DEIS0 notes that zoning "must be made consistent with the new Master Programs" -- but that "the Master Programs reflect existing land use and policies, so the impact of this requirement should not be great." How can a system that reflects "existing land use and policies" enable the State to meet the requirements mandated by Congress for approval of a state management program? And if the Master Programs will indeed Itleflect S1existing land use and policies," it seems all the more important to with- hold approval of the program until those Master Programs are completed and Ireviewed for compliance with the federal CZMA. 7. On Page 33, the DEIS notes that "there is some confusion" as to how the State "certification of consistency" provision of the federal CZMA bwill be implemented at the State and local level. We suggest that this "confusion" should be cleared away before a State program is approved. 8. On Page 36, the DEIS notes that certain activities -- agriculture, private residences, and private bulkheading -- are exempt from the State 'Shoreline Management Act permit requirements. This, says the DEIS, "twill have the potential for an adverse environmental impact on coastal resources." The DEIS then notes that "other state regulatory authorities" will be "fully utilized to minimize" this adverse environmental impact. X-204 ###NEWPAGE n="629" ### -4- This raises several questions: A. What are the "other state regulatory authorities" mentioned on Page 36? B. How will the "other state regulatory authorities" be utilized to meet the requirements of the federal CZMA? C. And since the Shoreline Management Act is, according to Page 5 of the DEIS, "the principal authority" for the State's proposed program, how can a program containing such exemptions be deemed to meet the require- ments of the federal CZMA? 9. On Page 38, the DEIS says that the State's SMA and other legislation, together with the other program elements, "meet the spirit and letter of the CZM Act." That statement is contradicted by other findings in the DEIS. For instance, on Page 40 the DEIS says: "The basic purposes of the CZM Act... are not completely covered by any of these authorities." The DEIS also .says on Page 40: "The SMA ... does not meet all the requirements of the Act. Specifically missing are areas of particular concern and designation of areas for restoration and preservation." And on Pages 40-41, the DEIS says: "These other authorities ... do not individually or separately provide for the comprehensive land and water use management program called for by the Act and implemented through program approval." The DEIS sums up the State's proposed coastal zone program in these words on Page 40: j"The state's use of existing authorities, especially the SMA and the jSEPA, could go a long way to meeting the concepts described in the CZM Act." Perhaps so. But is the "long way" far enough in terms of meeting the requirements of the federal CZMA? We think not. And while we praise the State of Washington for its efforts to date to achieve wise use of the land and water resources of its coastal zone, we can only conclude on the basis of the facts presented in the DEIS that the State's proposed management program should not be approved until it complies with the requirements of the federal CZMA. The State of Washington's proposed program is apparently the first to be submitted to the federal government for approval. We suggest that the federal government's decision on this first program will establish precedents that other States may seek to follow in preparing their own pro- grams. The Coastal Zone Management Act is difficult enough to administer, what with its declaration of what are often contradictory, mutually exclusive objectives: the preservation and development of coastal resources. NOAA will compound its problems and establish unfortunate precedents if it approves a program containing the shortcomings that NOAA itself has X-205 ###NEWPAGE n="630" ### -5- noted in the DEIS - - no matter what disclaimers to the contrary NOAA might make. The National Audubon Society therefore respectfully urges NOAA not toapprove the State of Washington's proposed program until that program isstrengthened and until it meets the requirements of the CZMA. We wish to commend NOAA for its very fine draft impact statement on this first proposed state coastal zone management program. Preparing an impact statement on a proposed program, rather than on a proposed project, is a difficult assignment. NOAA has performed that assignment exceedingly well. However, we would like to suggest some revisions in the "alternatives" section of the DEIS. On Page 39, the DEIS says one alternative to the proposed action is: "The Secretary could delay approval of the Washington CZM program until legislation is passed for comprehensive statewide and nationwide land use programs." We question whether that is truly an alternative. The CZMA may well jlhbe integrated with a nationwide land use program in time, should Congress enact a national land use law. But the planning and protection of coastal resources envisioned under the CZMA stand by themselves and can and should be undertaken as rapidly as possible, consistent with the requirements of the Act. There is no legal basis for delaying approval of a state program until nationwide or statewide land use programs are enacted. We therefore suggest that NOAA delete this "alternative" from the impact statement. On Page 39, the DEIS says another alternative is to "delay CZM approval until the federal establishment has developed specific policies for the siting of facilities meeting requirements which are of national interest." jj.- Again, we question whether that is truly an alternative. We see no legal basis for such an action in the CZMA. We do see the potential for great mischief by a federal agency that may desire to frustrate the CZM program if this is made a valid alternative. We suggest that this "alter- native" be deleted from the impact statement. On Page 41, the DEIS says another alternative is to give local govern- ments control and CZMA funds to run the CZM program. But on the same page jJthe DEIS notes that "total local control is incompatible with the objectives 1of coastal zone management and not allowable under the act." We suggest that this too is thus not a true or valid alternative and that it too be deleted from the ''alternatives'' discussion. Some final comments: In its regulations implementing Section 306 of CZMA,NOAA said, in Section 923.5, that the impact statement on a proposed state program will be "prepared primarily on the basis of an environmental impact assessment and other relevant data submitted by the individual applicant states. X-206 ###NEWPAGE n="631" ### -6- We suggest that it would be helpful to reviewers if a state's enviro-n- j3mental assessment would be included as an appendix in NOAA's impact state- @1 ment on each proposed state program. And we also suggest that NOAA include in future impact statements on proposed state programs a summary of the program geared to the requirements for approval contained in the CZMA and guidelines for program approval. We appreciate the fact that the DEIS describes elements of the state program in various places. But the structure of an impact statement does not necessarily lend itself to program review as such. We recognize that it would be financially difficult and physically cumbersome, if not impossible, to circulate a copy of a state's complete program with each impact statement. Similarly, it is simply not possible for each reviewer to examine the complete sae application and supporting documents. Hence our recommendation for inclusion of a program summary in the impact statement, perhaps as an appendix. The summary could be prepared in outline form, or table form -- a brief statement of the statutory or guideline requirement, followed by a brief comment that the state program does or does not meet the requirement. This type of information would enable reviewers to obtain a capsule view of the structure of a proposed program. The summary might also help NOAA determine if a proposed state program should be approved. X- 207 ###NEWPAGE n="632" ### NOAA Response to National Audubon Society. 1. Section 306(c) (1) calls for any one or a combination of the three techniques. Washington falls under the first: "(A) state establishment of criteria and standards for local implementation, subject to admin-0 istrative review and enforcement of compliance." This is what has happened in the case of the Shoreline Management Act and the development of local master programs. While the Department of Ecology checks for consistency, the state has established a Shoreline Hearing Board to make the decision to approve or disapprove. 2. NOAA has determined the procedures required to develop a master program as adequate. While it was not required that all local master programs be in because the state had interim procedures, part of the delay and the granting of preliminary approval was caused by NOAA's and other interested parties' concerns that more local master programs be completed. This has been done. 3. The state has a second tier boundary which includes the coastal counties. It is anticipated that a large number of uses can be controlled in the 200 foot boundary and most of the remaining within the county boundaries. In addition, the Shoreline Management Act directs that other developments, even though outside these boundaries, be consistent with the goals and policies of the SMA\ as it affects the shoreline and waters of the state 4. NOAA feels that these weaknesses are not prohibitive to program approval. Some of the problems can be minimized through 306 funding. While the Department of Ecology does not have authority for statewide planning, other state agencies do. Further efforts at intragovernmental coordination are taking place. In addition, the state Department of Ecology had the cumulative programs of all local master programs to help assess the total state coastal zone situation. S. The EIS did. not explain the Washington coastal zone management program in total, and, therefore, additional information for clarity is in order. The first statement is correct that "zoning must be made consistent with the new master programs." However, in developing the master programs, existing land use is only one element of determining environments, etc. Ownership patterns, natural characteristics, and other plans that have a bearing are also included. 6. This has been clarified in the Washington Coastal Zone Management Program, pages 133-134, and the PETS. 7. Responses to these programmatic questions are found in the Washington Coastal Zone Management Program. It should be noted, however, that the Department of Ecology, the "principal authority,'" is not the whole state and CZM is a state effort. It is practically impossible for any one state agency to administer the entire CZM program without eliciting the help and authorities of other government agencies. X-208 ###NEWPAGE n="633" ### 8. This section was not clearly written. The statement "specifically missing . . . 'preservation' 11 is not correct and has been deleted. However, the point is that the state needed to add a cohesive factor to those various pieces of legislation, authorities, and institutional networks in order to meet all the CZMA requirements. 9. Washington was granted preliminary approval only and has spent the last 8 months in strengthening its program. 10. NOAA agrees with this reasoning. This alternative has been deleted. 11. This is not a necessary alternative and has been deleted. However, nothing prevents a state CZM program from changes and amendments over time. As other legislation is passed or particular Federal interests are expressed, these items can be incorporated. 12. This alternative has also been deleted. 13. The state's EIA will be included as part of any further EIS's submitted. 14. This may be done for future programs. NOAA will use a threshold deter- mination outline for the following seven program elements: Boundaries Uses Areas of Particular Concern and Preservation and Restoration Federal Consultation and National Interest Public Participation Authorities Organizations X-209 ###NEWPAGE n="634" ### ' ' 3024 North 25th Tacoma, Washington 98406 22 April 1975 TAHOMA AUDUBON STATEMENT FOR TEE HEARING RECORD, PROPOSED FEDERAL APPROVAL OF TIE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, STATE OF WASHINGTON We are pleased to submit comments on the Washington Coastal Zone Management Program and on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement therefor. The Tahoma Audubon Society recommends that the Secretary of Commerce approve the proposed Coastal Zone Management Program of the State of Washington. We believe that the proposal is consistent with the fundamental requirements of CZM; we emphasize that it reflects a statewide referendum by Washington voters and thereby incorporates broad popular recognition and support of the need for special coastal area protection. GENERAL COMMTS: SMx as w-ritten seems to offer essentially the same goals and policies as CZM. It also has at present an administrative mechanism able to achieve the objectives of CZM with the possible exception of eminent domain. Eminent domain was originally part of SNA but was amended out by the legislature. There may be some problems with SMA as a CZM vehicle due to the difficulty in state coordination of multiple local master programs. SMA appeared to function more efficiently during the pre-master program period when the guidelines set a statewide standard for uniform application. The State has also identified this as a weakness. (See page 17, EIS.) However, overall SMA does offer reasonably effective means for local, state and federal coordination with the state as "lead agency." This will be true only as long as the state continues to have 1) review powers, 2) jurisdiction to accept or deny variances and conditional uses, 3) ability to accept or reject amendments to local master programs on the basis of consistency with SMA and CZM. Concerning the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, we find it generally accurate and containing adequate information. SPECIFIC COMMINTS: II DESCRIPTION OF TEE PROPOSED ACTION B. The Washington Coastal Zone Management Program 4 Page 9, third paragraph from the bottom needs clarification. Does X-210 ###NEWPAGE n="635" ### +,ahouza audubon society statement Page 2 22 April 1975 "greater ability of local government to control its share of the coastal zone" mean more legislative or administrative control to local govern- ment or better tools to accomplish existing administrative responsibi- lities? We would oppose further delegation of state's responsibility to local governments as non-compliance with CZN, but we support financial and technical assistance to achieve the best possible master programs. PROBABLE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ON THE ENVIRONMENT B. Impacts Resulting from State and Local Government Actions Page 36, par. 2: Since each local government drew up its master pro- gram with healthy self-interest in mind, it seems unlikely.that there will be a long-term net loss in services due to tax reduction in any jurisdiction. Page 36, par. 4: Reference to increased operating or capital costs reflecting the external costs traditionally borne by the public, but now charged to the responsible individual, is an excellent comment which has not been emphasized often enough as a benefit of SMA and now of CZM. Page 36, par 8: Exemptions are a serious concern in SMA; legislative action to increase exemptions in response to special interests could further reduce the value of the state plan. EIS should also note that existing federal regulatory authorities control such activities as filling and bulkheading. VI ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION A. Federal Alternatives to Approval of Washington CZM Program Adoption of any of these alternatives either presumes that certain legislative actions will take place, which in fact may not, or discounts the concept of Coastal Zone Management as an on-going, ever-changing and improving process. Adoption of the currently proposed action in no way precludes future modifications. We believe the Washington proposal substantially complies now with the requirements of CZM; therefore, delay in adoption would serve no useful purpose. B. Implementation and Control Alternatives The EIS is probably correct in asserting that complete state control would 1) be more effective as a CZM coordinating tool, and 2) is poli- tically unfeasible. However, any further erosion of state jurisdiction at the request of special interests could well disqualify Washington for CZM participation, since coordination with the mission of federal agencies would become impossible. The scope of exempt activities is X-211 ###NEWPAGE n="636" ### tPeoma audubon society statement Page 3 22 April 1975 dangerously broad at present and in case of bulkheads aftd small docks even exempts actions which are subject to existing federal permit re- quirements. Complete local control would not comply with Sec. 306 (e) (1) of CZMA. C. Alternatives to Proposed Program Elements The compensation alternative would be an unwarranted and costly attempt to broaden the constitutional definition of a taking as determined by the courts. We feel that CZM and SMA are legitimate exercises of the police power and specific instances where a taking may occur should be adjudicated, not legislated. j The dollar value cited in this section is totally hypothetical and has 4 no validity in the EIS. VII PROBABLY ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED. The limitation on resource extraction or exploitation is not an unavoidable adverse effect since limitation on exploitation of some resources, i.e. timber and minerals is intended to protect other resources, i.e. public water supply, commercial and sport fisheries. Therefore a balance or a net environmental benefit should result. Additionally, any adverse effect would be economic, not environmental, and would be the result of rightly placing the burden of avoiding harmful externalities I on the responsible individual. Densely concentrated population and industrial growth are not necessarily "adverse environmental effects" since such concentration makes feasible such expensive urban amenities as theatres, libraries, sports centers and museums. Continued strip development in the coastal zone, prevented by this proposal, would be an adverse effect. Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the EIS and to endorse approval of the Washington Coastal Zone Management Program. TEE TAHOMA AUDUBON SOCIETY by l 7 First Vice-President X-212 ###NEWPAGE n="637" ### NOAA Response to Tahoma Audubon Society. 1. This statement refers to the "tools" (financial technical, etc.) needed by local governments to adequately manage the coastal zone. 2. This EIS is based on the current exemptions. Further exemptions will need to be evaluated as they occur. 3. NEPA requires a Federal agency to consider all feasible alternatives even if jurisdictions and authorities are transcended. The alternatives in the DEIS were considered to be the conceptual possibilities, and for this purpose they were evaluated and included. They do not appear in the FEIS. 4. The hypothetical dollar figure was used to show a possible order of magnitude. However, the point is well taken and the reference to the dollar figure was deleted. S. This is not an unavoidable adverse environmental effect and has been deleted from the text. 6. This statement was not meant to indicate that all aspects of urban densities are adverse environmental effects. X-213 ###NEWPAGE n="638" ### CZMP- DEIS REVI:' IIJBI!2 :.: : ! My name is Maurita Smyth and I am here tonight to represent the Black Hills Audubon Society. In essence, the society feels that final approval of the Washington Coastal Zone Management Program be withheld pending modification and improvement of the plan as it now stands. We believe that the basic problem with the Washington plan lies in the philosophical viewpoint underlying it. Fundamentally, Washington bases its CZMP on the Shoreline Management Act of 1971. In this Act, we have the following as recognized fact about the coastal zones - that they are " the most fragile and valuable of its natural resources." But - the result of this recognition is a demand for concerted effort for DEVELOPMENT of the state's shorelines. This to us implies a great emphasis on people use and its attendant constructions. These of course minimize the protection and preservation angle of the situation consistent with the idea of shoreline fragility. When we peruse the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, we find the following: sect. 302b " The coastal zone is rich in a variety of natural, commercial, recreational, indus- trial and esthetic resources." This statement is definitely consistent with the SMA, but the federal act con- tinues: 302d "The coastal zone, and the fish, shellfish, other living marine resources and wildlife therin, are ecologically fragile and con- sequently, extremely vulnerable to destruction by man's alterations" ###NEWPAGE n="639" ### 302e 11 Important ecological, cultural, historic and esthetic values in the coastal zone is which are essential to the well-being of all citizens are being irretrievably damaged or lost." it would seem obvious that these last statements imply a minimum of people use with greater emphasis put on protection of these delicately balanced natural resources. In light of this, this society can not feel assured that the tenor of the Washington Management Program will assume the same emphasis and responsibility toward shoreline preservation as does the Coastal Zone Management Act. Continuing in the same line of thought, we make reference to sections 302 g and h which recognize, respectively, the inadequacy of state and local regula- tions regarding land and water use in coastal zones, and which encourage STATE AUTHORITY over coastal zones incorporating cooperation among state, local and federal agencies and including "1 unified policies, criteria, standards, methods and processes for dealing with land and water use decisions of more than local significance". (emphasis added) We ask: "Can Washington's CZMP, as based on the Shoreline Management Act, achieve this with the piece-meal process of state re- view of local government's Master Plans. This process has not only proved cum- bersome but time-consuming, and in the final analysis can not yield a state purview of total coastal zone management because of the inherent and irresolvable conflicts of interests among local governments which share a homogenous stretch of shoreline but demand opposing priority uses. X-215 ###NEWPAGE n="640" ### In light of these facts, we ask, minimally, that Washington first complete its review of Master Plans, and then, after deliberation and study, present a comprehensive State Oriented Coastal Zone Management Program. Finally, we take offense at the slipshod reasoning of the Draft Environe mental Impact Statement on p. 41 re; ALTERNATIVE: The state exert complete control over implementation of the CZM. Program The DEIS argues that this alternative be rejected because the residents of Washington failed to accept an alternative shoreline management act, entitled SHORELINE PROTECTION ACT, and this supposedly reflects a general consensus that the program as it now stands under the SMA is more than acceptable. This is . neither here nor there considering that the Coastal Zone Management Act demands a Comprehensive STATE management program. And if it be the case that Washington needs to propose new legislation consistent with the CZMA let that not deter us from our primary concern here tonight - Does Washington's CZMP fulfill its requirements as set forth by the federal act of '72? Perhaps it was wrong of Washington to equate its SMA and its CZMPT Considering the facts I have discussed, Black Hills Audubon feels that Washington's plan has fallen short in this fulfillment and consequently should not be approved in its present state. We thank you. X- 216 ###NEWPAGE n="641" ### NOAA Response to Black Hills Audubon Society. 1. NOAA has determined that the Washington Coastal Zone Management Program meets the requirements of the CZMA and Section 306 regulations. The reasons for passage of the Shoreline Management Act are the same as those of the CZMA. Thus, the policies towards the natural resources of the coastal zone are, if not in the same language, similar in tone. The fact that a state is willing to designate parts of its shoreline as natural and conservancy areas and limit uses in those areas is a milestone. People will always criticize individual decisions that take place; however, the history of the Shoreline Hearing Board decisions can be a good indicator of whether the state's policies regarding its natural resources are being protested. 2. The Office of Coastal Zone Management believes the current program ful- f ills the requirements of the CZMA. However, approval of the program does not preclude further refinement by new or modified legislation. X-217 ###NEWPAGE n="642" ### NORTHWEST NATIONAL SEASHORE ALLIANCE Box 107 eLa Conner, Washington 98257 Ghar. Barbara James Vicechair. Phil Zalesky Third COtficer Pat Sietsma Secretari'es Pat Johnston Diner Ned Johnston '' fl 'e-'t'1 0ssist'intSertsr ror ;n'jironrntni .. ',ash in-ton, r 2.C 20 2 1 Iflr i 5tinvv Dear Mr. 'alo:/4 The 'Tortxest -eOhor Ahllr-e sneseto:"Qtse o--rtunlzt-7 to resnr-nd to the _sastdl Zon2 -ananarnaent nr1-ct Envi ron-ent'! I-r'ct 2tate-wert 'o thea State 0t !'ash- in-ton. The eoal or CoaStl "(one n-cent, as stated on -.qve 140, "rrar , to nror'ote uni9.ed -eliczes CvA1n ith lan,; anA wate- use aerosions or more thar n 'c-3 :3 will be 0 .. ... ortance in the ruature Ieveloprment o-C this state. I.-c J TcA ,linco su-ests 'thsI at means or elcic.tn-7 end innlenentinr citizen input in I -rorrti nn these reiisbe estaiblished. rT-ere could be - crlnrlijt between no] icies Aevelonetl throurh Coastal Z:one :'araslnent Cflr t'te onastal P"e-S cove-red hr the Act ane use rclicics In Fedreral Thnns, Irndian -eser,vations, and othe- exe-.teA" are-as. This r-ralt :nviro(nrentnl Imnact Staterment Ae5nt A9381 w4it1 -ecans cYres-Jvin- srica -cossible contli-cts. It Sear's that a I oplacewthn, hu, Le wedvr-ermllalsa," aseYa-n well1. also btae, rsions 2. pl111p netherh shourldb deasne wherel r rl lans nr rstratinshudaobei 7,-_eeri. inenti'onedl a-'e so"'e sirrniticant coastal areas suchi a.s -the Nisqlally Theita. This Iin-ento-,! is limite?' to -'es -enti'oned- Br th e Shoreline -ena--e-ient Act. However, not all ra-ile o- sairrnYinat areas in this state ,re na-e,; h)r S"A. Trr-vls-tns C0n inventor-in,7 `-eSe a-'oas ;hrl ncludec acti-e natnmnb- intersstedl 'rou-s and individaljas. The tllianre has had, an esnecial conncern ror -rntecti'on, nreservat-ion, andl restora-tion ol somec or' tile inriat c-"rile coastal areas o-' the st'te. A-nc the"' Pre Ouncieness Snit+, tile shlo-eands and bll,,ps or Ebev's Taneinc! on Wht"Island, certain estuarine areasi in H od ana' , an"l the ocean stri- "on south eraoe ol thle !!akah rese1rvation to thr. rOzette 'i;ver. This ocean strir is in larl-e part -rivatel- on-,ed and vet is adiacent ˝ the "1'-nnj 'I-3tional Park. There is a nee,' eor rtlanninri Car use and acquisition CoMnatlblu with the inteari`tv &! the Parke. The '11lianrce i's "e-' -nich i`nterestedl in zirther raqrti`ination in the -"oress o4 rlevelonin Coasta ZincWanarrment.Tt Is our hone to be of con-L1nuedi asitne, rmarticularl-ri tie inventol-v1 and diesi'niation o4 coast-il areas o- special sicnicicance. Vours 'icrv truly, PAT JONMSITflI X-218 ###NEWPAGE n="643" ### NOAA Response to Northwest National Seashore Alliance 1. The process of program development has been an open process from the beginning and continues to be so.'-See sections on pp. 52 - 55, and pp. 125 - 126. Special interest groups such as the Alliance are welcome to contact the local governments in dealing with special areas within their jurisdiction or with the State Depart- ment of Ecology. 2. See sections dealing with excluded lands and Federal consis- tency in this FEIS. 3. The State has designated areas of particular concern, and areas for preservation and restoration, which include many of the areas mentioned. Interested groups and individuals should also be in contact with local governments in expressing concern for these types of areas. While certain areas have been mentioned, it should be clear that the State has established a process whereby other areas can be selected if and when the need arises. X-219 ###NEWPAGE n="644" ### Washington State Coastal Zone Management Program June1976 ###NEWPAGE n="645" ### State of Washington State Coastal Zone Management Program State of Washington Daniel J. Evans Governor Department of Ecology John A. Biggs Director June 1976 ###NEWPAGE n="646" ### The preparation of this report was financed in part through a Program Development Grant under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, administered by the Office of Coastal Zone Management of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. ###NEWPAGE n="647" ### STATE OF WASHINGTON OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR OLYMPIA DANIEL J.. EVANS Mrh2,17 GOVERNOR Mrh2,17 Dr. Robert M. White, Administrator National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration U. S. Department of Commerce Washington, D. C. 20240 Dear Dr. White: I am pleased to transmit to you several amendments and modifications to the Washington State Coastal Zone Management Program. The original program document was sent to you on December 12, 1975, and since that time, a number of matters have arisen that require clarification and modification in that document. I have reviewed and approved the attached amendments and modifications and hereby declare them to be part of the Washington State Coastal Zone Management Program. I believe that the attached material will resolve the questions and con- cerns raised by the various reviews of the program document, and that you should be in a position to approve Washington State's program with no further difficulty. The program document will be reprinted soon with the attachments incor- porated into it, along with minor clerical and informational corrections that are needed. I am looking forward to an early approval of the program and to our continuing relationship with your office as the program is administered. Thank you for your effort and concern on our behalf. Sincerely, enclosures ###NEWPAGE n="648" ### Deemer12 175STATE OF WASHINGTON December 12, 1975 OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR O LYM PIA DANIEL J. EVANS GOVERNOR Dr. Robert M. White, Administrator National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration U. S. Department of Comnerce Washington, D. C. 20240 Bear Dr. White: I am pleased to transmit 250 copies of the State of Washington's coastal zone management program. This document reflects the current status of coastal zone management in the State of Washington and projects future endeavors in this field. We firmly believe that this document represents a process which meets and exceeds the progranmmatic requirements for states under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. I, therefore, request that you examine this document and grant approval under the terms of section 306 of the Coastal Zone Management Act. I have reviewed the Washington coastal zone management program, and, as Governor, approve the program and certify to the following: 1. The state has the required authorities and is presently implementing the coastal zone management program; 2. The state has established, and is operating, the necessary organizational structure to implement the coastal zone management program; 3. The Department of Ecology is the single designated agency to receive and administer grants for implementing the coastal zone management program, and further the Depart- ment of Ecology is hereby designated as the lead agency for the implementation of the coastal zone management program, 4. The state, in concert with local governments, has the authority to control land and water uses, control development, and resolve conflicts among competing uses, ###NEWPAGE n="649" ### Letter to Dr. White Page two December 12, 1975 5. The state presently uses the methods listed in Section 306(e)(1) of the Coastal Zone Management Act for controlling land and water uses in the coastal zone, including: (a) the authority derived from the Shoreline Management Act, the Act's imple- menting regulations including the Final Guidelines and local master programs; (b) state administrative review of local programs, and permits associated with the Shoreline Management Act; and (c) direct state regulatory authority for control of air and water pollution; 6. The state has sufficient powers to acquire lands, should that become desirable or necessary under elements of the coastal zone managment program; 7. Those state laws cited in the program have been passed by the legislature and enacted into law. Administrative regulations required to implement the laws have been formally adopted by the responsible state agencies; and state approved local master pro- grams have been formally adopted by the appropriate local government; B. The state's air and water pollution control programs, established pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 and the Federal Clean Air Act, insofar as those programs pertain to the coastal zone, are hereby made a part of the state's coastal zone management program. The regulations appurtenant to the air and water programs are incorporated into this program and shall become the water poll ution control requirements and air pollution control requirements applicable to the state's coastal zone management program. Further, any additional requirements and amendments to air and water pollution programs shallI also become part of the state's coastal zone manage- ment program; and 9. I further certify that the Washington coastal zone management program is now an official program of the State of Washington and the state. acting by and through its several instrumentalities* will strive to meet the intent of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, and the state's corollary legislation; and to do so in a uniform, cooperative and aggressive spirit. ###NEWPAGE n="650" ### Letter to Dr. White Page three December 12, 1975 We trust you will approve our program in an expeditious manner and we will gladly assist in whatever way we can during your review procedure. My staff has found your staff in the Office of Coastal Zone Manage- ment to be competent and extremely cooperative throughout program development. We look forward to this continued relationship through the administration of the coastal zone management program. Please contact Mr. John A. Biggs, Director of the State Department of Ecology, if you have any questions or need any assistance. DJE: sc Enclosures ###NEWPAGE n="651" ### * TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page IINTRODUCTION ..1....................... Introduction ..1....................... ifWASHINGTON STATE'S COASTAL ZONE............... 5 An Overview of Coastal Resources................. 5 Areas of Particular Concern....................12 III STATE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ...............23 Introduction ...23 Overview of the State Management Network .............25 The Shoreline Management Act of 1971...............29 SEPA and ECPA........................44 Primary Management Network Agencies ...............51 IV SYNOPSIS OF FEDERAL AGENCY AND INDIAN INVOLVEMENT IN WASHINGTON'S COASTAL ZONE..................107 Introduction.........................107 Federal Involvement in the Coastal Zone..............107 The Management of Coastal Zone Indian Lands ...........115 V WASHINGTON COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AND THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT ....................119 Introduction.........................119 General Policy ........................119 The Coastal Zone Boundary...................119 Excluded Federal Lands ....................121 Uses In The Coastal Zone....................122 The State's Managerial Network .............:.... 124 Geographic Areas of Particular Concern and Areas for Preservation, and Restoration.......................134 State/Federal Relations.....................136 Citizen and Governmental Involvement in Program Development.....142 Designated Agency and Authority for Property Acquisition.......145 VI CONTINUING DEVELOPMENT OF THE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM. .. 147 Introduction.........................147 Overall Program Objectives ...................147 Program Coordination Objectives.................147 Program Enchancement Objectives ................150 Conclusion .........................153 ###NEWPAGE n="652" ### amak Chapter I Introduction ###NEWPAGE n="653" ### CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION in an orderly, efficient, and effective manner and to carry out a coordinated program of pollution During the late 1960s a series of conflicts over control involving these and related land resources. environmental issues erupted in the State of (Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 43.21A.010- Washington. Many of the most serious related to .020] the use and abuse of the state's invaluable water resources and the adjacent shorelines. The threat A year later the Legislature went even further, of thermal and industrial waste pollution, the mandating environmental protection and enhance- depletion of fisheries, offshore oil drilling and oil ment as an obligation upon every governmental spills, the loss of beaches to residential and com- agency under the jurisdiction of the state. The mercial development-all became the focus of State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 (SEPA) intense and often protracted controversies involving was passed in the first extraordinary session of the a broad range of citizens, private interest groups, 42nd Legislature and became effective August 9, and private and public organizations. At first 1971I. With some exceptions SEPA is a copy of the controversies centered on particular projects and "Purpose" section and Title I of the National specific sites. But as the number and variety of Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 incidents increased, the need for a more compre- U.S.C. Section 4321 et seq.), exhibiting extreme hensive approach to the protection and enhance- similarity in both intent and directive. SEPA is ment of the environment became obvious. By the primarily a disclosure statute, requiring environ- * end of the decade the state was ready to act. mentally sound planning and the airing of issues In 170 he egisatue ceatd th Deartentinvolved in governmental decision making by ofEolg in7 ah Leisajore creoraiatiodo sthDeartmen providing for increased public scrutiny of pro- of Eclogyin amajo reoganiatio of tateposed actions. The statute was an important step government designed to increase the effectiveness in re-ordering priorities such that the isolationism of the state's administration of its newly appreciated, n aohaimta ed ocaatrz oen responsibilities for environmental management. In mental entities would be replaced by a more a remarkably strong statement on the need for the holistic consideration of issues. new department, the Legislature declared SEPA remains the state's most comprehensive it to be the policy of this state, that it is a funda- statement of environmental policy. The Legislature mental and inalienable right of the people of the there declares it to be state of Washington to live in a healthful and pleas- ant environment and to benefit from the proper the continuing responsibility of the state of development and use of its natural resources. The Washington and all agencies of the state to use all legislature further recognizes that as the population practicable means, consistent with other essential of our state grows, the need to provide for our considerations of state policy, to improve and coor- increasing industrial, agricultural, residential, social, dinate plans, functions, programs, and resources recreational, economic and other needs will place a n to the end that the state and its citizens may: increasing responsibility on all segments of our ()Fliltersosblte fec eea society to plan, coordinate, restore and regulate the t inas ufl therusposbltiee of teac genvrnenta-o utilization of our natural resources in a manner that to stuteo h niomn o will protect and conserve our clean air, our purescedigenrto; and abundant waters, and the natural beauty of (b) Assure for all people of Washington safe, the state. . . .In recognition of the responsibility healthful, productive, and esthetically and of state government to carry out the policies setcutrlypesnsuondgs forth [herinabovej it is the purpose of this chaptercutrlypesnsrondg; to establish a single state agency with the authority (c) Attain the widest range of beneficial uses of to manage and develop our air and water resources the environment without degradation, risk ###NEWPAGE n="654" ### to health or safety, or other undesirable and Secondly, the Washington Environmental unintended consequences; Council (WEC), discouraged by the Legislature's V (d) Preserve important historic, cultural, and failure to enact coastal management legislation in natural aspects of our national heritage. , previous legislative sessions, circulated a popular petition in a statewide drive and obtained more (e) Maintain, wherever possible, an environment than sufficient signatures for presentation to the which supports diversity and variety of Legislature. Under the Washington State Constitu- individual choice; tion, upon presentation of an initiative from the (f) Achieve a b alance between population and people the Legislature may (1) enact it into law resource use which will permit high stan- during the ensuing legislative session, (2) reject it, dards of living and a wide sharing of life's in which case it is placed on the ballot at the next amenities; and general election, or (3) propose an alternative, in which case both the initiative and the alternative (g) Enhance the quality of renewable resources appear on the ballot. The Legislature opted for the and approach the maximum attainable third course of action and passed the Shoreline recycling of depletable resources. [RCW Mngmn c f17 SAsbett 43.21 C. 020(2)] Mn gmn c f17 SAsbett ratification by the voters of the state. The Act And in another strong statement of environ- contained an emergency provision which made it mental rights and responsibilities, the Legisla- effective on June 1, 1971, nearly eighteen months ture claimed in SEPA "that each person has a before it was placed on the ballot. The essential fundamental and inalienable right to a healthful difference between the WEC initiative (Initiative environmentand that each person has a responsi- 43) and SMA (Alternative Measure 43B) was that bility to contribute to the preservation and the former involved lands from the shoreline 500 enhancement of the environment. " [RCW feet inland and placed the bulk of the technical 43.21C.020(3)] administrative responsibility in the hands of the I Department of Ecology, while the latter limits The chronology of events which led to the pas- the land involved to 200 feet inland from shore- sage of SEPA also convinced the Legislature that lines and associated wetlands and places the bulk the newly recognized fundamental and inalienable of technical administration in the hands of local environmental rights of the people of the state governments. were most seriously jeopardized with respect to the state's invaluable water and shoreline resources. In the election of November, 1972, the people There were two occurrences, however, which may had two choices. to accept or reject any form of be identified as of special importance in spurring shoreline regulation; and to choose their preference .the Legislature to definitive action in accepting between measures 43 and 43B. Some kind of state responsibility for shoreline management. shoreline management was accepted 603,167 to First, a state supreme court decision in December 551,132, and the Shoreline Management Act of 1969 found a landfill into one of the state's (Measure 43B) was favored over Initiative 43 by major lakes to be illegal and ordered it to be 611,748 to 285,721. From the time of its effective removed on the basis that "the public has a right to date after passage by the Legislature in 1971 to go where the navigable waters go." The court its final ratification in November of 1972, SMA also concluded that judicial decision-making on a was in force and operating. case-by-case basis was not the appropriate method of attacking what was a monumental statewide The Shoreline Management Act is perhaps the problem and urged the executive and legislative most comprehensive tool for control of shoreline branches to develop a comprehensive shoreline uses to be found in the nation. By designing a use planning and use regulation program for the permit system and mandating a solid environmental state. The immediate effect of the decision was to planning program as its base, the Legislature cast a cloud on all shoreline development in the accepts state responsibility for shoreline quality. It state. becomes "the policy of the state to provide for the 2 ###NEWPAGE n="655" ### management of the shorelines of the state by plan- The key to more effective protection and use of ning for and fostering all reasonable and appro- the land and water resources of the coastal zone is priate uses." (RCW 90.58.020) The legislative con- to encourage the states to exercise their full authority cerns prompting such decisive action are made over the lands and waters in the coastal zone by clear: assisting the states, in cooperation with federal and local governments and other vitally affected interests, The legislature finds that the shorelines of the in developing land and water use programs for the stateare mongthe mst vluabe andfragle o itscoastal zone, including unified policies, criteria, natural resources and chat there is great concernstnadmhoadprcsefrdalg throughout the state relating to their utilization, with land and water use decisions of more than local protection, restoration, and preservation. In addition significance. [Section 302(h)l it finds that ever increasing pressures of additional The Congress further finds and declares in CZMA4 uses are being placed on the shorelines necessitating increased coordination in the management and that it is the national policy . . . to encourage and development of the shorelines of the state. The assist the states to exercise effectively their responsi- legislature further finds that .. .coordinated planning bilities in the coastal zone through the development is necessary in order to protect the public interest and implementation of management programs to associated with the shorelines of the state while, at achieve wise use of the land and water resources of the same time, recognizing and protecting private the coastal zone giving full consideration to ecologi- property rights consistent with the public interest. cal, cultural, historic, and esthetic values as well There is, therefore, a clear and urgent demand for a as to needs for economic development. . . [Section planned, rational, and concerted effort, jointly 303(b)] performed by federal, state, and local governments, to prevent the inherent harm in an uncoordinated Three financial assistance grant programs are and piecemeal development of the state's shorelines. authorized by the Act. Section 305 authorizes [RCW 90.5 8.0201 annual grants to assist states in developing coastal zone management programs to be approved by the The Legislature was particularly careful in its Secretary of Commerce, who is charged with the treatment of those shorelines it considered to be of responsibility for administering the Act. statewide significance declaring "that the interest of all of the people shall be paramount in the fir] Section 306 authorizes annual grants to states management" and setting forth clear priorities for for administration of management programs their use. To avoid confusion, the Legislature developed under Section 305 and approved by the defined "shorelines of statewide significance" in Secretary of Commerce. The third grant program, exhaustive detail. Though the Shoreline Manage- Section 3 12, allows for federal financial assistance ment Act governs the management of both fresh- to states for the establishment of estuarine sanc- water and saltwater shorelines in the state, the tuaries for scientific and educational purposes. To areas designated as of statewide significance make give states an added incentive to participate in the clear the Legislature's focus on the state's saltwater coastal zone management program, the Act also coastline. SMA resulted in, among other things, a stipulated that federal activities within respective massive state program to manage the state's coastal state coastal zone boundaries be, to the maximum resources with new attention to the environmental, extent feasible, consistent with approved state economic, and social impact of resource utilization. CZM programs. This stipulation, known as the federal consistency provision, is contained in Sec- In 1972 the United States Congress passed the tion 307. Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) (PL 92-583; 86 Stat. 1280) as an expression of strong Washington State's development of a coastal national interest in the effective management, zone management program under Section 305 has * beneficial use, protection, and development of the afforded the state two particularly noteworthy nation's coastal resources. The Act is based on opportunities for increasing the effectiveness of several important Congressional findings, but the coastal resources management. The first is a new primary finding reads as follows: incentive to evaluate, shore up, and coordinate 3 ###NEWPAGE n="656" ### existing state management programs and practices. Chapter IV provides an introductory look at two The second stems from the Act's federal consis- kinds of governmental entities with massive tency requirement. This provision offers the state management responsibilities for the coastal a management roof it never could have developed resources in Washington State which do not come internally under state law. Both achieving internal under the jurisdiction of state government: federal coordination and-the forging of consistent state/ agencies and Indian tribes. The point is primarily federal management relations are long-term goals. role identification as a base for subsequent coor- The State of Washington has an effective coastal dination. zone management program in effect at the present Chapter V is somewhat more technical. The time which centers on the controls provided in the rsosblt o diitaino h osa ShorlineManaemen Actand hichhas eenZone Management Act was given to the Secretary augmented over the past year by state activities inofCmec.WtithDpamntfCo- response to the Coastal Zone Management Act. o omre ihnteDprmn fCm I merce the responsibility was lodged with the Office The present document is a reflection of that on- of Coastal Zone Management (OCZM) located in going program. the National Oceanic and Atmospberic Adminis- Chapter II provides a brief look at the state's tration (NOAA). OCZM has adopted regulations coasal esorce as ecesar bakgrond or ub-amplifying the requirements of the Act relating seun icusonstal resources masnaemesaybcgont.osb to coastal zone management program construction. Emphasis dispae npcussiartis of thesoucmastaleet A great many of the specific requirements are Emphasinsoa as thaedyo peuiritesen pofthencatal mng-satisfied by the state in the natural course of its moeinsoa sthe probsent Spoential mattninagsevoe-t management practices. But others are more tech- geographical areas of particular concern to theni a adreuespclatnio.CperVth, state. For purposes of description and with a view molds the information contained in Chapters to a more formal treatment inhpe ,t e 1, III, and IV into a cohesive coastal zone manage- teramor "oastal zone"atmuent in Chapter V. and s ub ment program satisfying the program requirements W seqerm"cataly tonrefe to thed gorpica Captea bouandesub of the Act and the OCZM regulations. Particular seuety torfrtthe geolitpical araboundaresdfte1 osa attention is paid to the significant beginning made bytepltcabountaiesashw on the map inoAppndxA, toward the goal of state/federal consistency countes As Ihw onth(a).nApedxA through the establishment of a communications page A-1(a). process focusing on informational packets designed Chapter III is in some respects the heart of the to make clear to all parties the noteworthy inter- present document. It embodies an attempt to faces between the State of Washington and the descr'ibe in considerable detail what the state's federal agencies active in the state's coastal zone. management system looks like in its formal and And finally, Chapter VI is devoted to a brief informal operation. While the state's coastal zone look at the immediate future of the state's coastal management program inevitably keys on the Shore- zn aaeetporm line Management Act, SMA is only one of many zn aaeetporm important contributors to coastal management. 4 ###NEWPAGE n="657" ### * Chapter II Washington State's Coastal Zone ###NEWPAGE n="658" ### CHAPTER II. WASHINGTON STATE'S COASTAL ZONE AN OVERVIEW OF COASTAL RESOURCES villages are located along the northern coast of the Olympic Peninsula, the state's northern Pacific introduction Coast proper is sparsely populated and remains Thefifeencoutie whch ontinWashington's largely unaltered. There are no large estuaries, good 2,3 37 miles of marine shoreline constitute one ofhabroinutalse. the richest resource pools in the nation. The The southern part of the coastal zone is a broad coastal zone contains only 29 percent of the state's coastal plain with wide sandy beaches, dunes, and land but fully two-thirds of its 3,400,000 residents. extensive lowlands. Sand for this region both Three major national parks (Mt. Rainier, Olympic, originates locally and is provided by the northward and North Cascades), over three million acres of littoral drift of sediments along the Pacific Coast. National Forest, and substantial alpine areas set The extensive elongated dunes have formed major aside in wilderness areas provide a variety of recre- estuaries at the mouths of the Chehalis and Willapa ational and educational experiences. Nutrient-rich Rivers, which drain this area. The dunes are the estuaries and streams not only support a local most attractive recreational beaches in the state. sport and commercial fishery but also serve as The climate of the entire area is maritime, with propagation waters for salmon of central impor- generally mild winter temperatures and cool, tance to national and international fisheries. Deep, moderately dry summers. Nestled between the sheltered harbors located on the Pacific Rim Olympics and the Cascades, the Puget Sound * contribute significantly to international trade and climate especially reflects marine influences. The commerce as ports for the export of grain and two mountain ranges, combined with the prevailing forest products to Asian countries and the import ocean breezes, cause large variations in precipita- of processed goods. The zone's strategic location tion among localities. Precipitation varies from i.ip for national defense purposes has made it the to 200 inches per year in the mountains and site of several large military installations and western slope of the Olympic. Peninsula to a more its position in the northwestern corner of the moderate 3 5 to 50 inches per year in Puget Sound contiguous states makes it the key access route to to 17 inches per year in the rainshadow lowlands. meet Alaska's transportation needs and to respond Precipitation is seasonal, being heaviest from to the emerging Alaskan role in providing for October to March and lightest in July and August. national energy needs. Heavy snowpack in the mountains, however, pro- longs the seasonal river discharge into the coastal Basic Resources zone. Abundant freshwater discharge plays a Tecoastal zone consists of two types of land significant role in the great productivity of Puget formation: glaciated regions in the north and Sud coastal plains to the south and west. The northern Washington's 2,3 37 miles of marine shoreline are area, including Puget Sound, the north shore of the made up of 157 miles along the Pacific Ocean, 144 Olympic Peninsula, and the Pacific Coast south to miles along the Strait of Juan de Fuca, 89 miles in the Quinault River, was sculptured by glacial Grays Harbor, 129 miles in Willapa Bay, 34 miles activity and is characterized by -rugged mountains on the Columbia River, and 1,784 miles bordering and glacial valleys. The beaches are narrow and Puget Sound and the Strait of Georgia. (These rocky and are backed by high forested bluffs. figures include the shorelines of 172 significant * Rocky outcrops and islands are common offshore. islands of the San Juan Archipelago.) 1,847 miles Limited floodplains and deltas associated with the of the shoreline have beaches and the remaining largest rivers provide the only low flatlands and 490 miles consist of rocky headlands, marsh areas, excellent agricultural lands. Although a few fishing bulkheads, and revetments. 5 ###NEWPAGE n="659" ### In terms of basic resources, the Washington the development of shoreline resources can be coast may be conveniently divided into two broad hazardous and deleterious to the resource charac- coastal areas: the Puget Sound/San Juan Island/ teristics which make Puget Sound beaches attrac- Strait of Juan de Fuca complex; and the Pacific tive. Miles of physically unsuitable shorelines were coastline including the Columbia River. committed to residential and recreational sub- divisions before the recent upsurge of environ- Puget Sound is a complex system of intercon- mental analysis. Some areas have already experi- nected inlets, bays, and channels with tidal sea enced slide loss and others are now known to be water entering from the west and freshwater hazardous to future development. streams entering at many points throughout the system. Most of the Sound was formed by glacial Ten major rivers, fourteen minor rivers, and a action that terminated near Tenino in Thurston great many small streams flow into Puget Sound. County. The 2,700 square miles of Sound water While most of the Sound's waters are usually well surface under the jurisdiction of the United States mixed, the areas near the mouths of major rivers is a relatively small part of the complex that also will approach freshwater conditions during periods includes the Strait of Georgia and the Strait of of continuous heavy rainfall. While mixing by Juan de Fuca. strong winds occurs in some areas of the South Sound during winter months due to Pacific storm Puget Sound is a deep body of water with g depths of 100 to 600 feet found less than one mile summer in sheltered South Sound bays. offshore. Shoal areas are virtually nonexistent and summer in sheltered South Sound bays. large tideflats and marshland areas are restricted to Flooding within the coastal zone includes coastal mouths of the major rivers-the Skagit Bay, Padilla type flooding which results from the high spring Bay, and Samish Bay flats on the north and the tides combined with strong winds from winter Nisqually River delta on the south are the most storms, riverine overbank flooding and the com- notable. Small tideflats and marshes are found bination of the two. Storms that produce the frequently in the numerous inlets in South Puget surges also bring heavy rains and, therefore, the Sound and Hood Canal. high river flows are held back by tides producing The shoreline resources of Puget Sound include flooding at river mouths. Major damages occur few beach areas which are not covered at high tide. within the flood plains which have experienced Bluffs ranging from 10 to 500 feet in height rim the greatest growth and development, and these nearly the entire extent of the Sound making are the streams draining westerly into Puget access to beach and inter-tidal areas difficult. For Sound. this reason, the relatively few accreted beaches which are not inundated at high tide are extremely Tidal circulation varies throughout the area. It is valuable for public recreation purposes. The ubiq- best in the North Sound, where relatively con- uitous bluffs are also a serious topographic con- stricted channels and an open connection with the straint to development, which has necessitated the ocean promote good circulation and poorest in the filling of tidal estuarine and flatland areas for port sheltered bays of the South Sound and Hood and industrial activities. The estuaries that remain Canal. Because of the north-south axis of the largely unaltered are highly valued, in part because Sound, there is a difference between the North of their increasing rarity. Sound and the South Sound in terms of the flow of tides. A tide change at Olympia, on the southern- Because of their glacial-till composition, the most portion of the Sound, will occur approxi- Puget Sound bluffs are susceptible to fluvial and mately one hour and fifteen minutes after a similar marine erosion and can be serious slide hazards. change at Port Townsend, at the north end of the Although the Sound is protected from the direct Sound. Tidal amplitude also varies, being greatest influence of Pacific Ocean weather, storm condi- in the southern portion of the Sound and decreas- tions can create very turbulent and occasionally ing generally toward the north. The tidal currents destructive wave action. Without an awareness of are variable and strong. Where affected by narrow the tremendous energy contained in storm waves, passages or shallow, they may exceed seven knots. 6 ###NEWPAGE n="660" ### Flushing of Puget Sound waters occurs annually There are other areas in Puget Sound where during the spring and summer, except in the lower existing or planned activities may seriously affect South Sound and Hood Canal. Cold, highly saline, water quality in the near future. Such activities low-oxygenated water, upwelling in the Pacific include: (1) increased land development and recre- Ocean along the Washington coast, enters and ational potential of the H-ood Canal and San Juan slowly spreads at depth throughout the Sound, Island areas; (2) urban development and the pos- displacing the existing water mass and flushing it sibly large influx of people to the Kitsap Peninsula out along the surface. associated with the construction and operation of the Trident Nuclear Submarine Base; (3) the heat- The Pacific coastline offers a different kind of ing of water in proposed nuclear electric power panorama. From Cape Flattery on the north to plants with once-through cooling, the effects of Cape Disappointment on the south, there are which on aquatic organisms can be disastrous; approximately 160 miles of beaches, rocky head- (4) the shipping of Alaskan oil through northern lands, inlets and estuaries. The shoreline south of Puget Sound to the refineries at Anacortes and the Cape Flattery to the Quinault River is generally Ferndale-Cherry Point area, and the associated characterized as rugged and rocky with high bluffs. danger of major oil spills; and (5) the continued Teremaining shoreline south of the Quinault urban and industrial development in the South Riverimaeuofpeoiatyfasad Sound area which is already limited in its waste beaches with low banks and dunes. During the assimilating capacity by a low flushing rate and winter, Pacific currents set toward the north, while relatively shallow depth. during summer months they set to the south. Associated with the summer currents is a general While the state's water quality program is suc- offshore movement of the surface water, resulting cessfully implementing control over municipal and in upwelling of water from lower depths. The up- industrial point sources of pollution, the non-point welled water is cold, high in salinity, low in oxygen sources and accidental spills remain a serious threat content and rich in nutrients. It is this last-named to the marine resource. Although the actual contri- characteristic which causes upwelled water to be bution of non-point sources (wastes which enter extremely significant in biological terms, since it streams and marine waters as runoff, drainage, or often triggers blooms of marine plant life. Direc- seepage) is not known, the contribution from tions of wave action and littoral drift of sediments forestry and agricultural activities and urban runoff shift seasonally with Pacific Ocean storms. is thought to be considerable. Any effective Although very little data are available on the net approach to the control of non-point source water direction of littoral transport, the University of qaiypolm ilrqiecodnto mn Washington has offshore data which indicate a all programs and is particularly dependent on local northerly offshore flow. shoreline programs. The water pollution incidents reported to the Water Quality Department of Ecology between 1968 and 1973 are shown in the following table: The marine waters of the state, except for popu- lation and industrial development concentrations, Ya i plsFs il te are generally of excellent quality. Most areas are Yea Oi-pls Fs il te essentially free from major pollution sources. State- 1968 52 3 192 established water quality standards are rarely vio-19920634 lated in coastal waters at any, time of the year and19920634 nutrient values and dissolved oxygen levels are 1970 262 25 406 * normally above the state standard. However, major 1971 406 3 1 402 water -pollution problems exist in the heavily 1 7 3 0 industrialized areas and large population centers of192 74350 Puget Sound. 1973 983 38 405 7 ###NEWPAGE n="661" ### The dramatic increase in the number of oil spills, Puget Sound has historically supported substan- and to some extent fish kills, can be attributed in tial fish populations. However, with the develop- W part to an increase in public awareness of environ- ment of the surrounding area, some of these mental problems. It is safe to assume that many of fisheries, particularly in the Southern Sound, have the incidents of pollution now being reported to declined. The principal causes of the decline have the Department for investigative action previously been habitat degradation brought about by indus- went unnoticed or were observed but not reported. trial and domestic wastes and unfavorable land use practices, direct habitat destruction through diking and land fills, construction of upstream water Fisheries and Wildlife Resources development projects, and poor timber harvesting Fisheries are a significant coastal resource for practices. The effect of dikes and fills on fish popu- both commercial and sp ort fishing. Estimates indi- lations is not clearly understood, but a substantial both commercial and sport fishing. Estimates indi- loss cate that one half of the state's residents fish for of nursery and rearing habitat has occurred. sport or commercial use, in addition to thousands The decline in fisheries is partially balanced by of visitors who fish for salmon. Commercial fisher- the fact that aquaculture or sea farming is begin- men annually harvest over six million salmon, ning to come into its own in the Puget Sound twenty million pounds of bottom fish, and six complex. The mass production of seaweed, clams, million pounds of shellfish. The total value of geoducks, scallops, shrimp, oysters, small salmon, sport fish catch exceeds that of commercial fishing, lobsters and other marine biota looms as an impor- but an estimate of total recreational use of Puget tant new industry. Effective shoreline management Sound and its resources is not available. is particularly crucial to the success of sea farming. Aquaculture on any scale can coexist with mari- Puget Sound waters are rich in nutrients and time shipping and shorelands industrial activities support a wide variety of marine fish and shellfish tm e shpp ng and shorelands dustral activities species. An estimated 2,820 miles of stream are utilized by anadromous fish for spawning and Puget Sound is an important resting place, rearing throughout the area, including chinook, feeding area and wintering ground for many thou- coho, sockeye, pink and chum salmon, steelhead, sands of birds in the Pacific Flyway. Major water- searun cutthroat and Dolly Varden trout. All these fowl species include Mallard, pintail, canvasback, fish spend part of their lives in the saltwaters of ruddy, harlequin, ringnecked, and wood duck, Puget Sound and the Pacific Ocean before return- widgeon, scaup, goldeneye, green-winged teal, ing to the streams of their origin to spawn. Their shoveler, Canada, lesser Canada and snow geese, offspring spend varying amounts of time in the and black brant. Merganser, scoter and American shore waters of the area before moving to sea to coot will also be found. The most common shore- grow to maturity. birds are gulls and terns. Great blue herons are common salt marsh birds. Shellfish abound throughout Puget Sound and on the Pacific Coast. Several varieties of clams, The major wintering areas for waterfowl in Puget some of which are indigenous to the Pacific Coast Sound are the Skagit, Snohomish and Nisqually like the well known razor clam, and a variety of flats, and Padilla/Samish Bays. Each small bay and crabs including the well known Dungeness are inlet provides a discrete area for a portion of the found in the state's coastal waters. Other note- total waterfront inhabitants population. For exam- worthy shellfish include butter and little neck pie, twenty to thirty thousand snow geese winter clams, small Olympia, Japanese, and rock oysters, in Skagit Bay - the only concentration of these shrimp and king clam or geoduck. In the Pacific geese found in the State of Washington. Waterfowl Ocean large numbers of hake, ocean perch, and hunting is a major recreational activity on the Columbia River smelt are taken each year. In some Sound in fall and early winter. Nearly one-third of years, depending on the ocean currents, albacore Washington's duck and goose hunting occurs in tuna catches are significant. Puget Sound. 8 ###NEWPAGE n="662" ### Harbor seals, killer whales and porpoise are corn- Pacific Coast regions are sparsely populated. The monly found in Puget Sound, and mammals inhab- population along the Pacific Coast and mouth of iting adjacent freshwater areas include beaver, the Columbia is far more stable. muskrat, mink, weasel, otter and racoon. The development of the Puget Sound area has Commerce and Economic Development brought with it a noticeable deterioration of wild- life resources due to habitat disruption, though the Puget Sound is the West Coast's largest deep loss of wildlife habitat has not been quantified. An water protected port and the focus of shipping and important need in obtaining relevant information industry in the Pacific Northwest. Its primary ports on habitat loss is the analysis of the impact of are at Port Angeles, Bellingham, Everett, and incremental fills and small-scale developments. Seattle-Tacoma. Its excellent harbors and proxim- Efforts to obtain such information are now ity to Alaska make the area a prime candidate for underway. receiving oil from Alaska. The economic develop- ment of the central Puget Sound Basin has been Population stimulated by the fact that the Sound is one of the Censs fiuresfor 974indiate hat bout2.2few areas in the world which provides several deep- 'Ilion piuesofor live i ndct theaugt abound ara.2on water inland harbors. The use of Puget Sound millo pollIvei h ue on raa on waters by deep-draft vessels is on the increase due pared with only 80,000 on the state's Pacific Coast. to its proximity to the developing Asian countries. In general, Washington has experienced'a growthThsiceedtaewlatrtmoenutyad rate in excess of the national average since World mos nreaseopl which will purat more inusetresur ond War 1. Tis icrese hs ben du prmariy tothethe Sound in the forms of recreation (sport fishing, employment opportunities and amenities found in boating and other water-related sports) and the the Puget Sound region, causing a net immigration requirements for increased food supply. Increasing to the state. The state experienced a particularly population can also be expected, ultimately, to tax rapid growth in the years between about 1965 and the Sound's ability to assimilate municipal and 1969 and far slower growth from 1969 to the industrial wastes. present. Both trends reflect the reaction of eco- nomic conditions to the aerospace industry. In fact, from 1970 through 1973, the state experi- The Sound is vitally important to the marine enced a net emigration with an actual decline in life which both utilizes the Sound as habitat and total population in 1972. This trend has apparently which provides one of the major bases for the stablize andat last n tems o uneployentimportant commercial fishing and tourist indus- testabeis o eltized tand athlenastiona avermsofuempomn tries. The close proximity and increasing inter- the tat isnowheathir thn te ntioal verge.action of the population to and with these natural The majority of the state's population is concen- resources have in recent years meant increasing trated in the central and southern region of Puget demands on and conflicts for the area and its Sound. The four coastal counties of King, Kitsap, resources. Pierce and Snohomish contain over 57% of the total state population as well as two of the state's The tourist, recreational and second home indus- largest metropolitan areas, Seattle and Tacoma.treaeamnthfsetgowgbuisesn From 1960 to 1970, these counties experienced Puges arSaound. Curenfatest grawnke behindesses manu an overall increase of 28.1% with Snohomish f acurige aond. Currestl prankducs thehn touris industr County achieving the fastest rate of growth at h asrrn bendfrs projecteinsomte stoudiesto assumethe 54.0%. Large gains were realized by the smaller hsbe rjce nsm tde oasm h suburban communities surrounding the Seattle number one position by the year 2000. The impor- areawhil metopolian Sat-te expriened atance of water-related recreation as an industry is area, whiecmtrplitnSe.tl xeine indicated by the fact that the resident population ąas the highest boat ownership per capita in the On the other hand,. with the exception of a few nation. Because of the recent increase in tourism favorable port sites, the Olympic Peninsula and the and recreation and the number of watercraft, 9 ###NEWPAGE n="663" ### impact. The need to increase recreation boating mileage increases to 735 miles. Some of the non- facilities while maintaining a high quality environ- federal public land is owned by port districts and ment is a serious problem. In fact, the location of utilized for waterborne commerce facilities. In new boating facilities which will meet state and addition, about 40 miles of privately owned shore- federal environmental standards and yet be con- line is used for recreational purposes, such as resort sistent with local land use desires is one of the areas and privately owned marinas. major resource management issues confronting Puget Sound. Most of the 3,000 square miles of marine beds out to the three mile limit are owned by the state From the Quinault River south to the Columbia under management by the Washington State River, the coastal lands are characterized by wide Department of Natural Resources, which also owns sandy beaches and extensive dunes backed by and administers leases for nearly 40% of the inter- grasslands and forests. Two major estuaries occur tidal areas. State-owned inter-tidal areas often abut in this region: Grays Harbor at the mouth of the uplands owned by another land owner. Thus, Chehalis River and Willapa Bay at the mouth of the within the shoreline/tideland interface, there are Willapa River. These two resources have served as a many miles of marine resources with a private or focus for development and industry along the local port district upland owner and a state bed- Pacific portion of Washington's coastline, while land or tidal owner. This situation leads to inherent providing important fish and wildlife habitat as conflicts between the aspirations and desires of the well. The sandy beaches, mudflats, marshes, eel- upland owner, as often expressed in local land use grass beds, and waterways play an essential role in planning, and the state's interests as the manager maintaining fish and shellfish, including salmon, of the bedlands or tidelands. sturgeon, herring, hard and softshell clams, oysters, crabs and waterfowl, which are of both commercial Each of the fifteen coastal counties and thirty- and recreational value. eight coastal cities is responsible for applying a variety of building, land use, and health codes to Food products (fishing and agriculture) and shoreline segments. Many localities, supported by timber-related industries are the major industrial separate local taxing port districts, compete for establishments in the region, although here, too, commerce and industry in the coastal zone. In the tourist and recreation industries are playing an these same areas county and regional efforts are increasingly important role. For example, in 1972, often thwarted by city annexations which promote there were 92,716 people employed directly in the proposals inconsistent with local regional objec- commercial fishing industry in the state. Income tives. And on the other hand, well founded town accruing to Washington residents from fishing and city development plans and programs are all totaled $156 million and was projected to reach too often disregarded or bypassed in favor of $325 million by 1974. physically unsuited county locations where codes may be less stringent. Moreover, some counties Resource Ownership and Use and Indian reservations have established working relationships for managing the coastal zone, while 2,075 miles or about 75% of Washington's shore- others remain at odds over jurisdictional questions. line landward of the extreme high waterline is in private ownership, as is about 60% of the state's Washington State's coastal zone has more than tidelands. Of the publicly owned coastline, the one hundred separate institutional organizations federal government owns about 155 miles, includ- which are faced with the awesome task of maxi- ing the Olympic National Park and various wildlife mizing the use potential of what amounts to an refuge areas. Non-federal public ownership totals incredibly rich coastal resource. The primary 107 miles, consisting primarily of state, county, competing uses to be balanced include timber and city parks. When tidelands (between extreme harvest, industry, commercial fishing, recreation, low tide and ordinary high tide) which are owned tourism, second-home development, and agricul- by the state and managed by various public agen- ture. About 77 miles of shoreline have non- cies are included, the public access shoreline recreational development such as commercial 10 ###NEWPAGE n="664" ### and industrial areas. Heavy industry is concen- hunting, fishing, clamming, and boating: for the trated along the shores of Commencement Bay and observation of nature as it existed for hundreds of Elliott Bay, on the tideflats of the Puyallup River, years before the arrival of white men and for relaxa- and in the lower Duwamish River area. tion away from the pressures and tensions of modern life. In past years, these recreational activities have been enjoyed by countless Washington citizens, as Quite generally speaking, the legislature has well as by tourists from other states and countries. identified the problem of competing uses on the The number of people wishing to particpate in such Pacific coastline. RCW 43.51.650 declares: recreational activities grow annually. This increasing public pressure makes it necessary that the state The beaches bounding the Pacific Ocean from the dedicate the use of the ocean beaches to public Strait of Juan de lFuca to Cape Disappointment at recreation and to provide certain recreational and the mouth of the Columbia River constitute some of sanitary facilities. Nonrecreational use of the beach the last unspoiled seashore remaining in the United must be strictly limited. Even recreational uses must States. They provide the public with almost unlimited be regulated in order that Washington's unrivaled opportunities for recreational activities, like swim- seashore may be saved for our children in much the ming, surfing and hiking; for outdoor sports, like same form as we know it today. \ ###NEWPAGE n="665" ### AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN uplands are reserved through state legislation and Thouh a roadsurvy ofthe oastl zoe inlocal zoning for navigation and commerce. General- teog roadsure of the Pugeta Soundaea adWsingo' l y speaking, large-scale investments in terms of term ofthePuge Sond reaand ashngtn's harbor improvements, channel improvements and Pacific Coast can serve to isolate some important denIng okn aiiis n ogrnepo questions, many of the issues which constitute de e ig okn aiiis n ogrnepo problems for effective management of the state's grams for general port enhancement ensure that coasal esorcesareof niqu orat eastspeialuses other than navigation and commerce will not coatalresurcs ae o unqueor t lastspeialbe seriously considered. Such commitments do significance in much smaller geographical areas. not formally preclude other public uses within the The state has given recognition to areas of particu- harbor areas, but non-maritime commercial and lar concern in a great many ways, in response to idsra ssaecniee eodr n both state concerns and those identified in the inusuralluse alloed conyidenrteydo neotnteryfand Coastal Zone Management Act. Special problems usalaloeonywnthydntitrfe are frequently the subject of specific legislation orwihtepmayusofcmreannvgto. of specific regulatory or administrative action by While many interesting issues relating to ports reoreownership and management a e cs. remain to be addressed, the basic issue of primary resource agencies. port uses is already settled. Identified areas of particular concern will receiveThfudmnaprcilusdeefote fresh attention under the Washington coastal zone Thentfuctindofamenaslo partincipeuseahre foncrni that management program. Because of the controversies idntfcatono areas msbeof pratrticuar concern interest surrounding their management and ultimate uses,suhaesmtbeogrtrtanlclieet such areas merit special study and will become foci and offer a live issue of competing uses and of ttetio fo th reoluionof management management options. More specifically, selection poblm asthentiongfor mtures Areasofluaticu- of the areas of particular concern discussed below lar concern to the state and the nation in terms of h s be uddb h olwn rtra 1 h coasal zne mnageent nclue ony thse pob-area contains a resource feature of environmental lematic shoreline segments and water areas where vle osdrdt eo rae hnlclcn optios an altrnatie uss ofthe casta re-cern or significance; (2) the area is given rec- 'Iopeniossiandilientiveues for atheioasta Area s ognition as of particular concern by state or federal source are stilloe osblte o cin ra legislation, administrative and regulatory programs, the fate of which has for all practical purposes al- or land ownership; and (3) the area has the ready been determined provide no forum for thepoetafrmrehnoemjrlndrwtr expression of dynamic concern that might result potenta for mrthasn onesmaourc being sough byaotensbyrn in more effective management and will not be useormhastirsurebein sugtbostersiby.n treated in what follows here. An example of suchcoptbeurs predetermination is provided by the 50-mile These criteria lead to the identification of the Pacific Ocean Strip of Olympic National Park. The following areas as areas of particular concern: (1) outstanding natural qualities of its rugged shore- the Nisqually Estuary; (2) Hood Canal; (3) the line features have been recognized as a national Snohomish River Estuary; (4) Skagit and Padilla asset and will be managed in their natural state. Bays; (5) the Northern Strait and Puget Sound Though the Strip is an area of particular interest in Petroleum Transfer and Processing Area; (6) the the State of Washington, it is not an area of parti- Dungeness Estuary and Spit Complex; (7) Grays cular concern requiring the attention of the state's Harbor; (8) the Willapa Bay Estuary; (9) the coastal zone management program. Pacific Coastal Dune Area; and (10) the Conti- .Nor can the state's major harbor/industrial po r nental Shelf. A map delineating these areas is areas be usefully identified as areas of particular fudo h olwn ae concern, in spite of the fact that the Port of One final remark should be made here in pas- Seattle (Duwamish Waterway and Elliot Bay) and sing. Identified areas of particular concern are the Port of Tacoma (Commencement Bay and the based on existing authorities, expressions of Tacoma Tideflats) are of central significance to the legislative concern, and current resource manage- economic vitality of the state and the Pacific menit conflicts. They are intended to represent Northwest. Significant port/harbor areas and their areas which are responsive to the requirements 12 ###NEWPAGE n="666" ### Cherry Point WHATCOM Northern Strait and Transfer and Processing Padilla Bay \ Burows ayw' Marc pt.SKAGIT Large Oil Tanker' SNJA lu s i o n kagit Say CLALLAM Part Angele (possible tasfer site)SNHM H Snahomish River - - - - - - - - - - - .1 Estuary JEFFERSON / Hood Caa KIN CoaNsqulally Estuary,' Dune system PIERCE Grays Harbor ) Coastal Dune I THURSTON Willapa Bayj Coastal Dune NOt System __ IWAHKIAKUM IA REAS OF 0 PARTICULAR CONCERN 13 ###NEWPAGE n="667" ### statewide significance in1971 and received fur- ject of recent litigation, and disposal at the site has is ther attention from a gubernatorial mediation apparently been terminated. Attempts to re- team established for land use planning and flood locate the disposal area within the estuary have control for the Snohomish Basin. In 1974 the team met with effective resistance. Such relocation is recommended that the seaward extensions of the prohibited by Snohomish County's shoreline and delta and biologically functioning surge plains be solid waste progams. maintained in a natural state. The mediation teamFothmstprweroluintmig also gave recognition to the possibility of some of Foro iaeuthe mstewart, wratmertpollutton stemmious the delta immediately to the north of Everett forfrmiaeutswgeramntsnoasros industrial purposes and recommended that a feasi- problem in the estuary. The Marysville and Everett bility study be undertaken to design an economic sewage treatment lagoons on the Snohomish River development study for the area west of Interstate flats usually provide adequate secondary treat- 5. It was further recommended that the upstream ment. Occasionally, however, overloading during floodplains be maintained for agricultural purposes high flow periods results in the discharge of in- and that the filling of wetlands be restricted. To adequately treated sewage to the lower Snohomish implement the recommendations a Snohomish and adjacent marine waters. River Basin Coordinating Council was created to design the structure of a permanent council and to prepare the legislation and intergovernmental Skagit and Padilla Bays agreements necessary to complete the recom- mended tasks. The central problem to be worked The Skagit River system accounts for over 35% through is maintaining a functioning estuary while of the fresh water entering the Straits and Puget at the same time allowing for some fill and loss of Sound. it has created the largest flat tidal areas in wetlands for water-dependent industries. the Puget Sound Basin. While the extensive estuarine area of Skagit and Padilla Bays are The other issue of particular concern with re- plysically separated by the Swinomish Channel, spect to the Snohomish River estuary is declining their creation from sediments from the same river water quality. The problem is especially acute to system makes it appropriate to treat them together the south in Port Gardner Bay, which is subject to as parts of one natural system. At one time Padilla pollution from municipal sewage treatment Bay received water from the Skagit River by chan- facilities, regional sanitary landfills, urban runoff, nels through the Skagit flood plain and Skagit wood products industry wastes, and river water water still greatly reduces salinity in Padilla Bay -contaminants from the upper Snohomish drainage during flood periods. Nonetheless, Padilla Bay is area. more subject to the marine influences common to The ood rodcts ndutry s th mot imor-Samish and Bellingham Bays and the eastern San tant cause of water quality degradation in the area, Ja sad hni kgtBy though solid wastw disposal and sewage treatment The estuary of the Skagit River is the most are serious problems. Sulfite pulp mills currently diverse, least disturbed, and most biologically discharge large amounts of wastewater which often productive of all the major estuaries on Puget result in concentrations of sulfite waste liquor Sound. Man has thus far had relatively little ad- toxic to fish and shellfish in Everett Harbor. Major verse effect on the estuarine portion of the system wastewater improvements are scheduled for the or on its water quality. near future. Because of the diversity of habitats it contains, The immediate area contains two sizable sani- almost all plant and animal species found in tary landfills which are discharging an undeter- western Washington will be found within the mined quantity of leachate into the Snohomish estuarine area. The Skagit Delta is the most impor- * River near its mouth. A large solid waste disposal tant estuary for waterfowl on the Pacific Coast of area in the delta utilized by the City of Seattle the United States. Padilla Bay, with its extensive on the Tulalip Indian Reservation has been the sub- eelgrass beds, hosts some 35,000 black brant. 16 ###NEWPAGE n="668" ### More than 200 species of birds have been identified developed several times for diking the area, first on the Skagit delta. Swans and snow geese are for farming and later for industrial development. among the most noteworthy feathered visitors to In fact, detailed plans that have now been aban- the area. doned were even developed for a combined dredge The fsheres reourcs of he Sagit iverand fill operation to create a Venice-style residen- The fiseries esourcs of th Skagi Rivertial area. system are outstanding in comparison to any other stream entering Puget Sound. Padilla and Skagit Bays are important nursery areas for marine fishes The Northern Strait and Puget Sound Petroleum and highly productive of shellfish. Several tidal Transfer and Processing Area areas within both bays contain commerciallyThste'nohrnmiewarsnddjct valuablTe stae's norotshernmain clates. Cand adarventin valuble edsof sftsell l a m . Clm hrvesingupland areas are within a petroleum transfer corr- has been a controversial issue for some time in the dor which includes terminal areas for tanker ship- estuarine area and in Port Susan Bay to the south.metof'rdptolu.Tesiinofer- Conservationists and residents claim that the l ementsof thrude maopeietrolesm inthe areaping oc er- methods used by some of the larger clam harvest ceur otred faor soeftimanderill incte reahse cocr- operators destroy important wildlife habitat and cre o oetm n ilices ors pondingly with a reductign. in the Canadian pipe- constitute a source of noise and sediments which r_ ;,- have caused serious disruption to the area. The ln upy rvii2saenlc a hstm the State Dpartment ofindlicates that the ;tr - nnt interested in be- clam harvesters and coming a major petroleum proCeSSing center or Fisheries which licenses the operations claim that transportation terminus for i mgirnwnieie the alleged problems are not serious and most ofthmdws tugho mchaiinl to fe-m1ws ughomuhadtna the legitimate concerns can be accommodated 4-iJLFwoudatalQegnrtdi through technical adjustments to the harvesting ntotlen-t afirewold actualr. butte curenerte ishpigo equipment. The conflict has resulted in litigation.noetilycarButhcretsipngf All parties appear to agree that there is a need for over 3 10,000 barrels daily to seven refineries with addtioal tud anlyingtheeffctsofmechani- a combined capacity of 363,000 barrels has re- aditoal clamyhanalyzing the lre-sae mchiner y sulted in oil spills in the past and any Increase in cal cam havestig bylargescalemachieryshipping could be expected to increase the likeli- The Skagit Wildlife Recreation Area operated hood of a spill in the future. While some spills by the State Department of Game contains about have been contained or managed, there is wide- 13,000 acres of salt marsh and tide flats. At pre- spread disagreement on the effectiveness of the sent, a unit of Game Department land and some cleanup techniques. private holdings are being considered for acquisi- In recognition of the potential impacts of tion, development and operation as an estuarine sanctuary under a grant request from the Depart- Alaska North Slope Oil on Puget Sound and the ment of Ecology to the Office of Coastal Zone Strait of Juan de Fuca, the Wasbiington State Management under the provisions of Section 312 Legislature has taken several steps to prepare of the Coastal Zone Management Act. Included for spill threats to the state's inland marine waters. in this same application are 5,700 acres of Padilla Senate Bill 3253 of May, 1974 set aside $427,000 Bay and another area on Thorndyke Creek in for a study by the Oceanographic Commission of Jefferson County on the Olympic Peninsula. Washington of the feasibility of offshore mono- buoy and related petroleum transfer facilities, In 1971 Skagit and Padilla Bays were declared which resulted in a report to the Legislature en- by the Legislature to be shorelines of statewide titled "Offshore Petroleum Transfer System for significance. While there would appear to be few Washington State". Senate Bill 2978 of 1974 threats to the protection of these valuable wet- requested the Department of Ecology to establish * lands, there remain some concerns. For one thing, a continuing, comprehensive program of baseline Padilla Bay is adjacent to two major oil refineries studies for the waters of the state that would aid at'March Point and faces the possibility of petro- in the maintenance of water quality standards and leum spills. And for another, plans have been address the specific problems associated with oil 17 ###NEWPAGE n="669" ### contamination of the marine ecosystem. Further, of wildlife and waterfowl. The area encompassing the 1975 Legislature passed House Substitute Bill the mouth of the Dungeness River, Cline and 527, which provides for safety standards and pro- Graveyard Spits, and the adjacent submerged lands hibits tankers larger than 125.000 deadweight tons and uplands is a highly complex geo-hydraulic from entering Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan system. The ecosystem's shoreline landforms have de Fuca beyond a point east of the Dungeness become highly valued public recreation and wild- Lighthouse. The prohibition is currently being life habitat areas. For this reason, resource manage- appealed as unconstitutional by a major oil ment agencies directly involved with responsibili- company. ties in the area, including the Washington State Department of Game and the U.S. Fish and Wild- The baseline study authorized in Senate Bill 2978 focused attention on waters which run the life Service, have indicated their concern that any major development in the area could have serious greatest risk of damage from oil spills including the areas where marine life is being utilized for food environmental consequences. Any development production. The first study area chosen was North that required extensive filling, dredging, or break- waters could affect currents and tidal patterns Puget Sound, where there are existing refineries, crude and refined product transfer points, and thereby altering deposition and sedimentation and tanker routes. eventually changing the shoreline landforms. In 1915 when Woodrow Wilson formally es- The upland impacts of petroleum transfer and In 1915 when Woodrow Wilson formally es- processing could be pa r ticul arly significant in the tablished Dungeness Spit as a 556-acre refuge for processing could be particularly and residegfcant birds, the primary impor- migratory and resident birds, the primary impor- existing processing areas at Cherry Point in itig procint ars Matche Point in thetance of the area was as a wintering site for black Whatcom County and March Point in the brant. The shallow waters of the harbor provided Anacortes area. Other specific areas which could the proper environment for the growth of eelgrass, be impacted significantly depending on the out- a and while many waterfowl use the plant for food, come of studies in process and on policy decisions the brant is almost totally reliant upon it. the brant is almost totally reliant upon it. yet to be made, include the Port Angeles area and atata Thousands of wintering waterfowl of many dif- Burrows Bay west of Anacortes. The Oceano- Burrows Bay west of Anacortes. The Oceano- ferent kinds will be found today in New Dungeness graphic report described a preferred alternative Harbor between Dungeness and Graveyard Spit. which contemplates unloading tankers at or west of Varied ecological conditions make the area a Varied ecological conditions make the area a Port Angeles and piping crude petroleum to Puget valuable habitat for fish and shellfish, too, pro- Sound refineries. This alternative would involve a rviding productive shellfish beds on the tidal flats major pipeline crossing of Admiralty Inlet. In February 1975, the Legislr and sport fishing and crabbing in the relatively February 1975, the Legislature authorized the sheltered waters of New Dungeness Bay. Oceanographic Commission to conduct another study, a site-specific feasibility analysis of the The Dungeness estuary and spit complex is a Admiralty Inlet crossing area. Oil companies have good example of resource use conflicts in the proposed making Burrows Bay a major oil tanker coastal zone. Competition is strong among com- unloading area as another alternative. mercial, aquacultural, recreational, and wildlife management interests. ,The Dungeness Estuary and Spit Complex Dungeness Spit, on the Olympic Peninsula, is a Grays Harbor narrow neck of land extending five-and-a-half miles into the Strait of Juan de Fuca. It is claimed Grays Harbor has long been an area of special by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to be one of concern. The shallow estuary of approximately the longest natural sandspits in the world. 100 square miles of surface water presents com- plex management problems in terms of maintaining The Dungeness estuary and spit complex is a good water quality while providing a navigation natural area unique within the state and has been channel for industrial needs. For many years recognized nationally for its significance in terms Aberdeen and Hoquiam, located at the mouth of 18 ###NEWPAGE n="670" ### the Chehalis River, have constituted a major port- South Bay. Oysters, clams and crabs live in the U} industrial harbor. The resultant water quality outer bay. To assure continued productivity. a problems of the harbor have long been recognized balance between the filling of intertidal areas and and in fact prompted some of the earliest water the preservation of wetlands must be maintained. quality efforts and studies in the state. In recog- Since the filling of lowlands has provided the only nition of the state's concern, the Bay has been flatland available for industry and commerce in designated a shoreline of statewide significance. the area, pressures to fill are not uncommon. The fact that the area contains several Wildlife Recreation Areas managed by the Department of The fact that Grays Harbor is extremely shallow, Game is a further indication of the state's interest. shrinking to less than one half of its total surface area at low tide, necessitates substantial dredging Substandard water quality in Grays Harbor requirements to ensure the maintenance of harbor results from pollution from municipal and indus- navigation channels. The dredged material in turn trial point sources and non-point sources. The becomes a disposal problem. To dispose of it at wood products industry is the most important sea or in deeper waters is likely to cause water contributor to such water quality problems. Local quality problems, while to deposit it in intertidal pulp mills discharge large quantities of toxic waste- areas causes the loss of valued wetlands. At pres- waters (largely sulfite waste liquor) into the har- ent, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has funded bor. Waste treatment before discharge ranges from a study to be completed by the State Depart- good to nonexistent. A large amount of mill ments of Game, Fisheries, and Ecology to deter- water is held during critical low flow periods (sum- mine the effects of dredge material on aquatic life mer months) for discharge during higher flows. and water quality. In the meantime, the Corps Other wastes are also commonly held for release plans to undertake a study to determine the feasi- during outgoing tides. bility of deepening the navigation channel to Grays Harbor bacterial contamination is partly forty feet. due to inadequate facilities and treatment at thepa Bay four municipal sewage treatment plants. Other Grays Harbor discharges and those from the upper Willapa Bay, one of the largest relatively natural Chehalis River drainage will continue to cause estuaries on the west coast, is recognized in the water quality standards violations. Point source Shoreline Management Act as a shoreline of state- discharges from local fish and shellfish processers, wide significance. About half of its shoreline is lumber companies, and cranberry processing firms salt marshland containing large fish and shellfish are not considered significant compared with other populations. area dischargers. The shellfish in the estuary support the Willapa Nonpoint source contamination contributes Bay oyster industry and the Bay provides ex, significantly to the poor quality of the water in tensive feeding and nursery grounds for young Grays Harbor. Pollutants include woodwaste fish. The area is an important producer of salmon, landfill, septic tank leachates, urban runoff, cutthroat and steelhead. Harbor seals, sea lions dredging, and log storage wastes. Current studies and porpoises will be found in the Bay as well. deal with proper disposal of ship channel dredging spoils and the possible consolidation and relocation Located on the Pacific flyway, the bay is of of woodwaste landfills. critical importance to a large number of water- related birds., The protected Bay waters and as- Somewhat isolated from industrialized areas, sociated marshlands provide substantial shelter and the harbor is quite productive in terms of marine nesting places, while the Bay's extensive tidal life and provides important waterfowl habitat. flats are a rich source of food. The Willapa Anadromous fish pass through Grays Harbor to National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1937 and from the ocean and anadromous fingerlings to provide protected areas for the Bay's bird popu- use the harbor as a feeding ground. Bottom fish, lations, especially the Canadian geese and black sturgeon, and herring are found in and around brant that winter in the area. 19 ###NEWPAGE n="671" ### The shorelines of Willapa Bay are relatively maintenance in the face of significant impacts free of intrusions and modifications. The largest from human activities. In many areas develop- concentration of filled areas is along the Willapa ment has encroached into the dunes causing al- River Channel and at the industrial shipping cen- teration of landscape and resource features. Devel- ters at Raymond and South Bend. This amounts to opments usually require a drainage system which more than six thousand acres of marsh and tide- lowers the water table thereby destroying the vege- lands that have been filled for agricultural pur- tation and resulting in barren areas of blowing poses and a little over 300 acres reclaimed for high- sand. The same result can be brought about by the way and industry. This intrusion and siltation from removal of sand, the filling of wetlands between other sources pose a threat to the Bay's shellfish dunes, and other requirements of urban industry. Area residents are also concerned about development. recent intrusions by recreationists into productive shellfish beds. A recent decision by the Corps of The area's management has for many years suf- Engineers to discontinue maintenance of the Bay feted from conflicts between local interests and as a shipping channel after 1977 can be expected state interests. In addition to disputes over the to cause some difficulties leading to readjustments ownership of accreted lands, there has been local in tho cause local economy. resistance to state recreation development and pro- grams to provide additional public access and over- The Pacific Coastal Dune Area night facilities in the area. The state has been con- cerned over the apparent lack of local land use The Pacific Coastal Dune Area of Grays Harbor restrictions to protect fragile dune areas, which has and Pacific Counties is one of the most attractive res ource features in the state . Locatedtimme- raised questions relating to the application of the Shoreline Management Act with respect to geo- diately to the north of the Columbia River, it X graphical jurisdiction. The question has already includes three shoreline segments interrupted by been the subject of some study and will continue been the subject of some study and will continue the mouths of Grays Harbor and Willapa Bays. to be evaluated under the coastal zone manage- In all, the beach areas are some 54 miles in length ment program. Othe conflicts have arisen over the ment program. Other conflicts have arisen over the and vary in width from 500 feet to over 7,000 .nd .ary i d potential dangers associated with allowing auto- feet. The region attracts large numbers of visitors potential dangers associated with allowing auto- to its beaches and to several popular sport salmon mobile traffic on public beaches. fishing areas. The State Parks and Recreation Com- The Continental Shelf mission maintains several developed parks and pro- vides numerous access points to the popular The continental shelf is the submerged land beaches, which attracted over three million visitors sloping gradually outward from the exposed edge in 1974. of a continent for a varying distance to the con- Management of the area's beaches has a long his- tinental slope, where the continental mass drops Management of the area's beaches has a long his- more abruptly to the ocean floor. State jurisdiction tory of conflicts, most notably between state over the continental shelf extends seaward one agencies and local or private upland owners over marine league from the coastline of the state, access to and development in the dune area. The acces which comes to three nautical miles or about 3.5 Legislature has given clear indication of the state's which comes to three nautical miles or about 3.5 concern by declaring the beaches a public high- statute or land miles. The boundaries of counties , concern by declaring the beaches a public high- on the ocean coast are coterminous with the way and a public recreation area and by designa- b oundaries of the state. ting the area a shoreline of statewide significance. In recognition of the area's attractiveness to recreationists, the state's Interagency Committee Beyond the state's continental shelf boundary for Outdoor Recreation and the State Parks and lies the outer continental shelf under the juris- Recreation Commission have made acquisition of diction of the federal government. The outer these Pacific beachesi a high funding priority continental shelf is the seaward oortion of the con- tinental shelf and has been defined by Congress to Because the dune system is very complex and include all submerged lands lying seaward and delicate, there is considerable concern about its outside of the area of state jurisdiction and of 20 ###NEWPAGE n="672" ### * which the subsoil and sea bed appertain to the roles, and both the University of Washington and United States and are under its jurisdiction and the Oceanographic Commission of Washin'o control. have been heavily involved in research activities in Theconinetalshef of te castof ashng-the area. The complexity of the ownership/ The ontnentl selfoff he oas of ashng-management patterns that result from this web of ton varies in width from 10 to 35 miles, averaging responsibility necessitates a careful coordinatio about 25 miles. Water depth graduates from mean amn Ignyporm htmyb dficlton sea level to about 600 feet at the edge of the con- amogacypormthatmyb iffiule. tinental slope. ahee Inteest n maagig th resurcs ofthe on-The need for coordination is dramatized by the Inteest n maagig th resurcs ofthe on- increasing national attention given to the shelf tinental. shelf is shared by a great many agencies. as an energ source. The goals of the Ford Ad- The primary federal actors include the Department m iitato' Prjcgneednc niaeta of Commerce, through the National Oceanic and thenispration'sf Projestct neendergy producateitha Atmospheric Administration's Offices of National teepnino oetceeg rdcini Ocea Surey, atioal MrineFishriesServcenecessary to decrease national reliance on foreign Pacific Oceanographic Laboratories and Coastal eeg ore.Teotrcnietlsefi Zone Management; the Department of the Interior, viewed as a major source which will contribute partculaly hrouh th Fih an Willif Sericesignificantly to national self-sufficiency. At pres- pSSandclal theBreaug the Lihand ManagiemSentic ent the development of outer continental shelf oil theS Navy; the Burmyaurp of LangiMnaemersndth e and gas resources is a very uncertain business, due Coas Guard. The submyeCrpofEgieers landso the seflargely to a lack of information on the available that are under state jurisdiction are state lands rsre foladgsi h hltebooia owned and administered by the Department of impacts of oil spills on marine ecosystems, and Natual Rsoures. ut he Sate eparment ofthe environmental, economic and social impacts * Ecology, Fisheries, and Game also have managerialontecatfofsredilgopain. 21 ###NEWPAGE n="673" ### * Chapter III State Coastal Zone Management ###NEWPAGE n="674" ### CHAPTER 111. STATE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT INTRODUCTION primary actors, however, can be identified fairly Effetivemanaemen of he sate' coatalreadily. The state agencies which are key coastal Effetivemanaemen of he sate' coatalzone actors are listed in the abbreviated state resources is the most challenging task facing organizational chart on the following p age. There Washington State government. The complexity of g are a few other primary actors under the state's the environmental, economic, and social resources jrsito swl:rgoa oniso oen of the coastal zone gives rise to the need for a j uisicint air well:uteiona countrols atofiis citiern- management system of sufficient sophistication to countie, air polubtincotl autoritis cistricts.an respond efficiently and effectively to new needs cuteadpbi otdsrcs and changing conditions. The system must be There are a* variety of ongoing programs, both flexible enough to take unusual events in stride. state and federal, which formally ensure coopera- The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 pro- tion among the state's primary coastal zone agen- vide th stte wth ne opprtuityto cnstuct cies. There are also a number of bodies which by acomprehenstate withram nefportmanaity the costrute their make-up or nature force an interagency focus casa ceomprehensivOe pogrmfor ngn the fistaste's itepo- on issues and problems. But most important of all esfpormcoastalresurcesnftion firsto staep ia thoe proc- in terms of agency interaction is the informal man- attestaes ofanagermen cnstutiork is ito taealoses loo agement coordination which is brought about in atetheastate' manaeme. netwr as ith prpoelafthes pent o the natural course of events each time a proposal * chapter to address this complex issue, faysgiiac smd ntecatlzn. The discussion in this chapter focuses on the Each of the agencies and programs discussed in authorities, techniques, and general coordinative thscatrn g a i in ChptrVhvtei mechanisms available to the state which meet the this chandter, and pupoeswich inchapter, butarethi landand ateruse uthoity equiemens ofthenot limited to, concern for the coastal zone. In Coastal Zone Management Act. The more specific that provisions of the Shoreline Management Act roles, responsibilities, and organizational arrange- require uniform application of SMA provisions, ments for DOE administration of the coastal zone management program are set forth in Chap- and direct that the planning of various agencies be ters V and VI of this document. The present chap- consistent with SMA, it provides the single most ter provides the detailed context for that subse- comprehensive mandate for managing the coastal quent discussion. zone. There are many governmental agencies under the Along with SMA are the State Environmental jurisdiction of the state which contribute to the Policy Act (SEPA) and the Environmental Coordin- management of the Washington coastal zone, ation Procedures Act (ECPA) which in more general ranging in importance from the Governor and State terms require uniformity of purpose, planning, and Legislature to the smallest special district. The regulation. 23 ###NEWPAGE n="675" ### WASHINGTON STATE GOVERNMENT State Agencies with Programs Related to Coastal Zone Management ELECTORATE | Ez -E f A EXECUTIVE j IC3C CT E-; sTE E LE jTE'. R|HOJSE OPT SEAT ' OFFCE I REPQESE:TL LFf AN V A M C U V g ish A G tE E-E Tulalip N O M O m Pat Gamble Madison& i F or 11111 11 uileute Quinualt Y kornis Muckleshoot jSqUjELT Pqyallup 8 0 R i Island 'AM ABEROCEN LUA Ni hoal u R S ON NTRALIA 4. CHE"A.L.15 M K A Reservation Vicinity Washington State 1 16 ###NEWPAGE n="768" ### Indian Management of Coastal Zone Resources alienated lands and the matter will eventually be * ' settled in court. is' The allocation of authority for the management of Indian lands in the coastal zone is a complicated It is nonetheless obvious that a cohesive overall legal issue. Each Indian tribe has full internal program of management of Indian lands in the governmental powers over its members except coastal zone depends primarily on the Indian tribes where those powers have been specifically ab- themselves. Only intergovernmental agreements co- rogated or limited by an act of Congress, which ordinated by the tribes and openly arrived at by maintains plenary authority through legislation. the tribes on the one hand and federal, state, and This authority is exclusive and prohibits state local officials on the other can effectively tie jurisdiction except as specifically and expressly together the multifarious programs currently allowed and delegated to the state. General powers found on coastal reservations. of self-government provide the intratribal basis for tribal management of coastal zone areas. The tribes have been able to persuade other units of government to undertake a number of programs Tribal governmental structure has been for- and projects that relate to the management of malized by written constitutions and charters most coastal resources. At other times they have per- of which were approved by the Secretary of the suaded other units of government to cease activities Interior pursuant to authority vested'in his office and abandon projects which they believed to be under the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 and detrimental to effective management. In some in- the rest of which were modeled on those approved. stances the tribes have persuaded other levels of Though there remain some differences among the government to intercede and regulate on their be- governments thus formally set forth, it is safe to half, though this course of action is undertaken say that today, regardless of the form of basic reluctantly and only as a last resort. organic law a tribe operates under, all tribes are in The Indian tribes have also contributed sub- fact given about the same degree of autonomy satal ocatlzn eorecnevto through the operating administrative policy of the santid prtoecoatalione preograms Construction o ee United States. All are bodies politic with express stesand prollution conrolgramsurs eronstrcion o ee proprietary and governmental power and function stesadpluincontrol mactiites, re-frestaionanfieigtg under written constitutions having inherent and conreool eamplites, oeforeseration conserve-fighting implied powers in addition to the powers g ams, which earpes ofreservationer constl.Tetrvaibesro expressed.grmwihaefeunlveycsl.Tetbs have also engaged in direct regulation of the coastal Management rights and responsibilities would be zone and its resources. For many years most tribes much clearer than they are were it not for a lack of have regulated their own on-reservation fisheries legal clarity with respect to alienated lands. It is and shellfish harvesting. The recent beach closures clear that external regulation of tribal lands held in on some reservations are a manifestation of the trust by anyone but the tribe would be incon- tribes' determination to conserve the natural re- sistent with the Treaty of Point Elliott, which in sources of their lands. effect allowed the tribe to reserve the exclusive use, occupancy and possession of the reservation Most tribes with planning capabilities have lands to itself. It also appears reasonably clear that undertaken some planning for the long-range use a parallel conclusion can be supported in the case and development of coastal zone resources on the of allotted lands within the coastal zone which re- reservations. Through the HUD 701 program a main unalienated and in Indian ownership, since number of comprehensive plans have been pre- they are lands subject to a restriction against pared, zoning ordinances drafted and special studies alienation imposed by the United States. But with undertaken to aid the tribes in the management of respect to alienated lands within the coastal zone their reservations. Since it has only been in the last * owned in fee within the exterior boundaries of a few years that this process has been in operation, Isreservation there is serious doubt and state juris- there is considerable work yet to be done to diction may apply. The State of Washington is develop the programs and procedures necessary to currently asserting jurisdictional rights over implement the plans that have been made. 117 ###NEWPAGE n="769" ### Chapter V Washington Coastal Zone Management and the Coastal Zone Management Act ###NEWPAGE n="770" ### CHAPTER V. WASHINGTON COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AND THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT INTRODUCTION state interests must be recognized and that there is a local, state, and national interest in the use and The first four chapters have described the state's a local, state, and national interest in the use and conservation of the coastal resources. Additionally, coastal resources and its programs for managing it is a policy of the state (RCW 90.58.260) that land and water uses. Most of the state's authori- where plans, activities, or procedures conflict with ties and programs, including its primary legislative state policies, all reasonable steps available shall be mandate or coastal managementt, t he 1971 Shor e- taken by the state to preserve the integrity of its line Management Act, existed prior to enactment with and rein- of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act. or, the dera iste oe amn . forces the policy contained in the Coastal Zone However, the mere existence of these programs, in Management Act to encourage and assist the and of themselves, do not provide the broadly- and of themselves, do no provide the broadl- states to exercise effectively their full responsi- based coordinated efforts that Congress envisioned bilities in the coastal zone. in the federal Act. The purpose of the present chapter is to relate the state program to the spec- ific requirements of the Coastal Zone Management Act, amplifying the previous discussions as neces- The Washington State coastal zone management sary. The chapter is structured to emphasize the area embodies a two-tier concept. The first or pri- relations of the state program to the key policies mary tier, bounded by the "resource boundary," and requirements of Section 306 of the Act and is that area legislatively defined by the Shoreline CFR 923.11-923.44 of January 9, 1975 relating to Management Act of 1971; that is, all of the state's coastal zone uses, boundaries, areas of particular marine waters and their associated wetlands, includ- concern, areas for preservation and restoration, ing at a minimum all upland.area 200 feet landward state/federal relations, public participation and from the ordinary high water mark. The second intergovernmental involvement, the state's mana- tier, bounded by the "planning and administrative gerial network, and some miscellaneous provisions boundary," is composed of the area within the fif- of the statute. teen coastal counties which front on saltwater. GENERAL POLICY The first tier, an area of permit authority under The overriding philosophy of the State of Wash- the Shoreline Management Act that is bounded by the resource boundary, can be defined through se- ington is that the coastal zone is among the most valuable of resources and that a comprehensive and lective application of definitions in RCW Chapter coordinated program of management is essential to 90.58 to consist of all marine water areas of the coordinated program of management is essential to prevent damages resulting from uncoordinated and state and their associated "wetlands" together with piecemeal development. This philosophy presumes the lands underlying them out to the western that the coastal resource is viewed as an interrelated boundary of the state in the Pacific Ocean, where unit, irrespective of ownership, jurisdiction, or cur- "wetlands" means those lands extending landward rent individual agency goals and policies for 200 feet in all directions as measured on a hor- izontal plane from the ordinary high water mark The approach to be used by the state in pursuing and river deltas and tidal waters which are subject coastal zone objectives is that both federal and to the provisions of the Shoreline Management Act. 119 ###NEWPAGE n="771" ### WASHINGTON STATE COASTAL ZONE RESOURCE BOUNDARIES Shoreline Management 1iij:Boundary 200' Measured Horizontally _ ' t Saltwater From Normal ::: FoAnnual High . Intrusion Limit Watear Hlh jit . .(Upstream Limit of Water Mark iiiii the Coastal Zone Management Resource Boundary} Edge of Estuary (Or Could Be Marsh, Bog, Swamp, Mud Flat, ESTUARY Or Other Wetland Area) 200' Measured Horizontally DELTA . Resource Boundary From Normal :: Annual High . Water Mark ... : o :iii/!:!iiiii.__ :'__. ii:ˇiiiii SALT WATER 'i:!:.: ,9:...::::::,.::::i':ˇ 0....... ... -. . ... '1:''20 ###NEWPAGE n="772" ### "Ordinary high water mark" for all lakes, streams, The planning and administrative or second tier and tidal water is defined in RCW 90.58.030(2)(b) boundary is the eastern boundary of the fifteen to be coastal counties which front on marine waters. The basis for the inclusion of Wahkiakum County on that mark that will be found by examining the bed and banks and ascertaining where the presence and action of the Columbia River estuary is the presence of waters are so common and usual, and so long continued measurable quantities of salt water up the Columbia in all ordinary years. as co mark upon the soil a charac- River to Pillar Rock. The second tier is intended to ter distinct from that of the abutting upland, in respect be the maximum extent of the coastal zone and as to vegetation as that condition exist[edl on June 1, such is the context within which coordinated 1971 or as it may naturally change thereafter; Provided, coastal policy planning will be accomplished that in any area where the ordinary high water mark can- through the framework of this program. not be found, the ordinary high water mark adjoining salt water shall be the line of mean higher high tide and The use of the two tiers provides the state a basis the ordinary high water mark adjoining fresh water shall to differentiate in terms of both the need for con- be the line of mean high water. trol and the intensity of control. The most immed- iate and direct control is exercised in the tier The state enacted regulations specifying criteria adjacent to the water's edge and on water bodies for the designation of wetlands and associated wet- through processes established by the Shoreline lands and mapped those designations for the shore- Management Act. Should a proposal in the second tier line of the state under Chapter 173-22 WAC. The have the potential to have direct and significant im- pertinent provisions are summarized here: pact on coastal waters or directly affect the coastal (1) "Associated wetlands" means those wet- zone, the other state programs described in Chap- lands which are strongly influenced by ter III can be invoked. The state network and its and in close proximity to any tidal water. applicability to the two-tier system is described later in this chapter, as is the applicability of the (2) The wetlands shall be measured on a hori- boundary system to federal lands. zontal plane two hundred feet in all direc- tions from the line of vegetation. If there EXCLUDED FEDERAL LANDS is no vegetative cover, the measurement will be, whenever possiler, tfrom a line The technical definition of the coastal zone under will be, whenever possible, from a line connecting the lines of vegetation on either Section 304(a) of the federal Coastal Zone Manage- side lof an area; otherwise, the measurement ment Act of 1972 states that lands the use of which side of an area; otherwise, the measurement will be from the mean higher tide on salt is by law subject solely to the discretion of or which water and the mean high water on fresh is held in trust by the federal government, its offi- water. cers, or agents are excluded from the coastal zone. The Washington coastal zone includes many acres (3) On river deltas and flood plains where of land and many miles of marine shoreline which dikes have been placed by governmental fall within the perimeter of lands managed and agencies for public benefit and reasonably owned by various federal agencies. protect against floods, the wetlands will be designated as follows: Those federal lands fall within several categories of jurisdictional status. Technically, all lands under (a) Where the dike is located within two hun- the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the U.S. dred feet of the ordinary high water mark, Government are excluded from Washington's the wetlands shall be that area within two coastal zone since the State of Washington does not hundred feet of the ordinary high water exercise any discretion over the uses which take mark. place on these lands. Those lands held by the feder- (b) Where the dike is located more than two al government under a concurrent, partial, or pro- hundred feet beyond the ordinary high water prietorial jurisdictional status may be included in mark, the wetlands shall be that area lying the state's coastal zone since the state retains vary- between the apex of the dike and the ordi- ing degrees of discretion as to the uses which take nary high water mark. place on those lands. 121 ###NEWPAGE n="773" ### The state will emphasize the requirement that in the boundaries of its coastal zone management the closest possible coordination and cooperation program. between the state and federal agencies be main- i tained during the administration of the state's USES IN THE COASTAL ZONE coastal zone program. In this spirit, the state will work with federal land managers, regardless of the Sections 305(b)(2) and (5) of CZMA require jurisdictional status of the lands in question to de- that a management program define permissible land velop mechanisms whereby the federal land man- and water uses within the coastal zone and develop agers agree to manage their lands in a manner con- broad guidelines on priority of uses in particular sistent with the substance and merits of the state's areas. Prior to CZMA and the subsequent Section coastal zone management program to the maximum 306 regulations, Washington had already established extent practicable. The state will work with federal through SMA a process, policies, and guidelines agencies to arrive at a definitive policy and iden- which enable it to meet the intentions of these two tification of excluded lands. The state will make requirements. every effort to enter into memoranda of under- every effort to enter into memoranda of under- This section describes the process as it meets the standing with all federal agency land managers as to the applicability of the state program to the variousibiity and priority of the 306 regulations and how permis sibility and priority of uses work in actuality. It is parcels of federal land or private holdings within federal lands within the state's coastal zone. believed that these management principles, as reflect- ed by the overall coastal zone program, are not only In the process of developing this program, adequate to meet the particular needs of the State several federal agencies have taken the position of Washington, but indeed were used in developing that the "excluded lands" language contained in the CZMA requirements. Since SMA is already in Section 304(a) is intended to exclude from a state's the implementation stage, the adequacy of the pro- coastal zone all federal lands, irrespective of cess can be verified in practice. The following sec- jurisdictional status. Since clarification of this tions of SMA and the state guidelines are of partic- issue is pending before the U. S. Attorney General, ular relevance to determining uses in the coastal Department of Justice, it is the interim policy of zone: the State to exclude all federal lands, irrespective of jurisdictional status, from the previously defined (1) RCW 90.58.020. State Policy Enunciated- coastal zone until such time as the U. S. Attorney Use Preference. General or his designee renders an opinion as to (2) RCW 90.58.100 Programs as Constituting the exact meaning of the "excluded lands" clause. Use Regulations (3) RCW 90.58.150. Selective Commercial The interim position of the State to exclude all Timber Cuttin federal lands pending the resolution of the above g issue shall not in any way diminish or negate the (4) RCW 90.58.160. Prohibition Against Sur- force and operation of the federal "consistency face Drilling For Oil or Gas provisions" contained in this amended program (5) RCW 90.58.270. Nonapplication to Certain and defined under Section 307 of the Coastal Zone Structures, Docks, Developments, Etc. Management Act. It is the intent of the State of (6) RCW 90.58.340. Use Policies For Land Washington to abide by and adhere to the opinion Adjacent to Shorelines of the Department of Justice and any subsequent legal determinations, and to amend this program (7) WAC 173-16-040(3). Master Program Elements accordingly. (8) WAC 173-.16-040(4). Environments For those federal lands excluded from the state's (9) WAC 173-16-060(1)-(21). The Use Activit- coastal zone, it should be made clear that the state ies has not relinquished any of its existing authority (10) WAC 173-16-070. Variances And Condition- _ over those federal lands by not including them with- al Uses 122 ###NEWPAGE n="774" ### The Legislature set forth principles and policies to on a case-by-case basis and would be required to guide actions that would or could occur within the satisfy the goals and general development policies state's shorelines. Briefly. stated, all "reasonable and of SMA. appropriate uses" would be permitted under spec- apprified conditions whichuses" would be permittectd under s pec- t To summarize, a permissible use is basically a use "adverse effects to the public health, the land and of the coastal land or waters that is consistent with "adverse effects to the public health, the land and its vegetation and wildlife, and the waters of the the policies and guidelines governing the Washington its vegetation and wildlife, and the waters of the state and their aquatic life." This laid the ground- occurrState coastal zone management program. se work for a performance-standards approach to occurring completely or partially within the resource land and water use decision making. Two notable boundary is operationally considered to have a di- land and water use decision making. Two notable exceptions were included by the Legislature, namely: rect and significant impact on the coastal waters. (1) that within the resource zone, only selective Most developments in the first tier require a sub- stantial development permit. Other uses falling un- commercial timeruttngwoudbader the definition of development are managed on a (2) that surface drilling for oil and gas within a specified geographic area would not be permitted. Far from being arbitrary, these policies were based policies of SMA. Further, uses of the lands adjacent Far from being arbitrary, these policies were based on previous experience and scientific studies which to the resource boundary are to be consistent with showed the potential and real adverse impacts such the policy of SMA as well, in accordance with uncontrolled uses may have on resources SMA was RCW 90.58.340. A summary of the regulations for the 21 defined use activities relating to the envi- ronment classifications and a general environment Master programs are to use a systematic inter- map are included in Appendix A to this document. disciplinary approach to ensure a comprehensive integration of uses. Seven usure a oelements which in- Permissibility and priority of uses are closely in- integration of uses. Seven use elements which in- clude all different shoreline uses are included in tegrated in the management system. SMA establish- e master programs as appropriate: economic, public ed broad guidelines on priority of uses in particular master programs as appropriate: economic, public access, recreation, circulation, use, conservation, areas. Certain shorelines were designated in SMA historic/cultural/scientific, and education. as shorelines of statewide significance because of their importance to the entire state. Local master WAC guidelines required local governments to programs were required to give preference to uses inventory their coastline and designate environments in accordance with the principles stated in WAC (natural, conservancy, rural, and urban) based 173-16-040(5). upon the existing development pattern, the bio- physical capabilities and limitations, and the goals are consistent with control of pollution and preven- are consistent with control of pollution and preven- and aspirations of the citizenry. The system was tion of damage to the natural environment or are designed to encourage uses in each environment unique to or dependent upon use of the state's which enhance the character of that environment which enhance the character of that environment shorelines. When alteration of the natural condi- and to utilize performance standards which reg- ulate use activities in accordance with state goals and objectives. priority is given to single family residences, ports, shoreline recreational uses including but not limited to Based upon studies and analyses, the guidelines parks, marinas, piers, and other improvements facilitat- established 21 shoreline use activities which were to bestblised2 sh.o.r.lineuse activiies wica mier. ing public access to shorelines of the state, industrial and (WACto be included withUsin the local master mi programs, commercial developments which are particularly depend- t(WA 173-16-060). Using the CZMA terminology, ent on their location on or use of the shorelines of the it was determined that these uses have a "direct and state and other developments that will provide an oppor- significant" impact not only on the coastal waters tunity for substantial numbers of the people to enjoy the but on the environment in general and on the users shorelinsof hestae. (RCW 90.58.020) of the coastal resources. In addition, the process requires that shoreline use activities not specific- To assist in an overview of uses of highest and ally identified and for which policies and regula- lowest priority, fifteen county shoreline use matrices tions had not been developed would be evaluated were assembled and have been placed in Appendix A 123 ###NEWPAGE n="775" ### along with the environment map to provide a ability. Thus, while this network description is ac- summary of the- types of uses considered to be per- curate it is not designed to cover all details of the missible in the various shoreline "environments." n Caution should be exercised in using the matrices for an actual determination of an allowable use. The management network system can best be They are intended only to be a general definition of described as consisting of the following elements: the more specific regulations that are part of each (1) Studies and Information Base master program. (2) Policy Development for Coastal Zone Man- The process of determining permissibility and agement (3) Plan Review/Approval/Consistency priority of uses has been used by the state during the interim period while local governments were (4) Project Review developing their master programs. Each approved (5) Permit Processes master program has designated environments and The general flow of how these elements relate is uses which are consistent with those environments shown below: and has set priorities of uses within those environ- ments, particularly for shorelines of statewide sig- nificance. There are a number of court cases which The broadest description without identifying the have sustained the state's stand on permissibility actors would be as follows: and priority of uses as they meet the objectives of SMA and related state policies. STEP 1: Studies and information are analyzed and the knowledge thus gained is a primary in- THE STATE'S MANAGERIAL NETWORK put into the development of policy. Chapter III discusses in detail the means and au- STEP 2: Policy is developed and is utilized by thorities available to the state and the Department local, state, and federal agencies in the develop- of Ecology to administer and manage a comprehen- ment of plans and programs. sive coastal zone program. The management net- work consists of a variety of formal and informal STEP 3: Such plans and programs are reviewed complex interrelationships among agencies, DOE by the state for determination of adherence to offices, and individuals. The following discussion policy. Approvals, certifications, conditions, or describes how the interrelationships occur, with other types of coordination are made as appro- particular emphasis on DOE's managerial role. priate. In describing this network it is obviously impossible STEPS 4 & 5: Projects for review or specific per- to indicate every formal and informal aspect of the mits when required are handled by the state and system and still retain cohesiveness and understand- appropriate action is taken. STUDIES 4-- PERMITS POLICY PLAN DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROJECT REVIEW 124 ###NEWPAGE n="776" ### STEP 6: The results of permit actions (including adjacent to the shorelines of the state so as the (to) judicial or quasi-judicial decisions) and project achieve a use policy on said land consistent with the review are used in the refinement of policV, policy of this chapter, the guidelines, and the master Before entering into a more detailed discussion of programs for the shorelines of the state. The depart- ment may develop recommendations for land use each of the above network elements it should be noted tat theDepartent ofEcolog has te pri-control for such lands. Local governments shall, in noted tatutheoepritient for Ecoatlzone maagement pri- developing use regulations for such areas, take into mary athoriies fr coatal zne maagemet andconsideration any recommendations developed by intends through its Shorelands Division to remainthdeamntswllsayohrsaeagcisr the primary fcal point forthe program.units of local government. The Shoreline Management Act of 1971 clearly By these two provisions then the tools for placed the Department of Ecology in the lead role meeting the need for coordination are provided, for the implementation of SMA and for Coastal along with the other provisions of SMA. The Zone Management. The 1971 Act is the basic responsibility for implementation of the process authority. Unusual among state statutes, the Act is vested jointly in the Department of Ecology provides regulatory and permit authority and plan- anlolgvemntThrlsadrltisip ning and coordinative functions. This explicit are spelled out in 90.5 8.050: authority providing the Department lead role is expressed in 98.58.300: This chapter establishes a cooperative program of The department of ecology is designated the state shoreline management between local government agency responsible for the program of regulation of and the state. Local government shall have the pri- the shorelines of the state, including coastal shore- mary responsibility for initiating and administering lines and the shorelines of the inner tidal waters of the regulatory program of this chapter. The depart- the state, and is authorized to cooperate with the ment shall act primarily in a supportive and review federal government and sister states and to receive capacity with primary emphasis on insuring compli- benefits of any statutes of the United States when- ance with the policy and provisions of this chapter. ever enacted which relate to the programs of this chapter. in addition to defining the relationship be- The ervsiveessof he At i futherdefnedtween local government and the Department Tepraivnes of0heAc5i8futhr8efne of Ecology, the Act also provided that the Department was to represent its interest and The provisions of this chapter shall be applicable to preserve the integrity of the policies before all agencies of state government, counties, and public federal interests. The Act, 98.38.260 provides and municipal corporations and to all shorelines of the following: the state owned or administered by them. (1971 ex.s. Tesae hog h eateto clg n h c 286 § 28.) attorney general, shall represent its interest before The Act also provides that the adjoining uplands water resource regulation management, development, are to be managed consistently with the coastal and use agencies of the United States, including resource itself, i.e., that the state and its local among others, the federal power commission, environ- governments avoid having parallel management mental protection agency, corps of engineers, depart- programs which are not coordinated. This concern ment of the interior, department of agriculture and applies to all agencies and local government as set the atomic energy commission, before interstate forth in 90.58.340: agencies and the courts with regard to activities or use of shorelines of the state and the program of this All state agencies, counties, and public and municipal chapter. Where federal or interstate agency plans, corporations shall review administrative and manage- activities, or procedures conflict with state policies, ment policies, regulations, plans and ordinances all reasonable steps available shall be taken by the relative to lands under their respective jurisdiction state to preserve the integrity of its policies. 125 ###NEWPAGE n="777" ### Studies and Information Base taken by the Office of Land Programs, where recom- mendations are reviewed and refined. The Assistant In a Lvariety of ways the Shorelands Division Director for Land Programs is a member of the De- W as a routine matter becomes knowledgable of re- partment's Executive Policy Committee, which con- ports, plans, and studies that might have a signi- sists of the several Assistant Directors, the Deputy ficant relationship to the coastal zone. These doc- Director, and the Director. A major agency policv uments mavy be initiated by federal, state, local, or or proposed state policy is brought to the weekly private entities within or outside of Washington meeting of the Executive Policy Committee with a State. The Division serves as a focal review center recommendation for action. If such policy has for this material and thus becomes both the co- a broad impact on other offices of the Department ordinator for coastal zone matters and the primary the Assistant Director may request an independent formulator and integrator of policy for review and review by the Office of Comprehensive Programs. subsequent: adoption by the state. This Office would then review that policy and its While obviously there are an almost endless potential and probable impacts on other programs. variety of means to acquire material, some specif- The report prepared through such a review would ic examples of the type and flow of such material come under Executive Policy Committee scrutiny. to the Division are provided below. The coastal zone management program under this approach benefits in two ways. First, the policy (1) The Office of External Affairs serves as the impacts of the coastal zone program on other pro- Department's office representative on a grams can be determined, and second, other offices' variety of boards, commissions, and coun- policies are reviewed and considered by the Office cils. The Assistant Director in charge of this of Land Programs for coastal zone implications. office is, for instance, the Department's representative on the Energy Facility Site Some policy statements derived through the Evaluation Council (EFSEC). Studies above-described network are considered by the resulting from or related to EFSEC activ- Department to be beyond the scope of a single ities would be available to this office. Those agency. In those cases the policy determination is which would have significance to the coast- escalated to the Natural Resources Cabinet of the al zone program would be forwarded to the Governor's Office. The Natural Resources Cabinet Office of Land Programs, Shorelands Divi- consists of Directors of the natural resources sion. The same flow would result from other agencies (the Departments of Game, Fisheries, boards, commissions, or councils represent- Natural Resources, Ecology, and Commerce and ed by the Office of External Affairs, as well Economic Development and Parks and Recreation as from other offices within the Department. Commission) and the Governor, so that all agencies would bring to bear their interests, resources, and (2) The state library, DOE branch, as a matter expertise in terms of overall state policy. It is of standard operating procedure routes to quite conceivable that another state agency may all divisions in the Department lists of re- bring an issue to the Cabinet meeting with signifi- ports and studies that are available. Upon cance to the coastal zone management program. request these are ordered and routed to pro- gram staff. Generally, after review they are maintained in the state library facilities Plan Review and Approval located at DOE headquarters. This aspect of the coastal zone management net- Policy Development work rests primarily in the Department's Shore- lands Division, Office of Land Programs. Local As indicated above, the initial formulator of coast- master programs and federal plans and programs al zone management policy (aside from direct policy are and will continue to be reviewed within the legislative action and action under direct legislative Division for consistency with the policies of the policy guidance) is the Shorelands Division. The management programs. The Department intends second step in the policy development network is to develop more formalized arrangements with the 126 ###NEWPAGE n="778" ### Office of Field Operations to assure more direct The following responsibilities are assigned to the input from the regional offices on plan review. Shorelands Division of Land Programs: Recommendations for plan approvals, denials, or (1) There is a direct assignment of a program modifications are made by the Division after exten- staff person to be the contact individual sive staff review. These are forwarded to the and work directly with the regional offices. Assistant Director, Office of Land Programs, for final review and approval. If problems are antici- (2) Program staff are responsible for providing pated, the Office will coordinate with other offices necessary information to regional offices and the Deputy Director or the Director. pertaining to program philosophy, guide- lines, operating policies, and information Permits contained in the master plans. The shoreline management permit program is (3) Program staff will develop policies to assure implemented by two offices in DOE: Land Pro- the uniformity of actions statewide. grams, and Field Operations. Within the Office of ˇIn summary, the day-to-day contact under the Field Operations (described below in greater detail) the local agencies which shorelines program with the local agencies which are four regional DOE offices which have the fol- issue substantial development permits is maintained lowing responsibilities in the shoreline management by the regional offices. But peals arising from by the regional offices. But appeals arising from permit program: agencies, citizens, or applicants may be joined by (1) They have full responsibility for DOE DOE and become an integrated Department review and screening of substantial develop- function. ment permits. Other functions in which the Department is (2) They consult with the Office of the Attor- involved with SMA operations and implementation ney General on permit reviews, negotiations, include assistance to local communities in the con- DOE appeals, and certification of citizen tinuous updating of inventories and local master appeals. plans, the approval of master programs which have been developed but not yet adopted, and providing (3) In cases where local actions appear to be a continuous forum for public information and inconsistent with either the intent of SMA involvement through presentations, workshops, and or adopted master programs, they make public hearings for master programs and the adop- every effort to negotiate agreement with tion of use regulations. local government prior to initiating an appeal. In addition to SMA permits, other permits are also used to assure the implementation of a sound (4) If they deem that an appeal action is appro- management program. Assurance that the network priate, the regional staff and the program takes significant actions into account is guaranteed staff (in Land Programs, Shorelands Divi- in three ways. The first is the EIS review process, sion) jointly review the permit. If both which covers all major projects with significant staffs agree that an appeal is appropriate, effects. Secondly, most major projects will require the appeal action is initiated by the regional one or more permits from DOE. And thirdly, the office. If agreement cannot be reached, the personnel in the regional offices not only work on Assistant Directors in charge of Field Opera- shoreline/coastal zone matters, but the same indi- tions and Land Programs make the final vidual may be working on water quality and other decision. environmental matters as well. If there is to be a significant impact on the coastal zone, which may Conditional uses and variances coming under not be directly covered under SMA, such impact SMA authority are handled by the regional offices will be considered in teems of SMA as a matter of in the same manner as appeals. Department practice. 127 ###NEWPAGE n="779" ### Project Review or an issue that is beyond the scope of one particu- lar office, say of the Office of Land Programs, the While in many cases a project reviewalso involves Assistant Director for that office will request from the permit network, it is worthy of separate treat- the Office of Comprehensive Programs an analysis the Office of Comprehensive Programs an analysis ment here because the network is substantially dif- of the issue in terms of how it fits with other pro- ferent. The fact that there is an overlap in terms of grams, what impacts other programs will have on a process offers an advantage in that it serves as a decision, and what impacts that decision will have fai--saf sytem or r 'ets avin sinifiantdecision, and what impacts that decision will have fail-safe system for projects having significant on other programs and processes within the Depart- oJ on other programs and processes within the Depart- impact among DOE and related agencies. ment. An objective analysis is then made and a Basically, projects for review enter the network recommendation, along with the Assistant Direc- in one of two ways. They are part of the SEPA/ tor's recommendation of the particular office NEPA system or they are part of the A-95 system. requesting review, go to the Executive Commit- They come to the attention of DOE in the Environ- tee which is comprised of the top departmental mental Review Section housed in the Office of Corn- management. The issue is examined by the Execu- prehensive Programs. This section handles all en- tive Committee and a final decision is made. If vironmental impact statements in terms of review concurrence is not obtained it goes to the Direc- and comment for the state. Any major project or tor or the Deputy Director for an ultimate decision. any project having a significant effect on the en- This procedure enables the Department to assure vironment goes through this process. They are that, for example, a facility being built within a reviewed internally by the Environmental Review coastal county but not within a shoreline boundary Section and distributed throughout the Department jurisdiction will not have an adverse direct and to the sections, divisions, and offices that have or significant impact upon the coastal zone. might have an interest in and input into the envi- ronmental review process. Consequently, the There are means to assure that projects will be ronmental review process. Consequently, the Office of Land Programs receives information on subject to this process. Essentially such assurance is any project or any development that would have a based upon two things: (1) the integrative approach significant impact on the coastal zone. The Environ- recognized throughout the agency; and (2) the mental Review Section has been directed to keep authority contained within the Office of Land in mind in all reviews that any direct or significant Programs itself. Most, if not all, projects that will in mind in all reviews that any direct or significant have a direct and significant impact on the coastal impacts on the coastal zone are to be reported for have a direct and significant impact on the coastal review to the Office of Land Programs, Shorelands zone will require some analysis or action by the zone will require some analysis or action by the Division. The environmental review process, S of Office of Land Programs or through the field opera- covers not only pTenrojects and developments o tions and the shoreline management controls at that c ourse, co ves not only projectseznes and dvlpetlevel. Since shoreline management involves not but also plans and programs, local rezones, and only the coastal waters, but rather almost all the otherlegisativeand dminitratie actons.only the coastal waters, but rather almost all the other legislative and administrative actions. lakes and streams in the state, most, if not all, Integrative Network projects that would have a significant effect on the coastal zone would be within the jurisdictional While the focal point for the coastal zone man- boundaries of the Shoreline Management Act for agement program is the Office of Land Programs, which the Office of Land Programs has direct Shorelands Division, the major integrative mecha- responsibility. nisms for facilitating the coordination of intra- departmental concerns are contained within the In terms of very large-scale proposals such as Office of Comprehensive Programs. This is done in deep water ports, energy facility siting, and mono- several sections within the Office of Comprehen- buoy systems, the issue would not only be addres- sive Programs, but primarily through the Environ- sed by the Department of Ecology, through the mental Review Section and the Major Authori- shoreline/coastal zone and other programs, but zations Section. The Major Authorizations Section would also go through the Natural Resources is a key element inthis process. If there is a project Cabinet and the Governor's Office. 128 ###NEWPAGE n="780" ### Chapter III details several other forums for inter- provide the uniformity and coordination that is actions among agencies which are integral parts of essential in the CZM network. The Environmental the overall management network. Not only do they Procedures Coordination Act provides uniformity provide coordinative and discussion vehicles for and coordination, but on a more general level. specific topical issues and policies, they also serve The coastal zone, and all shorelines are the subject for broader formal and informal interaction among of special effort by the state, and thus SMA pro- agencies. Though the Cabinet system is the broadest vides a particularly coordinative as well as regula- and most significant vehicle for policy development tory function. and issue resolution the following forums play a somewhat similar and very significant role in this Two other comments are appropriate here with area: (1) TPPSEC (see pages 92-93);(2) the Marine respect to the discussion that follows. First, no Resource Advisory Committee (see page 75); attempt has been made to provide a complete (3) IAC (see pages 84-86); and (4) ECPA (see pages account of the processes that would be triggered 47-50). or the authorities invoked in each case. The point is to provide a broad look at the sort of thing that The state's management network can probably happens in the State of Washington when a propos- best be seen in operation, however, as it reponds to al with the potential to impact the coastline is best beeeinoprsreponds to made. And second, all of the agency programs specific proposals. Roughly speaking, the response specific proposals. Roughly speaking, the response referred to in the examples are discussed in greater of the management system varies according to two parameters: the type of proposal made and the location of the proposed action. For explanatory readability, page references have been omitted. purposes here it will be useful to take a brief look at several different types of proposals in a variety Example 1 of environmental settings relevant to the coastal *ˇ zone. Examples of the responsiveness of the man- Development of an Offshore Petroleum agement network can be generated endlessly, of Transfer Station course, but the present discussion will be limited to the presentation of the following five: A not so typical but certainly important exam- ple of how the state's coastal zone management network comes into play for an industrial aquatic (1) an industrial project in an aquatic environ- use is the development of offshore petroleum ment (the development of a petroleum transfer stations. Faced with the dilemma of meet- transfer station); ing ever-growing energy demands while at the same (2) a commercial project on tidelands (the time answering a compelling citizen ultimatum to development of a saltwater marina); protect fragile marine environments, state officials turn to a management network which appears to. (3) a recreational project on saltwater shore- work rather well. line (the development of a public recrea- tion area); The first phase of network responsiveness relates to policy determinations and citizen input. The (4) a residential development on upland shore- (4) a residential development on upland shore- Legislature would be the Final decision-making line (a residential subd on); and authority, would draw conclusions from research (5) a forest practice on the uplands (a logging and studies developed by such agencies as the operation). Oceanographic Commission of Washington and the Governor's Energy Policy Council. Citizen partici- The discussion that follows is intended to show pation would come in the form of programs such the managerial network in operation, and the com- as the Alternatives for Washington recommenda- * prehensive influence and direction provided by the tions and public statements from industry groups, Shoreline Management Program in the operation environmentalist organizations, and maritime assoc- of the network. The policies and programs of SMA iations, as well as from citizens at large. 129 ###NEWPAGE n="781" ### As policy development continues - ever chang- Several interactions with local agencies would ing and adjusting-to new problems and needs - the occur in land-based development associated with existing framework of state laws and regulations offshore facilities. Permits would have to be ob- would be applied. Certainly the very size, location, tained from the appropriate county or city under and public awareness of an offshore petroleum the Shoreline Management Act and appropriate transfer facility would require preparation of an zoning ordinances and building codes would have environmental impact statement under the State to be satisfied. If ownership of the proposed off- Environmental Policy Act. Because the facility shore transfer station were to be public instead of would require construction in navigable waters, private several alternatives would have to be con- Army Corps of Engineer permits would also be sidered. The state could operate the facility necessary. In both cases a broad review of the through either an existing or a new agency but such project by a number of state agencies would be an arrangement would require legislation. Or the triggered. system could be operated by a public port district or a combination of districts. Port districts in Washington have broad capabilities although in this The Department of Ecology would be called instance as well new legislation probably would be upon to implement regulations under such state required. laws as the Water Resources Act, the Water Pol- lution Control Act, the Washington Clean Air Act, and of course, the Shoreline Management Act. Development of a Saltwater Marina Washington State with its 2,337 miles of salt- In addition, the proposer of the transfer station water shorelines is considered to be a boater's para- could elect to use the procedures made available dise. There are more than 180,000 recreational by the Environmental Coordination Procedures boats operating in state waters now and the num- Act administered by DOE. Since in most cases an ber is expected to increase to more than half a offshore transfer system would require leases of million by the year 2000. With this boating popu- underwater bedlands for both the installation of larity has come a concurrent demand for additional the station itself and the pipeline to the shore, moorage facilities and for development of new the Department of Natural Resources as manager private and public marinas. But at the same time of state-owned bedlands and tidelands would there is growing public concern about protecting fulfill its responsibilities under the Public Lands and preserving open shorelines. Marinas, because Act and statutes relating to tidelands, shorelands, they often by necessity must be located in fragile and harbor areas. The Department of Natural estuaries, are considered by some to be an un- Resources' lease will be based on the Department wanted intrusion on tidelands and adjacent uplands. of Natural Resources' leasing policies which are in The state's coastal zone management program must turn, cognizant and reflective of the policies, respond to both the need and the concerns for pro- regulations and processes of shoreline management. tection. Tideland commercial activities such as marinas are a test for the state's management network. This is an instance where the Legislature might have to enact new statutes because the Department Policy considerations are tackled at the state of Natural Resources' authority to lease bedlands level through activities of the Legislature as well as from outer harbor lines seaward is presently un- at the local governmental level in the development clear. Provisions of the Seashore Conservation of land use measures such as comprehensive and Act would be implemented by the Parks and shoreline management plans. As previously men- Recreation Commission. Hydraulic permits would tioned, marinas could be proposed for environ- have to be obtained from the Departments of mentally sensitive estuarine areas, and they also Fisheries and Game. may be sought in the harbors of both large and 130 ###NEWPAGE n="782" ### small communities. In any case, nearby residents, sewage systems, sewage pumpout stations for boats, boat owners, and marine industry spokesmen gen- potable water supply for boats, and other sanitary erally make their feelings known during the pro- facilities and procedures. posal and development stages. It is quite possible that the proper zoning would The state has provided a network through which not be existent for development of the marina, and this public interest can be addressed. Under SEPA, consequently the proposed development would an EIS may be required for a marina development. likely be required to obtain a rezone from the The project definitely would require an SMA sub- appropriate city or county jurisdiction. Also. if the stantial development permit from a county or city. development were in a flood control zone, as iden- Unless the tidelands are privately owned (none tified by either DOE or the local government, the have been sold by the state since 1969) the owner appropriate flood control permit would have to be would have to lease the tidelands and any bedlands obtained if the development were to be allowed to either from DNR or from a public port district. occur at all. By statute DNR cannot sign the lease until the applicant has received appropriate Army Corps In this example, as with the prior one, the major permits. coordinative devices (SMA, SEPA, ECPA, if it is used, and Corps Section 10) are administered by The Department of Ecology handles the state or through the Department of Ecology. Four review of the Corps of Engineers' permits, and will major agencies of the state (Department of Natural not clear such permits until requirements of the Resources, Department of Social and Health SMA are satisfied. As mentioned before, the Services, Department of Fisheries and Department Department of Natural Resources will lease on the of Game) have the authority and responsibility of basis of its lease policies which were developed in controlling certain important aspects of the marina, recognition of the SMA. and these agencies have the necessary expertise to assure that these aspects are properly developed. The Departments of Fisheries and Game gen- The Department of Ecology also administers erally look closely at marina proposals to see if specific programs (water quality, noise, floods, natural fish runs are affected (particularly in the water supply) which are selectively brought to bear mouths of streams and rivers) or if activities such on the project. However, the Department of as dredging, bulkheading, or landfills are harmful Ecology also provides overall evaluation and judg- to fish or bird or waterfowl habitat. Both agencies ment of the project from the SMA perspective, in would have to approve a hydraulic permit. addition to assuring that the special interests are alerted to the proposal, and that the concerns of In addition to coordinating the necessary Army these interests are made part of the state's reaction Corps permits and reviewing the appropriate sub- to the proposal. stantial development permit, DOE could be called upon to issue a state water quality permit if a Example 3 package sewage disposal system were utilized with Development of a Public Recreation Area effluent discharge directly to the adjacent waters. on a Saltwater Shoreline Also, a water rights permit would be issued if a domestic water supply system hook-up were not available. Noise regulations, established by DOE As the state's population grows and more leisure time becomes available, the need for recreational and enforced by local governments, would be appli- cable to the boating activities, facilities also increases. The State of Washington has some of the most beautiful and rugged marine The Department of Social and Health Services shoreline in the world. The development of public has established a set of guidelines relating to marina recreation areas - parks, campgrounds, open space - construction and has delegated authority to local on or near the state's ocean and inland beaches and health agencies to enforce them. The guidelines adjacent uplands is a task which challenges the stipulate provisions for public water supplies and state's coastal zone management system. 131 ###NEWPAGE n="783" ### The initial policy considerations have been Prior to acquiring the site for construction, or undertaken by the people in their approval by state- before funding, the proposing agency would have wide vote of several funding measures to support to make a determination of environmental signifi- the acquisition and development of recreational cance and prepare an EIS if the development were facilities. The Legislature has also moved in the determined to be significant. DOE would be in- policy area by giving the State Interagency Com- volved in the review of the SMA substantial devel- mittee for Outdoor Recreation (IAC) expanded opment permit application and the SEPA EIS if authority in park and recreation planning. The IAC one is prepared and would also function as the administers both state and federal funds for park coordinator for the Army Corps permit review. site acquisition and funding and prepares and up- In addition, if a local, municipal, or private water dates the Washington Statewide Comprehensive supply system were not available and the park Outdoor Recreation and Open Space Plan (SCORP). necessitated the drilling of a new well for its opera- This plan gives saltwater recreational development tion, appropriate water rights permits would have a high priority and in any case proposals for new to be obtained from DOE. public facilities would have to fit in with SCORP if they are to be funded through the IAC. The site plan is also subject to review by the Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) The most likely agency to develop major public relating to such things as numbers of sanitary facil- recreation areas along saltwater shorelines would ities in relation to the park's capacity, the layout be the State Parks and Recreation Commission, of camp sites to prevent overcrowding, waste dis- although some other agencies also have authority posal procedures, recreational vehicle disposal to do so: DNR, particularly in tideland areas; pump-out stations, and on-site sewage disposal port districts in harbors; and cities and counties systems. Regulations of DSHS, which may be en-disposal within their respective boundaries. systems. Regulations of DSHS, which may be en- forced through local health units, are contained in The State Parks and Recreation Commission is the Chapter 248-72 WAC. authorized to acquire recreation sites by outright purchase or through leases from public agencies or The review and coordination functions and the private individuals. The tidelands and shorelands various agency roles are as described in the earlier owned by DNR provide an interesting example. examples. The present procedure is for State Parks to pur- chase the site from DNR, which almost always withdraws the abutting tidelands and the bedlands out to one-quarter mile in favor of the Parks and A Residential Subdivision in a Shoreline Area Recreation Commission for development and Of all the competing land uses within the coastal management with the shoreline park. zone, the one which poses the most critical chal- lenge in terms of siting factors is probably residen- If the IAC is involved, the filing of a specific tial development. The building of housing has sig- park acquisition or developme lan s required nificant impact on numerous nearby uses like pror to ste acquiron. Onced, te State Parks and Recreation Commis een shopping facilities, factories, schools, and parks. When the residential site is adjacent to a shoreline, sion would begin the development work. If the another element of complexity is added. How the site falls within the SMA 200-foot boundary, a state is meeting this challenge will in many respects substantial development permit must be obtained give a clue to the effectiveness of the coastal zone from either a city or a county, whichever is appro- management system. priate. If any work is to be done in the waters off- shore from the park site - boating docks, break- Although the State of Washington has not yet waters, dredging of areas for swimming - then an established a comprehensive statewide land use Army Corps permit would also be obtained. In program, it has addressed the subject through a either case the development would be subject to number of individual statutes such as the Planning W formal review by many state agencies. and Enabling Act, the Shoreline Management Act, 132 ###NEWPAGE n="784" ### and the Platting and Subdivision Act, all of which uses, and planning policies of the local government. grant rather broad land use authority to local If a local water supply system were not available governments. In addition, the state and local regu- to provide the domestic water and consequently latory network serves to monitor residential wells or surface water appropriations were neces- development with respect to public health, air, and sary, a water rights (ground or surface) permit water quality, building codes, solid waste manage- would have to be obtained. Further, if a new water ment, noise regulation, and utility installations. supply system serving more than 1,000 users was planned, DOE would notify DSHS which in turn A subdivider must first ensure that the proposed would require a comprehensive plan for the pro- development is compatible with the appropriate posed development approved by DSHS. If a new local government's comprehensive plan and, where water supply system were built by a local muni- applicable, the SMA master program. The next step cipality or water district to serve the subdivision, would be to see that the proposed location is prop- Washington Future Referendum 27 monies would erly zoned if a zoning ordinance exists for the be available to assist in developing the system. locality. The city or county may also require by ordinance that the subdivider provide public open Most of the above reviews are triggered when the space, individual front and rear yard setbacks, subdivider files a preliminary plat with the county drainage ways, street paving, parks, and other or city government. In most cases the coordination public improvements. of the review process is by the locality's planning department. The developer, if confronted by two A residential use in a shoreline area would also or more state permits, could elect to use the ECPA be reviewed by state and local agencies with respect procedures, which would be initially implemented to its influence upon public access to beaches and by the affected county at the time of preliminary tidelands. The state's comprehensive park and plat filing. recreation plan places high priority on acquiring saltwater shorelines for public use. While con- The review and coordination functions and the struction of a single family dwelling by the owner various agency roles are as described in the earlier is generally excluded from the permit system under examples. SMA and from the requirement to file an EIS under SEPA, it is possible that a major subdivision which is planned for an environmentally sensitive area and Example 5 which has not already been affected by the provi- A Logging Operation on Upland Property sions of a local comprehensive plan or zoning might A Logging Operation on Upland Property be subject to the preparation of an EIS. And the Within the coastal zone uplands are some of the subdivision would most certainly require an SMA most productive forest lands in the world. How substantial development permit. these lands are controlled is extremely important in the state's coastal zone management system. The If lots are to be sold without improvements, environmental impact from industrial uses of these then the subdivider must register the development lands - primarily logging - has significant implica- with the Real Estate Division of the Department of tions for the coastal area. Non-point sources of Motor Vehicles under the Land Development Reg- water pollution, disruption of streams used for istration Act. anadromous fish runs, air pollution from slash DSHS, through the local health authority, re- burning or timber processing activities, and the views the subdivision plans for compliance with conservation techniques used in the actual logging statutes relating to water supply and sewage dis- operation all are cause for concern. posal. If no public sewage system exists, the sub- The people of the state and the State Legislature divider might be required to install a package sewer have addressed these concerns in several ways. The system in lieu of septic tanks. It would in all likeli- most far-reaching action was the passage of the hood depend upon soil conditions, surrounding Forest Practices Act (RCW Chapter 76.09), which 133 ###NEWPAGE n="785" ### spells out acceptable procedures for virtually all culverts in anadromous fish use waters, must keep types of logging activity on both public and private debris out of the streams, and are not allowed to forest lands. Implemented through the Department "yard" through or fall trees into streams. Timber of Natural Resources, this statute not only calls contractors also must comply with safety regula- for enlightened management of forest practices but tions as promulgated in RCW Chapter 70.74 and if also brings into play considerable coordination of helicopters or other aircraft are used must meet the appropriate regulatory functions of a number safety requirements of the State Aeronautics Com- of state agencies and county governments. But mission as well. When logging is completed and other regulatory mechanisms are triggered too - burning of slash is begun, the logging operator the water quality requirements of DOE, health and must receive approval from DNR for the burning sanitary guidelines from DSHS, the responsibili- of waste on the day it is to be burned. DNR in ties of the Army Corps of Engineers, and meticu- turn coordinates its approval with the DOE Office of lous review by the Departments of Fisheries and Air Programs in order to minimize smoke impact. Game. In addition to the various state regulations, the GEOGRAPHIC AREAS OF PARTICULAR local shoreline program may have additional regu- CONCERN AND AREAS FOR lations to which the logging operator must adhere. PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION In this example, let us assume that the logging Chapter II identifies the state's areas of particu- operation is to take place on state-owned lands lar concern according to stated selection criteria. managed by DNR. Under the latter's management In addition, management programs are required by program the forest has been assessed for its market CZMA to show evidence that the state has devel- potential and subjected to a variety of silvicultural oped and applied standards and criteria for the practices including pre-commercial thinning, fertili- designation of areas of conservation, recreational, zation, and application of herbicides and pesticides. ecological or esthetic values for the purpose of A specific logging plan is prepared. The timber cut- preserving or restoring them. The state has made ting project may be scrutinized by a departmental provisions for the identification of such areas pri- team for its environmental impact although in most marily through the shoreline management process. cases a formal EIS is not prepared. Then the timber The state guidelines for local program prepara- is sold at public auction and a contract prepared. tion specify that local programs include the follow- The contractor is required to obtain a number of ing plan elements which pertain to restoration and permits and approvals - from the Army Corps if preservation: the logging operation affects a navigable stream or (1) Public access element for assessing the river, from the county under SMA if the project need for providing public access to shore- involves a stream or river or the construction of a road of more than 500 feet in length, from DOE lie areas. for compliance with water quality requirements, (2) Recreational element for the preservation from DOE or the local Air Pollution Control and expansion of recreational opportuni- Authority for any burning, and from DSHS for ties through programs of development and sanitary facilities. acquisition including less-than-fee acquisi- tion. Master programs were also to recog- DNR has a master agreement with the Depart- nize existing state parks, wildlife recreation ments of Fisheries and Game regarding hydraulic areas, national parks, national wildlife permits. However, in cases where logging might refuges, and other areas identified for pres- affect a sensitive fish habitat, one or both of the ervation. departments may require that a specific hydraulic (3) Conservation element for the preservation permit be obtained. By general guidelines, loggers of the natural shoreline resources, consider- must follow special instructions in construction of ing such characteristics as scenic vistas, 134 ###NEWPAGE n="786" ### parkways, estuarine areas for fish and wild- With the final adoption of all local master pro- life protection, beaches, and other valuable grams, the Department will coordinate the designa- natural or esthetic features. tion of these identified areas along with other state (4) Historical/cultural elements for protection programs to provide a consolidated list of candi- and restoration of buildings, sites, and areas date areas. In this regard, the Department has re- having historic, cultural, educational, or strained its preservation and restoration activities, scientific values. recognizing that numerous other state and federal programs address the problem. While the state pro- (5)b lighted areas and abandoned restor dilapi- grams are discussed in detail in Chapter III, some blighted sareas and abandoned or usudilapic- of the more significant programs of preservation dated structures to a natural or useful con- and restoration are summarized here. dition. The guidelines also called for local programs to classify the shorelines into four environment cate- Under the authority of RCW 79.70.630, the gories (urban, rural, conservancy, and natural), each Department of Natural Resources is authorized to with its own range of permissible uses. acquire and maintain natural areas or areas of scien- tific or educational value. Sand Island and Goose Two classifications, the natural and the conserv- Island in Grays Harbor have been designated under ancy, and particularly relevant for the identifica- this Act. The Department of Game has established tion of areas to be preserved or restored. The a natural area for rhinocerous auklets on Protection natural environment classification is intended to Island in the Strait of Juan de Fuca and on upland preserve and restore those natural resource systems natural areas adjacent to Padilla Bay in Skagit existing relatively free of human influence, permit- County. ting an activity only if it contributes to the preser- vation of the existing character. The primary In 1972 the Legislature passed the Natural Area determinant for designating an area as a natural en- Preserves Act to "...establish a state system of vironment is the actual presence of some unique natural area preserves and a means whereby the natural or cultural feature considered valuable in preservation of these aquatic and land areas can be its natural or original condition which is rela- accomplished" and provide for the acquisition of tivelv intolerant of intensive human use. The ob- unique and natural lands for inclusion in a state - jective in designating a conservancy environment is wide preserve system. The Act also created a -to protect, conserve, and manage existing natural natural area preserves advisory committee within resources and valuable historic and cultural areas in the Department of Natural Resources to assist the order to ensure a continuous flow of recreational Department in carrying out the intent of the Act. benefits to the public and to achieve sustained resource utilization. The environment classification system is explained in Chapter III and the maps in The State of Washington historic preservation Appendix A provide the location of approximately program legislation is patterned after the National 140 miles of marine shoreline designated natural. Historic Preservation Act of 1966. The state law created an advisory council similar to the National The State of Washington does not identify all Advisory Council. The state legislation also estab- areas of preservation and restoration as areas of lishes a State Register of Historic Places. The State particular concern. Areas of particular concern are Register will include all nominations to the National designated by state and federal legislation to give Register and other nominations deemed sufficiently prominence to certain large resource areas threat- significant by the state advisory council. Of the ened by alternative or competitive uses. By con- 159 properties in Washington State that have been trast, an area for preservation or restoration is placed on the National Register of Historic Places usually a specific site. It may or may not be within since June 18, 1975, 97 sites are located in the 15 an area of particular concern. coastal zone counties. 135 ###NEWPAGE n="787" ### A POLICY STATEMENT BY GOVERNOR the intent of federal consistency, shall be directed DANIEL J. EVANS, ON THE SITING OF to the accomplishment of this objective. Further, SINGLE, MAJOR CRUDE PETROLEUM TRANS- it is the policy of the Washington coastal zone FER SITE AT PORT ANGELES. SUPPLEMENT- management program to minimize adverse effects ING AND AMENDING THE JANUARY 1976 in the area, and to seek mitigation of unavoidable WASHINGTON STATE COASTAL ZONE MAN- adverse impacts. AGEMENT PROGRAM. Policy on the Expansion of Existing Oil Terminal Background Facilities Faced with impending actions in both the pri- The use of a single offloading site at Port Angeles vate and public sectors on the issue of oil transfer has the dual purpose of lessening vessel traffic in in Northern Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan the inland marine waters and the number of trans- de Fuca, there is an urgent need to clarify and _fer points with their associated spill problems. The make known the State's position regarding an objectives of this major proposal are to reduce the oil terminal at or west of Port Angeles. Supportive risk factor of a major oil spill by reducing the num- policy expressions have already been issued by the ber of transfer sites, the amount of vessel traffic Oceanographic Commission, the Legislature, private in constricted channels, and the amount of environ- groups and the Office of the Governor. The need mentally sensitive marine waters to be exposed to to reassert the state position results from the the risk. fact that the State of Washington has submitted its coastal zone management program, the nation's The offloading facility and transportation sys- first, to the U. S. Department of Commerce for tem at Port Angeles shall be designed to include review. With federal approval, state and federal provisions to supply existing refineries in Whatcom agencies will be expected to conduct their activi- and Skagit Counties. Unless specific plans and firm ties consistent with the State program. Washington's commitments to connect to the Port Angeles coastal zone management program, while based facility are included, individual expansions to primarily on the 1971 Shoreline Management existing offloading facilities or proposals to deepen Act, also includes the body of state legislation and channels to accommodate deeper draft vessels are programs which affect and manage land and water considered inconsistent with the sinl terminal uses in the coastal zone. The inclusion of these concept as incorporated in the state coastal zone additional programs brought about concern as to management program. whether or not the major terminal was supported by and a part of the state coastal zone management STATE/FEDERAL RELATIONS program. While the state's shoreline and related programs Coastal Zone Management Policy on an Oil Ter- have traditionally involved inter-action with a minal at or West of Port Angeles variety of federal agencies, participation in the national coastal zone management program height- The State of Washington, as a matter of over- ened the importance and broadened the scope of riding policy, positively supports the concept of this interaction. The Coastal Zone Management a single, major crude petroleum receiving and Act stresses the pivotal role of the states in coastal transfer facility at or west of Port Angeles. This management and imposes reciprocal coordination policy shall be the fundamental, underlying princi- duties upon the states and federal agencies. States pie for state actions on the North Puget Sound must provide for federal agency participation, ade- and Straits oil transportation issue and is specifi- quate consideration of their views (including cally incorporated within the Washington State "national interests"), incorporation of water pollu- coastal zone management program. State pro- tion and air pollution control requirements, and an grams, and specifically state actions in pursuit of effective mechanism for continuing state/federal 136 ###NEWPAGE n="788" ### * consultation and coordination. This chapter and In February of 1975, the State sent a question- Appendices B, D, and F set forth the Washington naire to the identified federal agencies, and a num- State coastal zone management program activities, ber responded with details about their coastal approaches, and results associated with these ob- zone management concerns, activities, programs, jectives and requirements. problems and expectations. In late March of 1975, the State distributed the History of Federal Participation in the Washington preliminary program document, displaying in black Program and white positions and policies of the State which had not been fully understood by federal agencies. Federal participation in Washington's program The document stimulated extensive federal comn- began modestly during the development of guide- ment, which in turn clarified the policies and lines for the Shoreline Management Act. Federal positions of federal agencies which had not been agencies were invited to contribute views, and the perceived by the State. final guidelines reflected those federal contribu- tions. Many of the federal views identified legitimate deficiencies or desirable modifications to the Federal agencies were also asked to participate program. Others were based on a misunderstand- in a state-federal task force to review local master ing of the State's program or a different interpre- programs. Since 1973, this task force has grown to tation of the Coastal Zone Management Act. A include more than 20 federal agencies. few were based on unrealistic expectations of the State's capability-or legal obligation-to provide With the passage of the Coastal Zone Manage- detailed analyses or projections or initiate pro- ment Act in 1972, state and federal interest in grams. Washington'scoastal zon increased.Generally, the objections addressed the follow- In 1974, the state began to develop its coastal ing. lack of involvement in the development of zone management program and a major effort the program; the need for a concise description of to increase federal involvement began. Efforts the overall program; the definition of coastal zone were hampered somewhat because many a gnisboundaries; lack of information on specific kinds agencies of "permissible uses," "priorities of use," and were not informed about the Act, and were un- aesoprtclronr";idqueexe- prepared to work with it. Also, the Department of areas of pregionaland natonaln" inaeuteexrest;addmn- Commerce had not yet finalized the 306 program staiveor operegoa n ational mecharesms; for coodmina- guidelines, and many legal questions relating to srtiveon oeainal mchansistecy (See AppendixnF. the provisions of the Act were unanswered. Manytinadcssecy(SeApdxF. 9agencies were uncertain if, or how, the Act would affect their programs. In May of 1975, the State was given prelimin- ary approval. Full approval was withheld, in part Some two dozen federal agencies were identified because of the many federal objections. as being "principally affected" by the State's program. Specific contact people were selected The State began revamping its program, paying by the agencies, and correspondence was directed special attention to the deficiencies and misunder- to the contacts. standings which had been brought out through the federal review. Early in 1975, a meeting was held at the Federal Regional Council offices to discuss the State's In June of 1975, the State met with federal * program and to identify areas which would be of agencies in the offices of the Federal Regional particular concern to a group of federal agencies Council. At this meeting, several topics were with common concerns. discussed: procedures for ensuring consistency of 137 ###NEWPAGE n="789" ### federal actions with an approved Washington pro- of the participatory devices discussed above: in- gram., the ways in -which federal views had been volvement in key guidelines preparation; review of considered; and the opportunity of federal agen- local master pro'grams; questionnaire instruments; ciesfor fullpariciption" Noconlusie agee-bilateral discussions; formal review of the initial ments were reached on any of these topics. The program document; responses to agency comments; concept of several subcommittees of federal and and acknowledgement of agency and national in- state agencies with common interests was explored terests. This experience, however, made it clear and later rejected ; it became apparent that common that a more structured and continuing mechanism interests were difficult to identify, that such an for state/federal interaction is needed to implement approach would be unwieldy, and that there was effectively the state's program. The essentials of more need for individual consultation. this system are set forth below. During the ensuing months, the State began a State coastal zone management policy concern- massive information-gathering effort, described in ing federal views and interests has been adopted in the next section. State-federal communication light of the positive spirit embodied in the Coastal throughout the fall and early winter focussed on Zone Management Act, that is, "to cooperate and development and refinement of these "informa- participate in furthering the purposes of this title." tional packets." Washington finds, as did the Congress, that there is a direct national interest in the effective manage- in mid-December of 1975, the State published ment of the coastal zone and that its carefully its substantially revised coastal zone management planned development, protection, and public use is program. The distribution was officially handled of concern to all of the citizens of the United States. by the Office of Coastal Zone Management in Nationwide public interest is manifested in many Washington, D. C. Federal reaction swiftly fol- ways: through the use of the coastal zone for inter- lowed distribution of the document. Very soon it national commerce, national defense and security, became apparent to the State that concern centered and active and passive recreational pursuits; and in W on two issues: the State's position on "excluded recognition of the need for managing the natural federal lands"; and procedures for ensuring con- systems and the uses of man-modif ied segments of sistency. the coastal zone. Discussions with a number of agencies over Many of the federal agency missions, responsibil- the next few months failed to bring resolution. As ities, and activities directly share in this reflection a result, in March of 1976, the State substantially of national concern and interest. National defense revised its excluded lands policy pending the opin- and security, for example, are among the highest ion of the U. S. Attorney General which had been priority of uses of Washington's coastal zone. sought by NOAA. Similarly, the needs and concerns of a broad spec- trum of federal agencies such as the National Park During the same month, the State published and Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, the distributed its "Operational Guidelines for Federal Federal Energy Administration, the Army Corps of Consistency." Engineers, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Coast Guard must be recognized and reflected in Other objections and comments were addressed the program. in further revisions to the program document and It is the intent and desire of the state to mini- also in an addition to Appendix F. mize any form of adversary confrontation when the legislated responsibilities, duties, or procedures Development of a State/Federal Coordination of a federal agency conflict with those of the state System coastal zone program. Every effort will be ex -_ The Washington coastal zone management pro- hausted through communication and informal i gram has attempted to consider adequately the channels before resorting to formal procedures for views of relevant federal agencies through a number conflict resolution. 13 8 ###NEWPAGE n="790" ### The state has committed itself to a continuing (9) A discussion of any, grant programs ot CZ IR effort to understand and actively consider federal significance offered by the agency and a interests in the further refinement and implemen- proposal for determining consistency. tation of its coastal zone management program. (10) A map or series of maps which show those A major tool to achieve mutual understanding, lands and water areas within the Washington develop consistency of activities, and resolve differ- coastal zone which the agency owns, leases, ences is the coordinative packet system adopted by rents, holds i trust, manages. regulates the Department of Ecology. The packet system has operates in, or otherwise directlv influences. been designed specifically to assure that a single documented basis for considering individual agency Design and development of this system was fully views and concerns is established and maintained in underway by September of 1975 drawing upon a the future. It is also designed to be a dynamic substantial amount of prior experience documented record and focal point for at least the following ten earlier. Twenty-nine agencies were identified bv elements of policy and programmatic relevance: OCZM as having potential interests in coastal zone management; by late November this number had (1) The policy of the state regarding the major (1) The policy of the state regarding the major increased to forty-seven as a result of state initia- state/federal interfaces caused by, or part of, es. The packe are available in the Department tives. The packets are available in the Department of Ecology central offices in Olympia and range in (2) Organization charts of the agency and the length from 20 to 100 pages. The packets are sum- state, showing the components of both that marized briefly in Appendix B. are particularly concerned with CZM. (3) A statement about the mission of the Although the development of the packet system agency and the CZM implications of that involved a substantial and concentrated expenditure mission. of resources, it is considered an essential in-progress (4) A discussion of the plans, policies, and beginning of an ongoing state/federal process. The W programs of the agency relative to CZM and process will be maintained and enhanced by the assignment of specific staff resources in the future. a proposed methodology designed specifi- cally to the agency whereby coordination The packets are parts of the Washington Coastal and consultation may occur. Zone Management process, and thus part of the (5) A listing and discussion of the facilities CZM effort now underway. The packets are not, which the agency does not control but however, considered to be part of this program which affect its mission. The facilities may document. While all of the State's policy, especially be either in the coastal zone or near enough regarding excluded lands and consistency, is in to it to impact it. the program document, the packets contain infor- (6) A discussion of the types of activities the mation that will be useful in the future. The packets agency undertakes having CZM significance can become the basis by which minor arrangements and a proposed methodology for determin- for specific problems can be made. From an ing the consistency of those activities with operational and an informational standpoint, the the state program. packets are very much a part of the CZM program effort. (7) A discussion of the CZM-related develop- ments of the agency which are in the coastal zone and a proposed methodology for deter- Consideration of the National Interest in Facility mining consistency with the state program. Siting (8) A discussion of the permits and licenses The Coastal Zone Management Act at Section issued by the agency which have CZM rele- 306 (c) (8) and its approval regulations (Section vance and a proposal for determining the 923.15) require the state to consider adequately consistency of those permits and licenses the national interest in the siting of facilities neces- with the state program. sary to meet requirements which are of greater than 139 ###NEWPAGE n="791" ### local concern. The Washington coastal zone man- interests. The state/federal coordination system agement program and its related state network of is explicitly designed to deal with this dimension policies and authorities establish a reasoned means of coastal zone management. to consider the siting of facilities of local as well as national import. Similarly, SMA and the other The state believes that the full accommodation components of the coastal zone management net- of all perceived national interests is an evolving work are adequate to deal with uses of regional though perhaps ultimately impossible task. The benefit. range of interests expressed by various federal agencies (see Appendix F) ranged from fore- A fundamental criterion to be met is that the seeable needs to meet national security emer- state program neither arbitrarily exclude nor gencies, through siting of energy facilities in unreasonably restrict the siting of facilities or uses undeveloped areas, to stringent requirements to of regional benefit. This performance test is met enhance living marine resources and protect primarily through the open planning process natural habitats. Some of these national interests establishing the shoreline program, the appeals are incompatible in the finite reaches of the process available through the Shorelines Hearings coastal zone. Nevertheless, the state has established Board (one basis of appeal being failure to consider a process and has acknowledged in its identifica- greater-than-local interests), recognition of the tion of areas of particular concern that it is the statewide over local interests with respect to shore- primary objective of coastal zone management lines of statewide significance, and the checks, to deal openly with these needs and conflicts- balances, and procedures associated with the Forest including those stemming from national per- Practices Act, EFSEC, water and air quality spectives-in the implementation of its program. standards, and related programs. Incorporation of Water Pollution and Air Pollution In addition, DOE has been refining and will Requirements continue to refine its research and policy develop-07(f) of CZMA and Section 93.44 of Section 307(f) of CZMA and Section 923.44 of ment concerning the development of outer conti- ment concerning the development of outer conti- the approval regulations call for the "incorporation" nental shelf resources and the potential effects of of the requirements of the Federal Water Pollution rlaskan oil n th stae'scoaof the requirements of the Federal Water Pollution Alaskan oil on the state's coastal zone. Control Act as amended and the Clean Air Act as amended into coastal zone management programs. While the state's coastal zone management pro- The Department of Ecology as the lead state agency gram is not a physical siting program, tangible evi- for all three programs is the single institutional dence of the state's coastal zone accommodation locus for integrating the standards, regulations, and of national and regional interests and uses is found guidelines necessary to achieve the related goals of in the identification of substantial federal facilities these programs. The internal network of DOE poli- and lands mapped in Appendix C. The range of cies and management practices assures that this permissible uses accommodated and designated in important relationship has been established. the coastal zone is also readily apparent from an examination of the aggregate of shoreline environ- The Governor has certified that the state coastal ments described and mapped in Appendix A. zone management program incorporates both fed eral water quality and federal air quality standards. Perhaps the most essential ingredient in meeting Furthermore, any action or proposal which would violate air or water quality standards or regulations national or regional needs is the commitment to a coastal zone management program acknowledging is considered to be inconsistent with the Washington State coastal zone program. national values and needs in Washington's coastal zone; establishing a responsive system of consulta- Program development has been coordinated with tion and coordination; and committing the state to both authorities and the state CZM program is a continuing process of interaction with these developed in compliance with the Federal Water 140 ###NEWPAGE n="792" ### Pollution Control Act and the Clean Air Act. The to develop further understanding of these require- policies and actions undertaken in conformance ments in consultation with the affected agencies with the Washington State CZM program are during the initial period of program implementation. intended to further the objectives of the federal Developing such understanding will involve such air and water quality program. matters as: which activities should be subject to consistency and under what circumstances; work- While state air and water quality programs are able organizational arrangements; the appropriate adequate to control direct discharges and emis- and reasonable procedures to be employed by the sions which could directly and significantly impact various parties involved; and methods to resolve the coastal water, the control of non-point sources disputes in a reasonable fashion. of pollution to coastal waters is considerably more complicated. These authorities mostly fall within A record of these interactions will become pa the Department of Ecology and require a compre- of the federal/state coordinative packet system. In hensive approach which must be incorporated into the interim, before joint understandings have been the total management scheme. For this purpose, reached, it is the state's position that federal agen- the state program has been cognizant of, and has cies should begin to examine their activities in coordinated its program with, local, and area wide light of the Shoreline Management Act and its interstate plans applicable to areas within the guidelines, as well as the Congressional findings coastal zone. In fact, local governments' primary and policies in Sections 302 and 303 of CZpiA. management tool in the coastal zone, the local g Uses in or activities affecting the "resource bound- master program, was mandated by the SMA to be ary" are generally considered by the state to be managmenttoolin te coatal onethe ocalary" are generally considered by the state to be consistent with other state and local programs. within the purview of the consistency provisions. consistent with other state and local programs. Other specific programs that are directed to For coastal zone management purposes, deter- For coastal zone management purposes, deter- non-point pollution include the Section 208 of mination of consistency and any determination the Federal Water Pollution Control Act area wide relating to the process of permit and license certifi- waste treatment management planning. At present, relating to the process of permit and license certpfi- waste treatment management planning. At present, cation shall be undertaken by the State of Washing- two 208 areas are located in the Coastal Zone. As ton (Department of Ecology) with the federal agen- ton (Department of Ecology) with the federal agen- these planning programs get underway, the Depart- cy involved, either jointly or by methods proposed mentwillassue cordiatio beteen he lcalcy involved, either jointly or by methods proposed ment will assure coordination between the local in the packets or established at a later date. The effort and the state' CZMn program. Most specific state will be responsible for assuring that local to the state's water quality planning program is the desires and concerns are considered by the state in 'derale efort f th Deprtmen in asicdesires and concerns are considered by the state in considerable effort of the Department in basic determining the consistency and conformity of planning under Section 303(e) of the Federal federal developments, grants, activities, and the Water Pollution Control Act which enters into an certification of licenses and permits. The policy of certification of licenses and permits. The policy of advanced phase in the coming year to address non- the state is that any applicant for a federal license point problems to meet the 1983 national water or permit to conduct an activity affecting land and quality objectives. Success in meeting national water uses in the coastal zone shall provide the water quality goals is dependent on a coordinated Department of Ecology with a copy of the certifi- effort among the several state programs. Additional cation that the proposed activity complies with the state programs for the protection of the upland state program. Methods for determining which watershed include the State Forest Practices Act activities are subject to the certification process and Hydraulics Permits issued by the Departments1" and how certification procedures will be developed of Fisheries and Game. of Fisheries and Game. will be addressed on a high priority basis with the affected agencies. The state will make every effort The State Position on the Consistency Provisions to notify the concerned federal agency that the state of CZMA concurs with or objects to the applicant's certifica- Sections 307(c) and (d) of CZMA set forth the duties and general processes for federal agency con- State and local government requests for federal sistency with the state's program. The state intends assistance will be made consistent with the state 141 ###NEWPAGE n="793" ### program. Local and state government agencies will service and used extensively to educate the furnish their views to the federal agencv as to the public on the issue of and need for shoreline relationship of such federally funded activities to management. the approved state program. The primary mecha- nism for notification to the state will be the use of I diin okhp eehl ihcut and consistenc-v with the procedures of Title IV asesrlgalrpeettvsnonyadct of te Inero-ernenra Cooeraton At of1968officials, and federal agency representatives (the A-95 process). who would be directly affected by the Shoreline (the A-95 process). Managernent Act, an d newsletters, newspapers, CITIZEN AND GOVERNMENTAL INVOLVE- and professional magazines were all provided MENT IN PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT with articles comparing the two shoreline management alternatives. Involvement in the Shoreline Management Process The effort resulted in a Shoreline Management The various state programs which make up the Act which stressed the necessity for citizen input state coastal zone program have been developed to shoreline programs with administration at the under specific requirements relating to citizen locate leviel.adrve n dioyatoiya h involvement. The state's shoreline management saelvl program is probably a national model for maxi-ThSorln agentAtt90513 mizing involvement at all stages of development. The proveides MaaeethAtat in. order Not only did the Act itself require and foster RWpoie hti re citizen involvement, but the controversial nature of "It] o insure that all persons and entities having an inter- the program made it newsworthy, which kept est in the guidelines and master programs developed citizens aware of the program as it was being under this chapter are provided with a full opportunity implemented. for involvement in both their development and implement- ation, the department and local governments shall .. .W The Act originated from the involvement of [ ml ake reasonable efforts to inform the people of the concerned citizens. As a direct result of the state about the shoreline management program of this Washington Environmental Council's Initiative 43, chapter and in the performance of the responsibilities the State Legislature passed the Shoreline Manage- provided in this chapter shall not only invite but actively ment Act of 197 1, Alternative Measure 4 3B, and encourage participation by all persons and private groups enacted it as an emergency law on June 1, 1971. and entities showing an interest in shoreline management On November 7, 1972, the voters went to the polls programs of this chapter..." and affirmed the present law. Prior to the election and in order to inform the electorate of the issues Participation in Establishment of the Final Guide- involved in the two management proposals, an lines informational program was established throughout Wt h asg fteSoeieMngmn the state: Act of 197 1, the Department of Ecology staff had information pamphlets were distributed widely 90 days to draft a set of guidelines for local govern- throughout the state. ments and citizen advisory committees to utilize in the formulation of their shoreline programs. A state voters pamphlet was published whichThfisdrtwamildotndllneetd prvddcnise xlntosuote opsin persons, groups, and agencies had 90 days to sub- issues. mit their comments and criticisms. The Depart- Workshops were sponsored by county extension ment of Ecology staff then had another 90 days to offices to inform citizens about the Act and an modify the original draft and mail the modified article comparing the proposals was written and draft out again for further comment. After receiv- distributed in mass throughout the state; a slide ing the second set of comments, the draft was is show was developed by the county extension amended for the second time and public meetings 142 ###NEWPAGE n="794" ### were held at various locations within the state. revised the draft and submitted it to local planning Federal and state agency participation in guide- commissions and legislative bodies for action. line preparation was considerable. Local government then sent the master programs and a report of public involvement to the Depart- With the conclusion of the public meetings ment of Ecology for approval. further modifications were made to the draft. Prior to the public hearings, a mailing list was The response by local government to the chal- pu together consisting of all individuals who had lenge presented by the public participation require- attended the public meetings or had respondied in ments of the Act has been impressive. Of 224 cities some other way to the drafts that had previously ad couies directly affected by the Act onl been distributed. A copy of the final draft was four declined to take on the task of preparing a then sent to each individual for one final review master program. Program development has often and two public hearings were held, one in Olympia extended over an 18-month period and required and one in Spokane. Final adoption of the guide- anywhere from five to 40 citizen advisory commit- lines was made at a hearing held in Olympia. tee public meetings. In the lengthy process over 2,000 citizens have been directly involved in developing the shoreline program in the State of Participation in Local Master Programs Washington. Citizen involvement is stressed as a required inte- While the state has been careful to assure that gral part of local shoreline master programs. In local interests have had an opportunity to partici- fact, the final guidelines stipulate that failure of pate in the formulation of shoreline policy, the local governments to encourage and utilize citizen need for balance and assurance that "greater than involvement without proper justification will be local interest" has been recognized has been pro- considered as a failure to comply with the Act. vided through state and federal review. To assist The guidelines for citizen involvement were quite the Department of Ecology in review of local explicit and have been adhered to by local govern- shoreline master programs, review task forces were ments throughout the state. formed, representing various state and federal To insure that the needs and desires of the agencies. These task forces provided the oppor- people were reflected in local master programs, tunity for all interested agencies to comment on the master programs. local governments were required to appoint the master programs. broadly based citizen advisory committees, repre- The state was divided into four review areas, senting both commercial interests and environ- thus reducing the number of programs any one thus reducing the number of programs any one mentalists, to define goals and to draft policy task force would be required to review and to statements for the master programs. Selection ensure that field personnel most familiar with tke procedures and the size and number of committees area cou ld be involved in the review. The technical have varied among the participating jurisdictions, expertis e of the task force members and their expertise of the task force members and their reflecting the unique needs and resources of each. knowledge of the geographical areas have greatly Each local committee was to conduct a series of aided the Department of Ecology staff in arriving aided the Department of Ecology staff in arriving public meetings and encourage the participation of at their decisions to approve or deny the shoreline governmental agencies and private groups. Local master programs. master programs. committees were encouraged to issue newsletters to describe the results of the meetings and to give information about policy statements and program Involvement in the Permit Process development. The regulatory portion of the program involves During the process, which included the drafting a permit system which cities and counties have the of goals, policies, and regulations, the committee responsibility for administering. It is the responsi- took the draft of the master program to public bility of local government to instruct the appli- meetings for discussion. The committee then cant for a substantial development permit and to 143 ###NEWPAGE n="795" ### publish notices in a local newspaper within the voluminous than the content of oral presentations county of the proposed development.- The notices at hearings. Attendance figures for these hearings must be published at least once a week for two should not be taken as a lack of interest since consecutive weeks. An affidavit of publication most of the comments received were written. The must be transmitted to the local government by following table shows the hearing dates for relevant the applicant. The affidavit is then attached to the chapters of the Washington Administrative Code: application. Chapter 17 3-14 Permits for Substantial Develop- All persons interested in the proposed project ment on Shorelines of the State have 30 days from the final publication of the notice within which they may submit, in writing, Hearing date: December, 1971 all comments, views, and criticisms to the appro- Location: Olympia, Washington priate local agency. Local governments may establish a mandatory or optional public hearing Attendance: 80 procedure to precede the issuance or denial of permits in order to allow citizens the opportunity Chapter 17 3-16 Shoreline Management Act to present their views. Guidelines for Development of Master Program As applications for permits increased, the state, Preliminary local governments, and local committees recog- hearing #1 date: March 21, 1972 nized a need for professional expertise in the area of technical assistance in reviewing permits and Lo cation: Spokane, Washington in developing master programs. This resulted in the Attendance: 80 formation of the Interdisciplinary Advisory Com- mittee (IDAC) in December of 1972. The IDAC Preliminary provided counseling to local governments and local hearing # 2 committees on a volunteer basis and provided an date: March 23, 1972 opportunity for the academic community inLoainOlmaWsngn addition to the general public to become involvedLoain OlmaWsngn in the permit system. Attendance: 150 Public Hearings Final hearing Public Hearings date: June 20, 1972 Major state programs which comprise the Washington State coastal zone management pro- Location: Olympia, Washington gram have met state hearing and public involve- Attendance: 50 ment requirements. Hearings were held for the Shoreline Management Act itself, as well as for all Chapter 17 3-19 State Master Program the regulations and local master programs as required by the Administrative Procedures Act of Hearing #1I Washington (RCW Chapter 34.04). In the imple- date: October 15, 1974 mentation of SMA, several state regulations haveLoain SpaeWsngn been adopted in the Washington AdministrativeLoainSpkeWsngn Code. Hearing procedures under the Code require Attendance: 40 notice of the hearing in advance of the date and availability of materials prior to the hearing. There Hearing #2 is a period for written comments to be received date: October 23, 1974 and considered before the decision is made. These Location: Olympia, Washington written comments match or exceed oral comments in utility to the decision maker and are often more Attendance: 30 144 ###NEWPAGE n="796" ### Chapter 1.73-18 Shoreline Management Act- must have the power to administer land and water Streams and Rivers Constituting Shorelines uses, to control development, and to resolve con- of the State flicts among competing uses. The Governor's Chaptr 17320 Shrelin ManaementAct- letter submitted with this document designates the Chaptr 17-20 horeine anagmentAct- Department of Ecology as the single agency and Lakes Constituting Shorelines of the State certifies that the Department has the necessary Chapter 17 3-22 Adoption of Designations of au thorities. This designation is particularly appro- Wetlads Asociaed wth Sorelies o thepriate in view of the fact that the key to Wetlnds ssocatedwit Shoelins oftheWashington's coastal management, the Shoreline State Management Act, declares in relevant part that 173-18,-20 and -22 were all heard together. Hearing date: June 28, 1972. Location: (t) he department of ecology is designated the state Olympia, Washington. Attendance: 10 agency responsible for the program of regulation of I the shorelines of the state, including coastal shore- Additionally, a joint NOAA/DOE hearing on lines and the shorelines of the inner tidal waters the entire proposed program was held on April of the state, and is authorized to cooperate with the 22, 1975, following press notification and indi- federal government and sister states and to receive 'dual nvitatons. Adraft nvironental mpactbenefits of any statutes of the United States when- vidainiain.Adatevrnetlipc ever enacted which relate to the programs of this statement was distributed at the hearings, in pub- chapter. IRCW 90.58.3001 lic libraries, and by mail to a number of citizen groups, federal agencies, and individuals. Sentiment The Act further identifies the Department's at the hearing generally fell into two classes: recoin responsibilities in the relationship to the federal mending approval and recommending against ap- government in 90.58.260: proval, the latter stemming generally from concern * over a lack of environmental protection in the pro- The state, through the department of ecology and gram. the attorney general, shall represent its interest before water resource regulations management, Washington's chief interstate involvement has development, and use agencies of the United States, been with the State of Oregon, which shares the including among others, the federal power commis- Columbia River estuary. DOE and other state sion, environmental protection agency, corps of and oca peole avepartciptedin CREST engineers, department of the interior, department andolumbal peplihver Estary tudiem)pcipale of agriculture and the atomic energy commission, (Columba RiverEstuaryStudy Tam), a pecialbefore interstate agencies and the courts with organization created to examine and plan for the regard to activities or uses of shorelines of the state Columbia River estuary. Involvement with other and the program of this chapter. states has been through correspondence and occasional meetings hosted by OCZM. In addition, The Coastal Zone Management Act also states Washington has had contact with Alaska at meet- ta hr eesr o rga mlmnain ings hosted by the Federal Regional Council and, that state necestacury for prgrmimplemendesthatin, DOE and through telephone and written communi- tesaemtacur"fee simple anderests thn...rpry. cations. f e s m l n e e t n .rpry The Department of Ecology is empowered in RCW 90.5 8.240 to DESIGNATED AGENCY AND AUTHORITY FOR PROPERTY ACQUISITON "[a! cquire lands and easements within shorelines of the state by purchase, lease, or gift, either alone or in concert Section 306 of the Coastal Zone Management with other governmental entities, when necessary to Act requires that a single agency be designated to achieve implementation of master programs adopted * manage the coastal zone program. That agency hereunder... ." 145 ###NEWPAGE n="797" ### In addition, state agencies and local governments Department of Game: authority to acquire have certain limited-powers of eminent domain as for sanctuary and follows: other purposes. (RCW 77.12.200) .Department of Ecology: authority to acquire Parks and Recreation shorelines and related shoretlinesands. (rele Commission: authority to acquire 90.58.2d0. (RCWfor parks and park- ways. (RCW Department of Natural 43.51.040) Resources: authority to acquire The state does not currently consider it neces- natural areas, natural sary to have outright power of condemnation to area preserves or implement the coastal zone management program. areas of scientific or The authorities cited above, in conjunction with educational value. the overall program, prevent inappropriate uses of (RCW 79.70.630) the coastal zone. 146 ###NEWPAGE n="798" ### LoI i Chapter VI Continuing Development of the Management Program ###NEWPAGE n="799" ### CHAPTER VI. CONTINUING DEVELOPMENT OF THE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM INTRODUCTION First. administrative funding will enable state and local agencies to increase their capabilities to carry hexistein coastal zone management program in ibedhout program objectives. The second dimension, the consistency provisions for federal activities in the detail, including interrelationships, problems, and Act, will allow the coastal resource to be viewed as management mechanisms. From the foregoing a complete functional unit. This will remove the can readily be seen that the state has the necessary historical constraints which states from legislative, administrative, and informal tools to legislative, administrative, and informal toos to planning for and recognizing federal actions as they implement a state coastal zone management may relate to the coastal zone program. However, coastal zone management is a process Through the processes established, the state will and as such it is apparent that the refinement of become more aware of federal programs and policies the management system does not cease with app rov- and, in turn, the federal agencies will be more cog- al by the Department symof Commersceah. A program nizant of the state program. Better knowledge and al by the Department of Commerce. A program communications and the requirements for consist- document, however well designed, is still merely communications and the requirements for consist- document, however well designed, is still merely ency of federal actions will achieve a more rational the expression of a process at a given point in time. a nd c omprehensive management of the coastal A process must continually undergo evaluation, re- and comprehensive management of the coastal re- * view, and refinement and be responsive to new source. issues. The administration and implementation of the This chapter, then, sets out the policy of the approved program will be undertaken in three gen- eral areas: program coordination, program admin- coastal zone program to assure that it will be a flex-areas: program coordination, program adm ible and meaningful process for the immediate fu- istration, and program enhancement. ture as well as for long-range considerations. The "continuing process" aspect of the program is PROGRAM COORDINATION OBJECTIVES addressed at two levels, recognizing that while there are immediate issues to be addressed in pro- It is the objective of the Department to cpntin- gram administration, it is not possible to foresee all ue to refine the processes and procedures for deal- issues and concerns. For that reason, it is impor- ing with federal consistency and federal relation- tant to emphasize program evaluationand the co- ships generally to improve intrastate agency and ordination mechanisms among the various govern- program coordination, and to maintain a strong mental units and the public. state/local interrelationship. Federal Coordination. OVERALL PROGRAM OBJECTIVES There is a clear need for greater state/federal A program approved under section 306 of the cooperation and understanding. There are four Coastal Zone Management Act will provide the specific actions intended to be under taken follow- State of Washington opportunities to more fully ing program approval to meet this objective: implement existing state programs for coastal zone management. Approval provides two added dimen- 1. The preliminary packets sent to 43 federal sions to the program that will. enable the state to agencies will be finalized in terms of informa- administer a more sound and comprehensive pro- tional content and agreement as to the meth- gram for the management of the coastal resources. ods and procedures suggested in them. 147 ###NEWPAGE n="800" ### 2. Where seen as necessary, agreements be- 5. There may arise a conflict between the state tween individual federal agencies and the state and a federal agency during administration of will be developed to deal with matters not the program, and resolving such conflicts isW now addressed in the packets. Such agree- certainly an objective of this program. The ments, specifically tailored to particular agen- method employed by the state will first be cies and directed at specific issues, will ulti- bilateral discussions with the federal agency matelv be included as a part of the packets. to solve the problem. Should that fall, the state will either drop the matter or use one 3. Additional effort will be undertaken to better of the following possible solutions. The last, coordinate agency policies from a coastal zone resolution in federal court, is seen to be the management perspective. Also, specific ques- least desirable method. tions remain unanswered with some agencies in the area of consistency generally. An important 1. Appeal to a higher federal authority, such activity to be undertaken is to clarify and for- as the parent department of the agency. malize these issues in a manner acceptable to both the state and the affected agency. 2. Bring the matter to a panel of CZM repre- sentatives of various state, local, and federal 4. The state will also build and enhance a special entities, called together for the purpose of relationship with certain existing bodies which airing such conflicts. are ideally constituted to enhance coordina- tion for coastal zone management needs. These 3. Bring the matter before a mediation ser- are: vice to be provided by the Department of Commerce. (a) The Federal Regional Council, which can be helpful in coastal management as a fed- 4. Bring the matter to federal court. eral "one-voice" on problems and issues that require a consensus for consistency purposes; State Coordination (b) The Pacific Northwest River Basins Corn sd rm- teipratoriainmaue mission, which can he helpful from the needed foro thedea ipartantcodipation inecastalzoes standpoint of a joint federal/state focus mnaementdtedsaewiltk furtheera partciption incatazon on technical applications of standards c ordnageette costalteonellctaketyurther actionagto and principles of multi-purpose character corinate caThe zobjeactiveinthi casen istate coriaten- stemming from Water Resource Council appie.Teojcativeon ofi call iet state effortsinathed mandates; and, coastal zone. These actions will be as follows: (c) The Pacific Northwest Regional Com- 1 hr sacniun edfrrsuyo h mission, which can be helpful as its prelimi- paThren eislacotionuigne for thromoenstd of the nary plan evolves, to aid both state and prn eilto o h opnnso h federal "line operations" with coastal managerial network. Occasional gaps and over- policy including criteria and constraints laps in authorities have been identified and for both growth and energy questions. will be examined in detail with recommenda- tions for corrective legislation. Packets are prepared for these three bodies, 2. In light of coastal zone management, it is neces- which can be developed into mechanisms for all sary to reevaluate arrangements between and forms of coordination serving federal agencies and among state agencies (through interagency agree- the state in many instances, especially those in- ments or other formal mechanisms) to make the volving concerns shared by a number of federal roles and responsibilities of respective agencies W departments. more explicit and effective. 148 ###NEWPAGE n="801" ### 3. Agency study committees and ad hoc advisory one local government can be dealt with by all committees will be assembled as the need arises concerned entities. to deal with multi-agency concerns. 4. The roles of the Washington State Association 4. State agencies currently involved in local shore- of Counties and the Association of Washing- line master program review will continue to ton Cities, which are now staffed and charged participate in the review of new programs as with providing CZM/SMA assistance and co- well as major amendments of approved pro- ordination for all of their members, will be grams. continued. 5. The use of state programs such as SEPA and 5. Periodic workshops and seminars, sponsored ECPA (see Chapter III) will be emphasized by DOE and/or the associations, will provide in coordinating agency reviews of projects and for the discussion of coastal zone manage- proposals. ment issues. 6. The Governor's Natural Resources Cabinet 6. Revisions and corrections of local master and other high level policy groups will be asked programs will continue to be made so that the to deliberate major policy considerations. program components for adjoining jurisdic- tions are made compatible, emerging issues 7. Other existing multi-agency entities such as are addressed, and administration is improved the IAC and EFSEC can provide coastal zone generally. management coordination for specialized facilities in the coastal zone such as recreation Program Administration Objectives. facilities and power plants, respectively, for the two groups cited. Activities proposed to be undertaken in this area are intended to eliminate duplication of effort *Local Coodination wherever possible, to expedite and improve the quality of decision making, to more expediously It is the role of the Department of Ecology to inform all affected interests of pending proposals, serve as an intermediary between federal and local and to improve the quality and timeliness of the entities within the context of the state's program. entire administrative system. To insure that both federal and local interests are Actions to meet these objectives for federal con- fully considered by each party and that all attempts cerns are as follows: will be made to achieve an equitable arrangement that is mutually satisfactory 1. Consistency procedures are of concern to fed- eral agencies and critical to the efficient admin- Actions to be taken to achieve local coordina- istration of the program. For this reason the tion with state, federal, and other local entities state will assist federal agencies in making these are as follows: determinations to the extent that the agencies seek such assistance. DOE will make special 1. Meetings of local citizen advisory and tech- efforts to assure that information flows nical committees, which are composed of rep- smoothly and that consistency matters re- resentatives for a broad spectrum of interests ceive the state's prompt attention. DOE will who meet to discuss issues in refining local assist federal agencies to augment existing pro- shoreline programs, will continue. cedures where necessary. 2. The integration of other local planning efforts into the shoreline programs will be undertaken 2. There is a need to fully develop existing mech- by a substantial number of local jurisdictions. anisms and to create additional methods where necessary, by which state and local 3. Emphasis will be placed on multi-jurisdic- actions which may affect federal agency tional approaches to program implementation responsibilities can be made known to federal so that coastal resources shared by more than agencies. 149 ###NEWPAGE n="802" ### 3. The Department will continue to utilize exist- 5. DOE's coastal zone management staff will ing tools such as NEPA, A-95 review, and the review and if necessary respond to A-95 Federal Register, as well as other mechanisms notices to assure consistency of the proposal already established by federal agencies or the to the coastal zone program. state, and investigate new or alternative noti- fication mechanisms. 6. DOE will administer a major grant program to local government and other Section 306 fund- 4. In carrying out its functions as lead coastal ed contracts and programs. zone management agency, DOE will attempt to be fully cognizant of federal programs and 7. DOE will maintain an implementation program responsibilities. The Department will develop which involves court action, project negotia- and maintain an information system on tion, site visitation, consultation, correspond- federal plans, activities, and developments. ence, and other activities required to assure proper attention to land and water uses in the 5. Depending on the desires and needs of coastal zones. individual federal agencies, the Department 8. DOE will promulgate administrative regula- could provide existing publications and in- tions for the continuing implementation of formation to federal agencies on state and the program. local actions which might affect federal mis- sions and responsibilities. This could be pro- vided in the form of environmental impact PROGRAM ENHANCEMENT OBJECTIVES statements under review, public hearing notices, appeal and enforcement actions, pro- 1. While control of land and water uses in the coastal zone is considered adequate, there is a posed regulations, etc. need to augment state and local administration 6. The Department will develop the capability to with better articulated policy, a better data provide technical assistance to applicants for base, and more thorough reviews through the federal permits or licenses to aid them in meet- managerial network. ing certification requirements. 2. At a policy level, there is a continuing need for an analysis of the parent legislation which makes up the components of the managerial Additional administrative functions to be carried network. Legislative deficiencies and the over- out by the state include the following: lapping of authorities should be remedied 1. DOE will expedite permit reviews among the through corrective legislation. state agencies. 3. The program should assure adequate investi- I1 C a dgation into certain coastal zone management 2. Coastal zone management will be coordinates issues such as outer continental shelf develop- with other permit systems. ment, energy generally, utility corridors, and water surface usage. Wherever possible, the 3. The state/federal program review task force comprehensive umbrella of the coastal zone will continue to operate. management program should be brought into play to relate these investigations to the entire 4. Where notice and hearings are required for coastal zone. coastal zone management actions and are pro- vided by other means, DOE will document 4. At the interstate and international level, policy those activities to assure compliance with interests in the Columbia River, the outer CZMA. Where notice and hearing has not continental shelf, the Strait of Juan de Fuca, been available via other means, DOE will the northern San Juan Islands, the fisheries re- see that these requirements are met. source, maritime commerce, and other 150 ###NEWPAGE n="803" ### resources. Again, the coastal zone manage- facility siting. While future legislative action ment umbrella should be used in all appro- may establish other mechanims for dealing priate discussions to relate the consideration with those issues, it is the policy of the pro- to the coastal zone as a whole. gram to more fully develop data, analysis capabilities, and specific policies that wvill 5. The state's coastal zone program includes a .assure that this interest is recognized. number of processes for the identification otf areas of particular concern and areas for pres- 11. Coastal zone management is a series of de- ervation. There is a need to consolidate and cisions, in terms of both program develop- coordinate these ongoing efforts and to ment and implementation. It is desirable that further incorporate them into the coastal all decisions be founded on as strong a scien- zone program. tific basis as possible. Decisions should be made with as much knowledge as possible of 6. If acqusition of some areas should be seen as the policies and opinions of others. Scientific desirable, the coastal zone program should knowledge and policy knowlede are data and reinforce and be consistent with state recrea- must be organized such that they can be inter- tion acquisition programs, energy and preted and used by everyone with a concern economic development programs. in the coastal zone. Much data has been col- 7. The state will attempt to establish an lected and used thus far in the state's coastal estuarine sanctuary through Section 312 of zone management efforts and more will be CZMA. Similarly, the state will continue to collected as the program continues, but there examine all of those coastal esturaine areas is general agreement that the systems now which have a particular biological significance used in collection, handling, and delivery for their possibilities as a sanctuary. should be improved. 8. The Department will continue to assess the use 12. Local government is also faced with a multi- capabilities of wetlands and identify areas of tude of decisions that would be better made high biological productivity. To do this and with more detailed and reliable information. concurrently assure their conservation will re- A large effort will be made to determine quire detailed knowledge and adequate man- how local decisions could be assisted with agement criteria. scientific information and to determine the type and display of such information that will 9. The state will continually monitor and evalu- be most useful to localgovernment. This ef- be most useful to local government. This ef- ate the effectiveness of the program and carry fort will be coupled with the overall data man- out specific in-depth evaluations of key por- agement program which integrates state and tions of the program. The state intends to federal informational needs and systems. conduct such specific evaluations in conjunc- tion with other state, federal, and local 13. Several of the activities listed herein will re- agencies and the general public. Only in this suit in special reports which, if appropriate, way can the Department know with any cer- would become additions or amendments to tainty that the program is indeed carrying out the program. Other special reports can be- the broad policy and intent of the program. come the basis of agreements or guidelines To this end it may be necessary and desirable to the parties in order to solve a coastal zone to establish review evaluation committees. concern. 10. The coastal zone program is at the present 14. As a training and informational device, period- time the primary vehicle in the state for ic workshops will be held to bring together assuring that the state's interest is con- large groups to deal with specific coastal zone sidered in oil exploration, transport, and management affairs. 151 ###NEWPAGE n="804" ### 15. Recognizing that the purpose and thrust of state's new energy program and the federal the state's coastal zone program is to assure energy agencies to ensure compatible state/ for future generations an environmentally and federal energy efforts as they affect the economically desirable place to live it is the coastal zone, especially insofar as facilities policy of the state, through the coastal zone siting is concerned. program, to keep its citizens aware of the need to protect and plan for its coastal resources. 19. Washington State will soon be faced with With egardto pblic warenss i shoud begreater amounts of incoming crude oil ship- nothegad tha publicy isnoadretess at tholbe proed by tanker. The possibility of a single oil notes ad toaolswich hav been dieveloed athpr-tanker receiving terminal located in the Port cessand tol hc are being impemeloped, u ttee Angeles vicinity has become a serious propo- and ae beig imlemened, bt atthe euca-sal. The Department will devote special tion and information phases as to why it is effort to assist, via CZM4, the feasibility necessary to manage the coastal zone. determination of this proposal. If the pro- 16. The Outer Continental Shelf, and its future, posal is found feasible, the Department will work toward the best siting, design, and are of great concern to the state from environ. men tat, economic, jurisdictional, and manage- r amanasgtemfcaeont of this teffrmnluigthe. ment standpoints. The state will undertake p rga stefclpon fti fot whatever investigations and actions are 2 .Fodn n te aua aad n hi mneededthandareopen to ensuriyte godtaage-s consequent damage are matters of great moen of thisare mandocariytemSaent. concern in Washington State, and with the role in that management. establishment of an operational CZM pro- 17. Several federal agencies are responsible for gram, a new relationship of local, state and programs that are directly parallel to many federal partners is evolving. The subject of programs in DOE and other state aecs.this relationship should be pursuit of com- Exaple ae ar qaltywatr ualty patible flood plain and hazard area manage- fisheries resources, timber management, wild- ment plans, policies, objectives, and regula- life, energy, and transportation. Whenever tions. Shoreline management has a very com- programs of such a dual nature affect the prehensive approach to the management of coastal zone, the Department will work, uses on the floodplains, and when combined using the packets, multi-lateral discussions, with other local endeavors and the federal memoranda of agreement, and other appro- flood damage reduction program in a corn- priate means, to promote and arrange compati- patible manner, can achieve the aims of all bility of policy, objectives, methods, and concerned. practices. By this means, the CZM4 program can ensure consistent treatment of the coastal 2 1. Emphasis in the program development stage resource through such dual programs, and has been on the development of regulations possibly assist such programs toward more and standards, enforcement, and on the rapid attainment of mutually sought goals development of broad management local and'standards. and regional plans. While these elements of the program are essential, there is now the 18. The state legislature has recently expanded need to examine the needs of some specific the scope of the Thermal Power Plant Site land and water uses with requirements for Evaluation Council to embrace the siting of sitings within the coastal zone from a broader, all types of energy facilities, and this new coastal zone-wide perspective. The need energy act also addresses other energy prob- would include studies and positive policy for lems and issues. Insofar as energy facilities the location and siting of such uses as boating and other concerns may affect the coastal and energy facilities, and other use of greater resource, the Department will work with the than local interest. 152 ###NEWPAGE n="805" ### 22. Emphasis in the development of local shore- When this happens, the proposed amendments line master programs has been on the onshore, will be sent to the Department of Commerce with upland land use aspects of the program. This a request for review and approval. element is most critical to, and has histori- cally been, the prerogative of local govern- The state will publish annual supplements to the ment. However, the resultant local programs program every year to update the coastal zone often neglect or inadequately address compli- management program, to account for new policy, cated issues involving the management of the and to report on the resolution of problems. The beds and surfaces of marine waters. Water first supplement will be published in June of 1977. areas have historically and continue to be Wsigo' osa oemngmn rga managed by a multiplicity of state and federal wilas he irsto' eostablise ionte mnagement purogrant agencies. There is now a need to examine wtlob the Coat stablise Zonte MnageetAtiond rpuresuants local programs in light of state and nationaltoteCaalZnMngmntAtndrpsns policies and to bring some degree of consis- an achievement for the nation as well as the state. tency between and among the programs at Aside from the managerial aspects, this program all levels of government. represents a pioneering effort at multi-level govern- mental attention to the problems of a fragile, com- CONCLUSION plex, and extremely valuable resource. It is hoped that this attainment will grow and As the CZM program continues, there will prosper throughout the coastal zone of the whole arise a need to formalize the refinements through nation and that similar efforts can be directed at the program amendment process. other resources and problems that are of concern to all levels of government. . When a possible amendment will affect various entities, then the Department will endeavor to develop such amendments in concert and consul- tation with those entities, as well as providing the opportunity for review. 0 ###NEWPAGE n="806" ###