CRMC 



Standards are not in effect, DEM often has significant political difficulty 

 denying certification on the basis of incremental cumulative effects. Where 

 freshwater wetlands are involved, the Freshwater Wetlands Act provides for a more 

 comprehensive review of impacts. 



As a coarse tool, then, the certification process is most effective when DEM can 

 demonstrate that a change in designated use classification would be imposed by a proposed 

 use (such as elimination of designated fishing use anticipated by the proposed siting of 

 LNG vessel mooring facilities in open waters of the Bay in 1987). With small 

 projects, DEM uses the certification process to require installation of 

 erosion control measures, but cannot follow up on evaluated impacts, 

 because certifications are merely attached to other permits issued by DEM 

 or CRMC. 



Because CRMC's water use and shoreline categories draw heavily from 

 adjacent zoning districts established by municipalities, use designations 

 may conflict with DEM designated use classifications. CRMC Types 3, 4, and 

 5 are not infrequentiy designated as SA and SB waters by DEM. Faced by the 

 inconsistency, developers and municipalities have repeatedly challenged the original DEM 

 designation process, claiming that designations were arbitrarily drawn. 



Basically, the conflict turns on differences between program mandate 

 and on jurisdictional inconsistency. -DEM places program emphasis primarily on 

 human health impacts of discharges to receiving waters, in that the S A designation 

 identifies areas where harvested shellfish may be safely consumed raw, and the SB 

 designation identifies safe swimming areas. CRMCs broad resource management 

 mandate, on the other hand, encompasses potential ecological degradation as well as 

 appropriateness of use. CRMC tends to interpret its jurisdiction narrowly, placing heavy 

 emphasis on the need for suppon from local zoning. 



Recommendations to RIDEM and CRMC 



***Revise permitting procedures and guidelines relating to SA and SB 

 waters to ensure consistency of interpretation between the two agencies. 

 The revision process should be utilized as an opportunity to develop a 

 framework allowing for significantly strengthened consideration of 

 cumulative effects, as recommended in other sections. A water quality 

 characterization process should be used to link biological integrity with 

 effects of present use to the maximum extent possible. Waste load allocations 

 and effluent limits should be established to coordinate the simultaneous imposition of point 

 source discharge limits and non-point source controls. Guidelines developed should 

 include specific standards to govern the siting and design of development and so as to 

 consider water quality concerns as a basis for siting, operation, and maintenance. 



VARIANCE PROCEDURES 



Findings and Concerns 



In numerous coastal areas of the Bay, variances and special exceptions are currently 

 issued by CRMC to allow construction projects which are not in conformance with stated 



193 



