134 • Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation 



ing implemented through local planning and con- 

 trol mechanisms and includes a provision for Fed- 

 eral consistency with local coastal-management pol- 

 icies. The Corps currently is preparing to issue a 

 general permit to the city for development activities 

 that occur in wedands covered by the plan (18). 



Management plans also can be used to restrict 

 certain development activities and establish stand- 

 ards for other types of development. For example, 

 the East Everglades Management Plan prohibits 

 road construction in permanent wetlands, allows 

 agricultural use in some drier areas (particularly 

 those that were disturbed previously), restricts the 

 density of residential development, and defines 

 BMP for three basic management areas. To imple- 

 ment the law, the local government must develop 

 some new mechanisms, including a site-alteration 

 overlay ordinance and a system of transferable de- 

 velopment rights; establish new zoning districts; 

 and continue to regulate obstructions to surface wa- 

 ter flows under an existing ordinance. State govern- 

 ment also has the responsibility of continuing to 

 regulate dredge and fill in the area to the extent 

 authorized under State law and of revising water- 

 quality standards for the area. 



Continued regulation of section 404 by the Corps 

 is cdso an important element in the implementa- 

 tion of the plan, particularly in cases of violations. 

 Corps jurisdiction is broader than the State's, and 

 the Corps has acted more quickly than the county 

 in enforcement actions (9). 



Management plans also have been used to resolve 

 the conflicts and inconsistencies between the policies 

 of the numerous agencies with jurisdiction in an 

 area. For example, an objective of the Grays Har- 

 bor (Washington) Estuary Management Plan is to 

 set guidelines that offer some assurance that activ- 

 ities permitted by the plan would have general con- 

 currence from all the agencies involved. This plan- 

 ning process is described in detail below. 



The Grays Harbor Estuary Planning Task Force 

 was formed in 1975 with representatives from all 

 the agencies responsible for plans and regulations 

 in the area. In 1976, funds were acquired from the 

 Office of Coastal Zone Management (OCZM) for 

 development of the plan, which began with the 

 development of a comprehensive data base deline- 

 ating the physical and biological resources, owner- 



ship, land use, comprehensive plan designations, 

 areas of conflict, and other data. Development of 

 the actual plan occurred during a series of work- 

 shops in which the task force determined planning 

 areas, established specific management units, and 

 developed policies to direct development activities 

 in the estuary. The draft plan underwent extensive 

 review, and a final plan recently has been com- 

 pleted. 



The Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commis- 

 sion is the lead agency for the plan but has no au- 

 thority to adopt or enforce the plan. Instead, the 

 plan is recognized as a recommendation from the 

 task force to the numerous agencies involved in the 

 planning process and in development activities in 

 the estuary. At present, an environmental impact 

 statement (EIS) on the plan is being prepared by 

 OCZM. 



Each of the agencies involved has been asked 

 cJso to prepare a memorandum of understanding 

 (MOU) to explain how it perceives the plan, and 

 how it will be used. To date, none of the MOU's 

 have been completed and probably will not be until 

 the EIS is finished. Unofficially, severed agencies 

 have indicated that the plan probably will not be 

 considered binding; however, it will be given seri- 

 ous consideration in evaluation of local concerns 

 and the public interest. The Fish and Wildlife Serv- 

 ice (FWS) notes that it supports the plan; it has ac- 

 cepted some major environmental losses in ex- 

 change for long-term protection of other portions 

 of the estuary. FWS also observes that the plan does 

 not make decisions but will serve as a guideline and 

 should streamline permit review. The Corps also 

 generally supports the plan. The Corps has been 

 asked to give serious consideration to issuing gen- 

 ercd permits for some activities in the area; in par- 

 ticular, the disposal of dredge or fill material in 

 unvegetated and vegetated intertidal areas desig- 

 nated in the plan for industrial development. To 

 date, no decision has been made on these general 

 permits. 



A major issue in the plan is the predesignation 

 of dredged-material disposal sites within the estu- 

 ary. The Regional Planning Commission and the 

 Port of Grays Harbor have expressed a strong de- 

 sire for predesignation by EPA; to date, EPA has 

 not made a decision on this issue. Since some of 



