CRMC 



Similarly, special area management plans rely heavily on exercise of local 

 zoning and planning initiative in implementation, and require that much staff time 

 be devoted to coordination and outreach. Lacking staff dedicated to SAM plan 

 follov^-through, CRMC has given volunteer citizens action committees 

 responsibilities which are perhaps unrealistic. 



SPECIFIC PROGRAM FINDINGS AND CONCERNS 



JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES 



Findings and Concerns 



CRMC's broad ecosystem protection mandate allows it to set ecosystem based discharge 

 criteria within a broad geographical area. A liberal interpretation of Chapter 23 of 

 the RIGL as amended gives CRMC jurisdiction over development in any 

 area which would affect freshwater flows to estuarine areas. With regard to 

 dredge spoil disposal and other marine uses, CRMC has primary jurisdiction out to three 

 miles. 



At the time of its 1983 program revision, CRMC conclusively 

 established authority over the 200-foot contiguous area landward of coastal 

 beaches, dunes, cliffs, bluffs, embankments, rocky shores and manmade 

 shorelines (collectively termed "shoreline features"), which define die inland boundary of 

 the coastal zone. CRMC also reaffirmed its authority to regulate the six 

 specific activities or land uses mentioned in the Council's enabling 

 legislation "regardless of their actual location" - power generating and 

 desalination plants, chemical or petroleum processing, transfer or storage, minerals 

 extraction, shoreline protection facilities, coastal weUands, and sewage treatment and 

 disposal and solid waste disposal facilities. 



In SAM plan areas CRMC has jurisdiction over sub-divisions of 6 units 

 or greater, or areas with parking exceeding one acre, and over a range of 

 development activities as outlined above. SAM plans further require development 

 of regulatory linkages among wastewater, stormwater, and sediment management, and 

 among other land uses and resource protection mechanisms. 



By law, project permit applicants and Council Staff are to be guided by elements of the 

 Rhode Island CRMP, applicable SAM plans, and the State Guide Plan Overview, all of 

 which are directiy incorporated into the coastal program. In response to a dispute regarding 

 CRMC's authori^ to regulate activities outside the coastal zone through the State Guide 

 Plan, CRMC issued a "clarification" in 1983 to resolve the inland boundary question. The 

 "clarification" restricted CRMC's ability to regulate activities through the State Guide Plan 

 to the 21 coastal communities. 



Much of this land is well beyond the 200 foot area contiguous to coastal features, but 

 may gready infiuence the character and integrity of coastal buffer zones. Land use 

 guidance provided by the State Guide Plan provides valuable support to CRMC in meeting 

 its ecosystem management mandate. The State Guide Plan possesses the same formal 

 authority as the Red Book. 



180 



