c' -■'•.. ^y'/-'A5 Q O Public hearing notice is located on the back cover, J NOTE TO READERS The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 mandates that an environmental impact statement be prepared as part of the review and approval process of major actions by Federal government agencies which significantly affect the quality of the human environment. The action contemplated is approval of the Massachusetts Coastal Manage- ment Program under Section 3O6 of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended. An Immediate effect of approval is the quali- fication of the State for Federal matching funds for use In administer- ing the program. In addition, the Coastal Zone Management Act stipulates that Federal activities affecting the coastal zone shall be, to the maxi- mem extent practicable, consistent with an approved State management program. For purposes of reviewing this proposed action, the key questions are: whether the Massachusetts program is consistent with the objectives and policies of the national legislation, whether the award of Federal funds under Section 306 of the Federal Act will help Massachusetts to meet those objectives, whether the State management authorities are adequate to im- plement the State program, and whether there will be a net environmental gain as a result of program approval and Implementation. The Office of Coastal Zone Management believes the answers to these key questions are affirmative. The Office wants the widest pos- sible circulation of this document to all Interested agencies and par- ties In order to receive the fullest expression of opinion on these quest ions. To those people whose time is limited In reviewing the draft EIS, the following sections are recommended reading in order to understand the essential elements: Chapter Page Overview of What Can Occur II- 1 in the Coastal Zone Coastal Pol ic ies 11-7 Local Government Role 11-50 Probable Impact of Proposed Action lll-l This program is of major significance, not only to Massachusetts, but to the Nation. It is one of the first programs submitted from the eastern coastal States. Previously, only States along the Pacific coast have submitted program for approval. It is expected that by April, 1978 six programs will be approved, and seven will be in the process of evaluation. Further, the Massachusetts coast represents a concentration of natural, historic, and economic attributes that are of national im- portance. The Office of Coastal Zone Management thanks those partici- pating in the review of the Massachusetts program and this environmental impact statement. It is the general policy of the Federal Office of Coastal Zone Management to issue a combined draft environmental impact statement and program document. An exception was made for Massachusetts because of the length of the program document. Thus, this draft environmental im- pact statement contains a summary of the program (see Part II). The entire Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program consists of Volumes I, 11 and addendum issued by the State as v/ell as this DEIS. The Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs assures that this environmental impact statement satisfies the requirements of the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act. SUMMARY (X) Draft Environmental Impact Statement ( ) Final Environmental Impact Statement Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Coastal Zone Management. For additional information about this proposed action or this statement, please contact: Ms. Kathryn Cousins Regional Manager, North Atlantic Region or Richard S. O'Connor Assistant Manager, North Atlantic Region Office of Coastal Zone Management National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 3300 Whitehaven Street, NW, Washington, DC 20235 Phone: 202/63^-4235 Written comments should be addressed to: Office of Coastal Zone Management National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Attention: Ms. Kathryn Cousins Room 3280 3300 Whitehaven Street, NW, Washington, DC 20235 1 . Type of Action Proposed Federal approval of the Massachusetts Coastal Management Program (X) Administrative ( ) Legislative 2. Brief Description of Action It is proposed that the Associate Administrator approve the Coastal Management Program of the State of Massachusetts pursuant to P.L. 92-583. Approval would permit implementation 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 Effects Approval and implementation of the program will allow the State to better coordinate and more effectively implement existing State authorities for management of its coastal zone. The State will condition, restrict, or prohibit land and water uses in some parts of the Massachusetts coast, while encouraging development In other parts. Each coastal municipality will retain primary responsi- bility for managing land use along its coast. The impacts of the Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program will be gene- rally beneficial, although there may be some adverse, short-term economic impacts on coastal users, and the program will entail irreversible commitment of some coastal resources. The Massachu- setts Coastal Management Program will produce positive and negative Impacts. 4. Alternatives Considered A. Federal Alternatives The Associate Administrator could delay or deny approval of the Massachusetts Coastal Management Program under the follow- ing conditions: 1. If the program is not adequately comprehensive to achieve the goals and objectives of the Coastal Zone Management Act. 2. If the program does not have the authorities necessary to implement the program. 3. if Federal agency views and the national Interest in the siting of facilities in the coastal zone were not ade- quately considered. h. If the program does not meet all of the specific require- ments of the Coastal Zone Management Act. B. State Alternatives 5. The State could revise the proposed program by expanding the scope and comprehensiveness of the policies. 6. The State could seek additional legislation establishing more comprehensive management authorities. 7. The State could restrict under existing authorities all of the State's unrestricted significant resource areas prior to program approval. 8. The State could withdraw the program until all proposed State agency regulations have been promulgated In final form. 9. The State could revise the program by defining a different landward coastal boundary. 10. The State could withdraw the approval application and continue program development, or attempt to use other sources of funding to meet the objectives of the pro- posed coastal management program. 5. List of all Federal, State and local agencies and other parties from which comments have been requested. Federal Agencies Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Department of Agriculture Forrest Service Soil Conservation Service Department of Commerce Economic Development Administration Maritime Administration National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Department of Defense Department of the Air Force Department of the Army Army Corps of Engineers Natural Resources Branch Department of the Navy Department of Health, Education and Welfare Office of Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management Office of Planning Systems Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Community Planning and Programs Office of Environmental Quality Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Office of Policy Analysis Department of Justice Marine Resources Division Pollution Control Section Department of Labor Department of Transportation Coast Guard Office of Environmental Affairs Department of the Treasury Energy Research and Development Administration Environmental Protection Agency Marine Protection Branch Office of Federal Activities Energy Research and Development Administration Assistant Administrator for Environment and Safety Division of Biomedical and Environmental Research Federal Energy Administration Federal Higheay Administration Federal Power Commission General Services Administration Nuclear Regulatory Commission State and Local Government Coastal Town Planning Boards New England Fisheries Steering Committee 200 Mile Work Group Members Regional Planning Councils City CouncI 1 Offices State and Local Government (cont.d. ) Martha's Vineyard Commission Local Conservat ion* Commi ssions New England River Basin Commission Department of Publ ic Works Division of Marine Fisheries Cape Cod Planning & Economic Development Commission Old Colony Planning Council Merrimack Valley Planning Commission Department of Commerce and Development Office of State Planning Boston Redevelopment Authority New Bedford Planning Department Energy Policy Office Department of Environmental Management Boston Chamber of Commerce Mayors and Selectment of Towns Governor's Office Department of Publ ic Works Office of Transportation and Construction State Economic Opportunity Office Historical Commission Bureau of Transportation Planning and Development Aeronautics Commission Housing Finance Agency Department of Community Affairs EO Administration and Finance Office of Federal/State Resources Office of the Attorney General Lt. Governor's Office Department of Environmental Management Department of Quality Engineering Department of Wildlife and Recreational Vehicles Water Quality Project Department of Food and Agriculture Local Libraries National Special Interest Groups American Association of Port Authorities American Farm Bureau Federation American Fisheries Society American institute of Architects American Institute of Planners American Littorial Society American Mining Congress American National Cattlemen's Association American Petroleum Institute American Right of Way Association American Shore and Beach Protection American Society of Civil Engineers American Society of Planning Officials American Waterways Operators Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Institute Atommic Industrial Forum National Special Interest Groups (cont.d.) Boating Industry Association Chamber of Commerce of the U.S. Coastal Society Coastal States Organization Conservation Foundation Council of State Planning Agencies Cousteau Society Edison Electric Institute Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. Environmental Policy Center Freinds of the Earth Isaak Walton League League of Women Voters of the U.S. ne Mammal Commission ne Technology Society Bankers Association of America Association of America Association of Counties Association of Electric Companies Association of Engine S Boat Manufacturers Association of Home Builders Association of Realtors Association of Regional Councils Association of State Boating Law Administration Audubon Society Boating Federation Canners Association Coalition for Marine Conservation, Inc. Commission on Marine Policy Conference of State Legislators Environmental Development Association Farmers Union Federation of Fisherman Fisheries Institute Forest Products Governors Conference League of Cities Ocean Industries Association Parks and Conservation Association Recreation and Parks Association Science Foundation Science Teachers Association Waterways Conference Wildlife Federation Natural Resources Defense Council Nature Conservancy Sierra Club Society of Rela Estate Appraisers Soil Conservation Society of America Sport Fishing Institute Mar ne M Mar ne T Mort :gage Nat onal Nat onal Nat onal nat onal Nat onal Nat onal Nat onal Nat onal Nat onal Nat onal Nat" onal Nat ona 1 Nat onal Nat onal Nat onal Nat onal Nat onal Nat onal Nat ona 1 Nat onal Nat onal Nat onal Nat onal Nat onal Nat 'onal Nat "onal Nat ona 1 Nat onal National Special Interest Groups (cont.d.) United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America U.S. Conference of Mayors Western Oil and Gas Association Wilderness Society Wildl ife Society Wildlife Management Institute World Dredging Association 6. This DEIS was submitted to CEQ on October 7, 1977, notice of availability in the Federal Register was October 14, 1977. Public comnents should be submitted to OCZM by November 28, 1977 Table of Contents Note to Readers Summary (DEIS) Part I: Introduction A. What the Program is Going to Do that is New B. The Federal Coastal Zone Management Act C. Cross Reference of Program Requirements, Massachusetts Program Document and Draft Environmental Impact Statement Part II: Description of the Proposed Action Chapter 1 Overview Chapter 2 Coastal Policies Chapter 3 Authorities Chapter h Managing the Coast: Key State Agencies Chapter 5 What this Program Means to Local Communities Chapter 6 The National Interest and Consistency of Federal Actions Chapter 7 How the Massachusetts Coastal Zone Program was Prepared Part III: Probable Impacts of the Proposed Action on the Env i ronment Impacts Directly Resulting from Federal Approval Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Part IV: Alternatives to the Proposed Action Summary of Probable Environmental, Social and Economic Impacts The Probable Impacts of Approval on Existing Management Authorities 1-1 1-2 1-5 1-1 1-7 1-35 1-42 1-50 1-53 11-67 Chapter 1 Federal Alternatives Chapter 2 State Alternatives Part V: Probable Adverse Environmental Effects Which Cannot be Avoided Pa r t V I Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of the Environ - ment And The Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Product i V i ty 111-2 111-8 lV-1 lV-7 V-1 Vl-1 Table of Contents (cont.) Part VII Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitments of Resources V 11 - 1 That Would Be Involved in the Proposed Action Should It Be Implemented Part VIM Consultation and Coordination VI 1-1 Appendix Part I INTRODUCTION Forty percent of the people in Massachusetts live in coastal com- munities, an area comprising less than a quarter of the Commonwealth's total land area. More than one-half of all current development is oc- curring in the State's coastal zone. At the same time, the coast already supports numerous business facilities important to the entire State, and includes a variety of valuable natural, recreational, cul- tural and historic resources. A. WHAT THE PROGRAM IS GOING TO DO THAT IS NEW The Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program will rely exten- sively on existing authorities to achieve its objective. However, a number of new management activities will occur which: 1) Coordinate the financing of public facilities (i.e., waste treatment, recreation and highway programs) consistent with the policies adopted by the program. 2) Require the consideration of at least one alternative inland site for each new energy facility which is not coastal ly dependent. 3) Ensure the consistency of all Federal actions in the coastal zone through Federal consistency (Section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act) k) Give priority in port areas to maritime dependent development if a waterways permit is required. 5) Restrict State and Federal developments near designated public recreation areas and historic sites if they would have an adverse Impact on the area or private projects if they re- quire an Executive Office of Environmental Affairs permit. 6) Provide in a unified document data, research material and State policies regarding the coastal zone of Massachusetts thereby establishing a consistent framework for managing the coastal zone. 7) Specify more detailed criteria for dredging and dredge disposal. 8) Consider non-structural solutions to coastal erosion problems. 9) Identify areas of critical environmental concern for potential des ignat ion . 10) Expand implementation of the coastal wetlands restriction pro- gram to encompass all area types subject to the Act such as barrier beaches, sandy beaches and some contiguous uplands. 1-1 The Massachusetts Coastal Management Program has been developed in an effort to ensure that the environmental and economic value of the Massachusetts coastal zone will be sustained and enhanced. The program was prepared pursuant to the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (P. L. 92-583), as amended. The Office of Coastal Zone Management has determined that approval and implementation of the State's coastal pro- gram has the potential for causing a significant impact on the environ- ment, and that, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) should be prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) . It has been initially determined that the program generally will have beneficial impacts. In addition, the Associate Administrator is considering whether the program meets the requirements of the CZMA and is circulating this statement for public input to this decision. Final approval and the award of a grant to Implement the program will occur only after citizens and Federal, State and local officials have had an opportunity to comment and any appropriate program changes are made based on the comments received. B. THE FEDERAL COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (P. L. 92-583) was passed In recognition of the importance of the coastal zone of the United States and the potentially adverse affects of intense pressures upon this national resource. The Act authorized a program of financial assistance to States to manage their coasts and Is administered by the Secretary of Commerce, who in turn delegated this responsibility to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Office of Coastal Zone Management. The program was substantially modified by Coastal Zone Management Act Amendments of 1976 (P. L. 9^-370). The CZMA opens by stating "there Is a national Interest In the effec- tive management, beneficial use, protection, and development of the coastal zone." (Section 302(a)). The statement of Congressional find- ings 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 environ- ment, Including the "loss of living marine resources, wildlife, nutrient- rich areas, permanent and adverse changes to ecological systems, decreas- ing open space for public use, and shoreline erosion." The CZMA then states, "the key to more effective protection and use of the land and water resources of the coastal zone is to encourage states to exercise their full authority over the land and waters in the coastal zone by assisting states. ..In developing land and water use prog rams ... for deal- ing with coastal land and water use decisions of more than local signi- ficance." (Section 302(h)) The State level of government has prime responsibility for achiev- ing "effective management, beneficial use, protection, and development of the coastal zone" (Section 302(a)). Under Section 305 of the Federal 1-2 Act, up to four years of grants are available to 3^ coastal states and territories (the Great Lakes States are included) to finance up to 80 percent of program development costs. General guidelines for the pre- paration of management programs are provided in 15 CFR 920.50. After developing a management program, the State may submit its pro- gram to the Associate Administrator for approval. If a program has deficiences which can be remedied but prohibit full approval under Sec- tion 306, the State is eligible for additional funding under Section 305(d) Funds provided under this Section can be used for initial program imple- mentation and continued program development efforts. (15CFR 920.61) If approved, the State is then eligible for annual grants under Section 306 to administer its management program. OCZM has published criteria to be used for approving State coastal management programs and guidelines for program administrative grants (15 CFR Part 923, Federal Register kO (6): 1683-1695). These criteria and guidelines set forth (a) the standards to be utilized by the Asso- ciate Administrator in reviewing and approving coastal management pro- grams developed and submitted by coastal States for approval, (b) pro- cedures by which coastal States may qualify to receive program administrative grants, and (c) policies for the administration by coastal States of approved coastal management program. The Associate Administrator will review the management program in accordance with the following general requirements: (1) That the management program is comprehensive. It must address and provide for the management of those significant resources, uses and areas that the State has determined, through its development process and in consultation with all relevant interests as required by the Act and these regulations, make Its coastal zone a unique, vul- nerable and/or valuable area requiring various forms of management; (2) That the policies, standards, objectives and criteria upon which decisions pursuant to the program will be based are articulated clearly and are sufficiently specific to provide (i) a clear under- standing of the content of the program, especially in identifying who will be affected by the program and how, and (11) a clear sense of direction and predictability for decision makers who must take actions pursuant to or consistent with the management program; and (3) That there are sufficient policies of an enforceable nature to insure the implementation of and adherence to the management program. As of August 1, 1977, 33 out of 3^ eligible coastal states and ter- ritories had received program development grants and two States (Washington and Oregon) and two segments had received program approval under Section 306. This is one of several programs coming in for approval prior to June 1978. 1-3 The 1976 Amendments established a new assistance program consisting of grants, loans, and bond guarantees to States impacted by OCS oil and gas or other forms of energy development. In order to be eligible for assistance, a State must be receiving development (305) or administra- tive (306) grants, or, in the Associate Administrator's view, be devel- oping a management program consistent with the policies and objectives contained In Section 303 of the Coastal Zone Management Act. Other sections of the Act provide grants to States to coordinate, study, plan, and Implement interstate coastal management programs (Section 309); al- low the Associate Administrator to conduct a program of research, study, and training to support State management programs (Section 310) and pro- vide grants to States to acquire lands for access to beaches and other public coastal areas. (Section 315) Besides the financial assistance incentive for State participation, the Coastal Zone Management Act stipulates that Federal activities af- fecting the coastal zone shall be, to the maximum extent practicable, consistent v\/ith approved Statement management programs the "Federal consistency" requirement. Section 307(c)(1) and (2)). The State must concur with any applicant's certification that a Federal license or permit affecting land and water uses within the coastal zone is con- sistent with the State's coastal management program. Section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act requires that any outer Contental Shelf oil and gas activity described In an exploration, development, or production plan be certified to the Secretary of the Interior that it is consistent with an approved State management program. The State must concur with such certification prior to any approval by the Depart- ment of the Interior. Section 307 further provides for mediation by the Secretary of Commerce when serious disagreement arises between a Federal agency and a State with respect to the administration of a State's pro- gram and shall require public hearings in the concerned locality. 1-4 0) s- u T3 r~ rd +-> c: +-> (U C E •^ 4-> c OO UJ +-> +J o M- «a «o Q. s- F Q •— • vo CO X X X r— C\J VO in f— •r— •^ 'd- VO r— 1 ■o -o ■o 1 1 ro 00 o c c c LO r;^ CM 1 1 r^ 1 o 1 LD 1 Q. <: Q. Q. •a: Q. CO to c/> E < l/l +J «<- +-> O OJ to VO 13 O x: CO o fO c to o to •1— fO +J s: o to c J- OJ Q} a. $- n3 •^ x: 13 o o- (U x: $- o •^^ o x: •^- 5M- ■r— to O (U Q. lO to O •r- 0) -O JC c +-> •T" tn 5+-> o Q> r— OO re ■M to E ro CT O to u. ■M O- ■»-> to E 3 OJ XT E o O) >, r~* '^ «o «o f— 00 C\J O) 1 r-~ P r^ 1 -C cr> 1 3 1 CO 4J CO in to UO CTi 1— cr> >_>^ in r— to •* r^ *t #t OJ in •> CO in ro c\j QJ r- O 1 c\j r^ CTi E f— r^ CM 1 r— CM 1 t— CO--^ O 1 1 +-> CO CO 1 to OJ CM «r> c 1 1— CM • C2. V£) 1^ (U «o r- vn O. ro *^ ^~ CM E r— E CT> o ZJ • *> 0k «^ r_ n «« o Q. CO - r— r— •^r CO 1 «d- 00 o r-- ^ r— CO ro CO 1 CTi <<3- in -o 0% 1 *;!- cr> 1 C 1 in r— CM in in r— CM r- o r— •r- CO O cn 1 CO CM JC • • «N^ 00 • CM OO CvJ CO co in CO CO CM CM CT> O CO in 1 u (U •«T> ^ o 73 C • • «o c o to T— (U +J 3 (J in a> m OO t— 1 in +j * «« c: CO U) a; CM E E cj^ O) Qi f^ to S^ 4-> -Q (U 1- S- O > 3 fO i. •r— era. O- +J C (U E 1/) 10 OJ O to 10 (U a. to E Z3 t-^ s- r— 0) ro 4-> +-> ro e Ul 3 QJ (U E •1— -o c s- c -o o ro re O) X- -a C71 •r— c -o re > 3 c c C o re re LU CO —is: J- O C o re s- re O- «+- o re OJ c o C7> •^ r^ in C •♦-> O 0) ♦r- re *♦- s. to 4-> > o •M ZD •1— OO to en C o H- in QJ c CJ O 0) O) to •f— en to .c i- ZD c c: QJ QJ >» +-> Ci_ c: T- +-> in 4-> -o re c re=D •r— c J- 1= r— c: ■♦-> S- •r- o re Q. re OO $- o 4- ^— QJ +-> to to Q. c cr>+-> z. to c c +-> to o c re ex. 0) o E o T— QJ >» •^ •.-3: J- f— o •r- »♦- (J 4> in +-> c: 0) to +-> -M Q) U t— O S- "O o -»-> (U re +J re C cC f~ s- Q} C c •r- c re r— QJ T— UJ X «3 to 1— « 4-> C71 s- 3 CO ■»-> (J UJ QJ •r— o cn c re QJ T3 C r— r— in +-> QJ ^— o U- c M- C •r- re •r— OJ to q; re s_ •^• o re r— e U Q QJ c »+- >, r— _J O) o re cx: r— o Q) CT> QJ to -o u_ re re •r— $- J- S- c s- •r— +j QJ -O o a> o QJ o re QJ 3 re M- i- c o a; JC C sz Q) > t3 ■z. o ^ 00 cr» o CM fo ,_ to 4-> e +-> 4-> C C/O LU ■»-> +J U *♦- «T3 «3 Q. J» E O •— • t r— 00 00 ■^ CO 1 vo in 1 r^ r^ CO 1 r^ 1 1 o I +-> Ol o to S- +-> D_ O) ^ in c ^ E (J O) (O cr l/l 03 s- O r— C CSJ S- 1 0) CT» > o • O Q. E O O to J- 1— <4- to J-^^ 0) r^ ■♦-> r^ 4-> cr» OJ 1— -J ro m CO cr 1 00 «^ CO 1 ■o CO r>. J- JZ rv. r— ro (J r^ CO 2fe CO • o z: • I CM I CO CNJ 00 o CM CO co I CO e a; Q. Q. o CO I CO Q} •!-> Cl C Q. O) ^ r-» O . CM in CD Q Ci. 1 CO CO 1 X E •>cr» CO '1— to r— CM '^r -o s_ CM CO c o^ • cu o • ca. • ex L. Q. Q.Q Q. O- ^•—^ ..^<»-^ r'— cr» 1 #k $- >>>> r— 00 J 'r- T- X 4-> r— r^ « t— « a; o o Q.-a o. —1 Q. O- I c o •r— -t-> o 0) oo t/) «^ +-> CO c CM $- S- T— rtJ rj Cl. cr OJ Ol q: LL. o s: r>j in o 1 — +-> c »t} u c 3 ro 4-> oo cu r— ^-> ro o c •r- (U 4-^ E «0 OJ tsl I — •<- Q. c E ro •— < cn i- o O -M CM CO o c C71 o ro e CD •r— CO CD Q CO CO O J- s- OJ +J -M C (U c/i O > 1- O I— C O •f- •> CO E q; a; -o CO cs: o J- c ■M QJ «0 CO ro +-> •r- OJ CO 4-> T3 E 4-> f- C Q. U S- «0 O -f- O I— I— .C -O O) M- ■♦-> C > C 23 ro +-> S- CO O T- +-> cr in CO o 4J CO O CO O =) J- s- o ro CO 3: a> Z3 -D cr c •r- ro c .c -o o c q; (o vo CO c o •I— *•> a. o >>-o E X> cC ro S_ c c cn o 1- o •r- J_ +->«/) Gi- ro a; CLT- 4-> •1- -o c (J o T- CQ 4-> E O) S- +J CD ro C Q_ ro > I— o O CD •o C c c: ro ro C CL. o •I- s_ 4-> OJ ro .d 4-> -t-> r- O CO JT C -M O n- CM c: (O (U •r- > (U (/) q: CD C 1— •I- ro i- 1- ro J- O) O fO ro C > J- o -D Q- cD <: f— CM in in -a C r- ro O S- 4-> 1- C +-> lO T- Z3 •«-> r— I— C 1- I— O E (O O- O) o s- T- S- 1- f— cu 3 Q.4-> cr Q. (o a; -'> The remaining areas on the summary map have soils suitable for development or are currently developed and lie Inland, 100 feet from the 100 year flood plain. The limited interests which apply through- out the coastal zone will affect development in this area. The five interests are: a. Accommodate Energy Facilities : Because certain types of energy production, storage and distribution facilities are dependent on waterfront siting and because these facilities usually have impacts affecting the coastal zone, the state program has Insured that these uses can be accommodated by using the authority of the Energy Facilities Siting Council. The program specifies that alternative Inland sites must be considered for non-coastal dependent uses. b. Protect Beach Recreation and Historic Sites : Because of specific policies in the program, beach recreation and historic sites or districts must be protected from con- flicts caused by adjacent uses or activities which would degrade their quality. The Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act and the Federal procedures for protection of historic districts will be the principal management mea- sures used to minimize such conflicts. c. Focus State and Federal Viaste Treatment and Transportation Projects Into Developed or Contlnguous Areas : The State will encourage development in already developed areas and adjacent lands by giving priority to funding transportation and waste treatment facilities, development can occur at any density deemed appropriate by local governments provid- ing existing State laws are met. For example, this coastal management program does not constrain local governments in determining if high rise apartments and hotels or single family homes would be most appropriate. Experience indicates that areas not receiving major infrastructure investments generally will be developed at low densities (typically for units per acre or less, light commercial or industrial uses, open space, recreation, etc.). See Developed and Potentially Developable Areas on Summary Map 11-5 d. Protect Air and Hater Quality in A11 Parts of the Coastal Zone : Activities which emit pollutants that significantly affect ambient air and water quality can cause significant impacts on coastal waters regardless of their location and will be required to follow existing State and Federal laws . e. Provide Open Space and Recreation : The remaining enforceable State concern in this area is the provision of open space and recreation sites. The acquisition priorities are incorporated into the coastal management program and are enforceable through eminent domain powers of the State Public Access Board. The above five interests are the enforceable State policies for the remaining part of the coastal zone. The resolution of issues involving protecting community character, incompatibility of land uses such as whether industrial zoning is preferable to residential zoning will remain the responsibility of local government. 11-6 Chapter 2 COASTAL POLICIES The state has adopted 38 policies to guide activities on the coast. Fifteen of these are enforceable through existing state laws and regula- tions while the others are of an encouragement nature and cannot be en- forced on Federal, State or private activities. An example of an en- forceable policy is "conserve ecologically significant resource areas;" an encouragement policy is "encourage incorporation of visual concerns into. . .f aci 1 i t ies. " The policies that are enforceable are indicated by an asterisk in this chapter. This distinction is made so that all per- sons proposing actions in the coastal zone will know the minimal poli- cies they must follow. The other policies are included in the program because they show concerns of the state that although not enforceable, will get special attention such as funds will go to preparing an advi- sory handbook for developers that will describe methods to Incorporate visual concerns into their projects. The enforceable policies (policies 1, 3> ^, 5, 6, 8 (a-c) 9, 12, ]k, 17, 18, 25, 26, 27, 33, 3^ and 35) were the only ones considered for determining that minimum requirements of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act were met. They are also the only policies with which Federal government actions must be consistent. Policies 2 and 16 will become enforceable once Areas of Critical Environmental Concern are de- signated by the Secretary. Scenic Rivers and Sign Free Areas are desig- nated by the Department of Environmental Management and Outdoor Adver- tising Board. The following is a summary of the coastal policies as well as fur- ther clarifying information about criteria the State will use in apply- ing the pol ic ies. A. MARINE ENVIRONMENT POLICIES " Policy ( 1 ) Conserve ecologically significant resource areas (salt marshes, shellfish beds, dunes, beaches, barrier beaches, and salt ponds) for their contributions to marine productivity and value as natural habitats . These ecologically significant resource areas comprise at the most 70,000 acres, or approximately 12 percent of the coastal zone, much of it consisting of submerged Intertldal areas. Currently about 30,000 areas are under the Coastal Wetlands Restirction Act, which authorizes the placement of restrictive orders on property deeds prescribing per- mitted and prohibited uses In wetland areas. The other 40,000 of these acres are subject to the Wetlands Protection Act, which vests authority to condition construction in such areas to local conservation commissions, under state guidance. -'Policy will be applied to Federal government activities and Is otherwise enforceable under current Massachusetts Laws. 11-7 Permitted and Prohibited Uses In the areas subject to the Wetlands Protection Act, no uses are prohibited a pr ior i . Rather, any activities that would remove, fill, dredge, or alter these areas will continue to be conditioned or denied on a case by case basis to protect the seven specified interests in the Wetlands Protection Act - water supply, food control, storm damage prevention, water quality, shellfish and fisheries protection. In areas restricted under the Wetlands Restriction Act, the high priority uses of these areas are limited to conservation, shellfish harvesting, outdoor recreation and other non-intense uses; permissible uses are underground energy transmission lines, and conduits or other facilities associated with certain other utility lines; maintenance of existing intake and outfall structures of electric generating facilities; roads and boat channels, and the construction of wharves, piers, boat shelters, floats and catwalks. Maintenance dredging and the dredging of ship channels in designated port areas is also permitted. All other uses are prohibited. -'--'■Pol icy (2) Protect complexes of marine resource areas of unique productivity (Areas for Preservation or Restoration (APR's)); ensure that activities in or impacting such complexes are designed and carried out to minimize ad- verse effects on marine productivity, habitate values , water quality, and storm buffering of the entire complex . In the future, designation of an Area for Preservation or Restora- tion will trigger special protection measures for the area. This will include the salt marshes, sandy beaches, shellfish beds, and dunes with- in the complex, as well as the continguous upland areas, where necessary to Insure full protection of the area. In addition, the Inland Wetlands Restriction Program shall be applied to protect such anadromous fish runs as may exist in the complex. Designation of the areas will mean greater scrutiny to state funded and permitted projects proposed for the area since the categorical exemptions for smaller projects from the reporting and review requirements of the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act will be removed . The map on the following page shows the ten APR's the State plans to designate under this policy. The following activities will be cate- gorically prohibited within designated Areas for Preservation or Restorat ion . 1. the siting of energy facilities, 2. new industrial discharges and the discharge of harzardous substances, including thermal effluent, 3. new dredging except for maintenance of existing channels or for enhancement of shellfish and other marine food productivity, "•'^Pol icy applied to Federal government activities after Massachusetts Secretary of Environmental Affairs officially designates Areas of Critical Environmental Concern. 11-8 'arker River + Essex Bay RECOMMENDED AREAS FOR PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION (APR's) EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 11-9 k. disposal of dredge spoil, except in instances when the spoil may be used for beach nourishment and/or dune stabilization, and 5. the siting of new sewage of treatment facilities. In situations where compliance with this policy would conflict with the compelling public interest, the conflict resolution process will be used (see Chapter 3). "Policy (3) Support attainment of the national water quality goals for all waters of the coastal zone through coordination with existing water quality planning and management agencies; ensure that water bodies within Areas for Preservation or Restoration are given priority for achievement and, where consistent with Federal and state law, maintenance of the highest level of water quality; and ensure that all activities endorsed by CZM in its policies are consistent with Federal and state effluent limitations and water quality standards . This policy relies on the implementation of existing State and Federal air and water quality regulations. "Policy (k) Cond 1 i t ion 1 construction in water bod ies and contiguous land areas to min imize interference wi th water circu- lation and sed iment transport and to p reserve water quality and marine productivity. Design and construction of solid fill piers, bulkheads, or other permanent marine structures shall be examined on a case by case basis and shall be permitted if: a. in estuaries and coastal embayments, flushing rates and capacity are not reduced, b. water quality, marine productivity, and anadromous fish run are not adversely affected, c. alteration of wave generated littoral currents will not exacerbate or induce shoreline erosion or adversely alter depositional patterns. (See also Coastal Hazards Policy (8)), The design and construction of highways, roads, bridges, dams, and the diversion or impoundment of water will also be reviewed for conform- ance to the above provisions. Additionally, construction of these facilities in contiguous upland areas must not: a. Increase upland erosion or induce or accelerate runnoff of contaminants or otherwise adversely affect the quality of coastal receiving waters, -'■Policy will be applied to Federal government activities and is other- wise enforceable under current Massachusetts Laws. 11-10 b. affect the quantity of fresh water entering coastal receiv- ing waters such that salinity levels would be adversely altered ^Policy (5) Ensure that dredging and disposal of dredged material minimize adverse effects on marine productivity . Extensive criteria and standards for dredging have been prepared and are listed on pages 96-98 of Vol. I of the Massachusetts program document. "Policy (6) Accommodate off-shore and grave mining needs in areas and in ways that will not adversely affect marine re - sources and navigation . Locational guidelines are outlined in the Massachusetts program document (page 99) which will be incorporated into regulations for off- shore sand and gravel mining to be adopted following program approval. Basically mining will be prohibited in marine areab that serve as sour- ces of sediment supply for coastal beaches (landward of 8O' contour), areas where contaminated or hazardous material has been deposited, in navigation channels, shellfish, finfish spawning and other productive sport or commercial fisheries. Policy (7) Encourage an d assist commercial fisheries research and deve lopment , restorat ion of f Ishery resources, the deve lopment of extensive and i ntens i ve aquacul ture, and anad romous f ish enhancement. I n 1 1 lated at 1 oca 1 , State, and Federal levels. B. COASTAL HAZARD POLICIES Policy (8) Discourage further growth and development In hazardous areas and preserve natural buffers throughout the coastal zone . "a . Restrict new development in barrier beach, dune , and salt marsh significant resource areas to the permitted uses defined under Policy I, Marine Environment Section . * b. Condition new development In contiguous upland areas within a zone extendlna landward to 100 feet inland of the limit of the 100 year flood , especially within designated Areas for Preserva - tion or Restoration, to ensure that existing hazards are not exacerbated and that the pro - posed uses or activities diVe appropriate in light of the risks of damage. •Policy will be applied to Federal government activities and is otherwis< enforceable under current Massachusetts Laws. 11-11 "C. Ensure that development proposed to be located in inter- tidal areas or offshore ia coastal water bodies will not exacerbate existing erosion or flooding hazards in adja- cent or downcoast areas . d. Encourage and support local floodplain zoning and other management of hazardous areas in all coastal towns . This policy addresses the need to concentrate on preventing new growth and development that would be prone to damage, would exacerbate existing hazards, or would impair the ability of natural buffers to protect both existing development in hazardous zones and development in adjacent inland areas. ■'-'Pol icy (9) Ensure that state and federally funded public works projects proposed for location within the 100 year coastal floodplain will : a . not exacerbate existing hazards or damage natural buffers , b. be reasonably safe from flood and erosion related damage, and c. not promote growth and development in damage prone or buffer areas, especially in undeveloped areas of APR's . Policy (10) Acquire undeveloped hazard prone areas for conservation or recreation use . Policy (11) Provide funding and technical assistance for the restora- tion and stabilization of foreshore and shore areas in hazardous zones using non-structural measures. Minimum criteria for implementing any of these types of measures through either Federal, State, or local action should include: 1. The existence of adequate land use regulation or access controls to prevent deterioration of restored or stabilized areas; and 2. the establishment of adequate design criteria to ensure proper height, slope, width, and sand grain size of restored dune and beaches; and 3. the assurance that future maintenance and replenishment requirements have been estimated and can be provided for. In the extreme cases where there would be widespread public bene- fit, structural solutions will be permitted to protect existing development. (See Policy 12)) "Policy (12) a. Implement Federal or State structural solutions to protect property and lives only when there will be widespread public benefits and minimal adverse environmental effects. "Policy will be applied to Federal government activities and is otherwise enforceable under Current Massachusetts Laws. 11-12 b. Approve permits for private flood or erosion control projects only when it has been determined that there will be no adverse effects on adjacent properties or down coast areas . Policy (12a) will be Implemented only when the following criteria are met: 1. Non-structural measures, such as acquisition, relocation, land use regulation, flood proofing, and dune/beach restoration or stabilization have been evaluated and rejected as being cost prohibitive, innef feet ive, or legally infeasible. 2. The area to be protected is of greater than local significance and substantial public benefit in the form of protection of exsiting public facilities or development of improved public access and expanded public use opportunities can be achieved in conjunction with construction of the proposed project. 3. Implementation of structural measures will not seriously impair the functioning of natural process, nor adversely affect adjacent or down coast areas. 4. Maintenance costs have been estimated for the project and included in the cost/benefit evaluations. Agreements have been reached with recipient communities concerning maintenance responsibilities. C. V isual Pol icies Policy (13) Encourage incorporation of visual concerns into the early stages of the planning and design of all facilities pro- posed for siting in the coastal zone. Use existing review processes to ensure that publicly funded develop- ment minimizes adverse impacts on the visual environment . "Policy (14) Review developments proposed near designated or registered historic districts or sites to ensure that Federal and State actions and private actions requiring a State per - mit respect their preservation intent and minimize poten - tial adverse impacts. Encourage use of local zoning , land use controls, and tax incentives to improve visual access and the compatibility of proposed development with existing community character . Historic districts or sites are designated through (1) placement on The National Register of Historic Places, or (2) districts created by local governments, or (3) by special acts of the Massachusetts legisla- ture. The following is a list of designated historic districts: "Policy will be applied to Federal government activities and is otherwise enforceable under current Massachusetts Laws. n-13 Historic Districts Established by Coastal Communities Establ ished Beverly: Fish Flake Hill Historic District 1971 Dennis: South Dennis Historic District 197^ Harwich: Harwich Historic District 1970 Manchester: Manchester Historic District 1975 New Bedford: Waterfront Historic District 1971 Plymouth: Town Brooke, Town Square Historic District 1973 Salem: Derby Street Historic District 197^ Sandwich: Sandwich Historic District 1965 Tisbury: William Street Historic District 1975 Wareham: Parker Mills Historic District 1971 Westport: Westport Point Historic District 1973 Historic Districts Established by Special Acts of Massachusetts Legislature Establ ished Falmouth: Falmouth Historic Districts (7 areas) 1975 Hingham: Lincoln Historic District 1 966 Marblehead: Old Town Historic District I965 Ginger Bread Hill Historic District 1 965 Nantucket: Nantucket Historic District (entire island) 1970 Yarmouth: Yarmouthport Historic District 1965 Barnstabl e County: Regional District Old Kings Highway 1973 Policy (15) Expand vi sual access in urban areas and provide views of coastally dependent activities with significant educational or interest value. "-''Policy (16) Support designation of scenic rivers in the coastal zone. Support designation of Areas for Preservation and Res toration as "Sign Free Areas." Encourage scenic highway and scenic road des ignat iorT! The State currently has the authority to designate scenic rivers and sign free areas but has previously not made such designations in the coastal zone. D. Ports and Harbors Policies ■'•^Policy (17) Encourage maritime commerce and related devel opment in port areas. Prohibit preemptions of present and pro - posed maritime-dependent industrial uses i. Permit non-mar i t ime dependent industrial uses which do not represent an irreversible commitment of s i tes ; and wh ich do not preempt foreseeable maritime-dependent industrial uses. ^Pol icy will apply to Federal Government activities as well as other activities in the State after such desig- nations occur. n-14 The following are definitions the State has used for applying these pol icies: Ports: Water and land areas with 1) navigable channels of 20 foot depth or more 2) available land abutting such channels which by its topography, size, separation from residen- tial neighborhoods, and/or zoning is suited to accommodate maritime dependent activity, 3) we 1 1 -developed road and rail lines to port areas leading to major trunk and arterial routes, and k) water and sewer services capable of accommodating major industrial needs. The following localities contain a port area under this definition: Gloucester, Salem, Beverly, Davensport, Boston, Chelsea, Revere, Quincy, Weymouth, Plymouth, New Bedford, Fall River, Somerset. Developed Harbors : Areas meeting at least one of the following character i st ics : 1) provides public mooring space, berths, slips, ramps, and docks which serve a region-wide boating public, as evidenced by either (a) public access to the harbor which is free or open for a nominal fee to non-resi- dents and which has adequate parking facilities; or (b) a significant number of mooring spaces or slips which are available to the general public on a first come, first serve basis; or (cO very heavy boating traff ic , 2) hosts harbor facilities used by commercial fishermen, 3) serves cruise boats, ferries and other marine industry, and/or k) presents unique development opportunities for the fishing industry or for waterfront renewal and re- vital izat ion. There are over 100 harbors under this definition. All proposals for maritime-dependent industrial developments in port areas will be encouraged by CZM and will be facilitated as much as possible by EOEA agencies, unless the proposed use will seriously conflict with or preempt, either economically or physically, other existing maritime-dependent industrial uses in that port or other ports. Should conflicts arise among maritime-dependent uses, State and Federal permit and funding actions shall be granted to the use which is more limited in its spatial, locational, or economic options and denied to the other use. Proposals for development in port areas which are not maritime- dependent will be permitted so as not to deter viable economic uses of vacant port lands. However, should a conflict arise between a project which is not maritime-dependent and a foreseeable maritime-dependent use, State and Federal permit and funding actions shall be denied to the non-marine dependent use if: n-15 1. public agencies and/or fishing, maritime shipping or marine industry spokesmen have expressed interest in the site for waterfront dependent uses of particular state or national economic importance; and 2. the proposed activity would irreversibly commit the site and the site is the best available for the fore- seeable maritime dependent use. In determining "irreversibility" and "best available", the following factors shall be considered: i rrevers i bi 1 i ty : — can the proposed structure be converted to maritime dependent use? --is the proposed use or structore of a duration or type that is permanent and not easily removed? --is future maritime-dependent use of the area effectively defined because water or land access for vessels or truck and rail transportation is precluded? --are lease stipulations such as to allow future conversion of the site to maritime-dependent use? best available : --for the foreseeable maritime-dependent use, are alternative sites in port areas available possessing similar character- istics (size, availability of road and rail access, proxi- mity to major shipping channels and open water, suitable turn-around basins and channel depth)? --will the use of alternative sites present graver en ivronmental and safety problems (proximity to residential neighborhoods, overloading of road or rail capacities, harbor congestion, expose greater numbers to environmental harm or safety risks)? "Policy (18) Promote the widest possible public benefit from port and harbor and channel dredging and ensure such pro- posals are consistent with marine environment policies. Public funding for dredging will only be allocated to port areas and in developed harbors. ve ce In port areas and developed harbors, maintenance dredging will ha the highest priority for public assistance. Publicly funded maintenan dredging will be scheduled so that projects demonstrating the most pres- sing need, widest public benefit, and least environmental damage are carried out first. "Policy will be applied to Federal government activities and is otherwise enforceable under current Massachusetts Laws. n-16 Deepening or expansion of channels and mooring or turn-around basins beyond authorized or existing depths or size will be approved for State or Federal funding if the project meets two of the follow- ing criteria: 1) provides broad public benefits for recreational boating which are spread over a region and which rebound to the general public and is necessary to resolve harbor con- flicts between fishermen and recreational boaters; 2) enhances benefits to the marine fishing industry; 3) produces economic returns to maritime shipping and other maritime industries by reducing turn-around times and in-harbor transit delays, and permits usage of more efficient sized vessels; and/or k) reduces navigational safety risit I/O t1 0) ^ c *-" • ^ C *J re UJ T o s-re Jia^Ettx— UJ Q) U -^ 3 O CD "C 1-^ c *J -c c o -u OJ 1— ra U> +-> O to «/) >-*J ^-^ ■^ "^ ' V . U^— 3-^ (J > u ^ < 3 to .B C 1_ CO ■>- o «- "^ <»- O OJ (O M Q Ul =) S^^i ■<-> ox>- 01 Zj o ^ , o; I. in C ■4-> JC t-Otfl Qjc i-—3-aJ-.x:EO lo .£> x: >, o Ol o a^ t/> Q.»a) uc-*-> E 0(UQ.*J3«.- o u XI ;_ *-> r- 0) Ol IT) I => 0.0 I. «o«/>ajEE-o o E -D "O *- "^ *- o Wl "D ^- t— «tf^Q. o»— (Wi-o i-c>*-oa> ,— o 0) «o 1 re ^ «C O *^ 3^ f^ 31 vt o C — <: ZQ. ttlOO «tOOOX'^ oa re s 1 >, •— 3 C 1— T3 «0 ^v lO O i- (J tn ^ X •<-» CI ID CTi O >_ O • dJ O) U S- 01 O "^ C o .— lA 1— 3 Z3 to i~ r— • O o 0) E-^ lo O i/^ to •»- r u re re 4-> o Ol I- O C QJ 3 l- 0) OJ Ol re o Ol U W L. . Ol 4-> U- L. ^ tt- S- O (-) O 3 <0 3 ;_ CJ '*■' to OJ S_ Ol O NI A QJ U U OJ Q o l/l 3 *J l« (J (0 u^ u OJ o: C O O « O i/n S- 0) • -^ « o o o (_) QJ Ck. 1-- — O C 1- U lo i. fc. i_ UJ «« 1-3 OJ o. o Ui or o — -C'-^uo-^-c c « 4-> •• O r— (0 CM i- «C CO 0) . — ^ u*-' 3*-"^ e oj »-' re csj *J 1- O Q. > uo— ' re >,>*- S-, lo >, >, O J- >>•>- > U""- u aj4-> Of— 0) u **- >> (- •y- C T- i~ "^ f- QJ in •r- -r- O Q» — CT.f— > f— > 0) r— C -F- to o-»- o**--^ OOJ l- o a>>— 0) Q. Q. 0-4JQ.-0 Q. O. t- o l- lo Q. a. ^ ^.^ m lo (/I e 1 ^ ' — ta ■>-> C*« 3 -r- u ^^ IT) 3J /i>, <0*Ja) inOwtl-E ^■ •a O •— ' X ,— JZ i/503fl33 c . «jO Cf— C.CQ)^-«8<0*J.aj Ul-O (/) a> r— IOf— ^-'•4->J->IO.C "O •— "OTJOO) f o •>!«»—<: IBS- »«*-aj »«oajQj"0'*->a> • 4-> 4J 0*J*J t/1-4->ECU-*->*J *t-"0 m c QJ -a n.-^ coo •»-oo-<->utoiom E *->ouoa)0'<-o EJ_4->t« ro O i/i r- +J QJ • J- ^ ^piooj ajQ.ct-4->4jp •ajoot/i«os-t/) O C- *J E *-> Q.>— 1 «OGJfoCx)tOQ.aJ3'0104J .c re Q. O F— Q. •^ (/) o..— »<: .CWI.Q.CT3 i-.£: ^j -.- re et>reo«aE ooiOJ 0)3 ct-P *J _J lO -F- s: > TJ CT>r— ■*-> "o ^- i-c"ajc O >.^<*- *jajcoo- I- u SI to 4J ou-o".-ct/iO)S.c:o« N-^-^ re E 1- o.*-> x;3^(o.— 1-ci/i *» ri .c IT3 *->'-»— • CO4->4->*J0)^*->O30)'^Cl/i E •■4-> u c*->3(/)i/>o-4-> (o I- VI f- jc»o«e' re z: C'> O)i«'*-xi—o -cc-cj-4-> -^Et- EoJEOJx: -oifl 1- oKi-oj t.4->a; ;- UJ 4-> o en Q CL L. *->«-C:^*j«_)0)-cj>, aj3aj'r>-4->'«-o)u<«--a £ OJ a_ s- w o.4->co-<->«/)x> c-^oci-o'- «*- u ^_^ (t!OJ=^l-2:O(0l-r— 0) «t-0.0 Oi- o c O X 1— c Q.4-> o«_>"^»-""»~*'ai 01 o QJ >>•»— ■oi-t.*.>i/)tn4->irt ^ tnm^.) to t. o •^ o •■»— u-c:qj<->oojoi o)Q.*-oaj«no)oc 0>f— ^-3"OioX'T31-<*->qjoCE'^-0 c Ci E ^-l o c re , u OJCWr— CO) Ot-OJ Q,3E "»" o u •^ x: — 4->o)"03i-«»--oa) la .^ i. f— E m4-> ■*-» f- 04 u •4->'-cx:o) Of— vit-,cQ.o;"CJOo -ty u u tA O ■«-> n Q) v> ^-> V c 3-^0JX3-ac5»-o"oc.-^ (/) u ^^ en ox:c -i-oojcxi-u -xjo <*- c) v> j: *-> (- t- a. OJ 4-> a: ot/it-.c.ot- o) QJ 10 0) >> •S! E, -^ OJO) iu.— C OJQ. .Q. 4-> ^ Ol • 3 B i- VI a r— u i- ->>0'i-oov)ajCT>Q.v)««0) O0)0)CJ. ^ ciB<*-0)-.-inO4JQ. Olti QJ to C .«X-<-'0)i- C t/)--- CTObjC "O J- "O lO 4-> aj«/i i.'— ci-^-aiviT- VI**- c re c C *-> Q-i- <0 T3 in C OJ I. o^'r, E t/)0)>— OJ '0-os-O'^"oc'.-*j-s ►— t-J^tnOJOC— ClO-r-l04->>,Cf— O-Ol-JSr- o 2^ c ^ re &>.— -»-4->+j;_i-a)0«— i-ci- w .C'Si-Ut«-»-(0»— t/lCn3El.«»-3Q.iO*JC«^ •^3 0) E 4J • "o r— re M re re X •*-> .j: O c/1 t/) (/) re QJ 3^a>QjroQj'^-»-3x<♦- 1 n-36 '01 o ; 1 S ^^^ oj »^ 4-> Q.r- t« t: o $ 4J *j i*- Q. 71 ?; C fO 1. Qj lo -^ o; Q. OJ i- (/) CB^ ■o 1- to *J CT> <0 r— ^ ^- 3 • 3 E r». O) O c r>. a> L. . cr> i- O.CO r^ .— 0) ^^ u u> o le -^ o >% 1 . >-> Lk. 4^ .O £7 ni Ol 1^ o T5 c 3 ^-' fs: Ci •v u r>j 3 ro = ^ > i. (U C O 3-^ 1-1 H- ««- "^ z. ^ ":; ^ t»J Q. s lO tr> «_^ IT S S- > C -O 1- •^ c r^ >. J3 O i- o -^ rtj U- a. V£> £ •— O lO 1— re .— 4-> O 3 I- in -o a; •»- ■•-> F O) o o) 0) ■!-> $ "O re 01 CL-»- 4J o oi o T- a> C -M-r- o X u r-i- c i- aj c o 3 o V) E O. O- ^■.- eg •— -o t- Ol Q. O) OJ t— 3 o. cr E -^ > QJ 4J «4_ O .. a> cf C' — ^ o a. F— re CM t- < ■ 1- u OJ 4-> = •»-;-•.- a>i— > :^ I/) o. o ^ O) CO a> re : re 0) I 1- s_ • 3 re I o I o in ■ (/) 3 I -r- O ■O T3 U1 N Ol re ■.- to 1- 4-> -O -f- u c u 3 re J-.— JC ■(-> (1) -!-> I/I -O -r- C •-- S O +J o Ol 1/1 o C 3 C O O O) •r- 3 S- •1- ••- 4- T3 +-> t- 4-) •»- re re o "o J- CL. (U u c- 1/1 s_ J-> o c x> re re E «n S. 4-> 4-> +j re T3 u .C OJ OJ +J *J COfct- c -o >4- oi o) 0) re E t- s- ■- 3 X) 0) in Ol -^ 4-1 -O 0) -^ > >^ •>- Ts re -s- X OJ OJ s- O) c OJ "O rM Ol o in I - OJ o : 00 <♦- Q. : -— "t- 00 ^ Ol i o-o S- ( Q_ re T3 < C C 0) T3 in O O •)-> OJ C**- i. <^ U C m UJ O O) O •<-> O i- c o t- ;- M-i -^ JE ^^ s- E c HI -1- o >»-!-) C-^ u re •>— -tJ t- 5 E re o = o 3 — >. m if> O m o-- Q. 0) m rsi o — 00 s_ +J,— +j ^ re c o. re E O r- i~ o O.O. ^ o o OJ OJ O 1- Q- >v-0 ^ CO -r- t*- S- o (U Q- o ■(-> Q_-a OJ u in T- i~ i. OJ 4-> > m •O -^ re "D 4^ v^Xl" w •»- u u C-r- r- 1- tt) Of— ^ r— <*- •^030" 4-> C 0.0. 0) I S- -(-> • O) S- 00 +-< o re c c: CL Ol O •<- in i- •I- ere 00 on O Ovj s_ .r— +J 1- I— Q. 2 O i_ >> re u 4- ««- K O O Ol C (1) Q_ o 4— re ^ ^ 4-> o I en to »— » re O +* T3 OJ "r- O in OJ c 4J V O -r^ t- o. 4-> f re • 0) X +J O) f— ^ in OJ -CO) m o; 3 c 4^ m »— 1- 4-> O OJ > TJ u m ^ • OJ o) <: c ••- ♦J o 4-> o) re OJ c o — ^ f— Ui- «t 4-> E 4-> Q. C -J t- "o re c O >) OJ M- O •<-> O £ 4-> CO O in f- I- o> X <♦- -o re •— I . O C OJ _ J JC •.-••-;- J- OJ i-\*-> "o > re OJ -M OJ >f— re r— 3 >) 0) re in c out. C •»- QJ O— 0) o> — \si t— js: .c — t- X 4-) O) o •O CO C C O-f- o re "^ 4J r— ^a 4J o ) -D 4J o 3 o; -o : o) 0) o f— 4>> 0) ) in 3»— r— o t— • re ,.'*- o i> re in 4J "O J- 1- c o E c in 1- re o re XJ OJ p— o> o.— c ^ 4-> c 4-» re 4J Q> f- • C O) »— -.- X I— * X +J OJ •— •.- O) f- . *J c X-o « *»- re •>- c > -o o I- tn OJ >^««- a>. 01 4-> 4.> a> o c • tn U I- 4-) o>-o » O p 4J OJ "O OJ C in OJ O) I- *> »— Q. tu »*- "a re t -o I o u o t- r— r o o c o re ^- I •—>*-•<-•- X«C : : O) ^ > ■ i~ f~ -o 4-) en • ;- c xi m ■ O re c 3 in re u. -^ •> in p— 4J . en t. in I c O f— OT3 ••^ X) I— ••- c ) a> 1- «t »— re •ore .o r- : o) x: 3 C Ol tn ^ -o -i*: 5'o) p— I— ^ *- ^ O) re in OJ 4-> c in o •»- f- OJ I— >^ ••- o c 1- o O O ••- O) o -o 1- ^- Ol o t. m o>4-> ^ re o in : ••- -^ c cj 3 : > i^ ' i- o c • OJ o ; m 4-> ••- C C 4J ' o OJ re !<_) = > 4^ s. ; »— i. OJ I re re m ' (J a. c : o OJ o 1 f— o o ••- re Dt re c c E c a. I -o re <£ E o E I ^f— o 4-> u £. I*- • .»- a> < O O tn OJ -Of— 4J OJ x: c ^ c m C -r- 4-> o re o o i~ W X) •»- •>•»- OJ o O 4-> ^> 4J .a 4J s- I- u o u in ' OJ O. 0) C OJ -^ u f 4.1 rM 4.> l»- O ••-» fl> C>,C p •J- x: s- o 1 1»- >, o> 4.> D. * Q. o..a >,o c re OJ «T3 re .c OI.C .O V> ■*•> I I- re re I 3 f— l. O) • 4J OJ OJ "O N U "O 4J O) •»- 1 3 1- re 0>r— ) s- 4J X rei- 4J :r 4J I m c .c re 3 f- o> E : 5 f- O OJ C f m 4.) •CO f- -- X C ' >,•<-' O OJ o I c re f— "o f- re 4.) o) •»- in O) ^ 4-> in Oi -- O OJ in 2 E > i. O C C OJ f— OJ I O "O > CL f- C f- c 4.) re i- re *o u OJ c I 3 "o c E re i~ c — 4J ,re re S " in in 4-J o UJ c s-f— cy O It- 01 OJ UJ u o u .o o to -^ Ol i~ to O. O) s. *^ re re OJ X ^3: 01 o > f— 0)i " Js „, X OJ Ol *J Of- c £*t- I- — •*-• I- O) _-o re "o 5 c o OJ >>«»- OJ OJ C OJ ♦J * m Ol «n "^ «- P ^ O t. to to ^ «♦- Q. "O J^ '^ C S- ^ tn tn 3 o 1 JS J= re •" f- C 4J o >, I. O) re 1- 4-> 4J 4.> 4-> ••- o re m o > f- S OJ f- f— J= 4J 4-> ^ OJ 4J P o 3 .c f- C 11-37 > in to •e u. o fc. rv ■»- *J to C f— c .— •^ 4J ^r- ■/I 3 ai u- c •»— W m •»- ^- *: s o -a •*-> O) < a. o i/> o o-«- o C 1- O) K "O I/) ^- O C O tn u o \o ■•- a*-.- o> J- ♦J >, O) O) ^- IB c i~ 3 a> L o 10 CT> i- V -- 0) ^ TJ "— f> <1> O).- >> > «♦- ^ -^ (O t- a: o w n J= >. 3 £ ■!-> 4-> t- ^— "^^ 4-> c T3 Sr- t/> ■^ C «0 c •0 0) =3 o r^ u o- o •0 ■o c V) c le t- c o lO •^ O) o o. V) ^- 4^ *t— «/> ci. •^ 0) E X •^ -D •4-> o -o «o u 0) c ^K •o 4-> o •r* o 0) < •»- -D (- Ol C (O ■ ■*-> U V u CL, IS V) o -^ lo o ^ 4-> • O) C •-• O OJ O) ' >- c l/> -^ f o) u s- «4- 3 3 >,U_ O-^ J= I roojio " Q) •4->Q. 4->a) " E o> X ♦J re •»-> a) ^J roQjQ) .cai-»-Ea>t/> x^—o ret/ire L. 4^ u • ai > ••- oj « a* <= >»0"o««x:Q.t-x: <->c/>re£ 0) *-> Q> Q> •»-> S- CO 0) O'r- o-oo " O) u *J •!-» ••- c «C*J (U w)..- O OJ 3 tit — J .c .o J5X oj= »i- ««-t->"o z: z 4-> ■•-> E 0) "O ^ •tniUreV.O-'-Nj .re-Mioc -iJ j-f- «u 4-> s: «•- T3 o t. ■ cue j=>4->x: -3pl "^ H « a> ••- c O •— ^ Q. «/I *o l-"D O CO t/1 a. ^ «/) •.- >, «o • e L. u a> 3 0) c 3 +J T3 «0 e 3 oi o) u oi u «o.>a) 3 -O CO O ^ >> ox) lo o^-) o 0) E v> > •-Ol-t~l— I_— •r-.^ai'.-, ^ a> *^ lo lo «u ^ o>4-> "^ ** rei/iua^oi.c-^r-'WCfOi 01 I- c c X o >>'^ x: 0) um a><^ o L. «4J4-> oic u z o> E z Ok*— 3 o as « B-S re OJ O) O) .c -o tJ >» E ^ 4^ f- C I— C7I •^ •*- C7>«t c ere o e uj o v> O) e «/) -^ O W O) 4-> fS C E X> LU -- Irt E o 3 e I— t) f- "^ "ore-w^— -T-uiO 4-> c4->e-»-»— c-c re • reinre2004-> 3U 0(U(_)U .ccr oi re E "o I/) I/) c>f— aieLi-Li.rsJu-^s- 0:0. Z=>4jjujoreS~ 0) -^ e 0) L. 4J 4-> 1- a> •»- re re en m Q.>»- ^— E E e ,, "^ •^ re 1— *-^* 0) 4-> Ni re CSJ > U ^ -r- c^ •T— ot c E i- • 4-> .— re-»- c 3 re 0) ♦J e <*- (- c f ;- «.— iE 4-> 4^ •M 0) tnt- e re 4J 0) O) I- CO ^— -- •• E C\l re t- •■^-» c ^— «M^ •^ 0)— >, c >» (J 4J i-f— u a> o> •^ «/> i~ ^— re s- f— OJ 01 0. a> re J= e 0) io o a> *n f— **-'.- 0) 4JT3 • -O 1- 3 x: QJ r— t— <_> o> ••- o cue •> re •»- 1 C U T- ll_4J •— tf- "o •»- 4-> uj m O O) to 3 w U tn •>- fc. 4J .C 4->— oj re c ■»- 4-» -^ re to ••- to > to -D » O) 4-> to 4J -0 re a: u o) to re 01 4-> c -'->•»- •»- c &. • • to re «-> a; — . J- CT> f r»« a. c re 4^ cvj • i_t- a> «o •0 4.) U 4J 4-> ••^ re 3 c ^ re 01 to re Ci — E t. C Q. E *— ' u 0) E Q> C 01 w^ to i- o*^ Ol. 0)-.- 4J 0) 0. ^ 4-> U to 3 (O i. to •^-0 »— re 0) f— C J3 « > >> 3 wo re c u ere « E X - V «c-- _l ■>■ •CO 1- to O) to O O) 4-> X "^ c - O"^ c o> c o>& C Q> O) •»- ♦ f o».c to 4-> ■o re 4J o> c c -o « 3 O) •• E •♦-•♦J S*o c re re c o O) 4-> r— re fc- 4J to ••- « o) o> > 4^ E >- c c l/> o 3 ••- OJ r— ^ .C«*- O C O) 4^ r— re .c •^^ to O r— 4-» K O) to O. to "T- O «/t C"0»— 4-> 4-> at re (J u •— 4-> O) O) "^f— c o> ••->»— 3 oj re o "t- E E t. t- ere 0,0'— o "O re L. « <0 4J ••- 4-> to 4-» C > C C ••- O) C 0) O E E 0) > f C c 0) '^ W O O) t- U O. U > Q. re •»- o O) c c o. c 4J«»- o) E re ret. -^ 4-»«P- c o I/) 3 « O )M O- 4J«F- t- Ol >> E O t ^— «fl "T- «t- r-f- C CO « •»- (/> 4J*^< E CO u 4-> a. 0) O) C LU O wo o> at ** O O CO U L. «/)<•- CO a. QuLJ o « 4-> F (J u «c c ot >> £■ U e ••» a r^ t- ^ C >■ c f-* 01 re 4J c C re OJ m c 0) c 1- 10 •»"* p^ >- ^ c UJ re i-> CO 10 4>> aJ 4-> 0) CO » 3' -^ J= tVJ U lO re C/1 CO c £ re 0) f »— • re 0)— » ^» W I*- 3 re r>» o> 1— CT> OJ a.— i. c-o tr> •»- 0) 4J a> to Q. ^— c 4J O-D ■^ ••- re T3 O 4-> • 4J 4-> 4-> E l_ 7D .,- CO to 0) re e X 3 $- ^ re >> E— u 0) 4J 3 to e u «.- 4-> CT-.- e •— C OJ -o re re OJ u "O ■r- 3 E O) O" S.F— •(-» e ^" re 0. re to ^ 1..— J- re e 0} 0) 0) X U 4-> >-o •^ re OJ u OJ -<-» W *-o ll_ u 3 t. re r^ 3 0) .— -o <»- ^» to 4J .— C I- C re< re 3 0. ^ 4J re PO «/) en X ♦ «.v^ c to — -o-o >>*J c c c u t- re re V t— ^~ lI > t- 4-» •»- 0» o_ re z a> >.0) 4-> J3 re re » *J -O C^ CO 00 (U U 0) -o S- 3 4J 0) •• 0) CO re X r— *J ^ i~ ' 0) •— to 3 U-"- f— "r- to C 4-> > c o> u .■.-»-^ fc. ^ E — >>-> • 0-0 re re E O) re f— © I- u 4-> ^ •> CO CJCSJ 0» CO « ac to Q. -0 «— ' e 4J «♦- O-i- I- J- E ■^ E O) 4-» C««- >»Q. re s. re a> 4-» 01 — C CO •»- CO • 3 TO X> C "O en CO t. le U s. &, 0) 0) re o.>— 3 cc u-o re»— CO •'^ c u re tn » 3 « W'l-' in o'4-» • o) CO :>vO a> 0) L. -o o i- I— LU o o « 4-> «crjD • £ LU m CO 11-38 0) 0)-^ V) -o o E •^ (o 0) o 3.— *J "r" D> Q. (/) SS 01 C U) ^ •4-> •»- (0 4J 3 W> C P .— a> — •e c o > "^ o. C I- = ^2 c o •»— 4-> Ol 0) u ■4-> «s (B ••-> J-> o r^ I/O « e Ol I/) J_ •»- 3 -O "R QJ o •«- O 4.) ^- (J I ,— "^ O E <0 o o Q> a> ai -i^ O) a. •Do -o c 1- <0 X- c o O r- O) «0 f- £ O. C I/) 4-> C O J= c= O 3 a. tn c c c — c c o o >■ m r— cr IC o (J O) •»- <: I- *j I •r- m (/> OJ E£ 1/1 >>"0 o I/) O) - r— N O I— f— O- O IB ••- O Ck. O O. E c« — o ■»- a>r- <-> •»- c tt» -^ u <1) 1/1 (A le o fc. %- in > C C - lO V) ■*-> 4- 0) 4^ (O 3 rg u 0) O O * E s- <-> c c •r- 4-> 0) LU o c Z"0 u iW <^"^ c .— . o »— «J o^ ^r-^-Q ^" "!■" 1^ ^ 3 »T3 >, «fl c u — o "r-" •^f O o O c C U- CU o « (/I o •<— «0 Ol . O) •.- Q. S_ £:•«-> X 3 O X .,- en ••- 4-> -D 4J >i ■o Tj o c S +-> o O) c OJ S- i. C C >, E — o o a> -fcj •>- O t— > ct OJ "O !£' fo c > i- 3 U 0> o>»- • O) O « IB (/I ^_> •!- i- O) 3 -r- Ol •!— ' O S- S_T3 U 1— -o It—.,- e Ol T- t— OJ ^-> P- E >r— 0S-300(UOO' o-'o oa-o-ao-4-> , I— u • 3 3 : o -o o c O O C 4J XJ •!— O C 4-> .<— Q. IB IB lA 3 >■ •— C S_ > S- O O) •»— O -r— (/» Q 1^- 4J C (B O OJ 4-> (U u >v 0) (B in c +> L. O CO 1 4-> t- o o a. £. E o (/) AJ o t= 4-> ^■^ o 3 U o in 4J (- r^ lO •M-a o §> OJ 0) Ol o CO > ■p e 1— Ol c: *>-r- •»- « X *- 4j o; ••- *- C 4-> U O i= O X- f- (J 4LI 01 l/l 4-> 3 (J O) 1/1 C •— > O «J «B O "r- 4J *J 1 C 10 X: IB 3 < o; OJ 4-> ^ o . I- — OJ ' C.3 *J 4-> -o .a (/> (/> O -r- T3 3 •»— I— 01 J3 ■— XI S- E^ IB 4-> 01 O. in C (/) C 01 •r- O) •.- > E T3 S- IB T3 ■■— T-x: E 0> C^- ^ +J 2 cn V en O ■•— > O +-> .— •O (- Ol t- O) c 4-> E t- ^ u E w tt'OJ O 3 Ol tl»_ If- <0 IB «n C Cio C C « i/> M-rtn a> E •^-^ o) '-' tE c o w o «J OC 0"CJ O) c , O M a>-0 IB o 4-» n, o "»- I_ O 4J«t- 55 CJt— u .C J-*J IB (_> o u u o <: ««■<-> -r- _( 4-> ^-> -.- C s- c o o • O) Ol 1- 0> (/? O (/» 34-> ^ "r- 3 « 01 O > V « 03 4-) — CT- >J ^ "r- en IB C 01 X c -c .cr IB cr U 4^ l»- •»- « T- •*- 4-> "O 0) ' — O) "O « .c «• tn c OJ ir> c « in (/) Ol IB • O •— OJ O ••- Ol .C «/) OJ r— > 4J QJ ••4J 0> C 3 T— IB O •CEO _r OJ "♦-r— as a • :E «n c 4J ♦— '-^ O m •^ IB . QJ.— O OJ ^-r- U 4J »t- O t-X C IB OXI c OJ •• -^ E >n >, in • • m 5.o»r- E in *-» OJ .c O 4-> n. IB IB ^~ *T— (/) t— IB Q. OJ Ol IB ^ T- OJ U 3 t. l~ QJ >t- > 01 m 4-> IB *->.C 01 o. in Ol c «- tn IB ^ 01 in ^ . o QJ « in IB IB OJ4->UOCOIUin CO C IB •»- O i- .^' O 4J Ol E •^"'- U O) !-•>- QJ O Wl C 4-> in y •• ■.-•.- c x: (- o .C 4-> 4-> m in "^ • in «j «♦- 01 4-> CDi in OJ C • O m • O f- 4-» CNJ 4-> 4-> U .— t>..- 10 Ol L. ' C 4-» 4J , cr IB U 3 r- 4-> : CL4-> X OJ OJ in o p QJ Z- •— c o IB in > .^ c O) in CO J--C o > C f »— IB 4-> ;. 1- o O in a. Q.O 4-> • OJ in ^ (^ ^ O 01 01 OJ in u CJ> 4-> J=f C 3 in QJ IB 4-> t— O t. 3 -JZt— ■<- 4-> Q in E <: 4-> 3 Ol in _l 0> c • in ge eg C OJ •.- >,-i- s-i- u -o I- E w-o ^■.^ "v 4-> c IB vt in IB in o 4-> C •* OJ QJ 3 U >e — 4->«*- •^^ 0>-- ^T- IB o u x:^ X 4-> OJ QJ «n QJ o> in 1- QJ .C ^> -D C IB 3 0> Ct CO IB •^ C 01J= « c in u. 01 O S. CO OJ 10 C->- IB ••- 4J IB QJ -^ 4-> x: <♦- in o o. c 1- IB U ■<- 4-> "E JO QJ ^- in QJ X t- in IB in "O JC IB I O •»- -r- IB k- Ol «j c •*■> s: •B o q: XI i- o 4J C QJ 4J jC U • C"0 IB ; in IB «■ o c E E £t r— ■»- IB in O ^M > It. 4-> QJ p T-T- ibj: J. QJ *> f O Of- X-M Q. in c 11-39 •a: o > 6 ^ u aj ^ O • ItJ , — 0/ (£> i. cv: o • I— t OJ CM •»- «— 'XJ -u lo «o C •^ X <-> U O) i- ■^ o •— -O Q. O C Q. a. o i- > c a> i- at a. 1/1 c -1— i~ a. o) T- a; c ■^ o V) 1- ,^ O 01 O E "O • o v-niooiTSC scotrt o • > a; T3 « lo c; .0(0 ^oc^cco o «cp- oa> E^4->c> z c ,«<- X o ••-> -o • ••- t 4-> 3 (O u U I. 4^ •^ a. v> C"^ hi Q.-»- O «/» F— •*_ flS «o r^ X-o ^» QJ I. 4J •« 0) ro t». JC r— p>» 4-> a> o u OO ^ X> 10 •— I- sz o te o — I O) o o a< '*-> ■M -o to o (/> 'T3 JQ C 0> «0 « O) «0 .1^ 1- O) in tii:: o c •.- • O O S_ I/) C T- Q.- Ui +J oc c c <: • - a>•r- '-"•■— c c 1X5 v> cn-f— I— O) ■!- — ^T3 (/I lO 00 4-> >> ~ re c US- QJ f— oj o) £ 1 — > C CD o-f— o a> a_ l_ M ui to fc d; c "O 1- +-> f— > oi a> I—-.- o O I- f- t- 0) i~ i~ « > o _r L. 4-> a> 4-> o O) c I/) "O IS 1. ia to a: O) ■•->»- o >, 0) c c o "D ^ u O) . o o • a> *J o • "p* «/) *- f— vo 1- <«- r^ to Q) 4-> f— 0) c f- 4J ^ 3»— •»- 4-> O. « k Of 3 «n O- "O t Oi -^ .•0)0 X C^ ^-U" — 01 3 to c .— - O) in E o o. S o> o «If— ;- U to o^ O. IC Ol S^-r- O) U i- *-> tn O) lO -r- "U O) •»-' > c x: o o) .>- i- U •4-) a. s- u c c 3 3 at-^ • - o -O'^ *—» i/> O (/) to CM Ol ^ Ol OJ ^-^ I- n.-o ."- 4-> >y 01 0} O) T- U C C I_ > r— U S- to .4-) o lo )o c u o- E E O) IS I. Q» f- O tn O) X X ce: i. o . E ucc •^ -r- tZ C r— O) 0> •^ XI C7>.^ E 3 lO tn O. E ^- *J O ^F- Ol to h— O) -c i-o: 1- o o^ 3 *» o.<: '• to o a. --» c c 3 c *^ oo • ■ ro 0) O t— .C lO ^ — trt CO *-> CL •• .^.— C CM E— ~ »*o o*-^ i/t" m ■•-> to >, o >» c .f- u u u o) u o> u .p- .»- .»- Q. >•»— Or— U\ T— £"0 O t- O 0) O .r- le Q- CO. "o o. » Q) X r- -^ •r- *J in O 10 01 • i/> &. .»- tn VI Ol O) .r- Q_ 10 »— < C t/> -r- .1— 0> lO .»- £- 4J ♦- o* •»- -O 4-> r- XOJ •r' OVAJ r— U U lO .^ lO O) U O **- C O 0>r- ( 4^01 O. .p- D> tn f— 0> I- •r- K>-^ V O "r- t- •<-» le t- O) lO «4- 4J C » VI a> <*- O) lO f— O) 0» at 0) t-^ » * »^ I «C O —r- «0 JC k 03 to r— c ■4-> 4-> (J lO o 4-> lox: 4.< 0)«l- 4-> « c 4-> VI o«*- ^— - 0) lO 3 o X CM E >-x: 4-> c t- U f*- 0)"0 p o 0) •o 3 0) O) .C ;- to in «/» I- w o .p« 01 in OJ a>«J >- t- lO L. 0) o «k CQ_5: -o t- -<-» z: 0<4- "C •^ o S- lO O) 4-> C I— O) -M J- lO U .C T- U OXi— O) U X o o o> C'C ■«-> " O) — lO H- 0» 0> ••-> ..- -- ^ C X O) « >^ •M 04 to C C 4-> C lo t. o o> lo .^ C f- 0>4-> 0> «/J • *» lO «/> ^ •I— o) to le Ol \ri -r- te zi V c *■> 0) u o) a>.c lo lo T3 .»- l-^r- ♦J U ^- «o tn >r O S- O O) .c ^ •— •r- Q_C "O 4-> 0) O ..^^o »»- jc ac 3 Ol X o) .p' 4-> f>j in x: 4J O *■> 014^ c c «t- c- o .•"^x: o Sv^ £•»- •»-> Xl "O s- 4-> •O .»- Ol C U Q. O) S VI "O lO Q.E 4-> 3 o) 4-> 57 .r- >^ 4-> to J_ X U p— "O O i- O 0) •*-> c o) o; V» C lO «*-TJ "^ •— U ol <«— C 0) lO •r- •!-» " IO=>-4J U -4-> VI C C U^p- V» .p- O 3 <♦- 3 I- •r- V».p- 0*0 O 01 o u.a £ o 0) ^-t U 0) 3 U 4-> O 4J,— -O « le VI o^- c -4^ u £. E L.^p- 10 U IB 10 CUX O 0) « - - I-— > o»u .c VI 1 c <->►- •4J VI ta .t- lO c c C *J 3 ceo • c O o> lO — Q>4-> 0) — >*T3 0) o u 4>> t— X TO •O flj.-' » O t-«p- c c ^ _ •JJ «t— O > O) "P- "r- Q,«p-' t- U O O :C OJH- «o o >> a> o) VI I Ol (J a£ ^ oo. 0-— OO 10 c t- c u UJ O < O lO T3i- .p- p— 4>> t- Q- «-•.-•*- _ ^ E W V) O O 1- .y- 4.) .P' 4^0)^- VI 3 *J 3 •— U "O W 3 VI -p— fO^C O U< lO 00 04 Q. 10 ^- v» o ' Op- lO p— VI Q.UJ VI O > VI .^ VI IOi0.t-^r-O>«> O C OJ-M^t- C*--*-> >>Q£ - X'^UQ.OUCk. 0» -o _ _ _ _ •r-C«0O)Xl-OiC 4->floi«a)o« 4.» .^ 4-> VI r- VI c c > VI E « 1- O) 0> 04 O C 04 E-r-O O) VI XT lO VI .C .»- O 04 X 4-> O) C7> O, VI XI 04 E 01 « .t- O 3 t- >> O >-4-> VI I- -4-» O) VI « o^r u Ol - .p- u Q.r«^ E o c I- I v> ro o «_) c lo to O 10 >>< ^ 0>r— 04 ( 04 t_ 04 c o,c >J4J 04 x: .t- .•- 04' — ■ • - - OlP— a.4-> U C 10 u >, C O C U o « ^ 04 .t- o^p- 4-> ac 0)4-> .p- 4..> U "O 10 10 4^ .^ « «»_p-p r- to L. O. O 04 4J vif- <_> E x: C .p- VI 1-^73 04 Ol.p-«t- C^ E Ol 0> O^- (O o 04 F- 04 iOp- U 0» ^ •« C t/l 4J lO Ol *» O "^ c C C •— U.P- o §•»- 10 -p- 0> 04 U p— .p- I. 04 x: •a u 4-> o£ 4-> >, o le 04 VI u C C Q..^«»- C O ID 04 l/> O O O 4^ n-40 •^ o f— i- ^ . ro CL ■*-■ I 3 — CT C S O I- ■•- -o - <-> Ol — n 01 E I- ••- U — 4-. ^ *J « c cn OJ 3 c oij:: — ■^ C 1/1 "^ a; c_i ♦J Q. c >+- u -o £ oj C C j3 (O C UJ 3 re X -— <-) 0) o 4-j re r^^ re re ^ ^ ,/! c o 3 Q. CI. Oj -r- o- E o ■a - -r- *J o .^^ o X **- o re Q- • I. 1*- •< o >— 1- •— o o o 3 T3 re I- -<3 O) >^ ; j= <_> -^ I i/i Q. > . •.- 3 (U . .— Q S- OJ .Q OJ •♦-' o -o o re Q- :3 O) C i- ^ Q- re ^"^ re ;- tz 01 ra < <-> -S XI Q. OJ en --0 i~ 1- re CT Ol re .— 0) C s- -o 3 J3 Ol s- tj re OJ o -3 c O^ -a re VI c c ^_> • (U en coo TJ 01 *-> s_ OJ u c -j O •— OJ re E -a r— 1- H Ol re -o >*- O o 1- 1- c O -r- Ol re 1_ 3 M *-> Ol c o--^ CTl c ••-> -a o J3 CT OJ •• O OJ Ci,^ 1*- Ol jr u un o Ol >«- i/l ■r- c O OJ <*- ■.- >,*J i_ u r— C-l— r— 0) OJ 1— OJ -o re x: re X o >«- Q. 1 -r- Sm/1 Q. re >t- VI OJ o. a; i/i O <<- Ol c o i*- o. o ui re a. o - .o *J ui i/» 5 re uj .0 01 S Q I c^ c. c a- i_ c -o z re -t— a; OJ x: > ■*-» -' 4-1 •— re 1 o -r- — •— TJ _^, O E 3 s- O) Q--*— CT> O .C ' — OJ O . 4-) S- t- U O O 4-. t\J >,'<- C O) Ol . r- ^J C S_ O- CL C 0) o o. u u 4-> re o- ! ^ OJ .O "i- 11-41 Chapter h MANAGING THE COAST: KEY STATE AGENCIES The vast majority of decisions about what can and cannot occur in the coastal zone will still be made by local governments. Decisions of State- wide significance will be made in the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs with the exception of decisions about the location of energy facilities which will be made by the Energy Facility Siting Council (EFSC) using the Coastal Zone Program for guidance. The State recognizes that while many of these agencies have been operating within the coastal zone, this program is the first that coordinates activities between agencies. This Chapter describes only the key agencies responsible for imple- mentation. For a description of all agencies the reader is referred to pages 321-3^2 of the Massachusetts Program Document. THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WITHIN THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENVIRON- MENTAL AFFAIRS. The Executive Office of Environmental Affairs (EOEA) is the designated lead agency for Section 306 implementation of the Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program. Created out of forty-three existing State agencies, EOEA together with its various departments and divisions is charged to carry out the State environmental policy. The Coastal Zone Management Program represents the first major attempt by the EOEA and its line agencies to conduct a comprehensive resource management program using the administrative structure and authorities provided by the 1969 reorganization of Massachusetts state government. Through regulations to be promulgated by the Secretary of Environmental Affairs and memoranda of understanding between the Secretary and the various State agencies involved, the Program will be implemented as State environmental policy. Designation of critical areas of environmental concern, resolutions of conflicts among EOEA agencies, periodic performance evaluations and fiscal controls are the primary measures that will be specifically utilized by the Secretary to implement the program. Within the Executive Office of the Secretary the two major offices involved in the program are: The Office of Coastal Zone Management, which will continue to advise the Secretary on planning and policy formulation for the coastal zone as well as aid in performance evaluation. In addition, the Office will undertake in-depth technical studies of key coastal issues, promote development consistent with coastal policies, provide tech- nical assistance to local communities, and provide in-service train- ing, technical assistance, clarification of policies, coordination and financial assistance to EOEA agencies in order to enable them to effectively implement the Program. The Office will become involved in the routine activities of agencies in only four ways: 11-42 r ^ -3 r 8 o 3 b. >• 3 o — — 5 3 •^ c -< ■3 — - 1— _ 2 ^ 3 n -> :a 2 "5 2 t 5 •» T> o ^ - ^ 3 = 3 -1 I- o c| -a U^ — 3 O " -3 -H 4 = —4 rj C -3 O U — o jj o U -CI ^ 3 >* c < o o o 1.^ [£ - "X III" led ^ ^ 1 s a ;. y 1 ^ _l ^ -1 — • ij i-i > r o o -ii 2 c 3 3 M o *-• C* ? a o c •« __ .u n - ■r ^ ^ o ^ o y 4 T ■3 c JJ -4 iJ U u O •^ 1 c -< C c -a 3 C u v4 a - c--. O O < ^ ?> Ji_I o4 4 U »> u c c g o o 9» o» c »" o —t c a o o o ->< S iJ ^ 3 > c 3 ^< c u o o O (J CI 8 u « U V) b >> w 3 3 u a 2 n < O. •3 C ?'i C 3> c n ;2 a p. X »* e O rs u 3 cr> a o u w a. 3 O C C o c o at O E Vl c o w A. <*• C O g c o o c — < n :: s > z —4 a 1 c o u "> » C a U -4 > c ^ O -J -< «J u C > ^ ^ a c c e O e o o »< o c e o» o* c o o CJ 5 ^ 4J 2. a. o e (S. c» c n jj u s 5 o y ^ c CI e> -4 O e «1 ^ c 3 > C *J o o a i4 a u O ti -c h o o o w aJ u 4> JJ u m iJ C kl 3 c n ■J O O e» o a Z H O »i tm^ o n t c CI tJ H r: r-t 5 AJ ^^ u c a c 8 c K .«4 u w u u o W CJ •o O- CJ JJ "3 Id M •iJ c l> .«« ^.f W e; < "^ :i »4 3 O o c» c ^ c tbt «« *^* »4 >- c %« «4 o M o o o O O O o O •m4 n ..4 ; ^.4 o —4 — O -4 r3 'm u > n > v> > ^ > > i» > < O a o 2 Q a o O n-43 (1) continuing its present role in reviewing actions through MEPA, NEPA, AND A-95 reviews; (2) reviewing all Federal agency determinations of consistency with the State program; (3) serving as an expert witness to formal hearings conducted by any EOEA agency on coastal actions, or bringing cases to a hearing; and (k) ensuring that EOEA agencies relay notices of pending management decisions in the coastal zone to allow adequate time for local governments to comment. The Division of Environmental Impact Reviews evaluates and monitors State environmental impact statements required by the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) . MEPA established an environmental review process for State actions, projects with State funding contributions, or projects requiring permits or licenses from State agencies. As for Information de- vice, MEPA attempts to provide full disclosure of the environmental con- sequences of State related activities. The MEPA staff also reviewes and comments on appropriate Federal projects filed under the National Environ- mental Policy Act (NEPA). The division is specifically responsible for publishing The Monitor , which is a key mechanism for Informing citizens and other government agencies of projects in the coastal zone, of Federal consistency decisions, MEPA actions, hearings, etc. The MEPA statutes also direct all agencies of the Commonwealth to "review, evaluate, and determine the Impact on the natural environment of all works, projects, or activities conducted by them" and to "use all practicable means and measures to minimize damage to the environment." The MEPA statute fur- ther provides, "unless a clear contrary Interest Is manifested, all sta- tutes shall be interpreted and administered so as to minimize and prevent damage to the environment." This legislative charge makes possible the closer scrutiny and regulation or projects or activities under such EOEA programs as the Wetlands and Waterways Programs, thereby ensuring that the environmental concerns in CZM policies can be addressed. B. DEPARTMENTS WITHIN THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS The Coastal Zone Management structure is essentially one where the line EOEA agencies will be primarily responsible for the implementation of the CZM policies. This will be accomplished via a Memorandum of Under- standing with the Secretary and appropriate agencies agreeing to jointly Implement the CZM program with the Executive Office and other EOEA agencies, via the regulations promulgated by the Executive Office adopting the plan as a statement of the State environmental policy, and via changes, if neces- sary. In the regulations of affected agencies. Memoranda of Understanding have already been signed between the Secretary and five commissioners set- ting forth the fundamentals of the interagency agreement. A draft of the n-44 Secretary's regulation is now undergoing informal public review (see Appendix A, Vol. I). A formal public hearing will be held following the procedures established by the State Administrative Procedures Act prior to Federal approval. Some agencies are already at work on re- vising their regulations to impelment the CZM plan. While none of these regulations can be formally promulgated until the final program has been approved, it is anticipated that some programs will have their revised regulations in place soon after program adoption while others will be promulgated in the early stages of implementation. Department of Environmental Quality Engineering (PEQE) , Division of Land and Water Use is particularly important in implementing the CZM program in that it administers the Wetlands Protection Act, the Waterways Program and the Community Sanitation Program. In the case of the Wetlands Protection Act, the Division is in- volved in setting the regulations and reviewing the local conser- vation commission's order of conditions, either on appeal or if invoked by the Commissioner. Within the same division, the V^ater- ways Program issues licenses for filling, wharf construction, bridges and pieplines over tidelands, harbors and certain rvlers below the high water mark. The Waterways Program also funds such activities as wharf improvement, public piers, jetties, bulkheads, shore protection works, channel dredging and maintenance, dams and wreck removals as well as development of harbor plans and fund- ing of their implementation. The Community Sanitation Program, also within this Division, regulates the siting, placement and design of sub-surfact sewage disposal with a capacity of 15,000 gallons per day or more (i.e. septic tanks, leaching fields, cess- pools, etc.), the location of sewage disposal sites, sewage treat- ment plant sites, mobile home parks (siting and lot size and adequacy of waste disposal facilities), and the siting and design of solid waste disposal facilities (including sanitary landfills). Sub-surface disposal systems with a capacity of less than 15,000 gallons per day are regulated by local boards of health to ensure compliance with the State Environmental Code. The Division of Air and Hazardous Materials in DEQUE is responsible for ensuring that sources of air pollution do not contravene State and Federal emission limitations, and for assuring conformance with established State and Federal ambient air quality standards. The Division of Water Pollution Control in DEQE has permitting author i ty (jointly with EPA) over point source pollution, including municipal sewage treatment works. The Division also awards grants for the construction of sewage treatment and collection systems. The Division of Mineral Resources in DEQE licenses exploration for and extraction of mineral resources in coastal waters. 11-45 The Pub] ic Access Board Is charged with acquiring and developing public access points to great ponds or other waters and trails for paths for hiking and other recreational activities. The Board's acquisition, construction and maintenance program is funded by the gasoline fee on watercraft and registration fees from recreational and snow travelling vehicles. The Department of Environmental Management (DEM ) administers several key coastal authorities, including the Wetlands Restriction Programs and the Scenic Rivers Programs. DEM also has responsibility to enforce ocean sanctuaries laws and acquire recreational land outside of the metropolitan park district. C. AGENCIES OUTSIDE EOEA The Energy Facility Siting Council EFSC ) has jurisdiction over deter- mining the need for and the siting of electric generating, gas, and oil facilities. The council is composed of the heads of four State cabinet level departments (Consumer Affairs, Environmental Affairs, Adn in i strat ion and Finance, and Manpower Affairs), and five other individuals appointed by the Governor. The energy facility siting decision process of the Council is described in Part II, Chapter 3 of this DEIS. The Martha's Vineyard Commission will implement portions of the pro- gram on Martha's Vineyard. The Massachusetts CZM Program supports the regulation of coastal activities on Martha's Vineyard by the Commission, since the regulating guidelines have been approved by the State and when an action needs both State and Commission appro- val, both agencies must concur before action can proceed. D. ASSURING COORDINATION BETVEEN AGENCIES The CZM Program represents the first major efforts by the EOEA and its line agencies to conduct a comprehensive resource management program using the administrative structure and authorities provided by the 19^9 reorgani- zation of Massachusetts State Government. Since the program relies exclu- sively on existing management authorities, the significance of the program essentially lies in the more effective implementation of their authorities that should result, in part, from more effective coordination among State agencies. The Office of Coastal Zone Management within the EOEA will coordinate with the various departments and divisions within EOEA, the Energy Facility Siting Council, the Martha's Vineyard Commission, and local governments to implement the program. 1. The Secretary's Regulations : Prior to program approval, the Secretary will promulgate regulations adopting the program as a statement of State environmental policy. Draft regulations are contained in Appendix A of Volume I of the Massachusetts document. The effect of the Secretary's Regulations is that all EOEA agencies (not all State agencies) are required to carry out the CZM plan in full in granting permits, in 11-46 disbursing funds, or in conducting any other kind of activity in the coastal zone. Two exceptions apply to this rule. First, neither the program nor the regulations require EOEA agencies to take actions not authorized by law. Second, where the Secretary has utilized the con- flict resolution mechanism (see below), she/he may determine that CZM policies should not be followed, either because of conflicts within the program itself or because there are more substantial compelling publ ic i nterests. 2. Conflict Resolution : The Secretary of EOEA has the authority to resolve administrative or jurisdictional conflicts between EOEA agencies (not all State agencies). Any time a conflict arises, including a permit decision by personnel of EOEA, a statement of issues may be prepared, a public notice issued and formal proceedings held. The conflict reso- lution mechanism will be employed, for example, where two laws or programs have inconsistent criteria or require potential for undercutting or dupli- cating or interfering with another program; or where there are issues con- cerning how to fund or enforce certain programs. 3. Performance Evaluation : To insure that the program functions efficiently, the Secretary, through the Office of Coastal Zone Management, will periodi- cally conduct performance evaluations. Subject areas requiring the evaluations are outlined In Section 8 of the Secretary's Regulations, page A-66 of Volume I of the Massachusetts program document. k. Memoranda of Understanding within EOEA : Each Commissioner of the five departments within EOEA has requested to jointly implement the program and has accepted the program as a statement of State environmental policy for the coastal zone. The memoranda of understanding further provide that each department will adopt and incorporate the rules and regulations promulgated by the Secretary. 5. Coordlnatlve Functions of Office of Coastal Zone Management : a . CZM will be notified of all hearings conducted by EOEA agencies regarding any within or affecting the coastal zone. CZM may appear as an expert witness, may intervene as an Interested party, or otherwise submit Its comments. b. CZM shall have the right where a right of appeal or hearings exists for other interested parties or permit applicants, to request an appeal or hearing of any action taken by an EOEA agency regarding the coastal zone unless otherwise specifically forbidden. c. A CZM coord Inator shall be located in key implementing agencies to assist in apllying the policies to their day to day responsibilities. 6. Memorandum of Understanding with Energy Facility Siting Council : Through a Memorandum of Understanding between the Council and the Secre- tary of Environmental Affairs (see Appendix A of the State Document), the EFSC has agreed to recognize the final CZM plan, as approved by the Governor, as a statement of health, environmental, and resources use and development policies of the Commonwealth. Further, the Council has agreed to act consistently with the policies of the plan. To this end, the Council shall adopt necessary regulations and procedures. These shal 1 prov Ide for : n-47 (1) review and comment by EOEA for any forecast or applica- tion for a Certificate of Environmental Impact or public review prior to any hearing by the Council; (2) cooperation in developing guidelines for data required of applicants prior to initial review of proposed facilities; (3) for any proposed coastal facility, the submission by the applicant, of information on at least two alternative sites, including one inland site, if the facility is coastal ly dependent and: {k) standing of the CZM program in EFSC proceedings on energy facilities propropsoed to be sited in the coastal zone. 7. Martha's Vineyard Commission : Although no formal Memorandum of Understanding has been signed by the Commission and the Secretary of Environmental Affairs, several types of assurances exist that the Commission will act consistent with the Program: Local governments can only perform activities in coastal areas if such activities conform to regulations developed under guidelines established by the Commission. The guide- 1 ines have been approved by the State and conform to CZM pol ic ies. The Commonwealth will continue to administer State authori- ties on Martha's Vineyard. The Secretary of Environmental Affairs is the voting Cabinet official appointed by the Governor to sit on the Commission. The State will grant the Commission funds to apply the coastal policies to the Island and will review coordination in this procedure. 8. Public Involvement Citizens Advisory Councils : Based on the exist- ing CZM Advisory Committees, will be established in each coastal region to perform the following functions: update the regional program chapters; insure quality in the implementation of the CZM program; alert the Office of Coastal Zone Management to regional problems and issues; advise in the setting of priorities in the allocation of techni- cal assistance funding; participate in inter-municipal conflict resolution and; monitor the coordination of coastal activities by local, State and Federal government. n-48 I 9. A Statewide Advisory Group , representing diverse coastal user groups, will also be established to perform the following: advise the Secretary on program Implementation; work with CZM on a periodic review of environmental regulatory and management functions to insure adequacy and consistency in the application of CZM policies; advise the Secretary and CZM on funding priorities, and overall program objectives and goals; insure the development of education program to foster a State coastal ethic; review the CZM program and recommend amendments or refinements to the Secretary; and perform an annual review of the CZM program for the Secretary. 10. Citizen Action to Assure Coordination . Notice of any major State action under the Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program will be published in The Monitor. It will be sent to all planning boards, boards of selectmen, conservation commissions, as well as interested citizens. Citizens can comment in writing or at hearings on such actions as environmental impact statement reports. Federal consis- tence certifications, major amendments to the program. In addition, if any ten citizens believe the State is not properly exercising its responsibilities according to the approved coastal management program and thereby demaging the environment, they can intervene in any State adjudicatory proceeding under Chapter 30 A, Section 10 A of the general laws or can sue in the Superior Courts concerning any damage to the environment, pursuant to Chapter 214, Section 7 A of the general laws. 11. Federal Government Annual Review for Continued Funding . The Federal Office of Coastal Zone Management within the Department of Commerce will evaluate continued funding of the Massachusetts program partly on the basis of whether coordination has been achieved. 11-49 CHAPTER 5 WHAT THIS PROGRAM MEANS TO LOCAL COMMUNITIES The Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program does not include new laws or increase the present number of State or local permits re- quired for private development activities. On the local level, there will not be an increased State presence over coastal activities. As long as the Statewide interests are managed development decisions and community character will be determined by local governments. The State CZM Program will provide technical assistance to local communities to aid them in investigating site specific problems. Scientific, environmental, planning, and legal expertise will be available to assist in short-term studies within coastal communities. Eligible categories for technical assistance include: a. erosion b. finish and shellfish management (coordinated with Division of Marine Fisheries) c. recreational facility siting (coordinated with DEM and Metropolitan District Commission) d. public access (coordinated with Conservation Services, Fisheries and Wildlife, and DEM) e. coastal wetland management coordinated with (DEM, DEQE) f. coastal land use planning problems (Department of Community Affairs, Regional Planning Agencies Mass Historical Commission) g. scenic reiver designation (coordinated with DEM, etc.) h. water quality (coordinated with DEQE) In the first year, at least three full-time professionals will be available to local communities on a rotating basis. Local communities also will be able to receive financial assistance from the CZM Program to undertake studies and preparatory work necessary before major project development proposals can initiated, provided the projects are consis- tent with the State coastal zone program. Projects eligible for funding incl ude: waterfront renewal and development studies : preparing harborfront plans aimed at improving visual and phyiscal access to waterfronts; identifying opportunities for waterfront parks; waterfront pedis- trlan ways, ramps, and other public access improvement; conducting feasibility, cost and preliminary engineering studies for such water- front improvement projects. port and harbor development projects : preparing overall port and harbor development plans; assessing future facility needs and the economic return from such facilities; conducting feasibility and preliminary engineering studies for public marinas, town wharfs, and docks, access ramps, and navigational improvements. n-50 dredge spoil disposal investigations : identifying feasible land alternatives and sites for dredge spoil disposal; investigating costs; and preliminary engineering for innovating dredge spoil disposal practices including creating artificial salt marshes, using spoil as fill, and building containerized sites. The maximum sum to be awarded for any one proposal cannot exceed $20,000. The minimum sum is $1,000. The maximum time period for any funded project will be one year. One third of the first year Federal money available to the State under Section 306 of the CZMA will be targeted to local community projects. Coastal communities hosting new coastal energy facilities will be eligible to participate in a new Federal loan, loan guarantee, and grant program to cover the costs of public facilities and services necessi- tated by accommodating coastal energy facilities and the costs of environmental losses and damages sustained by the siting of a coastal energy facility. These programs are: 1. loans and loan guarantees to help cover the costs of both providing additional public services and constructing new public facilities (roads, water supply, sewage treatment works) made necessary by new coastal energy facilities; 2. refinancing and other financial assistance, including grants in extreme cases of hardship, to repay the above loans if the financial burden imposed on a community accommodating new coastal energy facilities is so severe as to cause substantial hardship; and 3. grants covering the full costs of environmental losses and damages sustained by the siting of a coastal energy facility. The CZM Program also becomes the central focus for consistent State and Federal actions in the coastal zone. Through the Regional Chapters (Vol ume II of the Massachusetts coastal zone program), local communities know the extent of future State activities and can plan comprehensively for these State actions. The CZM Program staff also will act as a mediator between Federal agencies and will be notified through The Mon i - tor early In the process of new or expanded State or Federal actions in the coastal zone. Through the proposed permitting procedures out- lined in the CZM Program, local Involvement in dredge and fill permits should be streamlined and simplified. Finally, through the continuation of the ten citizen advisory coun- cils, local communities will have a direct input into the formation of the ongoing CZM Program. The citizen advisory councils will set the priorities where CZM funding should be directed on the local level, establish coordinating links between local communities and State agen- cies, establish ongoing communications and update regularly the regional CZM and programs. 11-51 Regulatory programs on the local level will not change, however, the added assistance on specific projects from the State could have a positive impact on how local communities manage their respective coastal zone. n-52 CHAPTER 6 NATIONAL INTEREST The Massachusetts coast is of national, historic, scenic, econimic, and recreation importance. The seaport of Boston serves as the major terminus for maritime trade and delivery of energy supplies in New England; the fishing grounds off the Massachusetts coSst are among the most pro- ductive in the world, and the estuaries, salt marshes, and ocean bottom spawning grounds of Massachusetts serve to maintain this productivity; the many historic sites along the Massachusetts coast give tangible evi- dence of the nation's beginnings; Cape Cod, Nantucket, and Martha's Vineyard are a national tourist destination; and oil and gas reserves off the Massachusetts coast may serve to relieve national energy shortages and reduce dependence on foreign oil. Recognizing the distinct and irreplaceable value of this country's coastline, the Congress, in enacting the Coastal Zone Management Act, found that "there is a national interest in the effective manage- ment, beneficial use, protection, and development' of the coastal zone" (Coastal Zone Management Act, Section 302 (a). Once approved by the Secretary of Commerce, the Massachusetts coastal program provides the basic policies for managing the Massachusetts coastal zone in accord with both State and national interests. To ensure that the national interest is adequately addressed by the Massachusetts pro- gram, the CZMA requires that the state coastal "management program pro- vides for adequate consideration of the national interest involved in planning for, and in siting of facilities (including energy facilities in, or which significantly affect, such state's coastal zone), which is necessary to meet the requirements which are other than local in nature", (Section 306 (e) (2)). The Massachusetts program provided opportunities to federal agencies to participate in program development and solicited federal agency views on their missions relating to national interests. Meetings with indi- vidual agencies were also held. These interactions, which assisted the program in developing its posture and procedures for addressing national interests, and a summary of the issues raised and their resolution are described in Appendix C of the Massachusetts program. In addition to the comments received in consulting with federal agencies, the Massachusetts program looks to the following sources for policies and information that must be taken into account to adequately consider national interest in exercising both its planning and manage- ment responsibilities: 11-53 a. Federal laws and regulations, b. Policy statements for the President of the United States (e.g., National Energy Plan), c. Special reports, studies, and comments from federal and state agencies, d. Testimony received at public hearings and meetings on the Massachusetts program, e. Certificates, policy statement, and solicited opinions issued on specific projects by federal regulatory agencies such as FPC, FRDA, FEA, etc. f. statements of the national interest issued by federal agencies. For three of the national interests of salient to Massachusetts - energy production and transmission, recreation, and fisheries - NOAA has issued specific statements of national interest. These in addition to the sources above, are used for defining national interest in energy, recreation, and fisheries. The discussion below capsulizes how the Massachusetts program, both during program development and as a continuing process during implemen- tation, considers facilities and resources which may be in the national interest or uses of regional benefit: 1. National Defense and Aerospace . The Massachusetts program recognizes the paramount importance of national defense, and while the Massachusetts coast no longer hosts as many national defense facilities as it once had, national security contingencies may, in the future, require the Massachusetts coast to be the location of new defense faci- lities. Recognizing these national defense interests, the Massachusetts program excludes from its program existing federally owned or leased lands and faci 1 i t ies. With respect to proposals for new or expanded defense facilities, the Massachusetts program will not seek to question their national security justification but rather will strive to ensure that all feasi- ble alternative sites and mitigation measures are explored so that con- formance, to the maximum extent practicable, is reached with the enforceable policies of the Massachusetts program. When necessary, federal consistency mediation procedures will be invoked. 11-54 2. National Interest in Energy With respect to the national interest in energy facilities and other energy production and transmission, the Massachusetts program has made the following determinations: energy facilities are uses of regional benefit and the state mechanism granting overall approval for energy facilities provides for an override of State and local regulations when such regulations preclude the siting of a energy facility approved by the State Energy Facility Siting Council (EFSC). certain energy facilities must be accommodated In the coastal zone. These Include marine terminals for ship to shore trans- fer of oil (see Policy 28); certain oil storage tank farms, including surge storage, storage for oil fired power plants in the coastal zone (see Policy 29); LNG and gas facilities that rely on cryognelc pipelines to transfer gas or feedstocks for ship to shoreslde storage (see Policy 30); deepwater ports (see Policy 32); and offshore OCS and certain facilities for alternative energy sources (see Policy 33). all other energy (Including nuclear power plant) facilities are not coastal ly dependent. site suitability for energy facilities Is best determined by broad scale evaluation of alternative sites. Thus under the Massachusetts program the EFSC Is to evaluate at least one additional coastal site for coastally dependent facilities, and at least one alternative Inland sites for non-coastal ly dependent energy facilities. In evaluating site suitability the EFSC will look to the full Massachusetts program as an expression of the State environmental and resource use policy In relation to historic districts or sites, public recreation beaches, ecologically significant resource areas, port operations, dredging requirements, oil spills, risks, etc. OCS exploration and development Is In the national Interest, provided environmental safeguards are adhered to and national fisheries Interests are safeguarded. Balancing National Interests - In siting energy facilities care must be exercised that other national interests or uses of regional benefit are not compromised. Specifically, given the national Interest In wetlands and barrier beaches, as outlined below, only certain energy facility com- ponents are permitted in restricted coastal wetlands: transmission lines, pipelines, and cooling water Intake and out flow structures. Given both the national Interest In fisheries and recreation outlined below, and in OCS exploration and development, the Massachusetts program will evaluate OCS plans to determine If all possible measures- locat lona 1 , structural, or operat lona 1 -have been taken to reduce the potential Interferenqe with traditional fishing operations, the risks of oil and gas spills on marine resources, and the possibilities of spills reaching shore. Siting of land based support facilities will be encouraged where consistent with the ports and harbors policies. Through the review of OCS plans, special concern will be addressed to designated areas of preservation or restoration and ocean sanctuaries. 11-55 For example, recognizing that energy production on the OCS is in the national interest but may conflict with other national interests such as the harvesting of our marine resources and the protection of prime recreational areas, the Massachusetts program seeks to balance competing interests on the OCS. The CZM program has, throughout its involvement in the leasing process, made recommendations to the Department of Interior which will insure the compatabi 1 i ty of the fishing and oil interests. Specifically, Massachusetts requested that 26 out of a total of 206 tracts be with- drawn from Lease Sale k2 because of a confluence of three factors: a high risk of spills coming onshore on prime recreation areas of the Cape and Islands, a high risk of impacting especially productive fishing and spawning grounds, and the added risk of vessel collisions from be- ing in our near heavily trafficked commercial shipping lanes. With- drawal of these few tracts will insure that leasing will take place in those areas which have the least impact on other national interests. The CZM program has also more numerous recommendations to minimize operational conflicts with the commercial fishing industry such as: prohibition on dumping of debris, bCirial of all pipelines, and minimi- zing the numbers of structures required to develop the OCS. The program will continue to review all future leasing actions and develop- ment plans to insure that all reasonable mitigating measures are taken to protect shorelines from oil spills and to preserve valuable marine resources. Considering National Interest in Implementation - The national interest on specific energy facility siting questions as evidenced in the sources enumerated above will be brought to the attention of the EFSC and considered in the Council's decision-making through: (a) the Secretary of Environmental Affairs, as a member of the Council, ensuring that the national interest considerations incorporated in the Massachusetts CZM program, including the national policies on energy enumerated above, are brought to bear in the decision-making process; (b) federal agencies presenting their views at public hearings conducted by the Council on electric and gas forecasts and notices of intent to construct oil facilities; and (c) consideration by the Council of interstate aspects of energy demand and supply in meeting the Commonwealth's energy needs. For example, the Council requests of energy facility appli- cants information on and considers interstate bulk purchase agreements. Federal Power Commission reports on inter-state gas and applicable inter-state energy plans, such as NEPOOL's NEPLAN. n-56 The Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program has incorporated the following NOAA statement concerning the national interest in energy : In general the following guidance is provided by the National Energy Plan . The U.S. has three overriding energy objectives: -- as an immediate objective that will become even more important in the future, to reduce dependence on foreign oil and vulnerability to supply interruptions; -- in the medium term, to keep U.S. imports sufficiently low to weather the period when world oil production approaches its capacity 1 imi tat ion; and -- in the long term, to have renewable and essentially inexhaus- tible sources of energy for sustained economic growth." (Plan Overview, P- ix) The sal lent features of the National Energy Plan are: conversation and fuel efficience, national pricing and production policies, reasonable certainty and stability in Government policies, substitution of abundant energy resources for those in short supply; and development of nonconvent ional technologies for the future." (Plan Overview PP IX-X) Elements of the National Energy Plan with particular application to the Massachusetts Coastal Zone are as follows: (a) Conservat ion - "The cornerstone of the National Energy Plan is conservat ion" (p. 55of the Plan). Comment - Energy conservation efforts in Massachusetts are discussed on pp. and of the Porgram. In addition. Policies 35, 36, 37, and 38 encourage energy conservation by encouraging more compact development and in-fill of existing urbanized areas. (b) Outer Continental Shelf - "Oil and gas under Federal ownership on the Outer Continental Shel f ToCS) are Important national assets. It is essential that they be developed in an orderly manner, consistent with national energy and environmental policies. The Congress is now considering amendments to the OCS Lands Act, which would provide addi- tional authorities to ensure that OCS development proceeds with full consideration of environmental effects and in consultation with states and communities. These amendments would require a flexible leasing pro- gram using bidding systems that will enhance competition, ensure a fair return to the public, and promote full resource recovery." (p.56 , Plan) 11-57 Comment : OCS related development activities In the Massachusetts coastal zone are treated extensively In the Chapter on Energy, pp. 225" 272 of the Program. Particular attention Is given to OCS on pp. 247- 254 , and In Policy 33, pp. 266" 268. In addition, the location of pipe- lines and other facilities in ocean sanctuaries is dealt with in the Chapter on Mrlne Environment (see Vol. I., p. 41 ) and on p.254 on the Energy Chapter. Location of onshore facilities is also discussed in the Chapter on ports and harbors (pp.161 - 18^. (c)' Liquified Natural Gas - "Due to Its extremely high costs and safety problems, LNG is not a long-term secure substitute for domestic natural gas. It can, however, be an Important supply option through the mid-1980's and beyond, until additional gas supplies may become available." (p.57 of the Plan) "The previous Energy Resources Council guidelines are being re- placed with more flexible policy that set no upper limit on LNG Imports. Under the new policy, the Federal Government would review each applica- tion to import LNG so as to provide for Its availability at a reasonable price without undue risks of dependence on foreign supplies. The assess- ment would take Into account the reliability of the selling country, the degree of American dependence such sales would create, the safety condi- tions associated with any specific installation, and all costs Involved." (p. 57 of the Plan) Comment : Massachusetts currently has a number of natural gas faci- lities In the coastal zone, including the only existing major LNG termi- nal in the U.S. LNG facilities are discussed on pp.236-239of the Energy Chapter, and in Policy 30. (d) Nuclear Power - "The United States will need to use more light water reactors to help meet Its energy needs. The Government will give increased attention to light water reactor safety licensing and waste management so that nuclear power can be used to help meet the U.S. energy deficit with increased safety." (p. 70 of the Plan) Comment : Massachusetts currently has a nuclear power plant in Plymouth, with a potential for expansion at that site. Electric generating facilities are discussed on pp. 225 of the Energy Chapter, and in Policy 3I. In addition to this statement of national energy Interests, considera- tion must be given as part of program approval under 306 (c)(8) to other recent Presidential statements of the national Interest in particular the 1977 Environmental Program, including the emphasis on protection of wetlands, floodplains and other land and water considered. Finally, atten- tion is drawn to Section 307 (f) of the CZMA, which establishes a strong national Interest in air and water quality and prohibits approval of any coastal zone management program which fails to incorporate all water pol- lution and air pollution requirements established pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and the Clean Air Act. 11-58 3 . Recreation The Massachusetts program has balanced the national interest in recreation against other national interests. For example, in consider- ing alternative sitfes for energy facilities and in OCS development special consideration is td be given to impacts on recreational beaches and to the possibility that oil spills from the OCS may reach recrea- tional shorelines. Additionally, the siting of sewage treatment plants and other outfalls must minimize adverse effects on recreational beaches. As the national interest in recreation is incorporated in the Massachusets program's policies, the implementation of the program will ensure that these interests are accommodated. The Massachusetts Program has incorporated the following statement by NOAA on the national interest in recreation: The Massachusetts coastline is of more than local and state in- terest; it is a resource of unique and natural beauty. The Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program declares that the "recreation dilemma is critical. Solutions must be provided within the next decade or most remaining opportunities will be lost", and that the primary concern "is to increase and enhance public use of the Massachusetts shoreline while Improving existing facilities and minimizing future conflicts of recrea- tion areas." Visitors yearly come from across the country to Massachusetts to utilize the state's recreational facilities, most of which are concentrated In the state's coastal zone. Tourism is a leading contributor to the State Gross Product and the coast accounts for most of the jobs and State tourist income. Recognizing its responsibilities to the rest of the nation, Massachusetts in its coastal planning has Incorporated local. State and Federal recreation interests in issues affecting the coastal zone. The Massachusetts coastal recreation policies have been developed after con- sideration of the following sources: a) Federal laws and regulations b) The Nation-wide Outdoor Recreation Plan c) State and local recreation programs (e.g., Massachusetts State-wide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan) d) Special reports, studies and comments from Federal, State and local agencies. The Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program has incorporated the State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) , which is con- sistent with the National Outdoor Recreation Plan adopted In 1973. The National Plan calls for: 11-59 1) Increase the availability and access to recreation resources, especially in central, city, suburban and urban fringe areas 2) Improve the management and administration of recreations resources and programs by local and State governments. Salient points of the National Plan include: 1) Interest public recreation in high density areas 2) Improve coordination and management of recreation areas 3) Protect existing recreation areas from adverse contiguous uses k) Accelerate the identification and no-cost transfer of surplus and under-utilized federal property. Key elements of the National Outdoor Recreation Plan with particular emphasis in Massachusetts are as follows: Expansion of recreation areas In urban and high need areas : Policy 26(pagel l-18)addresses this concern and a list of future recreation sites for acquisition that are consistent with the MCZMP poli- cies Is listed on page Improve public transportation facilities to coastal recreation facilities : Policy 21 outlines the state's concern to Increase public access by public transportation. Protect existing recreation areas of State and national significance from adverse impacts : Outdoor recreational activities are permitted use in restricted coastal wetlands; intensive development is not, thereby ensuing that uses of wetlands contiguous to recreation sites will be compatible. In addition, Policy 27 outlines how the State will utilize the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act to protect existing recreation areas and on pages 220 - 223 I s a list of those areas that apply to this policy. Also, existing State or locally owned parks or recreation areas cannot, under the Massachusetts Constitution, pass from public to private ownership or be converted for another use without a two-thirds vote of the Massachusetts Legislature, giving these areas a special measure of protection. More effective management : The State has consolidated all recreation activities into the Execu- tive Office of Environmental Affairs. Management responsibilities are outlined on pages 335-- 338. n-60 Use of surplus federal lands : The program has identified surplus federal lands which it wishes to convert to coastal recreation facilities on page k. Transportation . Port development and maritime shipping and indus- try are accorded high priority and given preference in existing port areas, New port development outside of existing port areas is restricted, unless the need to be met is of national or statewide importance as described on pages 172" US^nd cannot be met In existing port areas. Existing major road and transit plans have been examined, and the status of their con- sistency is discussed on page Logan Airport in Boston is the New England region's airport.of major national significance; no plans for expansion are under consideration (see Appendix D). The Massachusetts program policies on wetlands and ports and general public investment are the chief considerations that would be brought to bear on airport siting and expansion. Other future transportation needs will be determined by relevant federal agencies working with counterpart State and local agencies, with the Massachusetts program giving highest priority to transportation infrastructure which meets the needs of urban and com- munity development centers. As plans for new or expanded transportation facilities are developed, the national Interest in these facilities will be addressed through coordination among the Massachusetts CZM program and Federal, State, and regional transportation agencies and the program revised or amended to Include as consistent projects those transportation facilities In which there Is a national interest. National Interests In transportation must be balanced against the national interest in wetlands and living resources. For Instance, the program requires bridges to be constructed so as not to Impede anadromous fish passage and so that the basic seven interests of the Commonwealth's Wetlands Protection Act are met. 5. Regional Waste Treatment Plants . Concommitant with the program's support to attainment of national water quality goals (see below under water), the program recognizes that public sewage treatment plants are uses of regional benefit. The Division of Water Pollution Control is empowered to order a municipality or a water pollution abatement district to construct treatment facilities and to prepare necessary engin- eering plans. Highest priority for waste treatment facilities Is given to projects serving existing urban areas and community centers where water quality problems currently exist. Next priority is awarded to facilities proposed for contiguous developed areas. In all cases, faci- lities proposals must demonstrate a documented public health problem re- qulrinq resolution through a structural measure (see Policy 35 on pages 294-296). During Implementation, national Interest will be considered in developing the annual priority list for Federal and State funding of waste treatment facilities. This list is approved by both EPA and the Secretary of Environmental Affairs, thereby allowing for input of national Interest concerns. 11-61 The national interest on waste treatment plants is balanced against national interests in wetlands, barrier islands, recreation, floodplains, and living marine resources in that treatment plants and outfalls are to be sited so as to minimize potential adverse effects to recreation beaches and shellfish beds and so as to minimize the g rowth- inducing effects caused by providing sewer services in floodplains, barrier beaches, and wetlands. 6. Water and Air . The program fully incorporates the national inter- ests in air and water quality, and the requirements of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and Clean Air are made part of the Massachusetts coastal program. Thus, those water and air national interests will be met during program implementation through the process of issuing State and Federal air emission and waste water discharge permits. 7. Wetlands . The national interest in wetlands, as expressed in the President's Executive Order on Wetlands (Executive Order 11990, May 2k, 1977) is: "to avoid to the extent possible the long and short term adverse impacts associated with the distribution or modi- fication of wetlands and to avoid direct or indirect sup- port of new construction in wetlands whenever there is a practicable alternative." The Massachusetts program meets this national interest in Policy 1 found in 11(7) by permitting in restricted wetlands those activities which have no practicable alternative (e.g., wharves, piers, intake and out-take conduits for electric power plant cooling water, which all require a waterfront location) and by prohibiting or conditioning all other activities which would modify or destroy wetland values. The national interest in wetlands is balanced against national interest in energy facilities siting in that certain necessary components of energy facilities (transmission lines, pipelines, and intakes and out-take con- duits for cooling water) are permitted uses for wetlands. For other types of energy facilities, such as tank farms, the national interest in wetlands is represented by either the prohibited use in restricted wetlands or the conditioning protecting the interests of the Wetlands Protection Act on unrestricted wetlands. 8. Endangered Flora and Fauna . Habitats are protected through the restriction of wetlands as well as through it designation as Areas for Preservation or Restoration. The special scrutiny reserved for ac- tivities taking place in Massachusetts ocean sanctuaries also provides assurance that during the implementation the national interest in marine mammal protection is addressed in licensing off-shore activities. Also see living marine resources below. 9. Floodplains and Erosion Hazard Areas . The national interests in these areas as expressed through the President's Executive Order on floodplains and the National Flood Insurance Program are incorporated into the Massachusetts program. Development Is conditioned or restricted 11-62 in wetlands and floodplains; the program supports non-structural measures for erosion and flood control. Structural measures are only selectively permitted and then only if downcoast effects are minimized. As the national interest in floodplains is incorporated in the Massachusetts program's policies, those national interests will be accommodated through coastal wetlands restrictions, Wetlands Protection Act permitting and Tidelands licensing. 10. Barrier Islands. See wetlands and floodplains above. 11. Historic Sites and Districts , The program affords protection to designated historic districts or sites from adverse impacts stemming from Federal or State actions, and accordingly all national interest facilities must minimize adverse impacts to designated historic districts or sites. During program implementation, the national Interest In historic sites and districts will continue to be considered with the pro- gram encompassing new districts or sites as they are established or regis- tered . 12. Wildlife Refuge or Reserves . Federally owned refuges are ex- cluded as Federal lands from the provisions of the Massachusetts program. State or other publicly owned refuges or reserves may not,. under the Massachusetts Constitution, be converted to other use or be sold without two-thirds approval of the Massachusetts Legislature. The presence of feeding and breeding areas for waterfowl or birds dependent on coastal resources is one of the criteria used in designating Areas for Preserva- tion or Restoration. The establishment of wildlife refuges or reserves is of high priority in designated Areas of Preservation or Restoration. Energy facilities are restricted from locating in such areas. During program implementation, the Federal consistence mediation procedures may be invoked to resolve conflicts arising from balancing national interests in wildlife refuges or reserves with other national Interests, such as energy facility siting. 13- Areas of Unique Cultural Significance . See historic sites and districts above. 1 ^ . M i nera 1 s . Mineral development Is a recognized permitted use under the Massachusetts program. However such development is balanced against other national interests in that dredge or filling will be con- ditioned in wetlands or barrier Islands; and, offshore, is conditioned upon a showing that there will be no adverse effects to natural sand replenishment processes for recreational beaches or to living marine resources. During program Implementation, federal agencies will be offered opportunities at public hearings on off-shore leases In Massachusetts waters to voice national interest concerns, and the leasing process will take account of these interests. 13- Prime Agricultural Lands and Forests . No agricultural lands or forests of national significance exist in the Massachusetts coastal zone. 11-63 The Massachusetts Coastal Zone Program has incorporated the following statement by NOAA on the national interest in living marine resources: 16. Living Marine Resources . In determining the national interest in living marine resources the following documents and specific legisla- tion were used as indicators: A Compilation of Federal Laws Relating to Conservation and Development of our Nation's Fish and Wildlife Resources , Environmental Quality, and Oceanography . The Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service. January, 1975. A Marine Fisheries Program for the Nation . U.S. Department of Commerce. July, 1976. Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976. (P.L. 94-265) The major objectives of the national interest in living marine resources as expressed are as follows: To conserve, enhance and manage in a rational manner commercial fishing which constitutes a major source of employment and con- tributes significantly to the food supply, economy and health of the nation. To strengthen the contribution of marine resources to recrea- tion and other social needs. To develop and protect all species of wildlife, resources thereof and their habitat, and to control losses by damage to habitat areas through coordination with other features of water resource develop- ment programs. The salient features of the national interest in living marine resources are, therefore: emphasize commercial fisheries relationship of marine resources to recreation develop and protect wildlife and their resources protection of wildlife habitat. Elements of the national interest in living marine resources with particular application to the Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program are as follows: 1 ) Emphasize Commercial Fisheries Policy 7 outlined the State's emphasis in encouraging and assisting commercial fisheries research and development. n-64 Policy 17 accords the fishing industry priority in allocat- ing port space and Policy 18 gives fishing harbors priority for State and Federal dredging funds. These priorities assure that the commercial fishing industry's on-shore space and harbor needs are met. 2) Relationship of Marine Resources to Recreation Policy 21 outlines the State's concern to increase public access by public transportation. Policy 22 establishes the State's interest in linking existing coastal recreation sites to each other or to nearby coastal inland facilities via trails for bicyclists, hikers and equestrians, and via rivers for boaters, thereby expanding recreational fishing opportunity. Lastly, Policy 26 addresses the expansion of recreational faci- lities, including those for recreational fisherman. 3) Develop and Protect Wildlife and their Resources The Massachusetts program addresses the adverse effects to wildlife that may stem from construction or development in open ocean waters, estuaries, and coastal rivers. Specifically, Policy 3 speaks to minizing damage to shellfish beds from out- fall placement; Policy k addresses impediments to anadromous fish passage; Policy 5 specif icies the measure to be taken to avoid adverse impacts to fisheries from dredging or dredge spoil disposal; and Policy 33 outlines the State's concern for fisheries and wildlife in OCS exploration and development and other off-shore mining. k) Protection of Wildlife Habitats . Consistent with the national Interest in wetlands protection, the Massachusetts program conserves salt marshes, shellfish beds, dunes, beaches, barrier beaches, and salt ponds -- all resources that provide food and habitat upon which marine life depends (Policy 1). In addition, through designating Areas for Preservation or Restoration which encompasses par- ticularly important areas of marine productivity, wildlife habitats are afforded additional protection (see Policy 2). Other national interests In energy facilities siting, mineral ex- traction and transportation are matched against national interests in fisheries with the result that the planning for and siting of such national interest facilities must avoid adverse impacts to marine pro- ductivity and fisheries. Specifically, off-shore mining is prohibited in ocean sanctuaries which constitute the major traditional fishing waters of Massachusetts and encompass the major off-shore shellfish beds and fin-fish spawning grounds. Moreover, OCS development and ex- ploration is, under the Massachusetts program, conditioned to minimize impacts on fishing operations and on spawning grounds. n-65 During program implementation, the national interest in fisheries will be considered in Wetlands Protection Act permitting, Tidelands li- censing, off-shore mineral leasing, water quality discharge permitting, and energy facility siting. These permits, licenses, and approval pro- cedures either expressly include protection of fisheries as a criteria for approval or provide a public process for introduction of evidence that must be considered prior to approval. 11-66 CHAPTER 7 HOW THE MASSACHUSETTS COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM WAS PREPARED A. Full Citizen Participation The preparation of coastal management program in Massachusetts began in 197^ upon the receipt of Federal CZM funds. In its earliest days, Massachusetts CZM made a commitment to involve as many citizens as possible in the development of the coastal zone management program. An open participatory process was the one way of assuring the development of a management program that would meet immediate and long term needs, grow from the demands of citizens and communities, and would have support from all levels of government. Some examples of this open participatory process are: - The Governor established a Task Force on Coastal Recources composed of 42 volunteers representing the legislative, all levels of government, and major user groups of the coastal zone. - The Coastal Zone staff met with over 2,000 citizens and officials in open public meetings to discuss policies and better management of the coast. - Regional Citizen Advisory Committees were established in seven of the ten regions of the coast. CAC members, representing coastal communitites and interests, worked month-by-month over the past year to ensure that CZM policies meet the needs of sub-areas of the coast. CAC membership included an appointee of the mayor or board of selectman and representatives of the major user-interest groups of the area. - A public opinion survey of 1000 randomly selected coastal residents was conducted to further ascertain the needs and desires of coastal c i t i zens , - Questionnaires were prepared to help local officials and CAC members set priorities on subjects such as erosion problems, recreation needs, and alternative management systems. - The staff conducted an active public information program to inform many thousands of citizens on CZM issues and progress. Newsletters, publications, slide programs, films and newspapaer stories were among the materials prepared for public dissemination. - In addition to citizen involvement, the CZM staff received excellent technical assistance from the NERBC study of South Eastern New England - After 3 years of this active interaction between citizens and the CZM staff, a program Preview was distributed in December, 1976. Over 2,000 copies were printed and sent to citizens as well as Federal agenc ies . 11-67 - In the Winter and Spring of 1977, changes and additions were made in the document to reflect comments received from Federal Agencies and citizens. - A public hearing was held on the entire revised program in August prior to the Governors formal submittal. B. Federal Government Participation The Massachusetts Program Appendix C documents the opportunity of full participation by relevant Federal agencies in the development of the management program. It describes the contact that was made with Federal agencies early in the program preparation, how Federal input was obtained on a timely basis, summarizes the nature and frequency of contacts, evaluates the Federal comments received and how they were accommodated or where conflicts were not resolved. C. Participation of Other State Agencies, Local Governments, Regional Organizations Port Authorities and other interested public or private parties . Appendix D of the Massachusetts Program documents the full participation provided these groups. 11-68 PART I I I PROBABLE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ON THE ENVIRONMENT Significant environmental, social and economic impacts will result from Federal approval of the Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program. Im- pacts directly resulting from Federal approval fall into four categories. First, an increase in funds and funding options will permit State agencies to implement the Program through more effective administration of exisitng management authorities. Second, Federal approval will require that Federal government actions be consistent with the management program to the maximum extent practicable. Third, approval will signify that the State has an acceptable procedure to insure adequate consideration of the national interest involved in siting of facilities necessary to meet requirements which are other than local in nature. While the State is not compelled to propose a program which accommodates certain types of facilities, the impact of this procedure shall assure such national interests are not arbitrarily excluded or unreasonably restricted from the coastal zone. Finally, Federal approval will insure continued State eligibility to rec ieve ass i stance under Coastal Energy Impact Section 308 of the Coastal Zone Management Act. This would provide financial aid in ameliorating the impacts associated with offshore oil and gas production off the Massachusetts coast. Additional funding for other coastal zone assistance programs such as interstate coordination, beach access, island preservation, research, and training will also be assured. In order to fully understand the impacts associated with Federal approval, however, it is necessary to evaluate the probable impact of program implementation by the Commonwealth. The following description of program impacts is divided into two chapters. The first chapter summarized the probable environmental social and economic impacts of the program. The second chapter describes how each of the State's management authorities will be administered differently under an approved program and evaluates the specific impacts of these changes. 111-1 Chapter I SUMMARY OF PROBABLE ENVIRONMENTAL SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS A. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The Massachusetts coastal zone constitutes a large, delicately balanced ecosystem in which changes in any one part, however small or remote, cause alterations in all other parts. These cuases and effects are linked through geophysical processes (e.g. wave action, movement of currents and tides, flow of surface water, and other hydrologic cycles) and biological processes (e.g., food chain links, reproductive cycles, migration patterns, and habitat adaptation). The Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program seeks to preserve key natural processes and conserve biologically productive resources. Thus, implementation of the Program should have a generally beneficial impact on the natural environment The key natural processes and resources that the Program pol icies are de- signed to preserve and respect are: littoral sand transport along the shore; flushing and circulation patterns in estuaries, coastal embayments, and salt ponds; storm buffering functions of beaches, dunes, barrier beaches, and salt marshes; soil capabilities to filter and absorb wastes; salt marshes which promote habitat for wildlife and which, through the production of detritus, are a primary source of food for ma r i ne life; beaches, dunes, and barrier beaches which provide habitat for wi 1 dl i fe ; shel 1 f i sh beds; -- anadromous fish runs; and fishery resources. These natural processes and resources are mapped in detail in the regional chapters found in Volume II of the Program document, and their significance is described in Chapter 3 of Volume I. By protecting certain key natural resource areas of the coast - salt marshes, beaches, barrier beaches, dunes and shellfish beds, in particular - the Program will also help to preserve the coast's esthetic qualities and the various types of recreational opportunities available along the shore. By preserving these key natural resource areas the Program will also discourage further inappropriate development in hazardous areas and preserve natural buffers against hazards. 111-2 While the Program seeks to preserve natural processes and resources, the Program also recognizes that the coast will continue to experience signifi- cant new growth. Marine dependent energy development, offshore mineral mining, and port and harbor development, and their attendant dredging, spoil disposal, and bu 1 khead i ng activities, will be permitted in certain locations in the coastal zone, so long as potential adverse impacts are addressed and minimized to the extent practicable. Such activities will have a variety of adverse impacts, including reduced marine productivity as a result of habitat destruction and increased turbidity, deterioration of coastal visual resources, and inter- ference with recreational uses of the coast. Most types of major development located in or immediately adjacent to tidal areas will be regulated by the state directly, or by local conservation com- missions subject to state review. The regulation of most other types of de- velopment in the coastal zone, with the exception of energy facilities, will remain the responsibility of local governments. Thus a variety of deveolpment that may not individually, but in the aggregate may have adverse impact on the coastal zone will not be addressed by the managment program. The Coastal Wetlands Restriction Program will be employed to protect ecologically significant resource areas and natural hazard buffer areas. The Inland Wetlands Restriction Program will be used to protect anadromous- f ish runs located in Areas of Critical Environmental Concern/Areas for Preservation or Restoration, once these are formally designated by the Secretary. This should serve to protect coastal and marine fisheries resources. The Wetlands Protection Act and state Tidelands licensing will be relied upon to protect ecologically significant resource areas and natural hazard buffer areas against inappropriate development. After tidelands regulations are adopted, construction of solid fill structures in estuaries and embay- ments shall be required to minimize interference with water circulation and sediment transport, and preserve coastal water quality and marine productivity. This should have beneficial Impacts on marine productivity as well as the visual quality of water bodies. In addition, conservation commissions shall approve permits for private flood or erosion control only where there will be no adverse effects on adjacent properties or down coast areas. Uniform criteria for evaluation of proposed projects will be contained in the revised regulations. These should eliminate some of the adverse ecological consequences of inappropriate flood or erosion control projects and protect down coast landowners from economic losss. The other types of activities regulated under the Waterways Program may have substantial adverse environmental affects. Dredging may generate sufficient amounts of suspended material to harm organisms by blocking light necessary for photosynthesis and by clogging the gills and siphons of fish, molluscs, and other marine fauna. Disposal of dredge spoil also increases turbidity and may destroy benthic organisms. Marine construction frequently results in the loss of coastal habitat areas. Thus, the policies on dredging and spoil disposal will serve to protect the marine environment. m-3 In summarizing the environmental implications of the Program, a significant point is that several of the major elements of the Program will not be in effect, or not completely in effect, at the time of Program approval. Thus the positive environmental impacts of these elements will begin to be felt only sometime following Program approval. For example, the Program proposes to restrict the rest of the State's wetland areas over the course of the next three to five years; thus, the positive implications of prohibiting most intensive types of development in these types of areas will expand as the restriction program proceeds. During the interum, the less strigent but still quite protective provisions of the Wetlands Protection Act will apply. Also, the various use prohibitions and other regulations in Areas of Critical Environmental Concern/ Areas for Preservation or Restoration (See Policy 2) will only take effect once these areas are designated by the Secretary of Envi ronmetnal Affairs. A decision on all ten nominated areas will be made in the first year after Federal approval of the Coastal Zone Program. B. SUMMARY OF SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS The Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program seeks to conserve and protect key ecological coastal resources, while it advocates increased de- velopment of already developed areas. Although the Massachusetts Program does not anticipate a decline in the present rate of development in the coastal zone, the Program may shift some development activity inland. This may affect property values, property tax revenues and resource extraction or exploration. The program wi 1 provide an improved decision-making process for determining coastal land and water uses, siting of facilities in the national interest and generally provide increased publicity about what can and cannot occur along the coast. Maritime dependent activities that bring sustained economic growth will be given highest priority for coastal locations that have the resources and facilities needed to support them. General development also benefits from a costal location, but could locate in other areas. General development that involves dredging or filling will be managed in an effort to protect resources valuable to maritime dependent growth. New Development Impacts New development is expected to continue at its present rate, but will be encouraged to occur in existing developed areas or adjacent areas. Development is restricted in areas under the Wetlands Restriction Program and permitted subject to certain conditions in areas below mean high tide, areas covered by the Wetlands Protection Acts, where soil cannot support sewage di sposal systems, and near designated recreation or historical sites. This leaves approximately 120,000 undeveloped acres or 21 percent of the coastal zone immediately suitable for development, without contstraints beyond local zoning, the State Environmental Code, and Federal emission standards. Thus, many decisions concerning economic growth and development will be made at the local level, and future impact will vary. 111-4 Over the long run, as land suitable for development without sewers and State roads is exhausted, the need for public investment will become more critical to future development. Thus, a key impact of the plan will be that the public sector will have increasing involvement in determining optimum growth in the coastal zone. Since the plan seeks to concentrate development in/and adjacent to developed areas through public investment policies, develop- ment may occur at higher densities and in fewer places. The conservation of sensitive coastal resources advocated may make existing and future development more desirable and may raise property values. Present property owneres would benefit economically while potential future residents might suffer as a result of increased housing costs. Fisheries Impacts The commercial fishing industry currently provides employment for 15,000 persons and sport fishing is an equally important activity. In 197^ approxi- mately two million sportsmen fished in Massachusetts coastal waters. Massachusetts coastal zone management policies are designed to conserve habitats and biological processes upon which the fisheries depend. Furthermore, the program promotes the funding of harbor dredging, pier construction, and other harbor works needed to benefit and expand the fishing industry. These policies will have a positive impact on the fisheries related economy. Without such improvements, the benefits made available by an ex- tended US fishing zone would not be as fully realized in Massachusetts. Ports and Harbors Impacts Other waterfront dependent industries in Massachusetts directly employ some 35,000 persons. These industries include ship and boat yards, water transportation services, tugboat opeations, marine construction, marine terminals, trucking firms, and waterfront industries relying on maritime shippingof raw materials or finished products. Offshore oil and gas de- velopment may bring additional marine trade to Massachusetts. The Program will direct redevelopment funds into existing ports and harbors and approve funds and permits for dredging projects according to policies 17 and 18. Through the waterways licensing authority the coastal program will attempt to prevent the preemption of present and proposed maritime-dependent uses in port areas, while permitting other uses which do not represent an irretrievable commitment of sites and which do not preempt foreseeable maritime- dependent industrial uses. This policy should have beneficial impacts on maritime sectors of the economy such as fisheries and shipping. Its affects may be somewhat limited, however, since certain projects can be permitted in port areas without any opportunity for State review for maritime dependency. Impacts on Individual Coastal Land Owners and Uses CZM policies advocating the conservation of certain coastal resources (e.g., marshes, beaches) are consistent with existing State laws in that they do not alter the development rights of individual property owners. in-5 Furthermore, no owner's rights are redistributed to other people; i.e., no access rights are conveyed through the plan without just compensation. However, some individual owners will bear negative impacts, though there are judicial processes to allow compensation. On the other hand, the CZM program advocated the protection of complete natural systems by conditioning or restricting dredging, pol lut ion, f i 1 1 ing , bulk-heading etc. Individual land owners may be burdened in the short run through such conditions, but over the long run, the CZM plan will provide net positive benefits to most coastal land owners by promoting a high quality envi ronment . Local Government Budgets Many policies of the CZM program advocate efficient use of public funds, better utilization of sunk investments, and increased public benefits for public investments. For example, public investment policies encourage the concetration of new development infrastructure such as sewers and the high priority revi tal Izat ion of existing infrastructure. Recreation policies advocate improved transportation to and maintenance of existing facilities. The immediate impact of these policies will be an insurgcnce of Federal/ State money into local communities for projects and for new planning. In the short run, this may cause an increase in town expenditures where "matching" funds are required. If the Program is successful in improving the overall efficiency of public investments, local exenditures should be reduced in the long-term. Property tax revenue may be reduced because of conservation restrictions or constraints on industrial development. This may be partially compensated by increases in maritime dependent industry, payment in lieu of taxes for recreation areas, increases in the value of developable land, or land made developable through public investments. State Institutions Several EOEA agencies (e.g. the Wetlands the V-^aterways Programs in the Department of Environmental Quality) will have expanded responsibilities under the Coastal Program. Adjusting to the added review steps that will be required to determine the permissibility of certain projects may cause some temporary delays in permit review and program development. In the longrun, however, coastal regulatory and management decisions should be made more efficiently and with better coordination among State agencies involved. Improvements in the decision-making process and increased staff capabilities will reduce the amount of time taken up by permitting and licensing procedures Under Federal consistency, proposed projects involving Federal funds or requiring a Federal permit or license, will have to be considered in light of Massachusetts' Coastal policies. Because assistance will be available from the Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management in interpreting the Program, it is expected that few projects will be delayed due to inconsistency, in-6 The consi stency determi nat ion should require no major delays since it can be satisfied by the granting of a State permit or through the established A-95 review process. Added steps will be required only in the infrequent instances where applications for a Federal license or permit do not also require a State permit; in these instances, the applicant will be required to prepare a certificate of consistency. The Coastal Program should also improve communication between the public and EOEA agencies. For example, the list of projects in the Envi ronmental Monitor and its distribution list will be expanded. Regional and State level citizens advisory groups will participate in the evaluation on the program and in developing the future course of the program I ni-7 Chapter I I THE PROBABLE IMPACTS OF APPROVAL ON EXISTING MANAGEMENT AUTHORITIES The second chapter of this discussion of the probable impacts of Federal approval of the Massachusetts Coastal Program is organized in terms of the various management authorities that will be relied on to implement the pro- gram. The description of impacts is based primarily on the probable affects of the enforceable policies on key management authorities. For reference, all of the thirty-eight program policies are cross-referenced with the appropriate management authorities in Part II, Chapter 3- Since the Massachusetts Coastal Program will be based on existing laws and procedures, the Program will basically continue and intensify the present impacts of existing state programs. In order to distinguish present impacts from future impacts under an approved Program, the discussion is divided into two sections. "Present Operation" describes how each authority is presently administered and its impacts. ''Coastal Program Impacts" describes how the authorities will be implemented differently under the Program and the en- vironmental or socio-economic impacts that will result from this differential. A. WETLANDS RESTRICTION PROGRAM The Commonwealth through the Coastal and Inlands Wetlands Restriction Acts is authorized to place restrictive orders on property owners' deeds prescribing certain prohibited and permitted uses. All beaches, dunes, salt marshes, shellfish beds, and salt ponds in coastal Massachusetts will be restricted under the Coastal Wetland Restriction Program, except for those in designated port areas (See Summary Map), those under Metropolitan District Commission control, and portions of barrier beaches which no longer exhibit characteristics of naturally functioning barrier beaches. The Inland Restriction Program will also be used to protect anadromous fish runs in certain locations. Present Operation : Salt marshes, shellfish beds, beaches, dunes, and salt marshes comprise at the most 70,000 acres, or ]2% of the coastal zone. Since the Coastal Restriction Act was passed in 1965, 30,000 acres {kS%) have been placed under restrictions. These retricted areas are located in 25 coastal communities (30^ of all coastal communities) particularly on the lower Cape, Martha's Vineyard, the north shore of Buzzards Bay, from Cohasset to Duxbury, and from Salisbury to Essex. As a result of different policies prior to preparation of the Massachusetts Program, beaches and dunes generally were not restricted in these first communities that participated in the restriction process . Although administered pursuant to a separate Act, the Inland Restriction Act is applied jointly with the Coastal Restriction Program by the Department of Environmental Management. As a result, all wetlands in a town are generally restricted at the same time. Based on past experience, the average cost of applying restrictions is approximately $7,200 per community, plus the salary of a technical staff person. It is estimated that about 3 communities can be restricted per year by one staff person. ni-8 Coastal Program Impact : Federal funding will allow the Commonwealth to hire additional staff which should increase the rate at which wetlands are restricted. Restrictions will be applied on a priority basis to protect Areas of Critical Environmental Concern/Areas for Preservation or restoration, once these are designated by the Secretary of Environmental Affairs, and to protect wetlands threatened by development in urban areas. It is anticipated that the rest of the State's coastal wetlands will be restricted in three to five years. The primary new impacts of the Restriction Programs under an approved Coastal Program will be those resulting from an increase in the pace of the restriction process. All of the areas that will ultimately be restricted already are protected in terms of the seven interests of the Wetlands Protection Act. Environmental benefits will result from placing these areas under the more stringent protection of the restriction program earlier than would occur in the absence of Federal funding. Also, certain landowners may be preempted from receiving profits they might have gained as a result of not having had their land restricted. Finally, greater equity will be achieved among landowners if the restriction program is accelerated since all owners of salt marshes, beaches and so on will be treated on a more equal basis. Another important change is that in the future all of the beaches, dunes, salt marshes, shellfish beds, and salt ponds in coastal towns will be re- stricted whereas in the past beaches and dunes were generally not included. Thus, under the coastal program, the Coastal Wetlands Restriction Program will provide more extensive protection of coastal resources. B. WETLANDS PROTECTION PROGRAM The Wetlands Protection Act gives local conservation commissions authority to review all proposed projects within 100 feet of the 100 year flood plain or, if further landward, within 100 feet of the bank of any beach, dune, flat, marsh, meadow or swamp. If the conservation commission, or the Commissioner of DEQE, (on appeal) finds that the proposed action presents a significant impact to the interests of the Act (public and private water supply, ground water supply, flood control, storm damage prevention, prevention of pollution, protection of land containing shellfish), an order of conditions is imposed to regulate the project and protect the interests of the Act. A conservation commission's Order of Conditions may be appealed to the Commissioner of DEQE, or the Commissioner himself may invoke the appeal process. Present Operatio n: In 197^, final regulations were promulgated by the Common- wealth to assist local conservation commissions in implementing the Act. These regulations provide guidance on the type of information to be submitted with an application, how the application is to be processed, and whether a proposed action will affectt the seven interests of the Act. These regulations do not indicate how different types of use should be managed in different locations to achieve the objectives of the Act. Since original jurisdiction was delegated to local conversation commissions in 1972, approximately 3,900 Orders of Conditions had been issued through March 1976, and 322 Superceeding Orders have been issued by the State. Thus, only about 10^ of conservation commissions' Orders of Conditions were formally overruled by the State. The majority of these cases were appealed by the applicant, while hardly any appeals were initiated by the Commissioner. 111-9 i It is difficult to evaluate the impacts of the Wetlands Protection Act without comprehensive information on the Orders of Conditions issued through- out the Commonwealth. Clearly, however, in areas that are restricted under the Restriction Program, the Wetlands Act represents a largely redundant regulatory control. But the Wetlands Act does serve to protect ecologically significant resource areas that have not yet been restricted, as well as other coastal areas not eligible for the restriction process. The Wetlands Project at the Massachusetts Audubon Society reviewed the 125 Wetland Orders that were appealed to the Department of Environmental Quality Engineering during 1975- Since this study represents the only attempt to date to evaluate the effectiveness of the Wetlands Protection Program, it is appropriate to describe some of the major conclusions of the study: -DEQ.E has sought strict adherence to appeal procedures, often denying an appeal or delaring it null and void because of failure to conform adequately with the rules. Eleven of the 125 appeal cases were denied because the request came beyond the time period for appeal. -DEQE has been inconsistent in dealing with violations of the Wetlands Protection Act. For example, an applicant illegally placed fill, changed the grade, destroyed vegitation, and built a canoe pier, DEQE did not bring legal action. In another case, pipes were placed illegally in a pond, yet DEQE allowed the project and did not order them removed. Yet in certain instances DEQE ordered natural conditions to be restored. -Mostof the appeal cases dealt with inland, freshwater wetlands. Only 9 percent of the appeals evaluated involved coastal wetlands. -Most of the appeal cases involve streams and ponds. (This suggests that implementation of the Protection Act has aroused greater controversy in inland areas than along the coast.) -DEQE has supported the control of activities occurring in an upland area which would pollute a wetland. For example, a residential septic system was not allowed because it would have polluted freshwater recharge areas and contaminated ground water. These recharge areas were crucial for the operation of a trout hatchery. -The major grounds for appeal, although not clearly specified, seem to vary. Flooding and pollution problems were most often mentioned. Yet, other Issues were also raised: water supply loss, erosion, and sedi- mentation/^ I 1 tat ion, surface run-off, storm water damage, wetland Integrity, aesthetics, recreation, dune destruction. In summary, the Wetlands Protection Program appears to have suffered from uneven administration. One cause of this is the absence of explicit State standards or guidelines for local Coastal Commission decisions. A second cause Is that the Department presently lacks adequate staff to review local Conservation Commission Orders In order to achieve Statewide consistency in administering the Program. 111-10 Coastal Program Impact : Federal approval of the Massachusetts Coastal Program should help to correct some of the deficiencies of the present program with beneficial environmental consequences as well as increased predictability for landowners . A program review board has been established to review the Act's present regulations. Revised regulations are expected to be prepared in the fall and promulgated in final form in June 1978, following program approval. These regulations should assist local commissions in determining the permissibility of particular uses, and help to ensure the implementation of various Coastal Program pol icles . Federal funds will permit the hiring of additional staff in DEQE regional offices to provide technical assistance to local commissions and to review Orders of Conditions. This should help to insure greater Statewide uniformity In the implementation of the Protection Act, and in turn, help to establish greater equity in the administration of the Act. C. T HE WATERWAYS PROGRAM The Waterways Program has authority over filling, wharf construction, bridges and pipelines in tidewaters. The Commonwealth, as trustee over public lands below low waters, Issues revocable licenses granting permission for construction that may interfere with public rights in these lands. While land between low and high water marks is in private ownership, these lands are subject to reserved public rights for fowling, fishing and navigation. The Waterways Program also funds such public works as wharf improvement, public piers, jetties, bulkheads, shore protection works, channel dredging and main- tenance, dams and wreck removals. Present Operation: The Waterways Program has been administered to date without formally adopted rules and regulations. In 1976, the Waterways Program issued approximately 150 licenses, over one-half involving coastal related projects. In one part, the Program generally has approved projects so long as they do not impede navigation, are structurally sound, and are not disapproved by any State reviewing agencies. In practice, the Waterways Program does not issue licenses until projects are approved by the local Conservation Commissioner, if appealed by the Commissioner of Environmental Quality Engineering. Conditions are sometimes Imposed upon licenses, and payment Is required If the project displaces tidal water or Is located on Commonwealth lands (below low tide). Coastal Program Impact : Under an approved 306 Program, Federal funding will be used to support additional DEQE staff to review Waterways license applications In addition, regulations will be promulgated for the evaluation of proposed dredging, filling and marine construction. In reviews of license applications, marine construction will be appoved if, in estuaries and coastal embayments, flushing rates and capacity are not reduced; water quality, marine productivity, and anadromous fish runs are not adversely affected; and alteration of wave generated littoral currents will not exacerbate or Induce shoreline erosion or adversely alter despos I t ional patterns. m-n The Waterways Program and the CZM staff have been working to develop a ranking system for the allocation of State funds for dredging and shoreline protection projects. It is proposed that funding be provided for dredging only in developed port or harbor areas, and that maintenance dredging be given priority over any new dredging. This should minimize the serious adverse environmental consequences of dredging in undisturbed coastal areas, while permitting dredging necessary to support maritime- dependent industry. Non-structural measures will receive higher priority for public funds than structural solutions to shoreline erosion, except where structural solutions would produce widespread public benefits and minimize adverse environmental affects. Thus many of the adverse economic and environmental consequences of structural shoreline erosion control measures will be avoided, D. OCEAN SANCTUARIES The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has established five Ocean Sanctuaries to protect the ecology and the appearance of the ocean. All State waters below mean low water are included except for Mt . Hope Bay and that part of Massachusetts Bay for Lynn through Marshfield. (See Figure 1 ). Present Operation: In general, such activities as the removal of sand, gravel, or minerals, dumping or any new waste discharge are prohibited. However, a broad class of activities are exempt from these prohibitions. While the terms of the five sanctuaries differ, laying of cables approved by the Department of Public Utilities, projects authorized under the Waterways program on other improvements authorized by other State or Federal agencies are not prohibited. Essentially, the Ocean Sanctuaries Statutes provides no additional management authority in addition to the Waterways Program. No permit is required from the Department of Environmental Management in order to proceed with an activity in an Ocean Sanctuary. It is expected, however, that individuals and other agencies will confer with the Department to ensure compliance with the terms of the statutes. Coastal Program Impact ; Regulations are expected to be promulgated In final form for the Ocean Sanctuaries Program by March 30, 1978. The Massachusetts legislature is now considering legislation to re- modify the present statutes, make the terms of each sanctuary consistent, and clarify the permitted uses in each sanctuary. In terms of impacts, the Ocean Sanctuaries can be assumed to have impacts comparable to those described under the Waterways Programs. E. ENERGY FACILITY SITING COUNCI L The Energy Facility Siting Council has jurisdiction over determining the need and approving locations for electric generating, gas and oil facilities. While energy facilities generally require various State agency permits prior to construction, the Council has the authority to override State or local denials of necessary permits. 111-12 Present Operations : Energy-related development has significant environmental impacts in the Massachusetts coastal zone for two reasons. First, energy facilities frequently require a coastal location because of their cooling requirements or because they are designed to handle energy resources imported into the State. Second, energy facility construction and operation have a variety of significant deleterious environmental affects. For example, electric generating plans cause thermal water pollution and may adversely impair the scenic values of the coast; fossil fuel plants produce increased air pollution while nuclear plants pose various health and safety risks. Oil and gas transmission, storage and processing facilities create various land use conflicts, pose safety hazards, and can cause increased a i r pol lut ion . The Energy Facility Siting Council was established in 1972. The State's energy policy, established by the law creating the Council, calls for the provision of a necessary energy supply for the Commonwealth with a minimum impact on the environment at the lowest possible cost. Regulations for the review of energy facility applications have been adopted by the Commonwealth. As an example of the types of facilities reviewed by the Council, in- fiscal 1976, the Council considered approximately thi rt y proposed facilities including 3 electric generating stations (2 nuclear), 2 liquid natural gas facilities, 1 oil storage tank farm, and numerous high voltage electric transmission lines. The authority of the Council to supercede State or local permitting authorities has not yet been tested, although one case is currently pending. Coastal Program Impacts: Basically, the Energy Facility Siting Council will operate under an approved coastal program as it has operated in the past. However, there will be several changes. First, the Council has agreed to recognize the final program as a statement of health, environmental, and resource use and development policies of the Commonwealth, and to evaluate proposed facilities for consistency with these policies. More specifically, the Council has agreed not to site energy facilities in Areas of Critical Environmental Concern/Areas for Preservation or Restoration, once they are designated by the Secretary of Environmental Affairs. The impacts of this policy are somewhat uncertain since no area has yet been designated in the coastal zone. Moreover, areas nominated to be Areas of Critical Environmental Concern/Areas for Preservation or Restoration comprise only a small area of the coastal zone. Nevertheless, if these areas are designated, beneficial environmental consequences will occur to the extent that greater assurance will be provided that these areas will be protected against potentially damaging energy development. In addition, the Council has agreed to require that for any proposed coastal facility the applicant provide information on at least two alternative sites, including one inland site. Although this policy does not insure that future energy development will have less serious adverse affects, it does require applicants to consider the environmental implications of locating energy facilities at various alternative sites. 111-13 Any permits or licenses issued by the Council will be considered consistent with the Program for purposes of Federal consistency. In the case of the Pilgrim II nuclear power plant, State approval was granted prior to formation of the Council. Federal permits for the plant are pending and the coastal program will need to determine whether this project is con- sistent with the program shortly after Federal Program approval. F. MASSACHUSETTS ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (MEPA) The Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act established an environmental review process for State actions, projects with State funding contributions, or projects requiring permits or licenses from State agencies. The intent of MEPA is to improve environmental planning and the design of activities through full disclosure of the environmental consequences of State actions. Present Operation: MEPA has been an important instrument of environmental protection in Massachusetts. The env i ronmetnal assessment requirement has discouraged the planning of activities that would degrade the environment. It is also possible to site various instances in which the MEPA process was either the chief or a contributing factor in a decisiton by an applicant! to modify a proposed action to minimize environmental damage, or In an agency's decision to deny a permit application. Certain types of activities are categorically exempt from MEPA, with the result that these activities may not receive adequate environmental review. Exempt activities include: -maintenance or replacement of existing facilities, or structures, -construction and location of single, small, new facilities or structures; -minor alterations to the condition of land, water and/or regulation and including areas less than two acres in extent (one acre in wetlands); -activities not exceeding thresholds of adverse environmental Impact, established by State agencies with the approval of the Secretary of EQ.EA; -permit determinations or wastewater treatment construction grants by the Division of Water Pollution Control; -the Wetlands Protection Orders, Issued by local Conservation Commissions and not appealed to the Commissioner of DEQE and major private actions exempt from State regulation and not requiring State funds. From the inception of the MEPA process on July 1, 1973, through June 30, 1977, 2715 Environmental Assessment Forms were filed with EQ.EA. The following list shows the number of assessment forms received annaully: 1973 (last 6 months) kSk 1974 888 1975 795 1976 330 1977 (first 6 months) 208 111-14 The reduction in the number of forms each year is the result of successful efforts by the MEPA staff to eliminate minor projects not requiring en- vironmental review from the process, as well as combining related activities for comprehensive environmental review. A detailed assessment of the MEPA process through October, 1975 was prepared by several graduate students at Harvard University, Department of City and Regional Planning.* This report contains much valuable information relating to the affects of the MEPA process, Based on the 19^2 assessment forms evaluated by them, these students made the following findings: -The State agency with the largest number of submissions was the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs. -The division wi/th the largest number of submissions was the Highway Division within the Department of Public V^orks. -One-third of the submissions under MEPA involve State permitting decisions, while two-thirds represent direct State actions. -EOEA has concurred with approximately 90 percent of the negative assessment submissions, and with 92 percent of the positive sub- missions. (This suggests that the MEPA staff conducts careful review of each environmental assessment form submitted.) -The types of activities submitted for MEPA review varied widely. The four most common activities were: Housing Development (13 percent); Highways and Bridges (10 percent); Schools (9 percent); and Roads, Trails, and Walkways (6 percent). Coastal Program Impacts : The Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act will be relied on generally to insure that State and State-permitted actions are consistent with Program policies. However, MEPA will also be utilized in several specific ways to achieve the objectives of the Program. First, categorical exemptions for smaller projects under MEPA will be removed In Areas of Critical Environmental Concerns/Areas for Preservation or Restoration, thereby providing fuller disclosure of the consequences of State and State-permitted activities in these areas. This should help to provide for more comprehensive and more focused environmental management as intended by the designation process. (See #6 below) Second, MEPA will be employed to review State and Federally funded public works projects within the 100 year coastal floodplain so as to not exacerbate existing hazards or damage natural buffers, to provide safety from flood and erosion related damage, and so as not to promote growth and .development in such areas. Although MEPA does not provide authority to halt inappropriate projects, full disclosure of environmental consequences will help to discourage such projects. This policy should protect public and private investments, as well as preserve coastal geophysical processes. *Batchelor, Clara; Thomas Pelham; and Dorrit Sertios, An Analysis of the Environmental Review Process within the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs , Commonwealth of Massachusetts, February, 1976. in-15 Finally, projects with State funding contributions or projects requiring licenses or permits, will be reviewed under MEPA to determine whether State agencies have acted to minimize potential adverse impacts of development near designated historic sites or districts, or near existing public re- creation areas. This policy should have beneficial affects on the recreational, esthetic and economic values of these areas or sites. It should be noted, however, that the Program will be unable to control development adjacent to historic or recreation areas that is not subject to State permitting review or involve State funds. G. DESIGNATION OF AREAS FOR PRESERVATION OR RESTORATION/AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN . The Massachusetts Secretary of Environmental Affairs is authorized to designate Areas of Critical Environmental Concern by Chapter 21A, Section 2(7), and the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act requires States to develop a process for designating Areas for Preservation or Restoration. For the purpose of reviewing the Massachusetts Coastal Program these two types of areas are identical. The purpose of designation in the Massachusetts Program is to utilize Statewide coastal authorities in order to provide focused management attention in selected coastal resource areas which are unique for their contribution to marine productivity. Present Operation : Designation of Areas of Coastal Environmental Concern will be used for the first time as a resource management authority in the Coastal Zone under the Massachusetts Program. m-16 Coastal Program Impact : CZM has recommended that the Secretary designate 10 areas (See Policy (2) Part II). Detailed descriptions of these areas may be found in Volume II of the Massachusetts Coastal Program. Since no APRs have been designated, this discussion describes impacts that will occur once these areas are designated and not as of the time of program approval. The State will designate or deny all 10 within the first year of the program. As indicated, under MEPA, categorical exemptions for smaller projects will be removed in these areas once they are designated. Although MEPA is not a regulatory authority, this should provide an additional degree of protection for these areas by requiring disclosure of the environmental consequences of a1 1 proposed activities. The following activities will be prohibited within designated Areas for Preservation or Restoration/Areas of Critical Environmental Concern: 1. The siting of energy facilities; 2. New industrial discharges and the discharge of hazardous sub- stances, Including thermal effluent; 3. New dredging except for maintenance of existing channels or for enhancement of shellfish and other marine food productiv- ity; k. Disposal of dredge spoil, except in instances when the spoil may be used for beach nourishment and/or dune stabilization; and 5. The siting of new sewage treatment facilities. Further, these activities will be prohibited in areas adjacent to APRs if they would have an adverse impact on the APR. The Secretary can decide not to follow these prohibitions, however, if she determines that there are more substantial and compelling public interests that would be jeopardized by this policy. Nevertheless, these prohibitions should protect these sig- nificant ecological complexes against the most likely types of intensive development that might be proposed. In addition, once APRs are designated, they will receive priority appli- cation of the coastal wetlands restriction program. The importance of this policy may be limited by the fact that no areas have been formally designated to date. Moreover, this priority system will need to be coordinated with the current practice of restricting wetlands on a town-by-town basis. Finally, some contiguous upland, as well as anadromous fish runs, will be restricted in APRs. This should provide greater protection for APRs by permitting control of activities in upland areas that might adversely affect the areas. Landowners in APRs may feel that a disproportionate amount of their land will be restricted by this policy. 111-17 H. PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS The Massachusetts Coastal Program will use public investments in sewage and transportation facilities to provide incentives for new development to locate in existing development centers or nearby. This policy represents the State's primary growth management authority within the coastal zone land- ward of the jurisdiction of the Wetlands Protection Act. Present Operatio n: The State's "106" Priority List for sewage treatment facilities is currently limited to facilities serving already developed areas, consistent with EPA policy. Thus, the coastal program will be generally consistent with present State and Federal practices. Transportation planning in Massachusetts, how- ever, is not currently bound by an analagous policy, although the possible growth- inducing effects of transportation improvements are addressed in the Corridor Planning process conducted by BTP and D and APRs. The States trans- portation network is virtually complete. Coastal Program Impact : The Massachusetts Coastal Program has developed a set or priorities for State and Federal investment in waste treatment facilities in the coastal zone which: 1. Accord highest priority to projects in existing urban areas or community centers where water quality problems merit rehabili- tation or new construction of treatment and collection facilities; 2. Accord next highest priority to projects proposed for contigu- ous developed areas, which are as yet unsewered, but whose water quality problems merit implementation of structural solu- tions; and 3- Accord lowest priority to projects proposed for undeveloped areas . Approximately 25 facility projects that are already in the advanced stages of planning are deemed to be consistent with the program. By indicating that only the three transportation projects listed in Policy 35 will be deemed consistent with the coastal zone management program (providing specific design aspects of the project conform to other relevant CFM policies), all other major Federally supported transportation will not occur unless the Program is amended. Because the projects listed are the only major ones currently planned by the State, the coastal zone program will have little impact. The primary impact would be if the State plans to change its transportation priorities and then would need to alter the coastal pro- gram if the change was deemed inconsistent with policies. By including these projects as consistent with the Program, it provides a greater predictability to the coastal landowner and user of where major transportation facilities will be built. 111-18 In assessing the Impacts of the Program's public investment policies, it is important to recognize that infrastructure investments represent an indirect tool to manage the location of development. By providing necessary services at a relatively low cost, infrastructure investments may encourage development to locate in certain locations. On the other hand, the absence of Infrastructure will tend to discourage development, except at relatively low densities (less than k units/acre). Within these limitations, these priorities for major Infrastructure In- vestments in the Commonwealth should have numerous beneficial Impacts as well as certain adverse impacts. The benefits include reduced pressure for develop- ment of outlying critical environmental resources, such as wetlands and flood- plains; possible preservation of open space and agricultural land; revi tal I zat ion of urban or community centers; Improved efficiency of prior public invest- ments; and improved energy efficiency. On the other hand, concentrating growth can have certain adverse impacts. For example, air water quality may be degraded if too many Industrial sources of pollution are concentrated In one area or if clustering does not reduce vehicular use. The Program's policies, Including those relating to public investments, are not expected to reduce the rate of development in the coastal zone. How- ever, it is expected that new development will be concentrated to at least some degree in already developed areas. As a result, while some landowners may receive unexpected profits, others might receive smaller profits from commercial or residential development than they might otherwise have received. I . OPEN SPACE ACQUISITIONS AND PROTECTION The Massachusetts Program intends to rely on a variety of mechanisms to acquire permanent open space in the coastal zone. These Include the voluntary Land Conservation Restriction Program, the Land and Water Conserva- tion Fund of the Department of the Interior, funding under Section 315 of the Coastal Zone Management Act, and the State Self-Help Program. The "Pres- ent Operation" and "Coastal Program Impact" on each of these programs Is described In turn. A. SELF-HELP PROGRAM Present Operation : The Massachusetts "Self-Help" Program, established in I960, assists cities and towns with established conservation commissions in acquiring land for public recreation and open space. The Program supplements local contribu- tions on a fifty-fifty matching basis. Approximately 25,000 acres (39 square miles) have been acquired under the Program since I960 at a total cost of $11,250,000. 155 (^^ percent) of the communities In the State have participated, while 30 (39 percent) of the Com- monwealth's coastal communities have not participated. Approximately 20 per- cent of the land acquired under the Program is located in coastal communities. Coastal communities with significant open space lands purchased with the aid of "Self-Help" funds include Duxbury, Dennis, Barnstable, and Marshfleld. in-19 The Program has been largely supported by bond issues totalling $12,000,000 since 197^- $1,500,000 of "Self-Help" funds have not yet been expended, while applications pending total $A, 000, 000. Coastal Program Impact : The staff of the Division of Conservation Services is currently preparing criteria for funding of proposed acquisitions that will reflect Program policies. In particular, the Program recommends these funds be provided to communities to acquire undeveloped hazard prone areas if they serve as natural protective buffers or if their buffering capabilities could be restored by non-structural improvements. In this fashion, both the prevention of inappro- priate development and the preservation of scenic natural areas will be accom- plished. In addition, it is proposed that "Self-Help" funds be used to acquire waterfront land in urban areas in order to expand visual access to the coast, and to acquire trails linking existing coastal recreation sites to nearby in- land facilities. These acquisitions would have beneficial social impacts by improving public access to the coast. The impact of the "Self-Help" Program will depend, in part, on the avail- ability of funds. As indicated, the cost of already proposed acquisitions exceed the amount of funds presently available; the Division of Conservation Services is seeking an additional $5,000,000 in fiscal 1978, for the "Self- Help" Program. B. LAND CONSERVATION RESTRICTION PROGRAM Present Operation : The Land Conservation Restrictions Program allows property owners to retain title to their land while remaining legally bound not to develop it. In exchange, the landowner receives a property tax advantage based on the open space value of his land. Since it was enacted in 1969, 352 conservation restr I ct ionscoverl ng approximately 12,500 acres were accepted by the Secretary of EOEA. During Fiscal Year 1976, Ml conservation restrictions were accepted in 25 Massachusetts coastal communities, and include several large parcels of significant open space and aesthetic value in the coastal zone. Approxi- mately 56 percent of the land subject to conservation restrictions in Massa- chusetts is located in coastal communities. Coastal Program Impact : The Land Conservation Restriction Program will continue to be administered as at present under an approved coastal program. As a tool to implement the Massachusetts Program, this Program is limited since it is impossible to in- sure that adequate natural areas will be protected, or that the most signifi- cant natural areas will be placed under restrictions. C. SECTION 315 BEACH ACCESS Present Operation : Section 315 of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act authorizes the Secretary, in part, to make grants to States for acquiring lands to provide m-20 for access to public beaches and other public areas of environmental, recrea- tional, historical, aesthetic, ecological, or cultural value, and for the preservation of islands. No money has yet been appropriated by Congress for these purposes. Coastal Program Impact : The impact of Section 315 is entirely conditional on the availability of funds. The Massachusetts Program proposes to use these funds for acquisi- tions similar to those described under the "Self-Help" Program. In addition. Section 315 funds are proposed to be used to purchase easements where neces- sary to protect existing public recreation sites. D. LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND Present Operation : The Land and Water Conservation Fund provides funds for the acquisition of active outdoor recreation lands for Federally adminsitered recreatioin areas; and matching grants for State recreation planning, and State and local land acquisition and development. "Self-Help" Funds and the Land and Water Conservation Fund can be used jointly to pay up to 75 percent of the cost of local acquisition projects. Coastal Program Impact : Funding available from the Land and Water Conservation Fund will be used to expand public access to the coast. In particular, these fundings will be used to link existing coastal recreation sites via trails, and for recreation projects in connection with urban waterfront redevelopment and hazard area management. This should help to achieve the objective of the Program to expand recreational opportunities along the coasts, especially for urban dwellers. m-21 PART IV ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION This part describes the four most likely reasons the Associate Administrator might deny or dely program approval, as well as the six most likely State alternatives to submitting the proposed program. In order to determine the full implications of these alternatives the reader should consider the impacts described under each Federal alter- native as well as those under each State alternative. The proposed action is Federal approval of the Massachusetts Coastal Program. The essential alternative to be considered by the Associate Administrator is not to approve the Program as submitted. In deciding whether to approve the program, he must determine whether the program meets the requirements of the Coastal Zone Management Act as specified in the twenty-six findings needed for program approval. This determination ultimately requires that discretion be used in in- terpreting the intent of Congress as expressed in the Act. This environmental impact statement and public comments are intended to as- sist the Associate Administrator in determining the adequacy of the proposed program. A variety of alternatives are available to the State, represented by all possible amendments to the Program that might be adopted. Clearly, however, the alternatives that will be considered by the State will depend on what action is taken by the Associate Administrator. In par- ticular, if the Associate Administrator delays or denies approval, the State will be required to consider a wide range of options. If the program is approved, the State is unlikely to consider alternatives to program implementation. The description of State alter- natives satisfies in part the requirements of the Massachusetts Environ- mental Protection Act. These Federal and State alternatives could be carried out in several different ways. Federal approval would lead to Program implementation under Section 306. On the other hand, a decision by the Associate Adminis' trator not to approve the Program as submitted could lead Massachusetts to withdraw from the Federal Program. Alternately the State couls seek an additional year of funds under Section 305(d) to implement certain Program elements and revise other elements deemed to be inadequate for Federal approval, also leading to final Program submission sometime next year. A. FEDERAL ALTERNATIVE 1 ) The Associate Administrator could delay or deny approval if the Pro - gram is not adequately comprehensive to achieve the goals and objectives of the Coastal Zone Management Act as expressed by Congress in Section 302 and 303 of the Act. lV-1 The Office of Coastal Zone Management has made an initial determi- nation that the Massachusetts Program is adequately comprehensive in scope. In 1972 in creating the Coastal Zone Management Act, Congress found "in light of competing demands. .. present State and local institu- tional arrangements for planning and regulating land and water uses in such areas are inadequate." (CZMA Section 302(g)). Thus, while the Massachusetts Program makes changes to its present State and local insti- tutional arrangements, the reader could question whether or not the State had gone far enough in addressing the competing demands on the coastal area. For example, while maritime dependent recreation and energy facilities are given priority for various coastal locations, the State program does not address whether shopping centers, high rise apartments, warehouses, chemical plants, new towns or amusement parks should or should not be located in the coastal zone. These uses will continue to compete with single family homes, agricultural land and with each other. Local zoning and State infrastructure investment will be the only determining factor in where they are located in the coastal zone. The initial determination of approvabi 1 i ty was reached partly on the basis of the strong laws already in place in Massachusetts that met many of the concerns Congress expressed in 1972 about inst i tut ional ' ar- rangements in all States. For example, Massachusetts laws protecting wetlands and siting energy facilities are more advanced than most other States. In addition to the "competing demands" finding, one could question if Massachusetts has adequately addressed the Congressional finding that scenic characteristics, cultural and aesthetic values were being destroyed by ill-planned development. The initial determination of approval was based on the existing State Scenic Rivers Act, Outdoor Advertising Board, the Scenic Roads Program and the Areas of Critical Environmental Concern Program, even though they do not blanket the coastal zone. Fur- thermore, the visual quality policies will assist localities to volun- tarily consider aesthetic issues. Federal approval funds will assist the localities as well as the State in implementing the existing scenic acts. The implications of this alternative include a delay in Program implementation, no increase in Federal funds for Massachusetts under Section 306, the possibility that Federal actions affecting the Massachusetts coast might be inconsistent with the policies of the Pro- gram and that issues of national interest may not be protected. Improved environmental protection anticipated under a Federally approved coastal program would not be achieved as rapidly, nor would the staff increase be available to work on designating scenic rivers. Momentum for effec- tive protection of the Commonwealth's coastal resources, gained through preparation of this Program might be lost. 2) The Associate Administrator could delay or deny approval if the State does not have the authorities necessary to implement the Program at the time of 306 approval. lV-2 The Office of Coastal Zone Management has made an initial determi- nation that the authorities that will be in place at the time of Program approval will be adequate to carry out the management Program and meet the objectives of the Coastal Zone Management Act. However, concern has been expressed whether these authorities are adequate, and whether addi- tional legislation or regulations ought to be promulgated prior to program approval . The alternative of getting coastal zone legislation in the State was considered and rejected by Massachusetts as unnecessary given the strong legislation already in place in the State. Furthermore, the National Coastal Zone Management Act specifically allows a State to coordinate existing laws providing their total coverage is broad enough to meet the requirements of the Act. Although process regulations and 21A regulations will be in place prior to Federal approval, some hold that all key substant i t ive regula- tions resulting from the program should be adopted. The Waterways Pro- gram and Ocean Sanctuary Program are currently without regulations. Their adoption would give added assurance the new State policies effecting these programs will be incorporated into day to day operations. Regula- tions implementing the Wetlands Protection Act are currently under study by a program review board for possible comprehensive revision. Such a revision would provide more effective and consistent administration than the current regulations which add less than optimun refinement to the broad standards of the Act. Withholding approval until agreement on the revisions is reached might provide the incentive needed to complete the revision process. However, the State will have drafts of all the above regulations prior to Federal approval of the Massachusetts Program. While these proposed regulations may not be adopted at the time of Program approval, NOAA/OCZM has initially determined that the Program policies will nevertheless be implemented consistently with the Program. This decision results from a determination that the authority to imple- ment the Program rests not with the regulations but with the authori- ties given the Secretary under Chapter 21A of the Massachusetts General Laws. Each State agency involved in the Program has agreed through a memorandum of understanding with the Secretary of Environmental Affairs to accept the coastal program as a statement of the State environmental policy (Draft regulations Sections 5.2, 5-^) and program policies are incorporated by reference within the regulation. EOEA agencies are directed to carry out Chapter 21A MGL Section 2; (Draft Regs. Section 5.5). In addition the individual commissioners have agreed that the Program represents State environmental policy and have requested the Secretary to jointly implement the Program, hereby triggering the Secre- tary's authority under Chapter 21A MGL Section h to implement programs upon request. Consequently, OCZM has initially determined that the Programs are enforceable as written. lV-3 Although the Energy Facilities Siting Council operates under current regulations, a claim can be made that the incorporation of coastal zone energy policies into these regulations will assure better assurance that they will be followed than simply by the memoranda of understanding. OCZM has preliminarily determined that these policies are also enforceable as written, given the EFSC's statutory duty to ensure consistency with current State environmental policies. This obligation is further defined by the MOU between the EFSC and EOEA. Finally, the Program proposes to place certain types of restrictions or designations in order to protect natural areas against inappropriate development. For example, the State plans to restrict most of the un- restricted beaches, barrier beaches, dunes, salt marshes, and shellfish beds in the coastal zone. Also, the Program proposes that some coastal rivers be protected under the Scenic Rivers Program, and that Areas of Critical Environmental Concern/Areas for Preservation or Restoration be designated by the Secretary of Environmental Affairs. If the Associate Administrator determined that all or some of these designations or restric- tions needed to be in place at the time of Program approval to insure Program implementation, he could delay or deny approval until the neces- sary steps were taken. The Commonwealth has agreed to designate or deny the 10 APRs within the first year after approval. One clear disadvantage of these various alternatives is that Pro- gram implementation would be delayed. The length of the delay would depend on the type of action taken by the State in response to the Federal determination that particular restrictions or designations needed to be in place for Program approval. For example, all of the Critical Areas of Environmental Concern nominated in the Program docu- ment could probably be designated within one year; by contrast, restric- ting all of the rest of the State's coastal wetland areas would take from three to five years. The environmental implications of a delay would be similar to those described under Federal Alternative 1; the scale of the impacts would depend on the length of the delay. Other disadvantages are that the Commonwealth would lose additional funds that would be available under Section 306, Federal actions would not need to be consistent with the management program, and facilities and resources of national interest may not be adequately protected. The major environmental advantage of these alternatives is that the State might be encouraged to have better coastal management authori- ties in place at the time of Program approval. On the other hand, the State might choose to withdraw fromthe Federal Coastal Zone Management Program rather than make the changes required for Section 306 approval. 3) The Associate Administrator could delay or deny approval if the national interest in the siting of facilities in the coastal zone was not adequately considered . The CZM Act states that prior to granting approval of a management program the Secretary shall find "the management program provides for adequate consideration of the national interest involved in planning for, and in the siting of, facilities (including energy facilities...) necessary to meet requirements which are other than local in nature." lV-4 (Section 306(c)(8)). NOAA/OCZM has made an initial determination that the Program adequately address the national interest in facility siting in the coastal zone. However, concern has been expressed that the Massachusetts Coastal Program, has not given adequate consideration to these facilities, especially energy facilities. There are four separate concerns that have been expressed: a) The Program will prohibit all energy facilities in areas for preservation and restoration While this is true, the APR's are extremely valuable resource areas, their protection is also in the national interest. Existing transmission lines and certain underground utilities to serve existing structures will be allowed. OCZM has found that since only ten APR's have been nominated for the Massachusetts coast (see Map, Part II), and since adequate public hearing will be given prior to their designation, that precluding energy facilities from these 10 areas will not violate the intent of Congress to adequately consider energy facilities, but, in fact, exhibits the balance between various national interests inherent in coastal zone management. b) The Program will prohibit some energy facilities in areas sub - ject to the Restriction Act . While this is true, the Program has made adequate adjustments to allow necessary transmission lines, certain underground utilities, and water cooling intake and outtake pipes to cross restricted barrier beaches and sandy beaches, so long as the pipes are covered, and the land returned to its natural setting. This last exception to the restric- tions generally placed in these important resource areas allows energy facilities to develop immediately upland from the restricted area, and does not prohibit the siting of necessary facilities in the coast, while at the same time adequately protects the national interest in wetlands and providing beach recreation. c) The Memorandum of Understanding between EFSC and EOEA has no stand i ng . The memorandum established the necessary procedure in this Program to assure that facilities are adequately considered and not arbitrarily excluded by local governments. It is the State's opinion that the EFSC has a right to enter into such agreements and that it does not effect their responsibilities assigned by law. It appears to the Associate Administrator that it Is merely an administrative clarification recogniz- ing the Coastal Zone Management Program as State environmental policy. Regulation 62.9(3) of the EFSC requires the Council to act consistently with State environmental policy. d) The Program does not spell out specific enough criteria for the EFSC to consider . Many of the policies In the energy portion of the Massachusetts plan are process or lented-- I . e. , "weigh," "consider" instead of sub- stantive-- I . e. , "prohibit" or "encourage." The Associate Administrator could deny or delay approval until more substantive energy criteria were developed. lV-5 However, the EFSC has agreed to act consistently with all the policies in the plan not just those identified under the energy sec- tion. For this reason the OCZM has preliminarily determined the Pro- gram is adequate. The policies which are applicable include those pertaining to alteration of salt marshes, dune areas, salt ponds, barrier beaches, shellfish flats, and sandy beaches (Policy 1), develop- ment activity in Areas for Preservation or Restoration (Policy 2), con- formance to water quality standards (Policy 3), construction in water bodies and in ports (Policies k and 17), dredging (Policy 5), impacts on fisheries resources (Policy 7), development in hazardous areas or which might degrade natural buffers (Policy 8) publicly funded develop- ment within the 100 year floodplain (Policy 9), construction of private flood or erosion control projects (Policy 12), incorporation of visual concerns especially for publicly funded development (Policy 13), preser- vation of lawfully designated historic sites or districts (Policy 14), provisions for views of coastally dependent facilities with significant educational or interest value (Policy 15), scenic areas (Policy 16), restrict development of new 20 foot channels outside of existing port areas (Policy 18), evaluation of impacts on public recreational facili- ties (Policy 27), evaluating the exploitation of indigenous and alterna- tive sources of energy for impacts on the marine environment, fisheries, water quality, wildlife and recreation (Policy 33), and conformance to waste discharge pollution and wetland protection requirements (Policy 34) The selection of this Federal alternative could considerably delay Program approval or make approval unlikely. For the State to change its policy to protect APRs and restricted areas in order to provide for greater accommodation of energy facilities would be a substantial change in the Program which it may not wish to make. Such a change would also raise the question of whether the national interest in wetlands and re- source protection were adequately considered. To obtain a stronger legal relationship between EFSC and EOEA would probably require legislative action. To develop more specific criteria would take time. The results of this delay would be similar to those described under Alternative #1. The advantage of strengthening the relationship between EFSC and EOEA would be a clarification of the role CZM policies play in EFSC decisions. The advantage of more specific criteria would be more pred ict i bi 1 i ty. k. The Associate Administrator could deny or delay approval if the Program does not meet all of the specific requirements of the Coastal Zone Management Act . Section 306(c) of the Coastal Zone Management Act requires the As- sociate Administrator to find that a State coastal management program meets all of the requirements of the Coastal Zone Management Act prior to approving the Program. The specific findings that the Associate Administrator must make prior to Program approval are listed in Part 1, Chapter 3. This alternative encompasses all of the possible reasons for not approving the Program as submitted in additon to those already discussed in Federal Alternatives 1-3. For example, someone might feel that the boundary does not extend far enough inland to protect the interests of the Act. lV-6 The Office of Coastal Zone Management has made an initial determi- nation that the Program does meet the minimum requirements or will by the time of 306 approval of the Act. However, the Office will review specific comments on the consistency of the Massachusetts Coastal Pro- gram with the requirements outlined in the Federal Act and with the specific standards for Section 306 approval provided in ^0 CFR 923. The three primary impacts of a negative decision would be that Massachusetts would not receive necessary funds to implement the Pro- gram; Federal consistency would not apply to Federal agencies' acti- vities in the coastal zone; and national interest would not be taken into account. In addition some delay in Program implementation would occur; the length of the delay would depend on the type of Program deficiency that was found and the types of remedial action taken by the State. (See impacts of Alternative One for more details). STATE ALTERNATIVES 1 . The State could revise the proposed Program by expanding the scope and comprehensiveness of the policies as described under Federal Alterna - tive // 1 . As stated, the proposed Massachusetts Program has initially been determined to meet the minimal requirements of the Act necessary for Federal approval. However, the State might seek, by revising the Program's policies, to manage a greater number of coastal activities at the State level rather than leaving so much decision making with local governments. For example, the State might develop explicit guidelines for the location of major commercial or residential developments in the coastal zone. Also, more resolution of potential conflicts among compe- ting coastal uses might be resolved prior to Program approval and thus increase predictability. On the other hand, the risk of adverse social and economic affects of the Program on housing costs and availability would probably Increase. Opposition to a more comprehensive management program for the Commonwealth might threaten the success of any type of coastal program for Massachusetts. 2. The State could seek additional legislation establishing more com - prehensive management authorities and submit a revised Program based on this 1 eg i s 1 at ion . Instead of relying on existing regulatory programs and procedures, the Commonwealth could adopt new or revised coastal management legisla- tion and submit a revised program based on this legislation. This new coastal zone management authority could be added to the existing State and local authorities, or it could be integrated with or replace exist- ing laws or procedures. 1V--7 The Governor's Task Force on Coastal Resources identified three al- ternative types of management based on new legislation that could be enacted by the State as a basis for a coastal management program. After evaluating all of these alternatives, the Task Force determined that new legislation was not required. However, these legislative alternatives are still available to the State and are potentially acceptable under the requirements of the Coastal Zone Management Act. These alternative proposals as well as their advantages and disadvantages are discussed be 1 ow . a. Expanded Direct State Control The State could manage directly a significant number of coastal acti- vities, including some now subject solely to municipal jurisdictions. A variety of institutional arrangements are possible. A new State body with broad powers could regulate directly a broad spectrum of projects; a State agency could review local decisions for conformance with State promulgated guidelines, and override local decisions i ncon- sistent with the State plan; or an agency could be empowered to regulate only activities of greater than local concern, which would have the au- thority to exercise comprehensive and consistent coastal management. Assuming, existing permitting authorities were combined or eliminated, the coastal regulatory process would be greatly simplified under this al- ternative. The disadvantages are that this alternative runs counter to the tradition of local land use control in Massachusetts, and potentially could add an additional bureaucratic hurdle for developers without the Incentive under the proposed Program to make the present system work better . b. State Review of Local Plans The State could review local ordinances and regulations, prepared In line with State criteria, to ensure their consistency with an adopted State coastal plan. Individual communities would be permitted to enact more restrictive ordinances than provided for In State criteria. A num- ber of mechanisms could be Instituted to ensure that local governments comply with their own ordinances and regulation, including direct State review of local decisions, or judicial review of individual cases. The major advantage of this alternative would be that the Common- wealth could enforce comprehensive. Statewide coastal policies while providing for a large degree of local authority and public participa- tion. Nevertheless, the shift in the allocation of authority to the State and away from municipalities would create strong opposition. As under alternative (a) if State and local permit authorities were left unaffected, the system might be unduly complex and burdensome. lV-8 c. Regional Implementation A third level of decision-making represented by regional bodies could be delegated some, or all, of the existing State permitting au- thorities, or they could promulgate criteria and regulations to be implemented by the local governments in their region as under alterna- tive (b). Some form of regional review of local decisions could be provided. Or, enabling legislation might allow local governments to join together over an issue of mutual concern, receive some financial and technical support from the State, reach a decision on the problem, and dissolve. The advantages of this approach are that a larger degree of public input for decisions of regional concern would be permitted than in the direct State control system and greater consistency in decision-making would be possible than under the State/local option. The major dis- advantages of this alternative are the creation of another administrative layer resulting In higher costs and additional procedural steps for ap- proval of development activities. Both State agencies and local govern- ment might oppose relinquishing any of their present powers. 3 . T he State could restrict under existing authorities all or some of the State's unrestricted significant resource areas, or designate Critical Areas of Environmental Concern, Sign Free Areas, or Scenic Rivers prior to Program approval . Rather than deferring restriction of additional significant re- source areas and designation of various environmental protection areas until after program approval, Massachusetts could take these key steps prior to Program approval. This alternative would require a substan- tial delay in Program Implementation. Hearings would be required which would add a delay of at least several months for each designation pro- cess . First, the Secretary of Environmental Affairs could designate cer- tain Critical Areas of Environmental Concern (APRs) prior to Program approval. The proposed Program provides no assurance that critical areas will be designated, although ten areas have been nominated. Thus, this alternative means that certain policies and restrictions that may not be enforced, or that may not be enforced until some indeterminate time In the future, would be applied to these critical areas from the time of Program approval. Second, an estimated ^3 percent of the Commonwealth's barrier beaches, beaches, dunes, salt marshes and tidal flats are covered by the Coastal V/etlands Restriction Program. The remaining areas, ex- cluding designated port areas, are proposed to be restricted follow- ing Program approval. Alternatively, the State could withdraw the Program until all or most of these areas actually have been restricted. However, as noted before this process would take between three to five years. lV-9 Finally, under the proposed Program, the Commissioner of DEM will designate certain Scenic Rivers, and the Office of Coastal Zone Manage- ment will petition the Outdoor Advertising Board to designate Sign-Free Areas in the coastal zone in the future. Alternatively, these steps could be taken prior to Program approval. Alternative three would result in delay in the implementation of the Coastal Program due to administrative and public hearing require- ments. The advantages of this alternative are that a greater degree of environmental protection would be afforded certain natural areas than might otherwise occur; for example, additional wetland areas would be restricted against inappropriate development, or Critical Areas of Environmental Concern would receive more focused management attention. Also, the practicability of certain coastal policies might become better understood, for example, if the Outdoor Advertising Board declined to designate Sign-Free Areas, the State might wish to amend the visual policies to amend this. h. The State could promulgate final regulations prior to formal approval following DEIS/MEPA hearings . The Coastal Program indicates that new and amended rules and regu- lations will be adopted by various State agencies following Program approval. Alternatively, the State could delay the final Program sub- mittal until these regulations are in place. The Secretary of Environmental Affairs will adopt regulations to establish the Coastal Zone Management Program as a statement of State environmental policy. In addition, rules and regulations, and review procedures, Incorporating CZM concerns will be adopted by various State agencies Involved In the program. For example, either new or revised regulations will be adopted for the Oceans Sanctuaries Program, the Waterways Program, the Wetlands Protection Program, and for the Division of Water Pollution Control and the Energy Facility Siting Council. Waterways and CZM have also been preparing a rating system to rank the relative benefits of proposed navigation improvements. Finally, the Division of Conservation Services Is developing new criteria reflect- ing the CZM Program for the allocation of Self Help Program funds in the coastal zone. All of these rules, regulations, and procedures could be adopted prior to formal approval under this alternative. The adoption of new regulations and procedures in Massachusetts is particularly significant since the authorities that will be relied upon are based on statutes that were adopted at widely different dates and have been administered according to various standards of environ- mental protection. Thus, new regulations might be considered central to the purpose of the Massachusetts Program to make the implementation of present management authorities more consistent and effective. lV-10 The most significant disadvantage of this alternative is that a delay in Program implementation would occur. The advantages are that the implications of the Coastal Program for diverse coastal users would become clearer if the regulations were adopted prior to Program approval. Also, it might be easier to Insure the consistency of these regulations with the overall Program if they were adopted prior to actual Program implementat ion. 5. The State could revise the Program by defining a different landward coastal boundary than the one proposed . The Massachusetts Coastal Zone includes the lands and waters within the area defined by: The seaward limit of the State's territorial sea (I.e., 3 miles), extending from the Massachu- setts-New Hampshire border south to the Massachusetts-Rhode Island border, and landward to 100 feet inland of specified major road, rail, or other visible right-of-ways. In Isolated instances, where the road boundary might exclude significant resources areas, the boundary line departs from the road to encompass them. Tidal rivers and adjacent uplands are included Inland, at a mini- mum, to the extent of vegetation affected by saline water. Anadromous fish runs are included to the fresh water breeding area. If such area Is within a coastal town. Prior to selecting this boundary, the Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management evaluated ten alternative boundaries: Natural Features Boundaries Cultural or Distance Boundar ies 1) Coastal watersheds 2) Coastal storm floodplain 6) Town jurisdictions 3) 50-foot topographic elevation 7) i mile from mean high tide k) Coastal ecological systems 8) Major coastal road 5) Visual features 9) Coastal census tracts 10) Immediate water or beach frontage These boundaries were then evaluated on the terms of how well they satisfied the following criteria: (a) "A State's coastal zone must Include transitional and inter- tldal areas, salt marshes, wetlands and beaches ... In no case, however, will a State's landward coastal zone boundary Include only such areas..." (CZM Program Approval Regulations: 15 CFR 923.11) (b) "The area must not be so extensive that a fair application of the management program becomes difficult or capricious, nor so lV-11 limit that lands strongly Influenced by coastal waters and over which the management program should reasonably apply, are excluded." (CZM Program Approval Regulations: 15 CFR 923.11). (c) "The coastal zone must include within it those lands which have any existing, projected or potential uses which have a direct and significant impact upon the coastal waters and over which the terms of the management program will be exercised." (CZM Program Approval Regulations: 15 CFR 923.11) (d) The boundary must be adequately delineated on maps or in words so that there are no questions as to whether someone's property is within or without. (CZM Institute, 197^) (e) The cost of necessary surveying and administration should not be excessive because of a too large or too complex boundary. (f) The boundary should coincide with existing special districts, jurs id ict ions, or other existing institutional frameworks if and where possible. 6. The State could withdraw the approval application from OCZM and con - tinue Program development and or attempt to use other sources of funding to meet the objectives of the proposed coastal management program . Since coastal zone management is a voluntary program of State- Federal cooperation, a State can withdraw its application without any penalty, except that no additional OCZM funding will be provided and Federal agencies actions will not need to be consistent with the manage- ment program. Since Massachusetts includes some of the nations most valuable shoreline, withdrawal of the Program could mean that the overall objectives of the CZMA would not be met. The legislative history of the CZMA shows Congress did not intend the requirements of the CZMA to be so stringent or difficult to achieve that a State would be precluded from achieving Program approval after reasonable time and effort. Nevertheless, experience has shown that It is not easy to develop an adquate Program. The reasons for Program with- drawal can be diverse. Important weaknesses In the Program may have gone unnoticed until the State has submitted its Program for approval. Or, number of unresolvable Issues can surface during the review process. In the case of Massachusetts, withdrawal would not result in a dif- ferent type of management system than is proposed under CZM. The Program relies extensively on existing authorities and these presumably will con- tinue to be implemented whether or not the Program is adopted. However, funding to hire additional staff to make the present management system more effective would not be available. Also, the restriction of addi- tional ecologically significant resource areas and the designation of certain scenic areas for protection might not occur or would occur at a slower rate in the absence of a formal coastal program. Federal actions would not need to be consistent with the management program. lV-12 PART V: IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF THAT WOUD BE INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED ACTION SHOULD IT BE IMPLEMENTED The approval of the Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program will not in itself lead to the loss of resources that a site specific project would. Tradeoffs will have to be made based on the policies of the Massachusetts program. For instance, some urbanized areas or less intensive industrial areas may receive greater development pressures and a commitment of the surrounding resources because of the policy to concentrate development of sewers and transportation projects to serve already developed areas. Also, the program provides that priority will be given to coastal- dependent development (certain energy facilities, port and harbor development, etc.) which in turn is often the most damaging to the en- vironment and is located in the coastal zone to utilize its resources. However, the program establishes criteria and standards for siting and requires that alternatives be considered and mitigation measures be taken. Development will occur in the absence of program approval, but the Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program will channel such ac- tivity toward environmentally suited land areas. The Program supports the acquistion of areas to meet the demand for recreation. The acquisition of recreation sites would preclude further development and reduce the tax base of local government, although If the site were State owned, payment in lieu of property taxes would be made. The commitment of those purchased areas to recreation would be irreversible, unless the State legislature, as required by State law, were to approve by two-thirds vote a change in use. V-1 I I I I PART VI PROBABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED The probable effects of Massachusetts CZM Program implementation will, on the whole, be environmentally beneficial. However, there will probably be a number of adverse impacts to both the natural and socio- economic environments which cannot be avoided. Numerous adverse impacts will continue to be associated with the siting of major facilities for purposes of defense, transportation, energy requirements and others in which both the State and Federal governments have interest. The Program makes provisions for considera- tion of the siting of facilities which are in the national interest. It is important to note, however, that under the CZM Program and re- lated Federal acts (e.g., NEPA) , each such project will be evaluated as to the impacts on the natural coastal environment. That is, inves- tigations will be made, alternatives considered, etc. Outside of Significant Resource Areas, state interests are con- fined to the meeting of air and water quality standards, ensuring that the capability of soils to accommodate sub-surface discharges are not overtaxed, energy facility siting, the avoidance of adverse impacts to the qualities of designated historic districts or sites and public re- creational beaches, and the channeling of new sewer and transportation services to already developed areas or areas contiguous to them. Thus, under the Massachusetts CZM Program, local governments will continue to have sole responsibility for a very wide range of land use decisions and broad areas of the coastal zone. Apart from the State's interest enumerated above, whatever adverse environmental impacts stem from such local decision-making will not be avoided by implemention of the Program. Vl-1 PART V I I RELATIONSHIP BETVEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY While approval of the Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program will restrict some local, short-term uses of the environment, it will also provide long-term assurance that the natural resources and benefits provided by the Massachusetts coast will be available for future use and enjoyment, by more effectively administering existing resource protection laws. The Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program does the following: A. Short-Term Uses 1. Does not prohibit future development but encourages medium- high intensity growth to occur in existing developed areas or areas contiguous to them in so much as growth is constrained by State sewer and State highway programs. 2. Recognizes that some energy facilities and coastal -dependent developments have adverse environmental consequences, but that they may still have to be located in the coastal zone to protect the Inland environment as well as help provide for orderly eco- nomic development, and meet national interest. B. Long-Term Uses 1. Recognizes the coastal zone as a delicately balanced ecosystem. 2. Establishes a process of balanced management of coastal resources, 3. Allows growth to continue at present rates, while protecting key resources. k. Provides for a framework which can protect regional, State and national interests by assuring the maintenance of the long-term productivity and economic vitality of coastal resources necessary for the well-being of the public, and to avoid long-term costs to the public and a diminished quality of life resulting from the misuse of coastal resources. Without the implementation of rationally based land and water use management programs, some intense short-term uses and gains, such as pro- vided by residential or industrial development, might be realized in natural resource areas of the coastal zone. However, such uses would most likely result In long-term limitations on coastal resource use and benefit because of degradation of the environment. Without proper manage- ment, the traditional conflicts between shoreline resources uses--res Iden- tlal, commercial, industrial, recreational, and wi Idl if e--could be expected to occur. Vll-1 Implementation of the program will result in minimization of the social costs which inevitably accompany environmentally destructive development, the mitigation of which requires public investment. VI 1-2 PART VIII CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION Extensive consultation, coordination, and input has been received in developing the Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program. Because the program was developed with the natural and human environment in mind, many alternatives have been considered. The Office of Coastal Zone Management requires that a State conduct an environmental impact assessment on their coastal management program prior to any approval of the program. This assessment was used in develop- ing the draft EIS. Additional input has been received from various Federal agencies throughout the duration of a State's Program development period, on such things as the impact of the program on the Federal agency program as well as an analysis of the program. Coordination with all local, State, Federal, public, and private interests remains a key component of the Massachusetts Program. The Program will provide for the public notice of major State actions, establish regional and Statewide advisory groups to monitor and review implementation, provide technical assistance to coastal communities as to how local plans may be made consistent with the CZM Program, assist the private sector through the publication of handbooks and other means of communication on meeting CZM policy requirements, and continue co- ordination with Federal agencies to resolve potential conflicts during implementat ion. APPENDIX The Office of Coastal Zone Management has determined that Massa- chusetts has met the requirements of Section 305(b)(7) (8) (9) shore- front access, energy facility planning and shoreline erosion. These new sections were added to the Coastal Zone Management Act in the amendments passed by Congress in 1976. The State's justification for meeting these requirements is presented here to receive public comment on this part of the Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program. .c^. MICHAEL S. DUKAKIS COVfRNOR EVELYN F. MURPHY StCRETARlf ^oUzeen uses; or — The seasonality of the activities facilitates multiple use sequencing; or — Recreational use of non-recreational areas can be accommodated on weekends; or — Improvements in water quality provide expanded opportunities for v/ater contact sports; and — Where there is adequate access for additional uses to benefit from such improvements; and — Resources are capable of supporting increased use with degradation. \ Kathryn Cousins ?age 3 July 29, 1977 If projects meeting the above criteria do not sufficiently in- crease beach supply in order to meet demand, expansion of existing sites or new acquisitions of lateral access will be made. CZM favors such expansions/acquisitions when the following criteria are met: (Policies 25 and 26) — Undeveloped areas abutting or near existing recreation sites are suitable for expansion; or — Existing sites are over-utilized and there is no nearby sub- stitute which might shift demand for the activity; or — Other public improvements have been made or are proposed on/near existing recreation sites; for example, where state or federal funding has been used to slow or prevent erosion of beaches; and — Access, including transit, roads and parking, is sufficient or will be sufficient subsequent to implementation of transportation improvements under Policy (21) . With regard to the protection of public recreation areas, Massachusetts CZM. first compiled an inventory of public coastal recreation sites. As would be expected, the locations of these sites coincide with the most significant ecological resources - barrier beaches, sandy beaches, dune, salt marshes, salt ponds, and shellfish beds. As a result of staff re- search and the findings of sensitivity analyses performed by the University of Massachusetts under subcontract to Massachusetts CZl-I, policies were written to define appropriate/permissible uses for these areas (Policies 1 and 2) . The policies allow a wide range of recreational uses provided certain conditions are met in constructing and siting associated facilities. Other development activities which could adversely impact ecological or recreational values are prohibited or conditioned as appropriate. Policy 27 was also developed to establish a case by case review of development activities that could negatively impact existing public recreation sites, in order to ensure that such impacts are minimized through appropriate mitigation steps. Policies 3-6 of the Marine Environment program, as well as 8-12 of the Coastal Hazards program, and 13-16 of the Visual Environment section provide direct and incidental protection to recreation values through management of water quality impacts, dredging and mining impacts, and visual impacts, among other aspects. (2) A definition of the t erm "beach" and an iden t ification of public areas that: meet that definition. "Beach" is defined in two ways. The first is the physical de- scription to which the Marine Environriant policies apply (CZll Plan p. 35). Beaches defined this way are Geographic Areas of Particular Kathryn Cousins Page 4 July 29, 1977 Concern (see page 35) . The second definition relates to ownership and access policy. Massachusetts beaches except for publicly owned beaches, a.re private to the mean low water mark. CZM defines public beaches as those which ^re publicly owned, possess perpendicular access open to the greater public, with a minimum of 25 parking spaces. Shorelines that meet this public beach definition are listed at the end of the Recreation section (pp. 220-223) and shown on the maps in Volume II. These beaches are of sufficient public concern that Massachusetts CZM will ensure that proposed adjacent developments do not jeopordize the public benefits provided by the sites (Policy 27), and determine if access can/should be increased as defined! in (1) of this memo. (3) Articulation of state policies pertaining to shorefront access and/or protection. All Recreation policies and Marine Environment policies relate to these broad issues. They are listed on pages 204-216 and pages 79-107 of the CZM plan. (4) A method for designation of shorefront areas as areas of particular concern for protection and/or ac cess purp oses, if appropriate. As discussed in (2) above, policies were developed which provide for the protection of the resource areas significant for both ecological and recreational values. These areas are designated as GAPC's on the regional maps contained in Volume II. Protection is ensured for these GAPC's as articulated in the Marine Environment Policies 1-5, Coastal Hazards Policies 8-10, and Recreation Policy 27. Permissible recreation activities for specific categories of GAPC's are described in these policies . Complexes of GAPC's are designated as APR's where the collective importance of the GAPC's warrants the highest level of management. Acquisition for limited access to APR's is also a high priority (Policy 26). (5) A mechanism for continuing refinement and implementation of necessary management techniques, if appropriate. The Recreation policies establish a priority for management techniques Transportation improvements, as determined through criteria in Policy 21, are the highest priority (p. 284). The second priority management technique is to expand the physical size of existing sites or purchase new sites in areas with a high need: "CZM's first priority is to improve transportation to and maintenance of existing facilities. Where those policies are not sufficient to improve recreation within areas of high need, CTA v;ill provide funds for acquisition of new land." (p. 212) Kathryn Cousins Page 5 July 29, 1977 As projects are completed or land is acquired, the CZM inventory and SCORP inventory - will be updated. Needs will be reevaluated, and priorities for management techniques will be updated relative to new needs. Regional Advisory Councils \n.ll be helping in the update, establishing new priorities for recreation actions consistent with the policies. The role of the Councils is documented in the Management Chapter (p. 364). Thus, the management techniques needed will be dependent upon th.: need for various projects established through the SCORP and Citiziaji Advisory Councils. (6) An identification of fundi ng programs and ot her techniques that can be used to meet management needs. Each Recreation policy is followed by a section describing both the overall strategy and specific agencies needed to implement the respective policy (pp. 204-216). Each policy will be implemented by funds, programs, or agencies that are best suited to the advocated action. SRS:mc PENN STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES ADDDD7D ^QD77 MASSACHUSETTS COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PUBLIC HEARINGS N November 14, 1977 Upper and Lower North Shore Essex Agricultural and Technical Institute Hathorne, Mass. Room 201, John Berry Building (Distributive Education) 7:30 p.m. November 15, 1977 Buzzards Bay and Mt . Hope Bay Fall River Government Center Hearing Room 7:30 p.m. November 16, 1977 South Shore and Plymouth Bay Marshfield Town Hall Hearing Room 3, 2 nd Floor 7:30 p.m. November 17, 1977 Cape Cod, Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket Cape Cod Regional Technical High School Rt. 124; Harwich, Mass. 7:30 p.m. November 22, 1977 Greater Boston Harbor New England Aquarium Central Wharf "Discovery" Pavillion 1:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.m.