[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                                                                                             UH
                                                                                  Sea Grant Extension Service
                                                                                       Pacific Program



                                                        Biennial Report
                                                        to the Congress
                                                        On Coastal Zone
                                                        Management

                                                        Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989



                                                        Apdl 1990



                                                                                       'AL





                                                         Irv

                                                                                                              Me


                                                                      owe











                                                                                =%Irv
                                                                                                         -NIP

                                     4        46
                                                                                                       F-1-9 ft-




                                                        U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
                                        #OA
                                         r










































                                     -7                 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
                                                        National Ocean Service
                                                        Office of Ocean and          Management









                   US rr-)@Irt-
                   NOAI-@ CuL.                            Library
                   2234 South i-iobson AvenuCXF_CLJTPVE SUMMARY
                   Charleston, SC 29405-2413


                      Since its enactment in 1972, the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), administered
                 by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), has been highly
                 successful in assisting coastal states and U.S. island territories in working to reduce conflicts
                 among competing land and water uses in the coastal zone, while protecting fragile coastal
                 resources. Of the 35 eligible coastal states and territories, 29 now have federally-app roved
                 coastal management programs, covering 94 percent of the Nation's coastline, and 16 have
                 established 18 estuarine research reserves, protecting over 300,000 acres ofestuarine land
                 and water.     These state-operated programs seek a reasonable balance between the
                 preservation and protection of coastal resources and development of those resources.

                        Because of CZMA assistance, substantial progress has been made in responding to
                 threats to coastal resources, including the loss of living marine resources and wildlife habitat,
                 decreased open space for public use, and shoreline erosion. The state programs have also
                 been successful in promoting water dependent uses of the coast, such as energy facility siting,
                 ports and marinas, commercial fisheries and recreation. But, coastal management problems
                 remain and are exacerbated by rapid growth in coastal areas. Coastal water pollution and
                 damage from natural hazards have increased, the productivity of estuarine ecosystems
                 continues to decline, and coastal wetlands loss continues. There are many challenges ahead,
                 which will require full intergovernmental cooperation both at the Federal and state level, as
                 well as.public support.

                        This report describes the accomplishments and problems of the Coastal Zone
                 Management (CZM) program and the National Estuarine Reserve Research System
                 (NERRS) both at the state and national levels during fiscal years 1988 and 1989, and
                 discusses the future directions of these programs. Among the CZM highlights, California's
                 San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) took a major step
                 in planning for the effects of future sea level rise. BCDC amended its program to require
                 that new shoreline development take sea level rise into consideration. Other states, such as
                 Washington and Maine, are beginning to consider the implications of sea level rise in their
                 decisions that affect coastal resources.


                        South Carolina joined the growing list of states which have set a policy of "retreat"
                 from the eroding shoreline. After several years of effort, South Carolina passed the Beach
                 Management Act (BMA) in 1988 which, among other things, enlarges the beach/dune critical
                 area, discourages "hard" erosion control structures, requires long-range comprehensive
                 shorefront management plans at the state and local level, and designates a "dead zone"
                 behind the primary dune in which no construction may take place. Hurricane Hugo has
                 provided a severe test of the BMA. Since the hurricane struck in September 1989, the state
        Q)       has been faced with political and legal pressures regarding the implications of the BMA for
                 reconstruction and repair of structures along the state's coast.








                          Other highlights during the biennium include the move toward regional waterbody
                  management for the Great Lakes and Gulf of Mairk!-@'D-'Ii@r'i;'n"'g'@-j@Y88*,-CZM'fiffids were used
                  to spur regional cooperation on Great Lakes management involving the States of Illinois,
                  Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. A joint effort
                  has also been undertaken by U.S. states and Canadian provinces that border the Gulf of
                  Maine to develop strategies that will protect the health and productivity of Gulf resources.
                  The FY88 and FY89 period also saw the designation of National Estuarine Reserve
                  Waquoit Bay, Massachusetts, and Great Bay, New Hampshire.

                          Despite the accomplishments made by the states, territories and Federal government
                  to date, more needs to be done to preserve and enhance the Nation's coastal environment
                  and to focus on the major problems facing the coast today. The ability of state CZM
                  programs to respond to these problems also needs to be improved. Increased wetlands
                  protection, improved coastal water quality, and increased threats to life and property from
                  coastal erosion and flooding, are all important items on the coastal agenda for the 1990s.
                  Coastal management needs to be revitalized to address these issues more actively and to
                  tackle long-recognized problems that have been exacerbated by rapid development in coastal
                  areas. These issues must be addressed through a coordinated and comprehensive approach
                  at the local, state and Federal level.

                         . The national CZM program needs to respond to growing concerns about coastal
                  environmental quality and the related effects of continuing pressure for development.
                  Accordingly, CZM policies should be more focused and place greater emphasis on wetlands
                  protection, coastal hazards and public access. Specifically, the program should identify as
                  high-priority national objectives: enhanced wetlands protection and restoration; aggressive
                  response to and prevention of risks to life and property from coastal hazards, including
                  coastal erosion and relative sea level rise; and enhanced opportunities for public access to
                  the Nation's coastal areas.


                          Efforts are also needed to respond to problems that were not a major focus of
                  concern in the earlier stages of program implementation, particularly nonpoint source
                  pollution and beach and marine debris that affect the coastal and marine environment. The
                  state CZM programs, with their experience in land and water management, can help m(
                  the Nation forward in addressing many of the significant water quality problems in coastal
                  areas on a more comprehensive basis. State CZM programs should place greater emphasis
                  on the need to prevent or mitigate adverse effects of nonpoint source pollution in coastal
                  waters, and on management, handling and disposal of beach and marine debris within their
                  coastal environments.


                          NOAA recognizes the growing importance of providing Federal technical assistance
                  to state and local governments to enhance the effectiveness of their responses to these
                  national priority issues. Appropriate information and technology needs to be channeled to
                  coastal decisionmakers so they can use the information to resolve use conflicts in the coastal
                  zone and protect coastal and ocean resources. New initiatives in this area are being








                 coordinated through a NOAA-wide effort known as the Coastal Ocean Program, and
                 through increasing and mutually supported education and research programs both in the
                 National Estuarine Reserve Research System and the National Marine Sanctuary Program.

                         As the demand for intensive uses of the coastal zone continues to rise, a   'nd as coastal
                 population densities continue to increase, the ccinflicting and competing demands for these
                 finite resources will increase in terms of greater pressures for housing, harbors and
                 recreational facilities.    While significant progress has been made in assuring wise
                 management of the Nation's valuable coastal resources under the CZMA, the job of good
                 coastal management must continue to ensure these precious national resource's are preserved
                 for future generations. President Bush has expressed his commitment to address coastal and
                 ocean environmental problems. For the first time in almost a decade, the President's Fiscal
                 Year 1991 budget request provides funding for the CZMA to assist coastal states and
                 territories in implementing and enhancing their federally-approved CZM programs.

                        NOAA will continue to act as an advocate for the states in working with other
                 Federal agencies to ensure that all Federal programs are consistent with the goals and
                 objectives of the CZAk. The level of concern about our oceans and beaches and wetlands
                 has probably never been higher, and we in - NOAA look forward to working with policy
                 officials at all levels of government toadvance the Nation's efforts toward better coastal
                 resource management.




















                                                                                  fit









                                                     U-117RODUCTION

                The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is required to submit a
                report to Congress not later than April 1 on the administration of the Coastal Zone
                Management Act (CZMA) during the preceding two fiscal years. Pursuant to Section 316
                of the CZMA, as amended, this report discusses the progress made during Fiscal Years 1988
                and 1989, in administering the Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Program and the National
                Estuarine Reserve Research System (NERRS) and the problems encountered.

                The document is comprised of five chapters. In the introductory. chapter, we provide an
                overview of the CZM and estuarine reserve programs, describe the highlights of CZMA
                administration during the biennium, and delineate future directions for these efforts,
                including emerging coastal management issues.

                Chapter 2 includes a description of the accomplishments of state CZM programs in selected
                national interest areas -- coastal hazards, wetlands preservation, energy development, public
                access, urban waterfront revitalization, port and marina development, and improved
                government operations. This chapter also describes NOAA's activities during the biennium
                regarding involvement with other Federal agencies and Federal consistency actions. An
                update on interstate CZM activities is also provided. -

                Chapter 3 presents a description of the NERRS, including its mission and structure.
                Program accomplishments during the biennium are provided in detail, as well as reflections
                on future program directions.

                In Chapter 4, individual state CZM programs are described, highlighting significant
                accomplishments made during the report period. Each state listing includes a summary of
                CZM grant tasks, Federal consistency activities and evaluations of the state's performance.

                Chapter 5 describes each estuarine reserve. Information is provided on reserve resources
                and facilities, important improvements during the biennium, education, research and
                monitoring activities, and states' performances in managing the reserves.

                The status of state CZM programs is provided in Appendix A. Appendix B itemizes state
                funding under Sections 306, 309 and 315 of the CZMA during fiscal years 1988 and 1989.
                Appendix C provides a state-by-state listing of CZMA Section 306A funding. Appendix D
                summarizes Federal consistency appeals. Draft NERRS regulations are published in
                Appendix E. Finally, Appendix F provides a list of NERR funding under Section 315,
                including acquisition, development, operations, research, monitoring and education.







                                                              v









                                                                  T"LE OF CONTENI'S



                       Executive Summary          ......................................................................................................i

                       Introduction     ...................................................................................................................v


                       1. Coastal Management: Federal Program Overview                          ........................................1

                                CZMA Implementation             ...................................................................................3
                                New Directions: CZMA Administration                   .....................................................7
                                Emerging Coastal Management Issues                   ....................................................... 11

                       H. Coastal'Zone Management Program                     ................................................................ 17

                                Federal Consistency         ........................................................................................ 22
                                National Interest Issues        ................................................................................... 32
                                Interagency Coordination            ............................................................................... 41
                                Technical Assistance         ....................................................................................... 44


                       III. National Estuarm*e Reserve Research System                    ................................................ 47

                                State-Federal Cooperation           .............................................................................. 47
                                NOAA Operations            ........................................................................................... 49
                                Site Management          .............................................................................................. 50
                                Research      ............................................................................................................. 51
                                Monitoring      ......................................................................................................... 52
                                Education     .......................................................................................................... 52
                                Technical Assistance         ........................................................................................ 52

                       IV. State CZM Program              ........................................................................................... 53

                                Alabama       ............................................................................................................. 53
                                Alaska    ................................................................................................................. 56
                                AmericanSamoa           ............................................................................................... 59
                                California    ............................................................................................................ 61
                                Connecticut       ....................................................................................................... 64
                                Delaware      ............................................................................................................ 67
                                Florida   ................................................................................................................ 69
                                Territory of Guam         ............................................................................................ 72
                                Hawaii    .................................................................................................................. 74
                                Louisiana     ............................................................................................................ 76
                                Maine     ................................................................................................................. 80
                                Maryland      ...................................................................................................  ........ 84
                                Massachusetts       ................................................................................................... 87








                           IV. State CZM Programs (continued)

                                     Michigan      ........................................................................................................... 90
                                     Mississippi      ......................................................................................................... 93
                                     New Jersey       ........................................................................................................ 96
                                     New Hampshire           ............................................................................................... 100
                                     New York         ........................................................................................................... 103
                                     North Carolina        ... . ............................................................................................ 108
                                     Northern Mariana Islands               .............................................................................. 111
                                     Oregon      ............................................................................................................... 113
                                     Pennsylvania        ..................................................................................................... 116
                                     Puerto Rico      ........................................................................................................ 119
                                     Rhode Island        .................................................................................................... 121
                                     South Carolina        ................................................................................................... 124
                                     Virginia    .............................................................................................................. 127
                                     Virgin Islands      ................................................................................................... 130
                                     Washington       ....................................................................................................... 132
                                     Wisconsin        .......................................................................................................... 135


                           V. National Estuarine Research Reserves                       ............................................................ 139


                                     Apalachicola        ...............                                                                   139
                                     Chesapeake Bay          ............................................................................................... 141
                                     Elkhorn Slough        ................................................................................................ 143
                                     Great Bay        ........................................................................................................... 146
                                     Hudson River        ................................................................................................... 148
                                     Jobos Bay        .......................................................................................................... 150
                                     Narragansett Bay          ............................................................................................. 152
                                     North Carolina        ................................................................................................. 154
                                     Old Woman Creek             .......................................................................................... 156
                                     Padilla Bay      ........................................................................................................ 158
                                     Rookery Bay         ..................................................................................................... 160
                                     Sapelo Island       .................................................................................................... 162
                                     South Slough        ...................................................................................................... 164
                                     Tijuana River       .................................................................................................... 166
                                     Waimanu Valley          .............................................................................................. 168
                                     Waquoit Bay         ..................................................................................................... 170
                                     Weeks Bay        ........................................................................................................ 172
                                     Wells   .................................................................................................................. 174


                           Appendix A - Status of State CZM Programs
                           Appendix B - CZMA Funding for FY88 and FY89
                           Appendix C - State-by-State 306A Funding
                           Appendix D - Federal Consistency Appeals
                           Appendix E - Draft NERRS Regulations
                           Appendix F - Section 315 NERR Funding Breakdown for FY88 and FY89




     1. Coastal Management Overview     . I







                   I



















                M-m M M M-m M- =










                          COASTAL MANAGEMENT: FEDERAL PROGRAM OVERVIEW




                       The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972 establishes the only national
               program to plan comprehensively for and manage development of the Nation's coastal land
               and water resources. Culminating a period of public debate and review highlighted by the
               Stratton Commission Report of 1969, the Act declared "there is a national interest in the
               effective management, beneficial use, protection, and development of the coastal zone," and
               acknowledged the importance of the coastal zone in terms of its "ecological, cultural, historic
               and aesthetic values," and the vulnerability of the coastal zone and its living resources to the
               impact of man's activities. Ambitious in its goals, the CZM[A promotes the wise use and
               protection of these sensitive coastal areas by establishing a national partner-ship of Federal
               and state government that seeks to balance the protection and development of resources in
               the U.S. coastal zone.


                       Congress declared four basic national coastal zone management (CZM) policies in
               the CZMA, as amended: (1) to preserve, protect, develop, and where possible, to restore
               or enhance the resources of the U.S. coastal zone; (2) to encourage and assist the states to
               develop and implement CZM programs meeting specified national standards; (3) to provide
               for increased specificity in protecting significant natural resources, reasonable coastal-
               dependent economic growth, improved protection of life and property in hazardous areas
               and improved predictability in governmental decisionmaking; and (4) to encourage the
               participation and cooperation of public, state and local governments, interstate and other
               regional agencies, and Federal agencies in achieving the purposes of the Act. Congress has
               strengthened and expanded the program twice, most recently in 1985. The Act is due to be
               reauthorized in 1990.


                       The CZNLA, is administered by the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration's
               (NOAA) Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM), which is part of the
               Department of Commerce. OCRM is also responsible for carrying out other Federal la\vs
               aimed at protecting, restoring and developing the Nation's ocean and coastal resources,
               including Title III of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA), which
               established the National Marine Sanctuary Program, and the Ocean Thermal Energy
               Conversion Act (OTEC) and Deep Seabed Hard Minerals Resources Act (DSHMRA),
               which established the OTEC and ocean minerals licensing programs.

                       The national CZM program provides funds, policy guidance and technical assistance
               to coastal states and U.S. island territories to help them establish and maintain CZM
               programs that meet certain Federal objectives. To foster state participation, two kinds of
               Federal incentives are built into the CZMA: (1) Federal matching grants which help states
               meet the cost of implementing and enhancing their CZM programs; and (2) Federal
               consistency authority, which requires that Federal activities directly affecting the coastal zone








                     must be conducted in a manner consistent "to the maximum extent practicable" with the
                     states' federally-approved programs. The state programs developed pursuant to the CZMA
                     must be approved by the Secretary of Commerce to ensure that they conform with Federal,
                     guidelines and national goals. OCRM assures that state programs remain in compliance wit
                     the natio nal standards by providing continuous oversight of the programs, with in-depth
                     formal evaluations of state performance at least every two years. The evaluations are
                     conducted pursuant to Section 312 of the CZMA.

                         In implementing their programs, the states       are required to address nine national
                     objectives, which are identified in the 1980 Amendments to the CZMA. Under Section 303,
                     the scope and objectives of the national program are identified as:

                         ï¿½  Protection of natural resources,
                         ï¿½  Management of coastal development to avoid hazardous areas,
                         ï¿½  Priority consideration given to coastal dependent uses and energy facility siting,
                         ï¿½  Public shorefront access,
                         ï¿½  Assistance in redevelopment of urban waterfronts and ports,
                         ï¿½  Coordination and simplification of governmental procedures to ensure expedited
                            governmental decisionmaking for management of coastal resources,
                         ï¿½  Consultation and coordination with Federal @gencies,
                         ï¿½  Public participation in coastal decisionmaking, and
                         ï¿½  Comprehensive planning, conservation and management of living marine resources.

                         The CZMA also established a national system of estuarine research reserves (formerly
                     known as the National Estuarine Sanctuary Program) under Section 315 to assist states in
                     acquiring and managing estuarine areas as natural field laboratories. The Act provides
                     financial assistance awards on a 50-50 matching basis to states to acquire, develop and
                     operate the estuarine areas, which are primarily for long-term scientific and education
                     programs. Currently, 18 sites compose -the national system, preserving approximately
                     300,000 acres of estuarine lands and water in 16 states for research and education to assist
                     in coastal management decisionmaking.

                            A complementary program for offshore areas is OCRM's.system of national marine
                     sanctuaries established under Title III of MPRSA. These are discrete marine areas of
                     special national significance designated to promote comprehensive management of their
                     conservation, recreational, ecological, historical, research, educational, or aesthetic values.
                     Areas designated as national marine sanctuaries range in size from less than one square
                     nautical mile to over 1,252 square nautical miles. Some are located near land and receive
                     many visitors, while others, 1arther offshore, are primarily of interest to the scientific
                     community and fishermen. Eight sanctuaries have been established since 1972.

                            Other OCRM responsibilities focus both on the deeper ocean and coastal waters.
                     Operating under the OTEC Act and DSHMRA, OCRM issues permits and licenses to
                     qualified U.S. citizens for commercial uses of ocean thermal energy conversion and for


                                                                    2








               exploration and commercial recovery of seabed hard minerals. In implementing these
               statutes, OCRM is charged with encouraging the development of viable, environmentally
               compatible industries. To this end, OCRM has conducted environmental studies to support
               regulatory decisions. The deep seabed mining activities conducted by OCRM during fiscal
               years 1988 and 1989 are described in detail in a biennial report to the Congress, which was
               submitted in December 1989.



                                              CZNIA RAPLEMENTATION


               Coastal Zone Manageme

                      Extending far beyond what was envisioned 17 years ago, the national CZM program
               has added predictability and coordination to the complex task of managing the Nation's
               shoreline. All 35 coastal states and U.S. island territories have participated in the program.
               To date, 29 states and territories, covering 94 percent of the U.S. coastline, have received
               Federal program approval and are implementing their programs (see Figure 1). Of the six
               non-participating states, the state of Ohio is currently writing a program and looking for
               approval in 1990. Other states are indicating renewed interest in the national program.

                           State Coastal Management Programs




                                                                                      29 Approved Programs

                                                                                     Cover 94% of the
                                                                                     Nation!s shoreline
                                                                                      (89,117 mQ





                                             Not Pictured                         Approved
                                             Northern Mariana Islands       = Developing Program
                                             Guam, U.S. Virgin Wands
                                             American Samoa, Puerto Rico    M Non-Participant



                      Figure 1. Map of Participating Coastal Management Programs



                                                             3








                               Since'1974, the Federal government has invested over $600 million in the state CZM
                       programs. These Federal funds, coupled with guidance and technical assistance frorn
                       OCRM, have generated many positive returns. Significant benefits have been made in
                       protecting life and property from natural hazards, guarding fragile coastal habitats, improving
                       public access to the coast, preserving and encouraging water-dependent uses such as ports
                       and marinas, revitalizing urban waterfronts, and improving intergovernmental cooperation.
                       These successes have been achieved through planning, regulation, Federal consistency
                       reviews, land acquisition, and public information and education.

                               Coastal management has played a positive role in reducing the risk to life and
                       property from coastal storms. Under the CZMA, OCRM has funded new state efforts to
                       deter development in highly vulnerable areas of the shoreline, including the adoption of
                       setback regulations. Currently, 13 states have some form of setback requirement for coastal
                       development. Staies also have laws to protect dunes, which are the first line of defense
                       against storms. Other mechanisms such as construction standards, evacuation planning, and
                       development of early warning systems have all contributed to improved coastal protection
                       from natural hazards.

                               State CZM programs have been actively involved in protecting wildlife and fisheries
                       habitats, and regulating land use impacts on water quality. With regard to wetlands
                       preservation, all state programs regulate actions that directly affect their coastal wetlands
                       and some use local land use regulation to enhance managernent by regulating land use
                       activities in and near coastal wetlands. Also, states have acquired important wetlands for
                       habitat protection and management. Many states have initiated techniques which have been
                       successful in addressing the problem of nonpoint source runoff, which is a major source of
                       coastal water pollution. Coastal programs are also dealing with pollution stemming from
                       specific water uses, such as marinas.

                               The CZMA has fostered significant increases in public access to our Nation's coastal
                       resources. In 1980, Section 306A was added to the CZMA to allow states to acquire land
                       and fund low-cost construction projects to provide public access to the coasts for recreational
                       purposes. Since 1985, when Section 306A funds were first allocated, states have used some
                       $17.5 million (in 1988 dollars adjusted for inflation) in 306A funds to plan, acquire and build
                       public access sites, protect environmentally sensitive areas, and revitalize deteriorating urban
                       waterfronts. These Federal funds were matched with $18.2 million in state and local
                       government funds.

                                                                                                                        - of
                               All of these Section 306A activities have enhanced the public's recreational use
                       coastal areas. For example, states have used 306A funds to acquire small parcels which can
                       make a major difference in the public's ability to use the public shoreland, as in the purchase
                       of a small lot to be used as a parking area adjacent to the coast. Section 306A funds have
                       also been used by the states and territories to inventory rights-of-way along the coast and
                       designate them for public access, and to improve public access ways through the design and
                       construction of dune walkovers, boardwalks, and boat launching facilities.


                                                                         4








                       New life has been given to urban waterfronts in cities like Baltimore, Seattle, Detroit
                and Philadelphia. CZM has played an important role by providing funds to cities to study
                underutilized waterfront areas and prepare plans for their redevelopment. Additionally,
                coastal management programs have often assumed leadership to address conflicts among
                waterfront uses. In some urban areas, the waterfront has become such a desirable place to
                develop that adequate space may no longer be available for those land uses which must be
                located at the water, such as ports, marinas, commercial fish landings and boat repair yards.
                These land uses may not be able to pay as much for waterfront, land as condominiums and
                restaurants, but have no alternative in an inland location. Coastal management programs
                have worked to resolve these conflicts.


                       Many state CZM programs have also assisted port authorities in assuring that
                adequate land is available for port operations, and in obtaining and identifying dredged
                material disposal sites in an environmentally acceptable manner. The demand for boat
                launching ramps and marinas has been increasing, as America's leisure time has increased.
                Coastal programs have been active in locating suitable sites for recreational boating facilities
                and assuring that areas desirable for marinas are not preempted by land uses that do not
                require a waterfront location.

                       The state CZM programs have also resolved complex interagency conflicts that can
                arise in land'use decisionmaking. The state programs have been able to provide substantial
                leadership in resolving these problems through their authority under the Federal consistency
                provisions of the CZMA. In addition, the state CZM programs have established a variety
                of techniques to reduce the number of required permits and to jointly process permits with
                other agencies to minimize review times.

                Estuarine Research Reserves


                       The states and territories have also made great strides in addressing threats to the
                Nation's estuaries, those valuable, yet fragile areas where rivers meet the sea. The National
                Estuarine Reserve Research System (NERRS) is providing critical protection to safeguard
                these irreplaceable natural resources. Education and research are the primary objectives
                of the NERRS. Since 1974, the system has grown from one 4,400 acre site in Oregon to an
                18 site system managing nearly 300,000 acres in 16 states (see Figure 2). Each site offers
                opportunities for monitoring changes within the estuarine system and the effects of human
                activity on these resources, while protecting the integrity of the site for long-term research
                projects.   The reserves also provide opportunities for the general public to learn to
                appreciate coastal and estuarine ecology in an outdoor setting.

                       The newest reserves are Waquoit Bay, Massachusetts, which was designated in 1988,
                and Great Bay, New Hampshire, which was designated in 1989. The System is expected to
                grow in the coming years, with six additional reserves being developed in Delaware, Virginia,
                South Carolina, New York and California. OCRM is also considering the expansion of three
                existing reserves in Nor th Carolina, Maryland, and Florida. When the network is complete,


                                                                 5





                        it should represent all 11 of the Nation's biological and geographical coastal regions, selectel
                        by OCRM to reflect regional variations in the coastal zone.              The biogeographical
                        classification scheme, which is used to ensure that the system includes at least one site frorno
                        each region, has 27 subregions. Eleven of those biogeographic subregions are not yej
                        represented in the system.
                               Since its inception, 'the NERRS Program has continued to evolve and develop al
                        programmatic structure. An applied research program, begun in 1985, continues to mature. .
                        The Program is very conscious of its role in conducting quality research to producel
                        information that is useful for coastal resource management decisionmaking. One aspect thato
                        substantially strengthens this effort was the establishment of national guidelines for baseline
                        characterizations and the implementation of long-term monitoring programs at reserves.1
                        These guidelines, which were issued in 1989, identify elements that will be essential for site-
                        specific management, as well as for use in regional, national and global predictions of the
                        impacts of global warming. The research program supports about 20 grants annually.
                        Research priorities include sediment management, water management, chemical and other
                        inputs, coupling of primary and secondary productivity, and fisheries habitat requirements.


                                             The National Estuarine Reserve
                                                          Research System
                                                               (As of 311/1990)

                                                Radilla Bay
                                                                                        St Lawrence
                                                                                          RiverBasin
                                    South                                                                    ells
                                   Slough                                                                 Great Bay
                                                                                             Hadso      '0 Waquoit Ba
                                     San                                                          e     Narragansett  Bal
                                Francisco                                               0            Delaware
                                   Elkhom                                              r              Chesapeake Bay,
                                     510
                                     I o ugg, h                                                        & VA
                                                                                                      North Carolina
                                        Tijuana                                                     orth Ink SC
                                          River                                                  ACEBasin, SC
                                                                                 eek            Sapelo Island
                                                                               Bay
                                       Waimanu                                        Apalac  cola
                                       Valley, HI      0 Proposed                    RookeTy
                                                       0 Designated                   Bay                Jobos
                                                                                                         Bay, PR



                              Figure 2. Map of National Estuarine Research Reserves



                                                                      6








                      To better understand the resources of the Nation's reserves, OCRM began funding
               a three-phased baseline characterization and monitoring program in FY89. To date, grants
               have been awarded to six reserves. Key elements of the program include: development of
               baseline information about the sites; preparation of uniform site profiles; and continuation
               of long-term resource monitoring at the sites. During the biennium, OCRM also began an
               education grants program for the reserves. Projects funded included designing, testing and
               implementing curricula/lessons on river and bay estuarine systems for public school students.
               Training programs and workshops were conducted for public school teachers and reserve
               volunteers. Videos were produced to provide information on the local ecosystems and
               impacts of human activity on them. OCRM funding is also used to. develop and construct
               displays/exhibits for visitor centers and community education projects.

                      The relationship between OCRM and the states with respect to specific reserves has
               improved considerably over the past two years. This cooperative relationship is illustrated
               by the reinstitution of annual workshops between OCRM headquarters and reserve and
               marine sanctuary managers to work on solutions to common problems. The joint meetings
               were held at the Padilla Bay (Washington) Reserve in 1988 and at . the * Wells (Maine)
               Reserve in 1989. During the 1989 meeting, OCRM staff and state managers jointly
               developed five-year plans for site administration, resource protection, research, monitoring
               and education. In 1990, a joint meeting will be held -at the Tijuana River (California)
               Reserve. OCRM is also working with states to improve on-site operations in the reserves.
               This includes the provision of adequate staff and facilities in each reserve.




                                                  NEW DIRECTIONS


               CZMA Administration


                      With the growing public awareness of coastal issues and the commitment of the new
               Administration to address the environmental problems of our oceans and coasts, the national
               CZM program has begun- to make the transition toward more effective management in a
               number of areas. During the biennium, OCRM renewed efforts to coordinate and integrate
               the national CZM program with other Federal agency programs that have compatible goals
               with the CZMA. In 1988, for example, OCRM negotiated an agreement with the
               Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on ways to better coordinate the national CZM
               program with EPA's National Estuary Program (NEP). As part of this effort, OCRM and
               EPA agreed to establish a mechanism at the national level for coordination and oversight
               of individual NEP programs and to ensure continued integration of the NEP and CZNIA.

                      Over the past two years, OCRM has also been working with the Department of the
               interior's Minerals Management Service to help resolve conflicts that arise over offshore oil
               and gas development. Ongoing interaction has focused on state program change reviews and
               CZMA Section 312 evaluations. Also during the biennium, OCRM met with the Federal


                                                             7








                      Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to coordinate technical programs to improve state
                      emergency preparedness in the event of natural hazards, such as hurricanes. As part of this
                      effort, OCRM staff participated in FEMA's post-disaster mitigation team visits to South
                      Carolina, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands in 1989 to inspect the damage caused by
                      Hurricane Hugo. The purpose of the visits was to recommend actions to reduce damage
                      from future such events.


                             Within NOAA, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and OCRM have been
                      coordinating efforts to develop an agency-wide policy on'marine wetlands to achieve the
                      Administration's goal of no-net-loss. Efforts are also 'underway to coordinate habitat
                      conservation issues between state CZM programs and NMFS' regional fisheries offices.

                             OCRM has also renewed its efforts to assist states in resolving any differences
                      between them and- Federal agencies over the implementation of the Federal consistency
                      provisions, such as those that may occur over Federal flood insurance policies, offshore
                      energy development, and ocean dumping. The Federal consistency provisions -- Section 307
                         require, in general, that Federal activities and actions directly affecting the coastal zone
                      must be consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the state's coastal management
                      programs. Actions such as Federal projects and the issuance of licenses and permits fall
                      within the consistency requirements.

                             Federal consistency has proven to be a powerful and effective too] in eliminating or
                      mitigating the adverse environmental effects of coastal development. It has also eliminated
                      some of the confusion that existed before the passage of the CZMA by bringing together
                      Federal and state permitting activities. However, applying the Federal consistency principle
                      to certain activities, particularly those on the outer continental shelf (OCS), has turned out
                      to be very controversial. To help alleviate problems, OCRM provides policy guidance and
                      technical assistance to states and other Federal agencies on the administration of the Federal
                      consistency provisions and on the application of Federal consistency to specific actions.
                      Recent examples include discussions with the Army Corps of Engineers (COE) over a
                      national policy regarding implementation of Federal consistency in maintenance dredging
                      operations, and negotiations with EPA regarding its consistency responsibilities for
                      designation of dredged material disposal sites.

                             Efforts by OCRM and NOAA's Office of General Counsel are also intensifying in
                      response to the increasing number of appeals      to the Secretary of Commerce to override
                      state consistency objections and requests for Secretarial mediation as provided under Section
                      307(g). The Secretary received 64 requests for Secretarial overrides during the past two
                      years. NOAA's Office of General Counsel was instructed to provide recommended findings
                      to the Secretary in each of these appeals, which mostly involve a few highly controversial
                      OCS oil and gas development projects and a large number of shoreline development
                      projects. NOAA also recently instituted administrative improvements to the Federal
                      consistency appeals process which has markedly reduced the time for processing the appeals.








                      OCRM is making efforts to expand its role as mediator under Section 307(g), in order
               to foster state/Federal relations and minimize litigation. During the biennium, OCRM was
               involved in mediation of a serious disagreement between the state of South Carolina and the
               Army Corps of Engineers (COE), which involved a proposed $600 million project on
               Hutchinson Island, Georgia. The COE had asked NOAA to provide guidance on the
               legitimacy of South Carolina's consistency objection, since the proposed project was on
               Georgia's side of the Savannah River.

                      In objecting to the project, South Carolina argued that dredging for a marina and
               access channels within 300 feet of its border would have a significant adverse effect on the
               state's coastal zone.  'In May 1989, the NOAA General Counsel issued a legal opinion
               supporting the right of state CZM programs to review activities in adjacent states, if there
               are spillover effects on the reviewing state's coastal zone. Although the COE did not accept
               this position, the COE's permit for the project included a condition which deferred the
               portion of the project that South Carolina was most concerned about for a year, pending
               completion of an ongoing water quality study.

                      During the biennium, OCRM began working to improve procedures for reviewing and
               evaluating the coastal management and estuarine reserve programs. Two of OCRM's
               objectives are a more open evaluation process and more -timely evaluation findings. Under
               the terms of the OCRM/EPA agreement mentioned above, the evaluation process pursuant
               to Section 312 of the CZMA is also being used to evaluate state coastal management agency
               related efforts to develop Comprehensive Conservation Management Programs under the
               EPA National Estuary Program. OCRM recognizes the importance of the evaluation
               process and will be implementing additional improvements in the near future.

                      OCRM also recognizes the growing need for technical assistance and         information
               transfer to state and local governments. Through the NOAA Coastal Ocean Program and
               other efforts, large data bases are being developed on a diversity of coastal and marine
               issues and problems, such as coastal pollution, wetland/habitat destruction, shellfish
               contamination, coastal storms and flooding, and shoreline erosion and sea level rise. Since
               these data are intended to serve coastal decisionmakers like state CZM program managers,
               OCRM has begun to serve an information transfer role. During the biennium, several
               technical assistance bulletins were prepared by OCRM staff on natural hazards issues,
               including hurricane evacuation planning, pre-disaster land use planning, shoreline erosion,
               state construction setback laws, and sea level rise.

                      In the future, we foresee a much expanded technical assistance role related to
               information exchange. OCRM's efforts will take many shapes. We will keep coastal states
               informed of what is available from NOAA and will facilitate dialogue between scientists and
               managers on user requirements and needs. OCRM's Coastal Zone Information Center will
               continue to provide answers to questions concerning the coastal zone, and provide guidance
               to those who wish to research a topic in detail. The center contains a collection of over
               25,000 books, documents, periodicals, maps and atlases which is available for specialized

                                                             9








                    research into the field of coastal zone management. Other OCRM activities will include
                    producing technical bulletins on issues of concern to coastal managers, sponsoring workshops
                    on information and technology transfer, and assessing the vast array of digital maps and
                    products available from NOAA and providing practical guidance on the appropriate use of
                    these products by the states. As part of this effort, OCRM is sponsoring a one-day
                    "information technology transfer" workshop on Geographical Information Systems as part
                    of the 1990 Coastal Program Managers' Meeting in Washington, DC.

                           A move toward regional waterbody management is also envisioned. During FY89
                    OCRM provided CZM funds to the states of Maine, Massachusetts, and New Harripshire
                    to coordinate with the Canadian Provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia for
                    establishment of a plan to improve coastal resource management around the Gulf of Maine.
                    CZM funds were also provided in FY89 to the Great Lakes Commission to develop a
                    framework for interstate CZM planning in the Great Lakes. All of the Great Lakes states
                    are participating in this effort. In the future, we will encourage states to form interstate
                    compacts to help solve larger-scale ecosystem problems.

                           OCRM also expects that the CZM program will play an increasing role in the
                    protection of historic and cultural resources located within the national estuarine re@
                    and state waters within marine sanctuaries. OCRM has been working with the National
                    Park Service (NPS) to coordinate CZMA activities with the Abandoned Shipwreck Act. The
                    two offices have met and discussed ways in which both the state shipwreck program,
                    developed under NPS guidance, and the CZM program can benefit from this coordination.
                    States will be encouraged to utilize their CZM programs to help develop the shipwreck
                    management programs. Several benefits from coordinating these programs have been
                    identified, including utilizing CZMA Section 306 and 306A funds, and possibly Section 309
                    interstate grant funds, for development of the state shipwreck programs.

                           In addition to working more closely with states and other Federal agencies to
                    strengthen the core elements of the CZM program, OCRM has recognized the growing need
                    to inform the public about emerging coastal issues and provide opportunities for the public
                    to participate in the CZM programs. During 1988 and 1989, the agency participated in the
                    annual "Coastweeks" celebration and "National Estuaries Day", which ran from September
                    16 through October 9. In celebration of this annual nationwide observance, OCRM and the
                    states sponsored a wide range of bay and coastal activities for the public at estuarine
                    reserves around the country. OCRM-sponsored activities included beach and shoreline
                    clean-ups, guided boat tours, nature hikes, and symposiums. OCRM plans to participate in
                    future such celebrations, as well as produce publications and brochures to enhance public
                    awareness of coastal issues.









                                                                 10










                                   EfvIERGING COASTAL NIANAGENIENT ISSUES



                       Over the past 16 years, we have learned a great deal more about the area we call the
                coastal zone. But, the Nation's stewardship of the coast has not kept pace with 'the
                problems facing the coasts today. Coastal populations are growing at three to four times the
                national average, and the increasing demand for second home and other coastal
                development has put tremendous pressure on the Nation's coastal zone and its resources.
                More than half of the U.S. population now resides in the coastal counties, on less than 10
                percent of the Nation's land. Projections indicate that by the year 2000, more than 75
                percent of our national population will live within one hour's drive of the coast.

                       This burgeoning population affects a range of environmental quality issues. Life and
                property are continually placed in jeopardy from coastal natural hazards, as was underscored
                recently by the devastation from Hurricane Hugo. The conflicts among coastal uses also
                remain, as seen in the disputes surrounding offshore energy development. Furthermore, our
                Nation's coastal waters are in jeopardy. Urge amounts of toxic contaminants continue to
                degrade our coastal waters, and nonpoint sources of pollution are contributing heavily to the
                overall problem. In some coastal areas, nonpoint source pollution accounts for 45 percent
                of water pollution. And while significant progress has been made by the states in reducing
                the loss of wetlands from man-induced causes, direct and indirect pressures on coastal
                habitats continue to be a large problem.

                       Clearly, we are at an important juncture in the life of the national CZM program.
                As the state CZM programs continue to evolve and mature, the Federal government needs
                to provide the leadership and support necessary to improve the national program's ability
                to address the critical coastal issues of today and plan for the issues of tomorrow. The basic
                infrastructure is in place at the state and Federal level. Now is the time to renew and
                expand our efforts under the CZMA to respond more completely to long-recognized
                problems and to place specific emphasis on problems not covered in the original enactment.
                Specifically, there are five important issues of national concern which the CZMA could be
                more actively addressing. These are wetlands and habitat protection, coastal water quality,
                coastal hazards and sea level rise, public access to coasts and minimization of beach and
                marine debris.


                Wetlands and Habitat Protection


                       Coastal wetlands are important to both the environmental and economic health of
                the U.S. Nationally, 60 to 70 percent of the U.S. commercial and recreational fisheries
                harvest is composed of species dependent on coastal wetlands. In addition to providing
                critical habitat for fish and wildlife, coastal wetlands help reduce flood damages and abate
                water pollution, and support many valued recreational opportunities. Due to the efforts of
                coastal states under the CZMA, the rate of wetlands loss from man-made causes has
                declined. However, the U.S. continues to lose 40,000 acres of coastal emergent wetlands








                    annually. Most of these are eroding in the State of Louisiana, which is experiencing the loss
                    of 50 square miles (approximately 32,000 acres) each year.

                           All federally-approved state CZM programs currently address the protection of
                    wetlands by requiring state or local approval for direct and significant alteration of wetlands.
                    Most states also require some form of mitigation for wetland loss. The State of New Jersey
                    for example, used a wetlands mitigation agreement with a major utility to obtain funds to
                    acquire critical wetland habitat along the Delaware Bay, which serves as a landing place for
                    over 1,000,000 migrating shorebirds each spring. Many states have also undertaken public
                    education efforts to increase awareness of the value of these areas.


                           New efforts are needed to manage the direct and indirect (e.g., contamination by
                    toxic substances) impacts on coastal wetlands. Specifically, the states should be encouraged
                    to eliminate adverse impacts to pristine wetlands, restore the quality of impacted wetlands,
                    and establish acquisition programs for wetlands.

                    Coastal Water Quali
                           The continuing problems of closed shellfish beds and restricted recreational areas'
                    have forced recognition of the increasing efforts needed to improve water quality. Nonpoint
                    sources of pollution are a major cause of degradation in coastal areas. While the CZMA
                    requires that state water quality standards be incorporated into the state CZM program,
                    coastal pollution was not a major focus of concern in the earlier stages of CZM program
                    implementation. However, as the causes of nonpoint source pollution have become better
                    understood, it is clear that the CZMA can play a more important role in dealing with this
                    national problem.

                           Many states already have made significant contributions to water quality improvement
                    through programs developed as part of their coastal management efforts. In Rhode Island
                    and Wisconsin, for example, setback requirements have been established for development
                    adjacent to coastal waters. Stormwater management programs have been adopted in
                    Maryland, Washington, North Carolina and South Carolina. Several states have also
                    initiated creative efforts to protect coastal waters through special area management
                    programs or land management requirements for adjacent lands.

                           While many states are addressing the problem of nonpoint source pollution, the
                    approach largely remains fragmented and needs national emphasis. The deterioration of
                    coastal waters indicates that a stronger effort by state coastal management and water quality
                    agencies is needed to address the problem. Improvement could be made by coordinating,
                    and where appropriate, integrating the efforts under CZMA with those being undertaken
                    as part of the nonpoint source management provision which was recently added to the Clean
                    Water Act (Section 319). The Nation needs to take full advantage of the expertise and
                    institutional structures of the coastal management programs in dealing with coastal water
                    quality problems.


                                                                   12









                      coastal states and territories should also be encouraged to manage land and water
               uses and activities to eliminate the adverse impact on coastal waters from nonpoint source
               pollution by promoting stronger land and water use permit programs, Best Management
               Practices for agriculture and silviculture, watershed management programs, and stormwater
               management programs. In addition, states should be encouraged to review their existing
               coastal zone boundaries to determine whether they can adequately address nonpoint sources
               of pollution. OCRM firmly believes that the CZM programs, with their experience in land
               and water use management, can help move the Nation forward in addressing many of the
               significant nonpoint source pollution problems.

               Coastal Hazards and Sea Izvel Rise

                      As the havoc wreaked by Hurricane Hugo in the Caribbean and South Carolina so
               vividly demonstrated, coastal developments can be fragile, and utilizing natural buffers makes
               not only good ecological, but excellent economic, sense. Under the CZMA, OCRM has
               funded new state efforts to deter development in the most highly vulnerable areas of the
               shoreline through adoption of such measures as setbacks. Currently, 13 states have some
               form of setback requirement for coastal development. Many states also have laws to protect
               dunes which are the first line of defense from storms. For example, the State of Michigan
               recently expanded its protection of dunes by granting authority to the state Department of
               Natural Resources to regulate activities within newly defined "Critical Dune Areas."

                      The State of North Carolina, through its coastal program, has adopted a strong
               program to protect lives and property from coastal hazards. The state has developed a four-
               stage approach which augments and extends National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)
               standards to protect coastal development. Setback lines have been established in ocean
               hazard areas designated as areas of environmental concern to provide protection from
               coastal storms and insure at least 60 years of protection from coastal erosion. Permitting
               occurs behind the setback line to the 100-year-storm-recession line. Infrastructure growth
               that would serve ocean-hazard areas, such as roads, bridges, water and sewer lines, and
               erosion-control structures, are allowed only if they will be reasonably safe from coastal
               hazards and will not promote additional development in hazardous areas. Finally, the state
               provides hazard notices to all permit applicants, which gives the erosion rate in the area,
               notes that bulkheads and seawalls are not allowed, and notes that the area is hazardous and
               that the property owner is at risk.
                      Improved land use measures, as are being undertaken by state CZM programs, are
               one Of the more effective long-term solutions to reducing the risk from erosion and coastal
               storms. However, the ever-increasing population growth in coastal areas necessitates
               stronger Policies in the CZMA to manage the increasing risk to life and property. A
               comprehensive approach to coastal hazard mitigation is needed.             States should be
               encouraged to reduce the threat to life and the destruction of property by curtailing
               development and redevelopment in coastal high hazard areas. Such a comprehensive
               manag,ment approach would also include evacuation planning, enhanced building code

                                                            13








                      standards -and enforcement, protection of dunes and other physical features and planning
                      for rational development in areas vulnerable to natural hazards, and planning for
                      appropriate redevelopment after a disaster. At the Federal level, NOAA needs to work with
                      the Federal Emergency Management Agency to encourage prudent land use management
                      in the NFIP, which represents the second largest liability to the Federal government, second
                      only to Social Security.

                      Public Access


                             Increased coastal population and leisure time have led to an increased demand for
                      coastal recreational opportunities. However, rapid coastal development and competing
                      private and public uses have reduced the amount of coastal land that is open to the public.
                      This has placed pressure on public officials to provide improved public access opportunities.
                      The CZMA has fostered significant increases in public access to our Nation's coasts.

                             Coastal states have used four methods to enhance public access: land acquisition,
                      inventory and information dissemination, accessway design and development, and regulation.
                      In California, for example, only four miles of the 1,000 miles of shoreline around San
                      Francisco Bay were open for public access when the San Francisco Bay Conservation and
                      Development Commission began operations in 1977. Since then, over 96 miles of shoreline
                      around the bay have been opened for public access. This was achieved through a
                      combination of permit conditions and public acquisition. In Connecticut, the review of over
                      100 major waterfront permits has provided a total of nearly seven miles of new public access
                      through walkways, waterfront parks, easements or other agreements.

                             The states have faced severe problems in addressing access needs, however. Public
                      access expenditures and regulatory mechanisms are hindered by escalating coastal property
                      values, competition with other resource conservation efforts, limited budgets and personnel,
                      and recent court cases concerning state regulations and private property rights. In some
                      parts of Connecticut, for example, shorefront land sells for up to $3 million per acre. The
                      state estimates that the value of its new public accessways is $20-$25 million.

                             Despite individual and collective efforts, there is a continued need to use existing
                      authorities to improve access to coastal areas of recreation, historical, aesthetic, ecological
                      or cultural value, based on current and future coastal public access needs. Improvements
                      can be made through state regulatory means, such as new enforceable policies, state permits
                      or local zoning, and through state programs to obtain public ownership of access sites
                      through donation, dedication or acquisition.

                      Beach and Marine Debris


                             The summer of 1988 focused public attention and outrage on medical, plastics and
                      other solid waste appearing on America's beaches. While, waste minimization is not a
                      current goal of the CZMA, NOAA, EPA and the Coast Guard have responsibility for


                                                                    14








                reducing or eliminating plastic pollution at sea under the Marine Protection, Research and
                Sanctuaries Act. As a Nation, we now generate nearly 160 million tons of garbage every
                year. Estimates are that this will increase to over 190 million tons by the year 2000. While
                the generation of beach and marine debris increases, 40 percent of the Nation's landfills will
                close in the next five to seven years. Because our coastal areas are particularly sensitive to
                pollution, a special effort is required to ensure that America's wastes don't become part of
                America's coasts. The CZMA may be another tool to encourage waste minimization as a
                cost-effective means to help solve the problem pervading our country. Coastal states need
                to develop and implement programs for management of beach and marine debris to reduce
                this pollution source.

                State Performance Reviews


                       Most of the states have strong, effective programs, but some need strengthening in
                certain areas. We need more effective and efficient Federal oversight of states' performance
                in administration of their approved CZM programs and operation of NERRs to ensure that
                they are carrying out the objectives of the CZMA. Right now, it is all or nothing; the only
                real penalty for states not adhering to their program is withdrawal of Federal program
                approval. This approach can undermine the state's ability to achieve the goals of the
                Federal-state partnership. If it is determined that a state is not effectively implementing its
                program, OCRM believes that the states should be placed on probation while deficiencies
                in the program are being corrected. Evaluations should be viewed as a positive, rather than
                punitive, tool designed to assist coastal states in making needed improvements.

                Estuarine Research Reserves


                       During the 1985 reauthorization of the CZMA, Congress made several changes to
                Section 315, formerly known as the National Estuarine Sanctuary Program. In addition to
                renaming the sanctuaries as national estuarine research reserves, Congress provided
                guidance to NOAA and the coastal states regarding the research purposes of the reserves.
                The 1985 CZMA Amendments also clarified the education and interpretation responsibilities
                of the program to increase public awareness of the importance of estuarine areas. Since
                1985, some minor problems have surfaced. To improve the operation and management of
                the NERRS, there is a need to expand OCRM's ability to undertake cooperative or joint
                research and education activities incorporating multiple sources of funding; clarify the range
                of types of states agencies or organizations that are eligible to manage reserves and receive
                education grant funding; and clarify and strengthen cooperative efforts between the NERRS
                and the National Marine Sanctuary Program.








                                                              15




     2. Coastal Zone Management Program






                   I




M M = M M M M M -w-            M-M-M-M-uj









                                   COMTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM



                      There is great diversity among the  29 states and territories taking part in the Coastal
               Zone Management (CZM) Program. Beyond obvious differences in size, region and extent
               of present development along the coasts, there are major differences in political systems
               within the states and territories and differences in levels of public support for CZM activitiy.
               As a result, the nature and structure of CZM programs. vary widely from state to state.
               Some states passed comprehensive legislation as a framework for coastal management, while
               others used existing land-use legislation as the foundation for their federally-approved
               programs or networked e3dsting, single-purpose laws into a comprehensive umbrella for
               coastal management. These programs continue to evolve as priorities change and as better
               information and technical capabilities become available.


                          Parficipafing a-nd Non-parficipafing
                               Coastal. States in the. Federal
                         Coasfal Zone Managemenf Program


                                                    MN                                  Year Approved


                                                                                        EM    1976 to 1978
                                                           IL INN  OH                   EM    1978   to  1979
                                                                                        WZ    1979   to  1980
                                                                                        EM    1'980  to  1981
                                                                                        ffJ   1981   to  1952
                                                                   GA                   El    1982   to  1986
                                                                                        N     1986   to  1988
                   HI f@,                    TX






                     '@'%Ure Map or Stat@ Program Approval

                                                            17









                        CZMA Implementation Funds

                                Upon Federal approval, the states and territories are eligible for program
                        administration grants under Section 306 of the CZMA. Funds are allocated by a formula
                        of shoreline mileage and coastal population, with minimum and'maximurn shares for the
                        smallest and largest states. Section 306 requires that an increasing proportion of Federal
                        funds (up to 30 percent) be used for activities supporting the nine national coastal
                        management objectives identified in Section. 303 of the CZMA. In addition, Section 306
                        requires a 50 percent state cost sharing and sets minimum and maximum amounts for the
                        allocation of appropriated funds. During FY88, OCRM allocated $33.413 million for states
                        and territories under Section 306. In FY89, some $33.9 million was allocated. The state-by
                        state summaries in Chapter 4 explain in detail how the states used these funds during the
                        biennium and what they accomplished.

                        Low-cost Public Access Projects

                                In 1980, Section 306A was added to the CZMA to allow states to acquire land and
                        fund low-cost construction projects to provide public access to the coasts for recreational
                        purposes. Since 1985, when Section 306A funds were first allocated, these funds have been
                        used by states to plan, acquire and build public access sites, protect environmentally sensitive
                        areas, and revitalize deteriorating urban waterfronts (see Figure 4). All of these Section
                        306A activities have enhanced recreational use of coastal areas at relatively little cost to the
                        U.S. taxpayer.

                                From FY85 to FY88 (through September 1989), states spent 12 percent
                        (approximately $17.5 million in 1988 dollars) of their CZMA awards on 455 public access
                        projects (see Appendix B). The Federal 306A funds were matched with some $18.3 million
                        in state and local government funds, representing 30 percent of the state match provided for
                        the annual CZMA state implementation awards. In many instances, states over-matched
                        their implementation awards through the use of state 306A matching funds.
                                Sixty-seven percent of the 306A projects were for low-cost construction projects tol
                        provide public access such as boat ramps, dune walkovers, wetland walks, fishing piers and
                        small coastal parks. Nine percent of the projects were used to improve public access to state
                        areas of particular concern. Seven percent of the projects were acquisitions to protecti
                        environmentally significant areas and for access construction activities. Another seven
                        percent of the projects were for revitalizing deteriorating urban waterfronts. The remainder
                        of the projects and funds were for various engineering designs for access projects and f
                        educational and interpretive initiatives. Non-306A CZM funds have also been used by the
                        states and the territories to inventory public rights-of-way along the coast and designate them
                        for public access..




                                                                        18











                           CZxA SECTION 306A PROJECTS AND EXPENDITURES (1988 $)


                              140                                                                              $12,000,000
                                                                                                                              3
                              120                                                                                             0
                                                                                                               100,000,000    6
                                                                                                                              A

                              100
                                                                                                               s8,000,000     E
                                                                                                                              X
                              so -                                                                                            P
               306A PROJECTS                                                                                   S6,000,000     E
                              60                                                                                              N
                                                                                                                              D
                                                                                                               S4,000,000     1
                              40                                                                                              T
                                                                                                                              U

                                                                                                               $2,00
                              20                                                                                    0,000     E
                                                                                                                              S



                                       FY 1985           FY 1986            FY1987              FY1988

                        TOTAL 306A PROJECTS N FEDERAL 306A          F@STATE 306A MATCH         TOTAL 306A
                                               EXPEND17URES                                    EXPENDITURES

            kurce: OCRM FiLes


                       Figure 4. CZMA Section 306A Projects and Expenditures



                Interstate Program

                       The 1976 amendments to the CZMA authorized section 309 entitled, "Coastal Zone
                Mallagement Interstate Grants." Recognizing that an individual state decision could impact
                the planning and management of an adjoining state, Congress intended Section 309 to
                Provide the incentive and the mechanism to improve interstate planning efforts and to
                reduce the likelihood of conflict between Federal and state managers of the Nation's coastal
                area. The Section 309 Interstate Program is administered by the Coastal Programs Division
                of OCRM, which award, grants for these projects on a competitive basis (see Figure 5 for
                breakdown of Section 309 awards by region).
                       In FY88
                                  OCRM awarded a total of $986,433 in section 309 funds for 16 projects.
                A fe,  of the larger projects included:
                         a cooperative effort between Connecticut and New York to develop a Dredged
                         Materials Management Plan for Long Island Sound;'

                                                                   19








                            - an effort to spur regional cooperation on Great Lakes management involving the
                              States of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and
                              Wisconsin;

                            - an effort by the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council to develop
                              a Special Area Management Plan for the Pawcatuck River Estuary and Little
                              Narragansett Bay;

                            - a joint effort by the states of California, Oregon, Washington and Alaska for
                              comprehensive regional ocean and coastal resource management'and planning; and

                            - an expanded study by the states of North Carolina, South Carolina and Florida of
                             principles of property damage mitigation on the southeast U.S. Atlantic Barrier.


                            In FY89, OCRM awarded a total of $890,198 in section 309 funds for 15 projects.
                     These projects encompassed a wide variety of subjects and locations and included:

                            - a water use management planning project undertaken by New York and New Jersey
                              for New York Harbor;

                            - a national evaluation of the role of coastal managemen   t programs in improving
                              coastal water quality;

                            - a joint effort involving Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and California to evaluate the
                              effectiveness of mitigation measures used to resolve conflicts between offshore
                              industrial development and commercial fishing;

                            - a study undertaken by Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia to determine habitat
                              requirements for Chesapeake Bay living resources;

                            - a project aimed at addressing Great Lakes nonpoint pollution involving l1lino's,
                              Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, New York, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

                            - a joint study involving the states of Massachusetts, Maine and New Hampshire and
                              the Canadian Provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia to prepare an action
                              plan to improve coastal resources management along the Gulf of Maine and to
                              analyze and address environmental and institutional conditions affecting the Gulf's
                              coastal and marine resources; and

                            - a project focused on building the institutional capacity of Hawaii, Guam, American
                              Samoa and the Northern Mariana Islands to address management issues in the U.S.
                              Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and in building a regional EEZ forum.



                                                                  20








                                Section 309 Funding By Region
                                               For FY 88 & 89




                                                                    Great
                                                                    Lakes
                                                                    $298,000             Nor h
                      $Pacif ic                                                        Atlantic
                           $715,000
                                                                                        $502,000





                                                                         South
                                                                         tlantic/
                                                                   @Z Gulf
                                                                         $357,000



                                             (Rounded to nearest       sooo)


                     Figure S. Regional breakdown of 309 awards in FY88 and FY89



                Ilate Performance Reviews
                     Section 312 of the CZMA provides for a "continuing review of the performance of
                coastal states with respect to coastal management." The scope of an evaluation, as
                established in the CZNLA,,, includes the "extent to which the state has implemented and
                enforced the program approved by the Secretary of Commerce, addressed the coastal
                nariagernent needs identified in Section 303(2)(A), and adhered to the terms of any grant,
                loan or cooperative agreement funded" under the CZMA. OCRM uses the evaluation
                recOrnmendations in reviewing states' future financial assistance applications, in defining
                significant improvement activities in accordance with the 1980 Amendments to the CZMA,
                and in identifying areas of state program implementation that need continuing scrutiny.
                PrOg,am evaluations are a joint effort between the Federal Office and the coastal state. A
                sunirnary Of the evaluation findings issued during the biennium are included in the detailed
                descriptions
                           of each state CZM program in Chapter 4.

                                                           21










                                                        FEDERAL CONSISTENCY




                               Federal consistency is an issue of growing significance to states and the Federal
                        government as a result of maturing state programs and increasing competition for coastal
                        and ocean resources. It has proven to be a powerful and effective tool in eliminating orl
                        mitigating the adverse environmental effects of coastal development. The consistency
                        provisions have also eliminated some of the,confusion that existed before the passage of
                        CZMA by bringing together Federal and state permitting. .                                      I

                               OCRM is responsible for administering Section 307 of the       CZMA, which requires
                        that Federal agency activities affecting the coastal zone be conducted in a manner consistent
                        with the states' federally-approved CZM programs. There are four basic types of activities
                        within the scope of Section 307: direct Federal agency activities; federally licensed and
                        permitted activities; Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) exploration, development and
                        production plans; and Federal financial assistance to state and local governments.

                                In 1985, NOAA published a Draft Federal Consistency Study which concluded that
                        the Federal consistency process has generally worked well. The statistical results of the
                        study were as follows: states concurred with the consistency determinations for about 93
                        percent of the approximately 400 direct Federal activities reviewed under Section 307(c)(1),
                        including OCS lease sales, which were reviewed during FY83 only; states concurred with the
                        consistency certifications for about 82 percent of the approximately 5,500 federally licensed
                        or permitted activities reviewed under Section 307(c)(3)(A), almost all of which were Corps
                        of Engineers' dredge and fill permits; states concurred with the consistency certifications for
                        about 99 percent of the nearly 435 plans for OCS exploration, development and production
                        reviewed under Section 307(c)(3)(B); and states concurred with the consistency of over 99.9
                        percent of the nearly 2,000 Federal assistance proposals reviewed under Section 307(d).
                        Where states objected, the study concluded that many of the objections were resolved by
                        further negotiation to develop conditions or mitigating measures.

                               While we have not updated the statistical data contained in the study, NOAA
                        continues to monitor Federal actions for consistency. We provide policy guidance and
                        technical assistance to states and other Federal agencies on the administration of the Federal
                        consistency provisions and on the application of Federal consistency to specific actions.
                        Recent examples of our efforts in this area are listed below.

                        EPA's Poligy for Desiguating Ocean Dump Sites

                        During the report period, EPA's regional. offices raised the question of whether or not the
                        designation of ocean dumping sites by EPA pursuant to Section 102(c) of the Ocean
                        Dumping Act was subject to the CZMA consistency provisions. Some of EPA's regions had
                        proposed not to require consistency certifications for the site designations. In 1989, EPA


                                                                      22








              headquarters drafted a legal advisory opinion stating that designation of these sites need not
              comply with Section 307 of the CZMA. OCRM objected to this opinion and began to work
              with EPA's Office of Water to develop an acceptable solution.

              Through considerable coordination and negotiations between OCRM and EPA, EPA
              decided as a matter of policy that i 't will determine whether proposed site designations are
              consistent, to the maximum extent practicable, with affected state CZM programs "when
              dumping at the site may reasonably be expected to result in impacts on the state's coastal
              zone." However, as a matter -of law, EPA still questions the applicability of Section
              307(c)(1) of the CZMA to EPA site designations.

              Coms of Engineers' Maintenance Dred&g QMrations

              On December 15, 1989, OCRM expressed its disagreement with several issues related to the
              September 1989 Corps of Engineers' (COE) Guidance Letter outlining its responsibilities
              to address requirements of the Clean Water Act and the CZMA during the Corps'
              operations and maintenance dredging activities. OCRM raised several major points of
              disagreement which centered on: (1) the COE's basis for its "voluntary compliance" with the
              CZMA; (2) the COE's use of "Federal Standard" when attempting to determine project
              viability; and (3) the COE's basis for its interpretation that the Ocean Dumping Act
              preempts the consistency requirements of the CZMA.

              As the basis for its "voluntary compliance" with the CZMA for activities within and beyond
              the three-mile state limit, the Corps relied on the language from the Supreme Court's
              decision in Secretaly of Interior v. California, 464 U.S. 310 (1984). OCRM pointed out that
              the issue of geographic scope was not an issue decided by this case and therefore should not
              be used to support the COE's position in this regard. Secretaly of Interior v. California
              primarily addressed the OCS Lands Act and the question of direct impacts of oil and gas
              lease 'sales. OCRM's interpretation of this case is also supported by a statement issued by
              the Justice Department shortly after the case was decided in 1984.

              In that statement, the Justice Department stated "we do, indeed, interpret the Supreme
              Court's decision that what the Supreme Court addressed was Outer Continental Shelf [OCS)
              lease sale activities. Other OCS activities, exploration, development, and production, would
              be found in section 307(c)(3). So the Supreme Court decision affects only the lease sale
              activities and section 307(c)(1)." (CZM Federal Consistency: Hearings on HR 4589 before
              the Subcommittee on Oceanography of the House Committee on Merchant Marine and
              Fisheries, 98th Cong., 2d Sess. 608, 1984) (statement of Carol Dinkins, U.S. Deputy Attorney
              General, U.S. Department of Justice, dated February 28, 1984).

              The COE contends that     'the Ocean Dumping Act (ODA) preempts the consistency provi-
              sions of CZMA. OCRM believes that the issue of preemption was resolved by Congress in
              1986 during reauthorization of the "Superfund," with language @in section 127(d) of Pub. Law
              No. 99-499, amending and reauthorizing the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Com-


                                                            23




  PW




                      pensation an d Liability Act, by adding a new savings clause to Section 106(g) of the ODA:
                      "Nothing in this Act shall restrict, affect or modify the rights of any person (1) to seek
                      damages or enforcement of any standard or limitation under state law, including state com-
                      mon law, or (2) to seek damages under other Federal law, including maritime tort law, re-
                      sulting from noncompliance with any requirement of this Act or any permit under this Act."

                      This amendment was intended by one of its sponsors to overturn a series of cases which had
                      held that the ODA and Clean Water Act preempted state regulation. In a floor statement,
                      Representative Studds stated the proposed amendment,

                                    "establishes the general rule that State laws, standards or limitations
                                    are not preempted by the [Ocean Dumping] Act... This presumption
                                    against preemption requires a correspondingly strict, narrow
                                    construction of the reach of Section 106(d), which prohibits States
                                    from regulating ocean dumping. Where there is a potential conflict
                                    between a State authority governing environmental quality, public health
                                    or welfare and the prohibitions in Section 106(d), the presumption favors
                                    the continuing validity of State law. Similarly, enactment of the [ODA]
                                    is not to be interpreted as revoking by implication other Federal
                                    statutes... Similarly, where the [CZMA] requires Federal activities,
                                    permits and licenses to be consistent with approved State coastal
                                    programs, the CZMA applies with full force to the [ODA]." Floor
                                    statement of Representative Studds, Congressional Record,
                                    October 8, 1986, H 9596, of House passage of H.R. 2005, the
                                    Superfund Amendments of 1985.

                      Further, OCRM strongly believes that the use of consistency by the states is implementation
                      of a Federal statute and not state regulation. Therefore, unless the legal requirements of
                      another act cannot be complied with, consistency under Section 307 is mandated.

                      The COE has defined the "Federal Standard" as the "least costly alternative, consistent with
                      sound engineering practices," and will use this standard as a negotiating tool with state and
                      Federal resource agencies to resolve disagreements between the COE and the states
                      regarding.the COE's compliance with the Clean Water Act or the CZMA. OCRM believes
                      that the COE's use of this standard may be incompatible with its obligation to ma.ke its
                      actions consistent to the "maximum extent practicable" with a state's federal ly- approved
                      coastal management program.

                      Department of the Interior's Marine Nfining, Regglations

                      In January 1989, the Department of the Interior's Minerals Management Service issued final
                      regulations on leasing of minerals other than oil, gas, and sulphur in the outer continental
                      shelf (OCS) of the U.S. Several commentors on the proposed rule recommended that
                      Section 281.13 of the DOYs regulations be changed to require that activities included under


                                                                   24







                 these regulations conform to the relevant provisions of the CZMA. The final regulations
                 issued by the DOI stated that the CZMA does not apply to activities on the OCS other than
                 those originally covered by the CZN1A or specifically added by amendment to the CZMA
                 such as certain oil and gas related activities. Further, the DOI has taken the position that
                 the decision in Secreta1y of the Interior v. California, 464 U.S. 310 (1984), which found that
                 OCS oil and gas lease sales were not subject to Federal consistency under the CZMA, also
                 pertains to lease sales of other OCS minerals. T     'his position is not in accordance with
                 NOAA rulemaking on this subject, Fed. Reg. 35213 (August 30, 1985).

                 Mediation

                 In 1988, the LJ Hooker Development Corporation applied for a COE permit for a
                 waterfront development project on Hutchinson Island, Georgia.            The project, which
                 consisted of commercial, retail, residential and hotel facilities, and an extensive marina
                 complex on the island, is located on the Georgia side of the Savannah River, but within 100
                 yards of the South Carolina state line. The permit would authorize the dredging and filling
                 of over 37 acres of coastal wetlands. The South Carolina Coastal Council (SCCC) issued
                 a consistency objection'for the COE permit, even though the project is located entirel
                                                                                                               y
                 within Georgia's border. The SCCC based its objection on the grounds that dredging for
                 the marina slips and access channels within 300 feet of the South Carolina border would
                 have a significant adverse effect on water quality and fish habitat of the Back River.

                 Foilowing the SCCC's objections, Hooker filed a Federal consistency appeal with the
                 Secretary of Commerce. The developer argued that states may not use Federal consistency
                 to review activities in adjacent states. Hooker withdrew its appeal, however. At the request
                 of the COE, NOAA provided guidance on the legitimacy of South Carolina's objection. In
                 May 1989, the NOAA General Counsel issued a legal opinion supporting the right of state
                 CZM programs to review activities in adjacent states. The Department of Commerce
                 General Counsel supported this position. However, the COE disagreed with this position
                 and concluded that the SCCC comments should not be regarded as effective non-
                 concurrence under Section 307(c)(3)(A) of the CZMA.
                 During the course of the dispute, OCRM provided informal facilitation services to the
                 parties by encouraging the SCCC and Hooker to hold discussions, visiting the site, tracking
                 the results of the meetings, and talking with both parties. OCRM also consulted with
                 NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to address their concerns. NMFS
                 I-ventually requested that the Corps elevate the Hooker proposal for review in Washington
                 DC, but this request was denied by the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works.
                 The COE issued the permit to Hooker in August 1989, with the condition that the portion
                 Of the Project relating to diversion channels to the Back River be delayed for one year. This
                 Would allow for the completion of an ongoing study to determine the effect of the operation
                 Of a tide gate in the river.


                                                              25










                                    SECRETARLALL DECISIONS ON CONSISTENCY APPEALS


                             The Federal consistency provisions provide an administrative appeal to the Secretary
                      of Commerce (Secretary) from a consistency objection by a coastal state. In the case of a
                      Federal license or permit, an OCS exploration or development plan and an application for
                      Federal financial assistance, the applicant has the right to file an appeal to the Secretary.
                      The Secretary may set aside ihe state's consistency objection if it is found that the activity
                      is consistent with the objectives of the CZNLAL or is otherwise necessary in the interest of
                      national security [Section 307(c)(3)(A), (B), and (d)].

                             There are four elements -that an appellant has to meet in order to satisfy the test
                      "consistent with the objectives of the CZMA": (1) the activity furthers one or more of the
                      competing national objectives or purposes contained in Sections 302 or 303 of the CZMA;
                      (2) when performed separately or when its cumulative effects are considered, it will not
                      cause adverse effects on the natural resources of the coastal zone substantial enough to
                      outweigh its contribution to the national interest; (3) the activity will not violate any
                      requirements of the Clean Air Act, as amended, or the Federal Water Pollution Cont ol Act,
                      as amended; and (4) there is no reasonable alternative available (e.g., location desig , etc.),
                      which would permit the activity to be conducted in a manner consistent w th the
                      management program.

                             Federal consistency regulations contain the following requirement for satisfying      the
                      second test -- "necessary in the national interest": The term "necessary in the interest of
                      national security" describes a Federal license or permit activity, or a Federal assistance
                      activity which, although inconsistent with a state's management program, is found by the
                      Secretary to be permissible because of national defense or other national security interest
                      which would be significantly impaired if the activity were not permitted to go forward as
                      proposed."

                             During the past t   wo years, the Secretary received 64 requests for Secretarial
                      overrides. The appeals mostly involved a few highly controversial Outer Continental Shelf
                      (OCS) oil and gas development projects and a large number of shoreline development
                      projects (see Appendix C). The Secretary issued decisions on six consistency appe
                      summary of these decisions follows.

                      John K DeLyser/New York Department of State

                      John K. DeLyser (Appellant) owns waterfront property on LeRoy Island in Sodus Bay, Lake
                      Ontario, Huron, New York. In 1986, Mr. DeLyser was discovered to be constructing living
                      quarters as part of a boathouse in violation of a condition in his U.S. Army Corps of
                      Engineers (COE) permit. The COE ordered him to stop all construction, and then allowed
                      him to submit an application for an after-tbe-fact permit that would authorize inclusion of
                      the residential unit in the dock and boathouse project approved earlier.



                                                                    26
                                                                                                             r

                                                                                                             n








                 On August 18, 1986, Mr. DeLyser submitted to the COE a consistency certification for the
                 proposed activity. On December 8, 1986, the state objected to Mr. DeLyser's consistency
                 certification on the ground that the inclusion of the residence in the project violated the New
                 York Coastal Management Program's policy of giving priority in the coastal zone to water
                 dependent uses. As an alternative, the state suggested that Mr. DeLyser construct the
                 residence on the upland portion of his property.

                 On January 8, 1987, the Appellant filed with the Secretary a notice of appeal from the
                 state's objection to his consistency certification for the residential portion of the project. He
                 pleaded that his project should be approved because it was consistent with the objectives of
                 the CZMA. An Appellant must satisfy all four elements of 15 C.F.R. ï¿½ 930.121 to prevail
                 on the ground that the project is consistent with the objectives or purposes of the CZMA.
                 The Secretary found that the residential component of Mr. DeLyser's project did not satisfy
                 the first element because it did not further the objectives or purposes of the CZMA.

                 Long Island Lighting Comr)anv/New York Department of State

                 In conjunction with the construction of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station (SNPS) located
                 at Shoreham, Long Island, New York, and pursuant to a series of permits issued by the U.S.
                 Army Corps of Engineers (COE), Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) performed
                 periodic maintenance dredging of Wading River Creek and the power plant's intake canal,
                 and maintenance of the intake canal's two stone jetties between 1968 and 1985. The COE
                 pelmit for these activities expired in June, 1985. On March 20, 1986, LILCO applied to the
                 COE for a permit to perform the same dredging and jetty maintenance activities that had
                 been carried out since 1968.


                 On April 16, 1986, LILCO submitted to the New York Department of State (New York) a
                 consistency certification for the proposed dredging and jetty maintenance project. On
                 October 20, 1986, New York objected to LILCO's consistency certification on the ground
                 that LILCO had supplied the state with insufficient information upon which a consistency
                 determination could be made. The state, arguing that the plant was an "associated facility"
                 for the proposed jetty maintenance and dredging project, requested information that
                 pertained to: the licensing of SNPS; detailed descriptions of the project and of SNPS; public
                 safety reports for SNPS; environmental impact statements and plans for SNPS; and the
                 construction permit for SNPS.

                 On November 19, 1986, LILCO filed a notice of appeal from New York's objection to its
                 consistency determination for the proposed dredging and jetty maintenance project. LILCO
                 contended that the proposed project satisfied both of the statutory grounds for approval.
                 The Secretary determined the proposed activity could be approved because it was consistent
                 with the objectives of the CZMA. Because the Secretary found that LILCO satisfied the
                 first of the two alternative grounds set forth in the CZMA, be did not address the issue of
                 whether the activity was otherwise necessary in the interest 'of national security.



                                                                27








                    Korea Dfflling QoMpgM ILAd/Califomia Coastal Commission

                    The Korea Drilling Company, Ltd. (KDC), a Korean corporation authorized to do business
                    in the United States, proposed to conduct exploratory drilling for oil and gas on certain
                    Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) tracts off the California coast pursuant to contracts with
                    companies possessing leases to those tracts. In April 1986, KDC filed an application with
                    the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for an individual National Pollutant Discharge
                    Elimination System (NPDES) permit under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. The
                    permit was needed to allow KDC to discharge drilling muds, cuttings and washwater; well
                    completion and treatment fluids; and associated waste materials from its semi-submersible
                    exploratory drilling vessel, the Doo Sung.

                    KDC certified in its application to EPA that its proposed discharge activity was consistent
                    with the federally approved California Coastal Management Program (CCMP). On August
                    4@ 1986@ EPA issued the NPDES permit, to become effective on September 11, 1986,
                    provided that KDC had obtained the concurrence of the California Coastal Commission
                    (Commission) with its consistency certification. The Commission voted to object to the
                    consistency certification at a hearing held November 14, 1986. On December 10, 1986, the
                    Commission adopted findings setting forth the basis for its action. The Commis'sion found
                    that the project as proposed would result in safety concerns endangering marine resources
                    in the coastal zone, would cause adverse socio-economic effects on local workers in the
                    coastal zone, and that it did not implement the national interest a  s required by the CCMP
                    and sections 302 and 303 of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA).

                    By letter dated December 12, 1986, and received December 15,1986, KDC submitted to the
                    Secretary a notice of appeal from the Commission's objection to its consistency certification.
                    An Appellant must satisfy all four elements of 15 C.F.R. ï¿½ 930.121 to prevail on the
                    statutory ground that the project is consistent with the objectives or purposes of the CZMA.
                    The Secretary found all elements of 15 C.F.R. ï¿½ 930.121 were satisfied and concluded that
                    the proposed activity could be permitted.

                    John Bianchi/New York Department of State

                    John Bianchi (Appellant) owns a restaurant on the Reynolds Channel in Hempstead, New
                    York. On March 10, 1986, Mr. Bianchi applied to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
                    (Corps) for a permit to construct a pier behind the restaurant. The proposed facility was
                    to serve as both a temporary dock for the boats of restaurant patrons and an "alternate"
                    waiting area for the patrons. At about this time the Appellant began construction of the
                    facility, although he had not yet obtained the required permit. The Appellant completed
                    construction about June 1986.


                    The State of New York objected to the Appellant's consistency certification on August 4,
                    on the grounds that the project was inconsistent with New York Coastal Management
                    Program (NYCMP) policy for the siting of water dependent uses and facilities on or adjacent


                                                                  28








               to coastal waters. The state determined that the proposed use of the deck as an alternate
               waiting area was not water dependent and preempted the use of this area for water
               dependent uses. In addition, the state found no valid justification for such an extensive deck
               for boat docking. As an alternative, the state recommended an open-pile dock in a "T"- or
               "U-shape.

               on September 5, 1986, the Appellant appealed the state's consistency objection and sought
               advice on the appeal procedure, specifically the issue of the timeliness of the appeal. The
               Secretary found the' alternative identified by the state to be reasonable and available.
               Because the fourth element was not satisfied, it was unnecessary to examine the other three
               elements and the state's objection was upheld.

               TexacolCalifornia Coastal Commiss    ion

               In 1986, Texaco applied to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for an individual
               National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit to discharge drill muds,
               cuttings and other associated discharges for activities on Lease 0512 of Lease Sale 80,
               located offshore of Santa Barbara County, California, and adjacent to State waters. EPA
               issued an individual NPDES permit to Texaco subject to consistency concurrence by the
               California Coastal Commission (Commission). Texaco nekt submitted its proposed Plan of
               Exploration (POE) to the Minerals Management Service of the Department of the Interior.
               The POE proposed drilling up to eight exploratory oil and gas wells.

               The Commission received the consistency certifications for the proposed POE and the
               individual NPDES permit in September, 1987. . On February 23, 1988, the Commission
               objected to Texaco's consistency certifications for the proposed POE and the individual
               NPDES permit. The Commission found the proposed POE inconsistent with the California
               Coastal Management Program (CCMP). Although the Commission found the individual
               NPDES permit consistent with the CCMP policies, it objected because that permit was
               "inextricably linked" to the proposed POE.
               Texaco appealed under both statutory grounds: 1) that the objected-to activity may be
               federally approved because it is consistent with the objectives and purposes of the CZMA;
               and 2) that it is necessary in the interest of national security. During the course of the
               appeal, Texaco raised the threshold issue of whether the Commission could object to the
               individual NPDES permit on the ground that it is "inextricably linked" to the objected-to
               Plan Of Exploration.
               For the threshold issue, it was determined that the objection to the individual NPDES
               permit was not valid because the objection did not describe how that permit was inconsistent
               With the policies of the CCMP.
               Texaco was successful in satisfying all four elements of 15 C.F.R.*ï¿½ 930.121 and prevailed
               On the statutory ground that the project was consistent with the objectives or purposes of

                                                            29








                      the CZMA. Because the Appellant prevailed on the first of the two alternative statutory
                      grounds, it was not necessary to address the question whether the proposed project was
                      necessary in the interest of national security.

                      Exxon Compmy U.SA/New Jerspy ftartment of Environmental Protection

                      Exxon Company, U.S.A. (Appellant) purchased a 1.068 acre parcel of land located near
                      Barnegat Bay in Dover Township, Ocean County, New Jersey. The parcel contains 7,600
                      square feet of wetlands. The Appellant proposed to construct an automobile service station
                      To provide traffic circulation within and around the site, the Appellant contended it was
                      necessary to provide two one-way access drives from the adjacent primary road.
                      Construction of the service station according to. that design necessitated the filling of
                      approximately 5,660 square feet of wetlands on the lot.

                      In 1986, the Appellant applied to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) for a permit
                      to fill the wetlands with sand. On December 16, 1986, the State of New Jersey objected to
                      the Appellant's consistency certification for the proposed project on the ground that it
                      violated the state CZM program's prohibition of the filling of wetlands. On January 13,
                      1987, counsel for the Appellant filed a notice of appeal from the state's objection.

                      The Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere [to whom the authority to decide the
                      appeal had been delegated] found that the proposed filling of wetlands would have an
                      adverse effect on the natural resources of the coastal zone that outweighed the proposed
                      activity's minimal contribution to the national interest. Because that element was not
                      satisfied, it was unnecessary to examine the other three elements and the State's objection
                      to Appellant's consistency certification was upheld.


                                  HIGHLIGHT'S OF OTHER STATE CONSISTENCY ACTIONS


                      0      The Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP) and the U.S. Forest Service
                             disagreed on two issues related to timber harvesting: (1) determining which ACMP
                             standards apply to logging activities; and (2) judging when a separate consistency
                             determination is required for each major decision in a five-year development plan.
                             The ACMP has requested Secretarial mediation under Section 307(h) of the CZMA
                             to assist in resolving these two issues.

                      0      The Connecticut Coastal Management Program (CCMP) was involved in negotiatim@
                             a conflict over the security of a Navy submarine base. Security measures would
                             restricted portions of the lower Thames River to Navy uses, thus preventing
                             development of water-dependent uses in the Town of Waterford and prohibiting
                             recreational activities. The CCMP, through the Federal consistency process, resolved
                             this issue by negotiating the size of the restricted area and devising a registration and
                             identification system for boat traffic.


                                                                     30







               0     The Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
                     successfully resolved a dispute regarding wetlands protection and highway
                     development between the Delaware Department of Transportation and the U.S.
                     EPA. At issue were the EPA requirements for mitigation of wetlands lost due to
                     bridge construction.
               0     Many CZM programs, including Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Maryland and
                     Wisconsin, developed Federal     consistency handbooks for state and Federal
                     agency use during the biennium.

               o     Both California and Florida objected to' OCS plans of exploration off the southern
                     California coast and the southwestern Florida coast, respectively. The consistency
                     objections led to major controversies surrounding future OCS lease sales in these
                     areas.


               0     A permit application to the Corps of Engineers from the New York Department of
                     Corrections to moor the first of a proposed series of prison barges along the New
                     York City coast received critical modifications as a result of the New York CZM
                     program consistency review process. Conditions incorporated into the permit limit
                     Ahe duration of the mooring arrangement to one year and required the City to submit
                     a comprehensive application to the Corps which takes into consideration the future
                     -need for floating detention facilities.

               0     The New York CZM program (NYCZMP) received OCRM's approval to review a
                     request by three New York-based jurisdictions to continue the interim dumping of
                     sewage sludge at a site 106 miles from shore, using a consistency provision which
                     allows a CZM program to review a permitted activity not anticipated and thus, riot
                     listed in a state's approved program. As the regulations required, the NYCZMP
                     program demonstrated that the loading and transport of the sludge may affect the
                     coastal zone and therefore, be subject to review. The permit, ultimately approved
                     by the EPA under the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act, recognized
                     concerns raised by the NYCZMP during the consistency review process.












                                                         31









                                                   NATIONAL INTEREST ISSUES




                      Hazards Protection


                      Coastal areas of the United States are affected by a wide range of natural hazards which
                      threaten lives and property. Those hazards include hurricanes and severe storms, floods,
                      erosion, landslides, earthquakes, tsunamis, and subsidence. Hurricanes, severe storms, and
                      flooding pose the greatest risk to coastal populations, with hurricanes and @the accompanying
                      flooding having the greatest potential for the loss of lives and destruction of property in a
                      single occurrence. Even though shoreline erosion and coastal land subsidence are rarely
                      responsible for loss of life, they are destructive to property.

                      One of the major goals of state coastal management programs is to minimize the injury to
                      people, loss of life, and damage to personal and public property, from coastal n
                      hazards. The ever increasing coastal population gives increasing urgency for the states to
                      establish effective programs to meet this goal.

                      To improve coastal protection from natural hazards, coastal management programs have
                      been extensively involved in addressing the many hazards issues through such efforts as the
                      development and/or refinement of hurricane warning systems and evacuation planning, flood
                      hazard mitigation and shorefront management (e.g., building setbacks and construction
                      standards). A few of these efforts are summarized below.

                      0      California's San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC)
                             has taken a major step in planning for the effects of future sea level rise by amending
                             its program to require that new shoreline development take sea level rise into
                             consideration. The amendment requires that new projects requiring fill be above the
                             highest estimated tide level for the design life of the development.

                      0      Washington's Department of Ecology has established a sea level rise program that
                             includes the formation of an Interagency Task Force, the first Northwest Sea Level
                             Rise Conference, several studies examining sea level rise, vertical land movement,
                             and erosion, and public education.

                      0      Maine's Department of Environmental Protection revised its Sand Dune Rules to
                             include the recognition of sea level rise. The rules also prohibit reconstruction of
                             buildings, seawalls and bulkheads severely damaged by storms.

                      0      Rhode Island's Coastal Resources Management Council adopted regulations that
                             establish post-hurricane and storm permitting procedures. The regulations include
                             the authority to impose a 30-day moratorium after a storm to provide time to assess
                             damages, determine changes in natural features, and identify mitigation opportunities.


                                                                    32








                 0      Puerto Rico's Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is involved in the
                        development of an early warning system for flash flooding and basin-wide planning
                        for relocation proposals for high hazard areas. DNR has also funded storm surge
                        modeling using the SLOSH model.

                 0      Wisconsin's Coastal Regional Planning Commissions assembled Coastal Hazards
                        Information Databases which contain bibliographies on various aspects of coastal
                        hazards management. Also, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
                        developed a "Floodplain and Shoreline Management Guidebook" to provide an
                        overview of state mandated zoning requirements and to assist local zoning officials
                        and the DNR staff concerning zoning programs.


                 Natural Resource Protection


                 Wetlands, estuaries, beaches, and dunes are complex natural systems which are an integral
                 part of the value of the coastal zone. Wetlands function as spawning, nursery and feeding
                 areas for 70 percent of the Nation's $30 billion commercial and recreational fisheries, as well
                 as natural filtering systems which protect water quality. Wetlands, beaches and dunes also
                 serve as critical habitat for threatened and endangered species, and as protection for upland
                 areas from coastal storms and erosion. Unfortunately, these areas have been, and continue
                 to be, destroyed or their valuable functions impaired by other coastal activities, either
                 directly (e.g. construction) or indirectly (e.g. water quality deterioration by runoff from land
                 disturbing activities).

                 A major goal of coastal management is to preserve these areas through acquisition or
                 dedication, or to protect them by avoiding or minimizing adverse impacts through planning,
                 legislation and regulation, and technical assistance. A few examples of successful state
                 natural resource protection projects are included below.

                 0      In 1988, South Carolina adopted the Beach Management Act (BMA) which provides
                        enhanced protection for coastal beach and dune systems. The BMA sets a policy of
                        a 40-year retreat from the beach/primary dune system, expands the beach/primary
                        dune critical area, establishes a setback line based on local annual erosion rates,
                        designates a "dead zone" behind the primary dune in which no constructionniay take
                        place, provides for improved local beach management, and requires more stringent
                        state permit regulations.

                 0      California combined $277,000 in CZM funds with $1,230,000 in state funding to
                        acquire the Rush Ranch in Suisun Marsh, one of the few remaining wetlands in the
                        San Francisco Bay area. This acquisition protects 2,070 acres of open tidal marsh
                        and associated upland which provides important habitat for waterfowl and at least 17
                        candidate and endangered species.


                                                               33






                                ï¿½        The North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission expanded the Protection of
                                         Buxton Woods/Hatteras Island wellfield Area of Environmental Concern.
                                         welifields contain the aquifers that are the island's only natural fresh water supp-
                                ï¿½        Michigan enacted the Sand Dunes Protection and Management Act which desigrIZI,
                                                                                                                                                 CS
                                         Critical Dune Areas, establishes a model zoning plan for sand dunes protection am,
                                         encourages local governments to adopt zoning ordinances. The Act es                                  isil
                                                                                                                                          tabi   L
                                         setbacks and identifies uses that are prohibited in the Critical Dune Areas.

                                ï¿½        The Connecticut Coastal Management Program has successfully brought about t),
                                         restoration of approximately 514 acres of emergent intertidal wetlands degraded as
                                         a result of historic activities. State legislation and funds are now in place to allov
                                         coastal communities to pursue embayment restoration activities.                                           I

                                ï¿½        The New Jersey Coastal Management Program has gained the authority under ri@2
                                         state legislation -- the Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act -- to regulate constructiMil
                                         in freshwater wetlands statewide and provide in each case for a transitional bull'a
                                         zone. This is one of a number of steps being taken to allow the State to ass 11
                                                                                                                                              der ij
                                                                                                                                              ul
                                         authority of the Clean Water Act Section 404 Program from the Fe
                                         Government.
                                0        Storm water        runoff constitutes a significant source of coastal pollution in 111cl
                                         Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. To address this problem, NIC
                                         Coastal Resource Management Office and the Soil Conservation Service comPletc
                                         a Storm Water Control Handbook to help developers and farmers identify, plan, an'
                                         implement storm water control systems.


                                Natural Resource Develgpiment

                                The natural resources of the coastal zone include both non-rentwable resources such as 01
                                and gas, sand and gravel, and other hard minerals, and renewable resources such as fin                           .fisli
                                and shellfish. These resources generate significant economic benefits to the MOM.
                                Development of these resources, however, presents a myriad of challenges. Large sc@llc
                                development projects generally require authorizations and permits from local, state, @1111i
                                Federal agencies. Proper coordination and scheduling of the review and approval proc@S'
                                is an essential ingredient for avoiding unnecessary delays which can exponentially incr"11
                                project costs. Maintenance and expansion of renewable resource industries, such as coastill
                                fisheries, can be hindered by deteriorating waterfront facilities, loss of moorin-g,
                                waterfront space to competing uses, and lack of capitalization.
                                                                                                                          astal resource baSeLl
                                Many coastal programs have taken steps to enhance traditional co                                              1 1,
                                industries and ease the regulatory burden facing major new resource development proje, S.
                                These include the funding of local planning studies and industry needs assessinents,

                                                                                         34







                  development of unified procedures for reviewing large projects, and the simplification of
                  pemlit review procedures.  .Some of these successful projects are highlighted briefly below.
                  0     Ile Louisiana Coastal Resources Management Program developed two general
                        permits that expedite oil and gas activities while minimizing coastal wetland losses.
                        These permits have saved the oil companies more than $5.3 million annually, as well
                        as reducing the average wetland area altered per permit.

                  0     The Maine Coastal Program provided support for the Portland Fish Pier which
                        attracted the Portland Fish Exchange. The Portland Fish Exchange has greatly
                        e
                           anced the quality of fish available to consumers and improved prices for
                         nh
                        fishermen.

                  0     Through the Alaska Coastal Management Program, state review of all required
                        project permits within the state's coastal boundary is coordinated and streamlined.
                        In FY 1989, state review of 86 oil and gas projects was completed in an average of
                        just 23 days under the coordinated review process. This short review time and the
                        predictability of prompt permit decisions provides cost savings to the industry and
                        allows them to more effectively plan and schedule field construction activities.

                  0     The Washington Coastal Management Program (WCMP) has the responsibility for
                        implementing the shellfish protection and wetlands activities contained in the Puget
                        Sound Water Quality Plan. As part of these efforts, the WCMP is developing a non-
                        Point pollution control strategy to protect critical commercial and recreational
                        shellfish beds.


                  Pubh-cAccess
                  Over half of U.S. citizens live in a coastal county. 'Increased leisure time has led to higher
                  demand for public coastal areas for recreation. However, rapid development and competing
                  uses have reduced the amount of shoreline that is open to the public. Improvement of
                  Public access to the shoreline is an important goal of the coastal management program.
                  Coastal property values are appreciating considerably faster than non-waterfront properties,
                  tblis making acquisition more expensive. Hence, coastal programs must look at various ways
                  for assuring access for the public.
                  Coastal states use-several mechanisms to provide coastal public access. These include direct
                  acquisition with state and Federal funds, improving undeveloped public properties, requiring
                  Public access as part of development projects, increasing public awareness of access sites,
                  accepting conservation easements, developing coastal recreation management plans, and
                  increasing access acquisition funds through bond referendums and revenue from various
                  tues. Many of these activities are either funded through, or. administered by, state coastal
                  zone management programs. Some examples are provided below.

                                                              35









                     0      The states of California, Connecticut, New York, Rhode Island, Washington, Hawaii,
                            Massachusetts and the Northern Mariana Islands acquire coastal access along the
                            waterfront through their permit review process.           The Connecticut Coastal
                            Management Program's water dependent use standards have required public access
                            as part of more than 100 major waterfront development proposals. In the Northern
                            Marianas Islands, all hotels permitted during 1989 were required to provide coastal
                            access through their property. New York City requires public access be provided for
                            all new waterfront projects.

                     0      California, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Connecticut and Rhode Island review
                            coastal development projects for access opportunities. The State of Washington has
                            just completed a Shoreline Public Access Handbook to be used by local permit
                            administrators when preparing public access, permit conditions for development
                            projects.

                     0      Both Alaska and the Territory of Guam are developing coastal recreation
                            management plans to solve public use conflicts. In Alaska, the plan for the Nushagak
                            and Mulchatna Rivers will resolve conflicts among the sport salmon fishing industry
                            and subsistence. users. The Guam plan for Agana and Piti Bays seeks to resolve
                            conflicts among mechanized water craft and fishermen, snorklers, and windsurfers.

                     0      The Maine Coastal Management Program completed a "right of way (ROW)
                            discovery program," which involved nine coastal communities. As a result of this
                            effort, a total of 37 rediscovered ROWs were recorded and an instructional handbook
                            for communities to undertake future ROW projects was completed and distributed.
                            Several communities are now in various stages of the ROW program and additional
                            sites are under investigation.

                     0      Several states and territories created or updated coastal public access guides. Of
                            particular note, Maryland, Virginia and Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia
                            published a guide to public access areas on the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries
                            and along the Susquehanna River. The federally funded Chesapeake Bay and
                            Susquehanna River and its Tidal Tributaries - Public Access Guide, has a wide array
                            of information for each access site, including maps, type of access, fees, and site
                            descriptions.

                     0      North Carolina has used over $2 million in Federal CZM funds to acquire and
                            protect the 50 acre Permuda Island, in Stump Sound, and 337 acres of Buxton Woods
                            on Cape Hatteras Island.       Both of these ecologically significant areas will be
                            accessible to the public for passive recreation.

                     0      Federal CZM 306A funds have been used by the states for many different types of
                            access. These low-cost construction projects include a series of dune walkovers along
                            the North Carolina coast; over 100 wetland walks, boat launches and accessw


                                                                  36








                      Michigan; and similar projects mostly in Maryland, Maine, Oregon, Wisconsin,
                      Mississippi, Washington, and Pennsylvania. States have used close to $20 million in
                      Federal CZM funds for these construction projects.


               Urban Waterfronts

               Many US cities are confronted with deteriorating waterfronts due to poor water quality and
               the economic decline of the shipping industry. However,. in the last decade, efforts have
               focused on redeveloping and revitalizing the nation's waterfronts. In some urban areas, the
               high demand for waterfront space has resulted in conflicts among waterfront uses, i.e., ports,
               marmas, commercial fish landings, condominiums,restaurants, and shopping areas. Coastal
               management has played an important role in providing funds to cities to study these areas
               and to prepare plans for their redevelopment. Some of these efforts are described below:

                0     With a $16,000 grant from the Connecticut Coastal Management Program, the City
                      of Norwalk made an assessment of its seaport in the late 1970s with an eye toward
                      attracting private development and creating new employment opportunities. This
                      effort catalyzed the $26 million Maritime Center, which opened in 1988. The center
                      includes an aquarium which exhibits marsh and marine habitats, park and retail
                      space, a movie theater, a weather station, and two public fishing piers.

                0     The Wisconsin Coastal Management Program set up the Waterfront Action Group,
                      a forum for state agencies to share' information and ideas concerning waterfront
                      redevelopment. The objectives of the group are to increase statewide awareness of
                      waterfront redevelopment needs and programs and to coordinate funding for these
                      programs.

                0    -The Oregon Coastal Management Program is partially funding the publication of a
                      Waterfront Revitalization Guide for small communities. The guide provides detailed,
                      step-by-step instructions for small communities and interested citizens who are
                      planning a waterfront revitalization project. One part of the guide is targeted for
                      Oregon communities, while the other part is written for waterfront communities
                      throughout the Nation.

                0     The Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program has administered
                      approximately $12 million in commonwealth funds for 43 communities to develop
                      facilities that either create a water-dependent use or support an existing water-
                      dependent use.

                0     With the use of 306 funds to develop the Erie Waterfront Comprehensive Plan and
                 -    306A funds for low-cost construction projects, the Pennsylvania Coastal Management
                      Program has made significant progress in redeveloping and improving the Erie
                      waterfront. Low-cost construction projects have included the renovation of a pier


                                                             37








                              area for public use, construction of boardwalks, and installation of lighting. As a
                              result of these projects, the Erie waterfront has transitioned from a commercial port
                              environment to an area that provides recreational opportunities.

                        0     The Connecticut Coastal Management Program utilizes waterfront zoning in the
                              management of urban waterfront development. Most of Connecticut's municipal
                              coastal programs include zoning requirements (i.e,. setbacks of structures, reductions
                              in density, and the provision of discrete waterfront zones) to protect sensitive coastal
                              resources. The zoning provisions assure that waterfront redevelopment is conducted
                              in an environmentally sensitive manner.


                       Ports and Marinas


                       Active ports are vital to the health of foreign and U.S. domestic trade. Marinas are an
                       integral component of our recreational coastal resources, and can revitalize a community by
                       increasing public access, enhancing public recreation and enjoyment, stimulating housing and
                       economic opportunities, and creating an aesthetically pleasing environment.

                       Many state coastal management programs have assisted port authorities in assuring that
                       adequate land is available for port operations, and in identifying and maintaining dredged
                       material disposal sites in an environmentally acceptable manner. State coastal programs
                       have also been active in meeting the growing demand for marinas by encouraging,
                       responsible marina development through locating suitable sites for recreational boating
                       facilities, aiding in the development and implementation of harbor and marina management
                       plans, and assuring that areas desirable for marinas are not preempted by land uses that do
                       not require a waterfront location. Some successful state efforts are highlighted briefly below.

                       0      The Connecticut Coastal Management Program fostered the Harbor Management
                              Act that provided coastal communities with the opportunity to establish harbor
                              management commissions and prepare comprehensive harbor management plans.
                              This has reduced user conflicts and provided a mechanism for striking a balance
                              between conservation and development in ports and harbors.

                       0      The Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program prepared a handbook
                              entitled Primer for DredQinQ in the Coastal Zone of Massachusetts. The handbook
                              addresses topics such as dredging technologies, disposal alternatives, environmental
                              impacts, regulatory framework, and environmental testing. The handbook is a
                              management tool used by the commonwealth in making decisions on the best
                              management practices related to dredging. The Massachusetts program has also
                              assisted coastal communities with the development of comprehensive harbor-
                              waterfront management plans.




                                                                     38







                0     To address the increased pressure on coastal communities to develop the shores
                      along tidal rivers, the New Hampshire Coastal Program funded a harbor management
                      plan for the Lamprey River in New Market. The plan combines the interests of the
                      affected local communities with the concerns of the state, which regulates both the
                      water and the submerged land.

               0      With support of the Rhode Island Coastal Management Program, one-third of the
                      coastal towns have developed harbor management plans to address the problem of
                      displacement of water dependent land uses, the need for public access, the placing
                      of moorings, and water quality uses. Another one-third of the coastal -towns have
                      harbor plans underway.

               0      The Wisconsin Coastal Management Program used CZM funds to plan and construct
                      a 150-slip marina and waterfront park on abandoned land in the City of Kewaunee.
                      Also, CZM funds were used to construct a boat launch facility and transient docks
                      in Racine. This project has led to a large waterfront redevelopment project that
                      included a 900-slip marina that opened in 1988.

               0      During the past year, the Oregon Economic Development Department, a
                      complementary networked Oregon Coastal Management Program agency, aided in
                      the development of a "deep draft dredging account." The purpose of the account is
                      to help pay a portion of the -costs of dredging when the Federal government requires
                      a Portion to be paid by local interests.


               !M@ @Goverriment Onerations
               Effective coastal management can be hampered when government agencies responsible for
               decisionmaking have conflicting responsibilities.   In these cases, coastal management
               Programs have been able to provide substantial leadership in resolving problems using their
               authority under the Federal consistency provisions of the CZMA. Most decisions with an
               outcome affecting the balance of resource protection and local coastal development are
               regulated through the state and Federal permit process. Coastal management programs
               have instituted many improvements to this process, making it more predictable and timely.
               These steps have been taken with the intention of making the regulatory process more
               efficient without sacrificing the essential safeguards of environmental protection.
               Coastal. management programs with permitting authority have worked to clarify and
               streamline their permit programs. In some cases, a single' application is now required for
               Projects requiring multiple permits. Permit applications have been simplified and, if
               necessary, expanded to gather needed information. Permit files have been placed on
               C0111puters for rapid tracking and reporting.


                                                          39








                      Improved governmental coordination has been another major achievement. For example,
                      a number of states operate a joint permit process with the Corps of Engineers (Corps), for
                      meeting regulations under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the River
                      and Harbors Act. The procedure entails a single point of application, joint public notices
                      and hearings, and coordinated project review and field inspection. The end result is
                      improved communication, elimination of redundant effort, and a forum for conflict
                      resolution. A common mec'hanism which is used is the preapplication meeting, where
                      applicants can obtain early feedback from regulatory/resource agencies on permit
                      requirements for complex projects before taking any costly steps. Although a number of
                      states have a time limit for making permit decisions, most have adopted a more rapid
                      mechanism for approving small-scale projects, often in conjunction with the Corps' general
                      and regional permit system.

                      Most coastal programs are committed to educating the public and such groups as builders
                      and planners on the requirements of the permit process through the use of guides,
                      brochures, and periodic workshops. Finally, states have used intergovernmental task forces
                      to evaluate permitting programs that are not working efficiently or meeting public goals.
                      This often leads to agency reorganization, legislative action, or assumption of Federal
                      responsibilities.

                      Coastal programs without direct permitting authority have placed emphasis on improving the
                      consistency review process. For example, Federal consistency guidelines have been prepared
                      for cooperating agencies, and agreements have been developed to streamline the handling
                      of simple and mutually acceptable projects. Some significant coastal program efforts are
                      summarized below.


                      0      The Pennsylvania coastal program has an early signoff procedure for Federal
                             consistency with the Corps of Engineers for projects that are acceptable to both;

                      0      The American Samoa Coastal Program developed a revised Project Notification and
                             Review System (PNRS) which establishes a one-stop permitting process and provides
                             for substantially greater coordination and timely review by the regulatory agencies.

                      0      New Jersey has streamlined its permitting program by first consolidating the
                             overlapping portions of a number of state statutes, thereby reducing the process to
                             a single application.

                      0      The Massachusetts coastal program established a 34-member Environmental Crime
                             Strike Force. Composed of prosecutors, police officers and scientists, the goal of the
                             strike force is improved detection and enforcement of coastal resource violations.





                                                                   40










                                        HSTMRAGENCY COORDINATION





             Department of the Interior
             Minerals Management Service

             During the last two years, the Minerals Management Service (MMS) and OCRM have had.
             ongoing interaction on program change reviews and Section 312 evaluations; however, in
             1989, special efforts were made to improve communication. In February 1989, OCRM staff
             attended a two-day MMS workshop on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) leasing program
             and made presentations on the CZM program and federal consistency. In June 1989,
             OCRM staff attended a MMS-sponsored training course on environmental dispute resolution
             along with representatives of California State agencies, several Federal agencies, California
             local governments, and the oil and gas industry. In November 1989, OCRM staff attended
             a two-day workshop on the effects of offshore oil and gas exploration operations on hard
             substrate benthic communities. A technical committee was formed at the workshop, which
             will develop recommendations for the MMS Pacific Outer OCS Office on how to address
             issues raised at the workshop. Although not formally a member of the technical committee,
             OCRM will be kept informed of the committee's recommendations.


             Environmental Protection Agency
             National Estuga Pro

             During 1988, OCRM initiated efforts to coordinate the Coastal Zone Management (CZM)
             Program and the National Estuary Program (NEP). These efforts included presentations
             on the CZM and Estuarine Research Reserve Programs to the NOAA/EPA Interagency
             Workgroup and a CZM presentation at the EPA Annual Technology Transfer Meeting in
             June 1988. NOAA coordination with EPA during 1988 culminated in a Memorandum of
             Agreement signed by the Administrators of both agencies.

             Overall, the MOA recognizes that the CZM program and the NEP program have many
             similarities. The major difference is that the CZM program is the umbrella program both
             geographically and substantively, while the NEP is narrowly focused on one estuary and
             primary water quality. Also, the NEP is intended only to be a demonstration program with
             no independent implementation provisions. As such, it was agreed under the MOA that
             Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans (CCMPs) developed for the NEP
             would be incorporated into the state CZM programs. The MOU also calls for: OCRM to
             look at the activities of the NEP Management Conferences as part of the Section 312
             Evaluation process; OCRM to develop guidance for CZMA Section 309 grants that
             considers opportunities for coordination in NEP estuaries; and NOAA to provide scientific



                                                          41








                     and technical support to EPA for the development of national guidance on pollution
                     abatement programs to better address living marine resource issues.

                     Further, the agreement states that, as matter of policy, EPA will submit the CCMPs for
                     federal consistency review; that NEP guidance will provide that CCMPs will be incorporated
                     into CZM Programs and will stress the use of existing CZMA tools; that the selection
                     criteria for new NEPs will include the existence of federally-approved CZMPs; and that NEP
                     guidance will require a state CZM liaison to participate in the NEP Management
                     Conference. Joint activities included in the, agreement were the sponsorship of a national
                     workshop for both program staffs; conduct of joint reviews to facilitate program
                     coordination; and establishment of a national mechanism for coordination and oversight of
                     individual NEPs.


                     To implement the agreement, OCRM has conducted several 312 evaluations in 1988 and
                     1989 that look at CZM/NEP coordination issues, has issued Section 309 grant guidance
                     giving priority consideration to projects in NEP estuaries, and in October 1989, jointly
                     sponsored a Northeast regional workshop with EPA to foster communication and
                     coordination between the two programs.


                     Federal Emergena Management Agen

                     .Staff of OCRM have met regularly with representatives of the Federal Emergency
                     Management Agency (FEMA) through established committees and working groups,
                     as informally. The two principle interagency coordination mechanisms are the Interagency
                     Floodplain Management Task Force and the Interagency Coordinating Committee on
                     Hurricanes. The latter is composed of FEMA, the Corps of Engineers, the American Red
                     Cross, the Weather Service and OCRM. The Committee meets quarterly to coordinate
                     funding and technical programs to improve state emergency preparedness in the event of
                     a hurricane. M the agencies have contributed to efforts particularly in the area of
                     emergency evacuation.

                     During this biennial period, OCRM, FEMA and the Corps of Engineers funded Phase 11 of
                     the Tri-State Hurricane Evacuation Plan, which focused on property protection in coastal
                     areas of Florida, Alabama and Mississippi coastal areas. OCRM a!so funded a legal study
                     on liability issues associated with vertical refuge in the event of a hurricane. A study of
                     erosion problems along the Southeast Atlantic coast was also supported by OCRM and
                     FEMA. Informal coordination has included regular contact at the staff level as well as a
                     briefing for the Administrator of the Flood Insurance Program and his senior staff on the
                     operation of the coastal management program and opportunities for cooperation between
                     the two agencies.





                                                                 42









               Efforts have been made to coordinate the Abandoned Shipwreck Act (ASA) with the
               CZMA. The ASA calls upon the National Park Service (NPS) to develop guidelines that
               states should use in developing shipwreck management programs. During the biennium,
               OCRM has met with the NPS to discuss ways in which both the state shipwreck and coastal
               zone management (CZM) programs can benefit from this coordination. As part of this
               effort, states will be encouraged to utilize the state CZM programs to help develop the
               shipwreck management programs. Projects that support these efforts and the incorporation
               of the shipwreck programs into state CZM programs may qualify as significant improvement
               tasks for state CZM programs.

               Several benefits from coordinating these programs have been identified, including utilizing
               CZMA Section 306, 306A and possibly 309 funds for development of the shipwreck
               programs. Following incorporation of the shipwreck programs into the federally approved
               state CZM programs,, these funds could be used to help implement the programs. The
               CZMA Federal consistency provision was also cited as a mechanism that would allow a state
               more effective control over Federal activities affecting historic shipwrecks. In addition, the
               CZMA Section 312 evaluation process would allow for increased monitoring of state
               shipwreck programs by the NPS.
               National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration
               National Marine Fishe-n- @esSer@vice
               Coordination between OCRM and NMFS has increased over the past two years.
               Representatives of the two agencies have worked closely together with other elements of
               NOAA to develop agency policy on wetlands. They have also consulted extensively to
               resolve specific permitting issues involving both agencies. In 1989, staff from OCRM and
               the Habitat Policy and Coordination Division undertook a survey of the state coastal
               ffianagement programs and the regional fisheries offices to identify any coordination
               Problems in the field and to identify opportunities for joint action. The results of this survey
               Will be the basis for specific activities in the coming year.








                                                            43









                                                     TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE




                     Conferences


                     The National Coastal and Estuarine Program Manager's Meeting was held in Bethesda,
                     Maryland on March 20-22, 1989. The meeting was cosponsored by the Coastal States
                     Organization (CSO) and OCRM. The meeting participants represented the program
                     manager's of the Federal Coastal Management Program and the National Estuarine
                     Research Reserve System (NERRS). Joint sessions included a Congressional panel on
                     CZMA reauthorization and a panel which focused on wetlands and coastal pollution. The
                     Coastal Management Program portion of the conference addressed a wide variety of topics,
                     including Federal consistency; new initiatives in coastal pollution and wetlands; ocean
                     management; sea level rise and coastal hazards; innovative financial techniques for providing
                     public access; and the Section 312 evaluation process. The NERRS portion of the
                     conference covered many issues, including improving the NERRS program's ability to
                     transfer applied research information to coastal management decisionmakers; developing a
                     comprehensive public education program using the estuarine reserves for outreach; new
                     regulatory requirements; and expansion of the reserve system. In addition to the panel
                     discussions, the National Ocean Service provided exhibits related to information transfer for
                     improved decisionmaking.

                     NOAA, in cooperation with the American Society of Civil Engineers and several other
                     government and private groups, sponsored a four-day national symposium in Charleston,
                     South Carolina on July 11-14, 1989. Coastal Zone 89 was a multi-disciplinary conference
                     that provided nearly 500 experts in the coastal and ocean management field a forum for
                     productive discussion and interaction on major coastal management and ocean resource
                     issues. The Sixth Symposium on Coastal and Ocean Management brought together more
                     than 1,500 individuals (scientists, government officials, environmentalists, Congressional
                     staffers, industrialists, engineers and planners) to discuss and exchange information and
                     views. Some of the major topics discussed were: coastal and marine policy and institutional
                     relations; global environment, including global climate change and sea level rise; public
                     participation, information and access; environment and information; ocean resources
                     management; site-specific natural areas management; and international CZM issues.

                     During FY88 and FY89, NOAA participated in the annual "Coastweeks" celebration and
                     "National Estuaries Day," which ran from September 16 through October 9. In celebration
                     of this annual nationwide observance, which focuses on the beauty, diversity and value of the
                     coasts, NOAA and the states sponsored a wide range of bay and coastal activities for the
                     public at National Estuarine Reserves around the country. NOAA sponsored activities
                     included beach and shoreline clean-ups, guided boat tours, nature hikes, open houses,
                     walking tours, films, videos, symposiums and panel discussions. In Washington DC, OCRM
                     and CSO jointly sponsored a beach clean-up at West Potomac Park in 1989.


                                                                  44









                 OcRM produced several technical assistance bulletins during the report period which
                 addressed natural hazards issues. Issues covered were hurricane evacuation planning, pre-
                 disaster land use planning, shoreline erosion, construction setback laws in coastal states, and
                 sea level rise. Other technical assistance bulletins were produced. "Coastal Management:
                 Solutions to Our Nation's Coastal' Problems" provided examples of how state coastal
                 management programs   'have successfully addressed such issues as coastal hazards, public
                 access, wetlands protection, and improved government operations.             Another bulletin
                 provided an overview of interstate grant projects funded under Section 309 of the CZMA.

                 Coastal Zone Information Center

                 CZIC provides a variety of information services to NOAA staff, state coastal management
                 programs and the general public. The center provides answers to questions concerning the
                 coastal zone, and provides guidance to those who wish to research a topic in detail. Services
                 including compiling selected bibliographies of source documents, directories of applicable
                 information sources, and providing information about the history and current status of the
                 coastal zone management program. CZIC contains a collection of 25,000 books, documents,
                 periodicals, maps and atlases. The collection is available-for specialized research into the
                 field of coastal zone management.





















                                                              45
       4,


    -A4





        3. National Estuafine Reserve System








                                                              I @aj@
      -- -                     - 6. M.       --l- -.- '14"Moo'A "7-7777;
                                                                79M











                          NATIONAL ESTUARINE RESERVE RESEARCH SYSTEM




                    Authorized by Section 315 of the CZMA, the National Estuarine Reserve Research
             System (NERRS) consists of reserve's owned and managed by states with OCRM providing
             oversight and national program guidance and support. The reserves focus on the protection
             and management of estuarine land and water resources, including wetlands and watersheds,
             and environmental education and interpretation, monitoring and research. Presently, there
             are 18 designated reserves in 16 states. These reserves protect more than 300,000 acres of
             estuarine lands and waters. The newest reserves are Waquoit Bay, Massachusetts, which was
             designated in 1988, and Great Bay, New Hampshire, which was designated in 1989.

                    During the biennium, there was a major increase in state interest in the reserve
             program.    Six additional reserves in five states are in development, encompassing
             approximately 50,000 acres. These sites include:

                           Chesapeake Bay, Virginia -- The Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS)
                           is the lead agency for the development of - the Chesapeake Bay reserve in
                           Virginia. VIMS has recently prepared a draft environmental impact statement
                           (EIS) describing the resources and management strategies proposed for four
                           reserve sites along the York River tributary of the bay. The four sites, which
                           include the Goodwin Islands, Catlett Islands, Taskinas Creek and Sweethall
                           Marsh, comprise nearly 3,000 acres of wetland and upland habitat.
                           Designation of these sites is planned for September 1990. Future expansion
                           under consideration by the Commonwealth includes as many as 13 additional
                           components along three other river systems.

                           St. Lawrence River, New York -- The St. Lawrence River-Eastern Ontario
                           Commission was awarded a $ 10,000 site selection grant to examine areas along
                           the St. Lawrence River for possible inclusion in the NERRS. A site
                           selection task force was formed with representatives of various New York state
                           agencies. Base maps for the area have been completed and resource overlay
                           maps are in preparation. By March 1990, it is expected that the data
                           collection phase will be complete and the analysis of resource information will
                           commence. The final report must be reviewed and approved by OCRM
                           before the state can proceed with development of a draft EIS.

                           Delaware Bay, Delaware -- The state's Department of Natural Resources and
                           Environmental Control (DNREC) is the lead agency for the proposed reserve.
                           Site selection committees have been developed. Sixteen sites were initially
                           nominated and visited. The list has been narrowed down to three sites.
                           DNREC is currently meeting with local interests and landowners in the areas


                                                          47








                                    that are being considered. A site nomination package will be submitted to
                                    OCRM by Governor Castle sometime in March 1990.

                                    A.C.E. Basin, South Carolina -- On January 24, 1990, Governor Campbell
                                    submitted for the Ashepoo-Comahee-Edisto (A.C.E.) Basin for consideration
                                    for designation as a NERR. The A.C.E. Basin site is located in Colleton
                                    County approximately 45 miles southeast of Charleston. It encompasses a total
                                    of 15 9,902 acres of upland area, open water, marshlands and islands., A core
                                    area of about 16,000 acres has been proposed for designation. Once the site
                                    is approved by OCRM, a management plan will be developed and information
                                    will be gathered for development of an EIS. The South Carolina Coastal
                                    Council has engaged the assistance of the South Carolina Wildlife and Marine
                                    Resources Department in the development of the management plan for the
                                    proposed reserve. Site designation is planned for 1991.

                                    North Inlet-Winyah Bay, South Carolina -- On January 24, 1990, Governor
                                    Campbell submitted for proposed designation a 15,000 acre site in the
                                    North Inlet-Winyah Bay. Located in Georgetown County, the site is composed
                                    of uplands, open water, marshlands and islands. The land is owned I       -       I
                                    Belle W. Baruch Foundation and is managed by the Belle W. Baruch Institute
                                    for Marine Biology and Coastal Research, University of South Carolina, for
                                    research and education purposes. A management plan/EIS will be prepared
                                    once the site is approved by NOAA. Site designation is planned for 1991.

                                    San Francisco Bay, California -- In January 1990, the Tiburon Center and the
                                    Center for Marine Studies, both part of San Francisco State University, applied
                                    for a site selection grant to determine the feasibility of designating a reserve
                                    in San Francisco Bay. The Center is focusing on the San Pablo and Suisun
                                    components Suisun components of the North Bay.

                             OCRM    is also reviewing proposals to expand three existing reserves. If approved,
                     these expansions would place another 50,000 acres in the NERRS. The site expansions
                     under review are: the addition of the Masonboro Island component to the North Carolina
                     Reserve; the addition of Jug Bay and Otter Point sites to the Chesapeake Bay Reserve in
                     Maryland; and a proposed southward boundary expansion of the Rookery Bay, Florida,
                     reserve to incorporate approximately 46,000 acres of wetlands and coastal waters into the
                     existing 8,400 acre Reserve.

                            The goal of the NERRS Program is to have all 11 of the Nation's biological and
                     geographical coastal regions represented, including all five of the Great Lakes. Selected by
                     OCRM to reflect regional variations in the coastal zone, the biogeographic classification
                     scheme, which is used to ensure that the NERRS includes at least one site from each region,
                     has 27 subregions. Currently, 11 biogeographic subregions are not yet represented in the
                     System. These include: Acadian (Northern Gulf of Maine); Carolinian (East Florida);


                                                                   48








              Louisianian (Mississippi Delta); Louisianian (Western Gulf); Columbian (Washington Coast);
              Great Lakes (Lake Superior, Lake Michigan, Lake Huron and Lake Ontario); Fjord
              (Southern Alaska); Sub-Arctic (Aleutian Islands); Sub-Arctic (Northern Alaska); Insular
              (Western Pacific Islands); and Insular (South Pacific Islands).

                   241k                NERRS Biogeographic
                 Sub@@Icti                           Regions

                  D       Fjord

                               18
                    Columbian                                                         - Acadian
                            17                                        e   Lakes       32
                                                                                  -      Virginian
                               15                                                  4
                 Californian    14                                                6   Carolinian
                                                                              7

                                                                               8


                                                            13           10      9
                     2. 6     25                           Louisianian            West Indian
                       Insular Pacific
                        27



                     Figure 6. Map of NERRS Biogeographical Regions and Subregions



              Improvements in State-Federal Cooperation

                     The relationship between OCRM and the states with regard to site operations and
              management has improved considerably over the past two years.            This cooperative
              relationship is illustrated by the reinstitution of the annual joint workshop between OCRM
              headquarters and estuarine reserve managers. In 1989, OCRM's national marine sanctuary
              site managers also began to attend the meetings to further coordination between the
              NERRS and the National Marine Sanctuary Program. Meetings were held in 1988 and 1989
              and a third one is planned for this year at the Tijuana River Reserve in California. The
              1989 meeting resulted in the drafting of the first system-wide plans for site administration,


                                                          49





                       resource protection, research, monitoring, and education. The plans cover a five-yeall
                       period. Once completed, they will be the basis for program funding and operations.

                               Daily interaction with the reserves is also being improved. OCRM began workin
                       with the states in 1989 to develop an electronic communications system which will link
                       OCRM headquarters staff with the estuarine reserves and marine -sanctuaries. Developmenj
                                                                                                                   h
                       of this system will continue during the next report period. As new sites become active in t
                       program, they will also be linked into this system. Once completed, the PC-based system
                       will allow for nearly instantaneous national program communication and information sharing
                       It should save considerable time, effort and cost in information transfer.

                       Improved NOAA 9perations

                               Since 1988, OCRM more than doubled its headquarters            staff to perform work
                       necessary to carry out the large number of proposed site designations for estuarine reserves,
                       as well as marine sanctuaries, and to administer existing sites. OCRM's administrative goall
                       during the next review period is to develop and begin implementation of a framework for
                       national and regional program management. Over time, regional field offices will be
                       established to implement a variety of functions currently handled by OCRM headquartersi
                       staff. This will place OCRM management closer to the resources they are responsible for
                       managing. Efforts will focus on three major areas: (1) OCRM headquarters staff will
                       continue to focus on new designations for reserves and sanctuaries; (2) OCRM will increasel
                       its efforts to improve and increase the agency's presence and effectiveness in the-field; and
                       (3) OCRM will improve its ability to protect and manage historic cultural resources.

                       Improvements in Site Management

                               OCRM is working with the states to improve on-site operations in the reserves. This
                       includes the provision of adequate staff and facilities in each reserve, or in selected
                       components of reserves which have more than one component, to support managementJ
                       research, education and visitation activities and programs at the reserves. Currently, on-site
                       reserve staff and state reserve employees total approximately 80 people. The variety of staff
                       now being hired reflects the increasing maturity of sites in the reserve system. As of the end
                       of the biennium, five reserves (Padilla Bay, South Slough, Elkhorn Slough, Jobos Bay and
                       Old Woman Creek) have hired fulltime research coordinators, and 11 reserves have on-site
                       education coordinators. These include Padilla Bay, South Slough, Elkhorn Slough, Tijuana
                       River, Apalachicola, Rookery Bay, Jobos Bay, Old Woman Creek, Wells, Waquoit Bay and
                       Hudson River.


                               In the future, we would like each reserve to have a manager, education coordinator
                       and research coordinator. OCRM is also moving to increase staffing at marine sanctuary
                       sites. In the long-term, the staffing increase will result in coordinated education and
                       research programs in "sister" reserves and sanctuaries, such as Sapelo Island NERR and



                                                                     50








                Gray's Reef National Marine Sanctuary (NMFS); Elkhorn Slough NERR and the proposed
                Monterey Bay NMS; and Padilla Bay NERR and the proposed Puget Sound NMS.

                       Expanded on-site facilities to support management, enforcement-, education and
                research and monitoring activities are another sign of site maturity. Currently, all but five
                of the reserves maintain on-site offices, and four of these have offices in the planning stage.
                Six reserves have on-site visitor cer ters, which include educational exhibit areas. - Some also
                have laboratory facilities and dormitory space to support the on-site efforts of visiting
                researchers and educators. A facility for the Tijuana River reserve is currently under
                construction, with completion scheduled for May 1990. Also, construction is scheduled to
                begin in 1990 for a facility at Jobos Bay and expanded facilities at Elkhorn Slough. Eight
                reserves are currently in the planning and design stages for facilities and three reserves with
                existing facilities are planning for expansions.

                Research


                       The NERRS research program currently supports an average of 20 applied research
                projects, per year. Implemented in 1985, the program focuses on management-related
                research that will enhance the understanding of estuarine environments, provide information
                necessary to enhance coastal and estuarine resource 7management decisionmaking, and
                improve public awareness of estuaries and estuarine management issues. Based on the most
                current developments in scientific protocol and the recommendations of some of the
                Nation's leading estuarine scientists, the NERRS research pr   .ogram has focused on five main
                categories to address some of the most important problematic needs 4n estuarine resource
                management: water management, sediment management, toxics and nutrient enrichment,
                coupling of primary and secondary productivity, and fishery habitat requirements.

                       During the biennium, research funded through the NERRS has addressed a variety
                of specific topics of regional and national importance: barrier island sediment dynamics;
                eelgrass mapping, distribution, and population genetic studies; wetland modeling and
                enhancement; diked wetlands and their effect on wetland ecology; linkages among estuarine
                habitats and watersheds; fishery habitat studies; and estuarine ecosystem    Imodeling.

                       Much of the information generated by the above and other projects have already
                been used by various planning and manage    zment entities. For example, the information from
                the eelgrass projects are being used to reexamine and change the current methodologies
                employed in eelgrass transplantation and mitigation projects. Water quality and habitat
                studies conducted in the Tijuana River NERR are being used by local planning and
                regulatory agencies to assess future transportation, development, and drainage plans
                affecting the area. Watershed and habitat studies conducted in the Waquoit Bay NERR
                have been used by local planners to support further studies on a broader scale funded
                through a multi-agency, intergovernmental effort by NOAA the National Science
                Foundation, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the State of Massachusetts, and
                the Cape Cod Planning and Economic Development Commission.


                                                               51









                    Monitorin


                            In FY89, OCRM implemented a Phased Monitoring Program to address the need to
                    understand long-term trends in estuarine resources and to provide additional baseline data
                    for the various sites.      The key elements of this program are: basic ecological
                    characterizations to build an accurate baseline of information on the sites' most important
                    resources; preparation of site profiles that describe the resources, management issues, and
                    long-term plans for monitoring; and the implementation of a monitoring program that will
                    provide long-term information on key resources, regularly analyze and publish the findings   '
                    and provide a mechanism to evaluate the effectiveness of the program in addressing the
                    long-term needs of estuarine resource management. This first year program is currently
                    funding six projects.

                    Education


                           OCRM is expanding and refining its education programs both at the headquarters
                    level and at individual reserves. The goals of the education programs are to promote an
                    awareness of estuarine resources and to provide opportunities for public understanding of
                    the need to preserve, protect and utilize these significant natural resources. OCRM's efforts   H
                    will include working closely with established reserves to review and expand current education
                    programs. OCRM will establish a clearinghouse of educational materials related to marine
                    and estuarine resources'. and will produce educational materials related to the NERRS. In
                    addition, OCRM will con    tinue its competitive process of funding education programs and
                    projects for designated reserves.

                    Technical Assistance


                           Three times each year, OCRM's Marine and Estuarine Management Division
                    (MEMD) publishes status reports both on the NERRS and the NMS. These reports provide
                    updates on the activities and accomplishments of individual sites. MEMD also publishes an
                    annual NERRS Site Catalog, which describes the location and description of each site as
                    well as significant plant and animal species, on-site and off-site public education and
                    interpretation programs, research programs, volunteer offerings, and facilities available to
                    the public. Technical memoranda facilitating rapid distribution of material on research is
                    @also published by MEMD. Several brochures are available from MEMD describing the
                    NERRS and NMS programs.










                                                                 52





        State Coastal Management Programs










                                                          ALABAMA





                Federal Approval Date:        September 25, 1979
                Federal Funding FY88:         $561,000
                Federal Funding FY89:         $593,000


                1. Backgroun

                The Alabama Coastal Area Management Program (ACAMP) is based in large part on Act
                534, the Alabama Coastal Area-Act of 1976, which mandated a comprehensive coastal
                management program and established the coastal zone boundary. The boundary described
                by the Act encompasses all lands seaward of the 10-foot inland contour to the limit of the
                state's territorial water, including coastal barrier islands. In 1982, the state legislature passed
                legislation which dissolved the Coastal Area Board and transferred its coastal management
                authorities to a new Department of Environmental Management (DEM) and the
                Department of Economic and Community Affairs (DECA). This 1982 law also consolidated
                state environmental permitting functions within DEM.

                The DECA is the lead agency for the program and is responsible for the administrative and
                planning functions of the program. The DEM has           permitting authority for activities that
                directly affect the state's coastal zone and is responsible for determining whether those state
                and Federal actions that are,not directly regulated are consistent with the ACAMP.

                11. ProgLam Accompfishments

                Hazards Protection: On August 1, 1989, the Dauphin Island Town Council adopted a zoning
                ordinance that had in large part been developed through a coastal zone management (CZM)
                grant to the South Alabama Regional Planning Commission. The ordinance has increased
                monitoring and enforcement of the Coastal Control Line (CCL) for Dauphin Island and has
                prohibited development in several areas prone to coastal flood hazards. In 1988, the DEM
                was successful in negotiating with the town of Gulf Shores to adopt a zoning ordinance
                consistent with the ACAMP, so that the DEM could redelegate permitting authority for the
                CCL back to the town.

                Water Quality Protection: The presence of unpermitted solid waste sites in the coastal zone
                and their accompanying effect on wetlands and water quality had been a problem in the
                Alabama coastal zone. For the FY88,and FY89 period, the ACAMP used CZM funds to
                inventory and map 79 unpermitted sites, and evaluate and prioritize each site based on the
                size and type of solid waste. The state determined ownership of the sites and mailed notices
                of violations to 88% of the property owners of these sites. The state has negotiated with


                                                                53








                      several of the owners to clean-up the sites and has initiated several administrative and
                      enforcement procedures against owners to resolve the unpermitted waste sites.

                      Wetlands Protection: The loss of valuable submerged grassbeds in Mobile Bay was also
                      identified as a significant problem for the state. During FY88 and FY89, the ACAMP
                      established a submerged grassbeds reintroduction program and contracted for research to
                      identify and establish successful techniques reintroducing submerged aquatic vegetation into
                      Mobile Bay. Work continues at monitoring sites in the Bay.

                      III. Major Grant Tasks

                      Water Qualijy Monitoring Program: The DEM began a program to monitor water quality
                      in Mobile Bay during 1988 and is enhancing this effort by adding monitoring stations in the
                      intracoastal waterway in FY89. In addition to gathering water quality data in FY88, the
                      DEM is monitoring benthic resources at selected sites in the Bay. This monitoring will
                      provide necessary baseline and trend water quality data and allow ACAMP to detect the
                      increase in toxics and the effects on benthic resources.

                      Wetlands Protection: In response   to Federal calls for no-net-loss of wetlands,'the ACAMP
                      is focusing on ways to implement a policy of n     -o-net-loss in Alabama. One aspect of.
                      implementing this policy is the practice of wetlands mitigation, restoration and creation.
                      In 1989, the DEM is putting together a wetlands mitigation manual that will identify proven
                      mitigation and restoration methods, establish on- and off-site standards and identify
                      recommended construction procedures for wetlands mitigation.

                      Shoreline Erosion Studies: Many areas of the Alabama shoreline are experiencing shoreline
                      erosion, in some places as much as 100 feet per year. In 1988, the State contracted with the
                      Geologic Survey of Alabama to conduct a shoreline survey of beach profiles to update
                      erosion rates around Baldwin and Mobile Counties. This information will be used to target
                      areas for further study and mitigation, and to update the Construction Control Line in those
                      areas. The study is being expanded in 1989 to include the shoreline in Bon Secure Bay.

                      IV. Significant Program Changes

                      Completion of the Dauphin Island CCL: On August 28, 1989, the Environmental
                                                                                                               I ,
                                                                                                                 .s
                      Management Commission adopted rules to implement the Dauphin Island CCL. The ru e
                      include a prohibition of construction on the west end of the island, an area included in the
                      Federal Coastal Barrier Resources System. The owners of the undeveloped western portion
                      have appealed the adopted rules stating that they represented a taking of property. An
                      administrative hearing is underway. At present, the state is preparing to submit two
                      unchallenged sections of the CCL to OCRM as an program change.

                      Revision of Public Notice Procedures: Alabama submitted and OCRM approved the
                      incorporation of DEM Policy Memorandum No. 300 into the ACAMP. The memorandum,


                                                                   54








            which revises public notice procedures, was approved as a routine program implementation
            on May 30, 1989.

            V. Federal Consistengy

            Federal consistency reviews are conducted through the DEM. There were no major Federal
            consistency issues during the biennium.

            VI. Evaluation Findin

            The final evaluation findings issued August 11, 1988 indicate that the        state made
            improvements to ACAMP public education through the development of an environmental
            education program in public schools. Other notable improvements were the completion of
            a coastal development guide for permit simplification and improved public participation in
            the ACAMP through the Coastal Resources Advisory Commission meeting process.

            Areas identified for improvement include: bringing the Gulf Shores zoning ordinance into
            compliance with the ACAMP; completing the Dauphin Island Coastal Construction Line;
            reaching agreement with the Army Corps of Engineers to im rove monitoring of wetlands
                                                                         p
            activities and permit conditions; addressing water quality problems related to sewage;
            providing more adequate signs for public access; improving the application of Federal
            consistency provisions; and closer adherence to the terms of financial assistance awards.





















                                                        55









                                                               ALASKA





                     Federal Approval Date: July 1979
                     Federal Funding FY88: $1,883,000
                     Federal Funding FY89: $1,934,000


                     1. Bagkgound

                     The Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP) is based on the Alaska Coastal
                     Management Act (ACMA) of 1977. The ACMA created the Alaska Coastal Policy Council
                     (CPC), which is composed of six state agency heads, the director of the Division of
                     Governmental Coordination (DGC), and nine local government representatives. Staff
                     assistance to the CPC is provided by DGC, a unit of the Office of the Governor. Under the
                     ACMP, local governments and specially organized coastal resource service areas (CRSA)
                     develop locally specific district coastal management programs. The inland 'coastal zone
                     boundary is based on biophysical relationships, and generally follows the 1,000 foot elevation
                     contour. During district program development, more specific boundaries are set.

                     The ACMP is a networked program that relies on seven state agencies: the Departments
                     of Commerce and Economic Development (DCED), Community and Regional Affairs
                     (DCRA), Environmental Conservation (DEC), Fish and Game (DFG), Natural Resources
                     (DNR), Transportation and Public Facilities (DTPF), and the DGC. To insure consistency
                     with coastal policies, the ACMP provides for coordinated review of projects within the
                     coastal zone through the coordinated consistency review process.

                     IL Program AccoInDlishments

                     Improved Government Operations - Through the Alaska Coastal Management Program
                     (ACMP), the state review of all required project permits within the state's coastal boundary
                     is coordinated and streamlined. This coordinated process means that all state permits for
                     a project are reviewed at the sarne time, permits are issued quickly, and that project
                     applicants and Federal agencies have a single process to go through in obtaining the
                     necessary permits. In FY88, over 600 coastal development projects were reviewed under
                     the coordinated review system; under the new process, each review was completed in an
                     average of 36 days.

                     North Slope Monitoring - The North Slope Project was established by the ACMP to provide
                     coordinated monitoring and enforcement of coastal oil and gas development on the North
                     Slope by the three state resource agencies: the Departments of Fish and Game (DFG),
                     Environmental Conservation (DEC), and Natural Resources (DNR). Previously, these


                                                                   56








              agencies conducted independent monitoring and enforcement activities. Establishment of
              the North Slope Project has increased the degree of monitoring (continuous held presence
              of one or more resource agency representatives), reduced duplication, and coordinated
              efforts to create a much more effective monitoring and enforcement program. These efforts
              are especially important in light of the current debate over oil and gas development in the
              Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and the release of the report "Oil in the Arctic,"
              which is extremely critical of environmental protection efforts on the North Slope.

              Permit Simplification - In FY89, DGC coordinated the review of 86 oil and ga       s p rojects.
              These reviews were completed in an average -of just 23 days, under the consistency review
              process. This short review time and the predictability of prompt permit decisions results in
              a cost savings to the oil industry and allows them to more effectively plan and schedule
              summer field construction activities.


              Oil Spill Response - Following the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Prince William Sound, DGC
              played an important role in the state's response effort. At the Governor's request, DGC
              established a temporary office in Cordova, one of the communities most affected by the spill.
              This office performed many crucial tasks such as facilitating emergency permit reviews,
              expediting spill response funding to the City of Cordova, and coordinating workshops to
              enhance cooperation between state and local government, and concerned interest groups.

              PuLlic A                                                     for salmon is creating conflicts
                    ,,qcess - The increasing popularity of sport fishing
              between sport and subsistence users. These conflicts are particularly evident along some of
              the major salmon rivers along Alaska's west coast. In order to resolve and avoid major
              conflicts, the Bristol Bay CRSA has been working on the development of a Recreation
              Management Plan for the Nushagak and Mulchatna Rivers. The final plan will be
              completed in 1990 and should serve as a model for similar efforts along other rivers.

              111. Major Grant Tasks

              Major FY88 grant tasks included: implementation of district programs; establishment of the
              North Slope monitoring and compliance program; creation of district task forces to address
              forest practices, marine debris, and special area management; rehabilitation of abandoned
              gravel mine sites; and development of a recreation management plan for the Nushagak and
              Mulchatna Rivers. During FY89, major grant tasks include: implementation of district
              programs, wetlands mapping in Kodiak Island borough, development of a special area
              management plan for the Colville River delta, and monitoring and enforcement efforts.

                                       Changes
              During the biennium, the North Slope Borough, Aleutians East Borough, Northwest Arctic
              l3orough, and Bering Straits Coastal Management Programs gained Federal approval as
              amendments to the ACMP. In addition, the City of Saint Paul local coastal program was


                                                           57








                     approved as routine program implementation. To date, 28 of 33 district programs have been
                     federally-approved.
                     V. Federal ConsistenU

                     federal consistency reviews are coordinated by DGC through the state coordinated review
                     process. There has been one Secretarial appeal during the report period: Amoco's appeal
                     of the state's denial of the Galahad Outer Continental Shelf exploratory drilling project.
                     This appeal is still pending.

                     The major Federal consistency issue raised during the report period involves the application
                     of Federal consistency to timber harvesting related activities undertaken by the U.S. Forest
                     Service (USFS). DGC and the USFS disagree over two basic issues: which ACMP standards
                     apply to logging activities and whether a separate consistency determination is required for
                     each major decision in a five year development plan. Specifically, these issues were raised
                     regarding USFS issuance of the Ketchikan Pulp Company Five Year Plan for logging within
                     the Tongass National Forest; however, both of these issues represent longstanding
                     disagreements between DGC and the USFS. In an effort to resolve these issues, DGC has
                     requested Secretarial mediation under section 307(h) of the CZMA.

                     VI. Evaluation Findings

                     A 312 site visit was conducted in September 1989. The findings are currently in draft form
                     and should be finalized by April 1990.





















                                                                 58








                                                 AMERICAN SAMOA




              Federal Approval Date: September 1980
              Federal Funding FY88: $448,000
              Federal Funding FY89: $458,000


              1. Backgroun

              The American Samoa Coastal Management Program (ASCMP) relies on a Governor's
              Executive Order which designates the Development Planning Office (DPO) as the lead
              agency, and directs all territorial agencies to act consistently with the ASCMP policies. The
              coastal zone boundary encompasses all of the territory's land and water areas. There are two
              Special Management Areas: Pala Lagoon and Pago Pago Harbor. The villages retain control
              of 92 percent of the land and are governed by chiefs and councils. The DPO works with the
              villages to develop land use plans and is also responsible for coordinating permitting actions
              through the Project Notification and Review System (PNRS).

              111. Progmm AcCOMDlishments

              @ago Pago Harbor Cleanup - 1988 marked the fourth year of ASCMP leadership in an
              interagency effort to clean up and patrol Pago Pago Harbor. Refuse from tuna cannery
              operations and boats combined with stream runoff had severely deteriorated the harbor's
              water quality. The ASCMP, in cooperation with the Environmental Quality Commission,
              created and supported a harbor patrol and cleanup effort. The harbor patrol has the power
              to issue citations to polluters and assess fines up to $1,000. As a result of the program, the
              harbor is routinely patrolled for violations; complaints from the USCG have been reduced
              to zero over the past year. Public awareness and support for a cleaner harbor is another
              direct result of the harbor patrol, which has resulted in the reduction of non-point pollution.

              Wetlands Protection - Nu'uuli pala, the territory's largest remaining area of mangrove forest,
              is threatened by non-point pollution and encroachment by filling.                The' ASCMP
              commissioned a resource management study of Nu'uuli pala. Based on these efforts, the
              American Samoa Government recently constructed a main sewer line around the lagoon to
              serve 400 homes and significantly reduce water quality threats to the lagoon. The ASCMP
              has also supported a public education effort which relates the protection of wetlands *and
              other natural resources with the preservation of Samoan culture and has resulted in
              encouragement and support from the local village council for continued regulatory and
              enforcement efforts to protect the lagoon.          This represents a significant resource
              management landmark in working within American Samoa's traditional land tenure system.



                                                            59








                    Permit Simplification - The ASCMP took the lead in developing the revised PNRS which
                    went into effect in November 1988. The PNRS establishes a one stop permitting process
                    which provides for substantially greater coordination and timely review by the regulatory
                    agencies. To further streamline the permitting process, the application form was updated
                    and simplified. As a result of the reduction in permitting time under the revised PNRS,
                    significant reductions are evident for the land use review portion of the review. Average
                    review time is currently two-to-five working days for minor projects and 15-21 working days
                    for major projects.

                    IH. Major Grant Tasks

                    In FY88, ASCMP continued to direct its attention to implementing the revised PNRS,
                    including revising forms, educating the public, designing an informational brochure and
                    training staff. The ASCMP also developed a hazard mitigation plan, and created a video
                    to improve public understanding of the ASCMP.

                    Under its FY89 award, the ASCMP is participating in multi-agency efforts to complete aerial
                    orthomaps of the territory and conduct water toxicity studies in the Pago Pago Harbor.

                    IV. Siggificant Prow-am Change

                    One major change to the. ASCMP over the report period was the adoption of a strengthened
                    Executive Order which included the revised PNRS which is discussed above. The ASCMP
                    is currently working on legislation that will establish coastal management under statutory
                    authority and replace the existing Executive Order.

                    V. Federal ConsistenU

                    Federal consistency reviews are conducted through the PNRS. No major Federal consistency
                    issues were reported during the biennium.

                    VI. Evaluation Findings

                    The final evaluation findings issued June 21, 1989, indicate that DPO is implementing and
                    enforcing the essential elements of the approved ASCMP. A noteworthy improvement is
                    the Interagency Review Committee: a conference between the project applicant and the
                    review agencies is held to determine what permits are necessary and to explain permit
                    requirements. Also, improvements in the overall operations of the ASCMP were made, and
                    an appeals process for land use decisions was drafted. Areas identified for improvement
                    include: enforcement of land use permits, issuance of stop work orders, and coordination
                    and education efforts geared toward the village chiefs.





                                                                 60









                                                      CAUFORNIA





                Federal Approval Date: BCDC - February 1977
                                          CCC - November 1977
                Federal Funding FY88:     $1,883,000
                Federal Funding FY89:     $1,934,000


                1. Backaound

                The California Coastal Management Program (CCMP) is comprised of two segments: the
                San Francisco Bay segment, which is administered by the San Francisco Bay Conservation
                and Development Commission (BCDC), and the remainder of the coast, which is
                administered by the California Coastal Commission (CCC). The CCC is the lead agency for
                program implementation under Section 306 of the CZMA.

                The CCC administers the California Coastal Act of 1976, as amended, which established a
                coastal permit program and required that all coastal cities and counties prepare local coastal
                programs. The coastal zone area governed by the Act is approximately 1,000 yards inland
                from the mean high tide line, or in areas of significant coastal resources inland up to five
                miles, and seaward to the limit of the territorial sea. The Act sets forth policies on public
                access, recreation, marine environment, land resources, development, and industrial
                development, and created a Coastal Commission responsible for ensuring that the coastal
                Policies are met in the planning and regulatory processes.
                The BCDC operates under the McAteer-Petris Act and is also responsible for implementing
                the Suisun Marsh Preservation Act. Proposed development involving placement of fill,
                dredging, or substantial changes in shoreline use within the designated San Francisco Bay
                shoreline area require a BCDC permit. BCDC's jurisdiction extends inland generally 100
                feet from marshes and tidal waters. In addition to the permit program, BCDC implements
                the San Francisco Bay Plan through special area plans developed in cooperation with local
                governments. The special area plans are adopted by BCDC as amendments to the bay plan
                and by local governments as amendments to their general plans.

                  -P-Mffamm AccomDlishments

                L
                Im roved Government Operations - In the last two years, the CCC has developed a
                jln-P-@
                I-Ompendium of Past Commission Policy Applications and Mitigation Practices for Federal
                Consistency Review of Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Projects. The compendium describes
                the CCC's Federal consistency decisions on all OCS projects and related onshore facilities


                                                             61








                     for the past five years. The information is also compiled into a computer database. The
                     information will be useful to applicants and CCC staff for future reviews of OCS projects.

                     Wetlands Protection - The Suisun Marsh is one of the few remaining wetlands in the San
                     Francisco Bay area. In 1988, the California Coastal Conservancy combined $277,000 in
                     CZM funds with $1,230,000 in state funding to complete acquisition of the Rush Ranch in
                     Suisun Marsh. This acquisition protects 2,070 acres of open tidal marsh and associated
                     upland, which provides important habitat for waterfowl and at least 17 candidate and
                     endangered species. A private foundation will provide additional funds- to develop public
                     access on the upland area for non-consumptive recreational uses.

                     Hazards Protection - BCDC has taken a leadership role in planning for the effects of future
                     sea level rise. Based on extensive study of the implications of sea level rise for San
                     Francisco Bay, BCDC amended its program in 1989 to require that new shoreline
                     development take sea level rise into consideration. The new policies generally require that
                     any new project requiring fill should be above the highest estimated tide level for the design
                     life of the development. BCDC has also been working with bay area local governments to
                     assist.them in addressing future sea level rise.

                     BCDC's Engineering Criteria Review Board (ECRB) reviews all major applications for Bay
                     fills to ensure that seismic safety concerns are adequately addressed. Over the past 20 years,
                     an independent engineering review provided by the ECRB has been instrumental in
                     improving the seismic safety of structures built on new Bay fill. Following the October 17,
                     1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, BCDC evaluated a number of projects that had been
                     reviewed by the ECRB and found that they sustained very little damage.

                     Public Access - The CCC uses a wide variety of techniques to improve public access to the
                     coast. These include requiring access easements or in-lieu fees in conjunction with coastal
                     development permits for projects that affect coastal access, and working with the state
                     Coastal Conservancy to acquire and open new accessways. For example, in 1989 the state
                     Coastal Conservancy used Federal CZM and state matching funds to acquire a 2.9 acre
                     beachfront parcel for public access to a beach six miles north of Bodega. Bay in Sonoma
                     County. While most of the Sonoma Coast has steep bluffs making handicapped access
                     impossible, this particular parcel is gently sloping and well suited for handicapped access.
                     Addition of this handicapped accessway represents a unique access opportunity for the
                     Sonoma coast.

                     Permit Simplification - To simplify its review of small projects, the CCC has increased the
                     use of de minimus waivers. To further reduce unnecessary paperwork, the CCC staff now
                     advises applicants with projects that appear to qualify for a waiver not to submit a permit
                     fee with the application. Thus, if the project qualifies for a waiver, the CCC avoids the step
                     of refunding the permit fee.




                                                                  62









                  Ma
                     jor Grant Tasks

              In FY88, the CCC worked on the development of the compendium and the development
              of regulations governing information requirements for Federal consistency reviews of OCS
              plans. BCDC used FY88 funds to update the San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan and
              consolidate its permit process. Funds were also passed through to the California Coastal
              Conservancy for access acquisition projects.

              In FY89, the CCC is completing the compendium for non-OCS projects; undertaking a
              major coastal education program and establishing a year-round Adopt-A-Beach program;
              conducting a Federal consistency workshop for Federal and local representatives; enhancing
              the regulatory enforcement program; and conducting a pilot project to survey mean high tide
              along an eroding section of developed shoreline. BCDC is finalizing recent revisions to its
              Seaport Plan, completing consolidation of its permit forms, updating its dredging policies,
              and participating in the San Francisco Estuary Project. The State Coastal Conservancy will
              complete some new public access acquisition projects.

              IV. Significant Progam. Change

              During the reporting period, OCRM approved minor changes to the California Coastal Act,
              the local coastal programs (LCP) for Humboldt County, the City and County of Santa
              Barbara, and the City of San Buenaventura, and numerous LCP amendments. OCRM also
              approved: amendments to the McAteer-Petris Act resulting from the passage of Assembly
              Bill 2450; a revised memorandum of understanding between BCDC and the California
              Water Resources Control Board; changes to the Bay Plan concerning sea level rise, shoreline
              protection, seaport planning and transportation; and regulatory changes to BCDC's
              permitting and enforcement procedures.

              V. Federal Consistenot

              The CCC and BCDC each exercise Federal consistency responsibilities within their
              respective jurisdictions. During the biennium, four CCC consistency objections to OCS
              projects were appealed to the Secretary of Commerce. The appeals -for Korea Drilling
              Company and Texaco were decided in favor of the applicants, while the appeals by Chevron
              and Conoco are pending.

              VI. Evaluation Findino

              The last evaluation site visit was held in August 1989. Draft findings were issued in
              December 1989, with issuance of the final findings projected for early 1990.






                                                          63










                                                           CONNECrICUT





                     Federal Approval Date: September 1980
                     Federal Funding FY88: $735,000
                     Federal Funding FY89: $767,000


                     1. Bggkgoun

                     The Department of Environmental Protection is the lead agency for the Connecticut Coastal
                     Management Program (CCMP), which is based on the state's Coastal Area Management Act
                     of 1979. Within the Department's Water Management Bureau, the Coastal Resources
                     Management Division administers the coastal regulatory and management program. At the
                     state level, the policies and standards of the CCMP are embodied in the permitting process
                     for projects and activities subject to the Tidal Wetlands and Structures, Dredging and Filling
                     Regulations. At the local level, coastal resource policies and standards are incorporated into
                     the municipal coastal site plan review process on a project-by-project basis. The CCMP staff
                     provide technical assistance and oversight, and maintain the right (though rarely needed) to'
                     intervene. Of 36 coastal towns, 29 have completed a voluntary municipal coastal program,
                     which places project review decisions in a long-term planning context consistent with state
                     coastal management goals. The CCMP applies landward to a 1,000-foot setback from the
                     mean high water, the inland boundary of tidal wetlands, or the inland limit of the 100-year
                     coastal flood zone, whichever is farthest inland. On the seaward side, the boundary overlays
                     the state's jurisdiction in Long Island Sound.

                     H. Progmm AccoMplishments

                     Wetlands Protection - Under the CCMP, 14 coastal resource categories have been created,
                     with policies and standards for each which are restrictive of allowable uses, depending upon
                     the fragility of the natural resource. Special emphasis has been placed on protective efforts
                     for tidal wetlands, which comprise one of the categories. Under the stringent regulations, an
                     -average of no more than 0.5 acres of tidal wetlands are being lost to permitted activities in
                     the state annually. Prior to the adoption of the Tidal Wetlands Act in 1969, the state was
                     experiencing significant losses or impacts to tidal wetlands-- 15,000 acres over a 30-year
                     period, or 50 percent of the state's tidal wetlands. Alterations are allowed only for water-
                     dependent uses and public benefit projects where there are no alternatives to wetland loss
                     and losses have been minimized to the fullest extent possible.

                     The CCMP has pursued aggressively the restoration of emergent intertidal wetlands, which
                     had been degraded as a result of historic activities. Since 1982, the state has restored
                     approximately 514 acres of marsh habitat. This effort has consisted first of the systematic


                                                                  64








                 identification of potential sites for restoration. The CCMP staff have then worked with
                 other state agency and municipal staff to plan and implement restoration projects. The
                 process often entails the restoration of tidal flow by the replacement and manipulation of
                 culverts, tide gates, weirs, and dams. Under the Coves and Embayments Act of 1986, a
                 funding mechanism has been created to provide matching funds to coastal municipalities for
                 the design, construction and monitoring of embayment restoration projects. The state
                 appropriated $2 million in 1989 to implement this program.

                 Harbor Manayement - In order to address and resolve issues unique to the state's navigable
                 harbor areas, the CCMP adopted the Harbor Management Act of 1984, whereby coastal
                 municipalities get the opportunity to establish harbor management commissions and prepare
                 harbor management plans. By extending the planning process seaward of the traditional
                 zoning jurisdiction, user conflicts can be reduced and a balance struck between conservation
                 and development in ports and harbors.

                 The Town of Milford has used its plan to solve a long-standing problem of encroachment
                 into the Federal navigation channel, to provide for wetland and shellfish preservation, and
                 to maintain publicly accessible moorings. Norwalk's harbor management plan will balance
                 the diverse uses of the city's waters, while encouraging new water-dependent uses.
                 Stonington has designed a plan to preserve one of its major assets, the offshore commercial
                 fishing fleet.   Twenty coastal communities (out of 41 authorities) have established
                 commissions by ordinance and are in various stages of plan development or adoption.

                 Urban Waterfront Restoration - Throughout'the 1980s, the revitalization of the states urban
                 waterfront areas has continued to escalate. Redevelopment projects have in many cases
                 been initiated following coastal management-supported planning, and have occurred in a
                 manner that is consistent with CCMP policies and standards. The ensuing benefits have
                 been measurable tangibly with public and private capital invested and jobs gained. More
                 importantly, there has also been an increase of the public's awareness of the importance of
                 the waterfront. For example, the City of Norwalk used $16,000 in CZM funds to conduct
                 an assessment of its seaport in the late 1970s with an eye toward attracting private
                 development and creating new employment opportunities. A cornerstone in this effort was
                 the construction of a $26 million Maritime Center, which opened in 1988. The center
                 includes an aquarium to exhibit marsh and marine habitats, park and retail space, a movie
                 theater, a weather station and two public fishing piers. The Maritime Center is expected to
                 attract a half million visitors annually. Similar examples can be cited for urban locations in
                 New Haven, Bridgeport, and New London. Here, as elsewhere, coastal management spurs
                 and guides these revitalization efforts, encouraging major harbor improvements while
                 supporting, for example, marina facilities and commercial and recreational fisheries.

                 Public Access - Public access is a water-dependent use in Connecticut by statutory definition.
                 Through the aggressive enforcement of the CCMP's water-dependent use standards, public
                 access opportunities have been increased significantly. Since 1980, a total of more than
                 43,000 linear feet, or more than 8.2 miles, of new public access has been made available


                                                                65








                   (almost 6,000 feet since FY88) by means other than land acquisition. This has occurred
                   through the review of more than 100 major waterfront development proposals, leading to
                   the construction of walkways, waterfront parks, easements or other agreements. This is
                   significant given that as much as 80 percent of the coast is steep, rocky shorefront or
                   bulkheaded urban waterfront, making the Long Island Sound physically difficult to reach.

                   H1. Major Grant Tasks

                   During FY88 and FY89, the CCMP has continued to undergo changes resulting from a
                   departmental reorganization.       In July 1988, the program office assumed primary
                   responsibility for coastal permitting and enforcement functions. In anticipation of this step,
                   the state conducted an evaluation of the eidsting regulatory program. A number of
                   administrative changes have been made using e.-dsting authorities to streamline the
                   permitting process.

                   IV. Significant Program Chan

                   There were no significant   changes to the program,during the biennium.

                   V. FederM Consistengy

                   Due to budget cuts and associated staff reductions, the U.S. Coast Guard was forced to
                   reduce its security patrols around a Navy submarine base in Groton, Connecticut. As a
                   result in 1986, the Navy proposed to handle their own security through imposition of a
                   restricted use zone covering a significant portion of the lower Thames River. Such a step
                   would have prevented the development of water-dependent uses by the Town of Waterford
                   on the opposite side of the river from the base and restricted the lower river from
                   recreational activities and commercial fishing. Local opposition by the public, the press, and
                   elected officials suggested that litigation over the zone was a certainty.

                   The Federal consistency review process was employed to resolve this issue without delay or
                   further cost to meet the needs of all parties. The size of the restricted area was ultimately
                   reduced and a registration and identification system was devised for boat traffic to meet the
                   Navy's need for security without significantly interrupting recreational and commercial use
                   of the river.


                   VL Evaluation Findin


                   The final evaluation findings issued in March 1987 recognized CCMP's leadership in
                   addressing coastal issues through: technical assistance to municipalities and state agencies,
                   development of harbor management plans, administration of the Coves and Embayments
                   Program, and public access. The only recommendation dealt with a suggestion that the state
                   evaluate the need to incorporate certain laws into its coastal program.



                                                                 66










                                                       DELAWARE



                Federal Approval Date: August 1979
                Federal Funding FY88: $54000
                Federal Funding FY89: $548,000


                I. Backgroun

                The Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC)
                implements the Delaware Coastal Management Program (DCMP) under networked
                authorities, including the Coastal Zone Act, the Beach Preservation Act, the Land Use
                Planning Act (LUPA) and various water quality and tidal wetlands protection legislation.
                The Office of the Secretary of Natural Resources and Environmental Control coordinates
                the DCMP. The entire state has been designated as the coastal zone; the Delaware Bay and
                ocean coasts, however, receive special zoning protections from industrial development.
                Programs to address issues in the Delaware Bay and the Delaware Inland Bays are being
                developed pursuant to EPA's National Estuary Program.

                H. Program Accompjj@hments

                Natural Resource Protection - In 1988, DNREC submitted to the Governor a comprehen-
                sive, long-range report which looks at the prospects for Delaware's environment and
                resource base. The report, entitled "Delaware's Environmental Legacy," contained numerous
                recommendations, many of which are incorporated in a substantial DNREC legislative
                package currently before the   'Delaware General Assembly. Among other things, the
                legislation would implement the Governor's Freshwater Wetlands Roundtable recommenda-
                tions, create an independent water/wastewater authority to develop a statewide treatment
                plan, and develop a statewide stormwater management plan.

                Wetlands Protection - DNREC, through its coastal program, has acted to improve protection
                of the state's fre-shwater wetlands. Programs to evaluate, map, and restore existing
                freshwater wetlands, as well as efforts to create new non-tidal wetlands, are underway. The
                Freshwater Wetlands Roundtable has formulated a regulatory strategy for privately-owned
                freshwater wetlands based on a "no-net-loss" policy; its recommendations have been
                incorporated into a 1990 legislative package for DNREC.

                Delaware's CMP has also funded two innovative research and management programs
                focused on tidal wetlands. The Open Water Marsh Management Program has restored
                degraded tidal wetlands and continues to yield important practical information on
                management techniques for restoring habitat and productivity values. Additionally, the
                Wildlife Impoundment Management program is an effort to restore state-owned
                impoundments constructed 20 to 30 years ago for wildlife management purposes. Delaware
                                                             67                      Ek








                   has achieved notable success in returning habitat values to these impoundments. The
                   Delaware CMP has also actively funded efforts to protect and restore Delaware's fragile --
                   and heavily stressed -- Inland Bays. In 1989, DNREC imposed a moratorium on marina
                   construction in the bays. New marina permitting regulations are in the final stages of
                   development. The Delaware Inland Bays were designated a NEP in 1988.

                   M. Major Grant Tasks

                   In FY88, DNREC studied the effects of dredge spoil disposal on open marsh water systems,
                   developed water management plans for freshwater impoundments, inventoried
                   impoundments and ponds, and began collecting and digitizing historic shoreline data for
                   Delaware bay and ocean sbores to revise the state's regulatory program for beaches. In
                   FY89, the DNREC is continuing its tidal wetlands efforts with the Open Water Marsh
                   Management and wildlife impoundment programs. The freshwater wetlands program will
                   expand its activities in mapping and restoration studies, and the state will improve
                   programmatic and permit coordination among DNREC divisions through increased staff and
                   new procedures. A CZM study committee is also exploring means of strengthening the
                   state's program.

                   IV. Siggificant Program Change

                   Delaware submitted several routine program implementation packages, but made no major
                   program changes. DNREC, however, is pursuing a package of legislation improvements to
                   improve freshwater wetlands protection, beach management, stormwater management, and
                   establish a Water and Wastewater Authority.

                   V. Federal Consisten


                   DNREC has initiated useful Federal/state consultation procedures with the Delaware
                   Department of Transportation (DOT) to minimize wetlands loss. DNREC successfully
                   mediated a dispute between the DOT and the U.S. EPA over mitigation requirements for
                   a new highway that preserved wetlands values while saving the state several million dollars.
                   Delaware objected to few Federal actions during the report period, largely because of these
                   consultation procedures and a cooperative working relationship with the Army Corps of
                   Engineers and other Federal agencies.

                   VI. Evaluation Findin


                   The final evaluation findings issued September 8, 1989, show DNREC is implementing the
                   essential elements of the DCMP. Notable achievements were the state's freshwater wetlands
                   protection efforts, the Delaware Environmental Legacy report, the proposed storm water
                   management program, and the Inland Bays marina moratorium and regulation development.
                   Recommendations included improved enforcement of the state's erosion and sedimentation
                   law, better internal coordination, and more clearly defined Coastal Zone Act regulations.


                                                                68










                                                         FWRIDA





                Federal Approval Date: September 1981
                Federal Funding FY88: $1,883,000
                Federal Funding FY89: $1,934,000                                        L-----------------  i


                1. Bapkg1oun

                The entire state is included in Florida's coastal zone. The    Florida Coastal Management
                Program (FCMP) is based on 27 state laws and their implementing regulations which are
                administered by 16 agencies. The Department of Environmental Regulation's Office of
                Coastal Management (OCM) is responsible for FCMP administration. The Governor's
                Office of Planning and Budget (OPB) assists the DER with Federal consistency reviews.

                Day-to-day program administration rests primarily with three agencies which administer key
                state coastal management programs: DER, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR),
                and the Department of Community Affairs (DCA). These three agencies operate under a
                procedural memorandum of understanding, which was signed in 1981 and recently updated,
                to formalize their working relationship and to ensure a coordinated state approach to coastal
                management. The Interagency Management Committee (IMC), which is comprised of the
                heads of all major FCMP agencies, and the Governor's Citizen Advisory Committee
                coordinate state CZM efforts.


                H. ProgEarn Accornp@hshments

                Ocean Management - In December 1988, the Executive Office of the Governor released a
                draft report, entitled Florida's Ocean Future: Towards a State Ocean Polia. The report
                touches on most of the major ocean policy areas facing Florida and contains many
                recommendations. This coastal program-funded study represents a major effort by the state
                to encourage discussion about ocean problems, policies and management, and provides a
                first step toward development of a comprehensive approach to ocean management.

                Improved Government Operations - A revised resolution approved by the IMC in January
                1989, reaffirms its establishment as the vehicle for coordinating state efforts, addressing
                problems, and resolving conflicts in FCMP implementation. It continues the IMC charge
                to develop a priority list of work tasks, assign staff to priority work items, and rely on the
                DER for staff support. The plan targeted several issues, including statewide beach
                management and island development. Also, 1989 legislation institutionalized the IMC,
                reaffirming Florida's commitment to coastal management. The Governor also signed a 1989
                Executive Order affirming the duties and support for the Citizens Advisory Committee.


                                                              69









                   111. Major Grant Tasks

                   During FY88 and FY89, the state continued to support the estuarine program -- a DER
                   initiative -- which provides a technical and scientific information base for improved estuarine
                   management. Four estuarine areas (Indian River, Charlotte Harbor, Perdido Bay and
                   Apalachicola) will continue to be the focus of the basin-wide pollution studies conducted
                   through the initiative.

                   Several major projects will be conducted during FY89, including a study on the cumulative
                   impacts of land use planning for the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council and a
                   post-disaster plan for the South Florida Regional Planning Council.

                   IV. Significant Program ChanQe

                   During the biennium, OCRM approved several FCMP program changes. These included
                   an amendment to the FCMP, which consisted of legislative changes to three Chapters of
                   Florida Statutes: (1) Creation of the Marine Fisheries Commission, Chapter 370 F.S.; (2)
                   measures to protect surface and ground water, Chapter 376 F.S.; and (3) the Warren S.
                   Henderson Wetlands Protection Act of 1984, and related changes to Chapter 403 F.S.
                   These amendments provide new policy for, and a new entity to: promulgate regulations
                   dealing with living marine resources; provide additional regulatory' authority and funds to
                   protect Florida's ground water resources; and, update and clarify the state regulatory polices
                   and procedures for protecting wetlands.

                   The 1989 routine program implementation package approved by OCRM added Florida
                   Marine Fisheries Commission regulations; incorporated 1987 language for Florida statutes
                   on permits required for beach and shore preservation; and incorporated a listing of Coastal
                   Construction Control Lines adopted by the Governor. Also, changes adopted in 1987 for
                   activities and permits concerning the FCMP were incorporated in the program.

                   V. Federal Consisten


                   Florida completed a Federal consistency handbook and provided additional staff at OPB to
                   help redress problems in conducting consistency reviews. In addition, DER initiated a
                   FCMP-wide review of major DER permits to ensure greater consistency between reviewing
                   agencies charged with issuing state permits. This new review is a significant accomplishment
                   for the consistency process in Florida. Two OCS objections occurred during the review
                   period. Unical and Mobil plans of exploration on the Polley Ridge area of the Gulf of
                   Mexico were denied. Florida objected on the grounds that the projects would result in
                   destruction of marine habitat which would have an adverse impact on coastal fisheries.





                                                                 70










              VI. Evaluation Findin


              The final evaluation findings, issued in April 1988, recommended strengthening the IMC and
              and its support group, the Interagency Advisory Committee. A review of overall FCMP
              implementation was recommended. Improvements to the state's consistency review process
              were also recommended. Cited accomplishments were DER's estuarine initiative, a joint
              effort by DER and the Department of Education to integrate environmental education
              programs into the general curriculum of public schools, passage of the Apalachicola Bay
              Protection'Act (1985), Coastal Zone Protection Act (1985), State Comprehensive Plan
              (1985), and Local Development Regulation Act (1985), and hazards management activities.


































                                                          71










                                                   TERRITORY OF GUAM




                  Federal Approval Date: August 1979
                  Federal Funding FY88:      $451,000
                  Federal Funding FY89:      $461,000


                  1. Bagkaoun

                  The Guam Coastal Management Program (GCMP) is a networked program with the Bureau
                  of Planning acting as the lead agency. The entire island and the territorial waters are
                  included in the coastal zone. The management of coastal resources is governed by coastal
                  policies and authorities set forth in Executive Order Nos. 78-20, 21, 13, 37; the
                  Comprehensive Planning Enabling Legislation; and the Territorial Seashore Protection Act.
                  Land use decisions are made by the seven member Territorial Planning Commission (TPC),
                  which is appointed by the Governor; the Department of Land Management acts as staff to
                  the TPC. All other coastal resource management decisions are made by the other
                  networked territorial agencies: Guam Environmental Protection Agency, Public Utility
                  Agency of Guam, and the Departments of Agriculture, Public Works, Parks and Recreation,
                  Commerce, and Public Health and Social Services.

                  H. Program Accomplishments

                  Public Access - In 1989, the GCMP developed a Recreational Water Use Master Plan for
                  Agana and Piti Bays. The plan addresses use conflicts between mechanized water craft, such
                  as jet skis and hovercrafts, and fishermen, snorkelers, swimmers, and windsurfers. Numerous
                  public hearings were held and the GCMP coordinated extensively with other agencies and
                  private interests. Rules and regulations will be adopted for the implementation and
                  enforcement of the plan.

                  Natural Resource Protection - Land use violations occur in some instances because building
                  inspectors are not sufficiently familiar with the requirements of the land use laws. To rectify
                  this problem, the GCMP developed training materials for Department of Public Works
                  inspectors to better acquaint them with land use requirements. This training effort will help
                  building inspectors detect violations at an earlier stage when they are more easily resolved.

                  Improved Government Operations - The GCMP has been actively involved in carrying out
                  the Governor's directive that the Guam Public Land Use Plan should be followed in making
                  decisions on public land dispositions. In 1989, GCMP staff extracted information from
                  Department of Land Management files to identify public lands not currently included in the
                  Public Land Use Plan. A list of public lands to be included in the plan was circulated for
                  agency comment and the final list will be added to the plan.


                                                                72








                111. Mgjor Grant Tasks

                Under the FY 88 grant, the GCMP conducted the water use master plan effort and training
                for inspectors. In addition, the GCMP began publishing a monthly newsletter that covers
                a wide range of topics including: resort development, fisheries, endangered species, and
                exclusive economic zone. The newsletter has proven to be an effective public education
                vehicle and has raised the visibility of coastal management issues on Guam.

                In FY89, the GCMP began a multi-year effort to develop a master plan for southern Guam
                and to improve the management of land use data for the entire island. Large development
                projects have been proposed for southern Guam, an area that currently is largely
                undeveloped. To prepare for this development and the master planning effort, the GCMP
                is updating the zoning and seashore lot-line maps, completing land use inventories, and
                putting the information into a database and geographic information system. In addition, the
                GCMP is working with the Historic Preservation Office (HPO) to increase public awareness
                of historic resources on Guam. The GCMP and HPO will develop a handbook for
                developers detailing their responsibilities for the protection of historic materials at
                development sites.

                IV. Significant ProgLam Changes

                During the biennium, no significant program changes were incorporated into the GCMP.

                V. Federal Consistengy

                The GCMP has the lead for reviewing Federal actions for consistency and receives input
                from the other networked agencies. The GCMP has been involved in early discussions with
                the Navy concerning the Over-the-Horizon Radar facility proposed for Guam and Tinian in
                the Northern Mariana Islands, which will ultimately come to the GCMP for Federal
                consistency review.

                VI. Evaluation FindipM

                The evaluation site visit was held February 5-9, 1990, and the draft evaluation report will be
                issued shortly.











                                                             73









                                                                HAWA,U





                     Federal Approval Date: September 1978
                     Federal Funding FY88: $681,000
                     Federal Funding FY89: $687,000


                     L Backgound

                     The Hawaii Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Program depends primarily on statutory
                     provisions that direct state agencies and county governments to conduct their permitting and
                     non-permitting activities in compliance with the coastal policies established in the Hawaii
                     Revised Statutes. The Office of State Planning (OSP) is the lead agency for the Hawaii
                     CZM Program and is advised on policy making and program implementation matters by the
                     Statewide Advisory Committee.

                     R. EEggggrn Accomplishments

                     Permit Simplification - 19 88 marked the third year of the Consolidated Applications Process
                     (CAP) that offers the applicant of multiple state permits an opportunity to meet with
                     representatives of permit issuing agencies to collectively discuss potential concerns and
                     coordinate processing requirements.

                     The CAP process was complemented by the state Permit Information Counter (PIC) Service
                     which serves as a point-of-contact for developers seeking information about regulatory
                     processes applicable to their projects. Recently, the CAP and PIC Service responsibility was
                     given to another state agency. In addition, an applicant's guide to land and water permits
                     and approvals was prepared by the CZM Program.

                     Hazards Protection - Beginning in FY88, the CZM Program coordinated a multi-year study
                     on beach erosion. The first report analyzed the physical characteristics of selected beaches,
                     including vegetation lines, historic and seasonal cycles of erosion and accretion, susceptibility
                     to high waves, and coastal engineering features. Alternative mitigation measures wer--
                     recommended, including financing schemes, as well as proposed amendments to regulatory
                     programs to improve planning, review, and approval processes for shoreline development.

                     Natural Resource Protection - Hawaii's ancient fishponds are a unique component of the
                     state's culture and history. During FY88, a management plan was completed that included
                     an inventory, assessment and evaluation of the Hawaiian fishponds on Oahu, Molokai and
                     Hawaii. A key component of the inventory was a description of the surrounding land use


                                                                    74








                  and recommendations for pond preservation for historic parks or aquaculture potential. The
                  remaining islands will be inventoried during FY89.

                  Ul.'Mjaor Grant Tasks

                  In FY88, the Hawaii CZM Program began a multi-year study on beach erosion that also
                  included a public education component. The County of Kauai completed a coastal view
                  study and developed an inventory of shoreline properties and structures. In addition, the
                  state Department of Land and Natural Resources commissioned a     Hawaiian fishpond study
                  and the Hawaii CZM program document was updated.

                  Using FY89 funds, the Hawaii CZM Program is continuing the beach erosion and fishpond
                  studies. Also, a coastal view study for the County of Maui and a beach management plan
                  for the City and County of Honolulu is being undertaken.

                  IV. Significant Program Chango

                  In 1988, the Governor signed into law Senate Bill 3166, which transferred the responsibility
                  for the CZM program to the Office of State Planning. This program change was submitted
                  and approved by OCRM. It included modification io the legislative and administrative
                  elements of the Hawaii CZM Program.

                  V. Federal Consistengy

                  The OSP is striving to streamline the review process by issuing general consistency
                  determinations for benign activities. In 1988, two agencies were issued general consistency
                  statements for their activities. The OSP is continuing this effort by examining potential
                  streamlining measures for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permits.



                  The final evaluation findings issued in May 1989, indicated that the State of Hawaii is
                  adhering to its approved coastal zone management program and is making progress on its
                  significant improvement tasks. The most significant issues which need to be addressed by
                  -the state are: clearly defining the role of the Statewide Advisory Committee (SAC),
                  reeducating the public on Hawaii's CZM policies and procedures, and having OSP develop
                  a strategy addressing such emerging issues as regulatory activities, and development and
                  resource use pressures.








                                                              75










                                                          LOUISLANA






                   Federal Approval Date: August 1, 1980
                   Federal Funding FY88: $198839000
                   Federal Funding FY89: $1,934,000


                   1. BagkgLoun

                   The Louisiana Coastal Resources Program (LCRP) is based on the Louisiana State and
                   Local Resources Management Act of 1978 (Act) and implemented by the Department of
                   Natural Resource's Coastal Management Division (CMD). The coastal zone boundary
                   encompasses all or part of 19 parishes (roughly 5.3 million acres) and extends to the limit
                   of state territorial waters. The Act established a comprehensive regulatory program, the
                   Coastal Use Permit Program, through which the state directly regulates any use or activity
                   within the coastal zone that has a direct and significant impact on coastal waters. Parishes
                   are authorized, but not required, to develop Local Coastal Programs (LCPs); if an LCP is
                   approved by CMD, the Parish may then regulate certain local uses. CMD has designated
                   two special management areas -- the Louisiana Offshore Oil Port and the Marsh Island
                   Wildlife Refuge -- and is in the process of developing special area management plans
                   (SAMPs) for the Lake Pontchartrain and Barataria Basins.

                   H. Program Accomp@hshments

                   Improved Government Relations - Prior to 1988, relations between the state and some of
                   the parishes with approved LCPs had become strained. CMD commissioned a study, funded
                   by OCRM, to identify major issues and make recommendations for improvements in
                   state/local interaction, coordination, and communication. Many of the recommendations of
                   the study have already been implemented as new procedures or internal policies. The state
                   is continuing to evaluate and implement other recommendations.

                   Wetlands Protection - Louisiana is currently experiencing the loss of between 30-50 square
                   miles of coastal wetlands annually due to natural* and man-induced factors. Oil and gas
                   activities have been one of the more substantial man-induced factors. A geologic assistance
                   review procedure was developed to provide geologic and engineering advice to CMD on
                   some permit matters regarding oil and gas activities. CZM funds are used to contract with
                   coastal geologists and engineers to provide technical recommendations on the feasibility of
                   alternate access, surface relocation and/or directional drilling. The CMD expanded this
                   procedure in 1988 to apply to all proposed oil and gas exploration and production sites in
                   the coastal zone. The expanded process, along with General Permit #2 (described below),


                                                               76



 7-




              has resulted in shorter access canals and the reduction of average wetlands alterations per
              coastal permit from 5.5 acres in 1983 to less than 2.5 acres in 1989.

              The LCRP has also developed two general permits to expedite oil and gas activities, as well
              as minimize coastal wetlands losses. General Permit #2 allows dredging of small access slips
              while limiting the total area altered to 2.4 acres. General Permit #3 allows filling for land
              drilling operations provided there are no less damaging alternative sites, or methods of
              access to the site. In addition to reducing wetlands alteration, these general permits are
              estimated to have saved the oil companies more than $5.3 million annually.

              Improved Program Implementation - Using CZM funds, the state has developed a
              sophisticated Geographic Information System (GIS) and coastal database which are regularly
              used to facilitate permit review and natural resource monitoring and analysis. CMD has
              created a digital coastal database for most of its coastal zone. The database includes:
              coastal wetland habitats; a marsh management plan database; a natural heritage database
              for endangered or rare species; an OCS block database; and a databasefor Special Area
              Management Plans (SAMPs).

              In the FY88-89 period, the state added data from LANDSAT satellite imagery to its
              database. Permit applications include project location coordinates, which when entered into
              the GIS by a permit officer automatically pulls up resource, permit, cultural, and other
              information on the area. The system, which also directs the user to other quadrangle maps,
              aerial photography, and other relevant information, is used to compute relative land loss,
              and perform habitat change and environmental sensitivity analyses. This has greatly
              improved staff efficiency in issuing permits. The GIS and database have also been used
              extensively by the Department of the Interior's Minerals Management Service and the U.S.
              Army Corps of Engineers in current wetlands studies.

              III. Major Grant Tasks

              Special Area Management - CMD is in the process of developing SAMPs for the Lake
              Pontchartrain and the Barataria Basin. These plans will identify the management areas,
              technical aspects of issues to be considered, methods of implementing the plan, and
              recommendations to the state regarding SAMP designation. Consideration of the role of the
              National Estuarine Program (NEP) in the overall SAMP will be addressed by CMD since
              the Barataria and Terrebonne Basins were nominated as an NEP in 1989.


              Improved Program Implementation - The CMD is conducting a broad legal review of the
              LCRP, which will include' evaluating current Memoranda of Understanding 'MOU',) with
              state and Federal agencies, redrafting those that need to be changed and developing new
              MOU's. The review will also evaluate many of the Coastal Use Guidelines, and CMD
              internal guidelines, policies and program definitions. It will recommend changes and aid in
   I          the development of a single policy manual for CMb.


                                                            77








                   Wetlands Resource Protection - OCRM is funding several studies and research projects
                   directed at improving coastal wetlands protection. Access canals are usually dredged to oil
                   and gas production sites that cannot be accessed through directional drilling or other
                   techniques. CMD personnel, working with the EPA, will undertake an Alternative Access
                   Feasibility Study under the FY89 award. The study will evaluate the feasibility of using
                   alternative, less damaging transportation methods to gain access to oil and gas production
                   sites and make recommendations to the state. Another area of controversy regarding
                   wetlands management is managing spoil banks along oil and gas access canals. CMD,
                   working with other state and Federal agencies, will conduct a Spoil Bank Management
                   Study in FY 89 to evaluate the benefits and impacts of having continuous versus gapped
                   spoil banks.

                   Finally, the effect of marsh management plans (semi-i   mpounded, hydrologically managed
                   wetlands plans) on marine organisms and wetlands is another controversial management
                   issue. CMD staff and contractors initiated several research projects on the impacts of these
                   plans in FY 88 and will continue the research and monitoring in FY 89.             The final
                   recommendations of these and other major Federal studies will be used to revise current
                   guidelines regulating activity in wetlands in FY 90. CMD is also evaluating potential coastal
                   wetlands restoration and enhancement sites which could be used for future wetlands
                   mitigation. This project will provide the beginnings of management efforts to deal with a
                   wetlands no-net-loss policy. -                                                                   I
                   Water Quali1y Protection - CMD is currently undertaking efforts to better coordinate the
                   LCMP and Clean Water Act Section 401 water quality certification and non-point source
                   programs administered by Department of Environmental Quality, Office of Water Resources
                   (DEQ). CMD will develop regular coordination between the two staffs, and will participate
                   on DEQ task forces for these water quality programs. CMD will also contract in FY 89 with
                   the Louisiana Geological Survey to conduct studies on the adequacy of OCS oil and gas
                   transportation plans and oil spill contingency plans in state waters.

                   IV. Significartt Prouam Change

                   In April 1989, the Louisiana Legislature passed Act 6 creating the Wetlands Conservation
                   and Restoration Authority, and establishing a Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Trust
                   Fund to fund restoration projects. The Act gave the new entity authority to: 1) develop
                   guidelines for coastal wetlands conservation and restoration; 2) develop a list of priority
                   restoration and conservation projects, wetlands conservation, and a restoration plan, and 3)
                   modify Coastal Use Permits and marsh management plans that would have impacts on
                   restoration projects. The legislation also reorganized part of Louisiana DNR by creating the
                   Office of Coastal Restoration and Management in the DNR consisting of the Coastal
                   Management Division and Coastal Restoration Division. This new legislation will eventually
                   be submitted for incorporation into the program.




                                                                78








             V. Federal ConsistenU

             A major issue in Louisiana involves the applicability of Federal consistency to EPA's
             designation of ocean dumping sites, the Houma Navigation Canal (HNC) and Barataria Bay
             Canal Dredging (BBC) in particular. The state has suggested that the applicant, the U.S.
             Army Corps of Engineers (COE), use dredge spoil for marsh creation and beach
             renourishment and has issued findings of inconsistency for both of the EPA designated sites.
             EPA and the COE disregarded this finding stating that designation of an ocean disposal site
             was not subject to Section 307 Federal consistency. This finding was made -before EPA
             issued its policy that the Federal consistency process would be followed in the designation
             of ocean disposal sites.

             VI. Evaluation Findin


             Final evaluation findings were issued March 10, 1989. While indicating that the state was
             implementing and enforcing the essential elements of the approved program, the findings
             recommended changes made to the operational procedures of the LCRP. Recommendations
             included: reviewing LCRP policies and improving communications with local programs.
             Finally, the findings recommended developing an administrative fine system, addressing the
             "after-the-fact" permit, and making better use of the State's Attorney General's Office to
             improve program enforcement. Accomplishments noted were better implementation of the
             LCRP through development of the geologic review process and General Permits #2 and #3.
             Other noteworthy improvements included better organization of the CMD and improved
             technical assistance to the local coastal programs.






















                                                          79










                                                               MAINE





                   Federal Approval Date- September 1978
                   Federal Funding FY88: $1,475"000
                   Federal Funding FY89: $1,474,000


                   1. Backgroun

                   The State Planning Office (SPO) is the lead state agency for the Maine Coastal
                   Management Program (MeCMP). A network of 13 state laws that are jointly administered
                   by state and local governments comprise the MeCMP. The Maine Department of
                   Environmental Protection (DEP) is the primary regulatory agency for most of these laws.
                   The state's coastal boundary includes the inland line of all coastal towns and all coastal
                   islands. The state is now addressing these major coastal issues: growth management, water
                   quality and public access.

                   H. Program Accomplishments

                   Habitat Protection - Under Maine's Critical Areas        Program, over 600 areas have been
                   designated to receive special protection from state      regulatory programs. These include
                   natural areas such as wetlands, fisheries habitats and deer wintering areas. Site information
                   collected under this program was mapped and incorporated into a program database from
                   which a state Register of Critical Areas was developed. The Register is now used as a
                   management tool by state regulatory agencies in making permit decisions.

                   Managing Coastal Development - The multi-year efforts by the MeCMP to assess the
                   impacts of coastal development on the state's coastal and ocean resources culminated in the
                   passage of "The Comprehensive Planning and Land Use Regulation Act of 1988." The Act
                   establishes a cooperative program of comprehensive planning and land use management
                   among municipalities, regional councils, and the state. Local governments are required to
                   prepare growth management programs and implementation plans which contain appropriate
                   zoning ordinances approved by state agencies and the appropriate regional councils before
                   their adoption. The state appropriated $1 million for comprehensive planning in 1989 and
                   for 1990. Awards have been made to 58 of the 140 towns which have experienced high
                   growth since 1980 (34 are coastal towns). All towns must complete plans and zoning
                   programs by 1996.

                   Coastal Hazards - The 1988 revisions to the Sand Dune Rules includ           e the nation's first
                   official recognition of sea level rise in a regulatory program. The rules prohibit reconstruc-
                   tion of buildings severely damaged by storms, seawalls and bulkheads.


                                                                  so









              Fisheries Management - The Portland Fish Pier became home of the Portland Fish
              Exchange, the first of its kind in the nation, which has greatly enhanced the quality of fish
              available to consumers and improved prices for fishermen.

              Public Access: During this report period, the MeCMP funded 18 low-cost construction
              projects, to provide enhanced coastal access opportunities along Maine's coast. They
              included development and rehabilitation of waterfront parks, such as Rockport, Bangor,
              Pembroke and Portland; wharf and parking lot reconstruction at Castine, Freeport and
              Bucksport; and land acquisition for South Blue Hill and construction of a new_gangway for
              access to the floats. The MeCMP funded the acquisition of three new boat launch sites
              (about 8 acres), bringing the total number of state coastal boat launch sites to 53. Also,
              CZM funds were used to assist the state in acquiring over 2,000 acres of land which includes
              more than 10,000 feet combined of coastal frontage.

              In a ruling issued March 30, 1989, the Maine Supreme Court upheld a Superior Court
              decision that public access to privately-owned Moody Beach located in Wells, Maine, was
              not extended to include recreational uses by the public. In its decision, the Court said that
              the public trust in Maine was limited to traditional rights of fishing, fowling and navigation.
              The decision supports the right of oceanfront property owners in the Town of Wells, Maine,
              to legally prohibit access to their property by the public for the purpose of enjoying
              recreational activities such as swimming and sunbathing.

              In response to the decision in the Moody Beach case, the MeCMP has expanded its efforts
              to meet the immediate coastal access and educational needs in the state which include the
              following framework: 1) public access planning; 2) acquisition of sites for coastal access; 3)
              improving institutional arrangements affecting public access opportunities; and 4) discovering
              access opportunities that have been overlooked. Along these lines, various projects have
              been completed, and others are now underway or in planning.

              The MeCMP funded the recently completed right-of-way (ROW) discovery program, which
              involved nine coastal communities. As a result of this effort, a total of 37 rediscovered
              ROWs were recorded and an instructional handbook for communities to undertake future
              ROW projects was completed and distributed. Several communities are now in various
              stages of the ROW program, and additional sites are under consideration.

              In 1988, data from a previous coast-wide public access survey by the SPO was combined with
              access site data from more current local and regional inventories to form a state data base
              file of coastal access sites. During 1989, the data was reviewed for accuracy by each coastal
              community and all updates and changes were made in the data base. The access inventory
              identified 682 publicly owned coLstal access sites which have all been delineated on maps
              of each coastal municipality and distributed to towns, regional planning commissions and
              other relevant agencies in the state.




                                                            81








                    Managing Interstate Waterbodies - In a collaborative, joint effort, the New England States
                    of Maine, New Hampshire and Massachusetts and the Canadian Provinces of Nova Scotia
                    and New Brunswick, have renewed their management efforts to sustain the vast resources
                    of the Gulf of Maine (GoM). Recent studies on the GoM have reported that the Gulf,
                    which was previously one of the most productive coastal waters in the world, may be
                    irreversibly damaged by chemicals, poisonous heavy metals, bacteria and overfishing.

                    In support of this joint effort, the MeCMP has received two section 309 interstate grants
                    from OCRM. In October 1988, an interstate grant was awarded for the purpose of
                    preparing two products. First, a State of the Gulf report was completed and used as the
                    primary document for a conference on the Gulf in December 1989. The conference resulted
                    in an international agreement on the Gulf, which was signed by the three state Governors
                    and two Canadian Premiers. Second, the design of an ecosystem based environmental
                    monitoring program for the Gulf was funded. In September 1989, a second award was made
                    to the MeCMP to support the development of a 10-year natural resources action plan for
                    the Gulf, to assist with the conference held in December 1989, and to assist in preparing
                    several editions of a newsletter on the Gulf. Progress has been made under this effort,
                    which is expected to continue.

                    Permit Simplification - A Permit by Rule was adopted by the DEP and enacted in February
                    1989. Under this rule, certain minor activities, such as placement of moorings and riprap
                    can be conducted without filing for permits. The rule requires that a notice be filed with the
                    DEP and affected local government at the time of application for a permit by rule.

                    III. Major Grant Tasks

                    The FY 88 grant sponsored a series of regional workshops for local officials of coastal
                    communities. The workshops focused on several issues including the state's coastal policies,
                    water quality, public access, and harbor management planning and historic preservation.
                    The workshops educated local officials on the state's regulatory programs for more improved
                    management at the local level.

                    Under the FY 88 award, the MeCMP was instrumental in proposing and organizing the
                    Maine Marine Alliance, an organization covering all marine interests in the coastal area.
                    The organization represents 22,000 marine related jobs contributing nearly $494 million in
                    salaries to the state's economy. Under the grant, the program will propose ways in which
                    the Alliance can develop an agenda to improve marine water quality, shoreline access, and
                    working waterfronts. A major benefit of this project is its potential influence on the state
                    legislature regarding high priority CZM issues. The Miance also advocates state and local
                    permitting programs, to preserve and protect the shoreline against adverse projects.

                    Under the FY 89 award, the MeCMP will address several coastal and ocean resource issues
                    in Maine. Policy issues include marine waters, Maine's islands, and estuarine management.
                    With regard to resource issues, the MeCMP will include management recommendations,


                                                                 82








             legislative proposals such as draft legislation and proposed amendments to existing core laws,
             a fiscal note, and a policy document on how best to manage resources.

             IV. Siggificant Progmm Change

             Numerous changes were made to the MeCMP core laws during the report period. The most
             significant changes were:

                    o Revisions to the Protection of Waters Act, which upgraded the state's classification
                       of surface waters.


                    o   Mandatory Shoreland Management and Zoning Law, which was changed to
                       include certain freshwater wetlands.


                    o  The Coastal Wetlands and Sand Dunes Act, Alteration of Streams Act, Freshwater
                       Wetlands Act, Great Ponds Act and previous core laws were consolidated into one
                       law, the Natural Resources Protection Act. Permit standards for each of these laws
                       were included in this Act.


             V. Federal Consisten


             Federal consistency reviews are conducted jointly by the MeCMP and the        DEP. During this
             period, major Federal consistency issues involved the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
             maintenance dredging projects at several state harbors. In a DEP Department Order and
             Federal Consistency Determination, the state denied approval for a COE maintenance
             dredging project at the Town of Wells harbor. The DEP's draft decision was based on the
             potential for adverse impacts to the nearby intertidal flats and salt marsh of the Webhannet
             Estuary, and the impacts of the dredge spoil material on the beach, marine organisms and
             wildlife in the harbor area. The COE's request to dredge the harbor is currently being
             revised and will soon be resubmitted to the DEP.


             VI. Evaluation Findin


             The final evaluation findings issued November 30, 1989, indicated the state is implementing
             and enforcing the essential elements of the approved coastal program. Accomplishments
             cited include: the passage of the Growth Management and Comprehensive Planning Act
             in 1988; increased funding for core law licensing and enforcement; a $35 million bond
             initiative for access and recreation; and initiating an interstate project on the Gulf of Maine.
             Areas in need of improvement include enforcement activities, comprehensive planning and
             zoning efforts, and harbor management issues.






                                                            83










                                                              MARYLAND





                       Federal Approval Date: September 1978
                       Federal Funding FY88: $1,883,000
                       Federal Funding FY89: $1,934,000


                       1. Backaound

                       The Maryland Coastal Zone Management Program (MCZMP) is based on a networking of
                       existing state laws.and authorities. Implementation is accomplished through Memoranda of
                       Understanding between the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), the lead agency, and
                       other state agencies. The program's coastal zone boundary includes the 16 coastal counties
                       and Baltimore City. Within the DNR the Coastal Resources Division (CRD) is responsible
                       for coordinating and monitoring the MCZMP. Maryland also controls development in a
                       critical area 1,000 feet landward from all tidally influenced waters through the Chesapeake
                       Bay Critical Areas Law and Commission. The Critical Area law and criteria were
                       incorporated by amendment into the MCZMP on July 27, 1987. Most of the local coastal
                       communities have developed land use plans for the critical area as mandated by the Critical
                       Areas legislation.

                       H. Proaarn Accomplishments

                       Natural Resource Protection - The state passed legislation prohibiting oil and gas drilling in
                       the waters of the Chesapeake Bay. This legislation precludes all drill operations through the
                       Chesapeake Bay water column but does allow "slant" drilling from the shore to potential
                       resource deposits under the Bay. This activity "I require a state permit, approval from the
                       Maryland Critical Areas Commission, and strict monitoring.

                       In addition, the Maryland Environmental Trust (MET) continues to secure conservation
                       easements along the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. Private landowners donate the
                       development rights on their land to the MET in exchange for financial benefits. The
                       landowners retain all other rights and privileges.

                       Wetlands Protection - The DNR played an active role in developing the. new state non-tidal
                       wetland law. The new law incorporates the no-net-loss concept. The goal of the program
                       is to attain a no-net-loss of non-tidal wetland acreage and function, and to strive for a net
                       resource gain.    The law provides the DNR with strict permitting, mitigation, and
                       comprehensive watershed planning authority. The law also mandates a Nontidal Wetlands
                       Compensation Fund for creation, restoration, and enhancement of non-tidal wetlands. This
                       law Will soon be submitted to OCRM for incorporation into the MCZMP.


                                                                    84








              Public Information - The CRD has conducted highly successful recreational boating
              workshops to address citizen concerns. The DNR developed an issue paper to guide future
              DNR actions in this area. The paper includes information, for approximately 150 creeks and
              similar water areas, on line of sight, shoreline characteristics, boating facilities, swimming
              areas, shoreline erosion, boat traffic, accidents/complaints, special conditions, and current
              boating regulations.

              Public Access - The CRD has continued to make extensive use of CZMA Section 306A low-
              cost construction program. In FY88, the state expended $240,574 in Federal funds on five
              projects. These projects provided major improvements to some of Maryland's coastal parks.
              The state is expected to expend approximately $250,000 in FY89 on five to seven section
              306A projects.

              1H. Major Grant Tasks

              In FY88 and FY89, the CRD was in the process of rewriting the state's CZM Program
              Document. Under FY87, FY88, and FY89 awards, the CRD provided funds to the
              Maryland Natural Heritage Program to identify important coastal plant and wildlife habitat
              areas and to develop long-term management programs to protect these areas. FY87, FY88,
              and FY89 funds are also being used for the Anacostia River Study. This study will produce
              a numerical water quality model leading to the identification of pollution abatement methods
              resulting in improved water quality and aquatic habitat enhancement.

              During FY88, the state developed a sub-watershed-wide plan for non-tidal wetland
              protection to guide permitting and mitigation actions. The plan was developed through the
              u e of the NOAA funded regionalization of the Wetland Evaluation Technique model. AJso
              as a result of an FY88 study on phragmites control, the state is attempting to rid the
              Chesapeake Bay area of this undesirable marsh grass.

              In FY89, the state will be developing a Chesapeake Bay access and land preservation plan.
              This project will result in a series of overlay maps depicting all public access locations, areas
              where additional access is needed, and ecologically sensitive areas in need of protection.
              FY89 funds will also be used to map important fishery resource areas. Copies of the maps
              will be distributed to state and Federal agencies making land and water resource
              management decisions affecting fishery resources.

              Using FY89 funds, the state is continuing its support for the National Center for Maritime
              Preservation Technology. A plan will be developed on how the Center will provide for (1)
              technology transfer, (2) promotion of research in maritime preservation and underwater
              archaeological technologies, (3) resource protection and conservation, and (4) involvement
              of the government, industry, and the public in maritime preservation information.





                                                             85








                    rV. ftmflcant Emgm Changes

                    The state will be submitting a revised program document, the Chesapeake Bay oil and gas
                    prohibition laws, the new non-tidal wetland law, and the local government Chesapeake Bay
                    Critical Area Protection Plans for incorporation into the MCZMP.

                    V. Federal Consistengy

                    The DNR is developing a Federal consistency handbook. This will be useful to the public,
                    the state and Federal agencies when proposing projects'in Maryland's coastal zone.

                    VI. Evaluation Findin

                    The final evaluation findings issued October 25, 1988, indicate that the state is adhering to
                    its approved coastal program and that the CRD is adhering to the terms and conditions of
                    its financial assistance awards. Accomplishments of the program included the finalization
                    of most of the 60 local Chesapeake Bay Critical Areas Protection Programs, the state's
                    Conservation Easement Program, Non-Tidal Wetland Initiatives, and recreational boating
                    workshops.     Recommendations included increasing staff support for local technical
                    assistance, increasing information sharing among the local coastal governments, increasing
                    monitoring of state agency and local government activities, developing a Federal consistency
                    handbook and clarification of-the state's Federal consistency process, and submitting various
                    program changes.






















                                                                 86









                                                  MASSACHUSETrS





               Federal Approval Date: April 1978
               Federal Funding FY88: $1,181,000
               Federal Funding FY89: $1,180,000


               I. B

               The legal framework for the Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program (MCZMP)
               is in the Act Relative to the Protection of the Massachusetts Coastline which was passed in
               1983. The program includes 27 policies which serve as a guide for implementing the
               authorities of the program. Other key laws of the program are the Wetlands Protection Act,
               the Wetlands Restriction Act, and the Ocean Sanctuaries Act. The lead Commonwealth
               agency for the MCZMP is the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs (EOEA), with
               EOEA's Office of Coastal Zone Management having responsibility for the day to day
               administration of the MCZMP. The coastal zone boundary extends 100 feet inland of
               specified major roads, rail lines, or other visible right-of-ways which are located up to one-
               half mile from coastal waters or salt marshes, and includes all of Cape Cod, Martha's
               Vineyard, and Nantucket. Major coastal issues include public access, coastal erosion, non-
               point source pollution and critical area planning.

               H. PLqgmm Accomp@hshments

               Natural Resource Protection - To formally recognize the importance of significant coastal
               resource systems, the MCZMP designates Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
               (ACECs). Designation of these areas ensures protection of the coastal resources included
               within the ACEC systems by requiring a higher level of review including higher performance
               standards for activities in and affecting these designated ACECs. The Commonwealth has
               designated 14 ACECs, of which 11 are coastal.

               The MCZMP has taken the lead in efforts relative to the Buzzards Bay National Estuary
               Program. MCZMP's extensive efforts led to the Environmental Protection Agency's
               designation of Buzzards Bay under the National Estuary Programs (NEP). The NEP for
               Buzzards Bay has served as a model for other such programs around the nation. Under the
               auspices of the Buzzards Bay Management Committee, of which the MCZMP is a key
               participant, a Comprehensive Conservation Management Plan is now being prepared for the
               Bay. The Buzzards Bay NEP is a cooperative state/Federal effort and the MCZMP has
               Played a major role in this effort since its inception.



                                                            87







                     In conjunction with "Coastweeks," the MCZMP helped to organize and conduct a variety of
                     activities which focused attention on the value and importance of the Commonwealth's
                     coastline. Over 300 events were held in the state during Coastweeks '88 and '89. Of these
                     events beach cleanups were no doubt the most popular. In 1988, some 2,200 volunteers
                     collected over 25 tons of debris from over 150 miles of commonwealth shoreline. In 1989,
                     over 3,000 volunteers cleared more than 30 tons of debris from about 200 miles. As a result
                     of these events, a heightened awareness of the coast and its importance was advanced.

                     The MCZMP prepared a handbook entitled, Primer for Dredging in the Coastal Zone of
                     Massachusetts. The handbook addresses topics such as dredging technologies, disposal
                     alternatives, environmental impacts, regulatory framework, and environmental testing. The
                     handbook is a management too] used by the commonwealth in making decisions on the best
                     management practices related to dredging. Also, efforts by the MCZMP to limit the use of
                     antifouling points containing the chemical Tributyltin (TBT), led to the decision by the state
                     to suspend use of this chemical in its waters.

                     Public Access - The CZM program published a revised version of its public access guide
                     entitled, The Guide to Public Access in Massachusetts. The guide covers rights of access,
                     information on boat registration, and general information on fishing in the Commonwealth.
                     It includes a list of regular freshwater boat access, canoe and car top boat access points and
                     saltwater access, along with how the points are chosen and who maintains them. Over 121
                     public access points (boat ramps) are listed. For each point, the guide includes a map and
                     notes restrictions, fees, special services, and number of parking spaces.

                     Coastal Hazards - MCZMP completed Massachusetts Shoreline Change Summa1y Maps,
                     which describes the amount the shoreline has changed for more than 350 locations along the
                     Commonwealth's coast. The changes have been caused by either erosion or accretion. The
                     maps are free of charge and have been distributed to property owners, public officials and
                     private business.

                     Improving Government Operations - Under the auspices of the MCZMP, an Environmental
                     Crime Strike Force was created. The primary purpose for the 34-member Strike Force is
                     to increase the state's ability to protect its coastal resources from violators such as illegal
                     wetland fill, toxic discharges to sewage and threats to drinking water supplies and illegal
                     dumping. The Strike Force consists of prosecutors, police officers, and scientists who have
                     been trained in this area.


                     M. MaJor Grant Tasks

                     A significant improvement grant task addressed the issue of improving the commonwealth's
                     ability to enforce its wetlands protection provisions. AJso, a strategy was developed which
                     included cross training of DEP personnel, hiring of term appointments to eliminate the
                     backlog of applications and completion of the Chapter 91 regulations which are expected by
                     March 30, 1990.


                                                                   88
  F








               Under a FY89 award, a major grant task related to improving coastal water quality and an
               effort by the state to quantify contaminant input from treatment plants. The report area will
               focus on efforts to quantify treatment plant loadings to marine waters in Massachusetts Bay.

               IV. Sienificant Program Chanaes

               During the report period, three new ACECs were designated and approved by OCRM as
               routine program implementation (RPI). The regulations for designation of ACECs were
               revised and approved as RPIs.

               V. Federal Consisten


               Federal consistency reviews are conducted by the MCZMP. An effort by the state to
               streamline the consistency review process was initiated during the report period. This
               includes the conduct of concurrent reviews by all environmental regulatory agencies,
               following the completion of the Massachusetts Environmental Protection Act (MEPA)
               review process. Concurrent review has shortened the overall review process time for large-
               scale projects and has been more efficient.

               During the biennium, MCZMP determined that the waste water treatment facility located
               outside its coastal zone in Seabrook, New Hampshire, would be subject to a formal
               consistency review by Massachusetts. EPA has informed Seabrook that a consistency
               certification from Massachusetts, as well as New Hampshire, must be submitted before a
               NPDES permit can be issued. The Corps of Engineers has held that a consistency
               certification from Massachusetts is not necessary for the Section 404 permit. Both the Corps
               and EPA will hold public hearings on the project during the summer of 1990 before making
               their permit decision.

               VI. Evaluation Findings

               Final evaluation findings were signed January 28, 1988. The state was recognized for its
               leadership in addressing coastal issues as exemplified by its implementation of the MEPA,
               its work on technical assistance to towns for coastal area planning and management and for
               drafting the initial proposed regulations under Chapter 91 of the Massachusetts General Law
               regarding the issuance of licenses/permits for activities in state tidelands. The principal
               recommendations concerned the Coastal Wetlands Restriction Program, implementing and
               enforcing the state's Wetlands Protection Law, and the need to complete a non-technical
               user's guide for the shoreline change maps.








                                                            89









                                                           MICIRGAN




                   Federal Approval Date: August 1978
                   Federal Funding FY88: $1,883,000
                   Federal Funding FY89: $1,934,000


                   I. BadWound

                   The Michigan Coastal Management Program (MCMP) was approved in August 1978. The
                   Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is the lead state agency for coastal management.
                   The DNR's Land and Water Management Division (LWMD) is responsible for
                   administration and management of the MCMP. Major authorities under which the MCMP
                   is administered include: the Shorelands Protection and Management Act; the Great Lakes
                   Submerged Lands Act; the Sand Dunes Protection and Management Act; the Goemaere-
                   Anderson Wetlands Protection Act; the Inland Lakes and Streams Act; and the Michigan
                   Environmental Protection Act.


                   The Natural Resources Commission establishes policy and guidelines for all DNR programs
                   based on recommendations from a Citizens Advisory Committee and the Standing
                   Committee on Shorelands and Waters. In addition, the Inter-Departmental Environmental
                   Review Board and the Governor's Cabinet Committee on Environment and Land Use serve
                   as forums for coordination and conflict resolution.

                   The MCMP's lakeward coastal boundary is the jurisdictional border that Michigan shares
                   with Canada's Province of Ontario and the states of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana,
                   and Ohio. The landward coastal boundary extends inland to include resources that affect
                   the coastal zone and includes significant coastal features such as sand dunes, wetlands, and
                   coastal lakes. The Michigan coastline is geographically unique because it consists of two
                   large peninsulas and is surrounded by four of the five Great Lakes.

                   H. Program Accomplishments

                   Sand Dunes Protection - In July 1989, the state Legislature passed amendments to the Sand
                   Dunes Protection and Management Act. Key provisions of the Act include the designation
                   of Critical Dune Areas, the establishment of a model zoning plan for sand dunes protection,
                   and the option of local governments to adopt zoning ordinances to administer the Act. The
                   Act identifies uses that are prohibited in Critical Dune Areas and establishes the
                   requirement that structures be located behind the crest of the first landward ridge of a
                   critical dune that is not a foredune.





                                                               90








                Underwater Archaeology - The MCMP conducted several projects related to the
                preservation and exploration of underwater archaeology. For example, the MCMP
                contributed grant funds to a research team using an underwater robot to study two
                shipwrecks, including the Edmund Fitzgerald and one previously unexplored shipwreck. The,
                research team tested the use of video equipment to assess its value. Other efforts in this
                area include the installation of a standardized buoy system on shipwrecks within Michigan's
                Bottomland Preserves, and the patrol of Michigan's seven Underwater Preserves to detect
                illegal salvage. The state Legislature also passed amendments to the Underwater Salvage
                Act, including stricter fines and penalties for the illegal removal of underwater artifacts.

                Great Lakes Information System - In 1986, the Land and Water Management Division
                developed the Great Lakes Information System (GLIS). The computerized geographical
                information system for the Great Lakes is intended to consolidate environmental quality and
                resource management data to enable resource managers complete access to all existing data
                for decisionmaking. Recent projects on GLIS involve the continuation of data entry for
                sensitive areas, critical habitats, and floodplains. In addition to mapped data, GLIS has
                established a database on the environmental quality of Lake Michigan. The database
                consists of several hundred thousand records of water and sediment quality data from point
                sampling sites. This database is a companion to that established for Lake Huron.

                Public Access - The Michigan - Coastal Management Program awards funds to 30-40
                communities a year for low-cost construction or projects. Each award amount ranges from
                $3,000 to $50,000. These grants provide considerable benefits to communities attempting
                to increase or improve public access opportunities.

                Wetlands Protection - Several booklets and technical documents have been developed and
                published by the MCMP. The Wetland Protection Guidebook provides information on the
                Wetlands Protection Act, defines and discusses the value of wetlands, and explains
                Michigan's wetland permitting process. A brochure, Michigan Wetlands: A Guide for
                                        _10mebuilders, is aimed at educating property owners and local
                Officials who are involved in development.          The MCMP developed the Wetland
                                        for Field Tg "in to provide written and operational guidance in
                identifying wetland characteristics and indicators used in making wetland determinations.
                The primary purpose of the manual is to formalize the wetland determination process
                practiced by DNR personnel in conducting wetland determinations.
                tr_otection of Estuarine Areas - Special Area Management Plans are being written for river
                Mouth areas that are under intense development pressure.             The purpose of these
                rnanagement plans is to assist staff in permit reviews, shorten the permit process, and
                educate local officials and property owners. The plans summarize resource information and
                collect site-specific data on the resource. This information is then used to make general and
                lite-specific guidelines for development.



                                                             91








                III. Major Grant Tasks

                In addition to basic administration of coastal regulatory authorities, highlights of the FY88
                award included staff work on amending the Sand Dunes Protection and Management Act
                to regulate non-mining development activities in sand dune areas, expanding the Great
                Lakes Information System, collecting data for the DNR Saginaw Bay Initiative, and
                continued implementation of the St. Clair Flats Management Plan. In addition, t    'heMCMP
                continued to fund many section 306A projects, including overlooks, trails, boardwalks, and
                historic preservation projects.

                In the FY89 award, the MCMP has further developed certain provisions of the newly passed
                Sand Dunes Act and amendments to the Underwater Salvage Act. The MCMP is also
                working on proposed rule changes to the Shorelands Protection and Management Act. With
                the passage of the amendments and rule changes, the program is publishing updates to the
                booklets describing these Acts. In implementing the Shorelands Management and Protection
                Act, the MCMP is developing Special Area Management Plans for estuarine areas,
                conducting recession rate studies for high risk erosion areas, and monitoring flood risk areas
                for compliance with floodplain regulations.

                The MCMP continued to fund numerous low-cost construction and planning projects.
                Under its current grant, 30 low-cost construction and 12 planning projects are proposed.

                IV. Significant Program Changes

                No program changes were submitted during this report period.

                V. Federal Consisten


                The Michigan Coastal Management Program made a negative consistency determination
                regarding the extension of the navigation season by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The
                justification for the negative determination concerned detrimental ecological impacts to
                coastal wetlands, fish habitats and populations, and coastal structures. Furthermore, the
                MCMP stated that the Corps of Engineers did not fully consider alternatives.

                V1. Evaluation Findin


                The last evaluation site visit was conducted in July 1988, and the findings were published in
                January 1989. The findings cited the accomplishment of the state in taking a leadership role
                in addressing coastal issues, such as the Saginaw Bay integrated planning effort, the Great
                Lakes Inventory System, and the adoption of rules under the Wetlands Protection Act. Two
                recommendations were made in the findings: (1) to revise the wording in its Federal
                consistency determinations, and (2) to improve the administrative management of MCMP.




                                                              92










                                                     NMISSIPPI






               Federal Approval Date: September 1980
               Federal Funding FY88: $508,000
               Federal Funding FY89. $539,000


               1. Baftound

               The Mississippi Coastal Program (MCP) is based in large part on the Mississippi Coastal
               Wetlands Protection Law, and the Mississippi Marine Resource Council enabling legislation.
               The Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks (DWFP) is the lead agency and the
               DWFP/Bureau of Marine Resources (BMR) administers the major portion of this networked
               program. Mississippi's coastal zone boundary encompasses the three coastal counties and
               all coastal waters, although regulatory jurisdiction is generally more limited in scope.
               Collectively three "coastal program agencies" - the BMR, the Bureau of Pollution Control
               and Land and Water Resources, and the Department of Archives and History - are
               responsible for monitoring decisions that affect the coastal area and ensuring their
               consistency with the program. The BMR ensures that decisions made by the other state and
               Federal agencies are consistent with the MCP. The state has designated several ports and
               beaches Special Management Areas (SMA's).

               11. Program Accomashments

               Sand Beach Plan: Using CZM funds, the state implemented the Harrison/Hancock County
               Sand Beach Master Plan developed under an earlier CZM grant. The plans divided the
               beaches into planning units and provided beach management and recreational
               recommendations. Local governments adopted the recommendations and in FY88, the
               BMR continued to provided CZM funds to implement these plans which include: beach
               maintenance, vegetation plantings for erosion control, and other management techniques.
               The state also used section 306A funds to construct planned recreational improvements.
               tublic Access: The state has continued to provide increased public access to coastal waters
               through use of the section 306A low cost construction grants. The state completed five
               Public access section 306A projects in 1988 for a total of roughly $305,000 and to date has
               PrOPosed one access project in FY89 for a total of $64,250. FY88 projects consisted of four
               boat launches and one public pier, the FY89 project is an addition to an existing pier. The
                tate has completed 22 section. 306A public access projects (11 boat ramps or launches and
               11 Piers) between 1985 and 1988. In FY88, the BMR completed a water access site study
               which inventoried existing sites and determined needs for water access.

                                                           93








                 Natural Resource Protection - In recent years, oyster production in the state has diminished
                 greatly from roughly 100,000 sacks in 1982 to 20,000 sacks in 1988. For a number of years
                 the state has planted new oyster shell on old reefs to provide more hard bottom from oyster
                 clutch in order to increase oyster production. OCRM awarded $100,000 to purchase and
                 plant new shell in 1988.

                 111. Major Grant Tasks

                 Waterfront Redevelopment - In FY88, the BMR commissioned waterfront studies for the
                 Cities of Waveland, Moss Point, Pass Christian, and Biloxi. These studies identified the
                 potential for enhanced public use, economic redevelopment, conservation and preservation
                 of certain areas. The studies recommend development strategy and encourage appropriate
                 land and water uses in these waterfront areas.


                 Public Education - The State of Mississippi conducted public education outreach programs
                 in cooperation with the Biloxi Seafood Industry Museum and the Scranton Museum to
                 enhance public awareness of the marine and coastal environment. The funds were used to
                 add displays in the museums, support a public outreach campaign aimed at elementary level
                 students, and support a program to support a newly built Biloxi Schooner. The state also
                 used CZM funds to produce two more in a series of Marine Discovery Books on shorebirds
                 and dolphins.

                 Resource Protection - In FY89, the state used CZM funds to investigate the use of
                 mitigation Banking as a mechanism to mitigate unavoidable impacts to wetlands resources.
                 The study addressed t   he feasibility of establishing mitigation banks in Mississippi by
                 evaluating state and Federal regulations and administrative policies. The study also
                 evaluated the opportunities and obstacles presented by mitigation banks.

                 Coastal Water Ougft - In FY89, the BMR, working with the Bureau of Pollution Control,
                 will undertake a coastal water quality assessment. The task includes a review of water
                 quality classifications and regulations, an inventory of major land and water uses and point
                 and non-point sources, and an evaluation of local ordinances and techniques for controlling
                 pollution.

                 Improved Program Implementation - In FY89, the state will commission a legal review of
                 the MCP, including an evaluation of program policies and guidelines, approved special
                 management area agreements, permitting regulations, Federal consistency, and policy
                 coordination. The BMR will also assist the Secretary. of State's office in determining the
                 boundaries of Mississippi's public trust tidelands.

                 IV. SiggMcant Program Change

                 Mississippi Marine Debris Act - The state legislature passed the Mississippi Marine Debris
                 Act in 1989; the Act took effect July 1, 1989. The Act prohibits the disposal of any plastic,


                                                              94








               paper, metal or other garbage or debris into coastal waters by any person or vessel. The Act
               establishes strict penalties of up to $10,000 for violations. The Act also requires the
               placement of adequate solid waste receptacles at all areas accessible to the public for
               recreation or water dependent uses. The BMR is charged with developing guidelines for and
               enforcing the Act. The Mississippi Commission on Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks has already
               approved the incorporation of the Act into the MCP and OCRM is currently reviewing the
               legislation, which was submitted as a program change. If incorporated into the MCP, the
               BMR will receive CZM grant funds to aid in administering and enforcing the new law.

               DWC Reorganization - In mid 1989, the Department of Wildlife Conservation and Bureau
               of Marine Resources underwent a substantial reorganization.       The Mississippi Department
               of Parks was incorporated into the DWC to create the new Department of Wildlife,
               Fisheries and Parks. Within the department three divisions were established: Fisheries,
               Parks and Administrative @ervices. The BMR is now located in the Fisheries division.         The
               presence of a high level coastal/marine staff in Jackson, as a result of the reorganization, will
               give coastal and marine matters a much higher priority in the DWFP. Within the BMR the
               wetlands division was folded into the coastal programs division to avoid program overlap and
               to place new emphasis on habitat protection.

               V. Federal ConsistenU

               Federal consistency reviews are conducted through the coastal programs division of the
               BMR. There were no major Federal consistency issues during the report period.

                   Evaluation Findin

               The final evaluation findings issued June 9, 1988 indicated that the state needs to implement
               more carefully the Federal consistency provisions of the MCP, improve its performance
               reporting, improve financial accounting procedu   'res and determine how to use or dispose of
               BMR's surplus equipment, in particular its aircraft. Noted achievements of the program
               included the development-of the Port of Pascagoula Special Management Area, a study on
               future marina needs, waterfront redevelopment studies, and improved public access to
               coastal waters through section 306A low-cost awards.












                                                             95










                                                         NEW JERSEY






                 Federal Approval Date:      September 1978 (Bay/O     cean Shore)
                                             September 1980 (Consolidated Program)
                 Federal Funding FY88:       $1,883,000
                 Federal Funding FY89:       $2,014,000,


                 L Backgroun

                 The New Jersey Coastal Management Program (NJCMP) is administered by the Division
                 of Coastal Resources (DCR) in the Department of Environmental Protection. The following
                 core laws form the basis for regulatory control: the Coastal Area Facility Review Act
                 (CAFRA), the Wetlands Act of 1970, the Waterfront Development Law, and the Riparian
                 statutes. The NJCMP couples regulatory responsibilities with a coastal land-use planning
                 function. Through time, the DCR's overall mission has expanded to include the regulation
                 of inland freshwater wetlands and construction in floodplain areas of state tributaries, placing
                 it in a unique position to protect watershed systems and ultimately, the coastal zone.

                 The coastal boundary extends (1) from the New York border to the Raritan Bay landward
                 up to the first road or property line from mean high water, (2) from the Raritan Bay south
                 along the Atlantic shoreline up to the Delaware Memorial Bridge varying from one-half to
                 24 miles inland (1,376 square miles of land area), (3) north along the Delaware River to
                 Trenton landward to the first road inclusive of all coastal wetlands, and (4) a 31-mile square
                 area in the northeast comer of the state bordering the Hudson River under the jurisdiction
                 of the Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission, the state's designated body
                 responsible for implementing the NJCMP in the Meadowlands.

                 H. EEpZmm Accomplishments

                 Wetlands Protection: In 1988, the Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act was enacted, followed
                 by the associated transition area rules in 1989. Statewide in scope, the law provides the
                 DCR authority to regulate construction in freshwater wetlands in the coastal zone not
                 subject to CAFRA regulations. The law expands the types of activitie& regulated now by the
                 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, as well as. increasing fines and penalties for violators. The
                 transition area rules provide for a buffer of up to 150 feet in width adjacent to valued
                 freshwater wetlands, to protect this integral ecosystem and provide a sediment and storm
                 water control zone. The DCR has been involved in an extensive effort which Will lead to the
                 assumption of the Clean Water Act's section 404 permit program. This would make New
                 Jersey the second state to seek this regulatory role from the Federal government.


                                                               96








              Water Quality: A report was prepared on the discharge of sewage from watercraft under
              the auspices of the Marine Sewage Treatment Act. The report assesses the supply of and
              demand for pumpout facilities, and evaluates the effectiveness of existing regulations related
              to those facilities., Regulations have been proposed which would require pumpout facilities
              at all new marmas.


              Hazards Management: The NJCMP possesses the ability now, due to a several-year
              contractual effort, to generate computer-based shoreline maps which depict historical
              positions of mean high water for any portion of the state's coastline. The archived map data
              are based on up to 11 different surveys done over a period of 140 years. With this system,
              a quantitative, site-specific predictive value of shoreline change can be calculated and is
              presently being used during the review of waterfront development permit applications within
              the CAFRA area. There have been several spinoffs from this. The shoreline prediction
              capability has provided a sound basis for revising the Coastal High Hazard Areas and
              Erosion Hazard Areas policies prohibiting selected coastal development and setting a 30-
              year set-back threshold. Also, during FY89,'the DCR has been taking steps to expand the
              use of these shoreline change maps by making them available to local governments for more
              sophisticated land use planning and decisionmaking along the coast.

              Dune Protection: A facet of the DCR's Shore Protection Program has been to assist
              municipalities in dune protection efforts. In Atlantic City, this has involved technical
              assistance since 1987 to create dunes along a 28-block section of the city with grass plantings
              and fencing. As agreed, the city adopted a dune protection ordinance. After initial
              resistance, the community has been pleased with the results. The dunes-will be appreciated
              for their valuable role in storm protection and erosion reduction, but of more immediate
              satisfaction were the aesthetic benefits. The DCR has been working with 14 coastal
              communities in the state to achieve similar results.


              In the wake of a severe northeaster in 1984, the DCR received and administered $2 million
              in emergency Federal funds to be used for beach and dune restoration and walkway
              construction in 15 municipalities, research on restoration techniques, and land acquisition.

              Public Access: A 17-mile border along the Hudson River is being constructed with a
              continuity in design and is av ailable to the public as a walkway because of the foresight of
              the NJCMP. The initiative, beginning with a 1982 inventory and analysis of existing
              conditions, was conceived in anticipation of rapid rates of development on the Hudson
              waterfront. The Design Standards component, completed recently, has been added to the
              Hudson River Waterfront Walkway Plan and Design Guidelines (1984), which describe the
              location, design and methods of implementation of the plan. The standards guide
              developers in the preparation of project plans, while allowing latitude for individual
              expression. The guidelines    serve as the basis for local evaluation and DCR approval of
              waterfront development permits. A reference manual Waterfront Public Access: Design
              Guidelines was completed in 1989 for local governments, private developers, and others
              interested in providing or utilizing access to New Jersey's coastal resources. The manual


                                                            97








                    presents background and design information dealing with the public's right to waterfront
                    access, how it is provided in New Jersey, and design concepts for both ensuring substantial
                    access, and minimizing potential conflicts between private landowners and the general public.

                    IM Major Grant Tasks

                    During the reporting period, the DCR has completed a major reorganization to consolidate
                    permit programs and functions by region rather than by statute. This major step was taken
                    Ao accommodate an 'expanded scope of regulatory functions (a number of which are
                    statewide in scope), and to produce a consolidated and streamlined regulatory process to
                    serve the public interest more efficiently. - Regional staff have been allocated under the
                    functional elements of Planning, Regulation, and Engineering and Construction. The state
                    has been divided into nine regions. The regulatory functions of permit review and
                    enforcement for all statutes for the region are being carried out by staff at DCR's three
                    existing locations.   Additional benefits should be improved coordination with local
                    governments and more effective protection of the state's natural resources.

                    Since early 1988, the NJCMP has been providing advisory and technical assistance to the
                    Office of State Planning and coastal counties participating in the preparation of the State
                    Development and Redevelopment Plan. The preliminary plan will ultimately direct growth
                    to certain areas in the state based on natural carrying capacity. Coastal counties within the
                    boundary of the NJCMP are using the planning process to address many of their concerns,
                    such as development on barrier islands. This alternate growth and development strategy
                    builds on the existing NJCMP designations for low, medium and high growth areas in the
                    coastal zone. The DCR will continue to play an active role in the state's plan, as the
                    counties compare the mapped land use categories with their own zoning requirements, and
                    negotiate any outstanding issues. Final adoption of the state plan is estimated for 1991.

                    In a continuing effort to refine NJCMP policies, the DCR focused on stormwater runoff         a
                                                                                                               0
                    major source of nonpoint pollution, and on ways the regulatory program could impr ve
                    coastal water quality. An interim step has been the recent completion of a study,
                    "Stormwater Management in the New Jersey Coastal Zone." What began as an analysis of
                    innovative practices and techniques to be incorporated into the regulatory program turned
                    into a wide-ranging analysis of what DCR regulates at the coastal and state levels, and where
                    and how it regulates stormwater management. ne study proposes an array of best
                    management practices and a system for technique selection. It also makes non-structural
                    water quality recommendations that ma need to be adapted to existing development to fully
                                                            y
                    address this problem.

                    Barnegat Bay in Ocean County, a valuable resource area, is currently experiencing adverse
                    affects to water quality and ecology due to intense development pressure. Ocean County
                    is one of the fastest growing areas in the state. Backed by a legislative mandate, the DCR
                    is involved currently in the development of a comprehensive land use and environmental
                    management plan for the Bay.


                                                                  98








               IV. SiggMcant ELogm Chan

               A number of minor changes were      approved and incorporated -into the NJCMP as routine
               program implementations during the reporting period. These included changes to rules on
               coastal resources and development (N.J.A.C. 7:7E - 1.1 et seq.) and changes to the rules
               governing the Hackensack Meadowlands Development District. A change to the Flood
               Prone Areas policy judged to be a substantial change to the program has undergone further
               revision and will be resubmitted for consideration with other policy changes.

               V. Federal Consistena

               In an appeal case concluded during the report period, the Under Secretary of Commerce
               for Oceans and Atmosphere refused to override the state's objection to a proposal by Exxon
               Company to construct an automobile service station adjacent to Barnegat Bay. The state
               had objected on the grounds that the proposal violated the CMP's prohibition of the filling
               of wetlands. The Under Secretary found that the proposed filling of wetlands to construct
               the service station would have an adverse effect on the natural resources of the coastal zone
               that outweighed the project's minimal contribution to the national interest.

               VI. Evaluation Find'

               The final evaluation findings issued December 20, 1988 indicate that the state was
               implementing and adhering to the provisions of its approved CMP. Accomplishments of the
               CMP included the high standard set by the permit program to - clarify policies and
               consolidate regulations. A number of enforcement positions that were vacant at the time
               of the evaluation review have since been filled.

























                                                            99










                                                        NEW HAMPSHIRE





                    Federal Approval Date:      June 1982 and September 1988
                    Federal Funding FY88:       $470,000
                    Federal Funding FY89:       $480,000


                    1. BackpLound

                    The Office of State Planning   is the lead agency for the New Hampshire Coastal Program
                    (NHCP). The NHCP was approved under the segmented approach. The first phase was
                    approved in June 1982 and includes the Ocean and Harbor Segment which covers the
                    Atlantic Ocean, Hampton Estuary, and the Portsmouth Harbor portion of the New
                    Hampshire coast (approximately 30 miles). Phase two, approved in 1988, includes the
                    remaining 101 miles of the coastline under tidal influence around the Great Bay area.

                    The NHCP is based on a series of state laws and implementing regulations administered by
                    various state agencies, boards and commissions.          The Council on Resources and
                    Development (CORD), an interagency board comprised of key state agencies, is responsible
                    for coordinating state policies and resolving agency conflicts.

                    New Hampshire's inland CZM boundary is defined as 1,000 feet from the mean high water,
                    or to the limits of the Wetlands Board's jurisdiction over tidal waters, whichever is further
                    inland. The boundary around Great Bay extends inland to identifiable features such as
                    roads, which in most cases are more than 1,000 feet from the shoreland, to the limits of the
                    Wetlands Board's jurisdiction along estuarine rivers. Seaward the boundary includes all
                    coastal waters within the limits of the state's jurisdiction.

                    H. Progom Accomplishments

                    Estuarine Protection - Multi-year efforts by the NHCP culminated in the designation of
                    Great Bay as the 18th National Estuarine Research Reserve in October 1989. The Reserve
                    will be managed by the state's Environmental Services Agency.

                    Wetlands Protection - The NHCP provided funds to establish a field office in Portsmouth
                    which includes staff from several state regulatory agencies who conduct site inspections,
                    monitor permit compliances, and provide technical assistance to local officials and private
                    developers on a variety of topics involving wetlands and water resources. Also, CZM funds
                    were used to support the toll free 800 number as an alert line for use by public and town
                    officials to report illegal activities and to obtain advice and information regarding wetlands



                                                                 100








                 and actions of the Wetlands Board. These efforts have contributed to the decrease in
                 wetlands violations and other violations along the coast.

                 public Access - Several projects funded by the NHCP have encouraged water dependent
                 uses, public access and recreational initiatives in the State of New Hampshire. These
                 include state and local coastal park improvements, construction of boat launch facilities, and
                 planning and engineering design studies. For example, a waterfront park was completed
                 for the Town of Durham; a public walkway was completed for the Town of New Castle; and
                 a land acquisition study was done for Dover. Also, CZM funds were used to prepare a
                 development plan for Odiorne Point State Park Visitor's Center. The plan emphasizes the
                 protection and interpretation of New Hampshire's natural resources and multi-season
                 operation. Current efforts are underway to raise funds to construct the new visitor's center.

                 Urban Waterfront and Ports - To address the increased pressure on coastal communities to
                 develop the shores along tidal rivers, the NHCP funded a harbor management plan for the
                 Lamprey River in New Market. The plan combines the interests of the communities located
                 along the river with the concerns of the state, which regulates water and b6ttomlands use.
                 In FY89, the NH Port Authority received CZM funds to complete a similar plan by June
                 1990 for the Cochecho River in Dover County. Currently, the NY Port Authority is
                 completing a mooring realignment project at Rye Harbor which should increase the number
                 of moorings at the harbor. The project will be completed by June 1990.
                 Coast il Hazards - The CZM program is now funding bathymetric mapping projects for
                 Great Bay and Little Bay for the purposes of tracking sediment movements and providing
                 a control point relative to sea level rise. Also, model regulations and a document explaining
                 erosion problems were completed and distributed by the. NHCP to all coastal communities
                 concerned with erosion problems.

                 k
                  ermit Sim lification
                  4r_@MitSim @Iification - Pre-application inspections initiated under the NHCP have been an
                 effective management tool for the state in ensuring greater protection for coastal wetlands
                 and other sensitive coastal resources. As a result of this effort and other activities@ by the
                 state and local agencies, there are no major wetlands. protection problems occurring along
                 the state's seacoast area.
                 M:--@@@Tasks
                 During FY 88, the NHCP began implementing the newly approved segment two of its
                 coastal management program, the Great Bay Segment. Under this effort, CZM funds are
                 used to augment state funding required to perform the management functions of the NHCP.
                 Under the current award, the state is preparing updated maps of its coastal area, including
                 the Great Bay Segment and the newly designated National Estuarine Research Reserve.
                 The maps will improve intergovernmental coordination, public and industry awareness and


                                                             101





                        will lay out key areas such as the entire CZM boundary, major roads, rivers, bays, ocean, andl
                        other key resource features. The maps "I facilitate regulatory decisionmaking in the state.

                        IV. Siggfficant Progom Changes

                        During the report period, a major amendment to the state's CZM program was made. A
                        second segment which includes the Great Bay area was approved in September 1988. With
                        this approval, all waters.to the seaward limits of the state's jurisdiction and all land along the
                        state's Atlantic Ocean shoreline from Seabrook to the Portsmouth/Newington townline,
                        extending 1,000 feet inland or to the limits of the Wetlands Board's jurisdiction, whichever a
                        is further, are now subject to the New Hampshire Coastal Management Program.

                        V. Federal Consistengy

                        The OSP is the lead agency for reviewing all Federal consistency certifications and
                        determinations for the state  '. A major consistency issue during the report period relates to
                        the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer's (COE) maintenance dredging projects for a portion of
                        the Piscataqua River. The state's concerns centered around the timing for the COE's
                        dredging activity and the proposed method-of disposal of the dredged materials. Further,
                        the state has repeatedly requested additional information from the COE in order to more
                        adequately assess the impacts and make a final decision on the COE's proposal. Through
                        several meetings and other discussions with the COE and other state resource agencies, the
                        NHCP expects a resolution to this problem in the near future.

                        VI. Evaluation FingiM

                        The last evaluation findings were completed in April 1988. The principal findings cited major
                        accomplishments in the areas of monitoring and enforcement and the creation of the
                        Portsmouth field office. Recommendation for improvements included completion of the
                        second segment of the CZM program. The final approval for the Great Bay area, of the
                        NHCP was completed in September 1988.














                                                                       102










                                                       NEW YORK




                Federal Approval Date: September 1982
                Federal Funding FY88: $1,883,000
                Federal, Funding FY89: $1,934,000


                L RgSkaoun

                The Department of State, through its Division of Coastal Resources and Waterfront
                Revitalization, administers the New York Coastal Management Program (NYCMP) and
                coordinates state activities and programs essential to the Program's implementation. The
                NYCMP is based primarily on the Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources Act
                (VIRCRA), the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEORA), the Coastal Erosion
                Hazards Areas Act (CEHAA), and the Tidal Wetlands Act. The WRCRA provided the
                legal authority to establish a coastal program in the state, with coastal policies, a coastal
                boundary, state consistency requirements, and a coordination process. The law also provided
                local governments with the option to establish waterfront revitalization programs, which
                address local needs and objectives in accordance with the state CMP policies. The SEQRA
                is the mechanism by which state agency actions are coordinated relative to the NYSCMP.
                The CEHAA provides for uniform setback requirements in coastal high hazard areas. The
                SEQRA, CEHAA, and the Tidal Wetlands Act are administered by the Department of
                Environmental Conservation.


                Generally, the coastal boundary is 1,000 feet from the shoreline, plus all identified areas of
                particular concern, which can extend the boundary up to 10,000 feet. In urbanized areas and
                other developed locations along the coast, the boundary is approximately 500 feet from the
                shoreline. For management purposes, New York is divided into the following regions: Great
                Lakes and St. Lawrence and Niagara Rivers, Hudson River estuary, New York City (with
                an approved Waterfront Revitalization Program), and Long Island and the Sound.

                U. Program Accomplishments

                Habitat Protection - The state has designated Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats of
                Statewide Significance on Long Island, the Hudson River and the Great Lakes. The Federal
                government has approved the Long Island designations. Habitats in New York City and the
                St. Lawrence River remain to be designated. State consistency provisions apply to all
                designated habitats and afford them a greater degree of protection. As the Federal
                government approves these designations, the habitats are even further protected through
                Federal consistency requirements. To improve the basis for managing coastal habitats, the
                NYCMP has developed a "Guide to Hudson River Natural Resources" which includes
                ecological, species and human use information, as well as site-specific maps and narratives


                                                             103
                                                                                        A4L








                     for all designated habitats along the Hudson. In a somewhat different approach directed
                     at a specific habitat, the NYCMP is working on a guide to the protection of habitats for
                     beach-nesting shorebirds on Long Island.         Communities preparing Local Waterfront
                     Revitalization Programs have incorporated habitat information and local protection
                     legislation into their programs.

                     Public Access - The Eastern Lake Ontario Sand Dunes are the largest fresh water system
                     of dunes in New York. The dunes, some of which are high and relict, buffer an aquatic
                     system providing habitat vital to shorebirds. This 17-mile section of coastline is the subject
                     of a recently completed management plan entitled, "New York's Eastern Lake Ontario Sand
                     Dunes: Resources, Problems and Management Guidelines," for which technical direction,
                     support and funding ($17,000) were provided by the NYCMP. The project focused on the
                     resolution of conflicts between human use, largely in the form of public access, and resource
                     protection needs of a fragile and extremely valuable section of coastline.             With an
                     anticipated doubling of use pressures in the next decade by the expansion of a nearby
                     military base, this effort takes on heightened significance. Furthermore, the management
                     goals of the plan stand a high chance of being met because the project was undertaken with
                     the cooperation and full support of the Ontario Dunes Coalition, representing the full
                     spectrum of public and private interests.

                     Water Ouali - Save The River, a New York non-profit environmental group located on the
                     St. Lawrence River, was given a $20,000 grant by the NYCMP to help launch a project to
                     educate riverfront property owners in the Thousand Islands area on proper sewage disposa
                     methods, with the initial goal of eliminating those systems discharging directly into the river.
                     Voluntary on-site inspections of waste-water disposal systems were conducted, after which
                     owners were advised and assisted on appropriate remedial actions. The public has given full
                     support to this effort. The project is expected to be expanded to include more of the
                     Thousand Islands region of the state.

                     Local Government Involvement - Of 250 coastal communities, 115 have elected to complete
                     LVy`RPs to date. This coverage represents 60 percent of the coastline and 90% of its
                     population. Examples of individual accomplishments under this facet of the NYCMP are:
                     the Town of Mamaroneck/Village of Larchmont pursued a recommendation made in their
                     LWRP to ultimately restore and preserve an extensive wetland around the Premium River
                     in Westchester County; the Village of Greenport in Long Island took the necessary steps
                     to meet its LWRP objective to ensure that the community's heritage as a working waterfront
                     is preserved; New York City reviewed proposed public and private actions within the
                     coastal boundary for consistency with its approved LV*TRP, at a rate of over 500 reviews in
                     the last two years. The NYCMP is providing funding/technical assistance to six communities
                     for the development of harbor management plans as components of their LWRPS.

                     Hazards Management - Long Island's south shore ocean coastline continues to experience
                     erosion and flooding, a threat to existing development, infrastructure and natural resources.
                     Rather than continue to approach these problems on a short-term crisis basis, the NYCMP


                                                                   104







                   recognized the need for a comprehensive and coordinated long-term strategy for land use
                   management and erosion control. The results of this study are outlined in a Hazard
                   Management Program tailored to this region which was completed recently with the Long
                   Island Regional Planning Board. General recommendations on erosion management for the
                   region are provided or when appropriate, specific recommendations are made for each
                   shoreline segment. Most notablyi a mechanism is suggested for a regional response to these
                   coastal hazards coordinated by Federal, state and local interests.

                   Improved Government Operations - The NYCMP chairs the NYS Interagency Committee
                   on Aquatic Resources Development (ICARD), created to foster growth of the aquatic
                   resource industry more effectively and efficiently. Representation by such member groups
                   as harvesters, aquaculturists, processors, retailers, wholesalers, suppliers, financial institutions,
                   and local governments makes it possible to coordinate their respective activities and to
                   better perform the committee's primary function, which is to provide advice and counsel to
                   the Governor.


                   III. Major Grant Tasks

                   Public Education - In. FY89, the NYCMP held a series of five regional conferences
                   throughout the state to highlight the urgency of present development pressures on coastal
                   resources in New York and solicit a consensus on new solutions suited to each region. This
                   effort culminated with a statewide conference which focused on recommendations for
                   changes to the CMP to address a refined set of objectives. A Task Force on Coastal
                   Resources formed by Governor Cuomo has begun an assessment of these recommendations
                   -- a process which will lead to new legislation. Of note is the recent appropriation of
                   $800,000 in the Governor's budget for coastal management activities in 1990/1991.

                   @
                   Scenic Area Des
                    @Ic A@@i na@tion - The NYCMP hag been undertaking a unique effort to preserve
                   the state's visual resources in the implementation of one of the coastal policies. Based on
                   a series of criteria which have been recently developed, about 60% of the Hudson River has
                   been identified for designation on the basis of unique scenic qualities. Once coastal lands
                   are formally designated, state and Federal agencies will be required to ensure that their
                   actions will not impair the scenic nature of those areas. This concept will then be
                   established in other regions of the state.
                    @e ional 0 en S12ace/Public Access - The NYCMP is deeply involved in development of a
                   report to the Governor on the status of lands along the Hudson River which could be
                   ilicluded in a Greenway to stretch between New York City and Albany. The report will
                   contain recommendations for legislation to designate Greenway segments and for overall
                   management guidelines to ensure the preservation and beneficial use of the Greenway. The
                   report is due to the Governor in November 1990.
                   @,e@
                     . ional _lLand @Use - The Secretary of State, as the Governor's appointee, represents the
                   NYCMP on the Horizons Waterfront Commission which is composed of representatives

                                                              105








                   from Erie County, the Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority, and all coastal
                   municipalities in Erie County. The Commission's goal is to develop a comprehensive land
                   use plan for the 90-mile Erie County waterfront. To date, the Commission has selected a
                   planning consultant and developed a public involvement process.

                   IV. Significant Program Chan

                   A total of six Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs have received Federal approval as
                   Routine Program Implementations during the reporting period:             Towns of Esopus,
                   Irondequoit, and Smithtown, the Villages of Greenport and Cape Vincent, and the City of
                   North Tonawanda. This brings the total of fully approved LWRPs to 20. Of the remaining
                   95 LWRPs, 42 have been submitted to OCRNi. The balance of the LWRPs are in various
                   stages of development and approval at the state and local levels.

                   V. Federal Consistengy

                   The Secretary of Commerce rendered three New York appeal decisions during the report
                   period. In the DeL                                                               I
                                         .yser case, the state had objected to Mr. DeLyser's inc usion of a
                   residential component in his dock 'and boathouse project on the grounds that it violated the
                   NYCMP policy of giving priority in the coastal zone to water-dependent uses. The Secretary
                   found that the residential component did not further the objectives or purposes of the
                   CZMA and accordingly refused to override the state's objection.

                   In the Bianchi case, the state had objected, on the same grounds as in the DeL,3!se case, to
                   Mr. Bianchi's construction of a pier behind his restaurant to serve as a temporary dock for
                   the boats of restaurant patrons and an "alternate" waiting area for the patrons. The
                   Secretary found that the state bad identified a reasonable alternative to the project that
                   would be consistent with NYCMP policies -- namely, construction of a smaller pier for
                   docking, with patrons waiting in the bar area of the restaurant for tables. The Secretary
                   therefore refused to override the state's objection.

                   In the Lilco case, the state had objected to Lilco's proposed dredging and jetty maintenance
                   project on the grounds that Lilco had supplied it with insufficient information to determine
                   the consistency of the project with NYCMP policies. The Secretary, however, found that the
                   project was consistent with the objectives and purposes of the CZMA and overrode the
                   state's objection.

                   A permit application to the Corps of Engineers (Corps) from the New York Department
                   of Corrections to moor the first of a proposed series of prison barges along the New York
                   City coast received critical modifications as a. result of the NYCMP consistency review
                   process. Conditions incorporated into the permit limited the duration of the mooring
                   arrangement to one year and required the city to submit a comprehensive application to the
                   Corps which takes into consideration the future need for floating detention facilities.



                                                                106








                The NYCMP received OCRM's approval to review a request by three New York-based
                jurisdictions to continue the interim dumping of sewage sludge at a site 106 miles offshore,
                using a consistency provision which allows a CMP to review a permitted activity not
                anticipated and, thus, not listed in a state's approval program. As the regulations required,
                the NYCMP demonstrated that the loading and transport of the sludge may reasonably be
                -expected to affect the coastal zone and, therefore is subject to review. The permit issued
                by the Environmental Protection Agency under the Marine Protection, Research and
                Sanctuaries Act, recognized concerns raised by the NYCMP during the consistency review
                process.

                V1. Evaluation Findin


                The last evaluation findings were issued in May 1988. The NYCMP received recognition for
                its leadership role in working with state and Federal entities to meet and further coastal
                management goals. A strong presence was         cited in such areas as the restoration of the
                maritime industry, support for the state's commercial fishery, and the facilitation of dredging
                in state waters. It was also commended for its effectiveness in assisting local communities
                to develop LWRPs.



























                                                              107









                                                     NORTH CAROLINA





                   Federal Approval Date: September 1978
                   Federal Funding FY88: $1,747,000*
                   Federal Funding FY89: $1,946,000** -

                   (An additional *$300,000 and **$500,000 were Congressionally appropriated from
                   deobligated CZMA funds for the purchase of Buxton Woods)


                   1. Background

                   The North Carolina Coastal Management Program (NCCMP) is based primarily on the state
                   Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) and the Dredge and Fill Act, although other state
                   laws are networked into the NCCMP as well. A state Executive Order requires all state
                   agency actions to be consistent with the goals and policies of the NCCMP. The program's
                   coastal zone boundary extends to the 20 coastal counties.         The lead agency is the
                   Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources' Division of Coastal
                   Management (DCM). A Governor-appointed Coastal Resources Commission (CRC)
                   develops policy and regulations and implements CAMA with DCM assistance. Activities
                   occurring within Areas of Environmental Concern (AECs) require a CAMA permit. Major
                   development permits are handled at the state level and minor development permits are
                   administered through the local governments with state overview. Other major components
                   of the NCCMP include: local land use planning and management, and a public access
                   program which acquires and develops beach and estuarine access ways.

                   H. Proaam Accomplishments

                   Natural Resource Protection - In 1989, the state designated seven "Outstanding Resource
                   Waters" (ORWs), which are large sections of ecologically significant estuarine waters. The
                   Division of Environmental Management's (DEM's) ORW standards include development
                   density controls. In addition, the CRC increased the boundaries of the Estuarine Shoreline
                   AEC adjacent to ORWs from 75 to 575 feet. This will dramatically increase the activities
                   that fall under CAMA jurisdiction.

                   In 1988, the state increased its ownership of the ecologically significant Buxton Woods
                   Maritime Forest to 337 acres. Currently, the state is seeking to purchase additional acres
                   of this unique coastal resource with both state and Federal funds. The CRC also expanded
                   the well field AEC in Buxton Woods to protect the existing and future well field locations.
                   The well fields are the natural fresh water aquifers for Hatteras Island. Most of the island's



                                                               108








               drinking water comes from these aquifers. Prior to AEC designation, development was
               threatening these water supplies.

               Hazards Protection - Under the 1987 "Jones-Upton" amendments to the Federal Emergency
               Management Act, the DCM has been designated by the Federal Emergency Management
               Administration (FEMA) to perform the certifications necessary for landowners to qualify for
               FEMA funds to move or destroy oceanfront structures in imminent danger of collapse.
               North Carolina also continues to implement its ocean setback requirements for structures
               and its non-hardening of the ocean shoreline policy. New ocean erosion rates were
               approved by the CRC in November 1988. These rates will be used by state and local
               governments to determine the setback requirements for new construction.

               Public Access - In FY88, the state used $237,000 in Federal funds for eight more federally
               funded beach and estuarine access ways. The highly successful North Carolina coastal access
               program has provided approximately 150 access points to beach and estuarine areas. These
               access points include 16 large regional access ways with dune walkovers, up to 60 parking
               spaces, a restroom, an outdoor shower and picnic facilities; 59 neighborhood access points
               with dune walkovers, and up to 10 parking spaces; and over 60 local access points that
               include dune walkovers or vehicle ramps.

               Public Information - In 1988, the DCM began publishing a public information journal, the
               CAMA Quarterly. The journal provides indepth articles on current and emerging coastal
               issues and the activities of the NCCMP. In addition, the DCM/CAMA development
               handbook, A Guide to Protecting Coastal Resources Through the CAMA Permit Program,
               was updated. This guide was the subject of a highly successful series of workshops attended
               by developers, realtors, and government officials.

               III. M@Jor Grant Tasks

               A major grant task continues to be CAMA permit and enforcement activities. In addition,
               local land use plans were updated, public access was greatly enhanced, and the ecologically
               sensitive Buxton Woods was further protected.

               In 1988, the state completed a comprehensive inventory of maritime forests. This document
               will be instrumental in further efforts to protect these unique areas. In FY89, the DCM staff
               will implement the new ORW AEC regulations. A revised program document will also be
               completed. FY89 activities further include DCM participation in a Department of
               Environment, Health and Natural Resources state legislative task force study on the
               protection of wetlands. DCM will also be'updating its aerial photographs for wetlands.

               IV. SigWficant Progam Change

               During 1989, 35 of the 78 local land use plan updates were approved by NOAA. The
               remaining plans will be submitted in early 1990. The CRC also approved policies prohibiting


                                                            109








                     offshore oil and gas land based facilities in two local land use plans, and airspace noise and
                     corridor use policies. These changes have not been incorporated into the federally approved
                     NCCMP. The state and OCRM have begun preliminary discussions concerning these issues,
                     as these changes have raised significant concerns.

                     V. Federal Consistengy

                     The state continues to make extensive use of Federal consistency in reviewing federally
                     licensed and direct Federal activities. The state is currently reviewing various military
                     activities and one offshore oil and gas Plan of Exploration (POE) for consistency with the
                     NCCMP. The CRC created a task force to consider the military issues and developed the
                     aforementioned airspace policies.

                     North Carolina is concerned with the cumulative effect of increasing military activity in the
                     state's coastal zone. Concerns center on the effects of low level military training flights,
                     electromagnetic radiation, and the use of water and wetland areas for ordinance target areas.
                     The CRC's Military Task Force has been investigating these issues. As a result, the state
                     amended its Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) to allow the CRC to develop state
                     airspace guidelines. The Task Force also developed state airspace and military rules and
                     policies. The CRC adopted these policies in December 1989. The state plans to submit the
                     CAMA amendment and rules to OCRM for incorporation into the NCCMP.

                     The state is also consulting with Mobil and the U.S. Department of the Interior concerning
                     Mobil's intention to drill an exploratory outer continental shelf (OCS) well for natural gas
                            mately 40 miles off the North Carolina coast. Due to state concerns over short- and
                     approxi
                     long-term environmental impacts of Mobil's proposal, the Minerals Management Service
                     (MMS) of the U.S. Department of the Interior and the state entered into a Memorandum
                     of Understanding. The MOU sets forth the information that Mobil and the MMS will
                     provide to the state in an Environmental Report (ER). The MOU also sets forth the time
                     table for Mobil's submission to MMS and the state of a draft and final ER and Plan of
                     Exploration (POE), and the date that the state must conclude its review of the POE under
                     the Federal consistency provisions of the CZMA. The state has agreed to render a
                     consistency decision on April 15, 1990. The draft ER is currently under state review.

                     VI. Evaluation Findiny-s

                     The final evaluation findings issued May 1, 1989, indicate that the state is adhering to its
                     approved coastal program and that the DCM is adhering to the terms and conditions of its
                     financial assistance awards. Program acco miplishments of the NCCMP are as noted above.
                     Areas identified for improvement include assessing the adequacy of the NCCMP's land use
                     planning guidelines, increasing DCM staffing levels, and developing management plans for
                     Buxton Woods and Permuda Island, a 50 acre estuarine island purchased in 1987.




                                                                  110









                          COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS





               Federal Approval Date: September 1980
               Federal Funding FY88: $457,000
               Federal Funding FY89: $468,000


               1. Backgoun

               The Northern Mariana Islands Coastal Resources Management Program (CRMP) was
               originally established by Executive Order. In 1983, the Coastal Resources Management Act
               was enacted and the CRMP policies and use priorities were codified in statute and regu-
               lation. The CRMP is administered by the Coastal Resources Management Office (CRMO)
               in the Office of the Governor. Permit decisions are made by the CRMO and five other
               Commonwealth agencies: the Departments of Natural Resources, Public Works, and
               Commerce and Labor, the Division of Environmental Quality, and the Historic Preservation
               Office. The coastal zone is comprised of the land area of the 14 islands and the territorial
               waters. The CRMP regulations       set up a two-tiered permit program. Activities occurring
               within the four areas of particular concern (APCs) -- shoreline, lagoon and reef, wetlands
               and mangrove, and port and industrial -- require a permit. Outside the APCs, only activities
               deemed to be "major sitings" require a permit.

               H. Proagjm Accomplishments

               Hazards Protection - During the 1989 legislative session, a zoning code and building code
               were passed and signed into law. The CRMO was instrumental in working with the
               legislature on the zoning code statute, which will enable the Commonwealth to regulate land
               uses, in addition to impacts currently regulated under the CRMP. The building code will
               also improve the Commonwealth's ability to manage development impacts.

               Water Quali!Y - Storm water runoff constitutes a significant source of coastal pollution in the
               Commonwealth. In 1988, the CRMO and the Soil Conservation Service completed a "Storm
               Water Control Handbook" to help developers and farmers identify, plan, and implement
               Storm water control systems. The handbook provides site specific information an rainfall,
               Soil drainage, vegetation, and technical solutions for the three inhabited islands of Saipan,
               Tinian, and Rota. In 1989, the CRMO co-sponsored a series of erosion control workshops
               in the islands, which were well attended by farmers, builders, and agency personnel.

               Public Access - The CRMO considers public access impacts as part of the permit review
               process. All hotels permitted during 1989 were required to provide public coastal access
               through their property as well as parking in some cases. The CRMO also initiated the








                    development of a bike/pedestrian path along Saipan Lagoon. The CRMO has commitments
                    for three sections of the path; one section has been built.

                    H1. Major Grant Tasks

                    In FY88, the CRMO completed a technical study of options for producing manufactured
                    sand as a building material to eliminate the need for beach sandmining. The CRMO is in          M
                    the process of completing an economic feasibility study of the various technical options for
                    manufacturing sand. Also, the CRMO, with consultant assistance, completed an assessment
                    of the biological health of the Talakhaya Reef in Rota. The CRMO was concerned that
                    erosion of adjacent uplands was injuring the reef system. The study showed a healthy reef
                    system; the data will provide important baseline information for future monitoring.
                    Educational materials on erosion control practices were distributed to the residents of Rota.
                    Finally, the CRMO sponsored a Pacific CZM Conference with focused workshops on
                    development impact fees. As a result of the conference and additional CRMO assistance
                    to the legislature, an impact fee bill passed but was not signed into law.

                    In FY89, the CRMO is focusing on several public education projects, including: development
                    of a marine studies course for elementary students; expansion of the junior and senior high
                    environmental science curriculum to include a coastal ecology section; and publication of a
                    coral protection pamphlet for tourists. The CRMO will also address wetlands management
                    issues through the development of new policies and regulations for the Wetlands APC,
                    including criteria for wetlands mitigation.    The CRMO will also begin working on the
                    development of a new APC to protect important groundwater resources.

                    IV. Siwfficant Prop-ram Changes

                    During the biennium, no significant program changes were incorporated into the CRMP.

                    V. Federal Consisten
                    The CRM6 and the other CRM agencies are responsible for evaluating Federal consistency
                    review. One large Federal project which is in the initial stages is the Navy's Ovei
                    Horizon Radar System proposed for Tinian and Guam. The CRMO commented to the
                    Navy at the draft EIS stage regarding areas of concern. It will continue to work with the
                    Navy through the Federal consistency process.

                    VI. Evaluation Findin


                    An evaluation site visit was held February 12-16, 1990, and the draft evaluation report will
                    be issued in early 1990.





                                                                 112
  3,









                                                          OREGON






                 Federal App  roval Date: May 1977
                 Federal Funding FY88: $833,000
                 Federal Funding FY89: $832,000


                 1. Bag!Woun

                 The Oregon Coastal Management Program (OCMP) is part of the statewide program for
                 coordinated land use planning. The OCMP is a networked program that is based on the
                 Oregon Land Use Planning Act (Act), regulations for the 19 statewide planning goals, 41
                 comprehensive local coastal management plans, and statutes and rules for the networked
                 agencies. The Act established the Land Conservation and Development Commission
                 (LCDC) and its staff, the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), as
                 the lead agency for coastal management. LCDC has the authority to adopt goals and
                 guidelines to provide direction for the OCMP and the comprehensive local coastal
                 management plans. Together with LCDC, the state implements the OCMP through the
                 coordinated responsibilities of several state agencies. Principal agencies assisting LCDC are
                 the Division of State Lands (DSL), and the Oregon Departments of Fish and Wildlife,
                 Transportation, Energy, Agriculture, and Environmental Quality (DEQ). The coastal zone
                 boundary is the watershed from the crest of the coastal mountain range to the seaward
                 three-mile jurisdictional boundary, and includes all coastal counties.

                 H. Program Accomplishments

                 Public Access - Through the acquisition of properties, and several small-scale Section 306A
                 public access projects, DLCD is maintaining its strong commitment to increase public access
                 throughout the state. Section 306A funding has been a prime catalyst for many joint
                 state/local public access efforts. One major accomplishment was the publishing and wide
                 distribution of a Section 306A "Field Guide,".which presented a photograph, map, and
                 descriptive text for each Section 306A project.

                 Wetlands Protection - The state Legislature recently adopted the new Wetlands
                 Management Act (Senate Bill 3) which revises and updates the regulation of wetlands. The
                 Act includes: 1) a definition of wetlands that is consistent with the Federal definition; 2) a
                 call for the development of a statewide wetlands inventory; 3) a requirement that local
                 governments notify DSL of pending land use approvals in inven     'toried wetlands; and 4) the
                 authority for DSL to adopt "wetland conservation plans" that are implemented and managed
                 jointly by DSL and the affected local government.


                                                              113






        mom.









                     Pacific Northwest Outer Continental Shelf Task Force - In late January, 1989, the U.S.
                     Secretary of the Interior joined with the Governors of Oregon and Washington               ,  the
                     Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, and the Columbia River Intertribal Fish
                     Commission to establish the Pacific Northwest OCS Task Force. The purpose of the Task
                     Force is to assist the Secretary with the resolution of issues related to OCS oil and gas leases
                     for the Washington-Oregon Offshore Planning Area. DLCD staff is taking the lead in
                     developing a comprehensive environmental studies program for the region, and identifying
                     sensitive areas that should be deleted from proposed OCS lease sales.

                     Water Qualhy - DEQ has designed a basin-wide approach for managing point and nonpoint
                     sources of pollution to protect water and sediment quality, living resources, and natural
                     habitats. This approach was demonstrated in a study of the Coquille River that was used
                     by the Environmental Protection Agency as a near coastal waters pilot project for developing
                     and implementing innovative ways of managing water quality in estuaries and coastal waters.

                     Also, pollution monitoring studies at South Slough in the Coos Bay estuary have focused on
                     the identification and analysis of commercial oyster cultivation contamination. DEQ is
                     completing an investigation of tributyltin (TBT) in South Slough that analyzes shellfish tissue,
                     water and sediment samples to determine if the enactment of state legislation limiting the
                     use of TBT has reduced residual concentrations and restored oyster growth to normal levels.

                     Oregon Ocean Management -Resources Plan - The Oregon Ocean Resources Management
                     Act of .1987 requires that the Oregon Ocean Resources Management Task Force submit an
                     Ocean Resources Management Plan to LCDC by August 1, 1990. The plan will address a
                     wide range of issues, including: (1) a study of present and future ocean uses off Oregon, and
                     an analysis of the state's management regime for these uses; (2) an analysis of state and
                     Federal laws, programs and regulations affecting ocean resources within the planning area;
                     and (3) recommendations to develop or improve state agency programs for managing ocean
                     resources.


                     Five Year Plan - DLCD is developing a five-year coastal strategic plan to address current
                     and future coastal economic and environmental problems and issues. This plan will identify
                     future problems and issues, and develop strategies to address them. DLCD will monitor the
                     implementation of the plan's recommendations.

                     III. Major Grant Tasks

                     In FY88 and FY89, DLCD completed several major grant tasks that strengthened the
                     OCMP. In the area of resource protection and management, DLCD produced a Coastal
                     Erosion Study; worked on integrating the State Land Use Program Into Oregon's Nonpoint
                     Source Management Plan; participated on a State-Federal Marine Placer Mineral Task
                     Force; and directed efforts towards mapping state estuaries and developing a Geographic
                     Information System data base.



                                                                    114







                To promote public access, DLCD developed a Highway 101 Visual Access Plan; produced
                a Waterfront Revitalization Guide; and completed an inventory and assessment of all public
                access to coastal lakes, estuaries and ocean beaches. Also, as a means to provide assistance
                to other state and Federal agencies and the public, DLCD produced a Federal Consistency
                Brocbure; developed a User's Guide to Streamlining the Permit Process; worked with DSL,
                affected local governments, and interest groups to improve coordination between
                comprehensive plan and wetland permitting procedures; and instituted several public
                information efforts including a Citizen's Guide to the OCMP.

                IV. Sio0cant Program Chan

                The three significant program changes during FY88 and FY89 were: (1) inclusion of The
                Oregon Ocean Resources Management Act (Senate Bill 630); (2) incorporation of the City
                of Yachats' comprehensive plan; and (3) addition of the Trails End segment of the City of
                Seaside's comprehensive plan and land use regulations.

                V. Federal Consistengy

                Federal consistency reviews are conducted through DLCD. There were no major Federal
                consistency issues reported during this period.

                VI. Evaluation Findinp

                The final evaluation findings issued on January 14, 1988, indicate that the state is successfully
                implementing and enforcing its federally-approved OCMP. DLCD is taking a leadership
                role in coastal issues, coordinating with other state agencies, and assuring the opportunity
                for full participation by the public and other interested parties.         In response to the
                evaluation recommendations, DLCD decided to hold individual workshops with each of the
                OCMP state agencies to increase state agency staff understanding of the procedural and
                substantive aspects of the local coastal plan periodic review process. Another improvement
                was the development of a detailed list of issues and requirements that each state agency
                must address during its state agency coordination review.












                                                             115










                                                        PENNSYLVANIA




                    Federal Approval Date: September 1980
                    Federal Funding FY88: $701,000
                    Federal Funding FY89: $702,000


                    1. Backgroun

                    The Pennsylvania Coastal Zone Management Program (PCZMP) consists of two coastal
                    zones: 63 miles along Lake Erie in the extreme northwestern corner of the commonwealth,
                    and 57 miles along the Delaware River in the extreme southwestern section of the state.
                    The major coastal management issues addressed by. the PCZMP are: coastal hazards;
                    dredging and spoil disposal; fisheries management; wetlands; public access for recreation;
                    historic sites and structures; port activities; energy facility siting; intergovernmental
                    coordination; and public involvement. The PCZMP was established from several state laws:
                    the Darn Safety and Encroachment Act, Floodplain Management Act, Bluff Recession and
                    Setback Act, Clean Streams Act, and the Air Pollution Control Act.

                    The Department of Environmental Resources (DER) is the lead state agency for
                    implementing, administering, and enforcing the PCZMP. The Division of Coastal Zone
                    Management is responsible for monitoring and evaluating activities related to coastal zone
                    management and ensuring compliance with the program's enforceable policies. An
                    Executive Order and Memorandum of Understanding provide the basis for state agency
                    compliance,with enforceable policies.

                    11. Prog[arn Accomplishments

                    Hazards Protection - The PCZMP provides advice on structural and non-structural methods
                    of shore protection and bluff stabilization to lakeshore property owners in the Lake Erie
                    coastal zone. The Division of Coastal Zone Management (DCZM) developed a Site
                    Analysis and Recommendations (SAR) service. The SAR involves a site survey by DCZM,
                    usually accompanied with coordinating agencies, and includes recommendations as to what
                    the owner can do to reduce the rate of bluff recession of their property.               The
                    recommendations are given orally at the site. Additional recommendations in the form of
                    a detailed report are sometimes sent to property owners within 30 days of the site survey.
                    The SAR service, which has been particularly valuable due to high rates of erosion from
                    high lake levels in 1985-87, has reduced the loss of property from erosion.

                    Wetlands Protection - The PCZMP has committed substantial time and effort to protecting
                    the coastal wetlands of Pennsylvania. To control illegal, unpermitted wetland losses and to
                    identify and locate coastal wetlands, DCZM initiated, with the help of the U.S. Fish and


                                                                116












                                                                                                           areas.
                  Wildlife Service (FWS), a Wetland Monitoring Program for both Pennsylvania coastal
                  Aerial overflights and resultant net gain/loss mapping updates enable DCZM to identify
                  where and when wetland impacts have occurred. In addition, a task force of state and
                  Federal wetlands protection personnel has been assembled to verify wetland losses and to
                  obtain preliminary documentation to initiate enforcement actions.

                                        The PCZMP created the Urban Waterfront Action Group (UWAG)
                  in 1980 to provide voluntary "one-stop shopping" for information about waterfront
                  development permits in the Delaware Estuary. The UWAG is composed of representatives
                  from state and Federal agencies. The UWAG, which meets monthly as needed, is a pre-
                  permit conference service that enables potential waterfront developers and regulatory
                  agencies to identify and attempt to resolve potential permitting problems. In 1989, the
                  UWAG and the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission published the Waterfront
                  Developer's Permit Handbook. The handbook describes the role of the UWAG and
                  outlines the jurisdictions and responsibilities of each agency.

                  National EstuaLy Program - The PCZMP is the lead agency for Pennsylvania in the
                  Delaware Bay National Estuary Program. A representative of the PCZMP is serving on the
                  Management Committee. This strong involvement has provided opportunities for the
                  PCZMP to influence management of the Delaware Estuary, which is located in Pennsylvania
                  coastal zone.


                                           mt - With the use of CZM funds to develop the Erie Waterfront
                  Comprehensive Plan and 306A funds for low-cost construction projects, the PCZMP has had
                  a significant impact in redeveloping the Erie waterfront. Low-cost construction projects have
                  included the renovation of a pier area for public use, construction of boardwalks, and the
                  installation of lighting. The projects have resulted in successfully making the transition of
                  Erie from a commercial port to an area providing recreational opportunities.


                  In FY88, the PCZMP improved public relations activities in the Delaware Estuary coastal
                  zone, provided technical assistance to property owners in addressing bluff recession
                  problems, acquired a portion of land for public access at Elk Creek on Lake Erie, and
                  COntinued several ongoing projects. The PCZMP initiated several planning studies under
                  the FY88 award: a study to determine alternatives for adaptive reuse of the Forebay Bridge
                  at the Fairmount Waterworks in Philadelphia; a feasibility study to examine the revitalization
                  and development of the Tinicum Waterfront; and a study to examine the feasibility of
                  e,toring the historic Dickson Tavern in the Lake Erie Coastal Zone.
                  In FY89, the PCZMP focused on wetlands protection, providing support to the Department
                  Of Environmental Resources in identifying wetlands losses and taking corrective measures.
                  The program contributed $150,000 to the acquisition of the Elk Creek public access site,
                  with Plans to contribute another $150,000 over the next two years. Two historic preservation

                                                              117








                      projects were initiated: the restoration of Glen Foerd Boat House and Bartram's Garden
                      Courtyard, both located in the Delaware coastal zone. The PCZMP is also updating the
                      program's five year strategy and publishing a booklet on the state CZM program.

                      IV. Sigofficant Progmm Chan

                      No significant program changes were made during this biennium.

                      V. Federal Consistena

                      The PCZMP was instrumental through its Federal consistency process in assuring that water-
                      dependent uses of the waterfront were adequately considered.

                      VL Evaluation Findin


                      The last site evaluation was conducted in May 1987. The findings were published in March
                      1988., The recommendations were to: increase the amount of resources devoted to public
                      awareness efforts in the Delaware Estuary; continue working towards a resolution on water
                      lot issues in the Lake Erie coastal zone; and ensure adequate coordination with other state
                      agencies. The following accomplishments were cited in the findings: (1) the DER effectively
                      takes enforcement actions against activities which adversely affect commonwealth resources;
                      (2) the DER has played an effective leadership role by sponsoring regular CZM workshops
                      for the public, strengthening its efforts to protect coastal wetlands, and providing effective
                      technical assistance to the public, developers, local government, and other state agencies;
                      and (3) the DER effectively conducts Federal consistency reviews through the development
                      of a specific process to carry out the reviews and the initiation of a joint permit application
                      with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.


















                                                                   118




  1W






                                                  PUERTO RICO





            Federal Approval Date: September 1978
            Federal Funding FY88: $1,088,000
            Federal Funding FY89: $1,087,000


            I. BackUoun

            The commonwealth developed the Puerto Rico Coastal Management Program (PRCMP)
            to manage the significant -land and water activities conducted in its waters and an area
            extending approximately 1,000 meters inland. The Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
            and Planning Bureau (PB) are the principal permitting and planning agencies responsible
            for the management of Puerto Rico's coastal zone. DNR's Coastal Management Office
            (CMO) is responsible for administration and coordination of the PRCMP. The PB is part
            of the Office of the Governor and has broad regulatory power and responsibility for land-use
            planning in Puerto Rico and is the sole land-use regulatory authority in the commonwealth.

            The PB controls all uses in publicly owned land along the shorefronts, and has regulatory
            authority over all major uses in the coastal zone through its general controls over
            subdivisions, residential and agricultural uses, industrial projects, commercial centers, and
            hotels.    Two other commonwealth agencies have responsibilities relating to the
            implementation of the PRCMP. The Environmental Quality Board prepares environmental
            impact statements and adopts and reviews pollution control standards and regulations. The
            Regulations and Permit Administration exercises the permitting responsibility for building
            and use permits after PB approval of land use changes.

            111. Program AccornDlishments

            Hazards Protection - With hazard mitigation and planning a high priority in the
            commonwealth, the PRCMP has supported the development of an early warning system for
            flash flooding to protect the lives of over one million Puerto Ricans. Additionally, work
            continues on basin-wide planning for high hazard areas where relocation may eventually be
            proposed. Storm surge modeling is also being funded through the PRCMP.

            Public Education - The PRCMP has provided long-term support for a number of public
            information and education programs.        These efforts have helped to increase public
            awareness of coastal issues. Activities in the program include brochures, television spots,
            newspaper articles and many "Coastweeks" projects which are done yearly.




                                                         119








                     Habitat Protection - The designation of several important habitat regions bas been
                     accomplished by the PRCMP, including the recent designation of the Vieques Bioluminiscent
                     Bay Natural Reserve in 1989. This natural, reserve was designated based on a Critical Area
                     Management Plan prepared by the PRCMP.

                     IH. Major Grant Tasks

                     In a study sponsored by CMO, criteria was developed to assess the environmental and
                     economic issues related to marina siting within the commonwealth.           -This manual was
                     developed to respond to the increasing public demand for marina sites, as well as a need to
                     provide public access and facilities for launching small recreational boats.

                     Work continues on planning efforts in several coastal management areas, including Maritime
                     Zone Regulations, which have been under development for several years. The regulations
                     should be completed within Fiscal Year 1990. Also, land surveys sponsored by DNR are
                     helping to resolve land ownership problems on Culebra. The long-term squatter problem -
                        people occupying Commonwealth lands -- will be addressed after clear ownership is
                     demonstrated by the government.

                     IV. Significant Program Change

                     In January 1989, five laws were added to the PRCMP. They included amendments to the
                     regulation of development within floodable areas; creation of a quasi-public Marine
                     Resources Development Council; increased regulation of threatened or endangered plant
                     species and wildlife; protection for caves, caverns and sinkholes as special habitat areas; and
                     additional regulation of recreational vessels and off-road vehicles to protect bathing areas.

                     V. Federal Consisten

                     Many appellants have objected to the PB's finding of inconsistency for permanent moorage
                     of floating houseboats in the La Parguera area of the commonwealth. These consistency
                     appeals are pending before the Secretary of Commerce.

                     VI. Evaluation Findin


                     The final evaluation findings issued on January 17, 1989 cited progress in the designation of
                     natural reserves; in developing plans for certain special planning areas (e.g. Pinones); and
                     in the survey of Culebra lands which will aid in the planning for this important offshore
                     island area. Recommendations identified a need to resolve the "takings" issue, especially as
                     it relates to designation of natural areas; resolving the squatter issue on Culebra; taking a
                     stronger leadership role and implementing management plans for the La Parguera area; and
                     strengthening the PRCMP education program.




                                                                   120









                                                    RHODE ISLAND




              Federal Approval Date: May 1978
              Federal Funding FY88: $574,000
              Federal Funding FY89: $582,000


              1. Background

              The Rhode Island Coastal Program (RICP) is based on the Coastal Resources Management
              'Act of 1971, which created the Coastal Resources Management Council (CRMC). The
              CRMC regulates development in coastal waters, 200 feet inland from a coastal feature (i.e.,
              wetlands and bluffs), and certain uses wherever they occur in the state. The coastal boundary
              extends to the entire state. The CRMC created Special Area Management Plans for the Salt
              Ponds area, Providence Harbor and Narrow River. The 21 coastal local governments
              participate in the program on a voluntary basis. Most are developing harbor management
              plans and many have used section 306A funds under the CZMA to construct specific
              projects. The coastal program is administered by the Office of the Governor.

              H. Program Accomplishments

              Harbor Management - One-third of the coastal towns have developed harbor management
              plans to address the problem of displacement of water-dependent land uses, the need for
              public access, the placing of moorings and water quality uses. Another third of the towns
              have harbor plans underway.

              Public Access - In FY88, CZM funds were used to assist towns in signing, developing and
              maintaining the 160 CRMC designated rights-of-way. Five towns participated in the initial
              program with eight sites developed. The state continued this program in 1989 with $100,000
              in state funds; an additional $300,000 has been earmarked for this effort over the next three
              years through a recently approved environmental bond. The state Department of
              Environmental Management has offered an Indenture of Lease form to the towns as a
              means of limiting liability. This has removed a major obstacle from town participation.

              Water OILa ft - In its permit program, the CRMC regulates nonpoint sources of water
              pollution by requiring setbacks of development and septic systems, preserving natural buffer
              zones, requiring settling ponds, and other mechanisms.

              Permit Simplification - The RICP was recently revised to allow insignificant projects within
              its jurisdiction to receive an "at the counter" permit for projects that will have no impact on
              coastal resources. In addition, the CRMC began a new effort to conduct joint reviews of
              projects with pilot towns. Previously, it was necessary to receive all town permits before


                                                            121








                     CRMC would evaluate a project. This effort will encourage the towns to incorporate the
                     standards of the CRMC, such as access and water quality protection, in their permits, which
                     should simplify the process when it comes before the CRMC.

                     Administrative Fines and Fees - The CRMC substantially increased fines and fees over the
                     past two years. Violators are now charged for the costs associated with enforcement actions,
                     including staff time.

                     Improved Government Operations - The CRMC has increased its enforcement through a
                     series of administrative actions, including follow-up of every cease and desist order and
                     notice of violations, registering cease and desist orders as liens, and charging violators for
                     the time required to investigate the violation and develop remedial conditions. In additio ,
                     CRMC sends a list of violators to local newspapers. The resulting publicity has served the
                     purpose of deterring other violations.

                     Hazards Protection - In 1988, the CRMC adopted regulations which establish post hurricane
                     and storm permitting procedures. Included is authority to impose a 30-day moratorium to
                     provide time to assess damages, determine , changes in natural features, and identify
                     mitigation opportunities, including purchase.

                     Local Construction Projects - Towns have completed several coastal construction projects
                     during the biennium. Successful projects, all with less than $25,000 of 306A funds, included:
                     Bristol: Rockwell and Town Docks; Cranston: Aborn Street Boat Ramp Reconstruction;
                     East Providence: Carousel Park Pier Piling Removal; Jamestown: Taylor Point Park
                     Overlook; Newport: Restoration of Rose Island Lighthouse; Warren: Commercial Docking
                     and Warfare Facility; and Warick: Crocket Street Beach Rehabilitation and Restoration.
                     The Governor's Office initiated this program, which was administered by the Rhode Island
                     State Planning Office.

                     1H. Major Grant Tasks

                     In FY88, the program began a major effort to determine the impacts of sea level rise on the
                     state's southwestern coast. Various scenarios are applied to maps that can be shown to
                     permit applicants. Also in FY88, Rhode Island and the Connecticut Coastal Program
                     received a section 309 interstate grant to develop a special area management plan for the
                     Pawcatuck River Estuary. The goal of the management plan is to protect, as well as
                     develop, the resources of this waterbody, which are shared by both states. In FY89, funding
                     went to the University of Rhode Island to produce a guidebook on coastal access, which
                     should be completed before the summer of 1990.

                     IV. Siortificant PLqgmm Qbange

                     Routine program implementation (RPI) changes were approved by OCRM in 1988 and
                     1989. Several changes to the CRMP were submitted and approved as RPIs by OCRM in


                                                                   122







                  1988 and 1989. The changes include numerous changes to the CRMC's Administrative
                  Procedures Act, and Rules and Regulations; and incorporation of the Salt Ponds and Narrow
                  River Special Area Management Plans.

                     Federal Consisten

                  The CRMC conducts Federal consistency reviews. Major consistency issues during the
                  biennium included the siting of a GWEN tower which was subsequently withdrawn by the
                  U.S. Air Force, and the siting of a lightering facility by the U.S. Navy in Narragansett Bay,
                  which is now pending. Discussions between the Navy and the state are now underway to
                  resolve the issues relative to the location of the lightering facility and the potential for a
                  major oil spill.

                  VI. Evaluation Findin


                  The final evaluation findings issued September 20,1989, indicate the state is implementing
                  and enforcing the essential elements of its approved program. Areas cited as particular
                  accomplishments include: the continued reduction in time for processing minor permits,
                  despite an increased number of applications; improved enforcement; joint processing of
                  permits with towns; the harbor management planning process; increased state funding of the
                  CRMC budget; a special area management plan for the Narrow River; designation of 14
                  new rights-of-way, including important sites in Newport Harbor; the shoreline access
                  program to mark and develop rights-of-way; and the CRMC leadership role in protecting
                  water quality by addressing nonpoint sources   of pollution.

                  Among the recommendations for strengthening the program were: increased permit
                  simplification; increased enforcement; increased public awareness efforts; increased
                  coordination with the DEM for management of designated rights-of-way; and that CRMC
                  should be represented on the Executive Committee of the Narragansett Bay Project, one of
                  the National Estuary Programs funded by EPA to increase coordination.














                                                               123









                                                         SOLTFH CAROLINA




                     Federal Approval Date: September 1979
                     Federal Funding FY88: $1,280,000
                     Federal Funding FY89: $1,188,000


                     1. Bapkgoun

                     The South Carolina Coastal Council (SCCC) directs the state's coastal program. Eighteen
                     members make up the SCCC; it is divided into specialized committees which make
                     recommendations to the council. The SCCC's authority is derived from the South Carolina
                     Coastal Management Act (SCCMA) of 1977. The eight coastal counties containing "critical
                     areas" -- i.e., tidelands, beaches, primary oceanfront dunes, and coastal waters -- comprise
                     the coastal zone. The SCCC has direct permitting authority for activities that take place in
                     the critical areas, and indirect permitting authority in non-critical areas through consistency
                     reviews of Federal actions and consultation with other state agencies.

                     II. REpgEm Accom&hments

                     Hazards Protection - Responding to concerns that the SCCMA defined the beach and
                     primary oceanfront dune     critical area too narrowly, leaving the SCCC with inadequate
                     authority to regulate the areas properly, the state established the Blue Ribbon Committee
                     on Beach Management in 1986. The commission concluded that significant regulatory
                     reforms were necessary to protect and preserve the beach/dune system. As the commission
                     held hearings, the SCCC began an extensive beach profile analysis, mapping, and survey
                     process to identify an "ideal primary dune line" for the state's coastal properties.

                     In 1988, the South Carolina legislature adopted the Beach Management Act (BMA). The
                     BMA sets a policy of a 40-year retreat from the beach/primary dune system, expands the
                     beach/primary dune critical area, establishes a setback line based on local annual erosion
                     rates and the 40-year retreat, designates a "dead zone" behind the primary dune in which
                     no construction may take place, provides for improved local beach management, and
                     requires more stringent state permit regulations. The BMA also obligates the SCCC to
                     follow a number of policies: to discourage new construction near the beacb/dune system,
                     and encouraging a retreat for existing structures; to promote "soft" erosion control devices
                     within the context of a gradual retreat and to prevent the strengthening and enlarging
                     existing "hard" erosion control devices; to promote public access to the beaches; and
                     to encourage and assist local governments in developing local beach management plans.

                     The BMA is an innovative regulatory program which addresses some of the state's most
                     serious coastal problems. Hurricane Hugo has provided a severe test of the BMA; most


                                                                   124








                SCCC activity since the hurricane has been directed toward dealing with its consequences
                and evaluating the implications of the BMA for reconstruction and repair in Hugo's wake.

                Water Qualily - South Carolina's coastal waters face serious threats from non-point source
                pollution and stormwater runoff. During the review period, the SCCC launched a series of
                research and management programs to improve coastal water quality. In coordination with
                the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) and county
                and local governments, the SCCC undertook the following activities: funded research on the
                effectiveness of various stormwater management techniques; helped fund and coordinate
                Clean Water Act section 208 plan updates in coastal counties; revised its stormwater
                management guidelines and developed a model local stormwater management ordinance;
                funded water quality data collection efforts in coastal areas; issued marina development
                regulations and an operations and maintenance manual; and sponsored a citizen's beach and
                creek watch program to assist the Council's monitoring and enforcement efforts.

                The SCCC continues to pursue improvements in coastal water quality through research, new
                policy initiatives, enforcement, consultation procedures with other state agencies, and
                Federal consistency reviews.

                Natural Resource Protection - In 1986, Congress provided the state with additional funds to
                study Charleston Harbor. These funds were passed through to the South Carolina Wildlife
                and Marine Resources Department to study the ecological and physical characteristics of the
                Harbor. In 1985, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) completed a project to redivert
                the Cooper River into the Santee River. The rediversion was to reduce sedimentation rates
                in the Harbor; at the same time, however, the rediversion caused increases in salinity and
                other changes with possible effects on the ecological values and recreational and commercial
                uses of the estuary. The study includes hydrographic modelling, inventories of biota, and
                analysis of water quality changes.

                1H. Major Grant Tasks

                In FY88, the SCCC continued its Beach Monitoring Program, published a technical guide
                for using the beach monument system to establish BMA setback lines; completed beach
                profile, accretion, and 'erosion trend analysis; and drafted guidelines for developing a
                comprehensive beach management plan and renourishment plans. The SCCC also
                continued water quality improvement efforts, completed an assessment of areas with
                degraded water quality, expanded SCCC stormwater management requirements in
                cooperation with the Department of Health and Environmental Control for state-wide
                application, and continued wetlands area mapping and digitizing programs.

                In FY89, all of South Carolina's major grant activities "I be directed toward implementing
                the Beach Management Act. Tasks include regulation development, a review of final beach
                setbacks and baselines, and developing comprehensive local and state beach management



                                                             125








                    plans. Hugo recovery efforts have slowed SCCC progress on,FY89 grant tas       ks; however, the
                    council expects to meet all benchmarks and deadlines with only minor changes in the grant.

                    IV. Significant EEpZ[gm Change

                    In 1988, South Carolina submitted the Beach Management Act to- OCRM as a program
                    amendment. OCRM approved this major program change in early 1989. The state had
                    previously submitted several minor routine program implementation changes.

                    V1. Federal Consisteng

                    The SCCC has used Federal consistency aggressively as a too] to ensure Federal actions are
                    consistent with the SCCMP. The council most frequently applies consistency requirements
                    to Corps of Engineers section 404 permits under the Clean Water Act for activities in
                    coastal freshwater wetlands.


                    During the review period, the SCCC also sought to review projects located in Savannah, GA,
                    which it felt could significantly affect South Carolina's coastal zone. The U Hooker project,
                    the larger of the two, involved an extensive marina complex and canal system. NOAA
                    supported South Carolina's contention that the state had the right to review activities outside
                    the state, but COE rejected this argument, eventually issuing a section 404 permit. The
                    permit, however, did include conditions which partially addressed South Carolina's concerns.

                    VI. Evaluation Findin


                    The most recent evaluation findings were issued in January 1988 for the period from
                    November 1984 to May 1987. That evaluation found that the SCCC was adhering to the
                    requirements of the South Carolina Coastal Management Program. The evaluation noted
                    expanded monitoring and enforcement activities, increased permit applications, new
                    shorefront management plans for two of the eight coastal counties, and the operation of the
                    new Coastal Zone Information Center.


                    The evaluation also noted concerns that some council members made permit decisions in
                    a manner inconsistent with SCCMP policies and that the Council had inadequately
                    communicated its internal committee assignments and appointments to the public. The
                    SCCC has since taken steps to remedy these concerns.










                                                                  126









                                                         VIRGR41A






                 Federal Approval Date: September 1986
                 Federal Funding FY88: $1,785,000
                 Federal Funding FY89: $1,783,000


                 1. Backgound

                 The Virginia Coastal Resources Management Program (VCRMP) is based on the
                 networking of existing state laws and authorities. Implementation is accomplished through
                 monitoring and coordinating with state agencies and local governments; the Virginia Council
                 on the Environment (COE) is the lead agency. The program's coastal zone boundary
                 includes the 29 counties which border upon tidal waters and 15 cities.

                 H. Program Accompfishments

                 Wetlands Protection - The Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC) adopted a
                 wetland mitigation compensation policy, which became effective September 1989. The policy
                 will be used in conjunction with the state's existing Wetland Guidelines, which were adopted
                 in 1974 and revised in 1982. Under the new policy, a project proposal that would destroy
                 wetlands will be denied if it cannot meet certain criteria. In addition, submerged aquatic
                 vegetation (SAV) reports developed by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) are
                 used by Maryland and Virginia state agencies, and Federal agencies, in research and
                 management decisions for the Chesapeake Bay..

                 Stormwater Management - In 1989, the state passed a new stormwater management law.
                 This law allows local governments to specifically address stormwater management in their
                 comprehensive plans and local ordinances. The Virginia Department of Conservation and
                 Recreation is currently promulgating regulations, which will provide a minimum stormwater
                 management framework and define the limits of local authority to address stormwater
                 management. While the legislation is strictly voluntary, it does give local governments new
                 authority to implement stormwater management programs.

                 A4q-QUq1t - The Virginia Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act of 1988 (CBPA) requires
                 local governments to incorporate water quality protection measures into their land use plans
                 and ordinances. The CBPA also created a new Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance
                 Department (CBLAD) and Board (CBLAB). The CBLAD promulgated criteria to be used
                 by localities in complying with the CBPA. The CBLAD and CBLAB assist the local
                 governments in meeting CBPA requirements and review the final plans.


                                                             127


  Ah,








                  Improved Government Operations - The local environmental planning assistance component
                  of the Council on the Environment has been greatly utilized by many local governments.
                  This program provides an environmental review of specific development projects for local
                  governments which lack the necessary personnel or expertise.

                  III. MaJor-Grant Tasks

                  An FY88 project led to the City of Virginia Beach requiring that stormwater disposal plans
                  be included in all project site plans. FY87, FY88, and FY89 funds are being used to develop
                  a Geographic Information System for Virginia's tidal rivers. The Virginia Rivers Inventory
                  (VRI) information will be used by state and local government permitting and planning
                  agencies to identify and protect coastal resources.

                  In FY88, the state completed a comprehensive guide to public access for the entire
                  Chesapeake Bay watershed. This effort is an important first step in meeting the public
                  access goals of the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement. FY88 funds were also used to fund
                  a Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) study on the effects of bulkheads at
                  Sandbridge Beach in the City of Virginia Beach. This study will be used in the state's Dunes
                  Act program change request and will also have relevance for all ocean beaches.

                  The major FY89 activity is the development of local natural resource inventories, maps and
                  draft ordinances to improve Chesapeake Bay water quality in accordance with the
                  Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act. Other FY89 activities include expanding the citizen water
                  quality monitoring program initiated under a CZMA interstate grant award, and assessing
                  the potential risk to human, wildlife, and plant populations at selected coastal hazardous
                  waste sites.


                  IV. Sigafficant Program Change

                  The state Tributylin regulations, Clean Water Act section 401 water quality certification
                  process, and Chesapeake Bay Initiatives were incorporated into the VCRMP as routine
                  program implementations (RPIs). A request to incorporate the 1987 and 1988 changes to
                  the Virginia Coastal Primary Sand Dune Protection Act (Dunes Act) as an RPI was denied
                  by OCRM. The Dunes Act was passed in 1980 and was intended to preserve and protect
                  coastal primary sand dunes in Virginia. In 1986, when the VCRMP received Federal
                  approval, the Dunes Act contained a 1985 amendment exempting eight to 10 property
                  owners in the Sandbridge Beach area of the City of Virginia Beach from the seawall
                  prohibitions of the Dunes Act.

                  In 1987, the Virginia General Assembly amended the Dunes Act again, expanding the
                  exempted area to all of Sandbridge Beach. The 1987 amendment required bulkhead
                  applicants to obtain written consent from adjacent property owners and allowed adjacent
                  owners to tie into the bulkhead at no additional cost. In 1988, the General Assembly
                  eliminated the requirement for the adjacent property owner's consent.


                                                              128








               The Dunes Act was essential for Federal approval of the Virginia CRMP in 1986 and the
               state was informed that any significant change in the act must be submitted to OCRM for
               incorporation into the VCRMP. OCRM was concerned that the 1985 Sandbridge
               amendment would be expanded to other areas of Sandbridge and the state. The state is
               preparing to submit these changes as an amendment to the VCRMP.

               V. Federal Consisten

               No consistency reviews were reported during the biennium.

               VI. Evaluation FindiM

               The final evaluation findings issued October 1988, indicate that the state is adhering to its
               approved coastal program and that the COE is adhering to the terms and conditions of its
               financial assistance awards. Accomplishments of the program included the efforts by local
               government and Planning and Development Commission projects to develop buffer strips
               in new development, formulate stormwater and erosion management plans, implement
               groundwater protection strategies, use GIS systems to revise subdivision ordinances, and
               develop an innovative cross county conservation district. Recommendations included
               improved monitoring of state agency and local government activities, and submitting various
               program changes.

























                                                            129










                                                         VIRGIN ISLANDS
                                                                                                          Asir


                    Federal Approval Date: June 1979
                    Federal Funding FY88: $460,000
                    Federal Funding FY89: $470,000


                    1. BackgLoun

                    The Virgin Islands Coastal Zone Management Act (VICZMA) of 1978 established a
                    comprehensive coastal zone permit system designed to manage all development activities in
                    the Virgin Islands coastal zone, which includes the islands of St. Thomas, St. John, and St.
                    Croix, all offshore islands and cays, and the territorial sea. The program directly manages
                    all development activities in the First Tier, a relatively narrow coastal strip, along with all
                    the offshore islands and cays, through the use of a comprehensive system of ma         'jor and
                    minor coastal zone management permits. Other laws and related permits control activities
                    within the Second Tier, which includes the interiors of the three major islands.

                    The Department of Planning and Natural Resources (DPNR) is the lead agency for
                    administering the VICZMP. The Commissioner of the DPNR is responsible for directing
                    the activities of the VICZMP, for approving or denying all minor coastal permits, and for
                    taking all enforcement actions arising from the implementation of the major and minor
                    permits. DPNR also processes all building, plumbing and electrical permits. Major permits
                    are issued by individual Coastal Management Committees for each island (five members on
                    each Committee are appointed by the Governor).               A Coastal Zone Management
                    Commission is composed of all three of the individual island committees and as a body is
                    empowered to promulgate rules and regulations and provide policy direction and leadership
                    in coastal management issues.

                    U. Program Accomplishments

                    Enforcement - Over the past two years, the Virgin Islands has made a noteworthy
                    improvement in enforcement. In August 1988, the Virgin Islands adopted a civil fine
                    procedure, which provides for up to a $10,000 penalty. To date, DPNR has fined several
                    major violators, at least four of which were $10,000 fines. DPNR has undertaken additional
                    measures to improve enforcement. In January 1989, DPNR initiated a program of joint
                    patrols by Bureau of Environmental Enforcement (BEE) officers and VICZMP analysts.
                    VICZMP analysts spend one day each week with a BEE officer, systematically patrolling the
                    islands by sector to discover violations, monitor permit compliance, and perform follow up
                    inspections. This program was fully operational in St. Thomas and partially in place on St.
                    Croix, until Hurricane Hugo struck in September 1989.



                                                                 130








               HL M@Jor Grant Tasks

               Resource Surv     - In FY88, the territory completed an in-depth resource survey for the
               lands of all three islands. This survey will be used to complete the Comprehensive Land and
               Water Use Plan now under development by the DPNR and determine damage to the
               natural resource base caused by Hurricane Hugo.

               Post Hugo Assessments - Hurricane Hugo devastated large portions of the Virgin Islands
               in September 1989. The DPNR will be occupied with rebuilding and with redevelopment
               plans and permit enforcement for the remainder of FY89. Additionally, the territory plans
               to assess the resource damage caused by Hurricane Hugo in a series of natural resource
               surveys.

               IV. Siggfficant Program Change

               The Virgin Islands did not submit any program changes during the report period. However,
               OCRM has determined that several legislative changes should be submitted as program
               changes. The VICZMP has been unable to carry out this request due to staff shortages.

               V. Federal Consistena

               During the biennium, there were no major issues in the territory related to Federal
               consistency.

               VI. Evaluation Findin


               Final evaluation findings were issued June 19, 1989. Improvement areas cited in the findings
               included the need for DPNR to fill critical staff positions which have long been vacant.
               Other areas needing improvements are: clarifying and better defining the responsibilities
               of the, Coastal Committee/Commission; clarifying the role of the Board of Land Use Appeals
               as a coastal permit review body; and providing a precise definition of the location and status
               of Areas of Particular Concern (APCs). Regarding the latter, OCRM strongly recommended
               that the APCs be redesignated and that immediate efforts be made to complete
               management plans for the most important of these areas. OCRM is aware that DPNR's
               ability to resolve these issues will be severely taxed by the immediate problems relating to
               Hurricane Hugo.      A noteworthy accomplishment was DPNR's enforcement efforts,
               specifically the institution of the sector patrol system and the new civil fine program.








                                                            131










                                                       WASHINGTON




                 Federal Approval Date: June 1976
                 Federal Funding FY88: $1,872,000
                 Federal Funding FY89: $1,870,000


                 1. Backgroun


                 Washington was the first state to receive Federal approval of its coastal        management
                 program. The Washington Coastal Management Program (WCMP) is based on the state's
                 Shoreline Management Act (SMA) of 1971, which established broad guidelines for the
                 protection and management of all of the state's marine waters, and certain lakes, streams
                 and wetlands. The WCMP is a networked program involving several state agencies, 15
                 counties, and 36 cities, with the Department of Ecology (DOE) acting as the lead agency.

                 The Washington State Departments of Natural Resourpes, Fish, Game, Highways, Parks and
                 Recreation, Archaeology and Historic Preservation, and Emergency Services support and
                 participate in the implementation of the WCMP. Local actions are guided by locally-
                 developed, state-approved, city and county Shoreline Master Programs (SMP). The coastal
                 zone boundary embodies a two-tier approach. The first tier, a resource boundary area of
                 permit authority under the SMA, includes all of the state's marine waters and their
                 associated wetlands. The second tier, a planning and administrative initiative, is composed
                 of the region inland from the first tier to the crest of the coastal range, which includes all
                 15 coastal counties.


                 H. ProgLam Accomp@hshments

                 Wetlands Protection - During the biennium, the DOE continued its strong commitment to
                 wetlands acquisition, protection, and preservation with several efforts, including a study of
                 the feasibility of using wetlands for stormwater retention; the production of wetland
                 designation maps; an ongoing effort to inventory all state wetlands; and the development of
                 guidelines for local wetland management programs.

                 Public Access - DOE has ongoing involvement in'the development and implementation of
                 the Nisqually River Plan, a comprehensive management plan which includes public access
                 planning. To promote public access, DOE produced a Public Shore Guide for Marine
                 Waters, and a Shoreline Public Access Handbook; developed a public access program that
                 converted abandoned railroad tracks to access trails; and completed many small scale
                 acquisition and construction projects that enhanced public access throughout the state.




                                                              132







               HMd, Protection - DOE has initiated an ambitious program relating to the issues and
               problems associated with global warming and sea level rise. The Sea Level Rise program
               has included the formation of an Interagency Task Force; the first Northwest Sea Level Rise
               Conference; several studies examining sea level rise, vertical land movement, and erosion;
               and public education.

                                         )n Strateg-y* - The WCMP has the responsibility for implementing
               the shellfish protection and wetlands activities outlined in the Puget Sound Water Quality
               Plan, a document prescribing needed actions for the maintenance and enhancement of Puget
               Sound water quality. As part of their efforts, the WCMP is developing a nonpoint source
               pollution control strategy to identify and correct existing problems in watersheds that drain
               to commercial and recreational shellfish beds.

               Natural Resource Protection - The Oil Spill Act, passed by the state Legislature in 1989,
               governs the state's activities regarding oil spills, the transfer of petroleum products in state
               marine waters, and the development of ocean use policies for Washington's coast. Under
               the Act, DOE establishes oil spill financial responsibility levels; prepares and adopts ocean
               use guidelines and policies to be used in reviewing and amending local SMP's; and conducts
               scientific studies related to the effects of offshore oil and gas activities on the coast.

               Washinvon 2010 Project - DOE participated in the development of the Washington "State
               of the Environment Report," the first stage of the long-range Washington Environment 2010
               planning program. The Environment 2010 program was created to develop a systematic
               approach for identifying and assessing existing state environmental and natural resource
               management issues, anticipating emerging ones, and setting priorities through the year 2010.
               Imp oved Government Operations - In late January, 1989, the U.S. Secretary of the Interior
               joined with the Governors of Oregon and Washington, the Northwest Indian Fisheries
               Commission, and the Columbia River Intertribal Fish Commission to establish the Pacific
               Northwest OCS Task Force. The purpose of the task force is to assist the Secretary with
               the resolution of issues related to OCS oil and gas leases for the Washington-Oregon
               Offshore Planning Area. As part of this effort, DOE reviews, cornments, and makes
               recommendations on proposed Federal programs, and conducts scientific studies relating to
               offshore activities.

               Habitat Protection - With the aid of DOE and the WCMP, a National Wildlife Refuge was
               created in Bowerman Basin at Grays Harbor. This refuge is of critical importance to
               thousands of migratory shorebirds and waterfowl, and provides important habitat for many
               types of fish and wildlife, including threatened and endangered species.
               M-M-Palor -Grant Tasks
               In FY88 and FY89, DOE completed several important grant tasks that strengthened the
               WCMP. DOE conducted several public access projects, including development of a

                                                             133








                   handbook on public access. To enhance shellfish protection, DOE produced an Aquaculture
                   Use Conflict Repgrt that focused on the impacts of salmon net pen aquaculture on water
                   quality, its interference with marine navigation, and aesthetics of the floating structures.
                   Several projects involving shellfish protection were also undertaken to open previously closed
                   shellfish beds.


                   In the area of regional and local resource management, DOE directed efforts toward
                   establishing a water quality coordination organization at Willapa Bay; offered technical
                   assistance to develop a*comprehensive Tacoma City Waterway project; provided funding to
                   administer and conduct estuarine research and education at the Padilla Bay National
                   Estuarine Research Reserve; and produced an Urban Waterfront Policy Document and a
                   study on structural and non-structural methods of shoreline protection. To further public
                   education and information dissemination, DOE continued its educational and interpretive
                   watershed awareness project and extensive Coastweeks activities.

                   IV. SigWflcant Progam Change

                   The significant program changes during FY88 and FY89 were: (1) the inclusion of the 1989
                   Washington Oil Spill Act; (2) several procedural changes to the SMA, its implementing rules,
                   and the state Environmental Policy Act; and 3) several changes to local SMP's. DOE also
                   submitted changes to the Matcom County/Cherry Point SMP as routine program
                   implementation; however, the changes were deemed to be a program amendment.

                   V. Federal Consisten


                   Federal consistency reviews are conducted through DOE. Two of the more complicated
                   Federal consistency issues during the report period were: (1) a dispute between DOE and
                   the Bonneville Power Administration over whether Federal agencies should be required to
                   secure permits for Federal activities on non-Federal lands; and (2) a dispute between the
                   City of Everett and the U.S. Navy over whether the Navy must obtain a SMA permit for its
                   homeporting project in Everett. . Both issues were resolved through the creation of
                   memoranda of agreement.

                   VI. Evaluation Findin


                   Final evaluation findings issued   on May 11, 1989, indicate that the state is successfully
                   implementing and enforcing the essential elements of its program and is taking the initiative
                   to review and- refine the program. DOE is taking a leadership role in coastal issues,
                   monitoring the actions of other state agencies for compliance, and assuring the opportunity
                   for full public participation. In response to the findings, DOE has improved the WCMP by
                   providing technical assistance and encouraging local governments to adopt procedures for
                   the civil fine system through amendments to local Shoreline Master Programs. Another
                   improvement was DOE's work with other state agencies to complete a statewide aquaculture
                   data base, and its participation in a state aquaculture management plan.


                                                                 134










                                                      WISCONSIN






              Federal Approval Date: May 1978
              Federal Funding FY88: $799,000
              Federal Funding FY89: $799,000


              1. Baftroun

              Wisconsin has 820 miles of coastline in three major coastal stretches bordering on Lake
              Michigan, Green Bay, and Lake Superior. Forty-three percent of the state's population is
              in the 15 counties adjacent to these bodies of water. The WCMP's primary goal is to
              preserve, protect, develop and, where possible, to restore or enhance the resources of
              Wisconsin's coastal area. To facilitate planning and the implementation of the WCMP, eight
              specific issue areas are identified to address concerns such as severe erosion, polluted waters
              and limited recreational access. The specific areas are codstal water and air quality; coastal
              natural areas; community development; economic development; governmental relationships;
              public involvement; and coastal energy impacts.

              The Coastal Management Section is the lead agency for implementing the coastal
              management program. The Section is located in the Department of Administration, the
              state's executive agency. The program is implemented under the policy guidance of the
              Wisconsin Coastal Management Council (WCMC), a decisionmaking body created by
              Executive Order. WCMC is responsible for setting the program's policies and making major
              program decisions. The Council is also responsiblefor coordinating Federal, state and local
              coastal activities and for advising the Governor on coastal matters.
              Since 1980, the Council has been organized to include legislators and representatives of state
              agencies, local governments, tribal governments and interested citizens. The 33 regulatory
              responsibilities are primarily carried out through the Department of Natural Resources (lake
              bed activities, water quality, and fish and game management), the Department of
              Transportation (harbor assistance), the Public Service Commission (power plant and
              transmission line siting), and county governments (shoreland zoning). The 15 coastal
              counties make up the landward coastal zone boundary. Counties are served by one of the
              three regional planning commissions, each of which has a coastal specialist on its staff.
              '-I- h-QUA-M-Accomplishments
              liazards Protection - A Coastal Hazards Information Database was assembled by the coastal
                       I IU
              4egional Planning Commission. The database contains a bibliography on various aspects

                                                            135








                 of coastal hazard management. The WCMP is in the process of updating this database.
                 Also, the DNR developed a "Floodplain and Shoreland Management Guidebook" to provide
                 an overview of state mandated zoning requirements and to assist local zoning officials and
                 the DNR staff concerning zoning programs. During 1989, DNR held a series of training
                 classes with local zoning officials.

                 Wetlands Protection - The DNR has drafted water quality standards for wetlands to more
                 effectively implement section 401 of the Clean Water Act. The Wisconsin Nonpoint Source
                 Water Pollution Abatement Program was one of the first state programs enacted to control
                 pollutants from both urban and rural nonpoint sources.

                 Public Access - Low cost construction projects for improved public access to the state's
                 shoreline included: the Manitowoc pedestrian walkway along the City's waterfront, a parkway
                 and walkway for Green Bay, a walkway and viewing area at Sturgeon Bay, a coastal trail and
                 visitor center for the Village of Ephraim, and a floating dock at the Kewaunee Marina.

                 Urban Waterfront Redevelopment - The Waterfront Action Group, set up by the WCMP,
                 provides a forum for state agencies to share information and ideas concerning waterfront
                 redevelopment. The objectives of the group are to increase statewide awareness of
                 waterfront redevelopment needs and programs and coordinate funding for these programs.
                 CZM funds were used to plan and construct a 150 slip marina and waterfront park on
                 abandoned land in the City of Kewaunee. The development of this waterfront site catalyzed
                 significant private investment during 1988 and 1989, in addition to attracting over 100,000
                 tourists annually.

                 A boat launch facility and transient docks in Racine were built in 1988-89 using CZM funds.
                 As a result of this effort, a larger project was then implemented by the public and private
                 sector including: the Racine Festival Project Site, which includes a 900 slip marina, support
                 facilities, a 17 acre county park, and a public boating facility. Local officials credit the
                 original "seed" CZM funding for providing the impetus for this larger project.

                 Permit Simplification - In 1988, the state Legislature authorized the establishment of a
                 general permit program and procedures for its implementation. It.is estimated that when
                 implemented the program will result in a savings of field staff time by 13 percent. During
                 1988, the state initiated a study to assess DNR's capability of assuming the dredge and fill
                 permit authority under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

                 M. Major Grant Tasks

                 In FY88 and FY89, the WCMP focused its funding on waterfront redevelopment and harbor
                 contamination. Waterfront redevelopment efforts focused on interagency coordination
                 through the Waterfront Action Group. More than 20 waterfront redevelopment projects
                 were funded under Section 306A. To address harbor contamination, the state funded a



                                                              136








                number of technical studies related to toxic sediments and public participation efforts related
                to two remedial action plans.

                    Significant ProgjaM Chan

                There were no program changes during FY88 or FY89.

                V. Federal ConsistgAgy

                Federal consistency reviews are carried out by the WCMP staff. No major consistency issues
                were presented during this period. However, during the period a Federal consistency
                database and tracking system was established, tested and finalized.

                VI. Evaluation Findina

                Final evaluation findings for the period October 1985, through October 1987, were issued
                June 30, 1988. The findings indicated that the state was adhering to its program and doing
                a commendable job in implementing its provisions. The findings recommended that: the
                WCMP staff spend more time in the field and that the computer logging and tracking system
                be expanded and program staff be trained in its operation.

























                                                              137









                                                  APALACFHCOLA
                                                        Florida



             Designated: 1979
             Size: 193,758 acres
             Biogeographic Region: Louisianan
             Acquisition Status: 89.5% complete

             Federal Funding FY88: $78,641
             Federal Funding FY89: $28, 676


             1. Backaroun

             Located in northwest Florida, approximately 90 miles southwest of Tallahassee, the reserve
             is the largest of the 18 existing National Estuarine Research Reserves. It includes two
             barrier islands and a portion of a third, portions of the Apalachicola River and adjoining
             uplands, and Apalachicola Bay. Managed by the Florida Department of Natural Resources,
             the reserve also includes a 12,358 acre National Wildlife Refuge on St. Vincent Island, the
             2,300 acre Cape St. George State Reserve, and 1,883 acre state park on the eastern tip of
             St. George Island. Surrounding habitats include salt water marshes, swamp forests, barrier
             sand beaches, upland forests, and open waters of the bay and river. The reserve is one of
             the most important bird habitats in the southeastern U.S. It is also home to over 1,300
             species of plants, 36 of which are threatened or endangered, including the Ogeechee Tupelo
             tree, which is found on St. Vincent's Island, and 116 species of fish.

             H. Prpgarn Accomplishments

             The reserve headquarter facility opened in 1984. It contains office space, a conference room
             and library, a research-teaching laboratory and an auditorium. The facility serves as the
             focal point for the reserve's education and research programs. Two successful education
             programs, Project Estuary and Estuarine Pathways, are carried out through the five-county
             school system bordering the reserve.

             III. Research and Monitoring Progra.

             Research has focused on many resource management issues of the Apalachicola estuary.
             Three main in-house projects include: Red fish population dynamics, colonial nesting
             shorebirds -- Least Tern and Black Skimmer -- data collecting, and a molluscan inventory.
             As a result of these research activities, the identification of molluscan and vascular plant
             species has doubled.




                                                         139









                  IV, Education Program

                  The reserve's research and education programs are closely linked. Research information is
                  disseminated through the education program to audiences ranging from pre-school children
                  to college-level students. Dissemination of information is accomplished through various
                  methods including presentations, publications, supplemental school curriculum units, audio-
                  visual programs, field trips and college classes.

                  V. Evaluations

                  No evaluations were conducted during FY 1988 or FY 1989.


































                                                              140









                                                   CHESAPEAKE BAY
                                                         Maryland

               Designated: 1985
               Size: 3,400 acres
               Biogeographic Region: Virginian
               Acquisition Status: 85% complete

               Federal Funding FY88: $32,500
               Federal Funding FY89: $90,120


               1. BgdWoun

               Managed by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, the reserve will eventually
               consist of three components. It presently includes one designated component, Monie Bay,
               which is located within the Deal Island Wildlife Management Area in Somerset County on
               the lower eastern shore of the bay. Two additional elements have been proposed: Otter
               Point Creek, located 17 miles northeast of Baltimore in Harford County on the upper
               western shore of the Bay; and Jug Bay, located 20 miles southeast of Washington DC, on
               the Patuxent River, a western shore tributary of the Bay. The 3,400 acre Monie Bay
               component is comprised of tidal cieeks, open estuarine waters, salt marshes and pine forests.
               It is a haven for resident and migratory bird populations, including herons, egrets and ibises
               native to Maryland, and a wide variety of waterfowl species. Many of Maryland's shorebirds
               also frequent the site. Important aquatic populations such as blue crabs, white perch, oysters
               and blue fish are also found in Monie Bay.

               11. Progmm Accompli&hmen

               The Chesapeake Bay NERR has made remarkable progress in the last two years. The
               proposed additions of Jug Bay and Otter Point Creek has been successful with regards to
               program and public support. A Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft
               Management Plan for the additional components has been published and distributed. A
               Final Environmental Impact Statement should be available in March 1990. NOAA plans
               to designate the two sites by September 1990.

               Ill. Research and Monitoring Pro

               Research projects currently include a study on the variability in sea level rise and its effect
               On marsh development, and a study on the role of sulfate from sea water in the degradation
               Of marsh peat. A barn owl nest box study is ongoing. The Maryland Forest, Park and
               Wildlife Service performs a waterfowl census and periodic water quality monitoring in the
               Wildlife Management Area.


                                                             141










               IV. Education Pro


               The current education program at the reserve operates through cooperative efforts with
               educational organizations operating in the area. Activities include marsh management
               programs, bird banding demonstrations, canoeing, and tours of the state shellfish hatchery.

               V. Evaluations

               No evaluations were conducted during jFY88 or FY89.






























                                                         142









                                                   ELKHORN SLOUGH
                                                         California


                 Designated: 1980
                 Size: 1,330 acres
                 Biogeographic Region: Central California
                 Acquisition Status: Approximately 98% complete

                 Federal Funding FY88: $186,098
                 Federal Funding FY89: $104,920


                 1. Baftound

                 The reserve is located on the central California coast roughly halfway between the cities of
                 Santa Cruz and Monterey. One of the few relatively undisturbed seasonal estuaries in
                 central Monterey Bay, the Elkhorn Slough reserve encompasses coastal dunes, grasslands,
                 oak woodlands, freshwater ponds and maritime chaparral.            Hundreds of species of
                 invertebrates, fishes and birds are found at the reserve, which is also home to several
                 ,endangered species, including the California brown pelican and American peregrine falcon.
                 Resident marine mammals include harbor seals, sea lions and sea otters.

                 Managed by the California Department of Fish and Game, the Elkhorn Slough NERR is
                 one of nine sites in California that comprise the California Wildlands Program (CWP). The
                 CWP was established in recognition of the interpretive value of wetlands and other habitat-
                 rich environs to non-consumptive users of the area. The CAT has hired two state
                 interpretive staff for the reserve. A Reserve Advisory Committee assists the on-site manager
                 with decisions regarding research and education programs, and facility and maintenance
                 Operations, as well as resource protection and general policy.
                 --hr-09-amAccomiDlishments
                 A site development and exhibit plan was completed in FY89 that includes plans for an
                 administration building, interactive dynamic exhibits and a native plant demonstration
                 project. In October 1988, the reserve and the Elkhorn Slough Foundation, a non-profit
                 Organization held a State of the Bay conference to highlight the environmental issues and
                 status of the Monterey Bay ecosystem for public and local coastal management
                 decisiOrimakers. In December 1988, the reserve, in cooperation with the California Coastal
                 Conservancy and the Nature Conservancy, developed a Barrier Free Access for wheelchairs
                 along the shore of the slough.
                 in addition, the Monterey Bay Aquarium, with assistance from the Foundation, published
                 a 65-page, illustrated book on Elkhorn Slough, which describes the uses, history, habitats and
                 Organisms of the reserve's environment. In other activities, a dumpsite on Hummingbird

                                                             143








                   Island in the river was cleaned up, native vegetation was restored, and an environmental
                   sculpture was created to provide a historical and aesthetic interpretive exhibit.

                   HL Research and Monitoring Pro

                   Elkhorn Slough intertidal habitat is threatened by severe erosion from tidal scouring.
                   Research studies into eelgrass ecology have led to the e        stablishment of new eelgrass
                   populations that have significantly reduced erosion in certain mudflat habitats.              A
                   Restoration and Enhancement Plan for eroding habitat has been prepared from this
                   research and will serve as a model for similar situations around the nation.


                   Research studies have identified certain sources of nonpoint source pollution and established
                   effects on the neighboring Slough ecosystem. The data has been used in local, regional,
                   state and federally funded management plans aimed at enhancing water quality in the
                   watershed. Also, an inventory and long-term monitoring of native and introduced species
                   within the reserve has led to Elkhorn Slough Volunteer Restoration Projects. These projects
                   are designed to restore such native species as the Coast Live Oak to pre-disturbed
                   population levels to provide native plant cover and habitat for natural repopulation of local
                   endemic and endangered species.

                   IV. Education Progra

                   Some 40,000 to 50,000 visitors are attracted to Elkhorn Slough annually. In FY88 and
                   FY89, over 600 teachers were trained to lead field trips to the site. Teacher training
                   workshops prepare teachers to lead field trips to the reserve. These workshops include
                   background information, activities and field trip guidelines. During the biennium, 7,000
                   school children visited the reserve. In FY 891 100 volunteers at the site devoted 4,500 hours
                   to assist as interpreters for visitors. Volunteers also assist with research projects, maintain
                   trails, and sponsor special events at the reserve.

                   V. Evaluations


                   On January 13, 1989, an evaluation of the reserve concluded that the California Department
                   of Fish and Game (CDFG) had done a commendable job in managing the Elkhorn Slough
                   National Estuarine Research Reserve and in implementing the March 1987 evaluation
                   recommendations. Especially noteworthy was the success of the interpretive and education
                   programs. Communication between the CDFG staff, OCRM staff and other assisting
                   organizations has improved dramatically. As a result, the habitat enhancement efforts done
                   in cooperation with the Advisory Committee have increased and the volunteer network has
                   become extremely effective in carrying out reserve functions.

                   The implementation of a fee-structure with the initiation of the CWP remains a concern for
                   OCRM due to the Federal requirements that funds raised at the site be used for reserve


                                                                 144







               purposes only. OCRM staff are working with CDFG to establish an accounting procedure
               that will facilitate the policies and goals of both the state and Federal programs.

               Also of concern is the state commitment to the research program at the site. The
               responsibilities and functions of a site research coordinator are currently conducted by the
               Elkhorn Slough Foundation. A meeting was held in November 1989, by CDFG and OCRM
               staff with all assisting organizations to discuss, among other things, the future of the research
               program. It was determined that the duties and responsibilities of the research coordinator
               will be set forth in the updated management plan, due in August 1990.





































                                                           145










                                                        GREATBAY
                                                       New Hampshire

                  Ukesignated: 1989
                  Size: 4,471 acres
                  Biogeographic Region: Acadian
                  Aquisition Status: 80% complete

                  Federal Funding FY88: $258,000
                  Federal Funding FY89: $808,000


                  L Aggkgound

                  The Great Bay estuary extends 15 miles from the coast at New Castle, New Hampshire, to
                  the upper Great Bay in southeastern New Hampshire. The reserve includes 4,471 acres of
                  tidal waters and mudflats and approximately 48 miles of shoreline. Eight hundred acres of
                  upland within the boundary represent the range of different resources/environments in the
                  estuary, including salt marsh, tidal creeks, islands, woodlands, and open fields. The water
                  area includes all of Great Bay, the small channel from the Winnicut River, and large ones
                  from the Squarnscott and Lamprey Rivers, which meet in the center of the bay to form a
                  channel which connects to Little Bay at Adams Point.

                  The Great Bay estuary derives its freshwater inflow from these rivers. Approximately one-
                  half of Great Bay is exposed at low tide with most of the intertidal being mudflat. The bay
                  is typical of northern New England estuaries in having a variety of marine plant
                  communities. Eighteen rare or endangered plant species have been identified within the
                  reserve, as well as five rare or endangered animal species. The managing agency is the New
                  Hampshire Department of Fish and Game.

                  11. ProgLarn Accomplishments

                  During the biennium, the draft and final management plans and environmental impact
                  statements were developed for the reserve. In addition, key land and water areas contained
                  within the reserve's boundaries were acquired, primarily through conservation easement.

                  M. Research and Monitoring Program

                  During FY89, the reserve was awarded a $13,229 grant to create a Great Bay Floating
                  Laboratory Program and a citizens' monitoring project. Monthly and bi-monthly monitoring
                  of the water column, flora and fauna, and weather conditions at the site will be done by the
                  Jackson Estuarine Laboratory.








                    Education Pr=m

                Area scbools, the University of New Hampshire, local groups, and traditional users of the
                Bay have viewed the area as an ideal, informal classroom over the years. This new reserve     -
                is expanding and building on this concept by providing slide shows, tours, and lecture series.

                V.    gluati

                No evaluations were cOnducting during FY88 or FY89.


































                                                             147



  r





                                                      HUDSON RIVER
                                                           New York


                  Designated: 1982
                  Size: 4,250 acres
                  Biogeographic Region: Virginian
                  Acquisition Status: 100% complete

                  Federal Funding FY88: $50,000
                  Federal Funding FY89: $203,900


                  1. Backgroun

                  Extending 152 miles from the southern tip of Manhattan Island north to the Federal Dam
                  at Troy NY, the reserve embraces four sites: Piermont Marsh, a brackish tidal wetland
                  comprised of emergent vegetation and shallows along two miles of shoreline; Iona Island,
                  which includes slightly brackish tidal marsh and rocky, forested uplands; Tivoli,Bays, the
                  largest freshwater tidal wetland complex on the Hudson estuary; and Stockport Flats, which
                  comprises intertidal mudflats, subtidal shallows, emergent freshwater tidal marshes, and
                  vegetated dredge spoil islands. The reserve is managed by the New York Department of
                  Environmental Conservation.


                  Tidal freshwater wetlands are the reserve's most unusual habitat. Its emergent marshes
                  support many marsh birds, small mammals and snapping turtles. Low marsh vegetation
                  provides habitat for fish, turtles, waterfowl and wading birds. The reserve's shallows serve
                  as spawning and nursery grounds for many species of fish.

                  H. Program Accomplishments

                  During the biennium, land and water areas were acquired at the Stockport and Tivoli Bays
                  components totalling more than 265 acres. In addition, the reserve's field station at Bard
                  College, which is within the Tivoli Bays area, was remodeled. The building is equipped with
                  wet and dry laboratories, office space, field equipment, a library, a herbarium and other
                  scientific specimen collections, living quarters for visiting researchers, and exhibits.

                  The reserve has expanded its efforts to assist researchers in making contacts with other
                  research institutions, identifying sampling sites that meet their research specifications,
                  providing information about tides, and identifying projects about related research being
                  conducted in the estuary. During 1989, the reserve began offering year-round interpretive
                  field programs at all four sites on a wide range of topics. In addition, efforts have been
                  expanded to provide estuary-related programs for coastal managers.




                                                              148








                    ReseaTch and Monitorin Pro
                                              1@

                A Research Advisory Committee was established for the reserve in 1988. The Committee
                is assisting the reserve in planning a long-term research and environmental monitoring
                program. The program is being designed to identify long-term trends and provide
                information to coastal managers. The Committee is also assisting the reserve in determining
                research priorities for the Hudson River estuary.

                A wide variety of research projects have been conducted at the four reserve sites. These
                include physical, biological and chemical characterizations, studies of ecosystem processes,
                and investigations of exchanges between wetlands and the main stem of the Hudson. The
                reserve sites represent the range of salinity regimes found in the estuary, as well as the
                gradient of watershed development density, creating many excellent opportunities for
                examining research questions related to coastal management issues.

                IV. Education Progmm

                The reserve's public education program was greatly expanded during the biennium. It
                cuff ently conducts field programs for elementary and high school students. These programs
                include demonstrations and activities that illustrate estuarine processes and academic
                programs, such as career, days, high school seminars for gifted and talented students, and
                science fairs. A variety of programs and materials are also developed for teachers.

                The reserve staff also contributed monthly radio scripts to Central Hudson's ALMANAC
                program, a series devoted to the natural history of the mid-Hudson region. The scripts were
                broadcast over 17 Hudson Valley radio stations. Reserve staff have also worked with local
                and regional television stations, which have featured programs about reserve sites and on-
                going research.

                Also, the reserve program funded the development of estuarine exhibits at the Trailside
                Museum and Zoo in the Bear Mountain State Park, near Iona Island. These include a
                variety of live animal exhibits and a killifish pool with an artificial seven-minute tidal cycle,
                as well as information panels about the Hudson River estuary and its watershed.

                Y--Eval
                        uations
                Issued September 20, 1989, the final evaluation findings indicate that the state is making
                significant improvements in reserve operations and management andmeaningful progress
                in attaining the goals of the NERR System. Accomplishments are also cited in education,
                research and land acquisition.       Recommendations included increasing staff support;
                permanently incorporating the reserve into the state fiscal structure; and revising the draft
                raanagement plan. The reserve also was encouraged to continue its planning process for a
                visitor center, and to examine existing reserve facilities and operations to provide full
                accessibility for handicapped individuals.

                                                              149










                                                           JOBOS BAY
                                                            Puerto Rico


                   Designated: 1981
                   Size: 2,800 acres
                   Biogeographic Region: West Indian
                   Acquisition Status: 100% complete

                   Federal Funding FY88: $50,000
                   Federal Funding FY89: $250,000


                   I. Back


                   Located on the southern coastal plain of the island of Puerto Rico, the reserve has been
                   divided into three units for management purposes: Mar Negro, characterized by mangrove
                   fringe, which protects the shoreline and lagoons and channels; Cayos Caribes, a chain of 17
                   tear-shaped islets; and Seagrass Beds/Punta Colchones. Three hundred West Indian
                   manatees are known to forage within the Cayos Caribes area of the reserve. This is thought
                   to be the second largest population of manatees in Puitrto Rico. Sea turtles are often found
                   in the seagrass beds of Jobos Bay. The site is managed by the Puerto Rico Department of
                   Natural Resources.


                   H. Program Accompkhments

                   The reserve offers an extensive outreach program throughout the island in order to increase
                   public awareness and appreciation of coastal and estuarine resources. The bay is used as
                   the focal point of the local school systems for estuarine education programs. The reserve
                   has served as a catalyst for the Department of Natural Resources to develop management
                   plans for their forestry reserve system. In addition, the DNR has entered into a cooperative
                   agreement with the Sea Grant Program at the University of Puerto Rico, Humacao College,
                   to pursue joint education and research activities at Jobos Bay.

                   III. Research and Monitoring Progams
                   Development of a research and education facility is in the design phase. Construction is
                   expected to begin in 1990.

                   IV. Education Prog[a
                   The reserve's education program focuses on the natural integrity of the Bay and the
                   importance of the estuarine habitat to Puerto Rico. Programs are designed to reach local
                   communities, schools, and the general public. Special slide shows, tours, lecture serles@ and
                   outreach programs are available at the reserve.


                                                                 150








                 V. E-valuations

                 The final evaluation findings issued July 7, 1989, noted accomplishments in staffing,
                 education programming, international training, and improved monitoring and enforcement
                 within reserve boundaries. The recommendations included: increasing the number of
                 rangers for more effective surveillance and enforcement; providing a precise delineation of
                 the reserve boundary (an aerial map for Federal acquisition and a more recent survey map
                 were found inconsistent); developing reserve use regulations to control access, hunting and
                 other activities; revising the draft management plan and broadening public review of the
                 plan; and completion of the reserve's visitor center.

































                                                            151


   t4










                                                   NARRAGANSETT BAY
                                                         Rhode Island


                  Designated: 1980
                  Size: 2,626 acres
                  Biogeographic Region: Virginian
                  Acquisition Status: 100% complete

                  Federal Funding FY88: -0-
                  Federal Funding FY89: $20,000


                  1. Background


                  Located in the geographic center of Narragansett Bay, twelve miles from Newport RI, the
                  reserve is composed of 1,035 acres of land on Prudence, Patience, and Hope Islands, and
                  1,591 acres of water adjoining the islands out to the 18-foot isobath. The islands contain
                  diverse aquatic and terrestrial habitats and are nesting sites for numerous species of birds.
                  Soft-shell clams, quahogs, lobster, striped bass, black-back flounder and sea trout are found
                  in the reserve's tidal deepwater. During the winter, harbor seals occasionally use the
                  reserve's exposed offshore rocks as haulout and resting sites. An extensive trail system
                  reaches the major ecological features of the reserve. A seasonal ferry brings school classes,
                  organizations and individuals to the reserve. An interpretive program is provided. The
                  Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management manages the site.

                  H. Program Accomoshments

                  The reserve's first full-time onsite manager was hired in June 1989. During the biennium,
                  efforts were made to coordinate the reserve's operation and program activities with the
                  Narragansett Bay Project (NBP), which is part of the Environmental Protection Agency's
                  National Estuary Program.

                  A weather tower monitoring station was installed at the reserve and has been in continuous
                  operation since September 1988. The station facilities were constructed by the Rhode Island
                  Department of Environmental Management using Federal CZM funds. The University of
                  Rhode Island's (URI) Graduate School of Oceanography operates the tower to gather
                  scientific data on atmospheric deposition of nutrients and chemical contaminants. The
                  Prudence Conservancy, a non-profit citizens' organization, maintains the tower, collects data
                  weekly, and collects and transports samples to the Graduate School of Oceanography.

                  Also during the biennium, a 29 passenger ferry was purchased and refurbished by the state.
                  The ferry delivers reserve visitors from the mainland to Prudence Island for onsite education
                  programs.



                                                               152








                    Rmuch and Monitorin Pro am

                The research program is focused on the salt marshes and aquatic habitats of the reserve.
                A long-term atmospheric monitoring effort is underway and will be coupled with a water
                quality program designed to characterize, detect change, and assess trends in marine water
                quality.

                IV. Education Program

                NBP, in conjunction with URI, sponsored a field course of the ecology of salt marshes within
                the adult education series, entitled 'The Narragansett Bay Classroom." The Coggeshell
                marsh at the reserve has been used because it is an excellent, undisturbed example of
                southern New England estuarine wetlands. Public education is achieved through special
                seasonal education programs at the reserve.

                V. Evaluations

                Final evaluations were issued on December 3, 1989. Accomplishments included a finding
                that the state hired a full-time Reserve Manager, instituted a successful education program,
                and integrated reserve management with the EPA funded NBP. Among the
                recommendations is that the state. formally extend the reserve boundary to include recent
                acquisitions, expanded the -ferry service, and that the state decide on the location of a
                recreation center.






























                                                            153










                                                        NORTH CAROLINA

                    Designated: 1982
                    Size: 9,800 acres
                    Biogeographic Region: Virginian/Carolinian
                    Acquisition Status: 88% complete

                    Federal Funding FY88: $344,732
                    Federal Funding FY89. $103,443


                    1. Backaound

                    The reserve, managed by the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and
                    Natural Resources, includes three sites along the North Carolina coast, including: Zeke's
                    Island in New Hanover and Brunswick Counties; Rachel Carson in Carteret County; and
                    Currituck Banks in Currituck County. A fourth component at Masonboro Island in New
                    Hanover County is proposed for designation.

                    The Zeke's Island component encompasses approximately 1,165 acres of upland, intertidal
                    and shallow water areas. The Rachel Carson site includes 2,625 acres of upland area,
                    marshes, intertidal flats, tidal creeks, and shallow estuarine waters. The Currituck Banks
                    components cover 964 acres of beach, dunes, maritime forest, marshes and flats, sound-side
                    islands and a portion of Currituck Sound. The proposed Masonboro Island component
                    includes 5,046 acres of salt marshes, maritime forests, dunes, grassy flats, shrub thickets, eel
                    grass beds, and mud and sand flats.

                    H. Progarn Accomp@hshments

                    In addition to continuing the acquisition process of Masonboro Island, the state of North
                    Carolina approved two state-funded positions for the reserve. These positions are currently
                    being filled and will be located in Wilmington.

                    III. Research and Monitoring Proggms

                    Most NOAA-funded research has been focused on the Rachel Carson component of the
                    North Carolina NERR. Research has included a quantitative description of plant succession
                    on dredge spoil islands and changes as a result of transformations. in plant species
                    composition; habitat mapping; and the effects of feral horses on the production, distribution,
                    abundance and stability of salt marsh plants. In addition, research funds for baseline studies
                    on sediment dynamics of Currituck Sound at the Currituck Banks component have been
                    awarded.





                                                                  154








                IV. Education ProgLam

                The reserve's public education program is accomplished through a coordinated network
                consisting of staff based in Raleigh and coastal facilities including the North Carolina
                Aquariums and the North Carolina Maritime Museum. These facilities offer field trips to
                the reserve sites and serve as focal points for public information about the reserve through
                exhibits and distribution of literature.


                V. Evaluations


                The final evaluation findings issued in April 1989 recommended that state funding be
                pursued for the positions of Reserve Coordinator and Research Coordinator. Additionally,
                the findings recommended that these two positions be located on the North Carolina coast
                in relationship with the components instead of Raleigh, North Carolina. It was felt that on-
                site management would give the program the visibility and effectiveness it has been lacking.
                Most of these findings have been addressed and are in the process of being implemented.






























                                                            155










                                                   OLD WOMAN CREEK
                                                              Ohio


                  Designated: 1980
                  Size: 571 acres
                  Biogeographic Region: Great Lakes
                  Acquisition Status: 100% complete

                  Federal Funding FY88: $36,500
                  Federal Funding FY89: $97,700


                  L Backgroun

                  The smallest reserve in the NERR System, Old Woman Creek is a drowned stream mouth
                  that drains into Lake Erie and is representative of a Great Lakes-type freshwater estuary.
                  Within the reserve, which is managed by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, several
                  aquatic and terrestrial habitat types have been identified, including open water, barrier
                  beach, remnant embayment marshes, mudflats, oak-hickory upland hardwood forests, and
                  a swamp forest.

                  Hundreds of species of algae, vascular plants, invertebrates, mammals, fishes, and birds have
                  been recorded in the reserve. Several are threatened, endangered, or species of special
                  concern. Some examples include the American bald eagle, sharp-shinned hawk and spotted
                  turtle., The reserve also serves as an important nursery and spawning area for numerous
                  Lake Erie forage and sport fish species.

                  11. Prog[m Accomp@bshments

                  During the biennium, computer components were acquired enabling Old Woman Creek to
                  hook into the OMNET communication network with other sites in the NERR System. In
                  addition, a maintenance equipment storage facility was constructed. An education project
                  was initiated to photographically document the effects of climatic changes in the Old Woman
                  Creek estuary, and to produce an audio/ visual display for the reserve visitor center and a
                  teaching package for use at other reserves and in local area schools.

                  1H. Research and Monitorine Program

                  The long-range goal of the Old Woman Creek research program is to develop a better
                  understanding of the Great Lakes-type freshwater estuarine ecosystem. A secondary
                  objective is to determine the extent that Great Lakes-type freshwater estuaries perform
                  natural functions similar to marine estuaries. A watershed-wide water quality monitoring
                  program began at the reserve in 1980. The purpose of this ongoing project is to provide
                  basic temporal information about the water chemistry of the estuary.           In 1984, the


                                                              156








                monitoring program was expanded to include a study of the role of storm events in changing
                the chemical makeup of estuarine waters and the effects of these storms on the microscopic
                plant populations which are the foundation of the estuarine food chain. Routine monitoring
                of phytoplankton, zooplankton, aquatic plants, invertebrates, reptiles, amphibians, mammals,
                fish and birds is carried out on a seasonal basis by reserve staff.

                IV. Education Program

                The reserve's education program ranges from multi-media presentations and aquatic ecology
                field trips to college-accredited workshops for students and teachers as well as lectures which
                are open to the general public. Reserve staff provide off-site educational activities including
                lectures, slide presentations and mobile displays, as well as interagency workshops.

                V. Evaluations


                No evaluations were conducted during FY88 or FY89.





























                                                              157










                                                        PADHIA BAY
                                                           Washington

                  Designated: 1980
                  Size: Approximately 11,000 acres
                  Biogeographic Region: Columbian
                  Acquisition Status: 24% complete

                  Federal Funding FY88: $59,313
                  Federal Funding FY89: $89,216


                  1. Backgroun

                  The reserve is located near Anacortes in Skagit County, Washington. This area contains one
                  of the largest concentrations of eelgrass on the Pacific Coast and maintains a diverse
                  collection of invertebrates, fish, birds and marine mammals. This site is comprised of
                  eelgrass, subtidal sand and mud. The area is unique in that it is surrounded by large urban
                  centers and an inland marine system that is used extensively for commerce and recreation
                  by these urban centers. Padilla Bay has established itself as the natural field laboratory for
                  estuarine research and data collection in the Pacific Northwest and works closely with
                  universities and other research facilities in the region. The reserve is managed by the
                  Washington Department of Ecology.

                  H. Program Accomplishments

                  During the biennium, a two-mile public trail was constructed along the bay and sloughs for
                  estuarine interpretation. In addition, an observation deck and estuary access overlooking
                  the reserve was constructed. Other activities included: design and implementation of an on-
                  site curriculum program for grades K-8 resulting in direct education programs for 4,500
                  students per year; completion of exhibitry programs providing passive estuarine learning
                  opportunities for approximately 25,000 people annually; and design and sponsorship of
                  college-level ccurses on estuarine ecology and related topics using Padilla Bay researchers

                  III. Research and Monitoring Programs

                  Research has focused on seagrasses, mudflats, crabs, juvenile fish and food organisms of
                  young fish. Rates of production have been measured and several important controlling
                  factors and trophic links identified. During fiscal years 1988 and 1989, research activities
                  focused on: developing Landsat-V satellite methodology for identifying seagrass habitat;
                  characterizing and mapping major habitat types throughout the reserve; developing seagrass
                  system productivity budgets; and developing a freshwater budget calculating surface water
                  inflow into Padilla Bay correlated with rainfall and tidal cycles.



                                                               158








                The monitoring program requires an initial characterization of the estuary and has begun
                with the identification of the important plant and animal communities. It is continuing with
                a characterization of hydrocarbons in the reserve. During the biennium, an applied
                monitoring program was developed for agricultural pesticides which come off the thousands
                of acres of intensive cropland within the Padilla Bay watershed.

                IV. Education Program

                The reserve conducts ongoing youth and family education programs, presentations, classes
                and weekend film series. Mudflat "safaris" and beach seines are offered on a seasonal basis.
                School groups participate in half- and full-day programs which are augmented by the newly
                developed curriculum.

                V. Evaluations


                No evaluations were conducted during FY88 or FY89.





























                                                             159









                                                       'ROOKERY BAY
                                                             Florida


                Designated: 1978
                Size: 9,400 acres
                Biogeographic Region: West Indian
                Acquisition Status: 68% complete

                Federal Funding FY88: -0-
                Federal Funding FY89- $94,300


                1. BadWoun

                The reserve preserves a large mangrove-filled bay and two creeks. Managed by the Florida
                Department of Natural Resources (DNR), the reserve includes mangrove forests, marshes,
                sea grasses, and open water. The reserve's uplands are composed of pine woodlands,
                seasonal wetlands and scrub oak habitat. In March 1989, the DNR outlined a proposal to
                expand the existing boundaries of the reserve to include all state-controlled lands in the
                Rookery Bay area and associated watersheds.

                H. Program. AccomRkhments

                In November 1988, the state acquired Cannon Island, a 350-acre pristine coastal hardwood
                hammock and mangrove-fringed barrier island, for inclusion into the reserve. The Friends
                of Rookery Bay Inc. sponsored a gopher tortoise population study and raised over $3,000
                for manatee awareness projects. The reserve staff initiated planning for a proposed
                expansion of the site through consolidation of the state's lands in surrounding areas. Two
                law enforcement officers were added to the reserve staff in December 1989.


                III. Research   and Monitoring ProUam

                Research currently underway includes the study of wading birds, habitat preferences of fishes
                and invertebrates, primary and secondary productivity in mangrove ecosystems and stone
                crab biology. Reserve   'staff are collecting data to analyze the fish populations in the reserve.
                Long-term programs exist for monitoring water quality, compiling a bird census, and
                recording tide and meteorological conditions. The reserve also has a geographic information
                system and remote sensing program.

                IV. Education ProgMm

                Reserve education programs contacted 4,766 persons in 1988, through 201 adult classes, field
                trips, seminars and summer programs. Over 500 adults participated in Marine Biology and
                Inshore Fishing courses offered through the reserve. During fiscal year 1989, the reserve


                                                               160








                received two education grants from NOAA, providing $72,000 to support development of
                educational materials and initiate a two-year fisheries research project that provides student
                training. A screened-in classroom facility was completed in March.

                Bimonthly Coastal Resource Management Workshops were initiated. in February 1989,
                providing training programs for environmental professionals from across the state. A two-
                week Summer Teacher Institute on Coastal Ecology, funded by Florida Department of
                Education, was developed and conducted by reserve staff. A Summer Marine Science three-
                week field course for high school students was conducted in June. The reserve sponsored
                'and coordinated the first annual Regional High School Science Fair for Collier County.
                Programs range from illustrated slide talks and interpretive displays to adult education
                courses, workshops for teachers, and boat trips for high school and college students. The
                reserve also functions as a regional clearinghouse for the dissemination of technical
                information to coastal 2one managers, regulators, and policyrnakers.

                IV. Evaluations

                No evaluations were conducted during FY88 or FY89.


























                                                             161









                                                     SAPEW ISLAND
                                                          Georgia

                 Designated: 1976
                 Size: 5,905 acres
                 Biogeographic Region: Carolinian
                 Acquisition Status: 100% complete

                 Federal Funding.FY88: -0-
                 Federal Funding FY89: $47,400


                 L Bac!Woun

                 Most of the Duplin River watershed is included in the reserve, which contains extensive
                 marsh, southern hardwood forest, pure stands of pines, dunes and beaches. Managed by the
                 Georgia Department of Natural Resources, the reserve is bound to the northwest by the
                 Mud River, to the west by New Teakettle Creek, and to the southwest by Doboy Sound.
                 The site encompasses 3,811 acres of marshland and 2,094 acres of high ground at the south
                 end of Sapelo Island.

                 Broad-leafed evergreens and Spanish moss are abundant in the reserve. During the warm
                 months, the Duplin River serves as a nursery ground for shrimp and the juvenile forms of
                 menhaden, sea trout, blue crabs and sea bass.

                 H. PLqUam Accomph
                                       :shments

                 During the biennium, a comprehensive management plan was developed for the reserve.
                 As part of this effort, site advisory committees and research and education subcommittees
                 were created. Plans are underway for construction of an on-site visitor center. The reserve
                 has recently hired a full-time education coordinator. Public access to the reserve was
                 improved by the acquisition of a 55 seat passenger tram, which is used on the guided tours
                 throughout the site. During the biennium, there were more than 250 tours of the reserve?
                 accommodating approximately 5,000 visitors.

                 M. Research and Monitoring rEgM
                 Approximately 40 research projects were conducted in the reserve during FY88 and FY89-
                 The University of Georgia Marine Institute (UGMI), located at the reserve, has been the
                 center for nearshore geological and ecological research. More than 600 publications have
                 been generated by the Institute, many addressing the general ecology and system energetics
                 of the marshes of Sapelo Island. In addition to Institute-sponsored research, the reserve
                 has attracted a variety of estuarine research proposals funded by other Federal agencies,
                 such as the National Science Foundation and NOAA's Sea Grant Program.


                                                             162








                 Currently, the NERR System program is funding the development of a Geographic
                 Information System for the island that may provide a prototype system for other national
                 estuarine reserves.

                 As part of its monitoring program, the reserve is working in conjunction with UGMI to
                 establish three remote Hydro Lab 2020 units and three weather stations. Two units
                 operated by UGMI already exist. In addition, the Georgia Environmental Protection
                 Division does quarterly 5ampling of 22 physio-chernical parameters and annual sampling of
                 metals and pesticides in water, oysters and sediment. The Georgia Coastal Resources
                 Division conducts bi-monthly water quality sampling as part of its shellfish program at four
                 sites within the reserve.

                 IV, Education Progmm

                 The education program has sponsored slide talks, films, and guided tours of the reserve.

                 V. Evaluations

                 A review of the performance of the state in managing the reserve was conducted during
                 FY89- The evaluation findings will be issued in 1990.
























                                                             163










                                                       SOUTH SLOUGH
                                                             Oregon

                  Designated: 1974
                  Size: 4,400 acres
                  Biogeographic Region: Columbian
                  Acquisition Status: 98% complete

                  Federal Funding FYM: $61,702
                  Federal Funding FY89: $63,898


                  L Bagkgound

                  The first estuarine reserve, South Slough is one of 11 shallow tidal inlets connected to the
                  Coos Estuary in Coos Bay, Oregon. Encompassing approximately 25 percent of the South
                  Slough drainage basin, the reserve includes a variety of habitats, including upland forests,
                  freshwater marsh, mudflats, salt marsh, and open water. At least 22 commercially important
                  fish species have been identified in this estuary and extensive eelgrass beds are found within
                  the reserve, which attracts migrating waterfowl along the Pacific Flyway. The reserve is
                  managed by the South Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve Management
                  Commission, under the policy guidance of the Oregon State Lands Board.

                  11. Program Accorn&hments

                  During FY88 and FY89, the state of Oregon acquired the 27.8 acre Kunz estate within the
                  reserve. In addition, a trail improvement plan was produced to improve access to the
                  reserve's tidal areas. The reserve was also one of the principal agencies responsible for the
                  formation of the Coos Estuary Shellfish Sanitation Task Force.

                  Since 1986, public school participation has increased from 1,000 students per year to 3,000
                  students per year in 1989, and public participation in South Slough-sponsored programs has
                  increased from 8,000 visitors annually to over 20,000 visitors per year.

                  M. Research and Monitoring Program

                  The reserve collects and maintains summary data describing basic physical environmental
                  features of the area. Tidal data are available since the early 1970s. Solar radiation (total
                  global) has been monitored since 1987. Data sets for meteorological and some hydrographic
                  parameters are also available.






                                                                164










                  The broad education program has special activities for pre-school through college classes.
                  Special programs at the reserve include slide shows, exhibitions, films and lectures. Guided
                  trail walks and canoe tours are offered at the reserve.

                  V.

                  No evaluations were conducted during FY88 or FY89.




































                                                            165










                                                      UJUANA RrYTR
                                                           California



                 Designated: 1982
                 Size: 2,531 acres
                 Biogeographic Region: Californian
                 Acquisition Status: 100% complete

                 Federal Funding FY88: $296,521
                 Federal Funding FY89: $117,000


                 1. Backgroun

                 Managed by the California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR), the reserve
                 encompasses approximately 2,521 acres of tidally flushed wetlands, riparian, and upland
                                                                                                             go
                 habitats extending immediately north of the U.S.-Me)dco border in southern San Dieg
                 County. As the southernmost estuarine system on the west coast, the reserve represents one
                 of the few remaining examples of relatively undisturbed, tidally flushed coastal wetlands in
                 southern California. It is one of about 30 coastal wetlands that still occur south of Point
                 Conception. Located within the jurisdictions of the cities of Imperial Beach and San Diego,
                 and near the City of Tijuana (Mexico), the estuary provides productive marsh habitat -for
                                                                                                             -d
                 invertebrates, fish, and birds including federal and state-listed endangered or threatene
                 species, such as the light-footed clapper rail, California least tern, brown pelican, and
                 peregrine falcon. An endangered plant, the salt marsh bird's beak, also occurs in the area.

                 Responsibility for setting management policies lies with the Tijuana River National Estuarine
                 Sanctuary Management Authority (TRNESMA), which is comprised of representatives of
                 the California Department of Parks and Recreation (DER), the lead agency, U.S. Fish and
                 Wildlife Service, City of San Diego, City of Imperial Beach, San Diego County, the
                 California Coastal Commission, and the California Coastal Conservancy. Education and
                 volunteer support programs are coordinated by the Southwest Wetlands Interpretive
                 Association.


                 11. Program Accomplishments

                 During FY88 and FY89, a new visitor center was constructed, providing reserve offices in
                 addition to space for educational and interpretive programs. Plans were initiated to expand
                 Pacific Estuarine Research Laboratory facilities to a site near the new Visitor Center. This
                 will allow for new controlled experimentation, greater facility security, and greater ease of
                 viewing by school groups and the public. The reserve neared completion of a master
                 enhancement plan for the estuary, which seeks to improve tidal flow. An environmental
                 impact report on the plan was prepared by the San Diego State University Foundation


                                                              166








                (SDSUF), under a grant from the California State Coastal Conservancy. In addition,
                SDSUF implemented a dune restoration project, which involved fencing, replanting and
                monitoring along 1.5 miles of the shoreline. Enforcement capabilities were enhanced at the
                reserve by the hiring of a full-time State Park Ranger and an Assistant Manager for the
                Wildlife Refuge. The TRNESMA continued its involvement in@ a number of proposed
                projects which could have major impacts on the estuary, including a joint agreement by the
                U.S. and Mexico to develop a sewage treatment facility that would divert the flow of raw
                sewage from the Tijuana River and make treated water available for reclamation.

                HI. Research and Monitoring Progm

                The reserve has undergone substantial changes in the past including episodes of increased
                or decreased freshwater flow, increased sedimentation, and severe deterioration of water
                quality. These changes and the unique southerly character of the wetland have provided the
                basis for research that has contributed to the understanding of estuarine systems in southern
                California. The Pacific Estuarine Research Laboratory, managed by San Diego State
                University, is located within the reserve and is a center for research and education programs.
                Research is conducted on a broad range of habitats, including dunes, beach, salt marsh,
                udflat, salt pannes, coastal sage scrub, riverine and brackish marsh. Research has focused
                on the effects of wastewater discharges and watershed management practices on the
                estuarine environment, the development of estuarine and riparian habitat enhancement
                techniques, and the assessment of the nature of artificial wetlands as a mitigation measure
                in the region. Monitoring programs have been established to track the influence of
                hydrological disturbances on the reserve.

                IV. Education Program

                The reserve's school programs are structured around the M.A.R.S.H. (Marsh Awareness
                with Resources of Slough Habitats) Project curriculum developed for fifth and sixth grade
                students. During the spring and fall, workshops are offered for teachers and youth
                leaders to provide information related to the reserve. Workshop materials are available
                in Spanish and English. Development of a high school curriculum was begun during this
                biennium using funds from a San Diego County marine science education grant.

                V. Evaluations


                Final evaluation findings were issued on November 21, 1989. Accomplishments of the
                program included: finalizing a long-term lease between the California DPR and the U.S. Fish
                and Wildlife Service (FWS) for use of land for a visitor center; developing a memorandum
                of understanding between OCRM and DPR; developing an education program and
                establishing and maintaining a volunteer program; and increasing staff levels. The findings
                indicate there is optimal coordination between DPR and FWS, which has office space at the
                reserve. Among the recommendations is that the state commit funding to the education
                coordinator position.


                                                             167










                                                     WAIMANU VALLEY
                                                             Hawaii



                  Designated: 1976
                  Size: 3,600 acres
                  Biogeographic Region: Insular
                  Acquisition Status: Approximately 92% complete

                  Federal Funding FY88: $200,000
                  Federal Funding FY89: $50,000


                  1. BadWoun

                  The reserve, which is managed by the Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources,
                  encompasses most of the Waimanu Valley, the adjacent bay and the trail corridor from
                  neighboring Waipio Valley. Intermittently inhabited for centuries, Waimanu Valley has been
                  uninhabited for over 40 years. Partial surveys have identified two major archaeological sites
                  with complex cultural features. The reserve's water resources are among the few in the
                  State that have not been diverted and developed for human use. With the headwaters of
                  Waimanu Stream and tributaries developing from an adjoining State Natural Area reserve,
                  an entire watershed and stream system is under reserve protection.

                  The lack of human, influence since the tsunami of 1946 has allowed the vegetation and
                  animal life to follow its own course. The vegetation is made up of both native and non-
                  native speices. The valley also provides habitat for the only land mammal native to the
                  Hawaiian Islands, the endangered ope'ape'a or Hawaiian hoary bat. Aquatic life in the
                  stream system includes five native fish species, four native invertebrates and the introduced
                  Tahitian prawn.

                  U. Program Accomp@hshments

                  During the biennium, a right-of-entry agreement was signed with the Bernice Bishop estate
                  that provides access into the estate's 90-acre parcel along the entire beach area of the
                  reserve. Additionally, the 200-acre Department of Hawaiian Home Land (DHHL) parcel
                  was reappraised. DHHL approved a 65-year lease-draft for its parcel, which surrounds the
                  reserve. The DHHL parcel, most of which is wetlands, is a key landholding which the State
                  of Hawaii must access in order to implement a management plan for the reserve.

                  A revised Reserve Management Plan was prepared and circulated to the appropriate state
                  agencies for review. In addition, the Governor signed an Executive Order which converted
                  Waimanu Valley from its forest reserve status into the NERR System.



                                                               168








                     Education ProMm

                 During the bienniun, a contract was awarded to the University of Hawaii Sea Grant program
                 to develop an education interpretation program for the reserve. Among the projects being
                 considered under the contract are: a visitor survey, upgrading e)dsting trails, developing
                 informational signs and a brochure, and obtaining an oral history from former residents of
                 the Valley. Work on the oral history has already begun.

                 IV.

                 Final evaluation findings were issued on August 31, 1988. The review focused on two major
                 concerns which were identified -during the previous evaluation: the need for adequate
                 control of the 200-acre DHHL parcel and an updated management plan for the reserve.
                 The findings indicated that the statehas made progress in these two areas. One ongoing
                 issue identified in the findings is the lack of a federally-approved management plan with
                 associated research and education elements.







































                                                            169










                                                        WAQUOrr BAY
                                                          Massachusetts



                   Designated: 1988
                   Size: 2,199 acres
                   Biogeographic Region: Virginian
                   Acquisition Status: 92% complete

                   Federal Funding FY88: $650,743
                   Federal Funding FY89: $161,400


                   1. Bagkaoun

                   Located in the towns of Falmouth and Mashpee in Barnstable County, the reserve includes
                   areas of intense, moderate and low human impact.             The boundary of the reserve
                   encompasses several distinct water bodies and upland areas within and adjacent to the
                   Waquoit Bay. It encompasses marsh, open water and upland fields and forest. Managed
                   by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management, the reserve is one of only
                   two confirmed localities in the commonwealth where the endangered plant Sandplain
                   Gerardia is found.


                   H. Program Accomplishments

                   Renovation  s have begun for the reserve headquarters at the Swift Estate. The headquarters
                   will include a visitors' center, administrative offices, laboratory, library, and overnight
                   accommodations for researchers. State funds totalling more than $20 million have been
                   expended to acquire land within the boundaries of the reserve.

                   III. Research and Monitoring Program
                   The reserve has one of the most extensive research programs within the NERR System due
                   to the significance of the resources, as well as the reserve's close proximity to prestigious
                   institutions of higher learning.
                   Among the many research projects currently underway are: the declines of eelgrass in
                   estuarine reserves along the east coast; problems of pollution and disease; potential effects
                   of sea level rise and development on the importance of wetlands; effects of eutrophication
                   on growth and productivity of macroalgae in Waquoit Bay; continued studies of vegetation
                   and nutrient changes in Waquoit Bay; and an osprey productivity project.




                                                                170








                    Education Pro
                                  I=

                Using an NERRS education grant, a consultant is designing a program to increase public
                awareness by creating curriculum materials and a field guide for visitors. The reserve has
                also established a volunteer program to enhance public education activities and provide
                support for the research community. The volunteers serve on the reserve's Advisory
                Committee and three subcommittees.


                IV. Evaluati

                No evaluations were conducted during FY88 or FY89.

































                                                          171










                                                           VVEEKS BAY
                                                              Alabama



                    Designated: 1986
                    Size: 3,028 acres
                    Biogeographic Region: Louisianan
                    Acquisition Status: 100% complete

                    Federal Funding FY88: $99,100
                    Federal Funding FY89: $83,700


                    L hadWound

                    Located along the eastern shore of Mobile Bay in Baldwin County, the reserve encompasses
                    3,028 acres of land and water in and around Weeks Bay. The bay is a small estuarine
                    embayment comprised of open, shallow waters and forested wetlands. The forested wetlands
                    are known as moist pine forest. The site, which is managed by the Alabama Department
                    of Economic and Community Affairs (DECA), forms an extensive strip between floodplain
                    swamps and upland pine-oak forest, and is diverse and rich in species.

                    The endangered Alabama shovelnose sturgeon is found in Weeks Bay. Three endangered
                    snakes and the endangered Florida black bear are found within the reserve's boundaries. It
                    is also home to a number of birds, including the brown pelican, bald eagle, osprey, peregrine
                    falcon, snowy plover, and red-cockaded woodpecker.

                    H. ProgLarn AccornpLh:shments

                    One of the newer reserves, Weeks Bay is still in its initial development phase.      A nature
                    trail, incorporating a sbore-side observation deck and a raised catwalk over a        wetlands
                    habitat, was dedicated in 1988. A Reserve Manager was hired in March 1989. To establish
                    an onsite presence, an office adjacent to the reserve was opened in the fall of 1989.

                    The reserve has been working with the local U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) office
                    to prepare site plans for a visitor center and nature trail system. The Corps is donating site
                    survey, engineering and architectural services for the initial plans, Construction is expected
                    to begin in 1990.

                    H1. Research and Monitoring Programs

                    During the biennium, NOAA funded four research projects to expand baseline information
                    collected on the reserve under five earlier NOAA research grants.



                                                                 172








                 IV. Education Progam

                 The reserve offers presentations to teachers, school groups, and the general public. "Touch
                 Lab" targets kindergartners through sixth graders. This project consists of preserved samples
                 of species found in and around Weeks Bay with discussion of life history and hands-on time.

                 V. Evaluations


                 Final evaluation findings issued December 5,     1989, found that the state. has made little
                 progress in operating and managing the reserve. The findings concluded that full reserve
                 operation has been hampered by the lack of onsite facilities and staff. Areas identified for
                 improvement included: clarifying the roles of the state agencies involved in reserve
                 management (DECA and the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resource);
                 revising the management plan to resolve numerous problems (i.e., defining needed land
                 acquisition, future staffing requirements, funding sources, program planning and facility
                 needs); and increasing coordination to allow for the Advisory Committee to adequately
                 support reserve activities..
                 Accomplishments cited were the recent employment of a permanent full-time" manager;
                 acquisition of four parcels of land integral to the reserve; completion of a nature trail,
                 parking lot, benches and a lecturn; collection of baseline data on existing flora, fauna,
                 hydrology and nutrient levels; and improved information flow among Advisory Committee
                 members.






























                                                              173

 IL










                                                              WELIS
                                                               Maine



                  Designated: 1984
                  Size: 1,550 acres
                  Biogeographic Region: Acadian
                  Acquisition Status: 100% complete

                  Federal Funding FY88: $203,200
                  Federal Funding FY89: $357,700


                  1. Background

                  The reserve, located in southern Maine on the Atlantic coast and managed by the Maine
                  State Planning Office, encompasses undeveloped marshes and transitional upland fields and
                  forests, occurring along two contrasting watersheds -- the Little River estuary and the
                  Webhannet River estuary. Two federally endangered species have been found within the
                  reserve: the bald eagle and peregrine falcon. Five species of state concern are also found,
                  including the piping plover, least tern, slender blue flag, eastern joe-pye weed, and arethusa.

                  H. Program Accomplishments

                  A Reserve Manager and Education Coordinator were hired during 1988. Renovation of the
                  main house of the former Landholm Farm into a reserve visitor center was completed. The
                  center incorporates administrative offices, a bookstore, quarters for visiting researchers, and
                  public meeting rooms. Plans are underway to renovate a former barn into a laboratory and
                  education facility. During the biennium, the final management plan for the reserve was
                  revised to incorporate the state-established Reserve Management Authority. The plan is
                  expected to be finalized by April 1990.

                  III. Researcb and Monitoring Programs

                  Sedimentation and hydraulic studies have been conducted on both the Webhannet and Little
                  River estuaries. Other studies have compared productivity between the reserve's marsh
                  systems and those of the rest of the Gulf of Maine. The Wells Reserve was one of four sites
                  that hosted a coast-wide study that resulted in the isolation of the causal organism of
                  eelgrass wasting disease. Enteric viruses occurring within the reserve estuaries have been
                  sampled and catalogued. Investigation into fishery habitat requirements in northern high
                  marshes is ongoing.

                  Regarding monitoring efforts, environmental characterization of the reserve has progressed
                  to include inventories of vegetation, breeding birds and small mammals. Pilot programs


                                                                174








               which commenced in 1989 are monitoring rainfall, freshwater runoff, salinity, tidal currents
               and tidal height within the Webhannet River estuary, as well as water quality in the
               tributaries of the Webhannet River, over the course of a year. Results of the studies will
               serve as a model for developing a long-term monitoring program at the reserve.

               IV. Education Program

               School programs introduce kindergarten students to basic concepts and each year add a new
               layer to their understanding; as adults they are prepared for the reserve's self-discovery
               program. Exhibits and docent led field trips provide the starting point for extension
               education activities. These activities are enhanced by printed trail guides, study guides, and
               lecture series.


               V. Evaluations


               Final evaluation findings issued December 6, 1988, indicated that the state is making
               progress in managing the reserve. Noteworthy accomplishments include the completion of
               an interpretation program and renovation of the visitor center. Recommendations included:
               revising the management plan to include a long-term state commitment for reserve
               management; and providing sufficient funding to. meet projected programmatic needs.

























                                                            175










                                                               APPENDIX A


                           STATUS OF STATE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS

                                                          Actual or Estimated
                                                          Federal Approval Date            Comment and Status
                    Ltate                              By Fiscal Year (end                        9/30/89
                    Washington                                    1976                           Approved
                    Ore con                                       1977                           Approved
                    California                                    1978                           Approved
                    Massachusetts                                 1978                           Approved
                    Wisconsin                                     1978                           Approved
                    Rhode Island                                  1978                           Approved
                    Michigan                                      1978                           Approved
                    North Carolina                                1978                           Approved
                    Puerto Rico                                   1978                           Approved
                    Hawaii                                        1978                           Approved
                    Maine                                         1978                           Approved
                    Maryland                                      1978                           Approved
                    New Jerse                                     1978                           Approved
                     (Bay anYOcean Shore Segment)
                    Virgin Islands                                1979                           Approved
                    Alaska                                        1979                           Approved
                    Guam                                          1979                           Approved
                    Delaware                                      1979                           Approved
                    Alabama                                       1979                           Approved
                    South Carolina                                1979                           Approved
                    Louisiana                                     1980                           Approved
                    Mississippi                                   1980                           Approved
                    Connecticut                                   1980                           Approved
                    Pennsylvania                                  1980                           Approved
                    New Jersey (Remaining Section)                1980                           Approved
                    Northern Marianas                             1980                           Approved
                    American Samoa                                1980                           Approved
                    Florida                                       1981                           Approved
                    New Hampshire                                 1982                           Approved
                     (Ocean and Harbor Segment)
                    New York                                      1982                           Approved
                    Virginia                                      1986                           Approved
                    New Hampshire                                 1988                           Approved
                    Ohio                                                                         Pending
                                                          Non-Par-ticipating
                    Indiana
                    Georgia
                    Minnesota
                    Illinois
                    Texas











                                    /1W I-t A"I"       7*11 IN "I"          ANII A 11141-AKI-W" ()P"              1   ANID AI(I A!X WtI I (-IV          141@141@
                      L  STATE                         SECTION 306-                SECTION 308                 SECTION 309                 SECTION 315                 TOTAL."

                                                 7974                         1974                          1974                        19 4                             1987-
                                                1987** 1988         1989      1987       1988     1989      1987     1988                1987     1988     1989          1989
                      ALABAMA                  5,861      561       569       4,080         0     0          0        0       0      1 1,224       99        84        12,478
                      ALASKA                   28,074  1,883    1,934       59,639          0     0          0        0       0            0       0         0         91,530
                      AMERICAN SAMOA           4,140      561       458        226          0     a          0        0       0            0       0         0           5,365
                      CALIFORNIA               30,231  1,883    1,934         8,943         0     0          0        0       0            0       0         0         42,991
                      CONNECTICUT              7,987      736       735       1,769         0     0         200     100       0            0       0         0         11,527
                      DELAWARE                 6,931      540       548       1,978         0     0          0        0       0            0      10         0         10,007
                      FLORIDA                  16,406  1,883    1,934         4,213         0     0         339       0       0        4,544,     19       147         29,485
                      GEORGIA                  1,857      0         0         1,357         0     0          0        0       0        1,808       0       473           5,495
                      GUAM                     4,814      0         912        343          0     0          0        0       0            0       0         0           6,069
                      HAWAII                   8,881      681       687        387          0     0          80       0       50         300      200        50        11,316
                      ILLINOIS                 1,709      0         0            0          0     0         131     108       140          0       0         0           2,088
                      INDIANA                  1,365      0         0          195          0     0          0        0       0            0       0         0           1,560
                      LOUISIANA                16,785  1,883    1,934       79,982          0     0          0        0       0            18      0         a         100,602
                      MAINE                    13,529  1,476    1,474         2,093      150      0          0        80      75       1,552      185      290         20,904
                      MARYLAND                 15,900  1,883    1,934         2,346         0     0         855     705       80         788       33        90        24,614
                      MASSACHUSETTS            14,214  1,181    1,180         4,898         0     0         214       0       0        2,461      681      194         25,023
                      MICHIGAN                                                                                                                                                                z
                                               17,947  1,883    1,934         1,243         0     0          0        0       0            0       0         0         23,007
                      MINNESOTA                1,076      0         0            0          0     0          0        0       0            0       0         0           1,076
                      MISSISSIPPI              5,225      508       518     16,536          0     0          0        0       0            0       0         0         22,787
                      NEW HAMPSHIRE            4,087      470       480       1,849         a     0          0        0       0          534      289      843           8,552
                      NEW JERSEY               18,049  1,883    1,934         4,358         0     0         200       0       0            50      0         0         26,474
                      NEW YORK                 18,485  1,883    1,934         2,740         0     0         125       0       197      1,456       50      152         27,022
                      NORTH CAROLINA           15,156  1,747    1,946         1,968         0     0          0        0       70       2,797      345        68        24,097
                      NORTHERN'MARIANAS        3,899      457       468        480          0     0          0        0       0            0       0         0           5,304
                      OHIO                     1,672      0         0          805          0     0         596       46      44           0       0         0           3,163
                      OREGON                   13,224     833       932       1,821         0     0         420     257       412      2,683      224      100         20,906
                      PENNSYLVANIA             7,297      702       702       5,792         0     0         157       0       0            0       0         0         14,650
                      PUERTO RICO              111761  1,088    1,087          193          0     0          0        0       0        1,012       50      250         15,441
                      RHODE ISLAND             8,730      574       582       2,304         0     0          0        50      0        1,336       0         20        13,596
                      SOUTH CAROLINA           12,128  1,280    1,279         2,080         0     0          0        0       0          162       0         10        16,939
                      TEXAS                    4,183      0         0       34,556          0     0          0        0       0            0       0         0         38,739
                      VIRGIN ISLANDS           4,521      491       460        361          0     0          0        0       0            0       0         0           5,833
                      VIRGINIA                 5,153   1,785    1,783          573          0     0         285     369       74           10      0         40        10,072
                      WASHINGTON               19,051  1,872    1,870         2,388         0     0         200       0       0        1,924       59        89        27,453
                                                                                                                                         1:97



















                      WISCONSIN                11,176     799       799        669          0     0         300       0       0            24      0         0         13,767


                          Includes 306A funds
                          Includes Section 305 program planning funds                                                                               (Dollars in Thousands)
                          Includes all Federal funding awarded since 1974 through FY 1989:
                          (Marine Sanctuary funding is not included)..









                                APPENDIX C


    CZMA SECTION 306A INFORMATION FROM FY 1985 THROUGH FY 1988
    (DOLLARS ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION - 1988 $)

                           306A      FEDERAL         STATE       FEDERAL PERCENT
    STATE             PROJECTS        306A $       306A $     CZMA AWARD   OF AWARD

    MICHIGAN                111   $2,412,286    $2,476,470     $8,190,980         29
    MAINE                   48    1,383,439     3,788,518      6,704,460          21
    NORTH CAROLINA          38    3,300,931     2,429,809      7,395,600          45
    WISCONSIN               30    1,503,838     1,720,635      3,596,190          42
    MISSISSIPPI             29    1,064,632        620,494     2,250,020          47
    MARYLAND                26       979,138       608,385     8,190,980          12
    NEW JERSEY              25    1,187,501        271,278     10,390,980         11
    OREGON                  22       460,013       321,642     3,768,160          12
    PENNSYLVANIA            22    -1,080,319       947,689     3,141,550          34
    NEW HAMPSHIRE           17       611,091    1,414,071      2,505,760          24
    SOUTH CAROLINA          17       434,000       419,531     6,417,480           7
    WASHINGTON              15       745,255       198,519     8,179,980           9
    NEW YORK                12       375,079       413,583     8,307,980           5
    RHODE ISLAND            10       165,008       263,288     2,558,320           6
    PUERTO RICO               9      205,000        93,925     4,882,480           4
    CALIFORNIA                5   1,138,325     1,908,365      7,776,800          15
    ALABAMA                   5      122,373       133,036     2,417,690           5
    LOUISIANA                 5       92,700       164,800     8,190,980           1
    VIRGINIA                  2       76,000        76,000     4,831,570           2
    DELAWARE                  2       16,500             0     2,397,270           1
    AMERICAN   SAMOA          2       40,600             0     1,958,380           2
    CONNECTICUT               1       18,073          1,353    3,149,700           1
    N. MARIANAS               1       40,973             0     2,006,890           2
    GUAM -                    1       48,150             0     1,976,320           2
    VIRGIN ISLANDS            0             0            0     2,037,100           0
    ALASKA                    0             0            0     8,190,980           0
    HAWAII                    0             0            0     3,073,200           0
    FLORIDA                   0             0            0     8,190,980           0
    MASSACHUSETTS             0             0            0     5,960,210           0

    TOTALS                  455   17,501,224    18,271,391    148,638,990









                                      APPENDIX D



                              CONSISTENCY APPEALS REPORT




                                       NOTICE OF APPEAL
          APPELLANT            STATE        FILED           DISPOSITION


          N.Y. OFFICE          NY           10/09/97        Dismissed
          OF MENTAL HEALTH                                  01/09/89

          WESTVACO CORP        Sc           10/22/87        Dismissed
                                                            02/04/88

          FELIPE BELTRAN       PR           11/19/88        Dismissed
                                                            09/27/88

          TELECINCO INC.       PR           01/04/88        Dismissed
                                                            02/24/89

          DASPIT               MS           01/13/88        Dismissed
                                                            10/05/88

          DAMIEN ZANETTI       PR           01/15/88        State found
                                                            project
                                                            consistent &
                                                            returned to
                                                            Zanetti
                                                            05/19/88

          CAPACETE (BANK)        PR         01/27/88        Dismissed
          OF PONCE)                                         12/19/88

          TIP TOP ASSOC.         Sc         02/17/88        Dismissed
                                                            06/02/88

          CLAUDE WHITE           SC         02/23/88        Dismissed
                                                            03/27/89

          SUCESION A.            PR         03/18/88        Drafting
          BACHMANN                                          opinion


          TEXACO INC.            CAL        03/23/88        Findings
                                                            5/19/89

          PAUL COPENHAGEN        NY         04/04/88        Dismissed
                                                            02/14/89











                                               NOTICE OF APPEAL
              APPELLANT               STATE       FILE             DISPOSITION



              CABO ROJO               PR          04/11/88         Letter sent to
                                                  (revived)        appellant saying
                                                                   objection appears
                                                                   invalid

              MIRE RIVER              LA          04/19/88         Dismissed
              PROPERTIES                                           12/21/88

              DONALD BENSON           AK          04/28/88         Dismissed
                                                                   11/04/88

              PEDRO MONZON            PR          05/18/88         Preparing letter
                                                                   to Corps

              EFRAIN M.               PR         05/18/88          Preparing letter
              IRIZARRY-IRIZARRY                                    to Corps


              CARMEN R..              PR          05/18/88         Preparing letter
              RODRIQUES-DETRES                                     to Corps


              MILTON  IRIZARRY-       PR          05/18/88         Preparing letter
              IRIZARRY                                             to Corps


              ("-ERMAN RODRIGUEZ      PR          05/18/88         Preparing letter
                                                                   to Corps

              ISABEL  M. NITTE-       PR          05/18/88         Preparing letter
              HOFFMAN                                              to Corps


              RENE IRIZARRY-          PR          05/18/88         Preparing letter
              AYMAT                                                to Corps


              LUIS E. BOOTHBY         PR          05/18/88         Preparing letter
                                                                   to Corps

              VICENTE RODRIGUEZ-      PR          05/18/88         Preparing letter
              LUGO                                                 to Corps


              NELSON MERCADO          PR          05/18/88         Preparing letter
                                                                   to Corps











                                                NOTICE OF APPEAL
               APPELLANT               STATE       FILED            DISPOSITION


               HIRAN TRABAL            PR          05/23/88         Preparing letter
                                                                    to Corps

               REGINALD W. &           PR          05/27/88         Preparing letter
               GLENNA G. GARNER                                     to Corps


               NE INDUSTRIAL PARK      NY          06/7/88          State   withdrew
                                                                    objection
                                                                    06/20/88

               MANUEL VARGAS-          PR          06/14/88         Preparing letter
               VARGAS                                               to Corps


               GERMAN SEDA-PEREZ       PR          06/14/88         Preparing letter
                                                                    to Corps

               LOLIN PAZ               PR          06/14/88         Preparing letter
                                                                    to Corps

               CONOCO INC.             CA          07/05/88         Drafting
                                                                    decision

               CHEVRON                 CAL         07/05/88         Draft decision
                                                                    circulating

               MICHAEL GALGANO         NY          07/14/88         First draft of
                                                                    decision
                                                                    completed

               DSD DEVELOPERS          SC          07/29/88         Case settled on
                                                                    9/21/88 before
                                                                    appeal processed
               SHARON PADRILLA         PR          08/17/88         Preparing letter
                                                                    to   Corps
               CARLOS RODRIGUEZ          PR        08/17/88         Preparing letter
                                                                    to Corps
               GENSTAR STONE             NJ        08/30/88         Dismissed
               PRODUCTS Co.                                         05/01/89


               LONE RIDGE FARM           SC        09/01/88         Dismissed
               (DAVIS MCNEILL)                                        12/19/88











                                           NOTICE OF APPEAL
            APPELLANT                STATE     FILED          DISPOSITION



            MERCEDES MULET           PR        09/19/88       Preparing letter
                                                              to Corps

            LOS INDIOS               PR        09/26/88       Drafting
                                                              opinion

            RIGGINGS HOMEOWNERS      NC        10/17/88       Dismissed
            ASSOCIATION (AUBREY                               11/15/89
            CONSULTANTS)


            LJ HOOKER                SC        11/21/88       Withdrawn
                                                              3/27/89

            CYNTHIA THOMPSON         SC        12/07/88       Dismissed
                                                              06/26/89

            UNOCAL                   FL        12/21/88       Awaitng
                                                              Presidential
                                                              Task Force Report
                                                              before setting
                                                              up reply brief
                                                              schedule in 1/90

            MOBIL EXPLORATION        FL        01/11/89       Final briefing
            & PRODUCING U.S. INC.                             schedule to be
                                                              set in 1/90

            INTNIL PAPER REALTY      SC        01/30/89       Considering
                                                              threshold issue

            GULF OIL DIVISION        CONN      02/06/89       Dismissed
                                                              12/21/89

            CLAIRE PAPPAS            NY        02/06/89       Dismissed
                                                              05/23/89

            JEFFREY SHAPIRO          @CONN     02/14/89       Dismissed
                                                              11/22/89

            W. HARRY CONE, JR.       Sc        03/13/89       Dismissed
                                                              1/10/90

            JORGE L. GUERRERO-       PR        03/17/89       Public Comments
            CALDERON                                          closes 1/30/90











                                                NOTICE OF APPEAL
                                           STATE      FILED             DISPOSITION
                -APPELLANT


                Amoco                      AK         04/03/89S         State and others
                                                                        filed briefs on
                                                                        08/14/89

                OAK BEACH INN              NY         06/03/89          Dismissed
                                                                        10/31/89

                LARRY BROWN                SC         06/09/89          Dismissed
                                                                        12/14/89

                DARO LAND HOLDING          MD         06/19/89          Appellant's
                CO.                                                     request for stay
                                                                        being processed

                B. J. BULL                 SC         06/20/89          Dismissed
                                                                        9/27/89

                JAMES DUSENBURY            SC         06/27/89          Dismissed
                                                                        1/10/90

                NEW YORK CITY              NY         07/24/89          Withdrawn
                                                                        08/09/89
                ALLAN FOREMAN              NC         07/31/89          Appellant's brief
                                                                        due 1/4/90
                A. ELWOOD CHESTNUT         SC         08/14/89          Appellant's brief
                                                                        rec1d 11/28/89,
                                                                        State's reply due
                                                                        12/28/89
                JOSE R. PEREZ              PR         08/28/89          Determining
                VILLAmIL                                                timeliness of
                                                                        appeal
                OEOROE CHENAULT            SC         08/28/89          Dismissed
                                                                        1/8/90
                RITA RASCATI               CT         09/07/89          Dismissed
                                                                        1/5/90
                S"ICKRIZY ANTON            SC         10/2/89           Appellant's brief
                                                                        due 1/25/90











                                          NOTICE OF APPEAL
            APPELLANT                STATE     FILED          DISPOSITION


            HENRY CROSBY             S.C       10/11/89       Appellant's  brief
                                                              due 1/17/90.
                                                              Request for stay
                                                              rec1d 1/3/90;
                                                              recommendation
                                                              being drafted.

            ROGER W. FULLER          NC        12/11/89       Notice of Appeal
                                                              included a
                                                              request for a
                                                              stay; recommenda-
                                                              tion being
                                                              drafted






                                                                    APPENDIX E




                                                    Friday
                                                    October 28,, 1988




















                                                    Part   III


                                                    Department of
                                                    Commerce

                                                    National Oceanic and Atmospheric
                                                    Administration


                                                    15 CFR Part 921
                                                    National Estuarine Reserve Research
                                                    System Regulations; Proposed Rule



                            w







                43816            Federal Register            Vol. 53, No. 2W / Friday, October 28, 1988 / Proposed Rules

                DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE                           management Division: Office of Ocean             11. Revision of the Procedures for
                National Oceanic and Atmospheric                 and Coastal Management, NOSINOAA.                Selecting, Designating and Operating
                                                                 1825 Connecticut Avenue NW.,                     National Estuarine Research Reserves
                Administration                                   Washington DC 20235, (202) 673-5122.
                is CFR Part 921                                                                                     (A) Revision of desi@nation criteria.
                [Docket No. 70874-71741                          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONITAC71.               The Coastal Zone Management
                                                                 Mr. Art Jeffers, (202) 673-5126.                 Reauthorization Act of 1985 established.
                National Estuarine Reserve Research              SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NOAA is               for the first time, statutory criteria for
                System Regulations                               proposing revised regulations for                designating an area as a national
                                                                                                                  estuarine research reserve. An area may
                AGENCY: Office of Ocean and Coastal              implementing the National Estuarine              be designated by the Secretary of
                Resource Management (OCRM),                      Reserve Research System, pursuant to             Commerce if:
                National Service (NOS), National                 section 315 of the Coastal Zone
                Oceanic and Atmospheric                          Management Act, as amended (16 U.S.C.              "(1) The Governor of the coastal state
                Administration (NOAA), Department of             1416), The System has been operating             in which the area is located nominates
                Commerce.                                        under National Estuarine Program                 the area for that designation; and
                ACTION: Proposed rule.                           regulations published June 27,1984 (49             (2) The Secretary of Commerce finds
                                                                 FR 26502). Based on experience in                that:
                SUMMARY: The regulations revise                  operating the System and on the Coastal            (A) The area is a representative
                existing rules for national estuarine            Zone Management Act (CZMA)                       estuarine ecosystem that is suitable for
                sanctuaries in accordance with the               amendments effective in April IN6, a             long-term research and contributes to
                Coastal Zone Management                          number of changes in operating                   the biogeographical and typological
                Reauthorization Act of 1985 (Pub. L. 99-         procedures and policy are required The           balance of the System;
                272) and recommendations contained in            proposed regulations implement these               (B) The law of the coastal state
                the Office of Inspector General Report           changes, which include:                          provides long-term protection for
                No. F-726-5-010, "Opportunities to                                                                reserve resources to ensure a stable
                Strengthen the Administration of the             1. Changing the Name and Emphasis of             environment for research;
                Estuarine Sanctuary Program." Effective          the Program                                        (C) Designation of the area as     a
                with the signing of the Coastal Zone                                                              reserve will serve to enhance     public
                Management Act (CZMA) amendments                  The CZMA amendments established                 awareness and understanding of
                on April 7,1986, the name of the                 the National Estuarine Program System            estuarine areas, and provide suitable
                Estuarine Sanctuary Program changed to           (System). The System consists of (1)             opportunities for public education and
                National Estuarine Reserve Research              Each estuarine sanctuary designated              interpretation: and
                Svstem: estuarine sanctuary sites are
                                                                 before enactment of the Coastal Zone               (D) The coastal state in which the
                referred to as national estuarine
                research reserves. These regulations             Management Reauthorization Act of                area is located has complied with the
                revise the process for designation of            1985, and (2) each estuarine area                requirements of any regulations issued
                research reserves. Greater emphasis is           designated as a national estuarine               by the Secretary to implement this
                placed on the use of reserves to address         research reserve under subsection OM-30          gection."
                national estuarine research and                  of these regulations. The term estuarine           Some of these criteria for designation
                management issues, and to make                   sanctuary no longer appears in                   are either new or substantially more
                maximum use of the System for research           regulations; the term research reserve or        specific than those contained in the
                purposes through coordination with               reserve appears in its place.                    existing regulations. For example, the
                other elements within NOAA and with                The Mission Statement for the System           Governor in a coastal state must
                other Federal and state agencies which           is much the same as for the National             nominate an estuarine area for
                are sponsoring estuarine research.               Estuarine Sanctuary Program. However,            designation, and findings are required
                Additional emphasis is also given to             the goals for the National Estuarine             that the law of the coastal state provides
                providing financial assistance to states         Reserve Research System stress the use           long-term protection for reserve
                to enhance public awareness and                  of reserve sites for promotion and               resources to ensure a stable
                understanding of estuarine areas by              coordination of estuarine research on a          envi;ronment for research and that
                provding opportunities for public                national level as the highest priority and       designation of the area will serve to
                education and interpretation. The                reason for establishing the System. The          enhance public awareness and
                ipgulations provide new guidance for             protection and management of estuarine           understanding of estuarine areas     ' The
                delineating reserve boundaries and new           areas and resources are clearly intended         criteria in the existing regulations have
                procedures for arriving at the most              to support the research mission, not as          been revised accordingly,
                effective and least costly approach to           ends in themselves. Consultation with              (B) Revision of site selection criteria
                acquisition land. Clarifications in the          other Federal and state agencies to              andprocedures. The criteria for
                total amount of financial assistance             promote use of one or more reserves              selecting an estuarine area for
                authorized for each national estuarine           within the System by such agencies               designation as a national estuarine
                research reserve. and in criteria for            when conducting estuarine research is            research reserve have been expanded to
                withdrawing the designation of a                 also a clearly defined goal of the               provide guidance for determining
                reserve, have also been added.                   System. The regulations also emphasize           boundaries for the proposed site. The
                DATE: Comments will be accepted until            using a reserve's natural resources and          Office of Inspector General Report No.
                December 30, 1988. After the close of the        ecology to enhance public awareness              F-726-5-010 criticized the lack of
                comment period and review of the                 and understanding of estuarine areas,            specific guidelines for setting limits on
                comments received, final regulations             and providing suitable opportunities for         boundaries around estuarine
                will be published in the Federal                 public education and interpretation.             sanctuaries to ensure that only land
                Register.                                        This education goal has been elevated            essential to the mission of the program
                ADDRESS: Send comments to: Mr. Joseph            to become one of the essential criteria          be included inside the sanctuary.
                Uravitch, Chief: Marine and Estuarine            for designation of a reserve.                    References in the existing regulations to







                                       Fe&ral ReWbiter / Vol. 53, No. 209 / Friday, October 28, 19W / Proposed Rules                                                       43817

                       ensure that the boundaries encompass              rank, in order of cost the alternative                 interpretive facilities. and for restorative
                       an adequate portion of the key land and           methods of acquisition which were                      activities in accordance with the
                       water areas of the natural system to              considered. The cost-effectiveness                     approved final management plan.
                       approximate an ecological unit are too            assessment must also compare short-                      The Coastal Zone Management
                       vague, particularly since terms are not           term and 10118-term. costs, The state shall            Reauthorization Act of 1985 specifies
                       defined. The proposed regulations                 give priority consideration to the least               that the amount of financial assistance
    el                 define key land and water areas as a              costly method(s) of attaining the                      provided with respect to the acquisition
    7                  .core area" within the reserve which is           minimum level of long-term control                     of land and waters, or interests therein,
                       so vital to the functioning of the                required.                                              for any one national estuarine research
    nay                estuarine ecosystem that it must be                 (D) Financial assistance awards for                  reserve may not exceed 50 per centum
                       under a level of control sufficient to            site selection andpost site selection.                 of the costs of the lands, waters, and
                       ensure the long-term viability of the             The first five types of awards under the               interests therein or $4,000,000,
    ato                reserve for research on natural                   National Estuarine Reserve Research                    whichever amount is less.
    2s                 processes. The determination of key               System is for site selection and post-site               The amount of Federal financial
                       land and water areas must be based on             selection, which includes preparation of               assistance provided under the
    is                 scientific knowledge of the area. The             a draft management plan. (including                    regulations for development costs
                       concept of a "buffer" area to protect the         MOU) and the collection of information                 directly associated with major facility
                       core area and provide additional                  necessary for preparation of the                       construction (i.e., other than land
    fo                 protection for estuarine-dependent                environmental impact statement. The                    acquisition) for any one national
                       species has also been defined in the              maximum total Federal share of these                   estuarine research reserve must not
                       regulations. The buffer zone may include          awards has been raised to $100,000. Of                 exceed 50 per centurn of the costs of
                       an area necessary for facilities required         this amount, up to $25,000 may be used                 such construction or $1,000,000,
                       for research and interpretation, and              to conduct the site selection process as               whichever amount is less.
                       additionally, to accommodate a shift of           described in J 921.11. After NOAA's                      (F) Financial assistance awards for
                       the core area as a result of biological,          approval of a proposed site and decision               operation and management. The amount
                       ecological or geomorphological change             to proceed,with the designation process,               of Federal financial assistance available
                       which reasonable could be expected to             the state may expend. (1) Up to S40,0W                 to a state to manage the reserve and
                       occur, States will be required to use             of this amount to develop the draft                    operate programs consistent with the
                       scientific criteria to justify the                management plan and collect                            mission and goals of the National
                       boundaries selected for a proposed- site.         information for preparation of the                     Estuarine Reserve Research System has
    A                  The information requirements for                  environmental impact statement; and (2)                been raised to $420,000. Of this amotnit,
                       hOAA approval of a proposed site                  up to the remainer of available funds to               no more than $70,000 may be requested
                       under existing regulations were                   conduct studies to develop a basic                     in a twelve month period. allowing for a
                       confusing and now have been clarified.            description of the physical. chemical,                 period of Federal assistance for
    ed                 NOAA has recognized the need to                   and biological characteristics of the site.            operation of management assistance of
                       conduct studies to develop a basic                  (E) Financial assistance awards for                  six years of more. Up to ten percent of
                       description of the physical, chemical,            acquisition, development and initial                   the total award (Federal and state) each
    ion                and biological characteristics of the site.       management. The regulations divide                     year may be used for construction-type
                       As 6 result, states may now be eligible           eligibility for financial assists                      activities.
                       for Federal funding of these studies after        awards for acquisition and development                   A time limit has been imposed an the
    e                  @OAA approval of a proposed site.                 into two phases. In the initial phase,                 expenditure of operations and
                       (C) Management plan development.                  states are working to meet the criteria                management awards for personnel
                       Once NOAA approves the proposed site              required for formal research re-serve                  positions. The Federal portion of
                       and decides to proceed with                       designation. Le. establishing adequate                 operations and management awards
    .'Idl              designation@ the state must develop a             state control over key land and water                  may be used for the support of any
                       draft management plan, The contents of            areas in accordance with the draft                     single staff position (eg. reserve
                       the plan, including the memorandum of             management plan and preparing a ftnal                  manager, assistant manager, research
                       understanding IMOU) between NOAA                  management plan. In this pre-                          coordinator. education/interpretive
               i       Ind the state are specified in the                designation pham funds are available                   coordinator, wcretary/administrative
                       regulations. @he acquisition portion of           for acquiring interest in land. which is               aWstant, custodial support. or their
                       the Plan has been greatly expanded to
    ie                 11"Plement recommendations in the                 the primary purpose 6f this award, and                 equivalents) for a period not exceeding
    IV                                                                   for minor construction (e.g., nature trade             three yearL The intent of this provision
                       of@cl Of Inspector General Report No.             and boat ramps). preparation of                        is to ensure that the state makes a
                       F-726-5-010. It is Proposed that states           architectual and engineering plans and                 longterm commitment of resources to
    ria                b.e required to justify the use of fee            specifications, development of the final               staff the reserve adequately, well in
                       81niPle acquisition methods and make              management plan, and hiring a reserve                  advance of the period when Federal
                       greater use of non-fee sun                        manager and other staff as necessary to                funding for operation and management
                       CO"Berve expenditure of funds. For each           implement the NOAA approved draft                      is terminated.
                       Parcel both i h            ple methods to
                       uffer'      n t e core area and the               management plan.                                         (G) Knancial assistance for mseaxA
    ,e                       Zc,MR, states must determine, with            Ile length of time for this initial                  The CZM Reauthorization Act of 1985
    40                        ate justi 'cation: (1) The                 phase of acquisition and development                   specifically affects the conduct of the
                               level o co ol a) required, (2)            may be up to three year& After the site                System's research program by
                       e level o    I -
    On                   level of e i      state control, and (3)        receives Federal designation as a                      establishing the requirement for
                                       it  al state control(s)           national estuarine research reserve, the               developing Estuarine Research
                         uir,  states    ust also examine all            State way request additional financial                 Guidelines and specifying what these
    Sri                a It      site   atives for attaining the         assistance to acquire additional                       SuldeHries. shall include. The legislation
                              al level of control required,              property interests (e.g., for the buffer               also requires the Secretary of Commerce
                         0
                              a cost a alysis of each. and
    is                                                                   zone). for construction of research and                to require that NOAA_ in conducting or







                 43818              Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 209 / Fridjy, October 28, 1968 / Proposed Rules

                 supporting estuarine research. give                 one research reserve, and. if practical.            Roberts; Room 1235; Department of
                 priority consideration to research that             the entire National Estuarine Reserve               Commerce; Washington. DQ 20230; and
                 uses reserves in the System. and that               Research System, shall receive priority             to the Office of Information and
                 NOAA consult with other Federal and                 consideration for funding.                          Regulatory Affairs; Office of
                 state agencies to promote use of one or             91. Other actions associated with the               Management and Budget; Washington,
                 more reserves by such agencies when                 proposed rulemaking                                 DQ 20503.
                 conducting estuarine research.                                                                            (D) Executive Order miz This rule
                   The research guidelines,which are                   (A) Classification under executive                does not contain policies with sufficient
                 referred to in regulations, but are not             order 12291. NOAA has concluded that                IFederalism implications to warrant
                 part of then:L state that NOAA will                 these regulations are not major because             preparation of a Federalism assessment
                 provide research grants only for                    they will not result in:                            under Executive Order 12612.
                 proposals which address research                      (1) An annual effect on the economy                 (E) National Environmental Policy
                 questions and coastal management                    of $100 million or more.
                 issues that have highest national priority            (2) A major increase in costs or prices           Act. NOAA has concluded that
                 as determined by NOAA. in                           for consumers; indiviudal industries;               publication of the proposed rules does
                 consultation with prominent members of              Federal, state, or local government                 not constitute a major Federal action
                 the estuarine research community.                   agencies-, or geographic regions; or                significantly affecting the quality of the
                   One significant addition to the                     (3) Significant adverse effects on                human environment. Therefore, an
                 regulatious is that research awards are             competitiom employment, investment,                 environmental impact statement is not
                 available on a competitive basis to any.            productivity, innovation or the ability of          required.
                 coastal state or qualified public or                United States-based enterprises to .                List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 921
                 private person. thus making it possible             compete with foreign-based enterprises
                 for the first time for public or private            in domestic or export markets.                        Administrative practice and
                 persons, organizations or institutions to             These proposed rules amend existing               procedure, Coastal zone. Environmental
                 compete with coastal states and coastal             procedures for identibAng, designating.             protection, Natural resources, and
                 state universities for NOAA research                and managing national estuarine                     Wetlands.
                 funding to work in research reserves.               research reserves in accordance with                  Dated: October Z1, 1988.
                   (FU Financial ass istance awards for              the CZM Reauthorization Act of 1985,                Thomas ). Maginnis,
                 in terpretation and education. The CZM              They will not result in any direct
                 Reauthorization Act of 1985 authorizes              economic or environmental effects nor               Assistant Administratorfor ocean Services
                 the award of grants for the purposes of             will they lead to any major indirect                and Coastal Zone Management
                 conducting educational and interpretive             economic or environmental impacts.                  Federal Domestic Assistance. Catalog
                 activities. To stimulate the development              (B) Regulatory Flexibility Act                      Number 11-420, National Estuarine Reserve.
                 of innovative or creative interpretive              analysis. A Regulatory Flexibility                    Research System
                 and educational projects and materials              Analysis is not required for this notice              For the reasons set forth in the
                 which will enhance public awareness                 of proposed rulemaking. The regulations             preamble, it is proposed that 15 CFR
                 and understanding of estuarine areas,               set forth procedures for identifying and            Paxt 9ZI be amended by revising
                 the -regulations provide for hinds to be            designating national estuarine research             Subparts A through F and by adding
                 available on a competitive basis to any             reserves, and managing sites once                   Subparts G and H to read as set forth
                 coastal state entity. These funds are               designated. These rules do not directly             below. No changes are proposed to
                 provided in addition to any other funds             affect "small government jurisdictions"             Appendix 1-Biogeographic
                 available to a coastal state under these            as defined by Pub. L 96-354, the                    Classification Scheme or Appendix 2-
                 regulations.                                        Regulatory Flexibility Act. and the rules           Typology of National Estuarine
                   Categories of potential educational               will have no effect on small businesses.            Research Reserves.
                 a-rid interpretive projects include-                  (C) Paperwork Reduction Act of 19M.
                   (1) Design, development and                       This rule contains collection of                    PART 921-NATIO         .NAL ESTUARINE
                 distribution/placement of interpretive or           information requirements subject to Pub.            RESERVE SYSTEM REGULATIONS
                 educational media (Le, the development              L 96411, the Paperwork Reduction Act
                 of tangible items such as exhibits/                 (PRA), which have already been                      Subpart A-Gen"
                 displays, publications. posters, signs,             approved by the Office of Management
                 audio-visuals, computer software, and               and Budget (approval number 0648-                   Sec.                        general Provisions,
                 maps. which have an educational or                  0121) for use through October 31. 1989.             92ti Mission. goals and
                                                                     Public reporting burden for the                     921,2 Definitions.
                 interpretive purpose, and techniques for                                                                9zi.3 National Estuarine Reserve Research
                 making available or locating information            collections of information contained in                 System Biogeographic Classification
                 concerning reserve resources, activities,           this rule is estimated to average 2,012                 Scheme and Estuarine Typologies.
                 or issues).                                         hours per response for management                   921.4 Relationship to other provisions of the
                   (2) Development and presentation of                                                               .5      Coastal Zone Manage
                                                                     plans and related documentation, 1.2                                            ment Act
                 curricula. workshops, lectures, sen-Linars,         hours for performance reports, and 15               Subpart 5-4ft S6%Cftn, Pont SRO
                 and other structured programs or                    hours for annual reports and work                   Seloedon and Manag*mwd PlOn
                 presenatations for on-site facility or              plans. These estimates include the time             DevelopmOM
                 field use:                                          for reviewing instructions, searching               921.1o   General.
                   (3) Extension/ outreach programs; or              existing data sources, gathering and                921.11   Site selection.
                   (4) Creative and innovative methods               maintaining the data needed. and                             Post site selectiori-
                 and technologies for implementing                   completing and reviewing the collection             921.12                      and Enviroarner,
                                                                                                                         921.13   Management Plan
                 interpretive or educational projects.               of information. Send comments                           impact Statement development.
                   Interpretive and educational projects             regarding this burden estimate or any
                 may be oriented to one or more research             other aspect of these collections of                Subpart C-AcquIs"W^ ,,,,,p,0"tp2,,r,'d
                 reserves or the entire System. Those                information, including suggestions for              preparsoon ol ats Fkw Manageml
                 projects which would benefit more than              reducing this burden, to Richard                    QZ1.2o General.


                                                                                                                                                                                   j







                                    Federal Register / VoL 53, No. 209 / Friday, October 28, 1988                             Proposed Rules                   49819

                   Sec.                                             (4) Promote Federal, state, public and          monitoring within a national estuarine
                   921.21 Initial acquisition and development     private use of one or more reserves               research reserve. Five types of awards
                        awards.                                   within the System when such entities              are available under the National
                   Subpart D-Reserve Designation and                   conduct estuarine research; and                   Estuarine Reserve Research System. The
                   Subsequent Operation                           (5) Conduct and -coordinate estuarine           predesignation awards are for site
                   921.30 Designation of National Estuarine        research within the System, gathering             selection. draft management plan
                        Research Reserves,                        and making available information                  preparation and conduct of basic
                   921.31 Supplemental acquisition and            necessary for improved understanding              characterization studies. The acquisition
                        development awards.                       and management of estuarine areas;                and development award is intended
                   921.32 Operation and management                   (c) National estuarine research                 primarily for acquisition of interests in
                        implementation of the Management Plan.   reserves shall be open to the public.             land and construction. The operation
                   921.33 Boundary changes, amendments to         Multiple uses are allowed to the degree           and management award provides funds
                        the Management Plan, and addition of      compatible with the research reserve's            to assist in implementing the research,
                        multiple-site components,                 overall purpose as provided in the                educational, and administrative
                   Subpart E-Performance Evaluation and              management plan (see ï¿½ 921.12) and                programs detailed in the research
                   Withdrawal of Designation                         consistent with paragraphs (a) and (b),           reserve management plan. At the
                   921.40 Evaluation of system performance.       of this section. Use levels are set by the        conclusion of Federal financial
                   921.41 Suspension of eligibility for financial individual state and analyzed in the              assistance for operation and
                        assistance.                               management plan. The research reserve             management, funding for the long-term
                   921.42 Withdrawal of designation.              management plan shall describe the                operation of the research reserve
                   Subpart F-Research                              uses and establish priorities among               becomes the responsibility of the state.
                   921.50 General.                                 these uses. The plan shall identify uses          The research award provides funds to
                   921.51 Estuarine research guidelines,         requiringa state permit,    "a well as areas      conduct estuarine research and
                   921.52 Promotion and coordination of            where uses are encouraged or                      monitoring within the System. The
                        estuarine research.                       prohibited. Consistent with resource              educational and interpretive award
                   Subpart G-Interpretation and Education            protection and research objectives,               provides funds to conduct estuarine
                   921.60 General.                                  public access may be restricted to                educational and interpretive activities
                   921.61 Categories of potential interpretive     certain areas within a research reserve,          within the System.
                        and educational projects-, evaluation       (d) Certain manipulative research                 (g) Lands already in protected status
                        criteria.                                 activities may be allowed on limited             managed by other Federal agencies,
                   Subpart H- General Financial Assistance                basin but only if specified in the                state or local governments, or private
                   Provisions                                       management plan and only if the                   organizations can be included within
                   921.70 Application information.                  activity is consistent with overall               national estuarine research reserves
                   921.71 Allowable costs.                        reserve purposes and the reserve                  only if the managing entity commits to
                   921.72 Amendments to financial assistance      resources are protected. Manipulative             long-term non-manipulative
                        awards,                                   research activities with a significant or         management. Federal lands already In
                                                             long-term impact on reserve resources             protected status cannot comprise the
                                                                                     approval of the state
                    Authority:Section 315, Pub L 92-583, as          require the prior
                                                                                                     			key land and water areas of a research
                    amended: 86 Stat. 1280 (16 U.S.C. 1461).            and the National Oceanic and
                                                                  Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).                reserve (see 921.11(c3)).
                   SubPart A-General
                                                                  Habitat manipulation for resource                  921.2 Definitions.
                   921.1 Mission, goals and general                  management purposes is not permitted                (a) "Act" means the Coastal Zone
                   provisions.                                        within national estuarine research                Management Act as amended, 16 USC
                        (a) The mission of the National           reserves.                                         1451 et seq. Section 315 of the Act 18
                   Estarine Reserve Research System is             (e) While the intent of establishing            U.S.C. 1461, establish" the National
                   the establishment and management.              national estuarine research reserves Is           Estuarine Reserve Research Systems.
                   through Federal-state cooperation of a        the protection of natural pristine
                                                                                                                      (b) "Assistant Administrator" [AA)
                   national system of estuarine research          estuarine sites for research. educational         means the Assistant Administrator for
                   reserves representative of the various         and interpretive purposes, NOAA
                   regions and estuarine types in the             recognizes that many estuarine areas              Ocean Services and Coastal Zone
                   United States. Estuarine research            have undergoing ecological change as a            Management National Ocean Service,
                   reserves are established to provide         result of human activities. Although              National Oceanic and Atmospheric
                                                                              			                   Administration, U.S. Department of
                   opportunities for long-term research,      restoration of degraded areas is not a            Commerce, or designee.
                   education, and interpretation.           primary purpose of the System some
                                                                  restorative activities may be permitted             (c) "Coastal state" means a state of
                     (b)The goals Of the System for               in an estuarine research reserve as               the United States in or bordering on the
                   carrying out this mission are to:                  specified in the management plan.                 Atlantic- Pacific. or Arctic Ocean, the
                        (1) Ensure a stable environment for         if NOAA may provide financial                  Gulf of Mexico, Long Island Bound, or
                   research through long-term protection of 
                  				                     assistance to coastal states, not to              one or more of the Great Lakes. For the
                       (2) Address costal managment                exceed 50 percent of all actual costs, to         purposes of this title. the term also
                      issues identified as a significant through             assist in the acquisition, development            includes Puerto Rica. the Virgin Islands,
                           
                                 
                  coordinated estuarine research within         and operation of and the conduct of              Guam, the Commonwealth of the
                   the System:                     			educational or interpretive activities            Northern Marianas, the Trust Territories
                       (3) Enchance public awareness and       	concerning national estuarine research           of the Pacific islands, and American
                 understanding of the estuarine            reserves (see Subpart H). NOAA may                Samoa (see 16 U.S.C. 14853(4)).
                 opportunties for public education and 
                 interpretation.
                        
                        
                        
                                                     provide financial assistance to any                 (d) "Estuary" means that part of a
                                                    coastal state or public or private person,          river or streams or body of water having
                                                     not to exceed 50 percent of all actual
                                                                                                                    unimpaired connection with the open
                            					costs, to support research and                    sea, where the sea water is measurably






                  43820             Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 209 / Friday, October 28, 1988 / Proposed Rules

                                                                                                                                                         ----------
                  diluted with fresh water derived from               (b) For purposes of consistency                 estuarine research reserve, even after
                  land drainage. The term also includes            review by states with a federally                  Federal funding for the single
                  estuary-type areas of the Great Lakes            approved coastal zone management                   component research reserve has
                  (see 1B U.S.C. 1453(7)).                         program, the designation of a national             expired. If the state decides to develop a=
                   (e) "National Estuarine Research                estuarine research reserve is deemed to            multiple-site national estuarine researchE
                  Reserve" means an area that is a                 be a Federal activity, which, if directly          reserve after the initial acquisition and
                  representative estuarine ecosystem               affecting the state's coastal zone, must           development award is made for a single
                  suitable for long/term research, which           be undertaken in a manner consistent to            site, the proposal is subject to the
                  may include all or the key land and              the maximum extent practicable with                requirements set forth in 1921.33.
                  water portion of an estuary, and                 the approved state coastal zone program            Importantly, however, a state may not
                  adjacent transitional areas and uplands          as provided by section 307(c)(1) of the            propose to add one or more components
                  constituting to the extent feasible a            Act, and implementing regulations at 15            to an already designated research
                  natural unit, and which is set aside as a        CFR Part 930, Subpart C. At the earliest           reserve if the operation and
                  natural held laboratory to provide long-         practicable time. a state with a federally         management of such research reserve
                  term opportunities for research,                 approved coastal zone management                   has been found deficient or the research
                  education, and interpretation on the             program shall consult with appropriate             conducted is not consistent with the
                  ecological relationships within the area         state officials concerning the                     Estuarine Research Guidelines in
                  (see 16 U.S.C. 1453(8)). This includes           consistency of the proposed national               accordance with the provisions of
                  those areas designated as national               estuarine research reserve.                        Subpart E. In addition, the total
                  estuarine sanctuaries under section 315          Subpart B-Site Selection, Post Site                acquisition funding for a multiple-site
                  of the Act prior to the date of the              Selection and Management Plan                      research reserve remains limited to
                  enactment of the Coastal Zone                    Development                                        $4.000,OW (see 1921.20). The funding for
                  Management Reauthorization Act of                                                                   operation of multiple-site research
                  1985 and each area designated as a               ï¿½ 921.10 General.                                  reserve remains limited to $420,000 (see
                  national estuarine research reserve                 (a) A state may apply for Federal                 921.32(c)).
                  pursuant to the provisions of these              financial assistance for the purpose of              921.11 Site selection.
                  regulations.                                     site selection, preparation of documents
                                                                   specified in J 921.13 (draft management              (a) A state may use up to $25,000 in
                  921.3 National Estuarine Rooms                   plan and environmental impact                      Federal funds to establish and
                  Research Systern Biogeographic                   statement (EIS)) and the conduct of                implement a site selection process
                  Classification Schente and Estuarine             research necessary to complete basic               which to approved by NOAA.
                  Typologim                                        characterization studies. The total                  (b) In addition to the requirements set
                   (a) National estuarine research                 Federal share of this group of                     forthin Subpart H, a request for Federal
                  reserves are chosen to reflect regional          predesignation awards may not exceed               funds for site selection must contain the
                  differences and to include a variety of          $100,000, of which up to $25,000 may be            following programmatic information:
                  ecosystem types. A biogeographic                 used for site selection as described in              (1) A description of the proposed site
                  classification scheme based on regional          1921.11. In the case of a multi-                   selection process and how it will be
                  variations in the nation's coastal zone          component national estuarine research              implemented in conformance with the
                  has been developed. The biogeographic            reserve in which one or more                       biogeographic classification scheme and
                  classiricationscheme is used to ensure           components are proposed to be located              typology (1921.3);
                  that the national Estuarine Reserve              within different states, this provision                                          @e site
                  Research Sys                                                                                          (2) An Identification of d
                                tem includes at least one          applies to each state. Financial                   selection agency and the potential
                  site from each region. The estuarine             assistance application procedures are              management agency; and
                  typology system is utilized to ensure            specified in Subpart H.                                                            iublic
                  that sites in the System reflect the wide          (b) In selecting a site, a state may               (3) A description of how p
                  range of estuarine types within the              choose to develop a multiple-site                  participation will be incorporated into
                  United States.                                   research reserve reflecting a diversity of         the process (see I 921.11(d)).
                   (b) The biogeographic classification            habitats in a single biogeographic                   (c) As part of the site selection
                  scheme. presented in Appendix 1,                 region. A multiple-site research reserve           process, the state and NOAA shall
                  contains 27 regions. Figure 2 graphically        also allows the state to develop                   evaluate and select the final site(s).
                  depicts the biogeographic regions of the         complementary research and                         NOAA has final authority in approving
                  United States.                                   educational programs within the                    such sites. Site selection shall be guided
                   (c) The typology system is presented            multiple components of its research                by the following principles:
                  in Appendix 2.                                   reserve. Multiple-site research reserves             (1) The site's contribution to the
                                                                   are treated as one reserve in terms of             biogeographical and typological balance
                  I 921A Relstlon" to o0w pro                      financial assistance and development of            of the National Estuarine Reserve
                  the Contal Zone Management AcL                   an overall management framework and                Research System (see the biogeographic
                   (a) 77he National Estuarine Reserve             plan. Each individual component of a               classification scheme and typology set
                  Research System is intended to provide           proposed multiple-site research reserve            forth in 1921.3 and Appendices I and 2):
                  information to state agencies and other          shall be evaluated both separately                   (2) The site's ecological
                  entities involved in addressing coastal          under I 9Z2.11(c) and collectively within          characteristics, including its biological
                  management issues. Any coastal state,            the context of the multi-component                 productivity. diversity of flora and
                  including those that do not have                 reserve as part of the site selection              fauna. and capacity to attract a broad
                  approved coastal zone management                 process. A state may propose to                    range of research and educational
                  programs under section 308 of the Act, is        establish a midtiple-site research                 interests. The proposed site must be a
                  eligible for an award under the National         reserve at the time of the intitial site           representative estuarine ecosystem and
                  Astuarine Reserve Research System (we            selection, or at any point in the                  should, to the maximum extent possible,
                  I 921.2(c)).                                     development or operation of the                    be a natural system;





                                  Federal -Register / Vol. 53, No. 2W / Friday, October 2& IM / Proposed Rules                                               43821,
                 (3) Assurance that the site's                  estuarine research reserve status that is          (5) A nomination of the proposed
               boundaries encompass an adequate                 dependent upon the inclusion of                 site(s) for designation as a National
               portion of the key land.and water areas          currently protected Federal lands in            Estuarine Research Reserve by the
               of the natural system to approximate an          order to meet the requirements for              Governor of the coastal state in which
               ecological unit and to ensure effective          research reserve status (such as key            the area is 10 'cated.
               conservation. Boundary size will vary            land and water areas). Such lands may           J 921.12 Post etto selection.
               greatly depending on the nature of the           only be included within a research
               ecosystem. Research reserve boundaries           reserve to serve as a buffer or for other          (a) At the time of the state's request
               must encompass the area within which             ancillary purposes;                             for NOAA approval of a proposed site,
               adequate control has or will be                    (4) The site's suitability for long-term      the state may submit a request for up to
               established by the managing entity over          estuarine research, incuding ecological         $40,000 of predesignation funds to
               human activities occurring within the            factors and proximity to existing               develop the draft management plan and
               reserve. General, reserve boundaries             research facilities and educational             for the collection of the information
               will encompass two areas: key land and           institutions;                                   necessary for preparation of the
               water areas (or "core area") and a                 (5) The site's compatibility with             environmental impact statement. At this
               buffer zone. Key land and water areas            existing and potential land and water           time, the state may also submit a
               and a buffer zone will likely require            uses In contiguous areas; and                   request for the remainder of the
               significantly different levels of control          (8) The site's importance to education        predesignation fund for research
               (see ï¿½ 921.13(a)(7)). The term "key land         and interpretive efforts, consistent with       necessary to complete a basic
               and water areas" refers to that core area        the need for continued protection of the        characterization of the physical,
                                                                natural system.                                 chemical and biological characteristics
               within the reserve that is so vital to the
               functioning of the estuarine ecosystem             (d) Early in the site selection process       of the site approved by NOAA. The
               that it must be under a level of control         the state must seek the views of affected       state's request for these post site
               sufficient to ensure the long-term               landowers, local governments, other             selection funds must be accompanied by
               viability of the reserve for research on         state and Federal agencies and other            the information specified in Subpart H
               natural resources, Key land and water            parties who are interested in the area(s)       and, for draft management plan
               areas, which comprise the core area, are         being considered for selection as a             development and environmental impact
               those ecological units of a natural              potential national estuarine research           statement information collection, the
               estuarine system which preserve, for             reserve. After the local government(s)          following programmatic information:
               research purposes, a full range of               and affected landowner(s) have been                (1) A draft management plan outline
               significant physical, chemical and               contacted, at least one public meeting          (see I 921-13(a) below); and
               biological factors contributing to the           shall be held in the area of the proposed          (2) An outline of a draft memorandum
               diversity of fauna, flora and natural            site. Notice of such -a meeting, including      of understanding (MOU) between the
               processes occurring within the estuary.          the time, place, and relevant subject .         state and NOAA detailing the Federal-
               The determination of which land and              matter. shall be announced by the state         state role in research reserve
               water areas are "key" to a particular            through the area's principal news media         management during the initial period of
               reserve must be based on specific                at least 15 days prior to the date of the       Federal funding and expressing the
               scientific knowledge of the area. A basic        meeting and by NOAA in the Federal              state's long-term commitment to operate
               principle to follow when deciding upon           Register.                                       and manage the national estuarine
               key land and water areas is that they              (e) A state request for'NOAA                  research reserve.
               should encompass resources                       approval of a proposed site (or sites in           (b) The state is eligible to use the
               representative of the total ecosystem,           the case of a multi-site reserve) must          funds referenced in I 921.12(a) after the
               and which if compromised could                   contain a description of the proposed           proposed site is approved by NOAA.
               endanger the research objectives of the          site in relationship to each of the site           921.13 ManagerneW plan and
               reserve, The term "buffer zone" refers to        selection principles (I 921.11(c)) and the      i
               an area adjacent to or surrounding key           following information:                          *nvkonmentgd knpw smement
               land and waterareas and essential to               (1) An analysis of the proposed site          develownent.
               their integrity. Buffer zones protect the        based on the biogeographical scheme/               (a) After NOAA approves the state's
               care area and provide additional                 typology discussed in 6 921.3 and set           proposed site and request to use
               protection for estuarine-dependent               forth in Appendices i and 2;                    remaining predesignation funds for draft
               species, including those that are rare or          (2) A description of the proposed site        management plan development and
               endangered. When determined                      and its major resources, including              environmental impact statement
               appropriate by the state and approved            location, proposed boundaries, and              development the state shall develop a
               by NOAA. the buffer zone may also                adjacent land uses. Maps. including             draft management plan, including an
               include an area necessary for facilities         aerial photographs, are required;-              MOU. The plan will set out in detail:
               required for research and interpretation.          (3) A description of the public                  (1) Research reserve goals and
               Additionally, buffer zones should be             participation process used by the state         objectives, management issues. and
               established sufficient to accommodate a          to solicit the views of interested parties,     strategies or actions for meeting the
               shift of the core area as a result of            a summary of comments, and. if                  goals and objectives,
               biological, ecological or                        interstate issues are involved,                    (2) An administrative section
               ge0morphological change which                    documentation that the Governor(s) of           including staff roles in administration,
               reasonably could be expected to occur.           the other affected state(s) has been            research. education/ interpre ta tion. and
               National estuarine research reserves             contacted. Copies of all correspondence,        surveillance and enforcement;
               niay include existing Federal or state           including contact letters to all affected          (3) A research plan, including a
               lands already in a protected status              landowners must be appended;                    monitoring design,
               where mutual benefit can be enhanced.              (4) A list of all sites considered and a         (4) An education/interpretive Pla=
               Importantly, however, NOAA will not              brief summary of tlie basis for not                (5) A plan for public 8cce" to thl
               approve a site for potential national            selecting the non-preferred sites; and          research reserve',





43822		Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 209 / Friday, October 28, 1988 / Proposed Rules


 (6)A construction plan, including a
proposed construction schedule,
preliminary drawings and general
desciptions of proposed developments.
Information should be provided for 
proposed minor construction projects in
sufficient detail to allow these projects
to begin in the initial phase of 
acquisition and development.  If a visitor
center, research center or any other
facilities are proposed for construction
or renovation at the site, or restorative
activities which require significant
construction are planned, a detailed
construction plan including preliminary
cost estimates and architectural
drawings must be prepared as a part of 
the final management plan; and
 (7) An acquisition plan identifying the
ecologically key land and water areas of
the research reserve, ranking these
areas according to their relative
importance, and including a strategy for 
establishing adequate state control over
these areas sufficient ot provide
protection for reserve resources to
ensure a stable environment for
research. This plan must include an 
identification of ownership within the
proposed research reserve boundaries,
including land already in the public
domain; the method(s) which the state
proposes to use-acquisition (including
less-than-fee options) or the feasible 
alternativs-to establish adequate
state control; an estimate of the fair
market valkue of any property interest-
fee or less-than-fee simple interest-
which is proposed for acquisition; a
schedule estimating the time required to
complete the process of establishing
adequate state control of the proposed
research reserve, and a discussion of
any anticipated problems.  In selecting a
preferred method(s) for establishing
adequate state control over areas within
the proposed boundaries of the reserve,
the state shall perform the following 
steps for each parcel determined to be
part of the key land and water areas
(control over which is necessary to
protect the integrity of the reserve for
research purposes), and for those
parcels required for research and
interpretive support facilities or buffer
purposes:
 (i)Determine, with appropriate
justification, the minimum level of
control(s) required (e.g., management
agreement, regulation, less-than-fee
property interest fee simple property 
acquisition, a combination of these
approaches or other feasible
alternative);
 (ii)Identify the level of existing state
control(s);
 (iii)Identify the level of additional
state control(s), if any, necessary to
meet the minimum requirements



identified in paragraph (a)(7)(i) of this
section;
 (iv)Examine all reasonable
alternatives for attaining the level of
control identified in paragraph (a)(7)(iii)
of this section and perform a cost
analysis of each; and
 (v)Rank, in order of cost, the methods
(including acquisition)identified in
paragraph (a)(7)(iv)of this section.
 An assessment of the relative cost-
effectiveness of control alternatives
shall include a reasonable estimate of
both short-term cost (e.g., acquisition of
property interests, requlatory program
development including asssociated
enforcement costs, negotiation,
adjudication, etc.)and long-term costs
(e.g. monitoring, enforcement,
adjudication, management and
coordination, etc.). In selecting a 
preferred method(s) for establishing
adequate state control over each parcel
examined under the process described
above, the state shall give priority
consideration to the least costly
method(s) of attaining the minimum
level of long-term control required.
Generally, with the possible exception
of buffer areas required for support
facilities, the level of control(s) required
for buffer areas will be considerably
less than that required for key land and
water areas.  This acquisition plan, after
receiving the approval of NOAA, shall
serve as a guide for negotiations with
landowners.  A final boundary for the
reserve shall be delineated as a part of
the final management plan.

  Note-As discussed in $ 921.11(c)(3), if 
Federally protected lands are to be included
within the proposed research reserve, the
state must demonstrate to NOAA that the
site meets the criteria for national estuarine
research reserve status independent of the
inclusion of such protected lands.

 (8)A resource protection plan
detailing applicable authorities,
including allowable uses, uses requiring
a permit and permit requirements, any
restriction on use of the research
reserve, and a strategy for research
reserve survaillance and enforcement of
such use restrictions, including
appropriate government enforcement
agencies;
 (9)If applicable, a restoration plan
describing those portions of the site that 
may reqire habitat modification to
restore natural contitions; and
 (10)A proposed memorandum of 
understanding (MOU) between the state
and NOAA regarding the Federal-state
relationship during the establishment
and development of the national 
estuarine research reserve, and 
expressing a long-term commitment by
the state to maintain effectively the



research reserve after Federal financial
assistance for operation and
management of the site has expired. In
conjunction with the MOU and where
possible under state law, the state will
 consider taking appropriate
administrative or legislative action to
ensure the long-term protection and
operation of the national estuarine
research reserve. The MOU shall be 
signed prior to research reserve
designation.  If other MOUs are
necessary (such as with a Federal
agency or another state agency), drafts
of such MOUs also must be included in
the plan.
 (11)If the state has a federallly
approved coastal zone management
program, documentation that the 
proposed national estuarine research
reserve is consistent to the maximum
extent practicable. See $ 921.4(b).
 (b)Regarding the preparation of an
environment impact statement (EIS)
under the National Environmental Policy
Act on a national estuarine research
reserve proposal, the state shall provide
all necessary information to NOAA
concerning the socioeconomic and
environmental impacts assocaited with
implementing the draft management
plan and feasible alternatives to the
plan.  Based on this information, NOAA
will prepare the draft EIS.
 (c)Early in the development of the
draft management plan and the draft
EIS, the state shall hold a meeting in the
area or areas most affected to solicit
public and government comments n the
significant issues related to the
proposed action. NOAA will publish a
notice of the meeting in the Federal
Register.  The state shall be responsible
for publishing a similar notice in the
local media.
 (d)NOAA will publish a Federal
Register notice of intent to prepare a
draft EIS.  After the draft EIS is prepared
and filed with the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), a Notice of
Availability of the DEIS will apear in
the Federal Register.  Not less than 30
days after publication of the notice,
NOAA will hold a least one public
hearing in the area or areas most 
affected by the porposed national
estuarine research reserve.  The hearing
will be held no sooner than 15 days after
appropriate notice of the meeting has
been given in the principal news media
and in the Federal Register by NOAA
and the state, respectively. After a 45-
day comment period, a final EIS will be 
prepared by NOAA.






 


    I
                                   Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 209 / Friday, October 28, 1988 / Proposed Rules                                                       43823

                  Subpart C-Acquisitlon, Development                 Application procedures are specified in             designated [name of National Estuarine
                  and Preparational the Flnal                        Subpart H.                                          Research Reserve]. In the event that the
                  Management Man                                      (b) The expenditure of Federal and                 property is no longer included as part of
                  921.20 General.                                    state funds on major construction                   the research reserve, or if the
                                                                     activities is not allowed during the                designation of the research reserve of
                  The acquisition and development                    initial acquisition and development                 which it is part is withdrawn, then
                  period is separated into two major                 phase., The preparation of architectural            NOAA or its successor agency, after full
                  phases. After NOAA approval of the                 and engineering plans, including                    and reasonable consultation with the
                  site, draft management plan and draft              specifications, for any proposed                    State, may exercise the following rights
                  MOU, and completion of the final EIS, a            construction, or for proposed restorative           regarding the disposition of the property:
                  state is eligible for an initial acquisition       activities, is permitted. In addition,                (i) The recipient may retain title after
                  and development award(s). In this initial          minor construction activities, consistent           paying the Federal Government an
                  phase, the state should work to meet the           with paragraph (c) of this section also             amount computed by applying the
                  criteria required for formal research              are allowed. The NOAA-approved draft                Federal percentage of participation in
                  reserve designation; e.g., establishing            management plan must, however,                      the cost of the original project to the
                  adequate state control over the key land           include a construction plan and a public            current fair market value of the
                  and water areas as specified in the draft          access plan before any award funds can              property;
                  management plan and preparing the                  be spent on construction activities.                  (ii) If the recipient does not elect to
                  final management plan. These                        (c) Only minor construction activities             retain title, the Federal Government may
                  requirements are specified in ï¿½ 921.30.            that aid in implementing portions of the            either direct the recipient to sell the
                  Minor construction in accordance with              management plan (such as boat ramps                 property and pay the Federal
                  the draft management plan may also be              and nature trails) are permitted during             Government an amount computed by
                  conducted during this initial phase. The           the initial acquisition and development             applying the Federal percentage of'
                  initial acquisition and development                phase. No more than five (5) percent of             participation in the cost of the original
                  phase is expected to last no longer than           the initial acquisition and development             project to the proceeds from the sale
                  three years. If necessary, a longer time           award may be expended on such                       (after deducting actual and reasonable
                  period may be negotiated between the               facilities. NOAA must make a specific               selling and repair or renovation
                  state and NOAA. After research reserve             determination. based on the final EIS,              expenses, if any, from the sale
                  designation, a state is eligible for a             that the construction activity will not be          proceeds), or direct the recipient to
                  supplemental acquisition and                       detrimental to the environment.                     transfer title to the Federal Government.
                  development award(s). In this post-                . (d) Fxcept as specifically provided in            If directed to transfer title to the Federal
                  designation acquisition and                        paragraphs (a) through (c) of this                  Government the recipient shall be
                  development phase, funds may be used               section, construction projects, to be               entitled to compensation computed by
                  in accordance with the final                       funded in whole or in part under an                 applying the recipient's percentage of
                  management plan to construct research              acquisition and development award(s),               participation in the cost of the original
                  and educational facilities, complete any           may not be initiated until the research             project to the current fair market value
                  remaining land acquisition, and for                reserve receives formal designation (see            of the property.
                  restorative activities identified in the           1921.30).
                                                                                                                           Note@The intent of this requirement is to
                  final management plan. In any case, the              Not&-The Intent of these requirements             ensure that the official land record(s)
                  amount of Federal financial assistance             and the phasing of the acquisition and              associated with real property within a
                  with respect to the acquisition of lands           development award(s) is to ensure that              national estuarine research reserve acquired
                  and waters, or interests therein, for an           substantial progress in establishing adequate       in whole or part with Federal funds includes
                                                                 y
                  one national estuarine research reserve            state control over and. if necessary, acquiring     an appropriate reference to the Federal
                  may not exceed an amount equal to 50               the key land and waters areas has been made         interest in the property which would arise
                  per cent of the costs of the lands,                and that a final management plan is                 should such property: (1) Be used for a
                                                                     completed before major sums are spent on            purpose other than as a national estuarine
                  waters, and interests therein or                   construction. Once substantial progress in          research reserve. or (2) be no longer included
                  $4,000,000, whichever is less.                     establishing adequate state control/                as a part of a federally designated national
                  1921.21 InMal acquisition vW                       acquisition has been made, as defined by the        estuarine research reserve. Fair  market value
                                                                     state in the management plan, other activities      of the property must be determined by an
                  devekqm9nt awards.
                                                                     guided by the final management plan may             independent appraiser and certified by a
                    (a) Assistance is provided to aid the            begin with NOAA's approval.                         responsible official of the state, as provided
                  recipient in:                                                                                          by OM13 Circular A-102 Revised, Attachment
                                                                        (e) For any real property acquired in
                    (1) Acquiring a fee or less-than-fee             whole or part with Federal funds for the            F. as amended or superseded, and NOAA's
                                                                                                                         Uniform Relocation and Real Property
                  real property interest in land and water           research reserve the state shall execute            Acquisition Policies.
                  areas to be included in the research               suitable title documents to include
                  reserve boundaries (see I 921.13(a)(7)):           substantially the following provisions,                (f) Upon instruction by NOAA.
                    (2) Minor construction, as provided in           or otherwise append the following                   provisions analogous to those of
                  Paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section;            provisions in a manner acceptable under             I 921.21(e) shall be included in the
                    (3) Preparing the final management               applicable state law to the official land           documentation underlying less-than-fee-
                  Plan; and                                          record(s):                                          simple interests acquired in whole or
 .r                 (4) Up to the. point of research reserve            (1) Title to the property conveyed by            part with Federal funds.                        funds
                  designation, initial management costs,             this deed shall vest in the [recipient of              (g) The expenditure of Federal
                  eg., for implementing the NOAA                     the CZMA section 315 award or other                 or non-Federal matching share funds to
                  approved draft management plan,                    federally approved state agency] subject            acquire a partial undivided interest (ie..
                  Preparing the final management plan,               to the condition that the designation of            less-than-full or less than 100% of fee
                  hiring a reserve manager and other staff           the [name of National Estuarine                     simple or less-than-fee-simple interest)
                  as necessaiy and for other management-             Reserve] is not withdrawn and the                   in real property is not allowed.
                  related activities.                                property remains part of the federally              However, in the case where a state has




43824			Federal Register  / Vol. 53, No. 209  / Friday, Octerber 28, 1988  / Proposed Rules


previously acquired a partial undivided
interest in real property with non-
Federal funds, if the remaining interest
is subsequently acquired with Federal or
non-Federal funds and such acquisition
was identified as a part of an approved
acquisition strategy, then the fair market
value of such an existing partial
undivided interest in real property may
be allowable as match (i.e., non-Federal
share) for an acquisition and
development award (see also the
requirements of $ 921.71). This 
prohibition does not apply to 
acquisition(s) of partial undivided
interests which have been identified as
a part of an acquisition strategy which
has been approved by NOAA prior to 
the effective date of these regulations.
 (h)Prior to submitting the final 
management plan to NOAA for review
and approval, the state shall hold a
public meetin to receive comment on 
the plan in the area affected by the
estuarine research reserve.  NOAA will
publish a notice of the meeting in the
Federal Register.  The state shall be
responsible for having a similar notice
published in the local media.

Subpart D-Reserve Designation and
Subsequent Operation

$ 921.30   Designation of National Estuarine
Research Reserve.

 (a)The AA shall designate an area as
a national estuarine research reserve
pursuant to section 315 of the Act, based
upon written findings that the state has
met the following requirements:
 (1)The Governor of the coastal state
in which the area is located has
nominated the area for designation as a
inational estuarine research reserve;
 (2)The area is a representative
estuarine ecosystem that is suitable for
long-term research and contributes to
the biogeographical and typological
balance of the System;
 (3)Key land and water areas of the
proposed research reserve, as identified
in the management plan, are under
adequate state control sufficient ot
provide long-term protection for reserve
resources to ensure a stable
environment for research;
 (4)Designation of the area as a
reserve willserve to enhance public
awareness and understanding of 
estuarine areas, and provide suitable
opportunities for public education and
interpretation;
 (5)A final management plan has been
approved by NOAA;
 (6)An MOU has been signed between
the state and NOAA ensuring a long-
term commitment by the state to the
effective operation and implementation



of the natioanl estuarine research
reserve; and
 (7)The coastal state in which the area
is located has complied with the
requirements of these regulations.
 (b)NOAA will determine whether the
designation of a national estuarine 
research reserve in a state with a
federally approved coastal zone
management program directly affects
the coastal zone. If the designation is
found to directly affect the coastal zone,
NOAA will make a consistency
determination pursuant to section 
307(c)(1) of the CZMA and 15 CFR Part
930, Subpart C.  The results of this
consistency determination will be
published in the Federal Register when a 
notice of designation is published.  See
921.30(c).
 (c)NOAA will cause a notice of
designation of a national estuarine
research reserve to be placed in the
Federal Register.  The state shall be
responsible for having a similar notice
published in the local media.
 (d)The term "state control" in
$ 921.30(a)(3) does not necessarily
require that key land and water areas be
owned by the state in fee simple. Less-
than-fee interests and regulatory
measures are encouraged where the
state can demonstrate that these lands
are adequately controlled consistent
with the purposes of the research
reserve (see also $ 921.13(a)(7)).

$ 921.31  Supplemental acquisition and
development awards.

 After national estuarine research
reserve designation, and as specified in
the approved management plan, the 
state may request a supplemental
acquisition and development award(s)
for acquiring additional property
interests identified in the management
plan as necessary to enhance long-term
protection of the area for research, for
facility construction for restorative
activities identified in the approved
management plan, and for
administrative purposes.  The amount of
Federal financial assistance provided
for development costs directly
associated with facility constructin
other than land acquisition (i.e., major
construction activities) for any one
national estuarine research reserve may
not exceed $1,000,000. In the case of a
multi-component national estuarine 
research rserve in which all
components are not located in one state,
this provision applies to each involved
state.  Application procedures are
specified in Subpart H. Land acquisition
must follow the procedures specified in
& 921.13(a)(7) and & 921.21 (e) and (f).



& 921.32  Operation and Management
Implementation of the Management Plan.

 (a)After the national estuarine
research reserve is formally designated,
the state is eligible to receive Federal
funds to assist the state in the operation
and management of the research 
resreve.  The purpose of this Federally
funded operation and management
phase is to implement the approved final
management plan and to take the 
necessary steps to ensure the continued
effective operation of the research
reserve after direct Federal support is 
concluded.
 (b)State operation and management
of national estuarine research reserves
shall be consistent with the mission, and
shall further the goals, of the National
Estuarine Research Reserve System (see
& 921.1).
 (c)Federal funds of up to $420,000, to
be matched by the state on a 50/50
basis, are available for the initial
operation and management of the
national estuarine research reserve,
including the establishment and initial
operation of a basic environmental
monitoring program. In the case of a 
multi-component national estuarine
research reserve in which all
components are not located within one
state, this provision applies to each
involved state. State financial
responsibility for the operation and
management of the research reserve is
fully assumed at the conclusion of initial
Federal funding for operation and 
management.
 (d)Operation and management funds
are subject to the following limitations;
 (1)No more than $70,000 in Federal
funds may be expended in a twelve
month award period (i.e., Federal funds
for operation and management may not
be expended at a rate greater than 
$70,000 per year);
 (2)No more than ten percent of the 
total amount (state and Federal shares)
of each operation and management
award may be used for construction-
type activities (i.e., $14,000 maximum
per year); and
 (3)The Federal share of operation and 
management awards may not be used
for the support of any single research
reserve position (i.e., research reserve
manager, research coordinator, assistant
manager, education/interpretive
coordinator, secretary/administrative
assistant, custodial support, or their
equivalents for a period longer than
three years.

Note-The intent of this requirement is to
ensure the state makes a commitment of
basic staff resources to the project early in
the operation and management phase. Given
state financial responsibility for long-term







 




                    r



                                             Federal Rooster                 Vol. 53, No. 209 / Friday, October 28, 1988 / Proposed Rules                                                         43825
      Tt                      operation and management of the site as a            environmental assessment is sufficient                    procedural and public participation
      Un.           i         national estuarine research re9erv'e. phasing        to establish a multiple-site research                     provisions of the CZMA regulations on
                    I         down Federal support for the basic                   reserve, then the state shall develop a                   review of performance at 15 CFR Part
                    ;4        management, program coordination and                 revised management plan which,                            928 (ie., ï¿½ 928.3(b) and J 928.4).
      rat                     administrative personnel required for                concerning the additional component,                         (e) To ensure effective Federal
      -ation                  efficient operation and management of the            incorporates each of the elements                         oversight of each research reserve
                              research reserve is in the interest of both the
                              Federal Government and state. Such a                 described in I 921.13(a). The revised                     within the National Estuarine Reserve
                              lirritation on the uses of the Federal share of      management plan shall address goals                       Research System after Federal support
                              operation and management awards. while               and objectives for all components of the
                                                                                                                                             for a reserve's operation and
                              ccntinuing to allow state support of such            multi-site research reserve and the                       management is concluded. the state is
      i final
                              personnel as a part of the state share, will aid     additional component's relationship to
                              in avoiding "all or nothing- situations                                                                        required to submit an annual report on
      in                                                                           the original site(s).                                     operation and management of the
                              otherwise faced by slate agencies and
      is                      legis!atures at the time Federal funding             Subpart E-Perfornumm Evaluation                           research reserve during the immediately
                              expires for initial operation and management.        Withdrawal of Deelgination                                preceding state fiscal year. This annual
                              921.33 Soundary changes, amendments                                                                            report must be submitted within a sixty
                                                                                     21.40 Evaluation of system
      Ile                     to the Management Plan, and addition of              9                                                         day period following the end of the state
                    i         multfple-slte components.                            performance.                                              fiscal year. The report shall detail
      )n, and                 (a) Changes in research reserve                        (a) Following designation of a national                 program successes and
      :)nal                   boundaries and major changes to the                  estuarine research reserve pursuant to                    accomplishments, referencing the
      Je                      final mana,,ement plan, including state              ï¿½ 921.30. periodic performance                            research reserve management plan and.
      00            1         laws or regulations promulgated                      evaluations shall be conducted                            as appropriate, the work plan for the
                              specifically for the research reserve,               concerning the operation and                              previous year. A work plan, detailing
                              may be made only after written                       management of each national estuarine                     the projects and activities to be
                              approval by NOAA. If determined to be                research reserve, including the research                  undertaken over the coming year to
                              necessary, NOAA may require public                   being conducted within the reserve and                    meet the goals and objectives of the
                              notice. including notice in the Federal              education and interpretive activities.                    research reserve as described in the
                              Register and an opportunity for public               Evaluations may assess performance in                     management plan and the state's role in
      a                       comment, Changes in the boundary                     all aspects of research reserve operation                 ongoing research reserve programs,
                              involving the acquisition of properties              and management or may be limited in                       shall also be included. Inadequate
                              DO1 listed in the management plan or                 scope, focusing on selection issues of                    annual reports will trigger a full-scale
                              final EIS require public notice and the              importance. Performance evaluations in                    performance evaluation.
      101           1         Opportunity for comment; in certain                  assessing research reserve operation
                    1         lases, an environmental assessment                   and management may also examine                            921.41 Suspension of *1191Wtv for
                              may be required. Where public notice is              whether a research reserve is in                          financial assistance.
                    4         required, NOAA will place a notice in                compliance with the requirements of                          (a) If a performance evaluation under
      -ell .
      in            I         the Federal Register of any proposed                 these regulations, particularly whethei-                  J 921.40 reveals that the operation and
                              1hariges in le8earch reserve boundaries                (1) The operation and management of                     management of the research reserve is
                              Or Proposed major changes to the final               the research reserve is consistent with                   deficient. or that the research being
      un                      rtlana8ement plan. The state shall be                and furthers the mission and goals of the,                conducted within the reserve is not
                              esPOlisible for publishing an equivalent             National Estuarine Reserve Research                       consistent with the Estuarine Research
                              notice in the local media. See also                  System (see 1921.1), and                                  Guidelines referenced in Subpart F. the
      r                       req '
                              U'rements of ï¿½1 921.4(b) and                           (2) A basis continues to exist to                       eligibility of the research reserve for
      ands                                                                         support any one or more of the findings                   Federal fmancial assistance as
                              fb) As discussed in ï¿½ 921-10(b), a state             made under I 921.30(a).                                   described in these regulations may be
                              11Y choose to develop a multiple-site                . (b) Generally, performance during the                   suspended until the deficiency or
                              national estuarine research reserve after            operation and management phase
                    t         the                                                                                                            inconsistency is remedied.
                              initial acquisition and development                  supported by Federal financial
      he                      award for a single site has been made.               assistance will be evaluated on a                            (b) NOAA will provide the state with
      !r                      public notice of the proposed addition               biennial schedule. Following the                          a written notice of the deficiency or
      .I                      'v'U be placed by NOAA in the Federal                conclusion of Federal financial                           inconsistency. This notice will explain
      n-                      Register. Tbe                                                                                                  the finding, propow a solution or
                                         .state shall be responsible               assistance for the support of research
      Lm                      Publishi*ng an equivalent notice in                  reserve operation and management,                         solutions. provide a schedule by which
          d                   the local inedia An opportunity for                  evaluations shall be conducted at least                   the state should remedy the deficiency
                              'Onirnent in ad'dition to the preparation            once every four years. More frequent                      or inconsistency, and state whether the
                              Of either @n environmental assessment                evaluations may be scheduled as                           state's eligibility for Federal financial
      ch                      "' eliviromr,                                                                                                  assistance has been suspended in whole
      rvt                     the ProPosa ental impact statement on                determined to be necessary by NOAA                        or part. In this notice the state shall also
      is  t                              1, will also be required. An                (c) Performance evaluations will be
                              environmental impact statement, if                                                                             be advised that it may comment on Ne
                              required, shall b                                    conducted by Federal officials. When                                                                           to
                                             e prepared in                         determined to be necessary, Federal and                   finding and meet with NOAA officials
      ive                     !ICc0rdance                                                                                                    discuss the results of the performance
                                         with ï¿½ 921.13 and shall                   non-Federal experts in na tural resource
      r             I         "'clude an administrative framework for              management. estuarine research,                           evaluation and seek to rernedY the
                              the rnulitiPle-sit                                                                                             deficiency or inconsistency.
                              d              e research reserve and a              interpretation or other aspects of                                                                             e for
                              e,criPtion of the complementary                      national estuarine research reserve                          (c) Migibility of a reseemb reserv
      if to                   research and ed                                                                                                financial assistance under these
                              with.          ucational programs                    operation and management may be                                                 be restored ,Pon
                                  the research reserve. If NOAA                    requested by NOAA to participate in                       regulations shall                to the state
                              deternlines, based on the scope of the               performance evaluations.                                  written notice by NOAA               istencY has
                                  and the issues associated with                     (d) Performance evaulations will be                     that the deficiencY or incons
      rr"                     the additior,
                                         al site, that an                          conducted in accordance with the                          been remedied.






                       43826          Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 209 / Friday, October 28, 1988 / Proposed Rules

                       (d) If, after a reasonable time, a state       Subpart F-Research                                identifying and establishing priorities-
                       does not remedy a deficiency in the                                                              among the coastal management issues
                       operation and management of a national         192110 Cleneral.                                  that should be addressed through a
                       estuarine research reserve which has              (a) To stimulate high quality research         coordinated research effort;
                       been identified pursuant to a                  within designated national estuarine                (2) Identify national estuarine
                       performance evaluation under                   research reserves, NOAA may provide               research priorities and other NOAA
                       921.40(a), such outstanding deficiency         financial support for research which is           criteria for selecting research proposan
                       shall be considered a basis for                consistent with the Estuarine Research            to be funded under this Subpart;
                       withdrawal of designation (see J 921.42).      Guidelines referenced in 1921.51.
                                                                      Research.funded under this Subpart                  (3) Establish common research
                       921.42 Withdrawal of designation.                                                                principles and objectives to guide the
                       (a) Designation of an estuarine area           must be conducted within research                 development of research programs at
                                                                      reserves with approved final                      each national estuarine research
                       as a national estuarine research reserve       management plans. Research funds-are
                       may be withdrawn if a performance              primarily used to support management-             reserve;
                       evaluation conducted pursuant to               related research that will enhance                  (4) Identify, to the extent practicabl
                       1921.40 reveals that-                          scientific understanding of the research          consistent research methodologies
                       (1) The basi a for any one or more of          reserve ecosystem, provide information
                                                                                                                        which will improve comparability of
                       the findings made under I 921.30(a) in         needed by reserve managers and coastal            data, allow for the broadest application
                       designating the research reserve no            management decisionmakers, and                    of research results, and enc              e th
                                                                                                                                                                  'm
                                                                                                                                                       oura
                       longer exists;                                 improve public awareness and                      maximum use of the National Es,           tuari
                                                                                                                                                                  ir
                       (2) A substantial portion of the               understanding of estuarine ecos    ' ystems       Reserve Research System for reseal
                       research conducted within the research         and estuarine management issues.                  purposes;
                       reserve, over a period of years, has not       Research projects may be oriented to
                       been consistent with the Estuarine             specific research reserves; however,                [5) Establish performance standard
                       Research Guidelines referenced in              research projects that would benefit              upon which the effectiveness of the
                       Subpart F; or                                  more than one -research reserve in the            research efforts, and the value of
                       (3) A state, after a reasonable time.          National Estuarine Reserve Research               research reserves in addressing coastal
                       has not remedied a deficiency in the           System are encouraged.                            management issues identified. as
                       operation and management of a                     (b) Federal research funds under this          priorities through the mechanism
                       research reserve identified pursuant to        Subpart are not intended as a source of           referenced In I 921.51(c)(1), may be
                       an earlier performance evaluation              continuous funding for a particular               measured; And
                       conducted under ï¿½ 921-40.                      project over time. Research funds may               (6) Examine alternative sources of
                       (b) If a basis is found under ï¿½921.42(a)       be used to support start-up costs for             funds for estuarine research and
                       for withdrawal of designation, NOAA            long-term projects if an applicant can            recommend methods for encouraging the
                       will provide the state with a written          identify an alternative source of long-           use of Ithese alternative sources of fun&
                       notice of this finding. This notice will       term research support.                            for conducting estuarine research wit
                       explain the basis fer the finding, propose a      (c) Research funds are available on a          the National Estuarine Reserve
                       solution or solutions and provide a            competitive basis to any coastal state Or         Research System with particular
                       schedule by which the state should -           qualified public or private person. A             emphasis on the procedures establish
                       correct the deficiency. In this notice, the    notice of available funds will be                 under J 921.52.
                       state shall also be advised that it may        published in the Federal Register.                                                          I
                       comment on the finding and meet with           Research funds are provided in addition             (d) The Estuarine Research Guidelines
                       NOAA officials to discuss the finding          to any other funds available to a coastal         shall be* reviewed periodically as
                       and seek to correct the deficiency.            state under the Act. Federal research             determined to be necessary by NOAj
                                                                                                                                                                  s
                       (c) If. within a reasonable period of          funds must be matched equally by the              or at least once every four years. Thi J
                       time, the deficiency Is not corrected in a     recipient. consistent with J 921.71(e)(4)         review will include an opportunity for
                       manner acceptable to NOAA. a notice            ("allowable costs").                              comment by the estuarine research
                       of intent to withdraw designation, with                                                          community.
                       an opportunity for comment, will be            1921.51 EsbArkm research guidOlkw&
                       placed in the Federal Register.                                                                  1921.52 Prornotim and Coordination Of
                                                                         (a) Research within the National
                       (d) The state shall be provided the            Estuarine Reserve Research System                 esuarkm research.
                       opportunity for an informal hearing            shall be conducted in a manner                      (a) NOAA will promote and
                       before the AA to consider NOAA's                                                                                                           I
                       finding of deficiency and intent to            consistent with Estuarine Research                coordinate the use of the Nationa         m for
                                                                      Guidelines developed by NOAA                      Estuarine Reserve Research Syste
                       withdraw designation, as well as the
                                                                         (b) The Estuarine Research Guidelines          research purposes.
                       state*s comments on and response to
                       NOAA's written notice pursuant to              fire being developed separately from                (b) NOAA will, in conducting or
                       ï¿½ 921.42(b) and Federal Register notice        these regulations and will be made                supporting estuarine research other thl
                       pursuant to ï¿½ 921.4;4c).                       available as administrative guidance to           that authorized under section 315 of the
                       (e) Within 30 days after the informal          each national estuarine research reserve          Act. give priority consideration to
                       hearing, the AA shall issue a written          and any interested public or private              research that uses the National
                       decision regarding the designation             individual. A summary of the Estuarine            Estuarine Reserve Research System.
                       status of the national estuarine research      Research Guidelines will be published               (c) NOAA will consult with other
                       reserve. If a decision is made to              in the Federal Register as a part of the          Federal and state agencies to promote
                       withdraw research reserve designation,         notice of available funds discussed in
                       the procedures specified in I 921.21(e)           921.50(c).                                     use of one or more research reserves
                       regarding the disposition of real                 (c*) The Estuarine Research                    within the National Estuarine Reserve
                       property acquired in whole or part with        Guidelines:                                       Research System when      such ajencies
                       Federal funds shall be followed.                  (1) include a mechanism for                    conduct estuarine research.







                                     FOdOmt RSXkda f Vol. 53, No. 209 / Friday, October 28, 1988 [ Proposed Rules                                                 4W27

                  S G--interpreftUm WK!                                (3) Educational quality (e.g.,                   Order 12372. "Intergovernmental Review
                  Education                                          soundness of approach, experience                   of Federal Programs." In addition.
                                                                     related to methodologies);                          applications for acquisition and.
                  1921.60 General.                                      (4) Importance to the National                   development awards must contain:
                    (a) To stimulate the development of              Estuarine Reserve Research Systenx                    (1) State Historic Preservation Office
                  innovative or creative interpretive and               (5) Budget and Institutional                     comments;
                  educational projects and materials to              Capabilities (e.g.. reasonableness of                 (2) Written approval from NOAA of
                  enhance public awareness and                       budget. sufficiency of logistical. support);        the draft management plan for initial
                  understanding of estuarine areas,                  and                                                 acquisition and development award(s)-
                  NOAA may fund interpretive and                        (6) In addition. in the case of long-            and
                  educational activities. Interprelive and           term projects, the ability of the state or            (3) A preliminary engineering report
                  educational projects funded under this             the grant recipient to support.the project          for construction projects, or restorative
                  Subpart must be conducted within                   beyond this initial funding.                        activities involving construction.
                  research reserves with approved final              Subpairt H-General Financial                          Note: Infomation on preparing a
                  managemen    t plans.                              Assistance Provisions                               preliminary engineering report (PER) is
                    (b) Educational and interpretive funds                                                               provided in "Engineering and Construction
                  are available on a competitive basis to            ï¿½ 921.70 Application Wdormsdom                      Guidelines for Coastal Energy Impact
                  any coastal state entity. These funds are             (a) Only a coastal state may apply for           Program Applicants" (42 FR 64M (19777)),
                      i ed in addition to any other funds            Federal financial assistance awards for             J 921.71 Allowable cosW
                  provid
                  available to a coastal state under the             preacquisition, acquisitions and                      (a) Allowable costs will be
                  Act. Federal interpretation and                    development operation and                           determined in accordance with
                  educational funds must be matched                  management. and education and                       applicable OMB Circulars and guidance
                  equally by the recipient, consistent with          interpretation. Any coastal state or
                  I 921.71(e))4) ("allowable costs'l.                public or private person may apply for              for Federal financial assistance, the
                                                                     Federal financial assistance awards for             financial assistance agreement, these
                  1921.61 Categories of potential                    estuarine research. If a state is                   regulations, and other Department of
                  kftmretlv* and educational projects;                                                                   Commerce and NOAA directives. The
                  evelustlon criteria.                               participating in the national Coastal
                                                                     Zone Management Program, the                        term "costs" applies to both the Federal
                    (a) Proposals for interpretive or                applicant for an award under section                and non-Federal shares.
                  eductional projects will be considered             315 of the Act shall notify the state                 (b) Costs claimed as charges to the
                  under the following categories,                    coastal management agency regarding                 award must be reasonable, beneficial
                    (1) Design, development and                      the application.                                    and necessary for the proper and
                  distribu ti on /placement of interpretive or          (b) An original and two copies of the            efficient administration of the financial
                  educational media (ie., the development            formal application must be submitted at             assistance award and must be incurred
                  of tangible items, such as exhibits/               least 120 working days prior to the                 during the award period, except as
                  displays publications, posters, signs              proposed beginning of the project to the            provided under preagreement costs,
                  audio/visuals, computer software and               following address: Office of Ocean and              paragraph (d) of this section.
                  maps which have an educational or                  Coastal Resource Management                           (c) Costs must not be allocable to or
                  interpretive purpose; and techniques for           National Ocean Service, National                    included as a cost of any other
                  making available or locating information           Oceanic and Atmospheric                             Federally-financed program in either the
                  concerning research reserve resources,             Admini tration. Universal Building. 1a25            current or a prior award perio@d.
 s                activities, or issues);                            Connecticut Avenue, NW_ Suite 714.                    (d) Costs incurred prior to the
                    (2) Development and presentabon of               Washington. DC 20235. The Application               effective date of the award
                  curricula, workshops, lectures. seminars,          for Federal Assistance Standard Form                (preagreement costs) are allowable only
                  and other structured programs or                   424 (Non-construction Program)                      when specifically approved in the
                  presentations for facility or field use;           constitutes the formal application for              financial assistance agreement. For non-
                    (3) Extension /outreach programs; or             site selection, post-site selection,                construction awards, costs incurred
                                                                     operation and management, research,                 more than three months before the
                    (4) Creative and innovative methods              and education and interpretive awards.              award beginning date will not be
                  and technologies for implementing                  The Application for Federal Financial               approved. For construction and land
                  interpretive or educational projects.              Assistance Standard Form 424                        acquisition awards, NOAA will evaluate
                    (b) Interpretive and educational                 (Construction Program) constitutes the              preagreement costs on a case-by-case
                  projects may be oriented to one or more            formal application for land acquisition             basis.
                  research reserves or to the entire                 and development awards. The                           (e) General guidelines for the non-
                  system. Those projects which would                 application must be accompanied by the              Federal share are contained in OMB
                  directly benefit more than one research            information required in Subpart B                   Circular A-102, Attachment F. The
                  reserve, and. if practicable, the entire           (predesignation), Subpart C and J921.31             following may be used by the state in
                  National Estuarine Reserve Research                (acquisition and development), and                  satisfying the matching requirement:
 n                System, shall receive priority                     1921.32 (operation and management) as                 (1) Site Selection and Post Site
                  consideration for funding.                         applicable. Applications for                        Selection Awards. Cash and in-kind
                    (c) Proposals for interpretive and               development awards for construction                 contributions (value of goods and
                  educational projects in national                   projects, or restorative activities                 services directly benefiting and
                  estuarine research reserves will be                involving construction, must include a              specifically identifiable to this part of
                  evaluated in accordance with criteria              preliminary engineering report. All                 the project) are allowable. Land may not
                  listed below: -                                    applications must contain back up data              be used as match.
                    (1) Educational or interpretive merits:          for budget estimates (Federal and non-                (2) Acquisition and DeveloPln-f?t
                    (2) Relevance or importance to reserve           Federal shares), and evidence that the              Awards, Cash and in-kind contributions
                  Management or coastaldecision-making;              application complies with the Executive             are allowable. In general, the fair market






                     43=                 Federal Resister / Val. 53, No. 2W / Friday, October 28, 1988 / Proposed Rules
                     value of lands to be included within the            of the acquisition and development                 exception of non-Federal costs incurred
                     research reserve boundaries and                     award. The value in excess of the                  as part of a project meeting the
                     acquired pursuant to the Act with other             amount required as match for the initial           following conditions:
                     than Federal funds, may be used as                  award may be used to match                           (i) NOAA has previously approved
                     match. However. the fair market value               subsequent supplemental acquisition                the entire research effort both on and
                     of real property allowable as match is              and development awards for the                     off-site and, specifically, the scope of
                     limited to the fair market value of a real          national estuarine research reserve (see           work encompassed by the Proposed Off.
                     property interest equivalent to, or                 also I 92i.20). Costs related to land              site research and the manner in which i
                     required to attain, the level of control            acquisition, such as appraisals, legal             addresses a NOAA national estuarine
                     over such land(s) identified by the state           fees and surveys, may also be used as              research priority, a priority coastal
                     and approved by the Federal                         match.                                             management issue, and the mission and
                     Government as that necessary for the                  (3) Operation and Management                     one or more goals of the National
                     protection and management of the                    Awards. Generally, cash and in-kind                Estuarine Reserve Research System;
                     national estuarine research reserve.                contributions (directly benefiting and               (ii) The information gathered will
                     Appraisals must be performed according              specifically identifiable to this phase of         address  a critical management or
                     to Federal appraisal standards as                   the project), except land, are allowable.          resource information issue within the
                     detailed in NOAA regulations and the                However, for the fourth and any                    research reserve;
                     "Uniform Appraisal Standard for                     subsequent operation and management                  (iii) The methodology proposed for thl
                     Federal Land Acquisitions." The fair                awards (see J 921.32). if a statutory              off-site research is such that, if this
                                                                                                                            research, or aspect of a larger research
                     market value of privately donated land.             basis for long-term operation and                  project, were to be conducted within th
                     at the time of donation, as established             management of the national estuarine               boundaries of research reserve, such
                     by an independent appraiser and                     research reserve (specific to or including         methodology could reasonably be
                     certified by a responsible official of the          specific reference to that research                 xpected to result in long-term negative
                     state (pursuant to OMB Circular A-102               reserve) has not been enacted by the
                                                                                                                            impacts on research reserve resources
                     Revised, Attachment F, as amended or                state and state funds adequate for the             or management;
                     superseded) may also be used as ma              'tch. support of a research reserve manager              (iv) The research reserve is to be use
                     Land, including submerged lands                     or the equivalent have not been                    as a control area for manipulative
                     already in the state's possession, in a             appropriated or otherwise demonstrated             research to be conducted in the area
                     fully-protected status consistent with              -to be available, then allowable costs for         proposed for off-site research; and
                     the purposes of the National Estuarine              match are limited to non-Federal                     (v) The Federal share of the research
                     Reserve Research System, may be used                supported personnel service (e.g.. state           project will not be used to support any
                     as match only if it was acquired starting           employees) necessary for direct support            part of the off-site research.
                     within a one-year period prior to the               of research reserve operation and
                     award of preacquisition or acquisition              management as outlined in the federally            1921.72 Anmondments to financW
                     funds and with the intent to establish a            approved final management plan. (See               aeWswnce "ard&
                     national estuarinc research reserve. For            J 921.32(d)(3)).                                     Actions requiring an amendment to
                     state lands not in a fully-protected                  f4) Research, Education and                      the financial assistance award, such as
                     status (e.g., a state park containing an            Interpretive A words. Cash and in-kind             a request for additional Federal funds.
                     easement for subsurface mineral rights),            contributions (directly benefiting and             revisions of the approved project budge
                     the value of the development right or               specifically indentifiable to the scope of         or original scope of work, or extension
                     foregone value may be used as match if              work), except land. are allowable. For             of the performance period must be
                     acquired by or donated to the state for             research awards, costs incurred in                 submitted to NOAA on Standard Form
                     inclusion within the research reserve. A            conducting a part of a research project            424 and approved in writing       8:45 am]
                     state may initially use as match land                off-site" (ie., outside research reserve          RR Doc. 88--24712 Filed 10-27-ft
                     valued at greater than the Federal share            boundaries) are not allowable, with the            @&UmG CODE 3510-0"










                                                                     APPENDIX F


                                        315 FUNDING


                Accruisition Awards

                 A. Name of Reserve:    Chesapeake Bay (Maryland)

                 B.  Acreage: n/a               Purpose: (pre-acquisition)

                 C.  Parties Involved: n/a

                 D.  Status: Expires April 1990.

                 E.  Federal Funds: $32,500


             -----------------------------------------------------------------


                 A. Name of Reserve: Delaware (proposed)

                 B.  Acreage: n/a               Purpose: (site selection)

                 C.  Parties Involved: n/a

                 D.  Status: Expired December 1989

                 E.  Federal Funds: $10,000


             -----------------------------------------------------------------


                 A. Name of Reserve: North Carolina


                 B. Acreage: 16 acres, 36 acres

                 C. Parties I.nvolved: Crossleys; Bellamy-Wright

                 D. Status: Expired December 1989. Two Acquistions

                               Completed. *

                 E. Federal Funds: $250,000


             -----------------------------------------------------------------


                 A. Name of Reserve: South Carolina (proposed)

                 B.  Acreage: n/a           Purpose: Site Nomination

                 C.  Parties Involved: n/a

                 D.  Status: Expires January 1990

                 E.  Federal Funds: $10,000/









                 A. Name of Reserve: South Slough

                 B. Acreage: 278 acres

                 C. Parties Involved: n/a

                 D. Status: Completed 1988

                 E. Federal Funds:  $27,000


            -----------------------------------------------------------------


                 A. Name of Reserve: Waimanu (Hawii)

                 B. Acreage: 200 acres

                 C. Parties Involved: Hawaiian Home Lands and Department of

                                       Land and Natural Resources

                 D. Status: Pending

                 E. Federal Funds: $200,000


            ------------------------------------------------------------------


                 A. Name of Reserve: Great Bay

                 B. Acreage: 161 acres

                 C. Parties Involved: Private Owners

                 D. Status: Ongoing-to June 30, 1990

                 E. Federal Funds: $250,000


            -------------------------------------------------------------


                 A. Name of Reserve: Great Bay

                 B. Acreage: 72 acres (house, barn, garage plus the land)

                 C. Parties Involved: Private*Owner

                 D. Status: Ongoing to December 1990

                 E. Federal Funds $675,000








                  DevelORment Awards

                  A. Name of Reserve: Elkhorn Slough

                  B. Purpose: Construction of Administration Building

                  C. Federal Funds: $75,000


              -----------------------------------------------------------------


                  A. Name of Reserve: Hudson River (New York)

                  B. Purpose: Interpretive Center and Exhibit Design

                  C. Federal Funds: $125,000


              -----------------------------------------------------------------


                  A. Name of Reserve: Jobos Bay

                  B. Purpose: Construction and Development of Jobos Bay

                                Reserve Visitor Center

                  C. Federal Funds: $250,000


              ------------------------------------------------  -----------------


                  A. Name of Reserve: North Carolina

                  B. Purpose: Exhibits and Signs for Reserve Components

                  C. Federal Funds: $10,000


              --------------------------------------------  ---------------------


                  A. Name of Reserve: Old Woman Creek (Ohio)

                  B. Purpose: Construction of Equipment Storage Facility

                  C. Federal Funds: $10,000

              -----------------------------------------------------------------


                  A. Name of Reserve: Padilla Bay

                  B. Purpose: Revision of the Reserve's Management Plan

                  C. Federal Funds: $150,000








                  A. Name of Reserve: South Slough

                  B. Purpose: Improve Access to Tidal Areas and Trail

                                Improvement

                  C. Federal Funds: $50,000


              ------------------------------------------------------------------


                  A. Name of Reserve: Tijuana River

                  B. Purpose: Construction of Visitor Center

                  C. Federal Funds: FY 88 $284,021


              -----------------------------------------------------------------


                  A. Name of Reserve: Tijuana River

                  B. Purpose: Construct Garage/Workshop; Expand Pacific

                                Estuarine Research Reserve Facility

                  C. Federal Funds: FY 89 $67,000
              ------------------------------------------------------------------

                  A. Name of Reserve: Waquoit Bay (Massachusetts)

                  B. Purpose. Architectural/Engineering Design and

                                Construction Associated with Rehabilitation


                                of Swift Estate

                  C. Federal Funds: $500,000


              -----------------------------------------------------------------


                  A. Name of Reserve: Wells (Maine)

                  B. Purpose: Revision of Reserve Management Plan; purchase

                                of Estuarine Research Laboratory Equipment.

                  C. Federal Funds: $125,000








                  A. Name of Reserve: Wells (Maine)

                  B. Purpose: Construction of Public Comfort Stations

                                 (Restrooms) in Reserve Interpretive Facility;

                                 Sta bilization of Reserve Public Meeting/

                                 Education Facility

                  C. Federal Funds: $200,000



                   Operations Awards

                  A. Name of Reserve: Apalachicola

                  B. Status: Extended to September 1991

                  C. Federal Funds: $50,000
             ------------------------------------------------------------------

                  A. Name of Reserve: Chesapeake Bay (Maryland)

                  B. Status: Expires April 1990

                  C. Federal Funds: $20,000


             -----------------------------------------------------------------


                  A. Name of Reserve: Elkhorn Slough

                  B. Status: Completed

                  C. Federal Funds: $50,000


             ------------------------------------------------------------------


                  A. Name of Reserve: Great Bay

                  B. Status: Ongoin

                  C. Federal Funds: $50,000


             ------------------------------------------------------------------


                  A. Name of Reserve: Hudson River (New York

                  B. Status: Expires March 31, 1990

                  C. Federal Funds:- $50,000









                   A. Name of Reserve: Jobos Bay

                   B. Status: Completed

                   C. Federal Funds: $50,000


             ------------------------------------------------------------------


                   A. Name of Reserve: North Carolina

                   B. Status: Expired October 1989

                   C. Federal Funds: $50,000


             -----------------------------------------------------------------


                   A. Name of  Reserve. Tijuana River

                   B. Status:,  Extended thru July 1990

                   C. Federal  Funds: FY 88 12,500

             ------------------------------------------------------------------


                   A. Name of  Reserve: Waimanu

                   B. Status:   Active

                   C. Federal  Funds: $50,000


             -----------------------------------------------------------------


                   A. Name of  Reserve: Waquoit Bay (Massachusetts)

                   B. Status: Expires Septebmer 30, 1990

                   C. Federal Funds: $50,000


             -----------------------------------------------------------------


                   A. Name of Reserve: Waquoit Bay (Massachusetts)

                   B. Status: Expired December 31, 1989

                   C. Federal Funds: $37,500


             -----------------------------------------------------------------


                   A. Name of Reserve: Weeks Bay

                   B. Status: Ongoing

                   C. Federal Funds: $50,000








                   A. Name of Reserve: Wells (Maine)

                   B. Status: January 1, 1988 - December 31, 1988 -

                                 Manager's Salary and Benefits; Travel;

                                 Equipment; Supplies; Contractual; Postage

                   C. Federal   Funds: $50,000


              -----------------------------------------------------------------


                   A. Name of Reserve: Wells (Maine)

                   B.. Status    January 1, 1989 - December 31, 1989 -

                                 Manager's Salary and Benefits; Travel;

                                 Computer Equipment; Office Supplies;

                                 Postage

                   C. Federal   Funds: $50,000


                                                        -------- ----------------


              IV.  Fiscal Year  1988 Research Funding

                   A. Name of   Reserve: Apalachicola

                   B. Project   Title:    Effects Of Near-term Sedimentologic

                                          Evolution on The  Lifetime Of Estuarine


                                          Resources

                   C. Recipient:          Florida State University

                   D. Federal Funding:    $ 29,398









                 A. Name of Reserve: Elkhorn Slough

                 B. Project Title:       Ecological History Of Elkhorn Slough:

                                         A Model for Wetland Enhancement And


                                         Management

                 C.   Recipient:         Elkhorn Slough Foundation

                 D. Federal Funding:     $ 28,900


           ---------------------------------------------------------------


                 A. Name of Reserve:     Elkhorn Slough

                 B. Project Title:       Ecotypic.Variation In Growth Physiology

                                         of the Temperate Seagrass Zostera marina

                 C. Recipient:           Elkhorn Slough Foundation

                 D. Federal Funding:     $ 39,716


            -------------------------------------------------------------------


                 A. Name of Reserve: MULTISITE (Wells, Waquoit Bay,
                                         Narragansett Bay, North Ca-rolina System)

                 B.   Project Title:        Declines Of Eelgrass In Estuarine

                                         Research Reserves Along The East Coast,

                                         USA: Year 2

                 C. Recipient:           University of New Hampshire

                 D. Federal Funding:     $ 39,210


            -------------------------------------------------------------------


                 A. Name of Reserve: North Carolina

                 B. Project Title:       Effects of Feral Horses On The

                                         Production, Distribution, Abundance, And

                                         Stability Of Salt Marsh Plants: Year 2

                 C. Recipient:           University of North Carolina

                 D. Federal Funding: $ 28,199










                 A. Name of Reserve: Old Woman Creek

                 B. Project Title:     The Importance Of Groundwater Advection

                                        On sediment-water Chemical Exchange

                 C. Recipient:          Case Western Reserve University

                 D. Federal Funding:    $ 36,498


             -----------------------------------------------------------------


                 A. Name of Reserve:    Padilla Bay

                 B. Project Title:      Ammonium Production In And Benthic

                                        Nitrogen Fluxes From Sediments of the

                                        Intertidal Eelgrass Bed And Mudflat

                 C. Recipient:          University Of Washington

                 D. Federal Funding:    $ 38,913

                 A. Name of Reserve:    South Slough

                 B. Project Title:      The Structure Of Benthic University Of

                                        Oregon Estuarine Communities Associated

                                        With Dense Crassostrea gigas

                 C. Recipient:          University of Oregon

                 D. Federal Funding:    $ 31,547









                   A. Name of Reserve: Sough Slough

                   B. Title: The Structure of Benthic Estuarine communities

                                Associated with Dense Suspended Population of the

                                Introduced Oyster grosstree Giges

                   C. Description/results: Measuring Quantative Oyster and

                                              Salmon and Potential Funding Within

                                              an Estuary System

                   D. Status: Ongoing. June 1989 - June 1990

                   E. Federal Funds: $37,204


               -----------------------------------------------------------------


                   A. Name of Reserve: South Slough

                   B. Title: Investigating the Fate and Effects of

                                Tributyltin Compounds in South Slough

                                and Adjoining Joe Key Slough

                   C. Description/results:

                   D. Status: Completed. Final Report Due March 1990

                   E. Federal Funds: $30,155


               -----------------------------------------------------------------


                   A. Name of Reserve: South Slough

                   B. Project Title:      Investigating The Fate And Effects Of

                                          Tributyltin Compounds In South Slough

                                          And Adjoining Joe Ney Slough

                   C. Recipient:          Department of Environmental Quality

                   D. Federal Funding:    $ 30,155








                   A. Name of Reserve: Tijuana River

                   B. Project Title:       The Integration Of Simulation And Salt

                                           Marsh Monitoring For Improved

                                           Management: Year 2

                   C. Recipient:           San Diego State University

                   D. Federal Funding:     $ 31,568


              -----------------------------------------------------------------


                   A. Name of Reserve:     Tijuana River

                   B. Project Title:       Response Of Fish And Benthic

                                           Invertebrates To Substrate,Disturbance


                                           And Wastewater Inflow: Year 2

                   C. Recipient:           San Diego State University

                   D. Federal Funding:     $ 22,874


               -----------------------------------------------------------------


                   A. Name of Reserve: Waquoit Bay

                   B. Project Title:       Nutrient Transport From Uplands Into

                                           Waquoit Bay: Sources And Effects On

                                           Eelgrass Beds

                   C. Recipient:           Boston University

                   D. Federal Funding:     $ 33,012


               --------------------------------- I-------------------------------

                   A. Name of Reserve: Waquoit Bay

                   B. Project Title:       Comparison Of Young-of-the-Year Nekton

                                           Growth and Survivorship, In Seagrass Beds

                                           And Marshes

                   C. Recipient:           University of Massachusetts

                   D. Federal Funding:     $ 28,800








                    A. Name of Reserve: Waquoit Bay

                    B. Project Title:     A Model Estuarine Ecosystem; Effects of

                                          Sea Level Rise And Development On

                                          Wetland Evolution & Coastal

                                          Eutrophication

                    C. Recipient:         Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

                    D. Federal Funding:   $ 33,931


              --------------------------------------------------------------


                    A. Name of Reserve:   Weeks Bay

                    B. Project Title:     Relationship Between Estuarine Fish

                                          Community Structure And Physicochemical

                                          And Biological Habitat Characteristics

                    C. Recipient:         Auburn University

                    D. Federal Funding:   $ 24,740


               -----------------------------------------------------------------


                    A. Name of Reserve:   Weeks Bay

                    B. Project Title:     Zooplankton Community Composition,

                                          Species Abundance And Grazing Impact:

                                          Habitat Differences

                    C. Recipient:       Marine Environmental Sciences Consortium

                    D. Federal Funding:   $ 24,396










                   A. Name of Reserve: Wells

                   B. Project Title:      Are Critical Habitats Determined By

                                          Life-history Strategies Or Habitat

                                          Availability?

                   C. Recipient:          University Of Massachusetts

                   D. Federal Funding:    $ 28;200


              -----------------------------------------------------------------


              Total Funding for Research in the NERRS for FY88: $530,057



              V. Fiscal Year 1989 Research Funding

                   A.   Name of Reserve:     Apalachicola

                   B.   Project Title:       Zooplankton population dynamics and

                                             productivity of estuaries: the

                                             importance of resting stages

                   C.   Recipient:           Florida State University

                   D.   Federal Funding:     $ 23,437




              -----------------------------------------------------------------


                   A.   Name of Reserve:     Chesapeake Bay (MD)

                   B.   Project Title:       Variability in sealevel rise and its

                                             effect on marsh development: the

                                             Monie Bay Estuarine Research Reserve

                   C.   Recipient:           The Johns Hopkins University

                   D.   Federal Funding:     $ 35,000









                     A.   Name.of Reserve:     Chesapeake Bay (MD)

                     B.   Project Title:       Marine sulfate inputs and the

                                               degradation of coastal marsh soils:

                                               biogeochemical enhancement of marsh

                                               loss?

                     C., Recipient:            University of Maryland, Horn Point

                                               Envi.

                     D.   Federal Funding:     $ 67,120


                ------------------------------------------------------------------


                     A.   Name of Reserve:      Elkhorn Slough

                     B.   Project Title:        Eelgrass revegetation in Elkhorn

                                                Slough.* A model for management of

                                                submerged      aquatic       vegetation


                                                resources

                     C.   Recipient:            Stanford Universiiy

                     D.   Federal Funding:      $ 45,000


                -----------------------------------------------------------------


                     A.   Name of Reserve:      Multsite     (Wells,    Waquoit     Bay,

                                                Narragansett Bay, North Carolina)

                     B.   Project Title:        Declines in eelgrass in Estuarine

                                                Research Reserves along the East

                                                Coast, USA: Problems of pollution and

                                                disease. Year 3

                     C.   Recipient:            University of New Hampshire

                     D.   Federal Funding:      $ 45,309









                   A.   Name of Reserve:     North Carolina

                   B.   Project Title:       Sediment    dynamics   in    Currituck

                                             Sound: Baseline study and historical

                                             reconstruction to evaluate impacts

                                             of tidal-in let opening.

                   C.   Recipient:           North Carolina State University

                   D.   Federal Funding:     $ 38,472


              ------------------------------------------------------------   --------


                   A.   Name of Reserve:     Old Woman Creek

                   B.   Project Title:,      Fate and transport of mercury in a

                                             Great Lakes Estuary.

                   C.   Recipient:           University of Michigan

                   D.   Federal Funding:     $ 39,991


              ----------------------------------------------------------------


                   A.   Name of Reserve:     Padilla Bay

                   B.   Project Title:       An analysis of herbivory in an

                                             eelgrass meadow in Padilla Bay

                   C.   Recipient:           University of Washington (Fisheries

                                             Research Institute)

                   D.   Federal Funding:     $ 18,273









                  A.   Name of Reserve:      South Slough

                  B.   Project Title:        Management of the hydraulic regime

                                             of diked tidal wetlands in South

                                             Slough, Oregon

                  C.   Recipient:            Portland State University

                  D.   Federal Funding:      $ 26,694


              -----------------------------------------------------------------


                  A.   Name of Reserve:      South Slough

                  B.   Project Title:        The structure of benthic estuarine

                                             communities associated with dense

                                             suspended populations of the

                                             introduced oyster Crassostrea gigas:

                                             Year 2

                  C.   Recipient:            University    of    Oregon     (Oregon

                                             Institute of Marine Biology)

                  D.   Federal Funding:      $ 37,204


              -----------------------------------------------------------------


                  A. - Name of Reserve:      Tijuana River

                  B.   Project Title:        Linkages among estuarine habitats

                                             and with the watershed: effects of

                                             urban runoff & sewage on water

                                             quality

                  C.   Recipient:            San Diego State University

                  D.   Federal Funding:      $ 18,281








                   A.    Name of Reserve:     Tijuana River

                   B.    Project Title:       Effects of urban runoff & sewage on

                                              f ish and invertebrates in Tijuana

                                              River: linkages between channel

                                              marsh habitats

                   C.    Recipient:           San Diego State University

                   D.    Federal Funding:     $ 19,445


               -----------------------------------------------------------------


                   A.    Name of Reserve:     Tijuana River

                   B.    Project Title:       Responses of vegetation to varying

                                              water regimes and discharges in the

                                              Tijuana River Estuary

                   C.    Recipient:           San Diego State University

                   D.    Federal Funding:     $ 8,934


              -------------------------------------------------    ------------------


                   A.    Name of Reserve:     Waquoit Bay

                   B.    Project Title:       Comparison    of     young-of-the-year

                                              nekton growth      and   survival    in

                                              seagrass beds and marshes: Year 2

                   C.    Rccipient:           University of Massachusetts

                   D.    Federal Funding      $33,300








                  A.    Name of Reserve:     Waquoit Bay

                  B.    Project Title:       The potential effects of sea level

                                             rise   and   development    on    the

                                             importance of wetlands and benthic

                                             denitrification in reducing the

                                             input of groundwater tramsported

                                             nitrogen to coastal waters

                  C.    Recipient:           Woods Hole Oceanographic Inst.

                  D.    Federal Funding:     $ 38,995


             -----------------------------  ------------------------------------


                  A.    Name of Reserve:     Waguoit Bay

                  B.    Project Title:       Continued studies of vegetation and

                                             nutrient changes in Waquoit Bay

                  C.    Recipient:           Boston University

                  D.    Federal Funding:     $ 39@068


              -----------------------------------------------------------------


                  A.    Name of Reserve:     Weeks Bay

                  B.    Project Title:-      Relationship between estuarine fish

                                             community structure and

                                             physicochemical and biological

                                             habitat characteristics:   Year 2

                  C.    Recipient:           Auburn University

                  D.    Federal Funding:     $ 29,503









                  A.   Name of Reserve:     Weeks Bay

                  B.   Project Title:       Estuarine modeling: A management

                                            tool in the Coastal Zone

                  C.   Recipient:           University of Alabama

                  D.   Federal Funding:     $ 39,655


             -----------------------------------------------------------------


                  A.   Name of Reserve:     Weeks Bay

                  B.   Project Title:       The habitat utilization, population

                                            dynamics, reproductive biology, and

                                            trophic ecology of the blue crab

                                            Callinectes saRidus in Weeks Bay, AL

                  C.   Recipient:           University of Alabama

                  D.   Federal Funding:     $ 14,547


             -------------------------------------------------------------------


                  A.   Name of Reserve:     Wells

                  B.   Project Title:       Are critical habitats determined by

                                            life-history strategies or habitat

                                            availability? Year 2

                  C.   Recipient:           University of Massachusetts

                  D.   Federal Funding:     $ 32,700




             -----------------------------------------------------------------


             Total Funding for Research in the NERRS for FY89: $ 715,590












                                                                                     01
                 A. Name of Reserve: Apalachicola

                 B.  Project Title:     Video Production

                 C.  Federal Funds:     $28,676

                 D.  Award Period:      7/1/89 - 11/30/90

                 E.  Purpsoe:           Provide funding to the Florida

                                        Department of-Natural Resources to

                                        produce two videos on the

                                        Apalachicola Reserve


           -------------------------------------------------------------------


                 A. Name of Reserve:    Elkhorn Slough

                 B. Project Title:      Development and Construction of

                                        Interpretive Displays/Exhibits

                 C. Federal Funds:      $150,000

                 D. Award Period:       7/1/87 - 6/30/89

                 E. Purpose:            To solicit proposals for the

                                        development of an interpretive

                                        exhibit plan for the Elkhorn Slough

                                        NERR. Plan will encompass designs for

                                        exhibits and interior of the Reserve

                                        visitor center, an open-air barn, and

                                        development of a design identity for

                                        trail signs and outdoor areas.









                  A.  Name of Reserve: Elkhorn Slough

                  B.  Project Title:     volunteer Training-Education

                  C.  Federal Funds:     $22,202

                  D.  Award Period:      7/1/88 - 6/30/89 (Requested an

                                         extension through 6/30/90)

                  E.  Purpose:           Will establish a volunteer

                                         enrichment and continuing education

                                         program to refine the initial

                                         training program.

             -----------------------------------------------------------------


                  A. Name of Reserve: Great Bay

                  B. Project Title:      Great Bay Estuarine Research Reserve:

                                         A Living Laboratory

                  C. Federal Funds:      $23,229

                  D. Award Period:       8/l/89 - 2/28/91

                  E. Purpose:            To use the Great Bay Reserve as a

                                         living laboratory for public

                                         involvement by creating a Great Bay

                                         Floating Laboratory Program and a

                                         citizens' monitoring project.









                A. Name of Reserve: Jobos Bay

                B. Project Title:    An Estuarine Education Program for

                                     Elementary School Teachers

                C. Federal Funds:    $21,215

                D. Award Period:     9/15/87 - 6/30/89

                E. Prupose:          Design and implementation of estuarine

                                     education program for elementary

                                     school teachers.


           -----------------------------------------------------------------


           A. Name of Reserve: North Carolina

                B. Project Title:    Publication and Evaluation of

                                     Educational Material

                C. Federal Funds:    $16,533/$18,475

                D. Award Period:     8/l/88 - 7/31/89

                E. Purpose:          Provide for the publication and

                                     evaluation of estuarine education

                                     materials produced under a previous

                                     operation and management grant.










                 A. Name of Reserve.- Old Woman Creek

                 B. Project Title:    Evaluation of the Effectiveness of

                                      Some On-campus Components of the old

                                      Woman Creek National Estuarine

                                      Sanctuary Education Program

                 C. Federal Funds:    $9,999

                 D. Award Period:     3/1/86 - 1/31/88

                 E. Purpose:          To assess the magnitude and nature of

                                      the education impact of old Woman Creek

                                      Visitor Center and on-site education


                                      program.


            -------------------------------------------------------------------


                 A. Name of Reserve: Old Woman Creek

                 B. Project Title:    Education Components to Enhance the

                                      NERR at Old Woman Creek and Other

                                      Estuarine Reserves in the System

                 C. Federal Funds:    $22,052

                 D. Award Period:     3/15/87 - 4/30/90

                 E. Purpose:          Develop education components for the

                                       NERRS program.










                  A. Name of Reserve: Old Woman Creek

                  B. Project Title:    "An Educational Audio-Visual Display

                                       at Old Woman Creek National Estuarine


                                       Research Reserve"

                  C. Federal Funds:    $13,618

                  D. Awrd Period:      8/l/89 - 7/31/90

                  E. Purpose:           To facilitate a more visual and

                                       interactive approach to describing

                                       changes in the weather and its impact

                                       on an estuarine environment.


             -----------------------------------------------------------------


                  A. Name of Reserve: Padilla Bay

                  B. Project Title:    Estuarine Educaiton Program

                                       Level II

                 ,C. Federal Funds:    $20,400

                  D. Award Period:     10/l/80 - 9/30/89 (requested extension

                                       to 12/21/89)

                  E. Purpose:          Provide teacher training, program

                                       evaluation, and class visitation for

                                       over 2,000 students at the Reserve

                                       (grades 4-8). Will focus on

                                       estuarine ecology and values, provide

                                       for curriculum printing and

                                       distribution.








                  A. Name or Reserve: Padilla Bay

                  B. Project Title:      Estuarine Educational curriculum

                                         Program Development for High School

                                         Grades     Level III.

                  C. Federal Funds:      $27,450

                  D. Award Period:       10/1/89    9/30/91

                  E. Purpose:            Develop an estuarine curriculum aimed

                                         at the high school level. Purchase

                                         hardware compatible with the NOAA RAMAT

                                         format for the Padilla Bay Reserve.


             -----------------------------------------------------------------


                  A. Name of Reserve: Rookery Bay

                  B.  Project Title:     Project Outreach

                  C.  Federal Funds:     $25,044

                  D.  Award Period:      3/1/89 - 6/30/90

                  E.  Purpose:           Expand educational publications and

                                         develop curriculum package for

                                         secondary school teachers and students

                                         at the Rookery Bay Reserve.








                   A. Name of Reserve: Rookery Bay

                   B. Project Title:      Learning Through Research:

                                          Integration of Education and Research

                                          Objectives Through Students'

                                          Participation in an Estuarine Fish

                                          Study at Rookery Bay"

                   C. Federal Funds:      $48,288

                   D. Award Period:       9/l/89 - 11/30/90

                   E. Purpose:            Integrate education and research goals

                                          at Rookery Bay Reserve through the

                                          participation of college and high

                                          school faculty and advanced students

                                          in the development and implementation

                                          of a fish population study in

                                          Rookery Bay.


             -----------------------------------------------------------------


                   A. Name of Reserve:    South Slough

                   B. Project Title:      Education Projects and ONNET Hookup

                   C. Federal Funds:      $35,800

                   D. Award Period:       8/l/89 - 9/30/90

                   E.  Purpose:           Communicate pertinent information

                                          about estuaries to the largest

                                          possible audience by providing

                                          additional personnel to work with

                                          the staff through development of an

                                          internship program.








                A. Name of Reserve: Waquoit Bay

                B. Project Title:     "Coastal Resources Education

                                      Discovering an Estuarine Ecosystem

                C. Federal Funds:     $20,000

                D. Award Period:      9/2/88 - 8/31/89 (Extension has been

                                      requested through 12/89)

                E. Purpose:           Launching an educational program for

                                      the Southeast Massachusetts region.


           ------------------------------------------------------------------


                A. Name of Reserve: Wells

                B.  Project Title:    Educational Development Funds for

                                      the Wells NERR

                C.  Federal Funds:    $10,000

                D.  Award Period:     7/1/88 - 6/30/89 - an extension has

                                      been requested through 12/89.

                E. Purpose:           Development of educational materials

                                      to interpret the trail system in

                                      Reserve. The materials will be made

                                      available to the public and school

                                      groups.





                              US Department of Commerce
                              NOAA Coastal Services Center Library'
                              2234 South Hobson Avenue
                              Charleston, SC 29405-2413
            VI. Education AwardS

                  A. Name of Reserve:     Apalachicola

                  B. Project Title:       Project Estuary: The System (Phase I),

                                          Human Involvement (Phase II).

                                          Operation/Training

                  C. Federal    Funds:    $76,096

                  D. Award Period:        6/1/87    7/31/89

                  E. Purpose:             Development and presentation of lessons

                                          on the Apalachicola River and Bay

                                          Estuarine System for 7th to 12th grade

                                          students. Provide teachers with model

                                          training and.prepared lessons on the

                                          Estuarine System


              ------------------------------------------------------------------


                  A. Name of Reserve: Apalachicola

                  B.  Project Title:      "Estuarine Pathways"

                  C.  Federal Funds:      $18,798

                  D.  Award Period:       10/1/88 - 3/31/90

                  E.  Purpose:            To provide funding to the Florida

                                          Department of Natural Resources to

                                          provide teacher training and develop

                                          elementary-level activity packets.

                                          A continuation of Project Estuary.,












                                                               3 668 OOOOC - 519