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












                ,g ATMOSN
                                  Biennial Rep'ort
             0
              J,                to the Congress on
                        Coastal Zone Management

                                          Volume II

                                         September1992


                           - -- @:i-- 7, -



















        HT                U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        392
        .U558b       National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        Q                        National Ocean Service
      FY 1990/91
        1992          Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management








                                                UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
                                                The Under Secretary for
                                                Oceans and Atmosphere
                                                Washington, D.C. 20230


                                                 AL 1 4 KQ









          The President
          Piesident of the Senate
          Speaker of-the House of Representatives

          Sirs:

          I am pleased to submit the Biennial Report of the Office of Ocean
          and Coastal Resource Managem'ent, National Ocean Service, National
          Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, pursuant to Section 316
          of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C.
          1451 et seg.) for fiscal years 1990 and 1991. The report
          discusses the progress made during these years in administering
          the coastal zone management and estuarine research reserve
          programs and the problems encountered.

                                             Sincerely,



                                            /John A. Knauss














                                                                        'r4
                                                                            -A


                                                       THE ADMINISTRATOR








                                                 The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is
                                         required to submit a report to Congress not later than April I on the admin-
        INTRODUCTION                     istration of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of the preceding
                                         two fiscal years. Pursuant to Section 316 of the CZMA, as amended, this
                                         report discusses the progress made during Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 in
                                         administering the National Coastal Zone Management (CZM) and National
                                         Estuarine Research Reserve Programs and the problems encountered.

                                                 The document is comprised of two volumes. Volume I provides a
                                         summary of the CZM and estuarine reserve programs and describes the
                                         accomplishments of state CZM programs in selected national interest areas
                                         - coastal hazards, wetlands protection, coastal water quality, public
                                         access, and waterfront redevelopment. In addition, Volume I describes the
                                         highlights of CZMA administration during the biennium, including imple-
                                         mentation of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990
                                         (1990 CZMA Amendments), and delineates future directions for these
                                         efforts, including coastal management issues of national importance and
                                         administrative planning.

                                                 Volume 11 highlights NOAA administration of the CZM and
                                         estuarine reserve programs and states' accomplishments during the bien-
                                         nium. Ch-apter I includes a brief description of the CZM program and
                                         details NOAA's implementation of the key provisions of the 1990 CZMA
                                         Amendments, including the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program,
                                         the Coastal Zone Enhancement Grants Program and the new procedures
                                         for evaluating state CZM and estuarine reserve programs. This chapter
                                         also describes NOAA's activities during the biennium regarding Federal
                                         consistency actions.

                                                 In Chapter 2, individual state CZM programs are described, high-
                                         lighting significant accomplishments made during the report period. Each
                                         state listing includes a summary of program accomplishments, significant
                                         program changes and evaluations of the state's performance. Chapter 3
                                         presents a description of the National Estuarine Research Reserve System
                                         (NERRS), including its mission and structure. Program accomplishments
                                         during the biennium are provided in detail, as well as reflections on future
                                         program directions. Chapter 4 describes each estuarine reserve. Informa-
                                         tion is provided on reserve resources and facilities, important improve-
                                         ments during the biennium, education, research and monitoring activities,
                                         and state performance in managing the reserve.

                                                 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 1990 and 1991. Appendix C summarizes
                                         Federal consistency appeals. Guidance regarding processing fees for
                                         Federal consistency appeals is provided in Appendix D. Proposed regula-
                                         tions implementing sections 309 and 312 of the Coastal Zone Act
                                         Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 are printed in Appendix E. Finally,
                                         a list of the estuarine reserves, the reserves' acreage and the year of desig-
                                         nation is provided in Appendix F.






                                                    TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                                       Biennial Report, Volume II



               Introduction


               1.      Coastal Zone Management Program           ..................................                I

                       A New Agenda      .....................................................                     2

                       Implementing the 1990 Amendments:
                               A Phased Approach     ............................................                  4
                       Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program      ..............................              6
                               Management Measures       .........................................                 6
                               Program Development       ..........................................                7
                               Geographic Scope     .............................................                  8
                       Coastal Zone Enhancement Program       ....................................                 9
                               Identifying Priority Issues  .......................................                9
                               Criteria for Awarding Enhancement Grants      .........................             9
                       Review of Performance     ...............................................                   10
                       Coordination with other NOAA Programs       .................................               11
                       Federal Consistency    .................................................                    12
                               State Issues  ..................................................                    13
                               Secretarial Appeal Decisions   ....................................                 18

               11.     State CZM Programs

                       Alabama     ..........................................................                      24
                       Alaska  ............................................................                        26
                       American Samoa     ....................................................                     28
                       California   .........................................................                      31
                       Connecticut    .......................................................                      34
                       Delaware    .........................................................                       36
                       Florida  ............................................. .............                        38
                       Territory of Guam    ..................................................                     40
                       Hawaii    ...........................................................                       42
                       Louisiana   .........................................................                       44
                       Maine   ................................................. ..........                        47
                       Territory of Northern Mariana Islands     ...................................               49
                       Maryland    .........................................................                       51
                       Massachusetts    .....................................................                      53
                       Michigan    .........................................................                       56
                       Mississippi   ........................................................                      58
                       New Hampshire      ....................................................                     61
                       New Jersey    .......................................................                       63
                       New York     ........................................................                       65
                       North Carolina    ....................................................                      67









                         Oregon   ................................................                  69
                         Pennsylvania   ..........................................                  71
                         Puerto Rico  ...........................................                   73
                         Rhode Island   ...........................................                 75
                         South Carolina  .........................................                  77
                         Virginia  ..............................................                   79
                         Virgin Islands  .........................................                  81
                         Washington   ...........................................                   83
                         Wisconsin   ............................................                   85


                 III.    National Estuarine Research Reserve System       ..................        87

                         Program Overview    ......................................                 87
                         Research Activities  ......................................                91
                         Monitoring   ...........................................                   92
                         Education Activities ......................................                93


                 IV.     National Estuarine Research Reserves


                         Apalachicola, Florida  ........................................            94
                         Chesapeake Bay, Maryland      .....................................        96
                         Chesapeake Bay, Virginia    ......................................         98
                         Elkhorn Slough, California   .....................................         100
                         Great Bay, New Hampshire      .....................................        102
                         Hudson River, New York      ......................................         104
                         Jobos Bay, Puerto Rico   ........................................          106
                         Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island    .................................        107
                         North Carolina   ..............................................            108
                         Old Woman Creek, Ohio      .......................................         110
                         Padilla Bay, Washington    .......................................         112
                         Rookery Bay, Florida   .........................................           113
                         Sapelo Island, Georgia   ........................................          116
                         South Slough, Oregon     ........................................          118
                         Tijuana River, California  .......................................         120
                         Wairnanu Valley, Hawaii    .......................................         122
                         Waquoit Bay, Massachusetts     ....................................        124
                         Weeks Bay, Alabama     .........................................           125
                         Wells, Maine   ...............................................             126


                 Appendix A -   Status of State CZM Programs
                 Appendix B -   CZMA Funding for FY 90 and FY 91
                 Appendix C -   Federal Consistency Appeals
                 Appendix D -   Guidance for Federal consistency appeal processing fees
                 Appendix E -   Proposed Regulations implementing sections 309 and 312 of the Coastal Zone Act
                                Reauthorization Amendments of 1990
                 Appendix F -   Status of National Estuarine Research Reserves





               A.     voluntary partnership of Federal, state and local governments, the
                     National Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Program was estab-                          Coastal Zone
           lished in 1972 to promote wise use and protection of the Nation's sensitive                 Management
           coastal resources. The CZM program is the only comprehensive tool avail-
           able to the Federal government and the states to manage the more than 95,000                    Program
           miles of U.S. coastline bordering three oceans and the Great Lakes. NOAA's
           Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management administers the program.

                   Twenty-nine coastal states and U.S. island territories, covering 94
           percent of the Nation's coastline, are taking part in the national program.
           These states developed comprehensive CZM programs with approval from
           NOAA. Other states, such as Minnesota, Ohio, Texas and Georgia, are
           moving to join the program. Under the Coastal Zone Management Act
           (CZMA), the CZM programs must address several national objectives:

                           protection of natural resources;

                           management of coastal development to avoid hazardous areas;

                           priority consideration for coastal dependent uses and energy
                           facility siting;

                           public shorefront access;

                           assistance in redevelopment of urban waterfronts and        ports;

                           coordination and simplification of governmental procedures to
                           ensure expedited governmental decisionmaking for manage-
                           ment of coastal resources;


                           consultation and coordination with Federal agencies;

                           public participation in coastal decisionmaking;

                           comprehensive planning, conservation and management of
                           living marine resources; and

                           study and develop plans for addressing the adverse effects
                           upon the coastal zone of land subsidence and sea level rise.

                  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 programs or networked existing, single purpose laws into
           a comprehensive umbrella for coastal management. These programs continue
           to evolve as priorities change and as better information and technical capab      ili-
           ties become available.








                                                  Since 1974, the Federal government has invested over $700 million in
                                          the development and implementation of state CZM programs. The Federal
                                          funds, which are matched in part by state dollars, are allocated to states by a
                                          formula which takes into account shoreline mileage and coastal population.
                                          The Federal government provided $35.322 million in each of fiscal years 1990
                                          and 1991 to the states for program implementation. The state-by-state sum-
                                          maries which follow this section explain in detail how the states used these
                                          funds during the biennium and what each program accomplished.


                                                  STATE COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS















                                                NOT PICTMED                                                    KEY


                                                  N. M.@i_ wm.                                               XPP"_4
                                                  C_ P.A. Rk@         0 29 Approved Programs
                                                  Wv. 1W.W&                                               in D-1-pi.9 Pp@
                                                  A- S-
                                                                      0 Cover 94% of Nation's Coastlne       N-P@P-l
                                                                         (84,117 miles)


                                                   he national CZM program was modernized and strengthened in 1990
            A New Agenda                      Twith the passage of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amend-
                                          ments of 1990. Signed by the President on November 5, 1990, the 1990
                                          CZMA Amendments established a number of major new provisions to address
                                          coastal issues of national importance.

                                                  Foremost among these provisions was the establishment of a new
                                          Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program (CNPCP). This program, ad-
                                          ministered jointly by NOAA and the Environmental Protection Agency
                                          '(EPA), requires states and territories to craft programs to deal effectively with
                                          nonpoint sources of pollution, which threaten coastal waters and resources.
                                          Sources of this pollution include runoff from agricultural and forestry land,
                                          construction activities and shoreline erosion. States will require that land uses
                                          which result in such pollution employ specific management measures to
                                          control nonpoint pollution as both remedial and preventive measures.

                                                  In addition, Congress established a new Coastal Zone Enhancement
                                          Grants Program to encourage state efforts to address eight issues of national
                                          importance. These issues are:.



                                                                                  2








                 (1) protection, restoration, or enhancement of the existing coastal
                 wetlands base, or creation of new coastal wetlands;


                 (2) preventing or significantly reducing threats to life and destruction
                 of property by eliminating development and redevelopment in high-
                 hazard areas, managing development in other hazard areas, and antici-
                 pating and managing the effects of potential sea level rise and Great
                 Lakes level rise;

                 (3) attaining increased opportunities for public access, taking into
                 account current and future public access needs, to coastal areas of
                 recreational, historical, aesthetic, ecological or cultural value;

                 (4) reducing marine debris entering the Nation's coastal and ocean
                 environment by managing uses and activities that contribute to the
                 entry of such debris;

                 (5) development and adoption of procedures to assess, consider and
                 control cumulative and secondary impacts of coastal growth and
                 development, including the collective effect of individual activities on
                 coastal resources, such as coastal wetlands and fishery resources;

                 (6) preparing and implementing special area managementplans for
                 important coastal areas;

                 (7) planning for the use of ocean resources; and

                 (8) adoption of procedures and enforceable policies to help facilitate
                 the siting of energy facilities and Government facilities and energy-
                 related activities and Government activities which may be of greater
                 than local significance.

                 To implement this program, NOAA worked with the states to identify
          their highest priorities among these issues. The states develop strategies to
          make changes to their CZM programs that support attainment of one or more
          of these enhancement objectives.

                 The 1990 Amendments also gave NOAA new authority to impose
          interim sanctions on states and territories that fail to adhere to federally
          approved CZM programs. NOAA is developing a process for invoking
          interim sanctions which will provide ample notice to a state and provide the
          state with an opportunity to comment on and rebut the non-adherence finding
          before NOAA takes any action.





                                                 3








                                                  Other changes to the CZMA made by the 1990 Amendments include:

                                                    Federal Consistency - All Federal agency activities, including
                                                  Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas lease sales and the designation of
                                                  ocean dumping sites, whether in or outside of the coastal zone, are
                                                  subject to. the consistency requirements of section 307(c)(1) of the
                                                  CZMA if they affect natural resources, land uses or water uses in the
                                                  coastal zone. A new provision authorizes the President to exempt a
                                                  specific Federal project if the President determines that it is in the
                                                  paramount interest of the U.S.

                                                  - CZM Fund - The 1990 Amendments repeal the Coastal Energy
                                                  Impact Program, but require that repayments of the remaining $87.5
                                                  million in program loans still outstanding be deposited into a new
                                                  CZM Fund as they are repaid. Section 308(b)(2) authorizes the Secre-
                                                  tary of Commerce to expend amounts in the Fund for administration of
                                                  the CZM program and for specified discretionary activities including:
                                                  regional and interstate projects; demonstration projects; emergency
                                                  assistance; excellence awards; program development grants; and
                                                  assistance to states in applying the public trust doctrine in the imple-
                                                  mentation of their CZM programs.

                                                  - Technical Assistance - A new section 3 10 requires the Secretary to
                                                  provide technical assistance and management-oriented research to
                                                  support development and implementation of state CZM programs, and
                                                  appropriate to the furtherance of international cooperative efforts and
                                                  technical assistance in coastal zone management.       -


                                                  - Achievement Awards - The amended CZMA authorizes NOAA to
                                                  make annual achievement awards to individuals, local governments,
                                                  and graduate students who have been recognized for outstanding
                                                  accomplishments in the field of coastal zone management.

                                                  ince the passage of the 1990 Amendments, OCRM has worked closely
            Implemenfing                     S.   with the states, other Federal agencies, and public and private groups
             the New Law:                 to implement these new provisions. The following summary describes the
                                          activities undertaken by OCRM during the biennium to implement the 1990
                A Phased                  Amendments.
             Approach to                          Because of the substantial scope of changes to the CZMA and the one-
              Rulemaking                  year statutory requirement to develop regulations for the Coastal Zone En-
                                          hancement Grants Program, NOAA elected to undertake a phased approach to
                                          rulemaking to implement the 1990 Amendments. The Phase One rulemaking
                                          includes a new enhancement program under section 309, as. well as new
                                          provisions for program evaluation under section 3    *12. A Notice of Proposed
                                          Rulemaking for Phase One was published in the Federal Register on October


                                                                                   4








          18, 1991 (the proposed regulations are reprinted in the Appendix). The
          proposed regulations describe procedures and criteria NOAA will follow in
          awarding enhancement grants and carrying out reviews of performance, as
          well as the criteria that NOAA will apply in deciding whether to invoke
          interim sanctions under the evaluation process. Phase Two of the rulemaking
          will include program approval requirements for the new Coastal Nonpoint
          Pollution Control Programs.

                Since the 1990 Amendments also made extensive technical changes to
          the CZMA, OCRM also began a rulemaking to conform NOAA's existing
          regulations to these statutory changes. Technical changes included:

                ï¿½ revisions to Congressional findings and policies;


                ï¿½ new and revised definitions;


                ï¿½ repeal of provisions on program segmentation, significant improve-
                ments, and interstate CZM grants;

                - reorganization and consolidation of program approval requirements;
                and


                - revisions to provisions on the coastal energy impact program.

                NOAA is preparing final regulations to conform NOAA's existing
          regulations to these changes. The regulations will be issued in final form
          because they conform NOAA's regulations to verbatim changes in the statute.

                NOAA is not proposing to issue regulations on the CZM Fund, the
          technical assistance program, or the CZM achievement awards at this time.
          NOAA wants to gain more experience with these new CZMA provisions
          before deciding whether additional rulemaking is needed. The changes to the
          Federal consistency provisions, except for overturning the U.S. Supreme
          Court's decision on OCS oil and gas lease sales, merely codify NOAA's
          existing regulations.







                                                        ''n
                                                        -n-









                                              5








                              he 1990 Amendments assigned responsibility for the Coastal Nonpoint
           Coastal         T Pollution Control Program (CNPCP) jointly to NOAA and EPA.
         Nonpoint        Implementation of the program is taking a three-pronged approach. EPA, in
                         consultation with NOAA, is developing the management measure guidance
          Pollution      which will provide the technical basis for the program. NOAA and EPA
          Control        together developed the proposed Program Development and Approval Guid-
                         ance. This guidance describes the elements which the state programs must
        PrOgraIn         contain to receive Federal approval. Additionally, NOAA is undertaking a
       An Innovative     review of the state CZM boundaries to determine whether they are adequate to
                         encompass all nonpoint sources that significantly affect coastal waters.
        Approach to
       Water Qualio      Management Measures
                              During the winter and spring of 199 1, OCRM participated in
                         interagency working groups to develop the management measures guidance.
                         Management measures are defined as "economically achievable measures for
                         the control of the addition of pollutants... which reflect the greatest degree of
                         pollutant reduction through the application of the best available... practices,
                         technologies, processes, siting criteria, operating methods or other alterna-
                         tives." The management measures guidance includes at least six elements:

                              (1) a description of a range of methods, measures, or practices, includ-
                              ing structural or nonstructural controls and operation and maintenance
                              procedures, that constitute each measure;

                              (2) a description of the categories and subcategories of activities and
                              locations for which each measure may be suitable;

                              (3) an identification of the individual pollutants or categories or classes
                              of pollutants that may be controlled by the measures and the water
                              quality effects of the measures;

                              (4) quantitative estimates of the pollution reduction effects and costs of
                              the measures;


                              (5) a descripti on of the factors which should be taken into account in
                              adapting the measures to specific sites or locations; and

                              (6) any necessary monitoring techniques to accompany the measures
                              to assess over time the success of the measures in reducing pollution
                              loads and improving water quality.

                              EPA and NOAA released proposed management measures guidance in
                         June 1991 for public review and comment. Final management measures
                         guidance will be issued in 1992. In developing the proposed guidance, EPA
                         focused on the significant categories and sources of nonpoint pollution identi-


                                                 6








         fied in state section 319 nonpoint source assessments under the Clean Water
         Act. The categories of nonpoint sources addressed in the current proposal are:

                ï¿½ agricultural runoff,

                ï¿½ Urban runoff (including developing and developed areas),

                ï¿½ silvicultural (forestry) runoff,

                ï¿½ hydromodification, shoreline erosion, and dams and levees, and


                ï¿½ marinas.


                Several types of management practices are provided in the proposed
         guidance, which can be used to meet the management measures, including:

                ï¿½ buffer zones along streams and coastal waters,

                ï¿½ density limits which can be applied to adjacent land development,

                ï¿½ improved construction practices,


                ï¿½ erosion and sedimentation controls, and


                ï¿½ farming and pesticide management practices to reduce polluted
                runoff.


         Program Development

                In October 199 1, NOAA and EPA issued proposed Program Develop-
         ment and Approval Guidance for public review and comment. Final guidance
         will be issued in 1992 simultaneously with the Final Management Measures
         Guidance. The proposed guidance addresses several issues:

                - identification of land uses that contribute to the nonpoint pollution
                problem;

                - identification of critical coastal areas where additional management
                measures will be necessary to protect or restore coastal waters;

                - identification of areas where additional management measures will
                be needed to deal with specific water quality problems; and

                  requirements for administrative coordination with pertinent state,
                regional and local agencies.



                                               7








                                                  The coastal nonpoint programs will serve as an update and expansion
                                          of the state nonpoi,nt source management program developed under section
                                          319 of the Clean Water Act. NOAA and EPA do not expect states to develop
                                          stand-alone coastal nonpoint programs, but rather expect that implementation
                                          of the coastal nonpoint program will be accomplished through changes to the
                                          approved state nonpoint source management program and the state CZM
                                          program develop  ed under section 306 of the CZMA. All states and territories
                                          have EPA7approved nonpoint source manage      .rhent programs or portions of
                                          programs and are currently receiving section 319 grants to assist them in
                                          implementing the approved programs.

                                                  The state coastal nonpoint programs must be submitted to NOAA and
                                          EPA for approval within 30 months of the publication of the final manage-
                                          ment measure guidance., NOAA and EPA will jointly review the program,
                                          and within six months after submission of a complete program, will notify the
                                          state whether the program is approved or whether modifications to the pro-
                                          gram are necessary. States that fail to submit an approvable program within
                                          the congressional deadline face a reduction of Federal grant funds under the
                                          CZM and nonpoint source programs. The penalty provisions begin in FY 96
                                          with a 10 percent'reduction in funding under both programs, increasing to 15
                                          percent in FY 97, 20 percent in FY 98 and 30 percent in FY99 and each fiscal
                                          year thereafter.

                                          Geographic Scope

                                                  Congress also assigned NOAA the responsibility for reviewing exist-
                                          ing state coastal zone boundaries, and recommending changes necessary for
                                          controlling nonpoint source pollution that impacts coastal waters. Using
                                          available information, NOAA is evaluating the impact of land use activities
                                          throughout coastal watersheds draining into state coastal waters. If the exist-
                                          ing coastal zone bo undary is found to be inadequate, NOAA will recommend
                                          how the inland boundary should be changed to meet the water quality goals of
                                          the 1990 Amendments. The state coastal nonpoint program must then include
                                          a proposal to modify the existing boundary to respond to NOAA's recommen-
                                          dation as the state determines is necessary.
                                                                                                7..

                                                                                                   v%











                                                                                  8





             T:   he 1990 CZMA Amendments created a Coastal Zone Enhancement
                  Grants Program to "provide funding for development and submis-            Coastal Zone
         sion for Federal approval of program changes that support attainment of one        Enhancement
         or more coastal zone enhancement objectives." Prior to the 1990 Amend-
         ments, the Federal government required each state to expend a portion of               Program
         CZM funds on "activities that will result in significant improvement being
         made in achieving the coastal management objectives specified." Many of
         the projects funded as "significant improvements" addressed issues related to
         individual problems or localities, but few of these projects resulted in funda-
         mental changes to the CZM program.

                To promote more long-term changes to the state programs, Congress
         created a voluntary program that sought proposals from states for projects
         designed to create institutional and legal changes in each state's CZM pro-
         gram. The new program does not require states to provide matching funds.

         Identifying Priority Issues

                A first step in the process is the identification of each state's priority
         needs for improvement. Each state is required to submit a detailed assess-
         ment of their exisiting coastal program using public input and other re-
         sources. The assessments examine how states are addressing each of the
         enhancement objectives, how significant these issues are in the states and
         what possibilities exist for improvement. The assessments are prepared
         using public input and other resources. The will provide the factual basis for
         NOAA, in consultation with the states, to determine the priority needs for
         improvement of state CZM programs.

                Once a state and NOAA reach agreement on the priority management
         issues, the second stage involves the development of a multi-year strategy.
         The strategy development process will identify specific program changes that
         the state. will seek to achieve in the identified priority areas. The strategies
         must be approved by NOAA and will guide the development of the state's
         FY 1992 and subsequent year section 309 grant proposals. The states'
         strategies will be ranked to develop a weighting to determine the amount of
         funds available for funding projects in the future.

         Criteria for Awarding Enhancements

                NOAA issued proposed regulations for section 309 in October 1991,
         which provide the criteria and procedures for awarding coastal zone enhance-
         ment grants. The proposed regulations assume that a state has a NOAA
         approved assessment and strategy. NOAA is proposing to award section 309
         funds by (1) weighted formula, and (2) individual review of projects of
         special merit. NOAA will annually determine the proportion of available
         funds to be allocated between these two methods. Under the weighted


                                               9








                                         formula approach, NOAA will establish state weighted formula funding
                                         targets, which will be the state base allocation determined by operation of the
                                         formula under section 306, multiplie 'd by a weighting factor derived from
                                         NOAA's evaluation and ranking of the quality of the state's strategy.

                                                 NOAA proposes to award remaining section 309 funds, which are not
                                         awarded by the weighted formula approach, based on an annual review of
                                         projects of special merit. This proposed allocation process will allow each
                                         coastal state that has a NOAA approved assessment and strategy to pursue an
                                         enhancements program, while at the same time provide incentive for states to
                                         develop and submit more aggressive proposals which commit to make the
                                         greatest improvements toward the coastal zone enhancement objectives.

                                                 he program evaluation process stands as a fundamental element of the
                Review of                   TCZMA. The 1990 CZMA Amendments reinforced the public partici-
             Performance                 pation component of the process. The amendments also added provisions to
                                         apply interim sanctions to bring state programs or estuarine reserves which are
                                         not adequately implementing programs into compliance. Prior to the the
                                         amendments, if a state was found not adhering to its approved program, the
                                         only sanction available to NOAA was withdrawal of Federal program ap-
                                         proval.

                                                 The reauthorization also placed new notice and time period require-
                                         ments on the evaluation process. These changes require: a 45 day notice for
                                         public meetings, written response to all written comments on the evaluation
                                         and completion of the final evaluation report within 120 days after the last
                                         public meeting held in the state.

                                                 Perhaps the most important amendment to the evaluation process was
                                         authorizing interim sanctions. In practice, problems that states or estuarine
                                         research reserves have with implementing their approved program tend to be
                                         with only one or two parts of the program. The interim sanction provisions
                                         allow OCRM to focus remedial actions, including directing grant funds,
                                         toward resolving problem areas.

                                                 NOAA is implementing the new procedural changes immediately and
                                         is revising its regulations to conform them to the new requirements. NOAA
                                         publi'shed proposed regulations for conducting reviews of performance under
                                         section 312 of the CZMA in the Federal Register on October 18, 1991.

                                                 In addition, because the procedural changes will increase workload
                                         associated with the evaluations, NOAA is proposing to conduct evaluations of
                                         state CZM and estuarine reserve programs at.least once every three years,
                                         rather than at least once every two years as currently provided. NOAA recog-
                                         nizes that significant changes can occur in three years. Therefore, NOAA is
                                         proposing to provide for issue or problem specific evaluations which could be


                                                                                10








          scheduled between the full-scale evaluations. These more narrowly focused
          evaluations can be used to follow-up on potentially serious problems or issues
          identified in the most recent full-scale evaluation, or to evaluate evidence of
          potentially serious problems or issues that arise during the day-to-day moni-
          toring of state performance of grant tasks.

                  NOAA proposed a process for invoking interim sanctions which will
          provide ample notice to the state and opportunity to comment on' and rebut the
          finding of non-adherence on which the sanctions are based before any action
          is taken. Indicators of non-adherence will be provided to inform states of
          what NOAA expects and on what basis interim sanctions might be invoked.
               0
                    CRM is working with NOAA's Coastal Ocean Program (COP) to
                   .ensure that science is directed to the needs of coastal management             Coordination
          decisionmakers. During the biennium, OCRM played a lead role in COP's
          Resources Information Delivery Team (RID), which provides other COP                        with Othe       *r
          teams the opportunity to distribute their information in a flexible, timely,                  NOAA
          problem-targeted, and friendly manner to a variety of users. RID, itself,
          provides material to the same clientele for determining realtime management                 Programs
          decisions and strategies.

                  RID's accomplishments primarily focus on the development of a
          Coastal Ocean Management, Planning and Assessment System (COMPAS), a
          desk-top information system for improved decisionmaking. COMPAS brings
          a wide variety of data and information directly to the desk-tops of coastal
          resource managers. A COMPAS has been developed in Texas. This system
          will soon be completed in Florida, and another is planned for Oregon.

                  RID also developed a series of "synthesis documents" to coordinate all
          available technical information of particularly priority issues. The informa-
          tion is then repackaged to serve as a basis for management decisions, policy
          and legislation. The call for synthesis papers resulted in 50 proposals. As a
          result of an intensive review from state and Federal agency managers and
          academics, seven proposals were recognized as contributing to COP's overall
          goals. Four projects are planned for FY 92 funding. The projects are:

                   Methodology and Mechanisms for Management of Cumulative
          Coastal Environmental Impacts, by Alison Reiser, Maine Law Institute,
          University of Maine;
                  - Eutrophication and Phytoplankton Blooms: Bibliography and
          Review, by Kenneth Hinga, University of Rhode Island;
                  - An Assessment of the Techology'and Success in Restoration, En-
          hancement, and Creation of Salt Marshes in the U.S., by Thomas Minello,
          National Marine Fisheries Service, Galveston, Texas; and
                    Synthesis of Summer Flounder Habitat Requirementsfor Resource
          Managers, by Kenneth Able, Rutgers University.








                                                  he use of Federal consistency allows CZM programs to address the
                                             T
                 Federal                          adverse impacts of Federal activities to coastal resources. Section
              Consistency                307 of the CZMA states that four types of Federal activities must be consis-
                                         tent with a state CZM program:

                                                (1)    direct Federal agency activities;
                                                (2)    federally licensed and permitted activities;
                                                (3)    Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) activities, development and
                                                       production plans; and
                                                (4)    Federal financial assistance to state and local governments.

                                                The 1990 amendments to Section 307 represent an important mile-
                                         stone in the states' authority to use the Federal consistency provisions. The
                                         amendments overturn the Supreme Court's 1984 decision in Secretary of the
                                         Interior v. California, making OCS oil and gas lease sales subject to the
                                         requirements of Section 307(c)(1). The new language also clarifies that all
                                         Federal agency activities, including OCS oil and gas lease sales and the
                                         designation of ocean dumping sites, whether in or outside of the coastal zone,
                                         are subject to the consistency requirements of Section 307(c)(1) of the CZMA
                                         if these activities affect natural resources, land uses or water uses in the
                                         coastal zone. The language codifies NOAA's existing regulations, which
                                         require that the geographic scope of Federal consistency review be based on
                                         the effect of a Federal activity on coastal zone uses and resources, not on the
                                         location of the activity.

                                                In a conference report on the legislation, the House and Senate confer-
                                         ees clarified how a Federal agency should deter-mine whether a specific
                                         Federal agency activity may affect a natural resource, land use, or water use in
                                         the coastal zone. The conferees noted that this determination "is to include
                                         effects in the coastal zone which the Federal agency may reasonably antici-
                                         pate as a result of its action, including cumulative and secondary effects.
                                         Therefore, the term "affecting" is to be construed broadly, including direct
                                         effects which are caused by the activity and occur at the same time and place,
                                         and indirect effects which may be caused by the activity and are later in time
                                         or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable."

                                                A new provision added to the CZMA, Section 307(l)(B), authorizes
                                         the President to exempt a specific Federal project if the President determines
                                         that such an exemption is in the paramount interest of the U.S. This exemp-
                                         tion can only arise after a Federal court has determined that the Federal
                                         agency activity is inconsistent with a state CZM program. The provision is
                                         based on similar exemption provisions in other environmental statutes, includ-
                                         ing the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act. The legislative history to the
                                         provision clarifies that the exemption cannot be applied to a class of Federal
                                         activities, only to a specific activity.



                                                                               12






              T
                 he following sections (1) highlight several important and emerging
                 issues such as interstate consistency (one coastal state reviewing an                  state
          activity in another state), implementation of Federal consistency since the              Consistency
          1990 amendments, and preemption; and (2) summarize the decisions issued
          by the Secretary of Commerce on appeals of Federal permit or license activi-                 Issues
          ties and OCS exploration plans. A list of all appeals filed with the Secretary
          of Commerce during the biennium and guidance on processing fees for con-
          sistency appeals are provided in the Appendix.


          Lake Gaston


                 Lake Gaston is a reservoir astride the North Carolina-Virginia border.
          The Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCO) holds the Federal En-
          ergy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license that governs the dam's opera-
          tions. The dam, which blocks the Roanoke River, is in North Carolina. In
          February 1991, VEPCO, on behalf of the City of Virginia Beach, filed a
          request with FERC to amend the Lake Gaston hydroelectric license to allow
          the city to withdraw up to 60 million gallons of water per day for water supply
          purposes. Construction for the proposed project is entirely within Virginia.

                 North Carolina sought NOAA's approval for review of the license
          amendment as an "unlisted activity" on grounds that the water withdrawal
          would affect the flow of water in the Roanoke River and the salinity gradient
          of Albemarle-Pamlico Sound. VEPCO had not provided a certification that
          the proposed amendment was consistent with the North Carolina CZM pro-
          gram. During the public comment period, VEPCO and the City of Virginia
          Beach argued against North Carolina's request. On May 2, 1991, NOAA
          determined that North Carolina did not need Federal permission to review the
          amendment as an unlisted activity because FERC licenses already were listed
          in North Carolina's program. NOAA also rejected a request from the City of
          Virginia Beach that the agency reconsider its decision. Based on NOAA's
          decision, North Carolina requested that VEPCO provide the state with a
          consistency determination.

                 @VEPCO submitted a consistency determination on June 7, 1991 under
          protest, asserting in its determination that state review should take place under
          the regulations for the review of unlisted activities at 15 CFR ï¿½ 930.54. In a
          September 9, 1991 letter, the CMP objected to VEPCO's consistency determi-
          nation. The state found the project to be inconsistent with-several enforceable
          policies and also noted several alternatives to the proposal. VEPCO then
          appealed the state's objection to the Secretary of Commerce. The appeal is
          currently under the Secretary's review.




                                                                          TI6,





                                                 13







                                           Marine Mammal Protection Act Incidental Takings Permits

                                                  In April 1991, the Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP)
                                           submitted a routine program implementation (RPI) request to NOAA to add to
                                           its listing of federal licenses and permits certain approvals by the U.S. Fish
                                           and Wildlife Service (FWS) and NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service
                                           (NMFS) under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). Of particular
                                           interest to the ACMP are Letters of Authorization (LOA) for takes incidental
                                           to OCS activities. There is evidence that such activities can affect the distri-
                                           bution of marine mammals Alaska Natives rely on for subsistence. The
                                           ACMP discussed the listing with the NMFS Alaska Regional Office prior to
                                           submitting the request to NOAA. Five federally-approved state CZM pro-
                                           grams listed MMPA permits when their programs were first approved: Wash-
                                           ington, Hawaii, Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, and Alabama.

                                                  NMFS objected to the RPI request, arguing that the ACMP's discus-
                                           sions with NMFS regional staff did not constitute consultation as required by
                                           15 CFR ï¿½ 930.53(d). Instead, according to NMFS, the ACMP should have
                                           contacted NMFS headquarters since at least some MMPA permits are issued
                                           by headq .uarters. NMFS further argued that state regulation of marine mam-
                                           mals is pre-empted by the MMPA. NOAA denied the ACMP's listing request
                                           on grounds that Alaska inadequately described its consultation with NMFS.


                                           OCS Lease Sale 135


                                                  In the first exercise of the restored right of states to review Outer
                                           Continental Shelf (OCS) lease sales for consistency, Louisiana objected to
                                           OCS Lease Sale 135, located off the Texas coast because the Department of
                                           the Interior (DOI) failed to provide adequate impact assistance to coastal
                                           communities in Louisiana. Louisiana contended in its May 14, 1991, denial
                                           that onshore support facilities for Lease Sale 135 would be located in Louisi-
                                           ana and that any oil spill could affect Louisiana coastal resources. The state
                                           maintained that if DOI provided an adequate impact assistance program,
                                           Lease Sale 135 would be consistent with the Louisiana CZM program. The
                                           Minerals Management Service determined that the lease sale was consistent to
                                           the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of the Louisiana
                                           CZM program and proceeded with the sale.

                                           Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permits Program

                                                  On April 10, 1991, the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) published in
                                           the Federal Register a proposal to issue, reissue and modify the Nationwide
                                           Permit (NWP) Program. The notice provided a comment period of 60 days
                                           both for the revised NWP program and for the section 401 water quality
                                           certification that accompanied the program. Some individual Corps districts
                                           and divisions notified state coastal programs within their 1jurisdictions of the
                                           Corps' finding that the revised NWP program was consistent with the respec-
                                           tive program's enforceable policies.

                                                                                   14







                  A number of states objected to the proposed revised program, in many
          cases to preserve their options given the compressed comment period. State
          comments fall primarily into four categories: objections to the abbreviated
          comment period; concerns that the Corps' Federal consistency determinations
          are incomplete; rejections of specific NWPs because the programs did not
          account for individual state conditions and coastal program requirements; and
          denial of the section 401 certification because the Corps' 60-day comment
          period is inconsistent with Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA)
          provisions for a one-year state review of water quality certifications, as well
          as on the substance of the section 401 certification.


                  The Corps published a final rule to issue, reissue, and modify the
          Nationwide Permit Program regulations in the Federal Register on November
          22, 1991. The regulations took effect on January 21, 1992. Numerous states
          objected to the final rule for the reasons stated above.

          Savannah Harbor Comprehensive Study and EIS

                  On June 3, 1991, the South Carolina Coastal Council (SCCC) denied
             for a second time - consistency for the Savannah Harbor Comprehensive
          Study and Environmental Impact Statement (harbor study) submitted by the
          Army Corps of Engineers' Savannah District. An earlier version of the harbor
          study was also denied in 1987. The harbor study is the basis for a significant
          expansion of the Port of Savannah; the expansion involves activities in both
          Georgia and South Carolina. The Council's concerns center on three issues:

                  - Back River Tide Gate and New Cut - Constructed in the late 1960's,
          the tide gate and cut have, however, significantly changed the salinity gradient
          upstream, destroying freshwater wetlands in the Savannah River National
          Wildlife Refuge and other protected areas within South Carolina. Corps
          Headquarters recently agreed to remove the gate, but has not set a timetable
          for removal.


                  -Modifications to Existing Spoil Disposal Sites - The most significant
          spoil disposal area for the Savannah Harbor is in South Carolina. The Council
          believes the weir outfalls for the spoil areas should be redirected from the
          Wright River-which is relatively undegraded-to the Back or Savannah
          Rivers. The Corps had agreed to redirect the outfalls after 1988 negotiations
          with Council staff but has yet to do so.

                  - Long Term Dredge Spoil Management - The Council is concerned
          that there is insufficient capacity in existing disposal areas to support both
          routine maintenance disposal and construction-related disposal (e.g., the
          proposed Savannah Harbor widening and deepening projects). Although the
          Corps agreed to develop a long-term spoil management plan during 1988
          negotiations with the SCCC, no plan has been developed.


                                                  15








                                          Military Use of Coastal A irspacelState Coastal Airspace Policies

                                                 North Carolina is seeking a larger role in the designation and military
                                          use of special use airspace in the coastal zone. The state is primarily con-
                                          cerned with noise impacts on coastal residents, recreation sites, and wildlife
                                          from the low-level training flights occurring in the special use airspaces. The
                                          state has adopted coastal airspace use policies to be used to review military
                                          airspace use proposals through Federal consistency. These policies, however,
                                          are not yet part of the federally approved North Carolina CZM program.

                                          North Carolina OCS ExplorationlMobil Project

                                                 Mobil Oil Company plans to drill for natural gas 40 miles off North
                                          Carolina. North Carolina objected to Mobil's consistency certifications for a
                                          NPDES permit application filed with the Environmental Protection Agency
                                          and the proposed Plan of Exploration filed with the Minerals Management
                                          Service (MMS). Mobil appealed the objections to the Secretary of Com-
                                          merce. Both appeals are under consideration. The State is concerned with the
                                          lack of scientific knowledge of the waters off Cape Hatteras and the impact
                                          OCS development activity will have on the recreation -oriented Outer Banks of
                                          North Carolina.


                                          Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet Maintenance Dredging

                                                 In 1990, the State of Louisiana found a proposed Army Corps of
                                          Engineers (Corps) maintenance dredging project on a portion of the Missis-
                                          sippi River-Gulf Outlet (MR-GO) project inconsistent with the beneficial use
                                          of dredge spoil materials policies of the state's coastal zone management
                                          program. The Corps then claimed that the maintenance dredging was not
                                          subject to Federal consistency requirements, but instead was part of a National
                                          Environmental Policy Act reviewed Federal development project initiated
                                          prior to program approval.

                                                 NOAA concurred with the state's arguments that the maintenance
                                          dredging was an ongoing project, not a Federal development project initiated
                                          prior to program approval, and therefore subject to consistency requirements.
                                          The Corps has ceased dredging operations on the portion of the project in
                                          dispute while the state works with the Louisiana Congressional delegation to
                                          provide additional funding for MR-GO and allow the "beneficial use" of
                                          dredged materials from the project. In the meantime, the Corps has estab-
                                          lished an in-house MR-GO Task Force to evaluate potential beneficial uses
                                          for spoil from the disputed maintenance dredging project.







                                                                                 16







          Great Lakes Winter Navigation

                  The Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) operates the Soo Locks at Sault
          Ste. Marie, Michigan, for shipping between Lake Superior and Lake Huron.
          Currently, the Corps closes the locks on January 8 (plus or minus one week)
          according to weather and ice conditions. The Corps proposed that the locks
          remain open to January 31 plus or minus two weeks, but established no
          criteria other than "the reasonable needs of commerce" in determining when
          the locks should close. The Michigan Coastal Management Program
          (MCMP) objected to the proposal, maintaining that the decision to open and
          close the shipping season should be based, at least in part, on environmental
          criteria. The MCMP also objected to the Corps opening the locks early. In
          April 199 1, the Corps published in the Federal Register proposed regulations
          to amend the Soo Locks operating regulations, and the Corps and the MCMP
          have had a series of meetings in an attempt to resolve this dispute.

          Massachusetts Review of Section 404 and NPDES Permits in
          New Hampshire

                  The Town of Seabrook, New Hampshire, proposed a wastewater
          treatment facility and associated outfall. The project requires both section 404
          and NPDES permits. Although the outfall lies entirely within New
          Hampshire's coastal zone, Massachusetts has sought to review both permits
          for consistency claiming that the outfall would affect the Massachusetts
          coastal zone. The Environmental Protection Agency supports the Massachu-
          setts review; the Army Corps of Engineers opposes the state's position.
          OCRM has determined that the CZMA allows for such a review. Negotia-
          tions between the two states continue.


          New Jersey-FEMA Dispute Over V-Zone Change

                  At a Sea Isle City (New Jersey) property owner's request, the Federal
          Emergency Management Agency agreed to move the V-zone seaward to allow
          the construction of a house on the property. The New Jersey Coastal Manage-
          ment Program objected, arguing that the change was inconsistent with provi-
          sions of the New Jersey program restricting development in high hazard areas.
          FEMA maintains the designation change does not affect the New Jersey
          coastal zone, as the state is free to impose more stringent restrictions than
          those as sociated with V- or A-zones.


                  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 Outer Continental
          Shelf (OCS) exploration or development plan and an application for Federal
          financial assistance, the applicant may request that the Secretary override the
          state's consistency objection if the activity is: consistent with the objectives of
          the CZMA or is otherwise necessary in the interest of national security [Sec-
          tion 307(c)(3)(A), (B), and (d)].

                                                  17









                                                    There are four elements at 15 CFR 930.121 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 objec-
                                                    tives 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 Control Act, as amended;
                                                    and


                                                    (4) there is no reasonable alternative available (e.g., location, design,
                                                    etc.) which would permit the activity to be conducted in a manner
                                                    consistent with the management program.

                                                    Federal consistency regulations address 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 would be significantly impaired if the activity were
                                            not permitted to go forward as proposed.

                                                       uring the past two years, the Secretary received 64 requests for
                Secretafial                     D:     Secretarial overrides. The appeals mostly involved A few highly
                   Appeal                   controversial oil and gas development projects on the Outer Continental Shelf
                                            (OCS) and a large number of shoreline development projects (see Appendix
                  Decisions                 Q. The Secretary issued several decisions on consistency appeals during the
                                            biennium. A summary of these decisions follows.

                                            Amoco Production CompanylState of Alaska

                                                    Amoco Production Company acquired an interest in 12 oil and gas
                                            leases in the Beaufort Sea. On September 2, 1988, Amoco submitted an
                                            exploration plan to the Minerals Management Service seeking permission to
                                            evaluate the commercial hydrocarbon potential by drilling up to two expl6r-
                                            atory oil and gas wells a year, with a potential for drilling a maximum of
                                            fourteen wells. On March 6, 1989, the Alaska Division of Governmental
                                            Coordination (state) objected to Amoco's consistency certification claiming
                                            that the proposed plan was inconsistent with the state's 1986 Seasonal Drilling
                                            Restriction (SDR) Policy, which prohibited drilling below a threshold depth
                                            during the first half of the bowhead whale migration each fall.








                On April 3, 1989, Amoco filed a notice of appeal from the state's
         objection to its consistency certification for the project. Amoco pleaded that
         the project should be approved because as consistent with the objectives and
         purposes of the CZMA, or was necessary in the interest of national security.

                Amoco raised several threshold issues, including assertions that the
         state's objection was invalid and was based solely on a policy which was not
         part of the state's approved coastal management program (CMP) and that
         deference should be given to the Secretary of the Interior. The Deputy Secre-
         tary declined to decide the appeal solely on the issue of the state's 1986 SDR
         policy. The Deputy Secretary further found that the decisionmaker should
         consider de novo all relevant information submitted during the course of the
         appeal and, therefore, deference was not appropriate.

                On the second statutory ground, the Deputy Secretary found that
         Amoco's proposed project did not significantly impair a national defense or
         other national security interest. However, Amoco was successful in satisfying
         all four elements of 15 CFR 930.121 and prevailed on the first statutory
         ground in that the project was consistent with the objectives or purposes of the
         CZMA. Therefore, although inconsistent with the state's CMP, Amoco's
         proposed drilling could be permitted by Federal agencies.

         Chevron U.S.A., Inc.lCalifornia Coastal Commission

                Chevron 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 0525, located twelve miles south of the City of Santa Barbara and
         fifteen miles west of the City of Ventura. EPA issued an NPDES permit to
         Chevron subject to consistency concurrence by the California Coastal Com-
         mission (CCC). Chevron next submitted the proposed exploration plan to the
         Minerals Management Service. Chevron proposed drilling up to five explor-
         atory oil and gas wells. On June 9, 1988, the CCC objected to Chevron's
         consistency certifications for the proposed plan and the individual NPDES
         permit. Although the CCC found the individual NPDES permit consistent
         with the State's coastal management program (CMP), the Commission ob-
         jected because the permit was "inextricably linked" to the proposed plan.

                Chevron appealed under both statutory grounds: that an objected
         activity may be federally approved if it is consistent with the objectives and
         purposes of the CZMA or if it is necessary to national security. In Chevron's
         initial appeal notice, the company raised the threshold issue of whether the
         CCC could object to the individual NPDES permit on the ground that the
         permit is "inextricably linked" to the objected exploration plan. The Deputy
         Secretary determined that the CCC's objection to the NPDES permit was not
         valid because the objection did not describe bow the permit was inconsistent.,
         with the state's CMP.


                                                 19








                                                     During the appeal, Chevron and the CCC raised five other threshold
                                             issues concerning: 1) the standard of review, 2) authority to consider the
                                             validity of the underlying state objection, 3) the timeliness of Chevron's
                                             appeal, 4) the authority ofa state to review OCS air emissions and 5) incorpo-
                                             ration of air emission standards into a state's federally approved coastal
                                             management program. In examining the standard of review, the Deputy
                                             Secretary found that:

                                                     - the Appellant has the burden of submitting evidence in support of its
                                                     appeal and the burden of persuasion;,

                                                       the decision is a de novo determination based upon the CZMA and
                                                     implementing regulations;

                                                     0 deference is inappropriate in the process as the decision maker
                                                     considers all relevant information in arriving at a     novo determina-
                                                     tion; and


                                                      while all information and materials are incorporated into the adminis-
                                                     trative record, suc'h information is considered only as it is relevant to
                                                     the statutory and regulatory criteria for deciding consistency appeals.

                                                     Concerning the remaining threshold issues, the Deputy Secretary made
                                             the following findings. While the decisionmaker reviews whether the state
                                             objection complies with the CZMA and its implementing regulations, ques-
                                             tions concerning whether the state correctly interpreted and applied its state
                                             law should be deferred to a more appropriate forum. Chevron timely filed its
                                             supporting information and data within the required thirty day time period. A
                                             state does not act ultra vires in its authority under the CZMA in reviewing
                                             0 CS air emissions for impacts on the land or water uses of the state's coastal
                                             zone. Based upon applicable regulations, a state may reference air emission
                                             standards in the CMP submission to NOAA.


                                                     The Deputy Secretary found that several reasonable alternatives
                                             available that would permit the project to continue in a manner consistent with
                                             the state's CMP and, therefore, did not satisfy the fourth element of the first
                                             statutory ground. As to the second statutory ground, the Deputy Secretary
                                             found that the proposed project would not significantly impair national de-
                                             fense or other national security interest. Because Chevron's proposed project
                                             did not meet the requirements for either of the two grounds set forth in the
                                             CZMA, the Deputy Secretary did not override the state objection. Thus,
                                             Federal agencies could not issue permits for the the project as proposed.







                                                                                      20








          Michael P. GalganolNew York State

                  Mr. Michael P. Galgano owns a 42,000-square-foot residential parcel
          located in South Hampton, Suffolk County, New York. Galgano applied to
          the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for a permit to install a bulkhead with
          backfill along the southern boundary of his property - a project that would
          involve the elimination of approximately 1,400 square feet of vegetated
          wetland. On June 10, 1988, the New York Department of State objected to
          Galgano's plan on the grounds that the project would result in the loss of
          valuable wetlands and fish and wildlife habitats and, consequently, was
          inconsistent with New York's coastal management plan.

                  On July 14, 1988, Galgano filed a notice of appeal from the state's
          objection, contending that his proposed activity could be federally approved
          as consistent with the objectives and purposes of the CZMA. Again, the
          appellant had to satisfy all four elements of 15 CFR 930.121 to prevail on the
          first statutory ground; that the project is consistent with the objectives or
          purposes of the CZMA. The Secretary deten-nined that Galgano's proposed
          project failed to satisfy the second element in that the potential adverse effects
          upon the natural resources of the coastal zone by eliminating valuable habitat
          for wildlife,.fish, and benthic communities were substantial enough to out-
          weigh any limited contribution to the national interest. Because the second
          element of the first statutory test was not satisfied and Galgano did not plead
          the second test, the Secretary declined to override the state's objection.

          Shickrey AntonlState of South Carolina


                  Mr. Shickrey Anton owns a 10 acre parcel of land, containing approxi-
          mately 6.5 acres of wetlands, located in Hilton Head, Beaufort County, South
          Carolina. In 1989, Anton applied to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for a
          permit to fill approximately 0.76 acres of wetlands for commercial develop-
          ment. As mitigation, Anton subsequently proposed to preserve the remaining
          wetlands and to create 0.56 acres of wetlands elsewhere on the property.

                  The state objected to Anton's consistency certification on August 25,
          1989, because the project was inconsistent with the South Carolina CZM
          program's prohibition of filling wetlands. As an alternative consistent with
          the state's CZM program, the state recommended the deletion of almost all fill
          and the construction of a bridge connecting high-ground portions of the
          property. On October 4, 1989, Anton appealed the state's objection.

                  During the course of the appeal, Anton raised two threshold issues on
          scope and standard of review and burden of proof. The Secretary declined to
          review the substantive validity of the state's objection in the appeals process.
          Concerning Anton's assertions that the state should bear the burden of proof,



                                                  21







                                           the Secretary found that, based upon the regulations governing consistency
                                           appeals, the Appellant bears both the burden of proof and burden of persua-
                                           sion once the state has objected to a consistency certification and described
                                           any existing alternatives.

                                                  In analyzing the second element, the Secretary found that the proposed
                                           filling of wetlands for commercial development would have an adverse effect
                                           upon the natural resources of the coastal zone substantial enough to outweigh
                                           its contribution to the national interest. Because Anton's the second element
                                           of the first statutory test was not satisfied and Galgano did not plead the
                                           second ground, the Secretary declined to override the state's objection.

                                           Sucesi6n Alberto BachmanlCommon wealth of Puerto Rico

                                                  In 1987, Sucesi6n Alberto Bachman applied to the U.S. Army Corps
                                           of Engineers (Corps) for a permit to replace a swimmers' protection barrier in
                                           the waters adjacent to the only beach on Isla de Palominos, Puerto Rico.
                                           Specifically, the Sucesi6n proposed to replace existing steel drum buoys
                                           authorized under an earlier Corps permit with styrofoam buoys. In conjunc-
                                           tion with that Federal permit application, the Sucesi6n submitted to the Corps
                                           for review of the Puerto Rico Planning Board (PRPB), a certification that the
                                           proposed activity was consistent with Puerto Rico's federally-approved CZM
                                           program. Also in 1987, the PRPB held a public hearing with the Sucesi6n's
                                           knowledge, which led to the adoption in January 1988 of an alternative to the
                                           Sucesi6n's proposed project: a smaller protected swimming area.

                                                  On February 16, 1988, the PRPB objected to Sucesi6n Alberto
                                           Bachman's consistency certification for the proposed project on the ground
                                           that the proposed protected swimming area was not in accordance with Puerto
                                           Rico's CZM program which encourages public access to beaches. In the
                                           objection letter, however, the PRPB did not discuss alternatives to the
                                           Sucesi6n's proposed project.

                                                  On March 18, 1988, the Sucesi6n filed a notice of appeal from the
                                           PRPB's objection. The Sucesi6n pleaded that the project should be approved
                                           because the plan was consistent with the objectives or purposes of the CZMA.
                                           The Secretary found the alternative implemented by Puerto Rico to be a
                                           reasonable, available alternative that would be consistent with Puerto Rico's
                                           CZM program. Because the fourth element of the first statutory test was not
                                           satisfied and the Sucesi6n did not plead the second ground, the Secretary
                                           declined to override the PRPB's objection.

                                           Josi R. Pirez-VillamillCommonwealth of Puerto Rico

                                                  Mr. Jos6 R. P6rez-Villamil is the owner of a 62-acre resort, known as
                                           Tamarindo Estates, on Culebra Island, Puerto Rico. The property comprises
                                           1,800 feet of shoreline adjacent to Tamarindo Bay. To facilitate water access

                                                                                  22








         at Tamarindo Estates, P6rez-Villamil proposed to construct a wooden pier 125
         feet long with a 25 foot cross-pier at the end. On January 3, 1989, P6rez-
         Villamil applied to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) for a permit to
         construct a pier. In conjunction with that Federal permit application he also
         submitted to the Corps for review of the Puerto Rico Planning Board (PRPB),
         a certification that the proposed activity was consistent with Puerto Rico's
         CZM program. On July 24, 1989, the PRPB objected to P6rez-Villamil's
         consistency certification for the pr oposed project on the ground that the plan
         violates Puerto Rico's CZM program policies protecting sea turtle habitat.
         The PRPB did not recommend any alternatives to the proposed pier.

                On August 16, 1989, P6rez-Villamil filed a notice of appeal with the
         Department of Commerce from the PRPB's objection to his consistency
         certification for the proposed project. P6rez-Villamil pleaded that his project
         should be approved because it was consistent with the objectives or purposes
         of the CZMA. In analyzing the second element, the Secretary found that the
         proposed pier would cause adverse effects upon the natural resources of the
         coastal zone substantial enough to outweigh its contribution to the national
         interest. Because Pdrez-Villamil's proposed project failed to satisfy the
         requirements of the second element of the first statutory ground, and because
         he did not plead the second statutory ground, the Secretary declined to over-
         ride the PRPB's objection.
















                                   Mae


                                                                              4
                                                              ;A4
           INS

                                              23









                                             L Background
                ALABAMA
                                                     The Alabama Coastal Area Management Program (ACAMP) is based
                                             primarily on Act 534, "The Alabama Coastal Area Act of 1976," which
                                             mandates a comprehensive coastal management program and establishes the
                                             coastal zone boundary. The boundary encompasses all lands seaward of the
              Federal Approval Date.         10-foot inland contour to the limit of the state's territorial waters, including
                   September 25, 1979        coastal barrier islands. In 1982, the state legislature passed the "Alabama
                                             Environmental Management Act" which dissolved the Coastal Area Board
              Federal Funding FY90.
                                             and transferred its coastal management authorities to a newly created Depart-
                                $593,000     ment of Environmental Management (ADEM) and the Department of Eco-
                                             nomic and Community Affairs (ADECA). The Act consolidated state envi-
              Federal Funding FY91.
                                             ronmental permitting functions within ADEM.
                               $593,000
                                                     As the lead agency, ADECA is responsible for the administrative and
                                             planning functions of the program. the ADEM has permitting authority for
                                             activities that directly affect the state's coastal zone and determines whether
                                             state and Federal actions that are not directly regulated are still consistent with
                                             the ACAMP.


                                             IL Program Accomplishments

                                                     Citizens' Water Quality Monitoring Program           In 1991, under the
                                             supervision of ADEM and the Dauphin Island Sea Lab, 25 citizens' water
                                             quality monitoring stations were established as part of the Baywatch Program.
                                             The Sea Lab is responsible for education, quality assurance, and data manage-
                                             ment and dissemination. ADEM provides quality assurance/quality control.
                                             The Perdido Bay Citizens' Monitoring program has become part of the
                                             Baywatch Program. To date, the citizens' training phase has been completed.

                                                     Gilchrist v. ADEM - In the fall of 199 1, the Alabama circuit court
                                             ruled in favor of ADEM, upholding the implementation of the Coastal Con-
                                             struction Control Line and its underlying methodology.

                                                     Program Visibility - ACAMP visibility increased during the bien-
                                             nium as a result of activities and initiatives that included location of ADEM
                                             and.ADECA offices on the coast; the Baywatch Program; Coastweeks beach
                                             cleanups; the Adopt-A-Beach program; the Boaters Pledge program; and
                                             numerous news articles, press releases, television and radio programs.

               K.                                    Governor's Coastal Waters Initiative        In August 1990, Governor
                                             Hunt signed a Coastal Waters Initiative ExecutIve Order to review the various
                                             coastal programs and develop a long-terrn coastal management plan. In
                                             response, ACAMP staff conducted public meetings, served as members of the
                                             Technical Advisory Committee, and developed a set of recommendations
                                             which may result in revision to the ACAMP.


                                                                                     24







               Wetlands Mitigation Manual - In 1990, Dr. Judy Stout reviewed and
       evaluated the success of compensatory wetlands mitigation projects conducted
       in Alabama in recent years. Based on this study and a thorough literature
       review, Stout prepared a manual for ADEM which provides suggestions for
       planning, developing and monitoring restored and newly created wetlands in
       coastal Alabama.


       III. Significant Program Changes

               No program changes were submitted during the biennium.

       IV. Evaluation Findings

               The final evaluation findings issued April 3, 1991 concluded that
       Alabama is adhering to its approved coastal management program. A major
       accomplishment was the relocation of the coastal program in ADEM from
       Montgomery to the Mobile Field Office and the establishment of an ADECA
       presence on the coast by locating a coastal planner in Baldwin County. Areas
       to be improved included: 1) increasing the visibility of the ACAMP and the
       opportunities for full public participation; 2) developing a long-term water
       quality and resources monitoring strategy whichmaximizes the use of data for
       management decisions; 3) a five-year plan to coordinate the provision of
       public access along the coast; and 4) monitoring and enforcement of the
       coastal program.




























                                            25











                                             L Background
                    ALASKA
                                                 . 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), composed of six state agency heads,
                                             the director of the Division of Governmental Coordination (DGQ, and nine
               Federal Approval Date:        local government representatives. DGC, a unit of the Office of the Governor,
                               July 1979     provides staff assistance to the CPC. Under the ACMP, local governments.
                                             and specially organized coastal resource service areas develop locally specific
               Federal Funding FY90:         district coastal management programs. The inland coastal zone boundary is
                              $2,014,000     based on biophysical relationships, and generally follows the 1,000 foot
                                             elevation contour. More refined boundaries are established during district
               Federal Funding FY91:         program development.
                              $2,014,000
                                                    A networked program, the ACMP 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 DGC. To insure consistency with coastal policies, the ACMP
                                             provides coordinated review of projects within the coastal zone through the
                                             coordinated consistency review process. The three resource agencies (DEC,
                                             DFG and DNR) then issue various state permits under these authorities.

                                             II. Program Accomplishments

                                                    Resource Protection - An integral part of the ACMP, the Alaska
                                             Forest Resources and Practices Act (FPA), provides guidance for timber
                                             harvest activities on private and state lands, and serves as a standard for
                                             review for activities on Federal lands. Revisions to the FPA enacted in May
                                             1990 provide the following: enhanced notification, review and enforcement
                                             procedures; increased emphasis on, and protection of, non-timber concerns
                                             such as fish and wildlife habitat and visual impacts; development and imple-
                                             mentation of nonpoint source pollution plans for timber harvest activities;
                                             riparian buffers; and clarification of the interaction between the FPA and the
                                             ACMP regarding Federal consistency. The adoption of mandatory riparian
                                             buffers is a significant improvement over the old FPA.

                                                    Improved Government Operations - Under the coordinated permit
                                             review process of the ACMP, DGC must publish a list of permits which are
                                             categorically approved as consistent with the ACMP ("A" List), a list of
                                             permits generally consistent with the ACMP provided certain standard condi-
                                             tions are met ("B" List), and a list of permits subject to the full review process
                                             ("C" List). During the biennium, DGC led an effort to update and revise the
                                             A-B-C List. ACMP now'updates the A-B-C List on an annual basis.





                                                                                    26







              Improved Government Operations - ACMP coordinates and stream-
       lines state review of all required project permits within the state's coastal
       boundary. This coordinated process means that all state permits for a project
       are reviewed at the same time, permits are issued quickly, and project appli-
       cants and Federal agencies have a single process for obtaining the necessary
       permits. In FY90, over 450 coastal projects were coordinated by DGC under
       the review system; under the new process, reviews were completed in an
       average of 38 days. The state resource agencies coordinated another 300
       project reviews in FY90.

       III. Significant Program Changes

              During the biennium, Whittier, Skagway, Angoon, Craig, Kenai
       Peninsula Borough and the Aleutians West CRSA received approval for new
       or revised district coastal programs. Thirty-three out of thirty-four districts
       now have approved programs. In addition, four AMSA plans were approved
       for the Nushagak and Mulchatna Rivers; Mitchell, Hood and Chaik-
       Whitewater Bays; Port Graham - English Bay; and the Skagway River and
       Port. Statutory and regulatory changes to the ACMA and state forest practices
       act were also approved.

       IV. Evaluation Findings

              An evaluation site visit was conducted in September 1991. The
       findings were completed in January 1992 and concluded that the state is
       satisfactorily implementing the Alaska Coastal Management Program. Rec-
       ommendations included: expanding the ACMP Working Group to include
       district representatives, improving monitoring and compliance activities,
       developing regulations to guide the ACMP petition process, and enhancing
       outreach efforts.
























                                             27








                                           L Background
               AMERICAN
                                                   The A m-erican Samoa Coastal Management Program (ASCMP) is
                   SAMOA                   based on .the Coastal Management Act of 1990, which was passed by the Fono
                                           (Ugislature) and signed into law in December 1990. The Economic Develop-
                                           ment Planning Office (EDPO) is the lead agency. The coastal zone boundary
             Federal Approval Date.        encompasses all of the territory's land and water areas, including three Special
                      September 1980       Management Areas: Pago Pago Harbor, Nu'uuli and Leone pala. The vil-
             Federal Funding FY90:         lages retain control of 92 percent of the land and are governed by chiefs and
                                           councils. The EDPO is responsible for coordinating permitting actions
                              $476,000     through the Project Notification and Review System (PNRS).
             Federal Funding FY91-         IL Program Accomplishments
                              $476,000
                                                   Wetlands Protection - The territory's few remaining wetlands,
                                           dominated by mangrove communities, are threatened by development prima-
                                           rily by filling for residential and commercial use. Recognizing a need for
                                           further wetlands protection, ASCMP enlisted contractual services to develop a
                                           wetlands management plan for the territory. The project included identifica-
                                           tion, classification, and mapping of wetlands, an economic-ecological assess-
                                           ment, definition of local and Federal regulatory authorities, and development
                                           of a comprehensive wetlands management program.

                                                   Permit Simplification    The Permit Notification and Review System
                                           (PNRS) became fully operational in 1988. The PNRS allows for an
                                           interagency review and conditioning of land-use permits through regular bi-
                                           monthly meetings. To further streamline regulatory requirements, both the
                                           land-use and building permits have been combined through a joint application
                                           and linked to the Zoning Board, business license, and power and water ap-
                                           provals. PNRS also instituted an administrative process. In addition, the
                                           American Samoa judicial system reviewed three major ASCMP-related cases
                                           involving an appeal of a land-use permit denial, illegal fill in a wetland, and
                                           violation of a land-use condition.


                                                   Natural Resource Protection - Pago Pago Harbor was selected as the
                                           site of a pilot toxicity study, funded by the Department of Marine and Wildlife
                                           Resources, American Samoa Environmental Protection Agency and ASCMP.
                                           The pilot study showed that the inner harbor is badly contaminated and a
                                           public health advisory was issued. Once ASCMP secures funding, the pro-
                                           gram will begin Phase 2, health and additional field assessments.

                                                   Archeological Resource Protection - Using 306A funds, ASCMP
                                           established an archeological park, known as Tia Seu Lupe or star mound, at
                                           one of only eleven sites on the Tafuna plains (located on the edge of the last
                                           remaining stand of virgin lowland forest). This site was once used as a plat-
                                           form for the sport of netting pigeons and for important Samoan rituals.


                                                                                  28







            Hazards Protection - To meet the Federal Emergency Management
      Agency requirement of implementing a strategy to mitigate the effects of
      coastal hazards, ASCMP and the Soil Conservation Service conducted a
      Landslide Hazard Mitigation Study. In addition, the program sponsored a
      landslide hazards workshop to provide training to other agencies on methods
      for reducing risks of landslides.

            Natural Resource Protection - Rose Atoll National Wildlife Refuge
      has been used for many years as the Marine and Wildlife Awareness project
      field trip site. However, overpopulation of the introduced Polynesian rat has
      disturbed the balance of the atoll's ecosystem. The rats prey on seabirds, sea
      turtles, small mammals plant seedlings, thus destroying the value of the
      refuge. ASCMP, in conjunction with the Department of Marine & Wildlife
      Resources and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, funded a rat eradication
      program for the atoll. The project appears to be a success, but requires addi-
      tional monitoring and possible follow-up efforts.

            Aerial Photo Update and Orthornapping - ASCMP, in conjunction
      with the Community Development Block Grant and the American Samoa
      Power Authority, contracted services for updated aerial photos of the territory,
      including, for the first time, the Manu'a Islands. High growth rate of the
      territory, especially Tutuila, necessitated the mapping effort. Aerial photos
      and orthophotornaps will assist ongoing planning efforts by agencies respon-
      sible for resource management and infrastructure and land use planning.

            Public Awareness - ASCMP planned and successfully carried out
      activities for the annual "Coastweeks" celebration. For the fourth consecutive
      year, American Samoa participated in the national campaign to educate the
      public on the importance of coastal resources and sound coastal management
      and planning. ASCMP, inconjunction with the Department of Education,
      organized the annual Coastal Symposium. Interested students throughout the
      territory presented their research on topics which furthered their understand-
      ing of the island's natural resources.

            In addition, the ASCMP, in cooperation with the Fagatele Bay Na-
      .tional Marine Sanctuary, initiated a public education newsletter. Called "0
      Lau Sam'oa," the newsletter is published both in Samoan and English and
      distributed to island leaders, government agencies and science students
      throughout the territory. The public, education newsletter continues as a forum
      for dialogue on the future of American Samoa's coastal resources.

            In August 1991, ASCMP hosted the 1991 Pacific Basin Coastal Zone
      Management Conference. The theme of the 9th annual conference was
      46creating a Futures Vision." The conference focused attention on the vast
      changes in store for insular Pacific and created a vision accommodating these,
      changes. Approximately 100 participants from within the territory and around
      the Pacific attended the Conference, including OCRM Director Trudy Coxe
      and Coastal States Organization Chairperson Sarah Taylor.

                                    29







                                        III. Significant Program Changes

                                                No program changes were submitted during the biennium.

                                        IV. Evaluation Findings

                                               Final evaluation findings issued September 10, 1991, indicated that the
                                        Territory of American Samoa is adhering to its approved program and is
                                        satisfactorily implementing the provisions of the program. The results of this
                                        evaluation indicated that the territory made tremendous progress in imple-
                                        menting the ASCMP. A significant accomplishment was the establishment of
                                        a fully operational, coordinated, and timely Project Notification and Review
                                        System (PNRS). However, the evaluation noted the following improvements.
                                        are needed to ensure continued development and enhancement of the ASCMP:
                                        refinements to the PNRS, monitoring and enforcement of Land Use Permits,
                                        full legal support (Attorney General Office) of the PNRS, a pro-active leader-
                                        ship role in coastal issues, full implementation of Federal consistency and
                                        development of a comprehensive public awareness and information program.

































                                                                            30









                  L Background                                                                          CALIFORNIA
                          The California Coastal Management Program (CCMP) is comprised of
                  two segments: the San Francisco Bay segment, administered by the San
                  Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), and the
                  remainder of the coast, administered by the California Coastal Commission             Federal Approval Date:
                  (CCC). The CCC is the lead agency for program administration under CZMA                 BCDC - February 1977
                  Section 306.                                                                            CCC - November 1977
                          The CCC administers the California Coastal Act of 1976, as amended,           Federal Funding FY90:
                  which established a coastal permit program and required that all coastal cities                       $2,014,000
                  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,          Federal Funding FY91:
                  or in areas of significant coastal resources inland up to five miles, and seaward                     $2,014,000
                  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.

                          BCDC operates under the McAteer-Petris Act and implements the
                  Suisun Marsh Preservation Act. Proposed development involving placement
                  of fill, dredging, or changes in shoreline use within the designated San Fran-
                  cisco Bay shoreline area require a BCDC permit. BCDC's jurisdiction ex-
                  tends inland generally 100 feet from marshes and tidal waters. In addition to
                  the permit program, BCDC implements the San Francisco Bay Plan and
                  special area plans developed in cooperation with local governments. BCDC
                  adopts the special area plans as amendments to the Bay Plan; local govern-
                  ments adopt the plans as amendments to their general plans.

                  H. Program Accomplishments

                          Monitoring & Enforcement - The CCC developed a computer
                  module to comprehensively record and update enforcement data. Benefits
                  include: the flagging information such as deadlines and repeat violators;
                  summaries of CCC staff caseloads; and production of detailed enforcement
                  progress reports.


                          The CCC helped to organize and co-chair the Santa Monica Mountains
                  Enforcement Task Force comprised of Federal, state and local agencies that
                  regulate development along that portion of the California coast. The Task
                  Force gives priority to the resolution of violations committed by "repeat                             91.
                  offenders" and to cases where there is irreversible damage to resources of the
                  Santa Monica Mountains, especially where beaches, wetlands and streams are
                  affected. A notable accomplishment of the Task Force was the development
                  of a handbook to familiarize the individual agencies with the statutory author-
                                                                                                    7





                  ity of the other agencies and to improve enforcement coordination.


                                                         31







                                               In addition, the CCC developed procedures to guide the review of
                                        after-the-fact (ATF) permits to ensure that ATF recommendations are inte-
                                        gated into enforcement investigation and resolution. This work has helped to
                                        speed case referrals by CCC staff, improve coordination with the Attorney
                                        General's Office, and set case referral priorities for more timely and success-
                                        ful litigation.

                                               Resource Management - In 1986, the U.S. Environmental Protection
                                        Agency (EPA) designated the San Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary Project
                                        (SFEP) under the National Estuary Program. The SFEP supplies effective and
                                        cooperative management of the Bay/Delta System. BCDC is currently repre-
                                        sented on the Management Advisory Committee and many subcommittees
                                        including planning (co-chair), wetlands, land use, freshwater flows, contami-
                                        nants, and waterway modification and dredging. In addition, BCDC, in
                                        cooperation with the Greenbelt Alliance and the University of California-
                                        Berkeley's Center for Environmental Design Research, was selected by the
                                        SFEP to develop a report on the impacts of land use on the estuary. BCDC
                                        continues to work closely with SFEP staff to address methods for assuring that
                                        the CCMP is consistent with BCDC's management program.

                                               Grading and Restoration Techniques - An increasing number of
                                        proposed projects involving extensive grading, particularly in southern Cali-
                                        fomia, has threatened major impacts on water quality, wildlife habitat, sedi-
                                        ment supply to beaches, and groundwater recharge. In response, the CCC
                                        completed a grading handbook that provides information to both developers
                                        and regulatory agencies on the best techniques available to reduce the amount
                                        of land form alteration associated with development in steep sloped areas.

                                               Bay Commission Dredging Initiative - Over the past two years,
                                        BCDC played a major role in resolving major dredging and dredged material
                                        disposal issues in San Francisco Bay. BCDC occupies a major
                                        decisionmaking and staff role in the Long Term Management Strategy
                                        (LTMS), a coordinated state-Federal approach to manage regional dredging
                                        concerns. LTMS is a consensus based process involving EPA, the Army
                                        Corps of Engineers, the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control
                                        Board and BCDC to establish a regional program to manage and regulate
                                        dredging and the disposal of dredged materials in the Bay, ocean, Delta, and
                                        upland areas around the Bay. BCDC, as part of the work on upland disposal
                                        alternatives, will use a $40,000 grant from the San Francisco Estuary Project
                                        to prepare the first phase of a demonstration project involving the beneficial
                                        use of dredged material and an immediate action plan for the beneficial use of
                                        dredged material at Staten Island in the Delta. To update the Bay Plan dredg-
                                        ing policies, pending completion of the LTMS in late 1994, BCDC is sponsor-
                                        ing hearings on staff recommended modifications to the dredging policies.

                                               Public Access - In order to evaluate the effectiveness of survey
                                        techniques using aerial photographs and field topographic work, the CCC
                                        conducted a pilot project to determine the winter location of the mean high

                                                                             32






          tide line at two sample beaches. In addition to providing a better understand-
          ing of the utility of the study techniques, the project provided useful informa-
          tion on the effects of development on shoreline processes and assisted the
          CCC's efforts to resolve seawall and public access violations in pilot areas.

                  In the spring of 1991, the CCC revised and updated the California
          Coastal Access Guide for the first time since 1983. The new guide describes
          expanded areas of the California coast that are open to the public and explains
          in greater detail the rights and responsibilities of the public in their use of
          coastal resources. Another new     feature is a listing of programs that the public
          can become involved in to improve beaches, such as coastal cleanups.

                  The CCC and State Coastal Conservancy also continued their ongoing
          efforts to solve a problem of surplus offers to dedicate public accessways.
          With growing fiscal constraints, local governments are reluctant to take over
          these newly offered accessways. As an alternative, the Joint Access Program
          is experimenting with having nonprofit organizations, such as the Surfrider
          Foundation, formally operate and manage the dedicated accessways.


                  Coastal Education and Public Involvement - The CCC continued its
          public outreach program to expand the public's knowledge of coastal and
          ocean issues. The primary method of getting organizations and individuals
          involved in coastal awareness is through the Adopt-A-Beach program, where
          local organizations commit to cleaning a beach for a year. Another successful
          program is the Coastal Cleanup Days. This program has consistently doubled
          in the past several years. Over 30,000 volunteers helped clean up the coastal
          litter on the September 1991 Coastal Cleanup Day. Cleanups were also held
          for the first time on inland waterways to highlight the importance of nonpoint
          source pollution issues in coastal areas.

                  Federal Consistency - The CCC completed a Federal consistency
          monitoring program to improve its procedures for monitoring mitigation
          measures on existing projects and developing criteria for improving new
          project reviews. The effort resulted in the design of monitoring forms, the
          expansion of the CCC's Federal consistency database, and the implementation
          of a monitoring status/tracking system to provide easy reference.

          III. Significant Program Changes

                  During the biennium, NOAA approved changes to the California
          Coastal Act and the McAteer-Petris Act. NOAA also approved changes to
          BCDC's regulations regarding minor repairs and improvements, notice re-
          quirements, and program amendments, as well as the revised San Francisco
          Waterfront Total Design Plan.

          IV. Evaluation Findings


                  The next section 312 evaluation is scheduled for late 1992.

                                                   33









                                           L Background
           CONNECTICUT
                                                   The Department of Environmental Protection serves as the lead agency
                                           for the Connecticut Coastal Management Programs (CCMP), created by the
                                           state's Coastal Area Management Act of 1979. The Department's Office of
            Federal Approval Date:         Long Island Sound Program (OLISP) administers the coastal regulatory and
                      September 1980       management program. At the state level, policies and standards of the CCMP
                                           are embodied in the permitting process for projects and activities subject to
            Federal Funding FY90:          the Tidal Wetlands and Coastal Structures, Dredging and Filling statutes.
                              $767,000
                                                   At the local level, coastal resource policies and standards are incorpo-
             Federal Funding FY91:         rated into the municipal coastal site plan review process on a project-by-
                              $767,000     project basis. The OLISP staff provide technical assistance and oversight, and
                                           maintain the right to intervene. Municipalities have the option to prepare long-
                                           range coastal management plans custom tailored to their communities. Of the
                                           33 coastal towns that opted to prepare a voluntary municipal coastal program,
                                           31 have completed the process which places project review decisions in a
                                           long-term planning context consistent with state coastal management goals.
                                           Of the two communities that have work outstanding, one is in the first phase
                                           of the process, while the other is in the final phase.

                                                   The CCMP applies to the inland boundary of the coastal municipali-
                                           ties. This includes an intensive management tier which extends 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 juris-
                                           diction in Long Island Sound.

                                           H. Program Accomplishments

                                                   Wetlands Protection - CCMP incorporates 14 coastal resource
                                           categories with policies and standards for each which restrict allowable uses,
                                           depending upon the fragility of the natural resource. CCMP places special
                                           emphasis on protective efforts for tidal wetlands. Despite the stringent regula-
                                           tions, an average of 0.5 acres of tidal wetlands are lost to permitted activities
                                           in the state annually, excluding wetlands restored or created. Prior to the
                                           adoption of the Tidal Wetlands Act in 1969, the state experienced significant
                                           losses or impacts to tidal wetlands - 5,860 acres over a 55-year period
                                           comprising 25 percent of the state's tidal wetlands. Alterations are allowed
                                           only for water-dependent uses and public benefit projects in which no altema-
                                           tives to wetland loss exists; in such cases project sponsors must minimize the
                                           loss to the fullest extent possible.

                                                   The CCMP aggressively pursued the restoration of emergent intertidal
                                           wetlands. Since 1982, the state restored approximately 900 acres of tidal
                                           wetland habitat. This effort consisted first of the systematic identification of


                                                                                    34






          potential sites for restoration. The CCMP staff then worked with other state
          agencies and municipal staff to plan and implement restoration projects. The
          process often entailed the restoration of tidal flow by the replacement and
          manipulation of culverts, tide gates, weirs, and dams. The Coves and
          Embayments Act of 1986 and the creation of the Long Island Sound Clean
          Water Account provide funds for coastal design, construction and monitoring
          of embayment restoration projects.

                 Waterfront Development - In order to address and resolve issues
          unique to the state's navigable harbor areas, the CCMP adopted the Harbor
          Management Act of 1984. The Act gives coastal municipalities the opportu-
          nity to establish harbor management commissions and prepare harbor man-
          agement plans. The state has approved six harbor management plans, with 11
          other plans in various phases of development.

                 Permit Processing - During FY91, substantial efforts were made to
          streamline the processing of permits and to reduce the backlog of permit
          applications. Toward this goal, the CCMP created a new abbreviated Certifi-
          cate of Permission review process to reduce the processing.time of applica-
          tions for small-scale, minor activities. Additionally, the new application form
          and corresponding detailed instructions were developed for larger regular
          permit applications. These efforts proved effective in reducing the number of
          incomplete applications, as well as applications for projects which are clearly
          inconsistent with state policies.

                 Public Access - Public access is a water-dependent use in Connecti-
          cut by statutory definition. The aggressive enforcement of the CCMP's water-
          dependent use standards significantly increased public access opportunities.
          Since 1980, nearly 50,000 linear feet, or more than 9.4 miles, of new public
          access has been made available (over 9,000 feet in fiscal years 1990 and 1991)
          by means other than land acquisition. Public access grew through the review
          of major waterfront development proposals leading to the construction of
          walkways, waterfront parks, easements or other agreements. This growth
          is significant given that approximately 80 percent of the coast consists of
          rocky shorefront, tidal wetlands, or bulkheaded urban waterfront which makes
          the Long Island Sound difficult to reach. During FY90 and FY91, special
          public access grants and studies have been completed in the towns of Groton,
          New London, Stamford, East Lyme, and Groton City. Stratford completed a
          municipal coastal program grant and special projects and studies are near
          completion in Essex and West Haven.

          III. Significant Program Changes

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

          IV. Evaluation Findings


                 The next Section 312 evaluation is scheduled for 1993.


                                                 35








                                        L Background
            DELAWARE
                                                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, and various water quality and tidal wetlands protec-
           Federal Approval Date:       tion programs. The Division of Soil and Water houses the DCMP. The entire
                       August 1979      state has been designated as the coastal zone; the Delaware Bay and ocean
                                        coasts, however, receive special zoning protections from industrial develop-
           Federal Funding FY90:        ment. Programs to address issues in the Delaware Bay and the Delaware
                            $571,000    Inland Bays are being developed under EPA's National Estuary Program;
                                        DNREC-wide programs such as the Inland Bays Recovery Initiative focus on
           Federal Funding FY91:        the Inland Bays as well.
                            $571,000
                                        H. Program Accomplishments


                                                Natural Resource Protection - The DCMP continued to take an
                                        active role in developing initiatives to address a range of issues affecting the
                                        state's coastal zone. Most significant are DCMP efforts to integrate a number
                                        of related department functions to comprehensively address water quality
                                        problems caused by nonpoint source pollution. The nonpoint source threat is
                                        particularly severe in the Inland Bays, where the DCMP developed the Inland
                                        Bays Recovery Initiative, a series of measures including alternative shoreline
                                        stabilization projects, enforcement sweeps, tree plantings, and demonstration
                                        projects such as composting sheds for poultry farmers, all designed to raise
                                        community awareness while addressing immediate problems.

                                                Wetlands Protection - Through the coastal program, DNREC acted
                                        to improve protection of the state's freshwater and tidal wetlands. The DCMP
                                        recently completed a program to more effectively evaluate and map existing
                                        freshwater wetlands.


                                                Under the FY91 award, DCMP launched a new initiative to restore
                                        values to degraded marshes along the Christina River near Wilmington.
                                        Adjacent to industrial urban areas, these marshes could provide important
                                        stormwater storage, water quality, and habitat values, even if the marshes
                                        cannot be restored to pristine tidal wetlands. DCMP began to characterize the
                                        most suitable areas for restoration and develop a 20-year plan to restore key
                                        marshes. Finally, DCMP worked closely with state's nonpoint source pro-
                                        grams and efforts, such as the Inland Bays Estuary Program to develop a
                                        coordinated, watershed approach to improving coastal water quality.

                                                The FY90 grant represented a transitional period for the DCMP. The
                                        program shifted from the Secretary's office to the Division of Soil and Water,
                                        which houses a number of related programs. The state assigned new staff to
                                        administer the program and to begin redefining the DCMP to focus more
                                        narrowly on specific coastal issues. Under this award, the DCMP concluded

                                                                               36







         work on a number of long-term projects related to tidal marsh management,
         and launched new projects in erosion and sediment control and monitoring
         community package treatment systems.

                 In FY91, the DCMP began an extensive program to restore tidal
         wetlands along the Christina River and expanded public information programs
         (see discussion under "Wetlands Pr  otection"), began development of a com-
         prehensive state management plan for tidal wetlands, and continued efforts in
         erosion and sediment control.


         III. Significant Program Changes

                 DCMP intends to submit a program change to incorporate the state's
         new erosion and sediment control legislation into the program.

         IV. Evaluation Findings

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

         OCRM conducted an evaluation site visit in January 1992, and will issue final
         evaluation findings in the summer of 1992.





















                                                37






                FLORIDA                   L Background
                                                  The entire state is included in Florida's coastal zone. The Florida
                                          Coastal Management Program (FCMP) is based on 27 state laws and the
                                          resulting implementing regulations which are administered by 16 agencies.
            Federal Approval Date:        The Department of Environmental Regulation's (DER) Office of Coastal
                     September 1981       Management (OCM) administers the FCMP. The Governor's Office of
                                          Planning and Budget (OPB) assists DER with Federal consistency reviews.
            Federal Funding FY90:                 Day-to-day program administration rests primarily with three agencies
                            $2,048,999    which administer key state coastal management programs: DER, the Depart-
            Federal Funding FY91:         ment of Natural Resources (DNR), and the Department of Community Affairs
                            $2,014,000    (DCA). These three agencies operate under a procedural memorandum of
                                          understanding, signed in 1981 and recently updated, which formalizes their
                                          working relationship and ensures 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. Program Accomplishments

                                                  During FY90 and FY91, the state concentrated CMP efforts on acquir-
                                          ing scientific and technical information to improve the program's information
                                          base on the water quality of designated estuaries and surface water areas. The
                                          state completed a state-wide contaminant survey expected to fill significant
                                          information gaps in Florida's assessment of coastal water pollution.

                                                  The state is in the final phase of a three year river basin project
                                          (Myakka River Basin Study) intended to facilitate effective special area
                                          management planning in local and state programs and to provide the basis for
                                          mutually supportive actions between local land use, environmental protection
                                          and storm water management programs with state administrative efforts. This
                                          project is expected to serve as a prototype for similar efforts in other water-
                                          sheds throughout the state.

                                                  The state also undertook a project to coordinate the activities of the
                                          surface water improvement and management program covering many aquatic
                                                  e plans and local government comprehensive plans. The project aims
                                          preserv
                                          to resolve conflicting state policies concerning coastal land and water uses
                                          that directly and significantly impact the coast.

                                                  The state undertook research projects to support interim beachfront
                                          post disaster redevelopment planning for use by the Division of Beaches and
                                          Shores in permitting activities while the state's Beach Management Plan is
                                          formulated. This project will also develop the data base necessary for inte-
                                          grating post disaster redevelopment considerations into the Comprehensive
                                          Beach Management Plan.

                                                                                  38








                Florida also conducted an island assessment to gather specific stan-
         dardized of information about the islands, as a foundation for a focused
         evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of existing regulatory and manage-
         ment programs.


                Research efforts also continued in determining the impacts of develop-
         ment activities on the state's threatened or endangered marine species, for
         example the effects of artificial lighting on sea turtle reproduction.

         III. Program Changes

                During the biennium, the Florida DER administered the coastal pro-
         gram. After extensive discussions with state agency heads, the Governor
         assigned all responsibility for the FCMP to the Lieutenant Governor, with
         active management responsibility for the program delegated to the Florida
         Department of Community Affairs (DCA). Legislation has recently been
         enacted formally transferring the program from DER to DCA.

                The Coastal Resources Interagency Management Committee (IMC),
         which coordinates the activities of the FCMP, recently adopted a work pro-
         gram that provides a foundation for the development of a three year action
         plan. This plan will identify and prioritize coastal issues and serve as a basis
         for future coastal management grants in Florida.

         IV. Evaluation Findings

                OCRM conducted a 312 evaluation of the FCMP during December
         1991. The mAjor areas of focus included: the leadership and policy direction
         of the FCM.P, the role and focus of the IMC, and the ability of the IMC to
         serve as a central coordinating, policy setting and conflict resolution mecha-
         nism for the FCMP on state-wide co* astal issues. Findings are scheduled for
         release in April 1992.

















                                              39











                                      L Background
             TERRITORY
               OFGUAM                       The Guam Coastal Management Program (GCMP) functions as 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
            Federal Approval Date:    authorities set forth in Executive Order Nos. 78-20, 21, 13, 37; the Compre-
                       August 1979    hensive Planning Enabling Legislation; and the Territorial Seashore Protection
                                      Act. Land use decisions are made by the seven member Territorial Land Use
            Federal Funding FY90:     Commission (TLUC), which is appointed by the Governor; the Department of
                           $480,000   Land Management acts as staff to the TLUC.
            Federal Funding FY91:           In 1990, Executive Order No. 90-09 established the Development
                           $480,000   Review Committee (DRC), formerly the Subdivision and Development
                                      Review Committee, which provides an intergovernmental review of all
                                      projects submitted to the TLUC. All other coastal resource management
                                      decisions are made by the remaining 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.


                                      IL Program Accomplishments

                                            Comprehensive Land Use Planning - Guam is developing a compre-
                                      hensive Master Plan, which will include elements such as land use, commu-
                                      nity design, and conservation and development policies. The GCMP is assist-
                                      ing in the master planning effort, and is developing the Geographic Informa-
                                      tion System mapping and data base system. Digitally produced information
                                      will include lot lines, topography, limestone forest boundaries, and seashore
                                      reserve. Data base information will provide zoning, land-use, lot size, infra-
                                      structure availability and endangered species or habitat information.

                                            Wetlands - In FY90, the GCMP coordinated an intergovernmental
                                      task force on wetlands education. The task force educated decisionmakers
                                      and the public on the current status of Guam's wetlands and the applicable
                                      federal and local wetlands laws. As part of this program, the GCMP pub-
                                      lished a public information pamphlet on wetlands, as well as a guidebook for
                                      decision makers which analyzed the current law and made recommendations
                                      for model legislation. The model legislation is currently under consideration
                                      by the Guam legislature for adoption.

                                      III. Significant Program Changes

                                            During the report period, the GCMP incorporated twenty laws and
                                      fifteen executive orders into the GCMP as routine program implementations.
                                      The program changes include modifications to the zoning law, historic preser-
                                      vation concerns, amendments to endangered species and game and fish laws,

                                                                       40








        adoption of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory
        Maps, and increased public land management. In addition, TLUC set new
        requirements for EIAs on all applications for zone changes or variance re-
        quests, and the DRC's role expanded to provide inter- governmental review of
        all TLUC decisions.


        IV. Evaluation Findings

               The final evaluation findings issued September 12, 1990, indicated
        that the territory was implementing and adhering to"the provisions of the
        approved CMP. Accomplishments of the GCMP included coordinating the
        GovGuarn task force to develop a recreational water use plan and developing
        a comprehensive training manual for Department of Public Works building
        inspectors. Recommendations included revising regulations to provide stricter
        requirements for issuing variances, establishing more stringent standards for
        reconsideration of permit applications, and improving enforcement of TLUC
        permit conditions.



































                                            41











                                             L Background
                       HAWAII
                                                    The Hawaii Coastal Zone Management Program (HCZMP) depends
                                             primarily on statutory provisions that direct state agencies and county govern-
                                             ments to conductregulatory and non-regulatory activities in compliance with
                                             the coastal policies established in the Hawaii Revised Statutes. The Office of
               Federal Approval Date:        State Planning (OSP) is the lead agency for the HCZMP and receives advice
                        September 1978       on policy making and program implementation from the Statewide Advisory
                                             Committee.
               Federal Funding FY90:
                                $715,000     IL Program Accomplishments
               Federal Funding FY91:                Hawaii Coastal Zone Management Assessment - In response to a
                                $715,000     verbal legislative mandate, the OSP-completed an assessment of the effective-
                                             ness of the HCZMP. The findings were used in developing options for im-
                                             proving the program. The effort involved extensive public participation. The
                                             result was a report, Recommendations for Improving the    'Hawaii Coastal Zone
                                             Management Program, submitted to the Governor and the Legislature. In
                                             addition, HCZMP submitted a bill to the Legislature to implement the recom-
                                             mendations of the report.

                                                    Hazards Protection - In the third year of a multi-year statewide
                                             beach management program, Hawaii conducted two projects. The City and
                                             County of Honolulu Department of Land Utilization completed the 1991
                                             Oahu Shoreline Management Plan which explored alternative regulatory and
                                             nonregulatory strategies for preserving Oahu beaches threatened with loss
                                             through erosion. The plan also formulated a general and beach-specific plan
                                             for preserving these natural resources. The second project was an analysis of
                                             aerial photographs to determine historical changes in the shoreline position at
                                             selected beaches, covering 66 miles of sand shoreline. The resulting erosion/
                                             accretion history report, entitled Aerial Photograph Analysis of Coastal
                                             Erosion on the Islands of Kauai, Molokai, Lanai, Maui and Hawaii, will aid
                                             in predicting future coastal erosion trends, developing beach management
                                             plans and enhancing regulatory decisions on shoreline area activities.

                                                    Natural Resource Protection       Phase 11, an expansion on Phase I of
                                             the Hawaii Fishpond Study: Islands of Oahu, Molokai and Hawaii inventoried
                                             and assessed the historic coastal fishponds on the Islands of Hawaii, Maui,
                                             Lanai, and Kauai. The study assessed fishponds for cultural and historical
                                             values, as well as aquacultural, mariculture, and recreational activities. The
                                             study also outlined the environmental permit and review requirements and
                                             analyzed the current process for leasing state-owned fishponds, with the intent
                                             of suggesting possible approaches to encourage fishpond utilization. The
                                             results of the study will form a foundation for improving land and water use
                                             policy planning by providing information that identifies acceptable alternative
                                             uses of the fishponds.


                                                                                    42








          Natural Resource Protection - Coastal view studies were completed for all
          counties. The studies give the counties a systematic approach to preserving
          and protecting valuable scenic resources in deciding proposals for develop-
          ment in the nearshore areas.


          III. Significant Program Changes

                 No program changes were submitted during the biennium.

          IV. Evaluation Findings

                 The final evaluation, findings issued in April 199 1, indicated that. the
          State of Hawaii is adhering to its approved coastal zone management program
          and is making progress in implementing the provisions of its approved coastal
          zone management program. The most significant issues to be addressed are:
          examining ways to improve County monitoring and enforcement of SMA       .
          permits and conditions, continuing public education of the HCZMP by hosting
          periodic workshops with state and county officials, and using existing CZM
          newsletters to publicize coastal management issues and the needs and benefits
          of the HCZN4P and thereby enhance public information and public perception.































                                                43








                                    L Background
           LOUISIANA
                                           The Louisiana Coastal Resources Program (LCRP) is based on the
                                    Louisiana State and Local Resources Management Act of 1978 and imple-
                                    mented by the Department of Natural Resources/Coastal Management Divi-
                                    sion (DNR/CMD). The coastal zone boundary encompasses all or part of 19
          Federal Approval Date:    parishes (roughly 8.5 million acres) and extends to the limit of state waters.
                   August 1, 1980   The Act established a comprehensive regulatory program - the Coastal Use
                                    Permit program administered by DNR/CMD - through which the state
          Federal Funding FY90:     directly regulates any use or activity within the coastal zone that directly and
                       $2,014,000   significantly impacts coastal waters. Parishes are authorized but not required
                                    to develop Local Coastal Programs (LCP) and if an LCP is approved by DNR/
          Federal Funding FY91:     CMD, the Parish may then regulate uses of local concern. DNR/CMD, has
                       $2,014,000   designated two special management areas: the Louisiana Offshore Oil Port
                                    and the Marsh Island Wildlife Refuge.

                                    Il. Program Accomplishments

                                           Natural Resource Protection: Beneficial Use of Dredge Material
                                    The state looses between 30 to 40 square miles of coastal wetlands annually.
                                    The lack of sediment reaching natural wetlands in the delta plays a significant
                                    role in this process. However, a tremendous amount of sediment is dredged
                                    from navigation channels and disposed of in uplands or ocean disposal sites,
                                    where the sediment does not benefit wetlands. Consequently, one measure to
                                    curb the loss of coastal wetlands is to use non-contaminated sediment that is
                                    dredged as part of navigation or other projects to protect, restore or create
                                    wetlands or stabilize navigation channels to prevent additional wetland ero-
                                    sion. The state passed new legislation which strengthens existing coastal use
                                    guidelines by requiring mitigation and the beneficial use of dredge materials
                                    for projects over a specific threshold amount. The state has also used Federal
                                    consistency authority to encourage the Corps of Engineers to incorporate the
                                    beneficial use of dredge material into the design of projects. The State and the
                                    Corps have begun to cooperate more closely in the advanced planning of
                                    dredging activities to identify areas where beneficial use is possible.

                                           Permit Simplification - The state developed and incorporated into the
                                    coastal program two new general permits-General Permits #1 and #4-to
                                    expedite oil and gas activities, minimize coastal wetlands losses, and increase
                                    public safety. General permit #1 allows for the construction of oil and gas
                                    pipelines and flowlines along existing oil field transportation routes (spoil
                                    banks, board roads) with a minimal amount of wetlands loss. General permit
                                    #4 provides for the removal of abandoned pipelines in wetlands and water-
                                    ways with a minimal amount of environmental disturbance. The permits saved
                                    oil companies significant time and expense, reduced the average wetlands area
                                    altered per permit, and increased public safety by reducing the chances of
                                    hitting exposed pipelines.


                                                                       44





                 Review and Evaluation of Enforceable Policies - Using CZM funds,
         the Coastal Management Division conducted a major review and evaluation of
         the Coastal Use Guidelines (the state's enforceable policies) for the first time
         in 10 years. The state developed draft revised guidelines. Generally, the
         revisions provided more environmental protection, more predictability to the
         regulated community, and better coordination between the coastal manage-
         ment and coastal restoration programs. The revised guidelines were published
         for public comment; the state is now reviewing comments.

                 Wetlands Resource Protection - Mitigation Policy - With the passage
         of Act 1040-Wetlands Mitigation legislation- the state used CZM funds to
         refine policy, and develop final rules and regulations for wetlands mitigation,
         such as requirements for wetlands restoration, enhancement and creation to
         offset unavoidable adverse impacts to wetlands resulting from permitted
         activities. The state used CZM funds to conduct a mitigation costs analysis, a
         study of the effectiveness of mitigation projects, and a study to develop and
         implement a plan to ensures full monitoring of all required mitigation. The.
         cost analysis investigated mitigation costs for small permitted impacts and
         how these costs could be used in mitigation banks. The CMD is also conduct-
         ing file and field studies to review the types of as well as the degree of imple-
         mentation of past mitigation projects required as a pen-nit conditions. More
         importantly, these studies form a base for developing criteria and evaluating
         the success of these and future mitigation projects. These studies also provide
         data needed to refine the state's wetlands mitigation policy and to prepare
         draft rules and regulations for Act 1040, efforts also supported by CZM funds.

         III. Significant Program Changes

                 State Wetlands Restoration Program - 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 support restoration projects. In April 1990 and 1991, the Wetlands
         Authority submitted and the legislature passed priority lists of restoration and
         conservation projects. Many of the wetlands projects initiated in 1990 and
         1991 depended on the state restoration trust fund. The trust fund contained
         roughly $5 million in FY90 and $26 million in FY91. Final rules and regula-
         tions for the restoration program are being developed by the Office of Coastal
         Restoration and Management. The state will submit the program for incorpo-
         ration into the LCMP when the final rules are adopted.

                 State Mitigation Legislation - In July 1990, the state legislature
         passed Act 1040, a coast-wide Wetlands Mitigation Law. The legislation
         requires compensatory mitigation for any permitted development activity
         impacting coastal wetlands. The legislation also provides for mitigation
         banks, and includes exemptions from the mitigation requirements for certain
         activities of overriding public interest. The Office of Coastal Restoration and
         Management is developing draft rules and regulations for the legislation and
         will submit the mitigation act for incorporation into LCRMP at that time.


                                                 45









                                                  Beneficial Use Legislation - In July 1991 the Louisiana Legislature
                                          passed Act 637, requiring the Secretary of the Department of Natural Re-
                                          sources to insure the beneficial use of dredge or fill material for dredging
                                          activities over 500,000 cubic yards. The legislation mandates that the DNR
                                          Secretary require companies dredging more than 500,000 cubic yards of
                                          material to use the fill for wetland protection, restoration, enhancement or
                                          creation in accordance with a long term management strategy to be developed
                                          for each waterway. The Office of Coastal Restoration and Management is
                                          developing draft rules and regulations for the legislation.

                                                  St. Tammary Parish LCP - The St. Tammary Parish completed a
                                          coastal program and submitted the plan and ordinance to NOAA for approval
                                          as a Routine Program Implementation in 199 1. NOAA remanded the LCP to
                                          the state with a request for additional information to address public comments,
                                          as well as NOAA concerns. The state and Parish are addressing NOAA's
                                          concerns and expect to resubmit the LCP as a program change in 1992.

                                                  General Permits #1 and #4 were officially incorporated into the
                                          LCRMP in 1991. These permits minimize adverse inputs to wetlands while
                                          expediting oil and gas activities.

                                                  Act 408 (1984) and Act 662 (1989), submitted to OCRM in February
                                          1991, were not approved for incorporation. These Acts, respectively, abol-
                                          ished the Louisiana Coastal Commission, replacing it with the Louisiana
                                          Coastal Advisory Council, and then abolished the Coastal Advisory Council.
                                          OCRM requested that the state submit additional information describing how
                                          it will provide ongoing public participation in program implementation,
                                          especially the permitting process and other decisionmaking. The state must
                                          clarify its position before OCRM will reconsider the program changes.

                                          IV. Evaluation Findings

                                                  Final evaluation findings issued July 22, 1991 indicated the state was
                                          implementing and enforcing the essential elements of the approved program.
                                          The findings also indicated that improvements were needed in program
                                          monitoring and enforcement; technical assistance to applicants; public partici-
                                          pation and input into the regulatory/management program; incorporating
                                          program changes into the approved management program; developing a
                                          constituency for coastal management; making better use of local coastal
                                          programs; and completing outstanding special area management plans. Ac-
                                          complishments included continued success in using the geologic review
                                          process, developing general permits #1 and #4, and developing the state's
                                          coastal wetlands restoration program.





                                                                                  46










              L Background
                                                                                                           MAINE
                      The State Planning Office (SPO) serves as 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 bound-           Federal Approval Date:
              ary includes the inland line of all coastal towns and all coastal islands. The                   September 1978
              state is now addressing the major coastal issues of growth management, water
              quality, public access and ocean resources.                                            Federal Funding FY90:
                                                                                                                     $1,538,000
              IL Program Accomplishments
                                                                                                     Federal Funding FY91:
                      Water Quality - In April 1990, Casco Bay became the fifth                                      $1,538,000
              waterbody in New England to be designated under the National Estuary
              Program (NEP). As an NEP, Casco Bay qualifies for Federal assessment and
              planning funds over a five-year period. The designation solidifies the part-
              nership involving Federal, state and local governments, bay users, marine
              industries, businesses, environmental groups and private citizens. A Casco
              Bay Management Committee was formed to oversee the program and to
              oversee the development of a Comprehensive Conservation Management
              Plan for the Bay. The MeCMP is represented on the management committee.

                      A new challenge for the Casco Bay Management team is to address
              the multitude of issues related to the wrath of Hurricane Bob which struck the
              Maine Coast in August 1991. The hurricane sent millions of gallons of raw
              sewage, sediment, metals and other pollutants, into the bay and coastal wa-
              ters. This severe impact on the water quality and wildlife in Casco Bay could
              change the health of Casco Bay. In addition, the MeCMP provided technical
              assistanceto assist state and local officials and the public in understanding the
              importance of managing estuaries. Efforts included The Estuary Book, a
              coastal water quality primer and guide to promoting understanding and
              improving regional management of Maine's Estuaries and Embayments, and
              the Estuary Profile Series, which profile 19 of Maine's important estuaries
              and is designed to help towns with regional estuary planning.

                      Managing Maine's Marine Waters          The MeCMP completed a
              marine policy report entitled, Policy Optionsfor Maine's Marine Waters. The
              report recommended establishing a Marine and Coastal Resources Task
              Force, now created, which serves in an advisory capacity to state agencies,
              provides a forum for consensus building on key marine and coastal issues and
              develops the strategy plan for the state's marine waters.

                      Managing Interstate Waterbodies - The state successfully initiated
              the Gulf of Maine Program in 1988. The program is a cooperative interstate
              initiative, involving three states, Maine, Massachusetts and New Hampshire,


                                                      47








                                         and two provinces, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Since inception, the
                                         program has proven successful. Accomplishments to date include: a compre-
                                         hensive report on the state of the Gulf resources; a signed international agree-
                                         ment by the three governors and two premiers; an action plan to address the
                                         management issues relative to the restoration and future management of the
                                         Gulf, an analysis of the legal framework for managing the resources in and
                                         around the Gulf-, a bi-monthly newsletter, Turning the Tide! and Gu6rLinks, a
                                         resource guide to coastal organizations in the Gulf of Maine region.

                                                Local Assistance - The MeCMP published two guidebooks to train
                                         and assist local officials in understanding the state's resource protection laws
                                         and to provide code enforcement officers with a basic tool to identify and
                                         delineate Maine wetlands. These documents, entitled "Maine Wetlands and
                                         their Boundaries," and "Municipal Code Enforcement Officers Training
                                         Manual," provide valuable information and training guidance for local offi-
                                         cials regarding wetlands identification, delineation of wetlands bo.undaries and
                                         administration and enforcement of the Mandatory Shoreland Zoning law, as
                                         well as other wetlands protection rules and ordinances.

                                                Coastal Development - Under the auspices of the Comprehensive
                                         Planning and Land Use Regulation Act of 1988, municipalities are required to
                                         develop growth management plans and implementation plans containing
                                         appropriate zoning ordinances that must be approved by state agencies and the
                                         appropriate regional councils before adoption. The law requires that all plans
                                         be consistent with the goals and policies of the MeCMP. To date, 127 towns
                                         have completed plans and 57 have been adopted by towns. Although the
                                         legislature in a budget cutting measure removed the mandate for comprehen-
                                         sive planning, it is possible that this action will be rescinded in the near future.

                                                Identifying Priority Issues - Maine initiated a comprehensive ap-
                                         proach to assessing the eight coastal zone enhancement issues identified under
                                         section 309 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990. In
                                         May 1991, the MeCMP surveyed coastal residents and concerned groups to
                                         determine the most important natural resource management issues on the
                                         coast. Respondents to the survey indicated strong concern for water pollution,
                                         coastal wetlands and cumulative and secondary impacts of development. In
                                         assessing the eight issues, the state cited accomplishments, problems and
                                         noted some possible options for improvement.

                                         IV. Evaluation Findings

                                                The next evaluation of the MeCMP is scheduled for September 1992.






                                                                              48







             L Background                                                                           MARYLAND
                     The Maryland Coastal Zone Management Program (MCZMP) net-
             works 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. Within DNR, the           Federal Approval Date:
             Coastal Resources Division (CRD) coordinates and monitors the MCZN/IP. In                       September 1978
             response to Section 312 evaluation findings, the DNR established a Coastal
             Resources Coordination Committee to formalize policy and program coordi-               Federal Funding FY90:
             nation within the MCZMP.                                                                              $2,014,000
                     The program's coastal zone boundary includes the 16 coastal counties           Federal Funding FY91:
             and Baltimore City. Maryland also controls development in A critical area                             $2,014,000
             1,000 feet landward from all tidally influenced waters through the Chesa-
             peake Bay Critical Areas Law and Commission. The Critica       'I Area law and
             criteria were incorporated by amendment into the MCZMP on July 27, 1987.
             All of the local coastal communities developed land use plans for the critical
             area as mandated by the Critical Areas legislation.

             H. Program Accomplishments

                     Natural Resource Protection - The Maryland Environmental Trust
             (MET) continues to secure conservation easements along the Chesapeake Bay
             and Bay tributaries. Private landowners donate the development rights of
             their land to the MET in exchange for financial benefits. The landowners
             retain all other rights and privileges. The state recently focused on the devel-
             opment of local land trusts.

                     Wetlands Protection - DNR played an active role in developing the
             new state non-tidal wetland law, which incorporates the no-net-loss concept.
             The program aims 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 author-
             ity. 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.

                     Public Access - The CRD continued to effectively use CZMA
             Section 306A low-cost construction funds. Using CZM funds, Maryland,
             Virginia, Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia developed a Chesapeake
             Bay access and land preservation plan. This project resulted 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.

                     The State developed a comprehensive plan for the establishment of a
             Greenway network for the Patapsco River watershed. The goal is to improve


                                                     49








                                        water quality, expand and enhance wildlife habitat, and develop improved
                                        non-impact recreation areas.

                                        III. Significant Program Changes

                                               The state will submit a revised program document, which will include
                                        statutes protecting Chesapeake Bay from oil and gas development, the new
                                        non-tidal wetland law, and other changes to MCZMP laws.

                                        IV. Evaluation Findings

                                               Final evaluation findings issued October I I j 199 1, indicated 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. Accomplish-
                                        ments of the program included the approval of all 60 local Chesapeake Bay
                                        Critical Areas Protection Programs; the state's Conservation Easement Pro-
                                        gram; implementation of the Non-Tidal Wetland law; improving technical
                                        assistance to local governments; establishing the non-structural shore erosion
                                        control program;, and implementing the Chesapeake Bay Agreement. Recom-
                                        mendations include: improving monitoring of state agency and local govern-
                                        ment activities; improving public education; developing a policy/leadership
                                        development entity to address growth management and improvement; coordi-
                                        nate among the various programs; redefining the role of the Coastal Re-
                                        sources Advisory Committee; and submitting various program changes.



























                                                                             50










              L Backgroun   d
                     The legal framework for the Massachusetts Coastal Zone Manage-                MASSACHUSETTS
              ment Program (MCZMP) rests in the Act Relative to the Protection of the
              Massachusetts Coastline passed in 1983. The program encompasses 27
              policies which serve as guides for implementing the authorities of the pro-
              gram. Other key laws of the program include the Wetlands Protection Act, the          Federal Approval Date:
              Wetlands Restriction Act and the Ocean Sanctuaries Act. The lead agency for                           April 197
              the MCZMP is the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs (EOEA);
              EOEA's Office of Coastal Zone Management is charged with day-to-day                   Federal Funding FY88:
              administration of the MCZMP. The coastal zone boundary extends 100 feet                              $1,181,000
              inland to specified majorroads, rail lines, or other visible right-of-ways which
              can be located up to one-half mile from coastal waters or salt marshes, and           Federal Funding FY89:
              embraces, all of Cape Cod, Martha's Vineyard, and Nantucket. Major coastal                           $1,180,000
              issues include public access, coastal erosion, nonpoint source pollution and
              critical area planning.

              ii. Program Accomplishments

                     Natural Resource Protection - During the biennium, three additional
              Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) were designated, insuring
              special protection of the coastal resources. A higher level of review, including
              higher performance standards, is required for activities in and affecting these
              ACEC sites. To date, the state has designated 13 ACECs. In addition, the
              Secretary of Environmental Affairs approved program guidelines developed
              by MCZMP staff that direct the development of ACEC Resource Manage-
              ment Plans. These plans will be created by those communities with ACECs
              and will aid EOEA agencies in making permitting decisions. Currently,
              permitting the construction of private, non-commercial structures below the
              mean low water mark requires consistency with an ACEC Resource Manage-
              ment Plan; however, the MCZMP plans to significantly expand the regulatory
              implementation of the program.

                     Chapter 91 Regulations - Final regulations pursuant to Chapter 91 of                A
              the Public Waterfront Act were promulgated in the Fall of 1990. This 124-
              year-old Public Waterfront Act is the oldest such act in the U.S. and protects
              and manages the commonwealth's coastal and inland waters. The regulations
              apply to anyone who plans to build on, dredge, or fill a tideland area. The
                                                                                                    Y           I I I SIR",
              r
              egulations provide priority use for water dependent uses and require non
              water dependent uses to be set back from the water's edge (250 feet), to be
              limited in height (55 feet) and density, and to include uses given to the gen-                7
              eral public. The Act also promotes public access along the water's edge by
              requiring walkways and other spaces for year-round public enjoyment.

                     Harbor Planning Regulations - MCZMP published Harbor Planning
              Regulations in the Fall of 1990 in conjunction with Chapter 91 Regulations.
              These regulations provided the framework for a state and local partnership in
              the environmentally sound management of the Massachusetts coastline.
                                                     51








                                                   National Estuary Program - The previously designated Buzzards
                                           Bay and the more recently designated Massachusetts Bay are the two national
                                           estuaries of significance in Massachusetts. During the report period, the
                                           Buzzards Bay program completed a Comprehensive Conservation Manage-
                                           ment Plan (CCMP), which was approved by the Governor of Massachusetts in
                                           September 1991. The CCMP includes management recommendations which
                                           involve cooperation among Federal, state and local governments, as well as
                                           private industry. The CCMP provides overall guidance for local governments
                                           on implementing strategies and actions that will protect the water quality and
                                           living resources of Buzzards Bay. This CCMP was the first completed and
                                           approved under the National Estuary Program (NEP).

                                                   The Massachusetts Bay Program was formed and in operation prior to
                                           designation under the NEP. The NEP status solidifies the Bay program and
                                           provides funding for the program over the next five years. Along with the
                                           Management, Technical and other committees required under the NEP pro-
                                           gram, the state established a Baywide Committee for the Massachusetts Bay
                                           Program. The Baywide Committee, an official multi-town, bay-based man-
                                           agement group, is considering a pact similar to the Buzzards Bay Action
                                           Committee. The CCMP for Massachusetts Bay is scheduled for completion
                                           within five years. Local governments and environmental groups rallied con-
                                           siderable support and participation for the Massachusetts Bay Program.

                                                   Coastal Hazards      During the report period, two major coastal
                                           storms struck the New England coast. In August 1991, Hurricane Bob hit the
                                           New England coast,'causing several injuries, deaths and severe damage to
                                           coastal property and resources. Massachusetts was the New England state
                                           most heavily impacted by Hurricane Bob because the storm path paralleled
                                           the shoreline, crossing land at the base of Cape Cod. In October 1991, a
                                           severe northeaster storm struck the New England coast, again causing consid-
                                           erable damage to lives, property and coastal resources. Almost every coastal
                                           community in Massachusetts reported significant    damage from one of these
                                           two storms. Areas that experienced the most destruction were barrier beaches
                                           and flood plains, particularly in the velocity zones. The two storms also forced
                                           most of the state's shell fishing areas to close, some indefinitely.

                                                   The MCZMP staff played a vital role in developing a commonwealth
                                           storm Policy that calls for strict adherence to existing state environmental laws
                                           and building codes prohibiting installation of septic systems in areas vulner-
                                           able to storm surge flooding on barrier beaches where it is not possible to
                                           design and operate safely. (A velocity zone is that area of the flood plain
                                           where structural damage is expected from greater than three-foot wave turbu-
                                           lence and elevated sea levels as the storm moves on shore.) Most of the
                                           structures affected by the storm policy were constructed prior to enactment of
                                           the state's Title 5 Sanitary Code and Wetlands Protection Act, designed to
                                           prevent widespread coastal water pollution caused by inappropriately placed
                                           septic systems and structures. The storm policy only affects homes in viola-
                                           tion of current state laws for public health and environmental protection.
                                                                                  52








                 Gulfwatch - An important accomplishment for FY91 was the initia-
         tion of a pilot environmental monitoring program called Gulfwatch. Modeled
         after the Federal Musselwatch program, each jurisdiction in Gulfwatch
         maintained and sampled caged mussels at two sites in local coastal waters.
         The Maine Department of Environmental Protection analyzed tissue for
         metals and Environment Canada completed the analyses of organic material.
         The program will continue in FY92.

                 Proposed Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary - The
         MCZMP continues to play an important role in the designation of the
         Stellwagen Bank as a National Marine Sanctuary. Since the designation of
         MCZMP as a "coordinating agency" by NOAA, MCZMP staff assisted in the
         preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement/Management Plan (EIS/
         MP) and in efforts to educate commercial fishermen, the fishing industry and
         commercial and recreational users of Stellwagen Bank about the effects of
         sanctuary designation. MCZMP's coordination on the sanctuary proposal was
         the first time any state CZM program participated to such a degree in the
         sanctuary designation process.

                 Gu6(of Maine Protection - Massachusetts participates in an innova-
         tive cooperative program to protect the Gulf of Maine system. The governors
         of Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Maine and the premiers of the Cana-
         dian Provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia signed an agreement in
         December 1989 committing the jurisdictions to working together in maintain-
         ing and improving the environmental integrity of the Gulf of Maine. The
         Secretary of Environmental Affairs and the MCZMP Director represent
         Massachusetts on the Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment.

         III. Significant Program Changes

                 During the report period, NOAA approved MCZMP's designation of
         three new ACECs as routine program implementation (RPI). The regulations
         for designation of ACECs were revised and approved as RPIs.

         IV. Evaluation Findings

                 Final evaluation findings, issued on November 15, 1991, cited some
         major accomplishments along with recommendations for improvement.
         NOAA commended the MCZMP for leadership in addressing coastal issues,
         such as the promulgation of the Chapter 91 regulations, completing harbor
         management planning regulations, passage of the Cape Cod Commission Act,
         and providing technical assistance to municipalities on a host of coastal and
         related issues. Areas where the state could improve performance included
         reducing the backlog of permit applications and institutionalizing the regional
         coordinator positions to ensure continued high performance and support in
         providing much needed technical assistance to municipalities.


                                               53









                                            L Background
               MICHIGAN
                                                    The Michigan Coastal Management Program (MCMP) was approved
                                            in August 1978 with the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) as the lead
                                            state agency for coastal management. The DNR's Land and Water Manage-
             Federal Approval Date:         ment Division (LWMD) handles administration and management of the
                          August 1978       MCMP, guided by the Shorelands Protection an Management Act; the Great
                                            Lakes Submerged Lands Act; the Sand Dunes Protection and Management
             Federal Funding FY90:          Act; the Goemaere-Anderson Wetlands Protection Act; the Inland Lakes and
                             $2,014,000     Streams Act; and the Michigan Environmental Protection Act.
             Federal Funding FY91:                  The MCMP's lakeward coastal boundary is the jurisdictional border
                             $2,014,000     shared with Canada's Province of Ontario and the states of Minnesota, Wis-
                                            consin, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio. The landward coastal boundary extends
                                            inland to include resources that affect the coastal zone and significant coastal
                                            features such as sand dunes, wetlands, and coastal lakes. The Michigan coast-
                                            line is geographically unique, featuring two large peninsulas and touching
                                            four of the five Great Lakes.


                                            Il. Program Accomplishments

                                                    Wetlands protection - DNR set a goal to create 500,000 acres of
                                            wetlands by the year 2000, including 150,000 acres of coastal wetlands. To
                                            support this goal, MCMP funded a Great Lakes Wetland Restoration Plan for
                                            rehabilitating wetlands damaged by natural and human impacts and restoring
                                            wetlands converted to other uses. The plan addresses the engineering, biologi-
                                            cal, and economic requirements necessary to restore the Great Lakes wetlands.

                                                    Growth management - MCMP assisted communities in addressing
                                            growth management concerns, as large increases in growth pose additional
                                            threats to the natural resources. MCMP funded a demonstration project imple-
                                            menting a Transfer Development Rights and Purchase of Development Rights
                                            program to protect prime agricultural lands from increased development
                                            pressure. In addition, MCMP funded and served on several committees that
                                            are preparing an integrated Growth Management Plan. MCMP funds were
                                            also used for the preparation of a Community Planning Handbook to provide
                                            local communities with tools and techniques for guiding community change.
                                            Sand Dunes Protection and Management Act: In July 1989, after years of
                                            effort, the state legislature passed amendments to the Sand Dunes Protection
                                            and Management Act aimed at managing non-mining activities in Michigan
                                            sand dunes. This Act represents a tremendous accomplishment for the DNR in
                                            its efforts to protect fragile natural resources, such as sand dunes. In addition
                                            to processing permits, the MCMP staff have worked with communities inter-
                                            ested in developing an ordinance to assume regulatory control.




                                                                                    54






                Marina permitting program - To address the high demand for
        marinas and the direct and cumulative impacts of this use on natural re-
        sources, the MCMP supported a policy on limiting marina development to
        upland sites and improving the marina renewal program.

                As Great Lakes water levels decline, more permits for dredging are
        submitted to the DNR. The DNR staff hired an additional staff person to
        review marina applications and marina design plans, process permits and
        trespass litigation cases. To maintain a viable marina permitting program, the
        DNR is conducting more aerial flights over drowned river mouths to deter-
        mine permit compliance.

                Underwater archaeology - The MCMP implemented the amend-
        ments to the Aboriginal Records and Antiquities Act, commonly referred to
        as the "Underwater Salvage Act." The amendments.formally create the
        Underwater Preserve Committee, provide expanded authority under which a
        permit may be issued, and establish criteria under which a permit may be
        issued for salvage or exploration within a bottomland preserve. To date, eight
        areas have been designated as underwater preserves.

                Rulesfor Shoreland Protection and Management Act - The MCMP
        drafted amendments to the rules under the Shorelands Protection and Man-
        agement Act. The package sent to the Natural Resources Commission and
        adopted in May 1992 represented significant staff effort and will result in
        greater protection of areas covered under the statue. The proposed rules
        include doubling the setback for large structures; requiring that most small
        structures be readily moveable; clarifying the definition of a readily moveable
        structure; establishing a recession rate update procedure; adding several
        communities as flood risk areas, and adding 15 feet to setback requirements.

        III. Significant Program Changes

                The Michigan Coastal Management Program received approval for
        the following routine program implementations (described under "program
        accomplishments"):

                ï¿½ amendments to the Sand Dunes Protection and Management Act

                ï¿½ amendments to the Underwater Salvage Act, including the designa-
                tion of four Bottomland Preserves (Manitou Passage, Sanilac Shores,
                Whitefish Point, and Huron County Thumb Area).

        IV. Evaluation Findings

                The last evaluation site visit was conducted in July 1990, and the
        findings were published in January 1992. The findings cited accomplishments
        of the state in protecting sand dunes, managing marinas, implementing the
        underwater archaeology program, and drafting rules for the Shorelands
        Protection and Management Act.

                                               55







                 MISSISSIPPI                  L Background
                                                      The Mississippi Coastal Program (MCP) is based in large part on the
                                              Mississippi Coastal Wetlands Protection Law and legislation passed by the
                                              Mississippi Legislature giving Mississippi Marine Resource Council, and its
                Federal Approval Date:        predecessor the Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks
                          September 1980      (MDWFP) board responsibility to manage the state's coastal resources.
                                              Mississippi coastal zone is comprised of the three coastal counties and all
                 Federal Funding Fy90         tidally influenced coastal waters.
                                  $539,000            The Bureau of Marine Resources (BMR) which is an arm of the
                 Federal Funding FY91:        MDWFP is the lead coastal program agency and is responsible for adminis-
                                  $539,000    tering the networked coastal program. Collectively, the "coastal program"
                                              agencies, which include the BMR, the Mississippi Office of Pollution Con-
                                              trol, the Mississippi Bureau of Land and Water Resources and the Mississippi
                                              Department of Archives and History are responsible for reviewing activities
                                              that affect the coastal area and evaluating projects to insure their consistency
                                              with the MCP. One of the major components of the MCP are areas desig-
                                              nated as Special Management Areas (SMA). The SMA's include industrial
                                              and port areas, urban waterfronts and shorefront access areas. The Port of
                                              Pascagoula Special Management Area is an example of and active ongoing
                                              industrial effort of the MCP.


                                              II. Program Accomplishments

                                                      Wetlands Protection - The State used coastal zone management
                                              funds to develop wetland mitigation guidelines for wetland permitting. The
                                              guidelines cover sequenced decisionmaking and compensatory mitigation
                                              projects to offset adverse impacts from permitted activities. The guidelines
                                              are similar to those employed by EPA and the Corps of Engineers, but are
                                              more comprehensive. The state is also developing standards for evaluating
                                              the success of wetland compensatory mitigation with CZM funding. Finally,
                                              the BMR used CZM funds to develop a Citizens Guide to Protecting Wet-
                                              lands in Mississippi. The Guide explains wetlands definitions, wetlands
                                              values, state and federal laws regulating wetlands and the permitting process.
                                              The Guide also describes proactive roles that the public can play in permitted
                                              and unpermitted activities, and assistance in enforcing state and federal laws.

                                                      Aquaculture Guidelines - The state used Federal CZM funds to
                                              develop state aquaculture guidelines. Private interests in the state proposed a
                                              significant pen-net aquaculture project for the Mississippi Sound. Using
                                              CZM funds, the BMR conducted studies and drafted proposed aquaculture
                                              guidelines to address this new coastal use. The guidelines were issued for
                                              public comment; the state is currently reviewing the comments.

                                                      Marine Debris - The Mississippi Marine Litter Act was incorporated
                                              into the MCP in January 1990. The Act prohibits the introduction or disposal

                                                                                      56







        of any plastic, paper, metal or any other garbage or debris into coastal waters
        by any person or vessel. The Act originally established penalties up to
        $10,000, but has been amended to increase the fines as well as provide for a
        community service penalty. The Bureau used CZM funds for marine litter
        enforcement and to monitor and analyze marine debris and disposal efforts at
        selected marinas and boat launch facilities. During FY91, the BMR efforts
        relating to marine debris included contractual assistance for the public infor-
        mation and outreach, and for the implementation of a Gulfwide Boaters
        Pledge program.

               Public Safety - The BMR used CZM funds to conduct a Derelict
        Structure Survey during FY91. The study located, described and mapped
        numerous derelict coastal structures, such as dilapidated piers, piling, sunken
        vessels, broken drain structures and other structures that may be of danger to
        the coastal user for future remedial action. The study contained costs esti-
        mates for removal of the structures. Coupled with the survey was a legal brief
        pertaining to the responsibilities and authorities of the state, city and county
        for possible derelict structure removal.

               -Public Access - The state continues to provide Low Cost Construc-
        tion funds (Section 306A) to local entities for increased access to coastal
        waters. Section 306A funds amounting to $218,000 which was matched by
        the local units of governments enabled the state to build five access projects in
        the coastal area. Each project provided access for the handicapped.

               The BMR used CZM funds for the development and publication of
        Non-Industrial Construction Standards for water access and shoreline protec-
        tion facilities. These standards are distributed to the general public upon
        request as well as to the marine contractors as examples for acceptable marine
        construction techniques.

               Public Education - The state has historically funded a number of
        public education efforts including public outreach at marine educational
        facilities, publication, and newsletters. During FY91 the last of a series of
        twelve units entitled The Marine Discovery Series booklets written for the
        middle grade year students was published. The latest booklets focused on
        dolphins and another on coastal tides.

               The bi-monthly newsletter, Mississippi Soundings, written and distrib-
        uted by the Bureau, is also supported by CZM funds. The two coastal marine
        museums, the Maritime and Seafood Museum in Biloxi and the floating
        converted shrimp, boat, the Scranton, in Pascagoula also received CZM funds
        to support there efforts. CZM funds have been used to, build and enhance
        marine craft seafood industry exhibits, as well as to support the two museum's
        aggressive educational outreach programs. The most recent educational
        efforts for FY91 is a wetlands interpretative center at a coastal state park.


                                              57








                                         III. Significant Program, Changes

                                                 The provisions of the Marine @Debris'A6t and the-ensuing guidelines
                                         for marine litter control was the only program change made during the report
                                         period. The Marine Litter Act requires trash receptacles be placed at marinas
                                         and boat launch facilities and has a severe dollar and community service fine
                                         for penalties and violations.

                                         IV. Evaluation Findings

                                                 Final evaluation findings issued October 8, 1990, indicated that the
                                         Bureau and the Department of Wildlife Fisheries and Parks should coordinate
                                         more closely in their common management responsibilities as well as review-
                                         ing coordination efforts with other state agencies and state institutions sup-
                                         porting coastal management. The evaluation recommended more active roles
                                         for the Bureau in coastal hazards management and that of nearshore water
                                         quality improvement. The lack of a comprehensive habitat management
                                         study was mentioned as well as the desire to address the numerous derelict
                                         structures. The need for uniform construction standards was also part of the
                                         evaluation recommendations as observed from the array of different methods,
                                         weights and specifications of coastal construction. The evaluation noted
                                         coastal program achievements by the passage of the Marine Litter Act and the
                                         incorporation of the Act and ensuing regulations into the MCP. The public
                                         education efforts and information programs were positively cited as was the
                                         improvements to public access through the low cost construction program.


























                                                                                58










             L Background
                                                                                                            NEW
                     The Office of State Planning functions as the lead agency for the New           HAMPSHIRE
             Hampshire Coastal Program (NHCP). The NHCP was completed in two
             phases. The Ocean and Harbor Segment was approved in 1982 and covers the
             Atlantic coast from Seabrook to the Portsmouth Harbor line. The Great Bay               Federal Approval Date:
             Segment, approved in 1988, expanded the program to cover all areas under                               June 1982
             tidal influence, including the lands that border Great Bay, Little Bay and              (Ocean/Harbor Segment)
             several tidal estuarine rivers and wetlands. The New Hampshire coastline                        September, 1988
             includes 150  'miles of tidal shoreline (I miles along the Atlantic, 132 miles             (Great Bay Segment)
             along estuaries) and 7,500 acres of saltmarsh.
                     The NHCP is based on a series of state laws and regulations adminis-            Federal Funding FY90:
             tered by state agencies, boards and commissions. The interagency Council on                              $500,000
             Resources and Development, comprised of several key state agencies, coordi-             Federal Funding FY91:
             nates state policies and resolves interagency conflicts.                                                 $500,000

                     New Hampshire's inland CZM boundary along the Atlantic coast sits
             1,000 feet inland from the mean high water mark. In the Great Bay Segment,
             the boundary is defined by features, such as roads and railroads generally
             more than 1,000 feet from the shoreline or by the Wetlands Board jurisdiction,
             whichever is further. The seaward boundary includes all coastal waters within
             the limits of the state's jurisdiction.

             IL Program Accomplishments


                     Community Activities - The NHCP assisted the development of
             community projects including the Exeter Open Space Plan and the Squamscott
             River Resource Inventory, done for the Town of Exeter by the Rockingham
             Planning Commission @IkPQ. A second project for Exeter had the RPC
             providing technical assistance by revising and updating the town's land use
             regulations for the protection of coastal resources. The Town of Rye initiated
             an intermunicipal watershed planning study with the City of Portsmouth with
             the goal of developing a comprehensive watershed management plan. Also
             during the biennium, an important land acquisition of a 27 1 -acre parcel
             abutting the tidal Bellamy River was made possible through two subsequent
             grants to the Strafford County Conservation District, in cooperation with
             funding from several other sources.

                     Protection from Oil Spills - The NHCP participated in a cooperative
             oil spill protection project between the state's Department of Environmental
             Services and the Mechanical Engineering Department at the University of
             New Hampshire (UNH). The project calculated the optimum procedures for
             using protective booms to shield high priority resource areas in Great Bay in
             the event of a oil spill near the Piscataqua River terminal area.



                                                     59







                                                    Natural Resources Protection @ Through the NHCP, the state
                                            awarded several grants to the Jackson Estuarine Laboratory and nonprofit
                                            conservation organizations for surveying state resources. For example, the
                                            Great Bay Trust conducted a survey of migratory shorebirds in the estuary
                                            while the Audubon Society of New Hampshire studied the status of endan-
                                            gered bird species (osprey, northern harrier, upland sandpiper, common tern,
                                            and piping plover) along New Hampshire's coast. The Natural Conservancy
                                            received a planning grant and a subsequent acquisition grant to define and
                                            protect the seacoast's most important natural areas. UNH's Jackson Estuarine
                                            Laboratory conducted bathymetric surveys of Great and Little Bays, and
                                            delineated saltmarsh boundaries within the tidal estuary.

                                                    Coastal Water Quality - Responding to the new program direction of
                                            the 1990 Coastal Zone Management Act Reauthorization, the NHCP commis-
                                            sioned the Rockingham Planning Commission to conduct an inventory and
                                            prepare a map of the coastal nonpoint pollution sources within the region,
                                            using a Geographic Information System. This project complements a similar
                                            project undertaken with non-NHCP funding by the Strafford Regional Plan-
                                            ning Commission, which results in complete coverage of New Hampshire
                                            coastal program area.

                                                    Seacoast Science Center - The NHCP supported the development of
                                            the new Seacoast Science Center at Odiorne Point    'State Park in Rye. The
                                            NHCP provided funding for the design of the new building, the design of
                                            exhibits inside the building and construction of the first of the sea tank exhib-
                                            its. The project serves as an outstanding example of cooperation among
                                            private and public entities in providing a needed facility for educational and
                                            interpretation of New Hampshire's invaluable coastal resources.

                                            Ill. Significant Program Changes

                                                    NHCP submitted no major program changes to NOAA during the
                                            report period.

                                            IV. Evaluation Findings

                                                    Final evaluation findings were signed on December 7, 1990. Notewor-
                                            thy accomplishments included the following: continuing commitment to
                                            preservation of wetlands in the State's coastal waters; cooperation between the
                                            NHCP and the Great Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve; providing
                                            assistance to state and local agencies to enhance recreational opportunities and
                                            improve public access to tidal waters; and funding for technical assistance
                                            which helps to improve local ordinances and regulations. Areas targeted for
                                            improvements included budget and resources, program visibility, technical
                                            assistance, long-range dredging plans, cumulative impacts, and harbor
                                            management planning.


                                                                                    60







            1. Background                                                                        NEW JERSEY
                    The New Jersey Coastal Management Program (NJCMP) is adminis-
            tered by the Office of Regulatory Policy (ORP) in the Department of Environ-
            mental Protection -and Energy. The following core laws form the basis for
            regulatory control: the Coastal Area Facility Review Act (CAFRA), the                Federal Approval Date:
            Wetlands Act of 1970, the Waterfront Development Law, and the Riparian
            statutes. T .he NJCMP` combines regulatory responsibilities with a coastal                    September 1980
            land-use planning function. Through time the ORP's overall mission has                (Consolidated Program)
            expanded to include the regulation of inland freshwater wetlands and con-            Federal Funding FY90:
            struction in floodplain areas of state tributaries, placing it in a unique position                 $2,014,000
            to protect watershed systems and the coastal zone.
                                                                                                 Federal Funding FY91:
                    The coastal boundary extends (1) from the New York border to the                            $2,014,000
            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 3 1 -mile
            square area in the northeast comer of the state bordering the Hudson River
            under the jurisdiction of the@Hackensack Meadowlands Development Com-
            mission, the state's designated body responsible for implementing the NJCMP
            in the Meadowlands.


            IL Program Accomplishments

                    Wetlands - In 1990, the NJCMP's wetlands enforcement program
            was enhanced with the hiring of a program-wide wetlands coordinator. A
            generic mitigation form was initiated and is working well. Legal challenges
            resulted in changes to the mitigation ratios for the enhancement of wetlands
            (7: 1), but left the creation ratio intact @2: 1

                    Coastal Hazards - The Department provided funding appropriated by
            the legislature for certain construction activities to correct shore protection
            problems. Using cost/benefit ratios for engineering alternatives, the Shore
            Protection Master Plan assists in the identification and ranking of shore
            protection projects. All of those projects identified in the 1981 plan with a
            cost/benefit ratio greater than 1.00 have been completed. One of the projects
            was the maintenance program for engineering structures between Sandy Hook
            and Lang B  ranch, while another project involved beach fill at Ocean City.

                    There is no event more effective than a storrn or hurricane to highlight
            the shore's vulnerability. In the wake of a hurricane and a severe northeaster
            in 1991, and in light of the dynamic nature of the shoreline, plans are under-
            way to revise and update the state's Shore Protection Master Plan.


                                                   61







                                                Public Access - A manual on Waterfront Public Access: Design
                                         Guidelines was completed in 1990. The publication provides an overall
                                         direction and details planning and design considerations for public access in
                                         general. A Beach Access Booklet, Marina Siting and Design Handbook, and
                                         Survey on Beaches Accessible to the Disabled are examples of publications
                                         designed to increase the accessibility of the waterfront.

                                                Waterfront Development - In August 1990, the DEP completed a
                                         management document entitled "Rules on Coastal Management." The docu-
                                         ment updates the rules on Coastal Zone Management (CZM), summarizes the
                                         amendments to CZM rules since 1982, and presents data sources for special.
                                         area identification.


                                                Water Quality - The DEP completed a project which mapped certain
                                         areas along the Atlantic coast to determine the shellfish resources that would
                                         be affected by marina development. The project also mapped submerged
                                         vegetation, shellfish beds, and Category I waters which when overlaid on
                                         existing maps identified locations where marina development would be
                                         deleterious to existing resources.

                                         III. Significant Program Changes

                                                Effective July 15, 199 1, the Commissioner of the Department of
                                         Environmental Protection and Energy reorganized that agency to fully inte-
                                         grate the various programs for greater effectiveness in protecting the environ-
                                         ment. The reorganization created an Assistant Commissioner for Environ-
                                         mental Regulation. An Office of Permit Information and Assistance was
                                         established to improve the permit administration process. The Office of
                                         Regulatory Policy was established to focus on oversight of regulations and
                                         plans that form a substantive basis for regulatory decisions. This new office
                                         included the Bureau of Water Quality Planning, formerly in the Division of
                                         Water Resources, and the Planning Element, formerly in the Division of
                                         Coastal Resources. A number of minor changes have been documented and
                                         are being presented as routine program implementations. These RPI's will
                                         complete the program change process.

                                         IV. Evaluation Findings

                                                A Section 312 site visit was conducted in September 1991, and the
                                         final findings from this evaluation were published on December 20, 1991.
                                         The findings cited some major accomplishments such as the reorganization of
                                         the DEP to deliver more effective and efficient services to the public, the
                                         assistance given to local coastal residents in dune protection, and assistance
                                         provided by the coastal program in the development of a state redevelopment
                                         plan. Areas where the state could improve its program included: resolution of
                                         the small development exemption in CAFRA; simplification of state environ-
                                         mental laws and regulations; and improvements in enforcement and process-
                                         ing of violations.

                                                                             62











              L Background
                                                                                                      NEWYORK
                      The Department of State (DOS), through its Division of Coastal
              Resources and Waterfront Revitalization, administers the New York Coastal
              Management Program (NYCMP) and coordinates state activities and pro-
              grams essential to the program's implementation. The NYCMP is based on a
              ,number of state laws, but primarily on the Waterfront Revitalization and              Federal Approval Date:
              Coastal Resources Act (WRCRA), the State Environmental Quality Review                           September 1982
              Act (SEQRA), the Coastal Erosion Hazards Areas Act (CEHAA), and the
              Freshwater and Tidal Wetlands Acts.                                                    Federal Funding FY90:
                                                                                                                    $2,014,000
                      The WRCRA provided the legal authority to establish a coastal pro-
              gram in the state, with coastal policies, a coastal boundary, state consistency        Federal Funding FY91:
              requirements, and a coordination process. The law also provided local gov-                            $2,014,000
              ernments with the option to establish local waterfront revitalization programs
              which address local needs and objectives in accordance with the state CMP
              policies. The SEQRA is the principal mechanism by which state agency
              actions are coordinated relative to the NYCMP. The CEHAA provides for
              uniform setback requirements in coastal high hazard areas. The SEQRA,
              CEHAA, and the Freshwater Wetlands and Tidal Wetlands Act are adminis-
              tered by the Department of Environmental Conservation.

                      Generally, the coastal boundary is 1,000 feet from the shoreline, but
              includes 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 purposes of
              management, New York can be divided into the following distinct coastal
              regions: Great Lakes, St. Lawrence River, Hudson River estuary, New York
              City (with an approved Waterfront Revitalization Program), and Long Island.

              IL Program Accomplishments

                      Governor's Task Force on Coastal Resources - The report of the
              Governor's Task Force was forwarded to the Governor in November, 1991.
              The report included over 90 recommendations for dealing with actual and
              anticipated coastal concerns. The report also identified existing and potential
              funding sources for the recommended programs or activities.

                      Wetlands - The Department of State designated significant coastal
              fish and wildlife habitats on Long Island, the Hudson River and the Great
              Lakes; the Federal government approved the designations. Habitats in New
              York City and the St. Lawrence River will be designated in 1992. State
              consistency provisions apply to all designated habitats and provide a greater
              degree of protection. Once the Federal government approves the designations,
              the habitats are further protected under the Federal consistency provisions of
              the CZMA.



                                                      63






                                                  During the 1991 legislative session, state officials unsuccessfully
                                          introduced a bill to amend the state's 12.4 acre threshold for freshwater
                                          wetlands to one acre. The state does, however, regulate wetlands of less that
                                          12.4 acres deemed of "unusual local importance."

                                                  Public Access - A draft state open space conservation plan was
                                          recently completed. Working with nine regional advisory committees, estab-
                                          lished by 1990 legislation, important open space areas have been identified.
                                          The interpretation of the da'ta analyzed indicated that efforts should be focused
                                          on a limited number of areas within the state. It has been recognized that
                                          special priority should be given to conserving critical open space systems,
                                          such as those within the coastal area.


                                                  Water Quality - DOS has taken several steps to address water quality
                                          issues. All projects for which consistency determinations are required must
                                          demonstrate runoff control capability. BMPs have been incorporated into
                                          LWRPs and local land use regulations. DOS sponsored a study by the Long
                                          Island Regional Planning Board to develop analysis of relationships between
                                          land use and water. quality. Two stream beds typical of those flowing into the
                                          bays of the Long Island coast were selected for this study.

                                                  Coastal Hazards - DOS, in conjunction with the Long Island Re-
                                          gional Planning Board and the New York Planning Board, is in the process of
                                          designing an erosion monitoring program for the South Shore of Long Island.
                                          In accordance with the Coastal Erosion Hazards Act, the required coastal
                                          erosion hazard area maps have been filed with all but four municipalities. The
                                          four remaining municipalities have opted to base decisions upon a study
                                          commissioned by the Fire Island National Seashore.

                                          111. Significant Program Changes

                                                  Additional Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs have received
                                          Federal approval as Routine Program Implementations during the reporting
                                          period. Those are: the Towns of Morristown, Waddington, the Villages of
                                          Head of the Harbor, Nissequogue, Tivoli, Morristown, Lewiston, and the
                                          Cities of Rye, Rochester. Significant fish and wildlife habitat designation was
                                          extended to certain portions of the following counties on the Great Lakes:
                                          Chautuaqua, Cattaraugus, Erie, Niagara, Orleans, Monroe, Wayne, Cayuga,
                                          and Oswego.

                                          IV. Evaluation Findings

                                                  Final evaluation findings of the NYCMP, issued in October 1991,
                                          identified 10 major accomplishments and 12 sets of findings and recommen-
                                          dations. The findings and recommendations dealt with minor improvements
                                          in the following areas: Tidal and Freshwater Wetlands, Coastal Erosion and
                                          Hazards, Local Programs, Program Strategy, State Consistency, Education,
                                          Water Quality, SAMPS, Riparian Rights, and Public Access.

                                                                                 64











              L Background
                                                                                                         NORTH
                     The North Carolina Coastal Management Program (NCCMP) is based                  CAROLINA
              primarily on the state Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) and the Dredge
              and Fill Act, although other state laws are also networked into the NCCMP.
              A state Executive Order requires all state agency actions to be consistent (to       Federal Approval Date:
              the maximum extent possible) with the goals and policies of the NCCMP.                         September 1978
              The program's coastal zone boundary extends to 20 coastal counties.
                     The lead agency is the Division of Coastal Management within the              Federal Funding FY90:
              Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources. A Governor-                                $1,508,000*
              appointed Coastal Resources Commission (CRC) adopts rules and policies               Federal Funding FY91:
              while the division administers the program. Development activities within                            $1,508,000
              Areas of Environmental Concern (AECs) require a CAMA permit. CAMA
              requires the coastal counties to develop land use plans which are used in
              making permit decisions and consistency determinations. Other. major com-
              ponents of the NCCMP include natural area acquisition and management, and
              a public access program which provides funds to local governments for the
              acquisition and construction of beach. and water access projects.

              IL Program Accomplishments

                     Natural Resource Protection - The state has increased its ownership
              of the ecologically significant Buxton Woods Maritime Forest to almost 500
              acres. Currently, the state is seeking to purchase additional acres of this
              unique coastal resource with both state and Federal funds. In addition, the
              state completed a management plan for Permuda Island. The state purchased
              the ecologically significant 50 acre island in 1987 to include in the North
              Carolina Coastal Reserve.


                     Hazards Protection - North Carolina reaffirmed its ocean shoreline
              policy that bans hard erosion-control structures and continues to implement its
              ocean setback requirements for structures. An additional $1,500,000 was
              Congressionally appropriated in FY90 for the purchase of Buxton Woods)


                     Public Access - The state continues to use section 306A funds for its
              highly successful coastal access program. Recently the State has been focus-
              ing on providing water access to inland waterfront communities (in addition to
              estuarine and oceanfront access). Five riverine access projects were funded
              during the biennium..









                                                     65







                                               Revised Program Document - The state is nearing completion of its
                                        revised program document.

                                               State Airspace and Military Rules - 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. The state
                                        developed state airspace policies and intends to submit the policies to NOAA
                                        for incorporation into the NCCMP.

                                        III. Significant Program Changes

                                               NOAA approved amendments to two local land use plans opposing the
                                        siting of petro-chemical energy facilities.

                                        IV. Evaluation Findings

                                               The final evaluation findings issued November 1, 1991, 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. Pro-
                                        gram accomplishments to the NCCMP included improvements to its Federal
                                        consistency computer tracking system, providing public access througli,
                                        section 306 and the Governor's Coastal Initiative, continued acquisition of
                                        Buxton Woods, and expanded nursery area protection to include primary
                                        nursery areas. Areas identified for improvement include inland improving
                                        communication among DCM's district offices, more training for local permit
                                        officers, ensuring that the CRC is acting in the public interest, providing for
                                        full public participation at CRC meetings, and improving communication and
                                        coordination between DCM and the Albemarle Pan-fflco Estuary Study.





















                                                                             66







               L Background                                                                                    THE
                       The Northern Mariana Islands Coastal Resources Management Program                NORTHERN
               (CRMP) was originally established by Executive Order. In 1983, the common-
               wealth enacted the Coastal Resources Management Act and codified the CRMP                  MARIANA
               policies and use priorities in statutes and regulations. The CRMP is administered            ISLANDS
               by the Coastal Resources Management Office (CRMO) in the Office of the
               Governor. Permit decisions are made by the CRMO and six other commonwealth              Federal Approval Date:
               agencies: the Departments of Natural Resources, Public Works, and Commerce                        September 1980
               and Labor, the Division of Environmental Quality, the Historic Preservation
               Office, and the Commonwealth Utilities Corporation. The coastal zone is                  Federal Funding FY90:
               comprised of the land area of the 14 islands and the territorial waters. The CRMP                         $487,000
               regulations set up a two-tiered permit program. Activities occurring within the
               four areas of particular concern (APCs) - shoreline, lagoon and reef, wetlands           Federal Funding FY91:
               and mangrove, and port and industrial - require a permit. Outside the APCs,               CNMI did not apply for
               only activities deemed "major sitings" require a permit.                                  FY91 funds

               H. Program Accomplishments

                       Wetlands - In FY90, the CRMO finalized the Saipan Comprehensive
               Wetlands Management Plan. This plan updates existing wetlands maps, and
               provides a plan to address avoidance or minimization of loss, mitigation, island-
               wide classification and prioritization, and strategies for wetland protection and
               preservation. Using the Wetlands Management Plan, the CRMO concentrated on
               educating developers, CNMI agency officials, school children and the general
               public regarding the use and importance of wetlands through public education
               spots on radio and television, articles in the newspapers and the CRMO's
               publication, Coastal Views. The plan will be the basis for revisions to the
               wetlands APC maps.

                       Indigenous Vegetation - The loss of native plants and trees in Saipan
               presents a problem from an ecological, aesthetic, and erosion control standpoint.
               In FY90, the CRMO completed a pictorial guide for the indigenous vegetation of
               Saipan, which serves as an educational tool for the general public, school children
               and tourists about the types and importance of native vegetation.

               III. Significant Program Changes

                       In January 1991, the CRMO incorporated its updated regulations which
               improve the permit process and address local development conditions. Major
               revisions dealt with height and density setback requirements; provided for view
               corridors and mitigation measures for higher buildings; and replaced cumber-
               some variance and appeal procedures. Major siting guidelines were codified
               within the regulations, thereby establishing enforceable policies. The CRMO
               also incorporated Public Law 7-3, which added the Commonwealth Utilities
               Corporation (CUC) as a CRM Agency.


                                                       67









                                          IV. Evaluation Findings

                                                 Final evaluation findings issued February 26,     1992 indicate that the
                                          CNMI is not fully adhering to its approved coastal management program.
                                          Accomplishments of the CRMO included developing management plans for
                                          wetlands and groundwater, and producing a shoreline and outdoor recreation
                                          plan. Mandatory recommendations that must be met to bring the CRMO back into
                                          full adherence included: improving CRMO coordination as the lead agency in the
                                          permit review process, adhering to the approved CRMP decisionmaking process
                                          and policies, restoring the permit appeals process, and increasing monitoring and
                                          enforcement capabilities. The CNMI is using local funds to operate the CRMO
                                          for FY91, and therefore, did not apply for An FY91 award.







































                                                                                 68










                L Background
                        The Oregon Coastal Management Program (OCMP) is             .part of the              OREGON
                statewide program for coordinated land use planning. The OCMP is anet-
                worked 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.              Federal Approval Date:
                The Act established the Land Conservation and Development Commission                                      May 1977
                (LCDC) and its staff, the Department of Land Conservation and Development
                (DLCD), as the lead agency for coastal management. LCDC has the authority                 Federal Funding FY90:
                to adopt goals and guidelines to provide direction for the OCMP and the                                     $868,000
                comprehensive local coastal management plans. Together with LCDC, the
                state implements the OCMP through the coordinated responsibilities of sev-                Federal Funding FY91:
                eral state agencies. Principal agencies assisting LCDC are the Division of                                  $868,000
                State Lands (DSL), and the Oregon Departments of Fish and Wildlife, Trans-
                portation, Energy, Agriculture, and Environmental Quality. The coastal zone
                boundary is the watershed from the crest of the coastal mountain range to the
                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 coastal zone.
                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 photo-
                graph, map, and descriptive text for each Section 306A project. In a coopera-
                tive effort with the Parks and Recreation Department (PRD), DLCD devel-
                oped a detailed inventory of over 1,000 public access sites along Oregon's
                coast. Finally, DLCD and PRD developed a standard logo sign to identify
                coastal public access points.


                        Water
                              front Development - DLCD used coastal management funding
                to support the development and publication of a waterfront development
                guidebook. The guidebook is aimed at small cities and towns and is designed
                to assist in the redevolpment and revitalization of their waterfront areas.

                        Forest Practices - During this reporting period, the state incorporated
                a revised Forest Practices Act and related rules into the OCMP. The revised
                authorities provide for improved forestry management and protection of
                natural resources. Some of the requirements of the revised FPA include: 1.)
                inventories of significant natural resources and the adoption of rules to protect
                inventoried resources threatened by forest practices; 2.) overall maintenance
                of air quality, water resources, soil productivity, and fish and wildlife, and 3.)
                written plans for operations within 100 feet of Class I streams, or within 300
                feet of resource sites specified in the inventories.

                                                         69







                                               Ocean Planning - As directed by the Oregon Legislature and with
                                       largely state resources, DLCD coordinated the work of the inter-agency, Ocean
                                       user Oregon Ocean Resource Management Task Force. A plan for Ocean
                                       resource management has been prepared and adopted by the state. Oregon's
                                       Ocean Plan emphasizes stewardship of ocean resources and protection of
                                       marine habitats and establishes a policy framework for addressing ocean
                                       management issues. DLCD is proceeding to coordinate the work of a perma-
                                       nent Ocean Policy Advisory Council and develop a more detailed plan and
                                       implementing program for the state's ter-fitorial sea.

                                       III. Significant Program Changes

                                               Significant program changes during the reporting period include: (1)
                                       Senate Bill 3 -Wetlands Conservation; (2) House Bill 3396 - Forest Practices
                                       Act; and (3) Coos County Comprehensive Plan.

                                       IV. Evaluation Findings

                                              The final evaluation findings issued in November 1990, 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. Recommendations included: enhancing
                                       technical assistance to local governments; supporting buffer requirements for
                                       Class Il streams under the state's forest practices program; improving enforce-
                                       ment efforts; and continuing efforts to insure submittal of program changes.
























                                                                            70











               L Background
                                                                                                          PENNSYLVANIA
                       The Pennsylvania Coastal Zone Management Program (PCZMP)
               consists of two coastal zones: 63 miles along Lake Erie in the extreme north-
               west corner of the commonwealth, and 57 miles along the Delaware River in
               the extreme southeastern section of the state. The major coastal management
               issues contained in the PCZMP's program document are: coastal hazards;                     Federal Approval Date:
               dredging and spoil disposal; fisheries management; wetlands; public access                          September 1980
               for recreation; historic sites and structures; port activities; energy facility
               siting; intergovernmental coordination; and public involvement. The regula-                Federal Funding FY90:
               tory aspects of the program focus on several state laws: the Dam Safety and                                  $732,000
               Encroachment Act, Floodplain Management Act, Bluff Recession and Setback
               Act, Clean Streams Act, and the Air Pollution Control Act.                                 Federal Funding FY91:
                                                                                                                            $732,000
                       The Department of Environmental Resources (DER) is the lead state
               agency for implementing, administering, and enforcing the PCZMP. The
               Division of Coastal Zone Management (DCZM) is responsible for monitoring
               and evaluating activities related to coastal zone management and ensuring
               compliance with the program's enforceable policies. An Executive Order
               provides the basis for state agency compliance with enforceable policies.

               IL Program Accomplishments

                       Enforcement Initiative - DCZM joined with EPA and the Philadel-
               phia District of the Corps of Engineers in Fall 1989 to undertake the Delaware
               Estuary Enforcement Program (DEEP), which protects coastal wetlands.
               DEEP integrates state and Federal enforcement efforts to restore or mitigate
               the wetlands loss in the Delaware Estuary Coastal Zone (DECZ). On a
               smaller scale, a similar project was undertaken in the Lake Erie coastal zone
               in Spring 1990, involving several of DER's bureaus, the Erie County Conser-
               vation District, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Many wetland viola-
               tions are in the enforcement mode. Also, since the PCMP monitors coastal
               wetland changes yearly, new sites are added to the enforcement initiative.

                       Zebra Mussel Initiative - An emerging concern in the Lake Erie
               coastal area is the growing zebra mussel population. This new exotic species
               has the potential to seriously disrupt recreational boating, water withdrawals                                  f'R
               and the ecology of the Great Lakes. These initiative activities are ongoing.
               The DZCM developed and distributed informational material (poster and fact
               sheet) across the state to educate and solicit the public's help in addressing the
               impacts of the zebra mussel influx. The DZCM also prepared and presented a
               zebra mussel display (text and pictures) at the three public events in the state.

                       Beach contamination study and monitoring - The closure of the
               beaches at Presque Isle State Park due to high indicator bacteria counts has
               been a concern to the public, local and state officials. For three years, the Erie
               County Department of Health, through partial support by the DCZM, con-

                                                         71








                                           ducted a study to determine the causes of high fecal coliform bacteria counts
                                           at bathing beaches in Presque Isle State Park. The major findings and recom-
                                           mendations included: evaluating the feasibility of using wave heights and
                                           weather conditions as beach closing criteria, prohibiting the feeding of gulls
                                           on the beaches, monitoring the impacts that segmented breakwaters have on
                                           fecal coliform contamination on the beaches, reducing nonpoint sources of
                                           contamination, and increasing public education efforts.

                                                   Delaware Estuary Program (DELEP) - PCZMP is an active partici-
                                           pant in the DELEP with DCZM staff serving in key positions on the Manage-
                                           ment and Local Government Committees and as Pennsylvania's DELEP State
                                           Program Coordinator. Representation of the DCZM on the DELEP program
                                           committees ensures close integration and coordination of the two programs.

                                                   Erie Harbor Improvement Council - In 1989 the Erie Harbor Im-
                                           provement Council was created at the request of the Erie County Executive
                                           and the Mayor of the City of Erie to address concerns over increasing water-
                                           front development pressures, water quality in Presque Isle Bay, and conflicts
                                           between recreational and commercial use of the water. During the tenure of
                                           the Council, the DCZM actively participated to ensure that coastal issues were
                                           addressed and to provide the Council with information relevant to PCZMP's
                                           policies and activities. With the designation of Presque Isle Bay as an Interna-
                                           tional Joint Commission "Area of Concern" the Council has been disbanded.


                                           III. Significant Program Changes

                                                   No significant program.changes were submitted to NOAA during the
                                           biennium.


                                           X. Evaluation Findings

                                                   An evaluation site visit was conducted in September 1990. The
                                           findings were published in August 1991. The PCZM.P has made numerous
                                           program accornplishments, some of which are sited above. The recommenda-
                                           tions for improving the PCZMP included: increasing the current staffing level
                                           dedicated to Bluff Recession and Setback Act (BRSA), evaluating the degree
                                           to which bluff destabilization practices are occurring and consider amending
                                           the BRSA to include regulating the removal of vegetation from the bluff face;
                                           playing a stronger role with respect to reviewing and commenting on wetland
                                           permit applications in the Lake Erie and Delaware Estuary coastal zones,
                                           identifying ways to supplement the activities of existing staff with respect to
                                           permit application reviews and compliance inspections; exerting stronger
                                           leadership with respect to state -widecoastal resource priorities and local
                                           assistance project selection; continue and expand upon its efforts to educate
                                           the public and.local officials on coastal issues, and facilitate the development
                                           of a long-range maintenance dredging plan.


                                                                                   72











               L Background
                                                                                                      PUERTO RICO
                      The commonwealth developed the Puerto Rico Coastal Management
               Program (PRCMP) to manage the significant land and water activities that
               take place in terrritorial waters and on land extending approximately 1,000
               meters inland from mean high tide. The Department of Natural Resources
               (DNR) and Planning Board (PB) are the primary planning and permitting                   Federal Approval Date:
               agencies in the Puerto Rico coastal zone. The Coastal Management Office                          September 1978
               '(CMO) within DNR administers and-coordinates PRCMP. DNR responsibili-
               ties include: granting mining concessions; issuing pen-nits to drill wells and          Federal Funding FY90:
               franchises for the use of surface and ground waters; administering the mari-                            $1,134,000
               time zone, coastal waters, and submerged lands; managing forest resources;
               and regulating sand extraction, recreati6 nal vessels, hunting, and fishing.            Federal Funding FY91:
                                                                                                                       $1,134,000
                      The PB is part of the Office of the Governor and holds broad regula-
               tory power and responsibility for land use planning in Puerto Rico, including
               control over all uses in publicly owned land along the shorefront inland of the
               maritime zone. PB exercises authority through a set of planning regulations
               that cover subdivisions, residential and agricultural uses, industrial projects,
               commercial centers, and hotels.


                      To aid in implementing the PRCMP, the Environmental Quality Board
               (EQB) prepares and reviews environmental impact statements and adopts
               standards for pollution controls through EQB regulations. Also, the Regula-
               tion and Permits Administration implements planning regulations by issuing
               building and occupancy permits and authorizing minor zoning changes.

               Il. Program Accomplishments

                      Natural Reserves - The PB and DNR have made notable progress in
               designating 18 of the 28 territory's natural reserves. The PB formally desig-
               nated the Cartagena Lagoon Natural Reserve in January 1990. DNR prepared
               designation documents for the Cuevo del Indio, Cano Tiburones, and Cibuco
               Swamp Natural Reserves and a management plan for the Cordillera Reef
               Natural Reserve during the biennium.

                      M1V "A. Regina" Court Order          In August 1990, a court order
               required removing the vessel "A. Regina," grounded on a coral reef in the
               Mona/Monito Natural Reserve. DNR received $1.145 million in damages,
               $895,000 to manage the reserve and the remainder for research vessels.

                      Hazard Mitigation - During the biennium, Puerto Rico made           several
               accomplishments in natural hazards mitigation. The commonwealth used
               SLOSH model data generated by the PRCMP in preparing hurricane           evacua-
               tion plans for the San Juan Metropolitan Area, Notably,'during Hurricane
               Hugo in 1989, no deaths occurred in areas evacuated according to the draft
               plans. The PRCMP sponsored annual hurricane conferences and natural

                                                       73








                                          hazard workshops to encourage the exchange of information among experts
                                          and to inforri-i the public and public officials about hurricane preparedness and
                                          other natural hazards. The PRCMP played a major role in preparing the ï¿½409
                                          Puerto Rico Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan and the Puerto Rico Administra-
                                          tive Plan in 1990. Pursuant to the ï¿½409 plan and flood hazard mitigation plans
                                          prepared with CZM funds during the 1980s, Puerto Rico relocated 1,300
                                          families from high hazard areas during the biennium.

                                                  Maritime Zone Delimitation - The PRCMP surveyed and mapped the
                                          maritime zone in the Pinones Special Planning Area and on the island of
                                          Culebra during the biennium. After the territory resolves disputed areas, the
                                          maps will be formally adopted.

                                                  Natural Heritage Program - In August 1988, the Puerto Rico estab-
                                          lished the Natural Heritage Program as part of the DNR to prioritize sensitive
                                          natural areas in private and public ownership and apply mechanisms for
                                          acquisition and protection. The Program secured protection for several criti-
                                          cal habitats through donations, conservation easements, long-term manage-
                                          ment leases, and the transfer of development rights.

                                          III. Significant Program Changes

                                                  In September 1991, the following changes were formally incorporated
                                          into the PRCMP: 1) the Natural Heritage Program Act, 2) the Executive Order
                                          establishing the Earthquake Safety Commission, 3) the Natural Hazard Miti-
                                          gation Planning Program, and 4) the designation of the Vieques Biolumines-
                                          cent Bays and Laguna Cartegena Natural Reserves.

                                          IV. Evaluation Findings

                                                  In the program evaluation findings issued in July 1991, NOAA noted
                                          accomplishments in environmental education; the designation and manage-
                                          ment of natural reserves; hurricane research, planning, and evacuation; and the
                                          permanent relocation of families out of floodable areas. NOAA concluded,
                                          however, that the commonwealth is not fully adhering to all of the provisions
                                          of the PRCMP and the underlying requirements of the CZMA. Problems exist
                                          in the core areas of permitting, monitoring and enforcement, Special Planning
                                          Areas, and maritime zone regulation. The PRCMP is currently responding to
                                          a set of written specifications and a schedule of actions to bring the program
                                          back into full adherence.











                                                                                  74











               L Background
                                                                                                              RHODE
                       The Rhode Island Coastal Program (RICP) is based on the Coastal                        ISLAND
               Resources Management Act of 1971, which created the Coastal Resources
               Management Council (CRMC). The CRMC administers Rhode Island's
               coastal program. The CRMC regulates development in the coastal waters,                   Federal Approval Date:
               200 feet inland from a coastal feature (i.e., wetlands and bluffs) and certain                            May 1978
               coastal uses throughout the state, since the coastal boundary extends through
               the entire state. The CRMC created Special Area Management Plans for the                  Federal Funding FY90:
               Salt Ponds area, Providence Harbor and Narrow River. Twenty-one coastal                                    $606,000
               local governments participate in the program on a voluntary basis, developing
               harbor management plans and using section 306A funds to construct specific                Federal Funding FY91:
               low-cost construction projects.                                                                             $606,000

               H. Program Accomplishments

                       Harbor Management - Twenty-one coastal communities are cur-
               rently developing harbor management plans and comprehensive community
               plans. One-third of the coastal towns completed harbor management plans;
               the remaining communities are in various stages of plan development.

                       Public Access - Since FY88, the state utilized CZM funds to assist
               towns in signing, developing and maintaining the 160 CRMC designated
               rights-of-way. Five towns participated in the initial program which developed
               eight sites. In FY91, CRMC supported development of a statewide Coastal
               Access Guide, which not only identified all access points to the shore, but also
               detailed the condition of each site and the associated facilities (i.e., parking,
               sanitary facilities).

                       Water Quality - In a permit program, 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. During this period, CRMC joined the Executive Committee of
               the Narragansett Bay Project and actively participated in developing the draft
               Comprehensive Coastal Management Plan (CCMP) for Narragansett Bay.

                       Permit Simplification - To process permit applications in an effec-
               tive, expeditious manner, CRMC established minimum information require-
               ments for Assent (permit) applications. These requirements facilitate the
               review of the application by CRMC staff to determine if the proposed activity
               conforms with the RICP.


                       Administrative Fines and Fees - The CRMC continued to increase
               fines and fees over the last two years as a means of deterring violations. The
               state now charges violators for the costs associated with enforcement actions,
               including staff time.


                                                        75









                                                 Improved Government Operations - The CRMC continued to in-
                                          crease enforcement efforts through 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 investi-
                                          gate the violation and develop remedial conditions. CRMC publication of
                                          violators names in local newspapers serves as an additional dete'r-rent to
                                          violators. The CRMC staff reorganized into four teams each assigned to
                                          specific,geographic regions of the state. This restructuring improved the
                                          efficiency of processing and reviewing applications received by the CRMC
                                          and facilitated regular "follow-up" on previously permitted activities, ensuring
                                          compliance with the terms and conditions of the CRMC Assent.

                                                 Hazards Protection - In 1988, the CRMC adopted regulations which
                                          established post hurricane and storm permitting procedures. The regulations
                                          include authority to impose a 30-day moratorium to assess damages, deter-
                                          mine changes in natural features, and identify mitigation opportunities.
                                          CRMC effectively implemented these emergency procedures during two
                                          major storm events that struck the state's coast in the latter half of 1991.

                                                 Section 309 - In FY91, CRMC participated in the new Coastal Zone
                                          Enhancement Program by developing an Assessment of the Rhode Island
                                          CRMP which identified priority needs for improvement. In conjunction with
                                          this effort, the CRMC undertook two tasks to develop program changes in the
                                          areas of public access and cumulative and secondary impacts. To enhance
                                          public access, CRMC enacted legislation to require municipalities to obtain
                                          CRMC approval prior to abandonment of designated rights-of-ways. For
                                          cumulative and secondary impact enhancement, the CRMC adopted new
                                          stormwater regulations that utilize best management practice standards to
                                          control nonpoint source pollution problems associated with stormwater runoff.

                                          III. Significant Program Changes

                                                 NOAA approved routine program implementation changes in 1990
                                          and 1991, including numerous changes to the CRMC's Administrative Proce-
                                          dures Act," and "Rules and Regulations."

                                          IV. Evaluation Findings


                                                 The next Section 312.evaluation is scheduled for June 1992.











                                                                                 76










               L Background
                                                                                                                SOUTH
                       The South Carolina Coastal Council (SCCC) directs the state's coastal
               program. Fourteen appointed members make up the SCCC, which is divided                       CAROLINA
               into specialized committees that make recommendations to the Council. The
               SCCC derives authority from the South Carolina Coastal Management Act
               (SCCMA) of 1977. The coastal zone encompasses eight counties that contain                  Federal Approval Date:
               46 critical areas" - tidelands, coastal waters, and coastal waters. The SCCC                        September 1979
               claims direct permitting authority for activities in the critical areas, as well as
               certification authority in the eight coastal counties outside the critical area            Federal Funding FY90:
               through consistency reviews of direct Federal actions, Federal permits and                                 $1,334,000
               state agency actions and permits.
                                                                                                          Federal Funding FY91:
               IL Program Accomplishments                                                                                 $1,334,000

                       Hazards Protection - South Carolina continued to implement the
               Beachfront Management Act. The state amended the Act in 1990 to clarify
               provisions that proved difficult to implement in Hurricane Hugo's aftermath
               and to provide a special permit process to allow property owners to build
               structures seaward of the Coastal Council's baseline in limited circumstances.


                       A central issue in the Act's implementation has been whether the
               Council's regulation of the beach critical area could result in an unconstitu-
               tional "taking." Although the Act was upheld in the courts in South Carolina
               to date, it now faces a test in the U.S. Supreme Court in Lucas v. South Caro-
               lina Coastal Council. The Court's decision, due in July 1992, could hold
               broad implications for all land use regulatory programs.

                       Water Quality - South Carolina's coastal waters face threats from
               nonpoint source pollution and stormwater runoff. Over the past two years, the
               SCCC refined a series of management programs to improve coastal water
               quality. These programs include comprehensive storm water regulations,
               dock master plans for new developments, and revisions for marina permitting
               and operating regulations.

                       Wetlands - South Carolina continues as a leader in using the Federal
               consistency provisions to protect freshwater wetlands in the eight coastal                      I
               counties. In contrast to other coastal states, South Carolina refused to certify
               the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) nationwide permit #26, allowin
                                                                                                  9
               the SCCC to review even small proposed wetlands alterations for consistency                        V
               under SCCC's wetland protection standards.

                       Natural Resource Protection - In the fall of 1990, the SCCC
               launched a major initiative to maintain and improve the quality of the Charles
               ton Harbor estuary. This multi-year, special area management plan will yield a
               comprehensive plan for the region that will address a range of resource issues
               from nonpoint source pollution controls to improved public access.

                                                         77








                                              During FY 91, the SCCC completed the Ashley River Special Area
                                       Management Plan, continued to define the beach profiling methodology, and
                                       revamped enforcement procedures. In addition, the SCCC developed an
                                       enforcement agreement with the Corps that will allow the SCCC to assist the
                                       Corps with monitoring and enforcement in the coastal zone, to include civil
                                       penalties assessed by the SCCC for violations of state consistency conditions.
                                       Finally, the SCCC is incorporating local beach management plans.into the
                                       state beach management plan and is implementing revised stormwater guide-
                                       lines, including new requirements for bridges and golf courses.

                                       III. Significant Program Changes

                                              The state is developing a routine program implementation change
                                       request to incorporate the amendments to the 1990 Beachfront Management
                                       Act. The 1988 Beach Management Act constituted a program amendment.

                                       IV. Evaluation Findings

                                              Final evaluation findings issued in April 1991 found the SCCC was
                                       adhering to the requirements of the South Carolina Coastal Management
                                       Program. The evaluation noted South Carolina's use of consistency and its
                                       leadership in areas such as beach management and storm water regulation.
                                       The evaluation also found a need to improve enforcement and monitoring.




























                                                                           78







              L Background                                                                             VIRGINIA
                     The Virginia Coastal Resources Management Program (VCRMP)
              networks existing state laws and authorities and is implemented through
              monitoring and coordinating with state agencies and local governments. The
              Virginia Council on the Environment (COE) is the lead agency. However, the            Federal Approval Date:
              state recently passed legislation that will merge the COE and several other                    September 1986
              environmental programs into a new Department of Environmental Quality. It
              is unclear at this point where the lead CZM agency will be housed. This issue         Federal Funding FY90:
              was addressed in the Section 312 evaluation held in April 1992. The                                  $1,859,000
              program's coastal zone boundary includes the 29 counties which border tidal
              waters and 15 separate cities.                                                        Federal Funding FY91:
              IL Program Accomplishments                                                                           $1,859,000

                     Water Quality - The Virginia Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act of
              1988 (CBPA) requires local governments to incorporate water quality protec-
              tion measures into 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. All tidewater cities and all but two counties and a
              majority of towns designated preservation areas and adopted performance
              criteria for those areas. However, enforceability issues may prevent the
              incorporation of the CBPA into Virginia's Coastal Program.

                     CBLAB established a permanent 75-site citizen monitoring program to
              provide water quality baseline data for Chesapeake Bay Program managers,
              scientists and researchers, and the State Water Control Board and other state
              agencies. This effort resulted from several years of section 309 interstate and
              section 306 funding under the CZMA.

                     The state conducted a sampling and analysis of soils from eroding
              shorelines and found that the nutrient contribution from this source to the Bay
              is significant. A follow-up study concluded that stabilizing eroding shorelines
              adjacent to active farms and wooded lots is particularly important because
              these soils contain large amounts of nitrogen.

                     CBLAB will soon submit a program change that incorporates 1988
              amendments to the Erosion and Sediment Control Law and 1990 Erosion and
              Sediment Control Regulations into the existing non-point source water pollu-
              tion control regulatory program of the VCRMP. The law and regulations aim
              to more effectively control soil erosion, sediment channels, waters,and other
              natural resources of Virginia.





                                                     79








                                                  Hazards Protection - The state developed an enforceable bather
                                           island policy that addresses cumulative and secondary impacts. The state
                                           plans to submit the policy to NOAA for incorporation into the VCRMP.

                                                  Improved Government Operations - Local governments consistently
                                           utilize the local environmental planning assistance component of COE. This
                                           program provides an environmental review of specific development projects
                                           for local govemments which lack the necessary personnel or ekpertise.

                                                  Public Access - Using CZM funds, Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylva-
                                           nia, and the District of Columbia completed a comprehensive guide to public
                                           access for the entire Chesapeake Bay watershed. This effort marks. an impor-
                                           tant first step in meeting the public access goals of the 1987 Chesapeake Bay
                                           Agreement.

                                                  Habitat Protection - The COE completed a three year regional
                                           inventory of rare species and communities in York and James City counties
                                           and the City of Williamsburg. The inventory identified 25 natural areas
                                           ranging in size from 70 to more than 5,000 acres. Protection measures are now
                                           being developed for those areas.

                                           III. Significant Program Changes


                                                  No significant program changes were submitted during the biennium.
                                           As noted above, several changes will be submitted in 1992.

                                           IV. Evaluation Findings

                                                  Final evaluation findings issued June 29, 1990, indicated that the state
                                           is adhering to the approved coastal program and that the COE is adhering to
                                           the terms and conditions of its financ'ial assistance awards. Accomplishments
                                           of the program included the local planning assistance program which provides
                                           direct technical assistance to.localities in reviewing specific large develop-
                                           ment projects, as well as revising and, drafting comprehensive plans to facili-
                                           tate compliance with the VCRMP policies. Recommendations included: a
                                           stronger focus on identifying and prioritizing coastal management issues that
                                           cut across state agency lines and prioritizing funding; improved enforcement
                                           of the Virginia Tidal Wetlands Act; greater compliance with the Federal
                                           consistency provisions; and development of a barrier island policy that ad-
                                           dresses cumulative and secondary impacts. A 312 evaluation site visit took
                                           place in April 1992. Final findings will be issued in the fall of 1992.







                                                                                  80








              L Background                                                                                  VIRGIN
                      The Virgin Islands Coastal Zone Management Act (VICZMA) of 1978                      ISLANDS
              established a comprehensive coastal zone management program (VICZMP)
              designed to manage all development activities in the Virgin Islands coastal
              zone, including the islands of St. Thomas, St. John, and St. Croix, all offshore         Federal Approval Date:
              islands and cays, and the territorial sea. The VICZMP directly manages all                               June 1979
              development activities on the offshore islands and cays and in the first tier -a
              relatively narrow coastal strip on the three major islands -through the use of a         Federal Funding FY90:
              comprehensive system of major and minor CZM permits. A separate set of                                     $490,000
              laws and permits control activities within the second tier, which includes the
              interiors of the three major islands.                                                    Federal Funding FY91:
                      The Department of Planning and Natural Resources (DPNR) is the                                     $490,000
              lead agency for administering the VICZMP. The Commissioner of the DPNR
              directs the activities of the VICZMP, approves or denies all earth change
              permits and minor CZM permits, and takes all enforcement actions arising
              from the implementation of the major and minor CZM permits. DPNR also
              processes all the building, plumbing and electrical permits. Major permits are
              issued by five-member CZM committees appointed. by the Governor, for each
              island. The three committees constitute the Coastal Zone Management Com-
              mission, which is empowered to promulgate rules and regulations and to
              provide policy direction and leadership in coastal management issues.

              Il. Program Accomplishments

                    I Post-Hurricane Hugo Assistance - DPNR staff provided invaluable
              assistance to the community in the wake of Hurricane Hugo. DPNR provided
              tarps for temporary roofing, streamlined the permits process for reconstruc-
              tion, and held workshops with developers, contractors, and architects to assist
              the community with rebuilding efforts.

                      Technical Assistance- The VICZMP improved technical assistance to
              the public regarding permit requirements on proposed development applica-
              tions. VICZMP sponsors pro-application meetings regularly to facilitate
              permit processing.

                      The Mooring Law and Regulations - The VICZMP prepared amend-
              ments to the pre-existing mooring law which were enacted as "The Mooring
              and Anchoring of Vessels and Houseboats Act of 1990."

                                                                                                                        'Z. "I
                      The Post-Hurricane Hugo Assessment, Recovery, and Territorial Park                                   .7.
              System Study      In cooperation with Island Resources Foundation (IRF),
              Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, and various local and federal agencies,
              the VICZMP: (1) completed a resources damage and recovery assessment,
              and (2) proposed restoration and management measures that could be taken at


                                                       81









                                        over 30 coastal sites throughout the Virgin Islands. The sites selected were
                                        existing public recreational and natural areas, as well as privately owned
                                        coastal sites with potential for inclusion in the Territorial Park System (TPS).
                                        In addition to the extensive assessment and recovery information, the report
                                        includes information on land acquisition and facilities development costs for
                                        each of the sites. The assessment presents a set of acquisition alternatives for
                                        large and small parks and preservation sites.

                                               Revisions of the Major and Minor Permits Application Forms - The
                                        VICZMP conducted a major review and overhaul of the CZM permits process
                                        during the biennium. One of the more important outcomes was the revision of
                                        the major and minor CZM permits application packages. The packages now
                                        include a checklist of all the inforrnation required to complete an application.
                                        The major pen-nits form provides basic guidance on the Environmental As-
                                        sessment Report required for major permits. The application forms are now
                                        uniform throughout the Virgin Islands.

                                        III. Significant Program Changes

                                               In July 1991, the following program changes were formally incorpo-
                                        rated into the VICZMP:


                                               1) the Government Reorganization and Consolidation Act of 1987;
                                               2) the 1987 Executive Order Organizing the DPNR;
                                               3) the 1988 regulations entitled "Administrative Assessment of Civil
                                               Fines and Penalties"; and
                                               4) the 1990 Mooring and Anchoring of Vessels and Houseboats Act.

                                        IV. Evaluation Findings

                                               The final evaluation findings issued in January 1992 concluded that
                                        the Virgin Islands is adhering to its approved coastal management program.
                                        Accomplishments cited include (1) the technical assistance provided by the
                                        VICZMP in the wake of Hurricane Hugo and in general to permit applicants,
                                        specifically to the public, and (2) the implementation of a civil fine system
                                        which improved monitoring and enforcement. However, deficiencies were
                                        noted in staffing and training; ineffective authorities in the second tier; moni-
                                        toring and enforcement; and the failure to formally designate and adopt
                                        management plans for the eighteen Areas of Particular Concern.










                                                                             82






              L Background                                                                            WASHINGTON
                      Washington stands as the first state to receive Federal approval of a
              CZM program. The Washington Coastal Zone Management Program
              (WCZMP) is based on the state's Shoreline Management Act (SMA) of 1971,
              which established broad guidelines for the protection and management of all
              state marine waters, and designated lakes, streams and wetlands. The                    Federal Approval Date:
              WCZMP is a networked program involving state agencies, 15 counties, and                                June 1976
              36 cities, with the Department of Ecology (Ecology) acting as the lead agency.
                                                                                                      Federal Funding FY90:
                      The Washington State Departments of Natural Resources, Fish, Game,                             $1,950,000
              Highways, Parks and Recreation, Archaeology and Historic Preservation, and
              Emergency Services support and participate in the implementation of the                 Federal Funding FY91:
              WCZMP. Local actions follow locally-developed, state-approved, city and                                $1,950,000
              county Shoreline Master Programs (SMP). The coastal zone boundary em-
              bodies a two-tier approach based on two management regimes. The first tier, a
              resource boundary area of permit authority under the SMA, includes all state
              marine waters and the 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 and includes all 15 coastal counties.


              IL Program Accomplishments

                      Wetlands Protection - During the biennium, Ecology played an
              active role in management and protection of wetlands by providing extensive
              local technical assistance, publishing technical guidance material, sponsoring
              numerous workshops, funding studies, developing an inventory guidebook,
              reviewing wetlands preservation nomination, continuing a strong education
              program, and drafting local wetlands policies and ordinances, as well as
              statewide policies and standards. The Governor also strengthened wetlands
              protection by signing executive orders to protect wetlands.

                      Technical Assistance - Ecology published the Shoreline Management
              Guidebook, which combines three separate publications: the Shoreline Master
              Program Handbook, Shoreline Administrator Manual, and Urban Waterfront
              Policy Analysis Addenda. The guidebook containing detailed information and
                                                                                                                       VJ
              examples of SMP implementation activities, jurisdiction determinations, and
              permitting, has become an invaluable tool for the shoreline administrators.
              The guidebook is a living document continually improved with input from
              shoreline administrators.


                      Coastal Hazards       Ecology developed a sea level rise response
              program initiated by conducting a scoping study and establishing an
              interagency task force. The Sea Level Rise Study Project formed the nucleu's
              of the global wan-ning component in the state's Environment 2010 project.
              The program activities included conferences and workshops, technical and
              policy studies, and public information efforts.

                                                      83








                                                    Public Access - Ecology contributed to public access, public educa-
                                            tion, and shoreland acquisition through the 306A program of the CZMA.
                                            Projects funded included floats, docks, boat ramps, footbridges, boardwalk,
                                            stairways to beaches, waterfront pathways, and, shoreline acquisitions.

                                                    Watershed Management Planning - Ecology took a lead role in
                                            controlling nonpoint source pollution from Watersheds, initially with the goal
                                            of protecting shellfish resources. In addi'tion to technical assistance, Ecology
                                            administered grants to local governments for watershed management projects.
                                            Ecology published technical reports, sponsored workshops, and, drafted
                                            legislation for local funding of programs.

                                            III. Significant Program Changes

                                                    No significant program changes were submitted to NOAA during the
                                            biennium.


                                            IV. Evaluation Findings

                                                    Final evaluation findings issued on March 27, 1991, indicated that the
                                            state is adhering to the approved program and is satisfactorily implementing
                                            the provisions of its approved coastal management program.' The evaluation
                                            also indicated that areas of the WCZMP need continued development and
                                            enhancement. Specifically, Ecology should: survey all SMPs to determine
                                            which require updating and develop a strategy to work with local governments
                                            to amend these SMPs;@ conduct a demonstration project to investigate possible
                                            alternatives to simplify the coastal permit proces'S; develop standard require-
                                            ments for 306A signage; and enhance the shoreline permit monitoring and
                                            enforcement program by instituting regular surveillance monitoring and
                                            evaluations of local enforcement.

























                                                                                     84







             L Background                                                                          WISCONSIN
                    The Wisconsin coastline spans 820 miles in three major coastal
             stretches bordering Lake Michigan, Green Bay, and Lake Superior. Forty-
             three percent of the state's population lives in the 15 counties adjacent to these
             bodies of water. The Wisconsin Coastal Management Program (WCMP)                     Federal Approval Date:
             seeks to preserve, protect, develop and, where possible, to restore or enhance                      May 1978
             the resources of Wisconsin's coast. To facilitate planning and the implemen-
             tation of the WCMP, the state identified eight issues covering a broad spec-         Federal Funding FY90:
             trum of concerns precipitated by severe erosion, polluted waters and limited                          $833,000
             recreational access. Specific areas of concern are coastal water and air qual-
             ity, coastal natural areas, community development, economic development,             Federal Funding FY91:
             governmental relationships, public involvement, and coastal energy impacts.                           $833,000
                    The Department of Administration serves as the lead agency for the
             coastal management program, with staff support from the Coastal Manage-
             ment Section, The Wisconsin Coastal Management Council (WCMC), cre-
             ated by Executive Order, provides policy guidance for implementing the
             WCMP. WCMC recommends the program's policies and direction, as well as
             advising the Governor on coastal matters. Since 1980, the Council has in-
             cluded legislators and representatives of state agencies, local governments,
             tribal governments and interested citizens.

                    The 33 regulatory responsibilities fall primarily 4o the Department of
             Natural Resources (lake bed activities, water quality, and fish/game manage-
             ment), the Department of Transportation (harbor assistance), the Public
             Service Commission (power plant and transmission line siting), and counties
             (shoreland zoning). The 15 coastal counties define the landward boundary.

             H. Program Accomplishments

                    Wetlands Protection - The DNR promulgated water quality standards
             for wetlands to more effectively implement Section 401 of the Clean Water
             Act and to expand state jurisdiction over wetlands. DNR cooperated with the
             Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in a
             Special Wetlands Inventory for Green Bay, a predecessor to a Special Area
             Management Plan and an advanced 404(c) for the area.

                    Nonpoint Source Abatement       The Wisconsin Senate passed a com-
             prehensive package which includes the initiation of all priority watershed
             p
             lanning projects by the year 2000, a construction site erosion provision,
             unexclusion of live stock from streams provisions, and a bad actor provision.

             III. Significant Program Changes

                    No program changes were submitted during FY 90 or FY 91.


                                                   85








                                         IV. Evaluation Findings

                                                Final evaluation findings for the period October 1987 through June
                                         1990, were signed March 28, 1991. Those findings found that the state was
                                         minimally adhering to its program. The findings made recommendations to
                                         support of the implementation of the core authorities; development of a major
                                         program strategy; increase in interagency review of Federal consistency
                                         issues; and submission of program changes.













































                                                                             86









                                T
                                       he National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS) is a
                                      Federal-state cooperative venture designed to protect estuarine land                                     NATIONAL
                         and water resources for use as natural field laboratories. Authorized by                                            ESTUARINE
                         section 315 of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), the NERRS
                         focuses on the protection and management of estuarine land and water re-                                              RESEARCH
                         sources, including wetlands and watersheds, through environmental education                                            RESERVE
                         and interpretation, monitoring and research. OCRM's Sanctuaries and Re-
                         serves Division administers the NERRS at the Federal level.                                                              SYSTEM

                                  Presently, there are 19 designated reserves in 17 states. These re-
                         serves protect nearly 300,000 acres of estuarine lands, wetlands and waters.
                         Over 550,000 acres will be protected by 1995. The reserve-by-reserve sum-
                         maries which follow this section explain in detail the activities undertaken by
                         the 19 reserves during the biennium and what the reserves accomplished.
                           Padilla Bay, WA                                                                                 St. Lawrenc  Ia
                                                                                                                           Rive Be      NY

                                                                                                            Old omen
                                                                                                            Creek,                  Weis, ME
                 South Slough. OR                                                                                                Great Bay NH
                                                                                                                                 Waquoil &y. MA
                                                                                                                                 a ansett Bay. Rl
                                                                                                                              Hudson iver, NY
                     Son Francisco                                                                                            Mullice River, NJ
                     Say, CA                                                                                                  laware I
                                                                                                                           Chesapeake Say. MD
               Elkhorn Slough. CA                                                                                          Chesapeake Bay, VA
                                                                                                                              orth Carolina
                         Tiuana River, CA  .                                                                            North Inlet, SO
                                                                                                                     ACE Basin, SO
                                                                                                                    Sapelo Island, GA

                                  * Designated S!196                                                                  East Coast. FL
                                  * Developing Sites                                    Weeks Bay. AL
                                                   it"
                     Wairnanu Valley, .41                                                  Apalachicola Say, FL        Rookery Bay. F   L
                                                                                                                                    *Jobot Bay, PR


                                  The newest reserve is the Cheapeake Bay National Estuarine Research
                         Reserve in Virginia, designated in May 199 1. The reserve is composed of
                         four sites in the York River Basin, a major tributary of the Chesapeake Bay.
                         These sites include: the Goodwin Islands, located at the mouth of the York
                         River in the southeastern portion of Mobjack Bay; the Catlett Islands, 19
                         nautical miles from the mouth of the York River; Taskinas Creek, located on
                         the south shore of the York River approximately 25 miles upstream from the
                         river's mouth; and Sweet Hall Marsh on the Pamunkey River.

                                  NOAA also approved the expansion of two existing reserves during
                         the biennium. These expansions place another 6,000 acres in the NERRS.
                         The expansions included the addition of the Masonboro Island component to
                         the North Carolina reserve and the addition of Jug Bay and Otter Point sites
                         to the Chesapeake Bay reserve in Maryland.


                                                                            87








                                                   NOAA also assisted the State of South Carolina in designating its first
                                           National Estuarine Research Reserve, in cooperation with the Nature Conser-
                                           vancy, Ducks Unlimited, the South Carolina Department of Wildlife and the
                                           U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In September 1991, NOAA awarded a
                                           $700,000 grant to the South Carolina Coastal Council to help establish
                                           15 1,000 acres of wetlands as one of the Nation's largest estuarine reserves.
                                           NOAA Under Secretary John A. Knauss awarded the grant to Council Chair-
                                           man Wes Jones at a ceremony on Mary's Island at the Ducks Unlimited
                                           Retreat. Senator Ernest F. Hollings (D-SQ. also attended the ceremony. The
                                           proposed reserve is located in the Ashepoo, Combahee and Edisto (ACE)
                                           Basin, which is about 45 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina.


                                                  NOAA approved South Carolina's Final Environmental Impact State-
                                           ment and Draft Management Plan, required by law for the reserve, which
                                           allowed the state to use Federal funds to acquire land for the reserve. NOAA
                                           provided additional funding for a final management plan in December 1991.
                                           The plan will include detailed administration, education, research, monitoring,
                                           enforcement, acquisition and facility plans. After NOAA reviews the plan,
                                           the site will be formally designated as the ACE Basin National Estuarine
                                           Research Reserve.


                                                  During the biennium, OCRM worked with states on the designation of
                                           five additional sites as National Estuarine Research Reserves. These sites,
                                           described below, encompass approximately 50,000 acres.

                                                          St. Lawrence River, New York - The St. Lawrence River-
                                                          Eastern Ontario Commission received a $10,000 site selection
                                                          grant to examine areas along the St. Lawrence River for pos-
                                                          sible inclusion in the NERRS. A site selection task force was
                                                          formed with representatives of various New York state agen-
                                                          cies. Base maps for the area have been completed and resource
                                                          overlay maps are in preparation. In March 1991, the data
                                                          collection phase was completed. The final report was approved
                                                          by OCRM and the state must submit the Governor's nomina-
                                                          tion package before proceeding with development of a draft
                                                          environmental impact statement.

                                                          Delaware Bay, Delaware - On February 28, 1990, Delaware
                                                          Governor Castle submitted a package proposing the Delaware
                                                          National Estuarine Research Reserve. The proposed reserve
                             r                            encompasses two components: Lower St. Jones River and the
                                                          Upper Blackbird Creek. NOAA approved the proposed sites in
                                                          May 1990, and the Department of Natural Resources and
                                                          Environment Control received $50,000 for the preparation of a
                                                          draft environmental impact statement and management plan.







                        Public hearings for this document took place in September
                        1991. Comments will be incorporated into the final envi-
                        ronmental impact statement,/management plan, which is
                        scheduled to be released in June 1992.


                        North Inlet-Winyah Bay, South Carolina - In January
                        1990, a 9,000-acre area of uplands, open water, marshlands
                        and islands was proposed by the Governor of South Caro-
                        lina for the North Inlet-Winyah Bay NERR. The site is
                        located in Georgetown County and is owned by the Belle
                        W. Baruch Foundation. The foundation set aside the lands
                        in perpetuity for conservation purposes and holds an agree-
                        ment with the Belle W. Baruch Institute for Marine Biology
                        and Coastal Research of the University of South Carolina
                        to manage the lands for research and education purposes. A
                        Federal Register notice was pu  blished in November 199 1,
                        and a public hearing took place to solicit comments on the
                        draft environmental impact statement/management plan for
                        the site. Comments will be incorporated into the final
                        environmental impact statement/ management plan. Site
                        designation is planned for 1992.

                        San Francisco Bay, California - In the fall of 1991,
                        OCRM received a preliminary draft site nomination docu-
                        ment for the proposed San Francisco Bay NERR. The
                        document is under review by OCRM and the proposed
                        reserve's Site Selection Committee. The committee met
                        with OCRM staff during February 1992, to discuss upcom-
                        ing public hearings concerning site selection. The hearings
                        are planned for late March or early April 1992. Following
                        the hearings, the document will be reviewed based on
                        comments received from NOAA and the public. The final
                        site selection document will then be sent to the Governor of
                        California for approval. If approved, the Governor will
                        forward the site selection package and a nomination letter
                        to NOAA for final clearance. Once site selection has been
                        completed, the committee will prepare a draft environmen-
                        tal impact statement/management plan for the approved
                        site.


                        East Florida - The Florida Department of Natural Re-
                        sources' Bureau of Sanctuaries and Research Reserves
                        (BSRR) received a site selection grant for the purpose of
                        investigating areas along the east coast of Florida suitable
                        for designatiton as a National Estuarine Research Reserve.
                        BSRR staff are collecting data and visiting sites and will
                        submit a nomination report to OCRM in June 1992. Sites

                                               89








                                                        identified as strong candidates include the Indian River
                                                        Lagoon region in central Florida and areas near the mouth
                                                        of the St. Johns River in northern Florida.


                                                 OCRM is also reviewing a proposed southward boundary expan-
                                          sion of the Rookery Bay, Florida, reserve. The proposal incorporates
                                          approximately 46,000 acres of wetlands and coastal waters into the exist-
                                          ing 8,400-acre Reserve.

                                                 A goal of the NERRS Program is to have all 13 of the Nation's
                                          biogeographic coastal regions represented, including the Great Lakes.
                                          Selected by OCRM to reflect regional variations in the coastal zone, the
                                          biogeographic classification scheme ensures that the NERRS includes at
                                          least one site from each region. The biogeographic regions are divided
                                          into 27 subregions. Currently, 11 subregions are not yet represented in the
                                          System. These include: Acadian (Northern Gulf of Maine); Carolinian
                                          (East Florida); 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).

                                                 By the year 2000, NOAA will be close to completing the major
                                          biogeographic components of the national system. NOAA is committed to
                                          completing the reserve system, maintaining and strengthening its ongoing
                                          partnership with the states, their agencies, and research and educational
                                          institutions. In addition, NOAA is committed to:


                                                 - working with the states to acquire and protect estuarine lands and
                                                 waters,


                                                 0achieving greater public outreach through a network of over 40
                                                 reserves and National Marine Sanctuaries,


                                                  continuing a policy of integrating the activities of the National
                                                            Z71
                                                 Marine Sanctuary Program and the NERRS,

                                                 ï¿½ continuing to develop the reserves as platforms for research,

                                                 ï¿½ improving the integration of NOAA's scientific capabilities with
                                                 the estuarine research and marine sanctuary field sites, and

                                                  providing coastal decisionmakers with scientifically-based
                                                 answers to resource management questions.




                                                                               90







                Over the past 19 years, the NERRS matured rapidly; lands were
        acquired, on-site staff hired, facilities constructed, and programs implemented.
        NOAA is committed to ensuring, with the states, that the Nation's reserves are
        fully equipped, fully staffed, and have appropriate facilities. A fully opera-
        tional NERR has five characteristics:


                ï¿½ high quality, representative natural resources, including land,

                ï¿½ people to manage, research, monitor, educate, and protect,
                adequate facilities and equipment to operate the site,
                regulatory and non-regulatory protection measures, and

                 an agreed upon framework for management which includes NOAA-
                wide participation.

                The primary goal of the NERRS research program is to support high
        quality studies that significantly contribute to our understanding of both the
        existing and evolving functional ecology of the various ecosystems encom-
        passed within these 19 sites. To accomplish this task, the Sanctuaries and
        Reserves Division recently began to develop a well-coordinated, nationally
        focused research and monitoring program at NERRS sites.

                   n FY 92, the NERRS program will support approximately 12 to 15
                   applied research projects. Implemented in 1985, the program                       Research
        focuses on management-related research to enhance the understanding of
        estuarine environments, provide information necessary to enhance coastal and
        estuarine resource management decisionmaking and improve public under-
        stand of estuaries and estuarine mana-ement issues. SRD is readdressing
        NERRS research priorities to focus (for a two-year period) a research budget
        on areas of importance to coastal management decision making, such as
        habitat restoration, preservation and nonpoint source pollution.

                During the biennium, SRD initiated a comprehensive listing of all
        research conducted at each of the reserve sites. The final synthesis document
        will incorporate all federally funded and non-funded research and the titles,
        dates, principal investigators and funding agency, for each research project, as
        well as list all publications arising from research conducted at the sites. Once
        completed, the master synthesis document will be available to each site, the
        scientific community, individual investigators, and the public. This document
        focuses on SRD national research priorities, provide background data for
        future research proposals, and illustrate the importance of the NERRS.








                                               91







                                                  Much of the information generated by past projects has been used by
                                          various planning and management entities. For example, information from
                                          eelgrassprojects is being used to reexamine and change the current method-
                                          olo(Ties 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 plan-
                                          ners 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.

                                                  SRD supports its non-competitive Phased Monitoring Program at each
                                          NERRS site in order to foster understanding of long-term trends in estuarine
                                          resources and to provide additional baseline data for the various sites. The
                                          key elements of this program are:

                                                   ecological characterizations to build an accurate baseline of informa-
                                                  tion 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 data. on key resources, regularly analyze and publish findings, and
                                                  provide a mechanism to evaluate program effectiveness in addressing
                                                  .the long-term needs of estuarine resource management.

                                                     his long-term monitoring program will provide a data base which
                 Monitoring                          willIgenerate new hypotheses concerning coastal management
                                          issues and will track the quality and health of the Nation's coastal ecosystems.

                                                  The NERRS education effort is building a strong, centralized informa-
                                          tion program. At the same time, the program encourages site-specific indi-
                                          viduality. Several general guidelines have been established to set uniformed
                                          standards of excellence, allow for the needs of the sites and variety of estua-
                                          rine habitats, and establish system identity. Headquarter's education efforts
                                          focused on strengthening a national NERRS identity, whereas individual
                                          reserves continued to develop educational materials and programs to promote
                                          awareness of estuarine resources and to provide opportunities for public
                                          understanding of the need to preserve, protect and utilize these significant
                                          natural resources.


                            - J11
                                                                                 92.





              T
                   he 19 sites approached the role of education in different ways.
                  :Some sites, such as Waquoit Bay in Massachusetts and Old Woman                    Education
        Creek in Ohio, concentrated on educating the decisionmakers, enabling them
        to make wise choices for the future of vanishing estuarine habitats. Tijuana
        River NERR on the Mexican border in California.and Jobos Bay in Puerto
        Rico emphasized bilingual environmental education to meet the needs of the
        Hispanic population. In Collier County, Florida, Rookery Bay's open water
        habitat allowed visiting school groups to participate in plankton tows and
        water sampling in the mangrove-filled bay. Up the coast, estuarine educators
        visited the schools. Due to the lack of local funding for school field trips, the
        staff at the Apalachicola Bay NERR took education programs to classrooms in
        an eight-county region.

                For the first time, education grants funded completely by NOAA have
        been awarded to programs that benefit the entire NERRS. In 1991, SRD
        funded three such grants. Great Bay NERR sponsored 40 elementary schools
        affiliated with sites from around the country to participate in National Geo-
        graphic Society's Kids Network. The schools tested localwater supplies and
        shared the findings via telecommunications with over 250 schools from
        around the world. South Slough NERR in Oregon produced a brochure on the
        NERRS with specific site descriptions. The brochure will be used throughout
        the NERRS to answer the@increasing number      of public inquiries regarding
        estuarine reserves.


                In addition, the -annual National Estuarine Research Reserve Associa-
        tion workshop was funded as a forum for estuarine managers, researchers and
        educators to come together to discuss progress, problems and strategies for
        better management of these valuable resources. With continued local support
        and increased national awareness, the NERRS can look forward to providing
        educational leadership in marine conservation and habitat prote   ction.



















                                                93











                                             L Back-ground
              APAIACHICOIA
                      Florida                        Located in northwest Florida, approximately 90 miles southwest of
                                             Tallahassee, the reserve is the largest of the 19 existing National Estuarine
                                             Research Reserves. The reserve encompases 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,
              Designated: 1979               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
              Biogeographic Region:          state park on the eastern tip of St. George Island. Surrounding habitats in-
                      Louisianan             clude salt water marshes, swamp forests, barrier sand beaches, upland forests,
              Size: 193,758 acres            and open waters of the bay and river,
                                                     As home to over 300 species of birds present permanently or season-
              Acquisition Status:            ally, the reserve is one of the most important bird habitats in the southeastern
                      89.5% complete         U.S. Also supported 180 species of fish and over 1,300 species of plants, 103
                                             of which are threatened or endangered, including the Ogeechee Tupelo tree.
              Federal Funding FY90:          The local economy also depends on the reserve. Over 65 percent of the
                      $140,752               residents earn their living from the natural resources of the area, primarily
                                             through the commercial seafood industry, Ten percent of the nation's oysters
              Federal Funding FY91:          and 90 percent of Florida's oysters are harvested from Apalachicola Bay.
                      $223,587
                                             IL Program A cconiplishments

                                                     Reserve staff worked closely with other state and Federal agencies in
                                             the management of the site. Management concerns include protection of
                                             native American artifacts, natural resources and endangered species, while
                                             providing for continued traditional uses such as commercial and recreational
                                             fishing. For example, colonial migratory shorebird nest protection programs
                                             helped increase the number of nesting pairs of the threatened least tern from
                                             100 in 1985 to over 800 in 1991.


                                                     The reserve headquarters facility opened in 1984 with office space, a
                                             conference room and library, a research- teaching laboratory and an audito-
                                             rium. Additional laboratory and office space was added in 1991. The facility
                                             serves as the focal point for the reserve's education and research programs.

                                             III. Research and Monitoring Programs

                                                     Research focused on many resource management issues of the
                                             Apalachicola estuary. Three main in-house projects include: red fish popula-
                                             tion dynarnics, colonial and migratory bird nest protection, and sea turtle
                                             monitoring and nest protection. An overall monitoring program plan is under
                                             development which includes future baseline data collection. The reserve has
                                             an onsite research staff including a research coordinator and a technician.
                                             Support capabilities offered to visiting scientists encompass vessels, labora-
                                             tory facilities and the Marshall Field House on Cape St. George suitable for

                                                                                    94







        extended field observations. Current priorities are focusing on the freshwater
        needs of the bay, due to proposed upstream diversions of water resources.

        IV. Education Program

               The reserve closely links research and education programs. The
        education program provided an outlet for research information to reach audi-
        ences that ranged from pre-school children to senior citizen. Dissemination of
        information was accomplished through presentations, publications, supple-
        mental school curriculum units, audio-visual programs, field trips and college
        classes. Two successful education programs, Project Estuary and Estuarine
        Pathways, are carried out through 15 county school systems in the north
        Florida area. Education staff include an education coordinator, a program
        assistant and a video technician. The reserve also produced two educational
        videos for use in conjunction with Project Estuary. Adult education efforts
        include educational seminars for commercial oystermen as part of yearly
        licensing requirements and a monthly guest lecture series.


        V. Evaluations


               No evaluations were conducted during FY 90 or FY 91.





























                                             95











                                            L Background
             CHESAPEAKE
                       BAY                         Managed by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, the
                                            Chesapeake Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve (CBNERR-MD)
                  Maryland                  consists of the following three components: Monie Bay, which is located
                                            within the Deal Island Wildlife Management Area in Somerset County,
                                            approximately 50 miles southwest of Ocean City, Maryland; 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
            Designated: 1985; 1990          Washington, D.C., on the Patuxent River, a western shore tributary of the Bay.

            Biogeographic Region:                  The 3,400 acre Monie Bay component is relatively pristine and iso-
                    Virginian               lated. The site is comprised of tidal creeks, open estuarine waters, salt
                                            marshes and pine forests . Monie Bay is a haven for resident and migratory
            Size: 4,820 acres               bird populations,,including herons, egrets and ibises and a wide variety of
                                            waterfowl species. Important aquatic populations, such as blue crabs, white
            Acquisition Status:             perch, oysters and blue fish, are also found in Monie Bay. The Otter Point
                    99% complete            Creek component includes 700 acres of tidal freshwater marsh, two ponds,
                                            open water and uplands. With approximately 400 acres of wetland, this
            Federal Funding FY90:           component is one of the few large freshwater tidal marshes in the Chesapeake
                    $176,225                Bay region that remains in a comparatively natural, undisturbed site. The Jug
                                            Bay component covers 700 acres, 250 of which are a broad shallow
            Federal Funding FY91:           embayment of the Patuxent River. This component co       'ntains one of the
                    $201,135                largest stands of wild rice on the East Coast, provides healthy spawning
                                            habitat for striped bass, and serves as a haven for over a hundred bird species.

                                            IL Program Accomplishments

                                                   The CBNERR-MD continues to make remarkable progress. In 1990,
                                            Otter Point Creek and Jug Bay were designated as components of the Reserve.
                                            These designations resulted from coordination between Federal, state and
                                            county governments, private organizations, such as the Izaak Walton League,
                                            and a host of private individuals. The state and local governments currently
                                            work together to design plans and specifications for expansion of the visitor's
                                            facility at Jug Bay and preliminary design of the CBNERR-MD visitors center
                                            at Otter Point Creek.


                                                   A Volunteer Coordinator was hired to review the volunteer work log at
                                            Jug Bay, refine the qualifications for volunteers regarding the tasks per-
                                            formed, and develop a brochure and handbook for orientation of new volun-
                                            teer recruits. The coorination works with the education/site manager at the
                                            Otter Point Creek component to develop volunteer criteria for the entire
                                            CBNERR-MD.


                                                   Other accomplishments include: posting entrance signs which identify
                                            the CBNERR-MD components; posting boundary signs at each component;
                                            clearing trails at Otter Point Creek and publishing a quarterly newsletter.

                                                                                   96







        III. Research and Monitoring Programs

               A study of habitat alteration in the tidal freshwater wetlands of Otter
        Point Creek is being conducted by Dr. Grace Brush of Johns Hopkins Univer-
        sity. In addition, Dr. Greg Ruiz of the Smithsonian Environmental Research
        Center is conducting research at all components, to determine whether    'the
        copepod Mytilicolaporrectus is an exotic parasite species introduced to the
        Chesapeake Bay. The CBNERR-MD also utilizes student interns to research
        and monitor land use change and environmental data; this data will be incor-
        porated into a site profile characterization and will eventually be published.

        IV. Education Program

               Current reserve activities included adult field lectures, discovery
        programs for children, marsh monitoring studies, guided nature hikes, sched-
        ule school trips, and canoe trips. In addition, staff are currently involved with
        the NERRS Kids Network Program. The staff works with four Maryland
        teachers who'are incorporating a Kids Network program into their existing
        lessons plans.

               Reserve staff currently work with: The Friends of Jug Bay, Inc.; Jug
        Bay Wetlands Sanctuary; Patuxent River Park; Harford Glen, Resource
        Conservation Service and other State programs; and the Izaak Walton League
        of America. The result of this reserve-wide cooperative effort will be the
        presentation of estuarine education workshops for educators and the prepara-
        tion and distribution of a teachers' guide.


        V. Evaluations


               Final evaluation findings issued in September 1990 concluded that the
        Maryland Department of Natural Resources must fill the vacancy of reserve
        manager as soon as possible to maintain the positive progress of the program.
        The position was filled in March 1991. The findings also determined that an,
        education/site manager should be hired for the Otter Point Creek component
        .to create a presence. This manager is in place Harford Glen, an environmental
        education facility.













                                               97







                                         L Background
           CHESAPEAKE
                    BAY                          Designated in June 199 1, the York River component of the Chesa-
                                         peake Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve-Virginia (CBNERR-VA)
                  Virginia               encomposes four sites in the York River Basin, a major sub-estuary to lower
                                         Chesapeake Bay, and is managed by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science
                                         of the College of William and Mary. The sites include: the Goodwin Islands,
                                         which are located at the mouth of the York River in the southeastern portion
          Designated: 1991               of Mobjack Bay; the Catlett Islands, which are 19 nautical miles from the
                                         mouth of the York River; Taskinas Creek, which is located on the south shore
          Biogeographic Region:          of the York River approximately 25 miles upstream from the river's mouth;
                  Virginian              and Sweet Hall Marsh, which is located on the Pamunkey River. The
                                         Pamunkey River converges with the Mattaponi River to form the York River,
          Size: 4,434 acres              approximately 37 nautical miles from the mouth of the York.
          Acquisition Status:                    The Goodwin Islands which represent polyhaline salinity conditions,
                  York River             consist of an archipelago of marsh islands with submerged vegetation beds,
                  Component              oyster reefs, and shallow open estuarine waters. This 1,607-acre island
                  90% complete           complex owned by the College of William and Mary is separated from the
                                         mainland by a thoroughfare. The Catlett Islands, a 910-acre island complex,
          Federal Funding FY90:          consists of parallel ridges of forested wetlands surrounded by extensive salt
                  $100,120               marshes along with adjacent shallow bottoms and water areas where aquatic
                                         vegetation once flourished. The Catlett Islands are privately owned and are
          Federal Funding FY91:          incorporated into the. CBNERR-VA by conservation easements and manage-
                  $184,861               ment agreements. Taskinas Creek is a 525-acre transition zone to the York
                                         River. The site consists of a tidal creek with fringing marshes that range from
                                         brackish to freshwater dominated communities. Much of the creek's water-
                                         shed is undeveloped aand lies within the boundaries of the York River State
                                         Park. The site was incorporated into the reserve under a Memorandum of
                                         Understanding between the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recre-
                                         ation and the Virginia Institute of Marine Science. Sweet Hall Marsh occu-
                                         pies a broad meander of the Pamunkey River, considered to be one of the
                                         most pristine rivers on the east coast. The 1,400 acre site consists of an
                                         extensive tidal freshwater marsh with adjacent nontidal bottomland forest on
                                         the mainland side and shallow flats on the seaward side. The site is incorpo-
                                         rated into the reserve by management agreements.

                                         IL Program Accomplishments

                                                During the biennium, the draft and final management plans and envi-
                                         ronmental impact statements were developed for the reserve. In addition, the
                                         reserve acquired key land and water areas. An office with a fulltime staff of
                                         five and an active volunteer program were established in FY91. Joint Sea
                                         Grant and SRD/OCRM funding supported site evaluation for the
                                         Rappahannock River and Potomac River components.



                                                                                98









         III. Research and Monitoring Programs

                CBNERR-VA initiated general baseline studies of flora, fauna, water
         quality, physical and geological processes. In addition, many of the Chesa-
         peake Bay Program research prioritieswere addressed at the reserve, includ-
         ing living resources and nutrients. A study at the Taskinas Creek site which
         investigated nutrient partitioning at the marsh/upland interface of a small,
         unimpacted bottomland hardwood forest was completed, and a quantitative
         assessment of marsh community development in relation to sea level at all
         four sites entered its second year.

         IV. Education Program

                The reserve offered various education programs, including ecology
         hikes and canoe trips to stimulate public interest in the Chesapeake Bay.
         Special programs including Estuaries Day and periodic beach clean-ups were
         also offered. Teacher training and curriculum development are in progress.
         Numerous programs are available at the York River State Park, including
         interpretive displays and exhibits and self-guided trails.

         V. Evaluation


                No evaluations were conducted during FY 90 or FY 91.



























                                              99















                                           L Background
                  ELKHORN
                   SLOUGH                         The reserve is located on the central California coast roughly halfway
                                           between the cities of Santa Cruz and Monterey. One of the few relatively
                   California              undisturbed seasonal estuaries in central Monterey Bay, the Elkhorn Slough
                                           reserve encompasses salt marsh, 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 endang6red species,
              Designated: 1980             including the California brown pelican and American peregrine falcon. Resi-
                                           dent marine mammals at the slough include harbor seals, sea lions and sea
              Biogeographic Region:        otters. Managed by the California Department of Fish and Game, the Elkhorn
                     Central California    Slough NERR is one of nine sites in California that comprise the California
                                           Wildlands Program (CWP). ne CWP was established to recognize the
              Size: 1,385 acres            interpretive value of wetlands and other habitat-rich environs to non-con-
                                           sumptive users of th e area. The CWP has hired two state interpretive natural-
              Acquisition Status:          ists for the reserve. A Reserve Advisory Committee assists the on-site man-
                     Approximately         ager with decisions regarding research and education programs, and facility
                     92% complete          and maintenance operations, as well as resource protection and general policy.

              Federal Funding FY90:        IL Program Accomplishments
                     $120,000
                                                  The California Wildlife Foundation, a statewide nonprofit foundation,
              Federal Funding FY91:        adopted as one of its highest priorities the project of raising funds for the
                     $153,850              construction of the administration/volunteer building at the reserve. In addi-
                                           tion, two plant restoration projects were initiated at the reserve. The first was
                                           to begin eradication of the toxic week poison hemlock. The process involves
                                           repeated mowing of the affected areas and then planting annual grasses to
                                           displace the invasive hemlock. The second project is the removal of eucalyp-
                                           tus' trees and planting native coast live oak. Approximately 10 acres have
                                           been converted, with approximately 40 more acres planned for construction.

                                                 'Numerous special events were offered to the public during the bien-
                                           nium including the annual Estuaries Day celebration, Mother's Day events,
                                           Bird Day, art openings, book signings by local authors, Halloween parties,
                                           and an Oak Day celebration. The reserve continues to nurture the support of
                                           the community by providing educational events.

                     5,                    111. Research and Monitoring Programs


                                                  The reserve hired a research coordinator to oversee the research and
                                           monitoring programs on the area. Elkhorn Slough is studied by a diverse
                                           group of researchers, and funded by a range of agencies. Studies on the
                                           reserve are conducted by senior scientists as well as graduate and undergradu-
                                           ate students from Moss Landing Marine Laboratories, Stanford's Hopkins
                                           Marine Station, the University of California at Santa Cruz and Berkeley. The
                                           reserve staff, along with The Elkhorn Slough Foundation and Volunteer


                                                                               100







          program, conducts research projects directly associated with management
          decisions, maintains several monitoring programs, and assists local high
          school students in science projects. An on site weather station provides
          weather data to researchers.


                 Currently, research is being funded by NOAA competitive grants, a
          NOAA monitoring grant, the EPA, State Mussel Watch, and a variety of
          student grants. The following are current research projects in Elkhorn Slough:
          shark migration and feeding; eelgrass restoration, growth models, and genetic
          diversity; harbor seal population dynamics and feeding; effects of bird and
          fish feeding on benthic invertebrate populations; eelgrass effects on water
          flow patterns; coastal bird counts; long term changes in fish populations-'
          mapping with aerial photography; results of large scale erosion problems;
          cattle grazing on salt marshes; restoration of native oaks; removal of exotic
          eucalyptus and poison hemlock; and long term water monitoring. Researchers
          are currently working to publish six scientific papers on long term changes in
          Elkhorn Slough habitats and organism abundances. Research information is
          passed on to managers and politicians at local, regional and international
          conferences, through scientific publications, and by disseminating the Elkhorn
          Slough Bibliography. The Elkhorn Slough management plan and the local
          coastal plan are based in part on NOAA funded research.

          X. Education Program

                 The education program has continued to expand and annually serves
          approximately 7,000 school children that come to the area on field trips. Four
          teacher workshops were conducted in 1990 and five were conducted in 199 1.
          Teacher workshops prepare teachers to lead field trips to the reserve. Over
          800 teachers from a three county area participated in the workshops. Another
          class of volunteers were trained in 1990 and join a force of over 100 volun-
          teers that donated over 8,000 hours of their time to the reserve during the last
          biennium. Volunteers lead nature walks, staff the visitor center and book-
          store, help with computer operations, provide maintenance, and generally
          assist in all aspects of reserve operation. The dedicated volunteer force makes
          it possible to accommodate over 40,000 visitors each year.

          V. Evaluations


                 No evaluations were conducted during the biennium. The next evalua-
          tion of the reserve was scheduled for May 1992.









                                                 101











                                           L Backpround
               GREATBAY
             New Hampsh            Iire            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 approximately 4,500 acres of tidal waters and mudflats and
                                           approximately 48 miles of shoreline. Five hundred fifty acres of upland
                                           within the boundary represent the range of different resources/envirohments in
                                           the estuary, including salt marsh, tidal creeks, islands, woodlands, and open
            Designated: 1989               fields. The water area includes all of Great Bay, the small channel from the
                                           Winnicut River, and large ones from the Squamscott and Lamprey Rivers,
            Biogeographic Region:          which meet in the center of the bay to form a channel which connects to Little
                    Acadian                Bay at Adams Point.
            Size: 4,500 acres                      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
            Acquisition Status:            intertidal being mudflat. The bay is typical of northern New England estuaries
                    90% complete           in hosting a variety of marine plant communities. Eighteen rare or endan-
                                           gered plant species have been identified within the reserve, as well as five rare
            Federal Funding FY90:          or endangered animal species. The New Hampshire Department of Fish and
                    $264,000               Game manages the reserve.
            Federal Funding FY91:          IL Program Accomplishments
                    $229,000                       The draft and final management plans and environmental impact
                                           statements have been prepared for the reserve, In addition, the reserve ac-
                                           quired key land and water areas, primarily through conservation easement.
                                           Also, 36 acres of prime eagle habitat were acquired through easement and
                                           purchase. A fulltime office was established in FY90, and plans are underway
                                           for the construction of an interpretive center and trail system at the Depot
                                           Road site. The reserve is also involved in establishing a 1,100-acre National
                                           Wildlife Refuge, managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, at the site of
                                           the former Pease Air Force Base.


                                           III. Research and Monitoring Programs

                                                   Monthly and bi-monthly monitoring of the water column and weather
                                           conditions at the site are being conducted by the Jackson Estuarine Laboratory
                                           (JEL), which is managed by the University of New Hampshire (UNH) and
                                           partially funded through NOAA. The Great Bay Site Profile was completed
                                           by JEL in FY91, providing an overview of the Great Bay estuary system and
                                           will serve as a baseline for future research activities.


                                                   A citizen's monitoring program, Great Bay Watch, was organized by
                                           the UNH Sea Grant program and provided additional water quality data. In
                                           connection with the reserve and the Audubon Society of New Hampshire, the
                                           Watch will expand to include seasonal waterfowl data. A complete plant
                                           inventory has also been completed for the Depot Road site.

                                                                                  102








        IV. Education Program

               Area schools, the UNH, local conservation groups, and traditional
        users of the Bay have viewed the area as an ideal, informal classroom over the
        years. Through Sea Grant's Great Bay Living Lab and the Math and Science
        Program, as well as reserve sponsored teacher training programs, educators
        and students are exposed to estuarine issues.

               The reserve is expanding its educational efforts by providing slide
        shows, tours, and lectures. An educational display with photographs of the
        bay is available for public use. Several new publications have been produced
        including a brochure and map, a children's guide to the bay, entitled "Trea-
        sures," and a bird checklist.


               In FY91, the reserve initiated the first systemwide educational pro-
        grarn called "What's In Our Water?" The program is pan of the Kids Net-
        work which was developed by the National Geographic Society. In addition,
        the reserve completed an environmental awareness and volunteerism survey.


        V. Evaluations


               No evaluations were conducting during FY90 or FY91.




























                                             103










                                               L Background
                    HUDSON                              The Hudson River estuary extends 152 miles from the southern tip of
                      RIVER                    Manhattan north to the Federal Dam at Troy NY. The reserve's four sites
                                               span 100 miles and represent the wide range of conditions and habitats present
                    New York                   in the estuary. Piermont Marsh is a brackish tidal wetland comprised of
                                               emergent vegetation and shallows bordering the Tappan Zee, 25 river miles
                                               north of Manhattan (RM 25). Iona Island (RM 43) includes slightly brackish
                                               tidal marsh and rocky, forested uplands. The Tivoli Bays (RM 100) is the
              Designated: 1982                 largest freshwater tidal wetland complex on the Hudson surrounded by forest.
                                               Stockport Flats (RM 125) is a mosaic of mudflats, subtidal shallows, emergent
              Biogeographic Region:            freshwater tidal marshes, and vegetated dredge spoil islands. The reserve is -
                      Virginian                managed by the New York.State Department of Environmental Conservation,
                                               in cooperation with several other state agencies represented on the Reserve's.
              Size: 4,500 acres                Steering Committee.

              Acquisition Status:                       Tidal freshwater wetlands are the reserve's most unusual habitat.
                      95% complete             Emergent marshes and submerged shallows fuel the estuarine detrital food
                                               chain, and provide habitat for fish, turtles, crustaceans, waterfowl and wading
              Federal Funding FY90:            birds. The reserve's   'shallows also serve as spawning and nursery grounds for
                      $290,000                 many species of fish.

              Federal Funding FY91:            IL , Program A ccomplishments
                      $83,880
                                                        During FY90 and FY91, plans were developed for a major interpre-
                                               tive, research and educational center at Iona Island. This facility will comple-
                                               ment existing reserve research research facilities at the Tivoli Bays, and will
                                               include interpretive exhibits, laboratories, classrooms, libraries and scientific
                                               collections, office space, a theater, and a Hudson River gallery. Deepwater
                                               dockage and living quarters for visiting researchers and educators will be
                                               developed during a later phase. Major progress was made in completing a
                                               revised draft management plan during this biennium. Finally, a permanent
                                               research coordinator position was established, raising the number of fulltime
                                               reserve staff to three.


                                               IIL Research and Monitoring Programs

                                                        The reserve sites represent the broad range of salinity regimes found in
                                               the estuary, as well as the wide gradient of watershed development densities,
                                               and provide many excellent opportunities for research related' to coastal
                                               management issues. The reserve's research and monitoring programs were
                                               substantially expanded during the biennium.

                                                        Phase one of the reserve's water quality monitoring program was
                                               initiated with the monthly collection and analysis of tidal and tributary water
                                               from all four reserve sites. This study will continue until May 1992, and may
                                               be extended indefinitely in order to monitor water quality changes associated
                                               with watershed alterations and nonpoint source pollution. A multi-institution,

                                                                                         104








          coordinated research effort was undertaken to quantify atmospheric, tidal and
          surface water inputs at the Tivoli Bays to better understand watershed impacts
          on estuarine areas. Associated studies have examined chemical and sediment
          inputs to sites, and related these to land use patterns within the watershed.

                  Accurate, long scale vegetation maps of the four reserve sites were
          developed using new aerial photographs. These maps serve as a valuable tool
          for detecting past and future changes in the plant communities, sedimentation
          accumulation impacts, and erosion at the Reserve sites. They also enable
          researchers to accurately identify field sites suited to specific research needs.

                  Membership on the reserve's Research Advisory Committee was
          expanded to embrace new areas of expertise. The Committee guides the
          reserve in planning and implementation of a long7term research and environ-
          mental monitoring program, designed to identify long-term trends and provide
          information to coastal managers.

                  The reserve sponsored 17 research fellowship projects on estuarine
          ecology, including physical, biological and chemical characterizations, studies
          of ecosystem processes, and investigations of exchanges between wetlands
          and the main stem of the Hudson.


          IV. Education Program


                  The reserve conducted nearly one hundred fidal wetland field pro-
          grams for the general public and elementary, secondary and high school
          students. Demonstrations and activities illustrating estuarine processes, career
          days, seminars and lectures on a wide variety of Hudson River topics were
          also presented. .

                  The reserve launched phase one of a comprehensive teacher training
          program. A variety of workshops were offered, including several in coopera-
          tion with the Bank Street Collect of Education and a regional consortium of
          environmental education providers in the mid-Hudson Valley. Supplementary
          informational and educational materials were developed for participants.

                  The reserve produced and distributed a "Boater's Guide to the Hudson
          River Estuary," which introduces recreational boaters to the wetland commu-
          nities of the tidal Hudson and ways boaters can promote higher water and
          habitat quality in the river.


          V. Evaluations


                  No evaluations were conducted during the biennium. The next evalua-
          tion was scheduled May 1992.




                                                  105











                                            L Background
                JOBOSBAY
                 Puerto Rico                        Located on the southern coastal plain of the island of Puerto Rico, the
                                            reserve is divided into three units for management purposes: Mar Negro,
                                            characterized by fringe mangrove forest, which protects the shoreline and
                                            lagoons and channels; Cayos Caribes, a chain of 17 tear-shaped islets; and
                                            Seagrass Beds/Punta Colchones. Fifty West Indian manatees have believed to
                                            be Puerto Rico's second largest manatee population, forage within Jobos Bay
             Designated: 1981               and the Mar Negro and Caribes Islets areas of the reserve. Sea turtles are
                                            often found in the seagrass beds of Jobos Bay. The Puerto Rico Department
             Biogeographic Region:          of Natural Resources manages the site.
                     West Indian            H. Program Accomplishments
             Size: 2,800 acres                      Reserve staff have developed extensive onsite interpretive programs
             Acquisition Status:            over the past two years. In addition, the reserve offers an outreach program
                     100% complete          for the island to increase public awareness and appreciation of coastal and
                                            estuarine resources. The bay is the focal point of estuarine education for the
             Federal Funding FY90:          local school systems. The reserve served as a catalyst for the Department of
                     $70,000                Natural Resources to develop management plans for their forestry reserve
                                            system. In addition, the DNR entered into a cooperative agreement with the
             Federal Funding FY91:          Sea Grant College at the University of Puerto Rico to pursue joint education
                     $70,000                and research activities at Jobos Bay.
                                            III. Research and Monitoring Programs

                                                    Development of a research and education facility is in the design
                                            phase. Construction is expected to begin in 1992.

                                            IV. Education Program

                                                    The reserve's education program focuses on the natural integrity of the
                                            Bay and the importance of the estuarine habitat to Puerto Rico. Programs
                                            designed to reach local communities, schools, and the general public incorpo-
                                            rate special slide shows, tours, lecture series, outreach programs, interpretive
                                            exhibits, and library services.


                                            V. Evaluations


                                                    No evaluations were conducted during the biennium. The next evalua-
                                            tion site visit was scheduled for March 1992.


                                                                                               - @ r@5ï¿½ ^

                                                                                                 :;X




                                                                                   106











              L Background
                                                                                                     NAP.PAGANSETT
                      Located in the geographic center of Narragansett Bay, twelve miles
              from Newport Rl, the reserve spans of 1,035 acres of land on Prudence,                            BAY
              Patience, and Hope Islands, and 1,591 acres of water adjoining the islands out            Rhode Island
              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 live in the
              reserve's tidal deepwater. During the winter, harbor seals occasionally use the        Designated: 1980
              reserve's exposed offshore rocks as haulout and resting sites. An extensive
              trail system reaches the major ecological features of the reserve. The site is
              managed by the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management.                    Biogeographic Region:
              IL P  Irogram Accomplishments                                                                  Virginian
                      The reserve expanded its boundaries to incorporate two additional              Size: 9,800 acres
              properties in 1991 on Prudence Island. These properties, known as Barre and            Acquisition Status:
              Little, total 107 acres. The additions may lead to a greenways project con-                    100% complete
              necting the reserve to an abandoned state park on nearby Prudence Island.
              Negotiations are underway to incorporate the state park into the reserve. If           Federal Funding FY90:
              expanded, the park will prove an ideal location for a reserve visitor's facility.              $302,000
                      A site visit to Prudence Island took place in October 1991 with repre-         Federal Funding FY91:
              sentatives from the state's Department of Environmental Management and                         $125,726
              NOAA, and a large contingent of interest groups. The group explored issues
              of reserve operations and management, education and research opportunities,
              and boundary expansion.

              III. Research and Monitoring Programs

                      The reserve research program focuses on the salt marshes and aquatic
              habitats of the reserve. A new long-term atmospheric monitoring effort
              supplements a water quality program designed to characterize, detect change,
              and assess trends in marine water quality.

              IV. Education Program

                      Interpretive programs continue at the Prudence Island site supported
              by seasonal naturalists. Several brochures are being produced such as a
              boater's guide to Prudence Island and a brochure explaining the reserve's role
              in research, education and resource protection. A lyme disease awareness
              program is in development.


              V. Evaluations


                      No evaluations were conducted during FY90 and FY91.


                                                      107











                                              L Background
                     NORTH
                  CAROLINA                           The North Carolina National Estuarine Research Reserve (NCNERR),
                                              which is managed by the state's Department of Environment, Health and
                                              Natural Resources, inc 'ludes four sites along the North Carolina coast: Zeke's
                                              Island in New Hanover and Brunswick Counties; Rachel Carson in Carteret
                                              County; Currituck Banks in Currituck County; and Masonboro Island in New
                                              Hanover County.
              Designated: 1982 and
              1991                                   The Zeke's Island component encompasses approximately 1, 165 acres
                                              of upland, intertidal and shallow water areas. The Rachel Carson site includes
              Biogeographic Region:           2,625 acres of upland area, marshes, intertidal flats, tidal creeks, and shallow
                      Virginian/              estuarine waters. The Currituck Banks component covers 964 acres of beach,
                      Carolinian              dunes, maritime forest, marshes and flats, sound-side islands and a portion of
                                              Currituck Sound. Finally, the Masonboro Island component includes 5,046
              Size: 9,800 acres               acres of salt marshes, maritime forests, dunes, grassy flats, shrub thickets, eel
                                              grass beds, and mud and sand flats.
              Acquisition Status:
                      95% complete            Il. Program Accomplishments

              Federal Funding FY90:                  The final component of the NCNERR, Masonborol Island, was desig-
                                              nated in January 1991. The NCNERR program made remarkable progress
                                              since providing state funds for two fulltime positions - a reserve manager
              Federal Funding FY91:           and research coordinator. These positions are located at the University of
                      $1,120,000              North Carolina's Center for Marine Research in Wilmington. In addition, the
                                              reserve hired an eduation coordinator, who utilizes space rented from the
                                              North Carolina Maritime Museum in Beaufort, North Carolina. The education
                                              coordinator develops and coordinates educational programs for the reserve
                                              and manages the Rachel Carson component.

                                              III. Research and Monitoring Programs


                                                     Since the relocation of the reserve offices at the Center for Marine
                                              Research and the hiring of a fulltime research coordinator, the NCNERR
                                              research and monitoring programs have taken shape and direction. Although
                                              previous research focused on the Rachel Carson component, research efforts
                                              expanded to include other components. The reserve submitted several propos-
                                              als to NOAA for research funding consideration.

                                                     An intern and graduate student were hired to gather baseline informa-
                                              tion on physical and biological aspects of the Masonboro Island and Zeke's
                                              Island components for the NCNERR monitoring program.

                                              IV. Education Program

                                                     The new education coordinator coordinates education programs and
                                              plans to establish an identity for the reserve's components. Teacher work-

                                                                                     108







         shops for Project Estuary, an estuarine curriculum for middle grades, continue
         to gain popularity and support. Dr. Gail Jones of the University of North
         Carolina at Chapel Hill will prepare a smiliar curriculum for elementary
         children.


         V. Evaluations


                No evaluations were conducted during FY90 and FY91.












































                                              109











                                           L Background
              OLD WOMAN
                    CREEK                          The smallest reserve in the NERR System, Old Woman Creek (OWC)
                                           huddles in a drowned stream mouth that drains into Lake Erie, representing a
                      Ohio                 typical Great Lakes-freshwater estuary. Within the reserve, which is managed
                                           by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR), several aquatic and
                                           terrestrial habitat types have been identified, including open water, barrier
                                           beach, remnant embayment marshes, mudflats, oak-hickory upland hardwood
             Designated: 1980              forests, and a swamp forest.
             Biogeographic Region:                 Hundreds of species of algae, vascular plants, invertebrates, mammals,
                    Great Lakes            fishes, and birds inhabits the reserve. Several are threatened, endangered, or
                                           species of special concern, including the American bald eagle'   sharp-shinned
             Size: 571 acres               hawk eastern foxsnake, and the spotted turtle. The reserve also serves as an
                                           important nursery and spawning area for Lake Erie forage and sport fish.
             Acquisition Status:
                    100% complete          IL Program Accomplishments

             Federal Funding FY90:                 In October 1989, the reserve hosted a two-day conference on "Priori-
                    $98,675                ties for Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands Research," for 75 invited wetland
                                           scientists and decisionmakers from the U.S. and Canada. The conference
             Federal Funding FY91:         reviewed the information base on Great Lakes and coastal wetlands and
                    $90,000                developed research priorities for future studies. Conference proceedings have
                                           been published and distributed.

                                                   In addition, the reserve also hosted a week-long Wetlands Delineation
                                           Training Course for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
                                           U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. During 1989 and 199 1, the reserve also taught
                                           a two-hour graduate course entitled "The Ecology of Lake Erie Wetlands" in
                                           conjunction with Bowling Green State University.

                                                   During the biennium, the reserve received a NOAA grant and a dona-
                                           tion from a private foundation to fund an archaeology exhibit which depicts
                                           the chronology of American Indian occupation of the Old Woman Creek
                                           estuary and emphasizes the importance of natural resources to Indian survival.

                                                   The reserve also initiated a cooperation project with the National
                                           Aeronautics and Space Administration's Lewis Research Center to develop
                                           materials and activities for teachers who incorporate remote sensing tech-
                                           niques into educational programs. The Old Woman Creek reserve was desig-
                                           nated as a demonstration area by the Agricultural Stabilization and Conserva-
                                           tion Service and ODNR for determining the impact of selected watershed
                                           management practices on improving both surface and subsurface water qual-
                                           ity. The reserve monitoring program is an integral part of this project.

                                                   A NOAA grant also funded a spill response plan for the Old Woman
                                           Creek reserve and watershed. Finally, the reserve hosted the Great Lakes

                                                                                  110







         Creek reserve and watershed. Finally, the reserve hosted the Great Lakes
         Algal Foray, which brought together researchers from Canada and the Great
         Lakes states.


         III. Research and Monitoring Program


                The reserve sponsored 15 research projects; nine were completed and
         28 research articles were published. Research topics included: comparative
         ecosystem studies between Old Woman Creek and other Great Lakes coastal
         wetlands; interactions between different communities, relationships between
         sediments, chemistry and hydrology; bioaccumulation of toxic metals in the
         food web; impact of exotic species on the Lake Erie fishery; the use of
         "biomarkers" for determining aquatic ecosystem health; and coastal wetland
         phytoplankton dynamics. Several of these studies were conducted in coopera-
         tion with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, EPA, and U.S. Department of
         Agriculture staff from Ohio, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Michigan and New
         Zealand.


                The long-range goal of the Old Woman Creek research program is to
         develop a comprehensive understanding of the freshwater estuarine ecosys-
         tem. Old Woman Creek studies seek to determine the extent that freshwater
         estuaries and Great Lakes coastal marshes perform functions similar to their
         marine counterparts. A watershed-wide water quality monitoring program
         began at the reserve in 1980 to provide basic temporal information about the
         water chemistry and biology of Old Woman Creek, its estuary and the adja-
         cent portion of Lake Erie. During this biennium, monitoring expanded to
         survey the estuarine macroinvertebrate and microinvertebrate communities.

         IV. Education Program

                During the biennium, more than 50,000 people from 41 states and 19
         foreign countries visited the reserve and/or participated in educational pro-
         grams, workshops, and classes. The reserve's education program provides an
         array of public programs that increase public awareness of estuary ecosystems
         and coastal zone management. Program components include guided nature
         walks, school classes, teacher training programs, ecology workshops, natural
         history lecture series, environmental curriculum development, and interpretive
         materials such as brochures, posters, and slide talks.


         V. Evaluations


                A section 312 evaluation was conducted in June 1991. Final evalua-
         tion findings noted the continued high quality of reserve activities. Based in
         part on these findings, the Ohio Department of Natural Resources established
         a new National Estuarine Research Reserve section within the Division of
         Natural Areas and Preserves, to better ensure future visibility within state
         budget processes.












                                             L Background
               PADILLA BAY
                   Washington                        Established in 1980 under management by the"Washington Depart-
                                             ment of Ecology, the Padilla Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve covers
                                             over 2,500 acres of estuarine wetlands, 100 acres of uplands, and some 14,000
                                             square feet of facility space. Located near Anacortes in Skagit County,
                                             Washington, the site contains one of the largest concentrations of eelgrass on
                                             the Pacific Coast and maintains a diverse collection of invertebrates, fish,
              Designated: 1980               birds and marine mammals. The reserve is uniquely located, is surrounded by
                                             large urban centers and an inland marine- system used extensively for corn-
              Biogeographic Region:          merce and urban recreation.
                     Columbian
                                                     The reserve implements major programs in research, education and
              Size: 2,500 acres              interpretation, utilizing field, laboratory, classroom and exhibitry resources
                                             onsite. More than 25,000 citizens participate in these programs each year;
              Acquisition Status:            outreach efforts touch several thousand additional citizens. Cooperative
                     24% complete            programs involve state and regional universities, 40 regional public school
                                             districts, and local, state and Federal agencies. The reserve is enhanced by the
              Federal Funding FY90:          support of a nonprofit corporation (the Padilla Bay Foundation) and advisory
                     $205,000                committees providing professional guidance in research and education.

              Federal Funding FY91:          1I. Program Accomplishments
                     $341,000
                                                     The reserve management plan is undergoing revision to show the
                                             current status and future direction of the research, education, development and
                                             acquisition, and operations programs. Hat Island was recently purchased by
                                             Washington State, and the process for incorporating this productive resource
                                             area into the reserve boundaries has begun. Once the boundary is adjusted,
                                             the site will be eligible for Federal matching funds from OCRM, which will
                                             be used to purchase other critical sites already within the reserve acquisition
                                             plan and/or provide for facility needs of education and research programs.

                                                     Facilities development continued on the bam renovation to upgrade
                                             laboratory space, and the Breazeale House renovation to accommodate of-
                                             fices, a conference room, and storage space. A tunnel trail from the Interpre-
                                             tive Center to the observation deck and a spiral staircase from the observation
                                             deck to the beach were constructed to provide direct estuary access at the site.
                                             Facilities development was accompanied by the initiation of a policy/proce-
                                             dure/safety manual. A research library and a thorough bibliography of Padilla
                                             Bay studies was established, and a technical report/reprint series was com-
                                             pleted. Some improvements to Interpretive Center exhibits made and a
                        12                   prospectus for a new main exhibit area has been developed. A research and
                                             education assistance/ internship program was established with the assistance
                                             of the Padilla Bay Foundation and the Shell Oil Company.




                                                                                    112








          III. Research and Monitoring Programs

                 The reserve continued to develop baseline information on the re-
          sources and processes in Padilla Bay. Maps of the channels, seagrass and
          macroalgae beds, and intertidal flats of Padilla Bay (using 1989 summer color
          aerial photography) were published. Researchers at the reserve collec    'ted data
          on the densityand biomass of seagrasses and macroalgae. particle size distri-
          bution of sediment. Managers established baselines for the hydrocarbon
          content of sediments were measured and a permanent transect for future
          research projects in Padilla Bay.

                 Newly launched studies will examine suspended sediments and light in
          Padilla Bay and the influx of sediments to the bay from an agricultural water-
          shed; the seasonal effects of light reduction and oxygen depletion on growth
          and survival of the se.agrass Zostera marina in Padilla Bay; and the   flow of
          freshwater into Padilla Bay.(i.e., amount of water, 'water quality, circulation
          within the Bay) through the Swinomish Channel, one of the four major
          sources of freshwater into Padilla Bay.

          IV. Education Program

                 The reserve education and interpretation program includes in-house
          courses taught at the pre-school through college level, teacher workshops,
          youth programs, family programs, special group programs, presentations and
          lectures, adult workshops, guided tours, volunteer and teacher training, out-
          reach programs, special events, film series, exhibits and aquaria, portable
          displays, a newsletter/activity calendar, and brochures. A high school level
          estuarine curriculum for use at the site, and film on Padilla Bay are nearly
          complete. The staff is developing a high school level, interdisciplinary,
          outreach estuarine learning program for use in schools who students -cannot
          visit the site.


          V. Evaluations


                 An evaluation was conducted covering the period from November
          1986 through November 1990. The final evaluation findings documented
          program accomplishments, including an excellent, well-developed education
          and interpretive program, strengthened research and monitoring program, and
          active facilities development program. Recommendations for improvement
          included: developing a strategy for meeting the tremendous demand for the
          education programs by hiring more staff and modifying curricula for use
          throughout the year; adding a fulltime permanent position for the research
          coordinator; and strengthening the role of the ResearchAdvisory Committee.






                                                 113












                                            L Background
             ROOKERYBAY
                     Florida                       The reserve protects a large mangrove-fringed bay and two creeks.
                                            Managed by the Florida Department of Natural Resources (DNR), the reserve
                                            includes mangrove forests, marshes, sea gasses, and open water. The
                                            reserve's uplands are composed of pine woodlands, seasonal wetlands and
                                            scrub oak habitat. In November 1988, the state acquired Cannon Island, a
                                            350-acre pristine coastal hardwood hammock and mangrove-fringed barrier
             Designated: 1978               island, for inclusion into the reserve. In March 1989, the DNR outlined a
                                            proposal to expand the existing boundaries of the reserve to include additional
             Biogeographic Region:          state-owned lands in the Rookery Bay area and associated watersheds.
                     West Indian            H. Program Accomplishments
             Size: 9,400 acres
                                                   In 1990, three research, one maintenance and one administrative
             Acquisition Status:            assistant joined the reserve staff. A new management plan was completed and
                     68% complete           is currently under review. A new office building is planned for 1992. The
                                            reserve has initiated a habitat restoration program aimed at wetlands and
             Federal Funding FY90:          sheetflow restoration and eradication of invasive exotic plants. Acquisition of
                     $378,358               additional lands using state funds is underway, with 85 high priority parcels
                                            totalling over 4000 acres being appraised in 1991-92. The reserve was desig-
             Federal Funding FY91:          nated in 1991 as a regional site for marine mammal stranding response, and
                     $110,000               participated in rescue, recovery and transport of 6 manatees. and whales.

                                            III. Research and Monitoring Programs

                                                   Research in progress includes studies of wading birds, habitat prefer-
                                            ences 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 sponsors a geographic informa-
                                            tion system and remote sensing program.

                                                   With support from a NOAA research development grant, the reserve
                                            expanded its onsite research and monitoring capabilities in 1990 with the
                                            addition of three staff, a 19 foot research vessel and a minivan. A Research
                                            Advisory Committee was established to provide input into a new reserve
                                            research plan. The staff received funds from the U.S. Environmental Protec-
                                            tion Agency to conduct an advanced identification of wetlands adjacent to the
                                            reserve, as well as, an environmental assessment of state-owned lands in
                                            support of the proposed boundary expansion.







                                                                                  114









       IV. Education Program

              Reserve education programs contacted 11,887 persons in 1990 and
       1991, through 483 classes, high school field trips, seminars and summer
       programs. Over 216 adults participated in 12 courses offered by the reserve,
       including Inshore Fishing, Bird Watching, and Gulf Coast Cooking. "Learn-
       ing Through Research," a two-year fish population study utilizing high school
       and adult volunteers, concluded in December 1991. Reserve staff completed a
       new sign system, including entrance, facility and informational signage. A
       new field guide to Rookery Bay was completed for field trip participants.

              Bimonthly Coastal Reserve Management Workshops continue into a
       fourth year, targeting environmental professionals from across the state
       involved in planning, regulation and management. A cooperative education
       agreement between DNR and The Conservancy Inc. ensures an effective
       overall education effort at the reserve. The reserve acquaired a second 26 foot
       education vessel and plans to use a third vessel, from Edison Community
       College, in 1992. Reserve education programs range from illustrated slide
       talks, interpretive displays and videos to adult education courses, high school
       and college field trips and training workshops for teachers.


       IV. Evaluations


              An evaluation conducted by NOAA in January 1990, indicated that
       progress had been made in the education component. The findings indicated,
       however, that the reserve needs to increase emphasis on research and monitor-
       ing. Following the evaluation, DNR requested and received a research devel-
       opment grant from NOAA to implement an effective research program.





















                                            115










                                     L Background
                SAPELO
                ISLAND                      Most of the Duplin River watershed is included in, the reserve, which
                                     contains extensive marsh, southern hardwood forest, pure stands of pines,
                 Georgia             dunes and beaches. Managed by the Georgia Department of Natural Re-
                                     sources (DNR), 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
           Designated: 1976          south end of Sapelo Island.

           Biogeographic Region:            Broad-leafed evergreens and Spanish moss flourish in the reserve.
                 Carolinian          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.
           Size: 5,905 acres
                                     H. Program Accomplishments
           Acquisition Status:
                 100% complete              During the biennium, a comprehensive management plan was ap-
                                     proved and as part of this effort, site advisory committees and research and
           Federal Funding FY90:     education subcommittees were created. Plans are underway for construction
                 $49,838             of an on-site visitor center. The reserve recently hired a full-time manager
                                     and education coordinator. Public access to the reserve was improved by the
           Federal Funding FY91:     Acquisition of a 55 seat passenger tram, which guide tours throughout the site.
                 $110,000            During the biennium, there were more than 250 tours of the reserve, accom-
                                     modating approximately 5,000 visitors.

                                     III. Research and Monitoring Programs

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

                                            During the biennium, OCRM provided funds for a two-year project to
                         IPA'               p
                                     develo 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 worked in conjunction
                                     with UGMI to establish three remote Hydro Lab 2020 units and three weather
                                     stations, two units operated by UGMI already existed. In addition, the Geor-
                                     gia Environmental Protection Division quarterly samples 22 physio-chemical
                                     parameters and annually samples 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 reserve sites.

                                                                      116







       IV. Education Program

              The education program sponsored slide talks, films, and guided tours
       of the reserve. During the biennium, OCRM provided funds for the develop-
       ment of three videos on the reserve. The videos will examine the value of
       wetlands in fishery production, the role of tides in estuarine productivity, and
       the monitoring at Sapelo that assesses the health of the estuarine environment.


       V. Evaluations


              Final evaluation findings issued March 1990 noted that the state had
       made commendable progress in the operation and management of the reserve.
       The report recommended additional staff support for the education coordina-
       tor and completion of the management plan. The plan was subsequently
       approved and an interpretive assistant hired.





































                                            117











                                         L Background
                    SOUTH
                                                The first estuarine reserve, South Slough is one of I I shallow tidal
                  SLOUGH                 inlets connected to the Coos Estuary in Coos Bay, Oregon. Encompassing
                    Oregon               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 reside at the estuary and the reserve's extensive eelgrass beds attracts
             Designated: 1974            waterfowl migrating along the Pacific Flyway. The reserve is managed by the
                                         South Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve Management Commis-
             Biogeographic Region:       sion, under the policy guidance of the Oregon State Lands Board.
                    Columbian
                                         IL Program Accomplishments
             Size: 4,400 acres                  In 1992, the purchase of the George and Marion Tracy property com-
             Acquisition Status:         pleted the reserve's acquisition of land.
                    100% complete        III. Research and Monitoring Programs
             Federal Funding FY90:              The Reserve initiated a comprehensive baseline inventory of physical
                    $225,124             and biotic resources contained within the administrative boundaries. Ongoing
             Federal Funding FY89:       monitoring activities (Phases IA and 113) will document the status of estuarine
                    $331,340             tidelands, freshwater wetlands, and riparian areas. A subsequent inventory
                                         (Phase IC) will assess the status of upland forests and recovering clear-cuts.
                                         Inventory and monitoring activities were conducted at the newly-established
                                         South Slough Estuarine Research Laboratories, located at the University of
                                         Oregon Institute of Marine Biology. Research investigations were completed
                                         to investigate the effects of oyster cultivation techniques on the survival of
                                         eelgrass and infaunal invertebrates. Habitat rehabilitation planning began to
                                         restore tidal circulation to diked agricultural lands, and re-establish a diverse
                                         coastal forest within critical parcels of the South Slough watershed. The
                                         Reserve also collects and maintains summary data describing basic physical
                                         environmental features of the area. Tidal data available dates back to the early
                                         1970s, as well as data sets for meteorological and hydrographic parameters.

                                         IV. Education Program

                                                A major part of the Reserve's education program is the highly re-
                                         garded series of school curricula administered on-site during spring and fall.
                                         The education program's interpretive segment includes a varied series of
                                         interpretive activities (lectures, workshops, walks, etc.), trails, exhibits, video,
                                         film, and slide programs, brochures, and signs.


                                         V. Evaluations


                                                No evaluations were conducted during FY90 or FY91. An evaluation
                                         site visit was conducted in December 199 1.


                                                                             118










             L Background
                                                                                                            TIJUANA
                     Managed by the California Department of Parks and Recreation                             RIVER
             (DPR), the reserve encompasses approximately 2,531 acres of tidally flushed
             wetlands, riparian, and upland habitats extending immediately north of the                     California
             U.S.-Mexico border in southern San Diego County. As the southern most
             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. Tijuana River is one of approximately 30 coastal                 Designated: 1982
             wetlands that still exist south of Point Conception. Located within the juris-
             dictions of Imperial Beach and San Diego and near the City of Tijuana                    Biogeographic Region:
             (Mexico), the estuary provides productive marsh habitat for invertebrates,                       Californian
             fish, and birds including federal and state-listed endangered or threatened
             species, such as the light-footed clapper rail, California least tern, brown             Size: 2,531 acres
             pelican, and peregrine falcon. An endangered plant, the salt marsh bird's beak,
             also flourishes in the area.                                                             Acquisition Status:
                     Responsibility for setting management policies lies with the Tijuana                     100% complete
             River National Estuarine Sanctuary Management Authority (TRNESMA),                       Federal Funding FY90:
             comprised of representatives from the lead agency, the California Department                     $224,770
             of Parks and Recreation (DER), and from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
             City of San Diego, the City of Imperial Beach, San Diego County, the Califor-            Federal Funding FY91:
             nia Coastal Commission, and the California Coastal Conservancy. Southwest                        $335,000
             Wetlands Interpretive Association coordinates education and volunteer
             support programs.


             H. Program Accomplishments

                     During FY90 and FY91, a garage, laboratory space and caretaker's car
             port were constructed adjacent to the new visitor center. The comprehensive
             enhancement draft plan and draft EIR/EIS concluded five years of effort. The
             plan presented at a public hearing details 495 acres of restoration to be imple-
             mented as funds become available. The reserve initiated a 10-acre, $120,000
             restoration project funded by CDPR, for a heavily disturbed riparian habitat.
             The reserve is purchasing 75 acres with approximately $450,000 in state and
             Federal funds as part of the updated land acquisition plan. Development of
             final exhibit design plans for the visitor center hall and other outdoor exhibits
             is nearing completion. The FWS, CDPR, and NOAA will each contribute
             $175,000 for the design phase, subsequent construction and installation. The
             TRNERR Management Authority continues to address significant issues in
             the reserve, such as sewage facility development, water quality problems,
             illegal immigration, obtaining land acquisition funding and restoration
             planning and funding.

                     The Management Authority worked closely with the County of San
             Diego, a member of the authority, to coordinate the purchase of 730 acres of
             parkland upstream and adjacent to the.reserve.

                                                      119







                                           III. Res.earch and Monitoring Programs

                                                  The reserve experienced substantial changes, including episodes of
                                           fluctuatingfreshwater flow, increased sedimentation, and severe deterioration
                                           of water quality. These changes and the unique southerly character of the
                                           wetland provided the basis for research that contributed to the understanding
                                           of estuarine systems in southern California. The Pacific Estuarine Research
                                           Laboratory, managed by San Diego State University and located within the
                                           reserve serves as 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
                                           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 artificial
                                           wetlands as a mitigation measure in the region. Monitoring programs tracked
                                           the influence of hydrological disturbances on the reserve and the recent
                                           diversion of virtually all sewage flow from the estuary via a temporary con-
                                           nect to San Diego's treatment plant.

                                           IV. Education Program

                                                  The reserve's  school programs center on the M.A.R.S.H. (Marsh
                                           Awareness with Resources of Slough Habitats) Project curriculum developed
                                           for fifth and sixth grade students. To encourage student visits, the reserve
                                           trained teachers to use the curriculum, familiarize them with the site, and
                                           required that the educational materials be used for at least two weeks prior to
                                           the site visit. The reserve offers teacher training workshops throughout the
                                           year, including ART-SCI (Art in Science). Workshop materials were pub-
                                           lished in English and Spanish. Four hundred teachers have been trained since
                                           the program began. A parttime, bilingual education assistant joined the staff.
                                           The small laboratory in the visitor center offers classes for children during the
                                           week and on weekends. The reserve participates in the National Geographic
                                           Kid's Network project. Nine kits have been distributed to two school districts
                                           in the county. The reserve supplies additional curriculum material on the
                                           county watershed and estuaries. The San Diego Water Authority and the
                                           Helix Water Authority provide materials on statewide water delivery.


                                           V. Evaluations


                                                  Final evaluation findings issued on November 21, 1989, noted the
                                           following accomplishments: finalizing a long-term lease between the Califor-
                                           nia DPR and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for use of land as a
                                           visitor center; developing a memorandum of understanding between OCRM
                                           and DPR; developing an education program; establishing a volunteer program,
                                           and increasing staff. The findings indicated an optimal coordination between
                                           DPR and FWS, which uses office space at the site. The evaluation recom-
                                           mended that the state commit funding to an education coordinator position.


                                                                                  120







      L Background
                                                                                              WAIMANU
             The reserve, managed by the Hawaii Department of Land and Natural
      Resources, encomp   asses.most of the WaimanuValley, the    :adjacent bay.and   *         VALLEY
      the trail corridor from neighboring Waipio Valley. Although intermittently                  Hawaii
      inhabited for centuries,Waimanu Valley has been uninhabitedfor over 40
      years. Partial surveys identified two major archaeological sites with complex
      cultural features. The reserve's w -ater resources are among the few in the state
      that remain undiverted and undeveloped for human use. With the headwaters           Designated: 1976
      of Waimanu Stream and tributaries stemming from an adjoining state natural
      reserve, an entire watershed and stream system -falls under reserve protection.     Biogeographic Region:
                                                                                                  Insular
             Waimanu Valley is primarily used by@ pig -hunters and backers. The
      valley is a popular public hunting area and backpacking -destination, acces-        Size: 3,600 acres
      sible via the 7.5 mile Muliwai. Trail from Waipio Valley. The lack of human
      influence since the tsunami of 1946 allows the vegetation and animal life to        Acquisition Status:
      evolve undisturbed. Native and non-native species com prise the-vegetation.                 Approximately
      The valley also provides habitat for the only land mammal native to the                     92% complete
      Hawaiian Islands, the endangered ope'ape'a or Hawaiian hoary bat, as well as
      the endangered Hawaiian duck (Koloa), then endangered 'io (Hawaiian .               Federal Funding FY90:
      hawk), and rare pueo (Hawaiian short-eared owl). Aquatic life in the stream                 $70,000
      system includes five native fish species, four native invertebrates and the@
      introduced Tahitian prawn.                                                          Federal Funding FY91:
                                                                                                  $70,000
      IL Program Accomplishments

             A revised Reserve Management Plan was prepared for OCRM review.
      In addition, the Governor signed an Executive Order converting Waimanu
      Valley from its forest reserve status to the NERR System.

             The reserve entered into an agreement with the U.S. Geological Sur-
      vey (USGS) to install hydrologic instrument stations to monitor stream flow'
      rainfall and sedimentation within Waimanu Valley. Water quality samples are
      also collected and analyzed approximately five times per year while stream '
      stations are serviced by the USGS. All stream flow information collected and
      processed appears in water resources data reports published on an annual basis.
      by the USGS.

             Information signs for health, safety and notice of the need for camping
      permits were constructed and installed at the Waipio Valley Lookout. Signs
      identify the nine campsites in the valley and provide the public with informa-
      tion about flashfloods and potential'disease causing bacteria within the wet
      areas. Two Clivus-Multrum composting toilets have been constructed along
      the berm at the valley' mouth to serve -the established camping'area.




                                             121







                                         III. Education Program

                                                A video documentary of the oral history of Waimanu Valley was
                                         produced and shown on Hawaii Public Television. The show details the
                                         history of the valley and its occupation, as well as information of the natural
                                         and historic resources of the valley. A reserve brochure describing the re-
                                         sources and reserve policies was produced and circulated.


                                         IV. Evaluations


                                                No evaluation was conducted during FY90 and FY 9 1. An evaluation
                                         site visit was conducted in February 1992.









































                                                                             122







        L Background
                Located in the towns of Falmouth and Mashpee in Barnstable County,                WAQUOITBAY
        the reserve includes areas of intense, moderate and low human impact. The                   Massachusetts
        boundary of the reserve spans approximately 2,250 acres, including several
        distinct water bodies and upland areas within and adjacent to Waquoit Bay.
        South Cape Beach State Park and Washburn Island, both public recreational
        areas, are within the reserve, as well as the open water and marshes of
        Waquoit Bay. The reserve encompasses marsh, open water and upland fields                  Designated: 1988
        and forest. Managed by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental
        Management, the reserve is one of only two confirmed localities in the com-               Biogeographic Region:
        monwealth where the endangered plant Sandplain Gerardia grows. Federally                          Virginian
        threatened Piping Plover and Least Terns and federally endangered Roseate
        Terns also thrive at the site.                                                            Size: 2,199 acres

        IL Program Accomplishments                                                                Acquisition Status:
                                                                                                          92% complete
                Renovations on three of the four buildings at the reserve headquarters
        at the Swift Estate, in addition to the exterior of the 16 room Main House are            Federal Funding FY90:
        complete. Interior renovation awaits funding. The headquarters includes                           $374,000
        administrative offices, a research laboratory, a research/education classroom,
        library, overnight accommodations for researchers, field equipment storage                Federal Funding FY91:
        space, a meeting space and outside classroom. When completed the Main                             $210,000
        House will feature a conference room, exhibits and offices.

                A camping permit system was established for the 11 campsites on
        Washburn Island. Island Manager interns live on the island during the sum-
        mer to provide information and implement regulations. Volunteer Piping
        Plover Patrollers erect predator exclusion fences around nesting Plovers and
        Terns annually.

                The Resource Protection Subcommittee, composed of the town and
        state officials with jurisdiction in Waquoit Bay, developed a Resource Protec-
        tion Summary to examine resource protection, the issues, the regulations, the
        gaps in the regulations and suggestions to fill the gaps. Subcommittee recom-
        mendations will become part of a Waquoit Bay Watershed Management Plan.

        III. Research and Monitoring Programs

                The reserve claims one of the most extensive research programs within
        the NERR System due to the significance of local resources, and the reserve's
        close proximity to prestigious institutions of higher learning. Among the
        many research projects currently underway is "Coupling of Watershed and
        Coastal Waters in Waquoit Bay," jointly funded by NOAA, National Science
        Foundation and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to examine how
        changes in land use over time affect the groundwater nutrients and how these
        effects influence the health of the bay. This four-year grant involves five

                                                 123





                                         institutions and several principal investigators. The project will provide
                                         important information and methodology on nutrient loading to the Cape Cod
                                         Commission, the regional planning agency and to programs such as the
                                         Buzzards Bay Project.

                                                Other research includes studies on the effects of groundwater with-
                                         drawal on fisheries; watershed delineation; the effects of eutrophication on
                                         growth and productivity of macroalgae in Waquoit Bay; the impacts,of
                                         macro algae on fisheries; scallop recruitment; the effects of excess nutrients on
                                         eelgrass; the exploration of fissures found in young waterfowl;and a Waquoit
                                         Bay NERR volunteer botany and bird survey.

                                         I-V. Education Program

                                                During the summer'season, the reserve offers several educational
                                         programs, such as regular walks on South Cape Beach andWashburn Island
                                         and weekly Watershed Field Trips that begin in the research/education class-
                                         room. Interactive.classroom activities demonstrate groundwater and water-
                                         shed; the group is then-taken out into the watershed to experience these con-
                                         cepts. Students also explore different types of land use and the effects on
                                         groundwater. This program relies on a curriculum developed with a NOAA
                                         education grant. Two posters are available with this curriculum. The "Eve-
                                         nings on the Bluff" series invites the general public to picnic on the lawn and
                                         listen to entertaining presentations on research and policy issues.

                                                The reserve also offers education programs for policyrnakers and
                                         regulators. A Roundtable discussion brings together researchers and
                                         policyrnakers to clarify expectations. The Research Exchange Day invites all
                                         researchers working in the watershed to share their work with each other,
                                         local officials and committee members. EPA funded a reserve conference' on
                                         "Nitrogen Removal Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems," which brought
                                         together people from various agencies that permit and manage alternative
                                         denitrifying systems. The reserve also established a volunteer program to
                                         enhance public education activities and provide support for the research
                                         community. The volunteers s   erv e on the reserve's Advisory Committee and
                                         three subcommittees.


                                         IV. Evaluations


                                                Final evaluation findings were issued on January 22, 1992. Accom-
                                         plishments of the program included: developing a large volunteer corps;
                                         creating and actively involving the Resource Protection Subcommittee;
                                         facilitating the flow of information from researchers to coastal policyrnakers
                                         and the public; renovating the Swift Estate and providing educational/interpre-
                                         tive opportunities. The evaluation recommended that the state commit fund-
                                         ing to the education coordinator position and other staff. The findings also
                                         recommended that the state develop a long-term acquisition plan, conduct a
                                         study of the cumulative impacts of docks, piers and boating on marine re-
                                         sources; and improve fiscal administration in Boston.

                                                                               124







              L Background                                                                               WEEKSBAY
                      Located along the eastern shore of Mobile Bay in Baldwin County, the                  Alabama
              reserve encompasses 3,028 acres of land and water in and around Weeks Bay.
              The bay is a small shallow estuary surrounded by forested wetlands. The
              reserve protects a nursery for shrimp and serves as a productive nursery for
              other commercially important fisheries. An estimated 19,000 threatened or
              endangered species inhabit the bay and surrounding lands. The reserve,
              managed by the Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs                     Designated: 1986
              (ADECA), employs a manager, program assistant and parttime secretary.
                                                                                                      Biogeographic Region:
              H. Program Accomplishments                                                                      Louisianan

                      The Weeks Bay Reserve is in its initial development phase. In 1991,             Size: 3,028 acres
              the state designed an interpretive center for the reserve including a classroom,
              laboratory and office space, exhibits, and trails. Construction will be com-            Acquisition Status:
              pleted in fall 1992.                                                                            100% complete

              III. Research and-Monitoring Programs                                                   Federal Funding FY90:
                                                                                                              $315,000
                      Weeks Bay is a small estuary with two river tributaries, making the
              reserve an ideal sitefor comparative studies of larger estuarine systems.               Federal Funding FY91:
              Research efforts at the reserve included development of a model of the Weeks                    $84,000
              Bay estuary and its tributaries, a natural history survey of Weeks Bay, a
              vegetation community assessment and other projects. The reserve is also
              developing a monitoring program.

              IV. Education Program

                      The reserve's education program includes nature trail tours, bird, plant
              and animal identification walks, and offsite presentations to area environmen-
              tal and civic organizations and school groups. Plans are underway to. stimu-
              late students' interest in the sciences by awarding class research grants to high
              school and middle school science classes.


              V. Evaluations


                      No evaluation was conducted during the biennium. Thenextevalua-
              tion site visit was scheduled for March 1992.













                                                      125















                                       L Background
                   WELLS
                    Maine                    The Wells reserve is nestled in York County, within the town of Wells,
                                       on the southern coast of Maine and includes the historic Laudholm Farm. ne
                                       reserve's diverse natural features form an ecosystem unique to the region with
                                       undeveloped marshes and transitional upland fields and forests along two
                                       contrasting watersheds - the Little River estuary and the Webhannet River
                                       estuary. Two endangered species - the piping plover and least turn - nest
             Designated: 1984          within the reserve. Three plant species under state protection, the slender blue
                                       flag, eastern joe-pye weed, and arethusa, thrive at Wells.
             Biogeographic Region:
                   Acadian                   The Town of Wells managed and operated the the reserve until 1990,
                                       when the state legislature created the Wells National Estuarine Research
             Size: 1,600 acres         Reserve Management Authority as the State agency responsible for managing
                                       and operating the reserve.
             Acquisition Status:
                   100% complete       H. Program Accomplishments

             Federal Funding FY90:           The reserve added several members to its staff, including a fulltime
                   $200,881            research coordinator, a parttime volunteer coordinator and caretaker. With the
                                       addition of these staff members, the reserve focused on refining the research
             Federal Funding FY91:     and monitoring programs. The volunteer corps increased to approximately
                   $110,000            300 individuals, allowing the site to be open seven days a week.

                                             Projects completed during the biennium include a historic restoration
                                       of the main barn and the construction of meeting rooms and a workshop.
                                       Restoration began on other historic structures, and maintenance work contin-
                                       ues on the property.- There are several historic structures on the property that
                                       are integral to future program development plan. Projected uses for these
                                       buildings include housing for researchers, a wetlab and classroom space. In
                                       1991, a small building located near the farmhouse was renovated and dedi-
                                       cated by the Governor as the Adams-Nunnemacher Research Laboratory.

                                             The reserve's final management plan was revised and then approved
                                       by the state; the reserve signed Memoranda of Understandings (MOUs) with
                                       the state and NOAA and most other state agencies, and other MOUs are in
                                       negotiation. Reserve regulations are also being promulgated. The manage-
                                       ment plan developed a zoning plan that directs the type and extent of activities
                                       allowed in different areas of the site. This will help minimize conflicts among
                                       various uses and will help protect the reserve's resources.

                                             The Laudholm Trust, the primary non-Federal source of financial
                                       support for the reserve, completed a $3 million fundraising campaign to
                                       support development and operations of the reserve through 1992.




                                                                       126







       III. Research and Monitoring Programs


               Much of the reserve research has involved collection of valuable
       baseline data. Researchers obtained additional baseline information from
       habitat mapping, bird and plant surveys, and deployment of an automated
       weather station and water sampling device. To improve the reserve's research
       potential, the Reserve Management Authority is exploring the addition of a
       running seawater lab system. The reserve manager also serves as the
       Governor's appointee to the state's Marine Research Board.

               Data from the reserve's automated weather station proved valuable to
       the monitoring project by the Jackson Estuarine Laboratory in understanding
       how the physical and chemical properties of the Webhannet Estuary respond
       to environmental factors. The reserve also installed a computerized resource
       map that enabled the staff and researchers to pinpoint locations on the reserve
       and to analyze geographical interrelationships. Another monitoring program
       established a benchmark index of the Webhannet estuary's environmental
       health. An associated plankton survey was the first of its kind completed south
       of Portland, and deemed a significant contribution to Gulf of Maine studies.
       Another monitoring project sought to document vegetation changes in a marsh
       where tidal influence is being restored.

       IV. Education Program

               The reserve sponsored two major interrelated education projects, the
       development of the Outreach and the on-site Discovery programs. The Out-
       reach Program teaches K-6 grades estuarine ecology and resource protection.
       The reserve conducts workshops for teachers who then use the reserve's
       teaching kits to instruct students. The project involves an entire elementary
       school population. During its two-year cycle, the program will reach nearly
       8,000 students in nine schools.


               The Discovery Program complements the content of the outreach
       curriculum. Backpacks and equipment are loaned for use with trail guides that
       describe hands-on activities for children at stops along the reserve's five trail
       loops. Each loop uses a theme interpreted at two instructional levels. Ap-
       proximately 500 students used the program in two years. In addition, the
       reserve completed its planned trail and boardwalk system of 14 trails grouped
       into five interpretive loops.

               The education program actively integrated reserve efforts with other
       education and management programs in the region, such as with the New
       England Aquarium, the Association of Science and Technical Centers, and
       other reserve educators. The education coordinator became a member of the
       State Shore Steward Trust Advisory Committee which encourages local
       citizen education and action on water quality issues.


                                            127









                                        V. Evaluations


                                               An evaluation was conducted in July 1991. Findings report that the
                                        state continues to operate and manage a strong reserve program that is consis-
                                        tent with the goals of the national program. The findings also indicated that
                                        the state made numerous accomplishments since the 1988 evaluation. Major
                                        accomplishments include: the creation of the Wells Reserve Management
                                        Authority, the new state agency responsible for reserve management and
                                        operations; the hiring of a research coordinator; development and implementa-
                                        tion of two major education programs; and completion of a $3 million
                                        fundraising campaign to support the operations of the reserve.







































                                                                            128





   Appendices






                                                                 Appendix A


                       STATUS OF STATE COASTAL ZONZ MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS


                                  ACtU@tl or Estimated
                                  Federal Approval Date        Comment and Status
            STATE           By Fiscal   Year End (end 9/30)           1/31/92

            Washington                  1976                       Approved
            Oregon                      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 Jersey                  1978                       Approved
              (Bay and  Ocean 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                  1980                       Approved
             (Remaining Section)                                   Approved
            .Northern Marianas          1980
            American Samoa              1980                       App-roved
            Florida                     1981                       Approved
            New Hampshire               1982                       Approved
             (Ocean and
               Harbor Segment)                                     Approved
            New York                    1982                       Approved
            Virginia                    1986                       Approved
            New Hampshire               1988                       Pending
            Georgia                                                Pending
            Ohio                                                   Pending
            Minnesota                                              pending
            Texas                                                  Pending
            Republic of Palau
                                  Non-Participating

            Indiana                     it
            Illinois











                                           ITEMIZATION Of ALLOCATION OF FUNDS AND A BREAKDOWN OF PROJECTS AND AREAS WHICH FUNDS WERE EXPENDED

                       STATE                    SECTION 306*                      SECTION 308                  SECTION 309                         SECTION 315                    TOTAL***


                                          1974     1988                       1974    1988    1990        1974   1988                         '1974    1988
                                          1987'**  1989 1990       1991       1987    1989    1991        1987   1989    1990    1991         1987     1989     1990    1991        1987-1991


               ALABAMA                     5,861   l,13O     593    534        4,080    0      0          0       0       0       59          1,224     183       318      50         $14,032

               ALASKA                     28,074   3,817    2,014   1,813     59,639    0      0          0       0       0      201              0       0       0        0           95.558
               AMERICAN SAMOA              4,140   1,019     476     428          226   0      0          0       0       a       48              0       0       0        0            6,337

               CALIFORNIA                 30,231   3.817    2,014   1.813      8,943    0      0          0       0       0      201              0       0       245    564           47.828
               CONNECTICUT                 7,987   1,471     76T     690       1,769    0      0          200    100      0       77              0       0       0        24          13,085
               DELAWARE                    6,931   1,088     571     514       1,978    0      0          0       0       25      57              0       10      50       0           11,224
               DISTRIC OF COLUMBIA           0       0       a       0            0     0      0          0       0       28      0               0       0       0        37               65
               FLORIDA                    16,406   2,il7    2,014   1,813      4,213    0      0          339     0       0      201          4,544     166       633    245           32.  691
               GEORGIA                     1,857     0       0       0         1,357    0      0          0       0       0       0           1,808     473       50     110            5,655
               GUAM                        4,814     912     480     432          343   0      0          0       0       0       48              0       0       0        0            7,029
               HAWAII                      8,881   1.368     715     644          387   0      0          80      so      46      72             300    250       0      113           12,906
               ILLINOIS                    1,709     0       0       0            a     0      0          131    248      81      0               0       0       0        0            2,169
               INDIANA                     1.365     0       0       0            195   0      0          0       0       0       0               0       0       0        0            1,560
               LOUISIANA                  16,406   2,`117 2,0`14 1,813        79.982    0      0          0       0       0      201              18      0       0        0           102,551
















                           STATE                      SECTION 306*                         SECTION 308                   SECTION 309                            SECTION 315                      TOTAL***



                                               1974      1988                          1974    1988    1990         1974    1988                           1974     1988
                                               19870*    1989 1990        1991         1987    1989    1991         1987    1989    1990     1991          1987     1989      1990    1991          1987-1991



                  OREGON                       13,224    1,765      us       781       1,821     0      0           420     669       89      87           2,683      324      175        382       S 23,288

                  PENNSYLVANIA                   7,297   1,404      732      659       5,792     0      0           157      0        0       73               0       0        a         0            16,114

                  RJERTO RICO                  11,761    2,175   1,134    1,021            193   0      0            0       0        0      113           1,012      300      217        90           18,016

                  RHODE ISLAND                   81730   1,156      606      545       2,304     0      0            0       50       0       60           1,336       20       22        370          15,199

                  SOUTH CAROLINA               12,128    2,559   1,334    1,601        2,080     0      0            0       0        0      133              162      10       80        742          20.829

                  TEXAS                          4,183     0        0        0         34,556    0      0            0       0        0       0                0       0        0         0            38,7-39

                  VIRGIN ISLANDS                 4,521      951     960      441           361   0      0            0       0        0       49               0       0        0         0              7,283

                  VIRGINIA                       5,153   3,568   1,859    1,673            573   0      0           285     443      165     186               10      40      100        185          14,240

                  WASHINGTON                   19.051    3,742   1,950    1,755        2,388     0      0           200      0        0      195           1,924       148     230        415          31,998

                  WISCONSIN                    11,176    1,598      833      750           669   0      0           300      0        0      133****           24      0        0         0            15,4113



                           includes 306A funds
                           includes Section 305 program planning funds                                                                                         (Dollars in Thousands)
                  tee      Includes all federal funding awarded since 1974 through FY 1991
                           (Marine Sanctuary funding Is not Included).
                           Includes Section 310 funds






                                                                                                                                          q



                              STATE                      SECTION 306*                 SECTION 308                 SECTION 309                       SECTION 315                TOTAL



                                                  1974      1988                    1974     1988   1990       1974   1988                    1974     1988                    1987-1991
                                                  1987** 1989     1990     1991     1987     1989   1991       1987   1989   1990 1991        1987    1989 1990 1991



                        MAINE                    11,581 2,950     1,538    1,384    1,492     150     0         0     155     98     154      1,552      475     244     110    21,883

                        MARYLAND                 13,150   3,617   2,014    1,813    2,346      0      0        855    785     0      201         788     123     128     251    26,071

                        MASSACHUSETTS            11,844   2,361   1,230    1,107    4,898      0      0        214     0      40     123      2,461      875     374     210    25,737

                        MICHIGAN                 16,032   3,817   2,014    1,813    1,243      0      0         0      0      0      201          0       0      0       0      25,120

                        MISSISSIPPI               4,214   1,026       539     485   16,536     0      0         0      0      0       54          0       0      0       0      22,854

                        NEW HAMPSHIRE             3,096      950      500     450   1,849      0      0         0      0      0       50         534   1,132     274     229      9,064

                        NEW JERSEY               15,241   3,817   2,014    1.,822   4,358      0      0        200     0      10     192          50      0      0       25     27,729

                        NEW YORK                 11,730   3,817   2,014    1,772    2,740      0      0        125    197     0      242      1,456      202     290     599    25,184

                        NORTH CAROLINA           12,958   3,693   3,008    1,358    1,968      0      0         0      70     0      150      2,797      413     122   1,110    27,647

                        NORTHERN MARIANAS         3,525      925     487      0        308     0      0         0      0      0       0           0       0      0       0        5,245

                        OHIO                         0       0        0       0        805     0      0         0      0      0       0          596      90     99      70       1,660






                                                                   Appendix C



                                  CONSISTENCY APPEALS REPORT
                                     AS OF JANUARY 16, 1992




                                          NOTICE OF APPEAL
          APPELLANT            STATE           FILED               DISPOSITION



          SHICKREY ANTON         Sc            10/2/89             Decision Issued
                                                                   5/21/91

          ï¿½ HENRY CROSBY         SC            10/11/89            Record closed

          ï¿½ ROGER W. FULLER      NC            12/11/89            Record closed

          ï¿½ CLAIRE PAPPAS #2     NY            3/13/90             Record closed

          ï¿½ EUGENE J. DEAN       MA            3/23/90             Record closed

          ELMER E. MARTIN        SC            3/28/90             Withdrawn
                                                                   8/17/90

            DAVIS A. McNEILL     Sc            4/4/90              Record closed

          KINSTON SMITH          NC            4/16/90             Dismissed
                                                                   11/1/90

          CHARLES LeBRETON       PR            5/1/90              Dismissed
                                                                   11/90

          MARVIN MANN            SC            5/21/90             Dismissed
                                                                   8/1/90

          VICTOR L. GONZALEZ     PR            5/30/90             Dismissed
                                                                   3/91

          CITY OF BARCELONETA    PR            6/4/90              In process

          DAVIS & DUNLAP         AK            6/26/90             Dismissed
                                                                   2/22/91

          JOSE ESPADA-ORLANDI    PR            7/10/90             Dismissed
                                                                   5/28/91

            MOBIL EXPLORATION    NC            7/31/90             Record closed
           & PRODUCING U.S.,INC.

          JUAN SEGARRA-PAGAN     PR            8/6/90              Dismissed
                                                                   2/13/91



              Record closed/decision is being drafted or circulated.











                                               2



                                         NOTICE OF APPEAL
         APPELLANT             STATE          FILED               DISPOSITION



         ï¿½ DAVIS HENIFORD         SC          9/25/90             Record closed

         ï¿½ YEA-MANS HALL CLUB     SC          9/25/90             Record closed

         ï¿½ ROBERT E, HARRIS       NY          11/1/90             Record closed

         JOSE LUIS IRIZARRY       PR          11/23/90            Dismissed

           MOBIL EXPLORATION      NC          12/3/90             Record closed
             U.S. Inc.-


         TEXACO INC.              AK          12/7/90             Withdrawn
                                                                  5/10/91

         WEYERHAEUSER             WA          1/17/91             Appeal stayed

         JAMES & UTA STEIN        WA          1/17/91             Dismissed
                                                                  7/2/91

         NIANTIC DOCKOMINUM       CT          1/8/91              In process

         CHEVRON U.S.A. INC       FL          3/28/91             In process
         (Destin Dome)

         PETER ZORZI              MA          4/12/91             Appeal stayed

         PAUL THOMAS              SC          5/23/91             Appeal Stayed
                                                                  until 2/3/92

         WILLIAM A. TOWNE         SC          7/22/91             Dismissed
                                                                  12/24/91

         GREGORIE BROTHERS        Sc          8/7/91              Dismissed
                                                                  11/12/91

         CARLOS CRUZ COLON        PR          9/22/91             In process

         VEPCO - Lake Gaston      NC          10/4/91             In process

         JOSEPH RUSHTON/          MD          10/11/91            In process
         FRANCIS CODD


         JUSTO RIVERA             PR          10/25/91            Fee payment
                                                                  letters sent



             Record closed/decision.is being drafted or circulated.









                                                                       Appendix D






                  GUIDANCE REGARDING CONSISTENCY APPEAL PROCESSING FEES



             Section 307(i) of the Coastal Zone Management Act, as amended
             (CZMA),'provides that with respect to appeals under sections
             307(c)(3) and (d), the Secretary shall collect an application
             fee of not less than $200 for minor appeals and not less than'
             $500 for major appeals, unless the Secretary, upon consideration
             of an applicant's request for a fee waiver, determines that the
             applicant is unable to pay the fee. The Secretary shall collect
             such other fees as are necessary to recover the full costs'of
             administering and processing such appeals under section 307   . (c).

             In order to meet the requirements of CZMA ï¿½ 307(i), the
             following guidance is provided for applicants who wish to appeal
             a state objection under.CZMA ï¿½ 307(c)(3) and (d).

             Type of Appeal: A "major" appeal is one involving a project
             with a value of at least $1 million or one which, in the
             Secretary's determination, would involve significant
             administrative costs to the agency. All other appeals will be
             considered "minor" appeals by the Secretary. The applicant
             shall state in its Notice of Appeal whether it considers the
             appeal to be major  or minor and shall state the value of the
             project. Where the applicant has, as part of its request for a
             permit or federal assistance, indicated the value of.the
             proposed project, a copy of that portion of the permit or
             federa,1 assistance application should accompany the Notice of
             Appeal.

             Application Fee: The applicant shall include with the Notice of
             Appeal a check made payable to NOAA in the amount of either $200
             for a minor appeal or $500 for a major appeal, or request an
             application fee waiver. Upon receipt of the Notice of Appeal
             and the application fee (or waiver of the fee), the Secretary
             shall begin processing the appeal.

             Application Fee Waiver: In the event applicants for minor
             appeals believe the requirement of the payment of an application
             fee will impose a financial hardship, they may request an
             application fee waiver by including with the Notice of Appeal a
             properly completed and executed application for a waiver
             (attached). If the Secretary denies the waiver request, the fee
             must be received within 30 days of receipt of the Secretary's
             denial or the appeal shall be dismissed with prejudice. There'
             will be no waiver of the application fee for appeals having a
             value of over $1 million.





















                                        2

        Processing Fee: The Secretary will notify the applicant of the
        amount of the processing fee which shall be due on the same date
        as the applicant's final brief or brief on any threshold issues.
        The processing fee together with the application fee shall be
        set to cover the estimated full cost of administering and
        processing the appeal taking into account the complexity of the
        appeal. The processing fee may not be waived. Currently we
        estimate that the processing fee for a minor appeal will range
        from $1,700 to $4,000, and for a major appeal from $9,000 to
        $15,000. This fee does not apply to appeals under section
        307(d).

        Hearing Fee: In order to more fully develop the record, the
        Secretary may, on his own initiative or upon request, order a
        hearing. If a hearing is ordered, the Secretary will notify the
        applicant of.the amount of the actual costs incurred as a result
        of conducting the hearing. The applicant will be responsible
        for payment of the hearing fee which shall be due seven days
        after the public hearing. These costs will include costs for
        travel and per them expenses of Department of Commerce employees
        participating in the conduct of the hearing, of procuring a
        hearing venue, of equipment rentals and services, of public
        notice, of recording the proceeding, of providing a hearing
        transcript to the agency, and any other costs necessary to hold
        the hearing. This fee does not apply to appeals under section
        307(d).

        Failure to Pay a Fee: If a required fee is not paid in full
        when due, the Secretary shall suspend processing of the appeal.
        He shall promptly notify the applicant in writing of the amount
        of fee due. Upon receipt of the required fee within the time
        established in a notice of delinquency, the Secretary shall deem
        the fee to have been paid on the date the fee was due. 'The
        extension of time in which to cure a fee payment delinquency,
        however, will not extend the deadline for submission of any
        brief, or other document required to process.the appeal. The
        Secretary will dismiss an appeal with prejudice if the full fee
        is not received within 30 days of the receipt of the Secretary's
        notice of delinquency.

        Refund Policy: No refunds will be given. NOAA will
        periodically compare estimated costs with actual costs incurred
        and adjust the processing fee as appropriate.

        Attachment






        4/30/91















                     COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT CONSISTENCY APPEAL



                                                     APPLICATION FEE
            (Appellant)                                WAIVER FORM
                       V.



            (State)



                                                               request to
            proceed without being required to prepay the application fee. I
            state that because of my poverty, I am unable to pay this fee;
            that I believe I am entitled to relief. In support of this
            application, I answer the following questions.

            1. Are you presently employed?                     Yes          No

                a. If the answer is "yes," state the amount of     your salary
                    or wages per month, and   give the name and address of
                    your employer. (list both gross and net salary)




                b.  If the answer is "no," state the date of last employment
                    and the amount of the salary and wages per month which
                    you received.




            2.  Have you received within the past twelve months any money
                from any of the following sources?

                a.  Business, profession or other form of          Yes       No
                    self-employment?
                b.  Rent payments, interest   or dividends?        Yes       No
                C.  Pensions, annuities or life insurance          Yes       No
                d.  Gifts or inheritances?                         Yes       No
                e.  Any other sources?                             Yes       No

                If the answer to any of the above is "yes," describe      each
            source of money and state the amount received from each during
            the past twelve months.
















                                            2


            3. Do you own any cash, or do you have money in checking,
                savings, or any other accounts?


                    Yes      No


                If the answer is "yes," state the total value of the items
                owned.




            4. Do you own any real estate, stocks, bonds, notes, auto-
                mobiles or other valuable property (excluding ordinary
                household furnishings and clothing)?

                     Yes      No


                If the answer is "yes," describe the property and state its
                approximate value.




           .5. List the persons who are dependent upon you for support,
                state your relationship to those persons, and indicate how
                much you contribute toward their support.




            6. Have you ever filed an application fee waiver form in
                any other consistency appeal?

                    Yes      No


           .7. Have you retained an attorney to represent you?

                    Yes      No











                                          3


                I declare that the foregoing is true and correct.


          Executed on
                       Date                      Signature of Applicant

          Address (include  Zip Code)



          Telephone Number


          SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO me the        day of      19




          Notary Public or other officer authorized to administer oath







                                                                                                                                              Appendix E
                       52220              Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 202 / Friday, October 18. 1991 / Proposed Rules

                                                                           DATES: Comments must be received by                  management (including potential sea
                                                                                                                                      0
                        Done at Washington. DC, on: Spptember 23-          December 2, 1991.                                    and Great Lakes level'rise). public
                       1991.                                               ADDRESSES., Submit comments                          improvements, reduction marine debris.
                       R.I. Pnicha,                                        conc6rning this Notice of Proposed                   assessment of cumulative and
                       Acti.-,,g,4&m,inist.rc!or, Food Sa"e.1Y L7;7;1      Rulemaking to: Vickie A. Alhn, Chief,                secondary impacts of coastal
                       Inspection Ser@'ice.                                Pc)!icy Coordination Division, Office of             development, special area management
                       JFR Doc. 91-23060 Filed 10-17-91@ 3:45 dnil         Ocean and Coastal Resource                           planning. ocean resource planning, and
                       BILLING COOE 3410-OM-M                              Management, NOS/NOAA, 1825                           siting of coastal energy and government
                                                                           Connecticut Avenue NW.. suite 701.                   facilities@
                                                                           Washington. DC 20235 (tel. 202/606-                     - A new "Coastal Zone Management
                       DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE                              4100).                                               Fund" (CZM Fund) consisting of Coastal
                                                                           FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT,                     Energy impact Program loan repayments
                       National Oceanic and Atmospheric                    Vickie Allin or Dee Garner, Policy                   form which the Secretary of Commerce
                                                                               "Ination Division (202/606-4100).                shall pay (subject to appropriations) for
                       Administration                                      Coor
                                                                           SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:                           the Federal administrative costs of the
                       15 CFR Parts 928 and 932                                                                                 program and fund special projects.
                                                                           1. Authority                                         emergency State assistance and other
                       [Docket No. 910815-12151                               This Notice of Proposed Rutemaking is             discretionary CZM activities;
                       RIN 0648-AD09                                       issued under the authority of the Coastal               - New requirements for expanded
                                                                           Zone Management Act of 1972, as                      public participation opportunities in the
                       Implementing the Coastal Zone Act                   amended (16 U.S.C. 1451-1464).                       program evaluation process and
                       Reauthorization Amendments of 1990;                 11. Availability of Comments                         expedited production of final evaluation
                       Phase One                                                                                                findings. and new authority to impose
                                                                              All corrunents submitted in response              interim sanctions involving suspension
                       AGENCY: Office of Ocean and Coastal                 to this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking                of financial assistance for 6 to 36 months
                       Resource Management (OCRM),                         will be available during normal business             if a State or National Estuarine -
                       National Ocean Service (NOS), National              hours a a.m.-4:30 p,m.) in suite 701,                Research Reserve (Reserve) designated
                       Oceanic and Atmospheric                             Universal South Building, 1825                       under section 315 of the CZMA is failing
                       Administration (NOAA), Commerce.                    Connecticut Avenue NW., Washin.aton                  to adhere to its federally-approved
                       ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking               DC 20235.                                            program or management plan of the
                       (NPRM).                                             111. Regulatory Issues                               terms of financial assistance awards;
                                                                                                                                   * A new requirement for the
                       SUMMARY: This NPRM is issued to                     A. General Background                                Secretary to provide technical
                       provide interested persons with an                     The Coastal Zone Management Act                   assistance and management-oriented
                       opportunity to contribute to the                    (CZMA) was enacted to encourage and                  research to support development and
                       development of NOAA's revuldtions to                assist coastal States and territories                implementation of State CZM programs;
                       implement certain provisions of Public              (States) in developing and implementing                 * Authorization for NOAA to make
                       Law 101-508, the Coastal Zone Act                   management programs to preserve.                     annual achievement awards to
                       ReaLthorization Amendments of 1990                  protect, develop and, where possible,                individuals and local governments for
                       (1990 Reauthorization), which amended               restore or enhance the resources of our              outstanding accomplishments in the
                       the Coastal Zone Management Act                     Nation's coast. On November 5,1990,                  field of coastal zone management;
                       (CZMAJ. Because of the large scope of               the President s;gned the Coastal Zone                   * Clarification of the scope of the
                       the 1990 Reauthorization and the                    Act Reauthorization Amendments of                    CZMA's Federal consistency provisions,
                       substantial rulemaking required to                  1990, which reauthorized the CZMA                    which state that Federal actions in or
                       implement many of its ne%v provisions,              through FY 1995. The purpose of the                  affecting the coastal zone must be
                       NOAA has dccjdz:d to pursue a phased                reauthorization was to revitalize and                consistent with federal-approved State
                       aF@)roach to the ruler- ving. The first             strengthen the CZMA. particularly in the             coastal management programs, and
                       pln,@;aincludesregl,@ -.ris to implement            area of water quality. To do so, the                 overturning the Supreme Court's 1984
                       t@e new Coastal Zone Enhancement                    reauthorization added several major                  decision in Secretory qf the Interior v.
                       Crants Rroga-i (new section 309),                   new provisions, including:                           California, in which the Court held that
                       revised procedures for conducting                      a A new Coastal Nonpoint PoIldtion                OCS oil and gas lease sales were not
                       revie,,vs of performance under section              Control Program. which requires each                 subject to Federal consistency;
                       312. and new authority for interim                  coastal State with a federally approved                 a Modifications to the National
                       sanctions under section 312(c).                     coastal zone management (CZM)                        Estuarine Research Reserve System
                       Re.-alations for the Enhancement Grants             program to develop a program to be                   under 315 of the CZMA, including
                       Program are required by the 1990                    implemented through section 306 of the               increasing the maximum amount of
                       R,au!horization within one year of                  CZMA and section 319 of the Clean                    Federal financial assistance for land or
                       enactment (or by November 5, 1991).                 Water Act. to protect coastal waters                 water acquisition at an individual
                       The regulations will provide the                    from nonpoint source pollution. Program              Reserve from S4M and S5M, and
                       procedures for NOAA and the coastal                 approval and oversight are shared                    increasing the maximum Federal share
                       States to follow in awarding                        between NOAA and the Environmental                   of costs for managing Reserves and
                       enhancement grants and carrying out                 Protection Agency (EPA);                             supporting educational activities from 50
                       reviews of performance, and the criteria               * A new enhancement grants program                to 70 percent;
                       that NOAA will apply in evaluating                  which encourages each coastal State to                  * Reorganization and consolidation of
                       enhancement grant proposals and in                  improve its CZM program in one or                    CZM program approval requirements
                       deciding whether to invoke interim                  more of eight identified national priority           and other technical changes. including
                       sanctions. Interested persons are invited           areas: Coastal wetlands management                   new statements of findings and purpose.
                       to submit detailed written comments.                and protection. natural hazards                      new and revised policies and objectives,





		Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 202 / Friday, October 18, 1991 / Proposed Rules   		52221


and new and revised statutory
definitions. Authority to make program
development grants is reinstituted
through FY 1983, and the significant
improvement provisions of section
306(a) are deleted; and
 * Addition of three new program
approval requirements at section 306(d)
(14),(15), and (16), dealing with public
participation in permitting processes,
consistency detminations and other
similar decisions, providing a
mechanism to ensure that all State
agencies will adhere to the program, and
requiring enforceable policies and
mechanisms to implement the applicable
requirements of the new Coastal
Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs,
respectively.  The public participation
and State agency adherence
requirements must be met within 3 years
of enactment.  the enforceable policies
for nonpoint source pollution must be
met on the same schedule as the
development of the Coastal Nonpoint
Pollution Control Programs.

B.Approach to Rulemaking

 Because of the substantial scope of
these changes and the statutory
requirement to develop regulations for
the Coastal Zone Enhancement Grants
Program within 12 months from the date
of enactment of hte 1990
Reauthorization, NOAA has decided to
undertake a phased rulemaking.  This
will allow us to concentrate the
necessary resources to meet the
statutory deadline for the enhancement
grants rulemaking, and also make
necessary changes to the regulations on
review of performance to implement to
new procedures and interim sanctions in
an equitable and consistent manner.
 NOAA believes it is premature to
undertake rulemaking on other aspects
of the reauthorization.  For example,
NOAA needs more information before
proceeding to rulemaking on program
approvability requirements for the new
nonpoint pollution control program.
This is because EPA must issue
evidence on management measures for
sources of nonpoint pollution on the
basis of which States are to develop
their programs. EPA has 18 months in
which to develop this guidance. In 
addition, NOAA and EPA have joint 
approval authority for these programs.
NOAA's regulations need to reflect
agreement between NOAA and  EPA on
who will have authority to approve
which parts of the program.  Thus,
rulemaking to implement the Coastal
Nonpoint Pollution Control Program will
be a later phase of the rulemaking
process.
 Similarly, NOAA will not proceed
with rulemaking immediately to



implement the new program  approval
requirements of section 306(d)(14),(15)
and (16).  This is because no State is 
required to meet these requirements
unitl, at the earliest, 3 years from the
date of enactment (or November 1993),
and because the requirements of 
sections 306(d)(14) and (15) have been 
partially met already by existing State
programs.  NOAA will incorporate the
requirements of sections 306(d)(14) and
(15)into its program approval
regulations and issue guidance to the
States on meeting these requirements.
The new requirement of section 306(d)
(16)that State CZM programs contain
enforceable policies to implement the
new Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control
Programs will be incorporated into
program approval regulations for these
programs, when those regulations are
developed.
 The changes to the National Estuarine
Research Reserve System (section 315 of
the CZMA) are non-controversial
conforming changes which will be
included as a part of a separate
rulemaking that will make other
necessary clarifying changes to NOAA's
existing section 315 regulations.
 NOAA does not propose to issue
regulations on the CZM Fund, the 
technical assistance program, or the
CZM achievement awards at this time.
Also, NOAA does not intend to revise
its Federal consistency rules at this time.
The changes to the Federal consistency
provisions, except for overturning the 
Supreme Court's decision on outer
continental shelf (OCS) oil and gas lease
sales, merely codify NOAA's existing
regulation. NOAA wishes to gain more
experience with the new provisions, the
issues likely to arise in their
implementation, and the public and
interagency concerns, before deciding
how to address rulemaking on this
subject.
 Under the phased rulemaking
approach described above.  Phase I
consists of:
 (1)Regulations to implement the
Coastal Zone Enhancement Grants
Program(section 309 of the CZMA),
required by statute within 12 months of
enactment, and
 (2)Regulatory revisions and new
regulations to Implement the procedural
requirements and interim sanction
provisions of section 312-Review of
Performance.

C. Preliminary Comments

 On February 22, 1991, OCRM
distributed issue papers on the
rulemaking for the Coastal Zone
Enhancement Grants Program and
Review of Performance to
approximately 225 interested parties on


a mailing list established for this
rulemaking and maintained by OCRM.
Thirty-eight comments were received.
After considering these comments,
NOAA has prepared this proposed rule.

D. Legislative Amendments and Issues
to be Resolved Through Rulemaking-
Phase I

1. Coastal Zone Enhancement Grants
Program

 The new Coastal Zone Enhancement
Grants Program encourages each coastal
State to improve its CZM program in 
one or more of eight identified areas.
Beginning in FY 1991, the Secretary is
authorized to make grants (not less than
10 percent and not more than 20 percent
of the amounts appropriated under
sections 306 and 306A, up to a maximum
of $10,000,000 annually) to coastal States
to provide funding for development and
submission for Federal approval of
program changes that support
attainment of one or more coastal zone
enhancement objectives.  As part of this
effort, the Secretary is required to
evaluate and rank State proposals for
funding, and make funding awards
based on those proposals.  The Secretary
has the authoritiy to suspend a State's
eligibility for enhancement grant funding
for at least one year, if the Secretary 
finds that the State is not undertaking
the actions committed to under the
terms of the enhancement grant.
 NOAA must issue regulations relating
to the new enhancement grants program
within  12 months of enactment(by
November 5, 1991). The regulations must 
establish: "(1)Specific and detailed
criteria that must be addressed by a 
coastal State (including the State's
priority needs for improvement as
identified by the Secretary after careful
consultation with the State) as part of
the State's development and
implementation of coastal zone
enhancement objectives; (2)
administrative or procedural rules or
requirements as necessary to facilitate
the development and implementation of 
such objectives by coastal States; and
(3)other funding award criteria as are
necessary or appropriate to ensure that
evaluations of proposals, and decisions
to award funding, under this section are
based on objective standards applied
fairly and equitably to those proposals.












 





                    52222             Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 202 / Friday, October 18, 1991 / Proposed Rules

                    the coastal zone enhancement                      support attainment of one or more                 project would be assigned a position or
                    objectives. In FY 1991, NOAA set aside            coastal zone enhancement objectives.              rank. relative to other State
                    10 percent of the funds allocated under           The term "program change" is defined at           submissions, according to its
                    section 318(a)(2) for section 309                 proposed 15 CFR 932.3 to include State            satisfaction of the applicable criteria.
                    purposes. These funds were allocated to           actions that change current management            NOAA anticipates that the ranking
                    States based on the formula and                   programs, such as the development of              under the weighted formula approach
                    weighting factors at existing 15 CFR              new or revised enforceable policies,              could result in several ranking
                    927.1(c).                                         authorities and State coastal land                categories (so that some States would be
                      The process developed by NOAA for               acquisition and management programs.              assigned the same rank.)
                    determining a State's priority needs has          Other key terms. such as "project of                 This proposed allocation process
                    been set forth in NOAA guidance on                special merit," "fiscal needs" and                would allow each coastal State that has
                    .section 309 Assessments and                      "technical needs," are also defined at            a NOAA approved Assessment and
                    Strategies," issued on May 10, 1991, or           proposed 15 CFR 932-3.                            Strategy to pursue an enhancements
                    as amended. NOAA guidance is                         Proposed regulations for allocating            program, while at the same time provide
                    available from the Office of Ocean and            funds under section 309 are set forth at          incentive for States to develop and
                    Coastal Resource Management. Coastal              15 CFR 932.4. Section 309(f) authorizes           submit more aggressive proposals which
                    Programs Division, Universal South                the Secretary to allocate not less than 10        commit to making the greatest
                    Building, room 724,1825 Connecticut               percent and not more than 20 percent of           improvements toward the coastal zone
                    Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20235.                the amounts appropriated under section            enhancement objectives.
                    Interested persons are invited to submit          318(a)(2), up to a maximum of                        The proposed regulations set forth the
                    detailed written comments on the                  $10,000,000 annually. NOAA proposes to            criteria for section 309 project selection
                    NOAA guidance as part of this proposed            annually determine the amount of funds            at 15 CFR 932.5. States would be
                    rule.                                             to be devoted to section 309, taking into         required to meet minimum criteria for
                      The process for determining a State's           account the amount appropriated under             projects that would be funded by
                    priority needs has two stages. First, each        section 318(a)(2) of the CZMA, as                 weighted formula. For projects of special
                    State will develop a public assessment            amended.                                          merit, States would be required to meet
                    document ("Assessment") that reviews                 NOAA proposes to award section 309             both minimum criteria and additional
                    each enhancement objective as it                  funds by: (1) Weighted formula and (2)            criteria that include the merit of the
                    applies to the State and identifies the           individual review of projects of special          project. NOAA would evaluate and rank
                    relative importance of each objective.            merit. Projects proposed for funding              projects of special merit using a point
                    Based on the Assessment, NOAA. after              under both categories are not State               system. Following the first year of
                    careful consultation with the State, will         entitlements and, therefore. would be             funding under this Part, NOAA would
                    identify the priority needs for                   required to meet the identified criteria          consider a State's past performance in
                    improvement in the State.                         discussed below. NOAA would annually              assessing the merit of the State's
                      Once NOAA has identified the                    determine the proportion of available             individual project proposals.
                    priority management issues, the second            funds to be awarded to all eligible                  The proposed regulations also set
                    stage involves the development of a               coastal States by weighted formula and            forth pre-application procedures for
                    multi-year strategy ("Strategy"). The             the proportion to be awarded to eligible
                    State, in consultation with NOAA, will            coastal States based on NOAA's review             financial assistance under section 309 at
                    propose a Strategy that will identify             of individual project proposals of special        15 CFR 932.6. States would be expected
                    specific program changes that the State           merit.                                            annually to consult with the Assistant
                    will seek to achieve in the identified               Under the weighted formula approach,           Administrator or his/her designee and
                    priority areas. The Strategy must be              NOAA would establish State weighted               to submit a pre-proposal on a schedule
                    approved by NOAA and will guide the               formula funding targets. The weighted             to be determined by the Assistant
                    development of the State's FY 1992 and            formula funding targets would be the              Administrator of his/her designee. The
                    subsequent year section 309 grant                 State based allocation determined by              pre-proposal would include information
                    P. oposals.                                       operation of the formula at existing 15           on the section 309 projects the State
                      The proposed regulations                        CFR 927.1(c), multiplied by a weighting           proposes for funding during the next
                    implementing the new Coastal Zone                 factor derived from NOAA's evaluation             fiscal year.
                    Enhancemen'                                                                                            The procedures for submission of
                                  t Grants Program under              and ranking of the quality of the State's
                    scction .109 of the CZ.MA, as amended,            Strategy, as supported by the State,           9  formal applications and for reviewing
                    el@sume that a State has completed an             Assessment. The application of the                and approving projects under section
                    Assessment and Strategy in accordance             weighting factor could result in a                309 are set forth at proposed 15 CFR
                    with NOAA guidance. The proposed                  weighted formula funding target that is           932.7. Applications for financial
                    rel-ulations are set forth in 15 CFR part         higher or lower than the State's base             assistance under section 309 will be
                    93L, rep[acing the regulations currently          allocation.                                       included with applications for financial
                    co@@ l';ed at 15 CFR part 932.                       NOAA proposes to award the                     assistance under Subpart I of existing 15
                      [email protected] proposed regulations at 15 CFR             remaining section 309 funds, which are            CFR Part 923. States would be notified
                    932.1 set forth in the basic eligibility          not awarded by the weighted formula               of their section 309 awards at the same
                    requirements for receiving financial              approach, based on an annual review of            time that they are notified of their
                    assistance Linder section 309. The                projects of special merit. N.OAA would            section 306/306A awards.
                    objectives of assistance under section            limit the funding of projects of special             The proposed regulations set forth the
                    309(b). (c) and (d) are provided at               merit to the highest ranked proposals             procedures for revising a State's
                    proposed 15 CFR 932.2.                            based on criteria set forth at proposed           Assessment and Strategy at 15 CFR
                      Section 309(b) authorizes the                   15 CFR 932.(b).                                   932.8. States would be required to
                    Secretary to make grants to coastal                  Section 309 requires that the Secretary        submit proposed revisions to the
                    States to provide funding for                     ',evaluate and rank State proposals for           Assistant Administrator prior to the
                    development and submission for Federal            funding." NOAA interprets the word                initiation of the contemplated change.
                    approval of program changes that                  "rank" to mean that a State's Strategy or         Based on the extent to which the







                                      Federal Register / Vol, 56 No. 202 / Friday 0ctober 18, 1991 / Proposed Rule                                       52223

proposed revision(s)change the orginal
scope of the State's Strategy, the
Assistant Administrator could require
the State to provide public review and
comment on the proposed revision(s) in
accordance with NOAA guidance.

2. Review of Performance (Program
Evaluation)

 Section 312 of the CZMA requires a
continuing review of the performance of
coastal States with respect to coastal
management, and detailed written
findings on the extent to which the State
has implemented and enforced the
program approved by the Secretary, 
addressed the coastal management
needs of section 303(2)(A) through (K).
and adhered to the terms of any grant or
cooperative agreement.  Section 312
further requires that a public meeting be
conducted as part of each evaluation
and that opportunity be provided for
oral and written comment by the public.
Evaluation reports must be issued
following each review of State
performance.
 The 1990 Reauthorization mandated
changes to the procedures for carrying
cut evaluations of State coastal
management programs nad national
estuarine research reserves. (Any
changes to procedures for evaluation of
estuarine reserves will be included as a
part of a separate rulemaking to revise
NOAA's section 315 regulations.) These
changes require: A 45 day notice for
public meetings, written response to all
written comments on the evaluation
and completion of the final evaluation
report within 120 days after the last 
public meeting held in the State. The
1990 Reauthorizaiton also authorized
new interim sancitons (section312(c))
which provide for supsension and
redirection of any portion of financial
assistance awards to State coastal
management programs or estuarine
reserves if the State if failing to adhere
to its approved program or reserve
management plan, or a portion of the
program or plan.  Final sanction
provisions at section 312(d) now require
the Secretary to withdraw program
approval and financial assistance if the
State fails to take the actions required
under section 312(c).
 The basic requirements for review of
performnace are set forth at existing 15
CFR Part 928.  They define key terms,
such as "continuing review," and
provide that evaluations will be
conducted in the course of continuing
reviews and that written findings will be
prepared.  These proposed regulations
would revise existing 15 CFR 928.4(b)(2)
to require that notice of public
meeting(s) be provided at least 45 days
in advance.  They would revise existing



15 CFR 928.3(b)(7) to require that final
findings be completed within 120 days of
the last public meeting in the State and
that copies of the final findings
document be sent to all persons and
organizations who write, attend a public
meeting, or are interviewed during the
evaluation. Persons who attend a public
meeting or are interviewed during an
evaluation would be asked to complete
a card or sign-in sheet containing their
name and address and indicating a 
desire to receive the final findings. A
new proposed regulation has been
added at existing 15 CFR 928.3(b)(8)
requiring that all final findigns
documents contain a section which
specifically identifies, summarizes and 
responds to the written comments
received during the evaluation process.
 In addition, NOAA has determined
that two of the statutory changes to
section 312(b)-namely, the requirement
to respond in writing to all written
comments received and the requirement
to complete the evaluation within 120
days of the last public meeting-will
increase the workload associated with
the evaluation process. Therefore,
NOAA is proposed in two discretionary
changes to the procedures on review of
performance to make the increased
workload manageable.
 First, NOAA proposes to revise the
definition of "continuing review" at
existing 15 CFR 928.2(a) to state that
evaluations of State coastal
managemnt programs would be
conducted and written findings prepared
at least once every three years, rather
than at least once every two years as
currently provided. (NOAA's estuarine
reserve regualtions at existing 15 CFR
922.40(b)already provide for evaluation
of estuarine reserves at least once every
three years.) The phase "but not more
than once every year" would be deleted,
so as not to restrict unnecessarily
NOAA's flexibility to conduct issue or
problem specific evaluations, as
described below.
 Second, because NOAA recognizes
that significant changes can occur in
three years. NOAA is proposing a new
regulation at existing 15 CFR 928.3(b)(9)
providing for issue or problem specific
evaluations to be conducted between 
scheduled evaluations.  These issue or
problem specific evaluations would
serve two principle purposes: (1)To
follow-up on potentially serious
problems or issues identified in the most
recent scheduled evaluation, or (2) to
evaluate evidence of potentially serious
problems or issues that may arise during 
the day-to-day monitoring if State/
Reserve performance of grant tasks and
other program implementation activities



in the interim between scheduled
evaluations.  These issue or problem
specific evalutions would still be
subject to the public paricipation and
other minimum requirements of section 
312.
 the proposed regulations set forth the
process for invoking interim sanctions at 
existing 15 CFR 928.5(a).  The proposed
regulations replace the old regulations
on reduction of financial assistance for
failure to make significant
improvements, which were deleted
because the significant improvement
provisions were deleted in the 1990
Reauthorizatin. The proposed process
for invoking interim sanctions would
include notice to the State and
opportunity to comment on and rebut
the finding of non-adherence on which
the sanctions are based before any
action is taken. Indicators of non-
adherence would be provided to inform
States of what NOAA expects and on
what basis interim sancitons might be 
invoked.
 Implementing the statutory changes to
section 312(d) requires some revision of
NOAA's regulations at existing 15 CFRS
928.5(b)on Withdrawal of Program
Approval and Financial Assistance. The
proposed revisions would delete 
refernces to "unjustifiable deviation."
which have been removed from the
statute, and replace them with the
requirements that the Asssistant
Administrator would withdraw program
approval and financial assistance if he/
she finds that a State has failed to take
the actions required under the interim
sanction provisions of section 312(c).

IV.Other Actions Associated with the
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A.Executive Order 12291: Regulatory
Impact Analysis

 Executive Order 12291 requires each 
Federal agency to determine if a
regualtion is a "major" ruel as defined
by the Order and, "to the extent
permitted by law," to prepare and
consider a Regulatory Impact Analysis
(RIA)in connection with every major
rule. NOAA has concluded that this is
not a "major" regulatory action, as
defined by the Executive Order, because
it will not result in:
  (1)An annual effect on the economy
of $100 million or more;
  (2)A major increase in costs or prices
for consumers, individual industries,
Federal, state and local government
agencies, or geographic regions; or
  (3)Significant adverse effects on 
competition, employment, investment,
productivity, innovation or on the ablility
of United State-based enterprises to


 





                    52224              Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 202 / Friday, October 18. 1991 / Proposed Rules

                    complete with foreign-based enterprises           reporting requirement (Part C of the             15 CFR Port 932
                    in domestic or export markets.                    annual performance report) for FY 1991.            Coastal zone. Grant programs-natural
                       The proposed rules would provide for           Therefore, the paperwork burden has              resources, Natural resources. and
                    enhancement of State CZM programs in              beeri'minimized.                                 Reporting arid recordkeepin.-
                    eight national objective areas and will             in addition, States would be required          requirements..
                    improve the evaluation of their                   to provide pre-proposals containing their          Accordingly, NOAA proposes to
                    performance. The proposed rules only              proposed @enhancement grant projects             amend 15 CFR Chapter IX as set forth
                    serve to strengthen the framework for
                                                                      annually in April of each year, in order         below.
                    making rational coastal management                that NOAA may carry out the individual
                       '  0
                    decisions arid will not result in any             evaluation and ranking of proposal
                                              econom c or
                    r-.aicr direct or indirect                                                                     S   PART 92&-REVIEW OF
                    environmental impacts. TherX"rll.                 required by statute and provide States           PERFORMANCE
                    preparation of an RIA is not required.            with t:rnely information on approved               1. The authority ctation for Part 928 is
                                                                      projects to include in their joint section       revised to read as follows:
                    3. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis            306/306A/309 financial assistance
                       The Regulatory Flexibility Act [RFA)           award application& This procedure for              Authority; Section 312 of the Coastal Zone
                                                                                                                       Management Act. as ame,lded (16 U.S.C.
                    requires Federal agencies to consider             pre-proposals would replace a similar            1458).
                    explicitly the effect of regulations on           procedure for interstate grants,
                    1,5mall entities." A Regulatory Flexibility       authorization for which was repealed in            2- Section 928.1 is revised  .to read as
                    Analysis was not prepared for this                the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization             follows;
                    regulatory action. This proposed rule             Amendments of 1990.                              ï¿½ 925.1 GeneraL
                    seis forth procedures for the Coastal               Public reporting burden for this                 This part sets forth the requirements
                    Zone Enhancement Grants Program and               collection is estimated to average 480           for review of approved State coastal
                    review of performance. The proposed               hours per response, including the time           zone management (CZM) programs
                    rules affect only State governments.              for reviewing instructions, searching            pursuant to section 312 of the Act (16
                    which are not "small government                   existing data sources, gathering and             U.S.C. 1458). This part definec;
                    entities," as defined by the RFA.                 maintaining the data needed, completing          "continuing review" and other important
                    Accordingly, the General Counsel of the
                    Department has certified to the Chief             and reviewing the collection of                  terms, and sets forth the procedures for:
                    Counsel for Advocacy of the Small                 information. and developing the                    (a) Conducting continuing reviews of
                    Business Administration that this                 Assessments and Strategies.                      approved State CZM programs',
                    proposed rule, if adopted, would not                A request to collect this information            (b) Providing for public participation:
                    have a significant economic impact on a           has been submitted to the Office of                (c) Invoking interim sanctions for non-
                    substantial number of small entities, and         Management and Budget for review                 adherence to an approved coastal zone
                    therefore, a regulatory flexibility               under section 3504(h) of that Act.               management program or a portion of
                    analysis, as defined under the                    Comments from the public on the                  such program. and
                    Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5             collection of information requirements             (d) Withdrawing program approval
                    U.S.C. chapter 6), is not required.               contained in the proposed rule are               and financial assistance.
                    C Paperwork Reduction Act                         specifically invited and should be                 3. Section 928.2 is amended by
                       The Paperwork Reduction Act is                 addressed to: Office of Information and          revising paragraphs fa), [c@ (d), and [g)
                    intended to minimize the reporting                Regulatory Affairs, Office of                    to read as follows:
                                                                      Management and Budget. Washington.
                    burden on the regulated community as              DC 20530. Attri; Desk Officer for the            ï¿½ 928.2 DOM on&
                    wel! as minimize the cost of Federal              Department of Commerce.                            (a) Continuing review means
                    4-iformation collection and
                                                                                                                       monitoring State performance on an
                    d:ssemination. Information requirements           D. National Environmental Policy Act             ongoing basis. As part of the continuing
                    of sectien 312-Peview of                          (NEPA)                                           review. evaluations of approved CZM
                    Performance-embody existing
                    p@ocedures and would not constitute                 NOAA has determined that this                  programs will be conducted and written
                    Piny increase ;nn eporting on the part of         regulatory action. if adopted. would not         findings will be produced at least once
                                                0                                                                      every three years.
                    any affected party-                               significantly affect the quality of the
                       The proposed rule to implement                 human environment, Therefore, an
                    section 309--Coastat Zone Enhancement             environmental assessment or                        (c) Interim sanction means suspension
                    Grants---contains a collection of                 environmental impact statement will not          and redirection of any portion of
                    info-mation requirement subject to the            be prepared.                                     financial assistance extended to any
                    Paperwork Reduction Act. This                     E. Executive Order 12612                         coastal State under 18 [email protected]. 1451-1464.
                    collection of information requirement is                                                           if the Secretary determines that the
                    a one-time requirement for Assessments              This rule d6es not contain policies            coastal State is failing to adhere to the
                    of State priority needs for improvement           with Federalism implications sufficient          management program or a State plan
                    in the eight national priority areas and          to warrant preparation of a Federalism           developed to manage a national
                    Strategies for making those                       assessment under E.O. 12612.                     estuarine reserve, or a portion of the
                    improvements and is necessary to                                                                   program or plan approved by the
                    implement.section 309(d) of the CZMA.             11st of Subiects                                 Secretary, or the terms of any grant or
                    as amended. which requires the                    15 CFR Part 928                                  cooperative agreement funded under 16
                    Secretary of Commerce to identify each                                                             U.S.C. 1451-1464.
                    ,State's priority needs for improvement             Administrative practice and                      (d) Approved CZMprogmm means
                    after careful consultation with the               procedurr.. Coastal zone, Gract                  those elements of the program approved
                    States. These Assessments and                     programs-natural resources. and Natural          by the Secretary, under 15 CFR Part 923
                    Strategies would replace an existing              resources.                                       (Development and Approval Provisions).





	Federal Register  /  Vol. 56, No. 202  / Friday, October 18, 1991  /  Proposed Rules 		52223

including any changes to those elements
made by approved amendments and
routine program implementation.
.     .       .   .     .
 (8)Assistant Administrator means the
Assistant Administrator for Ocean
Services and Coastal Zone
Management, or the NOAA Official
responsible for directing the Federal
Coastal Zone Management Program.
 4. Section 928.3 is amended by
revising the section heading, paragraphs
(a),(b)(7),(c)(1)(ii),(c)(3) indroductory
text, and (c)(3)(iii); and by adding
paragraphs (b),(d) and (9) to read as
follows:

& 928.3 Procedure for conducting
continuing reviews of approved State CZM
programs.

 (a)As required by section 312(a) of
the Act, the Secretary shall conduct a
continuing review of the performance of
coastal States with respect to coastal
management. Each review shall include
a written evaluatin with an assessment
and detailed findings concerning the
extent to which the State has
implemented and enforced the program
approved by the Secretary, addressed
the coastal management needs
identified in section 303(2)(A) through
(K)[16 U.S.C 1452], and adhered to the 
terms of any grant, loan, or cooperative
agreement funded under 16 U.S.C. 1451-
1464
 (b) . . .
 (7)The Assistant Administrator will 
issue final findings to the State CZM
program manager and the head of the
State CZM agency within 120 days of
the last public meeting in the State.
Copies of the final findings will be sent
to all written commentors and to
persons and organizaitons who
participated in the evaluation, and who
complete a card or sign-in sheet
provided by the evaluation team
indicating that they wish to receive the
final findings. Notice of the availablility
fo the final findings will also be
published in the Federal Register.
 (8)The final findings will contain a
section entitled "Response to Written
Comments." This section will include a 
summary of all written comments
received during the evaluaiton and
NOAA's response to the comments. If
appropriate, NOAA's response will 
indicate whether NOAA agrees or
disagrees with the comment and how
the comment has been addressed in the 
final findings.
 (9)The Assistnat Administrator may
conduct issues or problem-specific
evaluations between scheduled
evaluations of approved State CZM
programs.  If the Assistant Administrator
conducts an issue or problem specific




evaluation, he/she will comply with the
procedures and public participation
requirements of 15 CFR 928.2 and 9283.4.
 (c) * * *
 (1) * * *
 (ii)Addressed the coastal
management needs identified in section 
303(2)(A)-(K); and
*      *         *       *        *
 (3)Procedure for assessing how the
State has addressed the coatal 
managemnt needs identified in section 
303(2)(A)-(K). The assessment of the
extent to which the State has addressed
the coastal management needs
identified in section 303(2)(A)-(K) will 
occur as follows:
*   *    *    *   *
 (iii)The findings concerning how the 
State has addressed the coastal
management needs of section 303 will
be used by the Assistant Administrator
in negotiating  the next financial
assistnace award.
*   * * *  * 
 5. Section 928.4 is amended by 
revising paragraphs (a),(b)(2), and (b)(3)
to read as follows:

& 928.4 Public paricipation.

 (a)As required by section 312(b) of 
the Act, in evaluating a coastal State's
performance, the Secretary shall
conduct the evaluation in an open and
public manner, and provide full
opportunity for public participation,
including holding public meetings in the
State being evaluated and providing
opportunities for the submission of
written and oral comments by the
public.  The Secretary shall provide the
public with at least 45 days notice of
such public meetings by placing a notice
in the Federal Register, by publication of
timely notices in newspapers of general
circulation within the State being
evaluated, and by comminications with
persons and organizations known to be
interested in the evaluation. Each
evaluation shall be prepared in report 
form and shall include written reponses
to the written comments received during
the evaluation process
 (b)Requirements.(1) * * *
 (2)Each State will issue a notice of
the public meeting(s) in its evaluation by
placing a notice in the newspaper(s) of
largest circulation in the coastal area
where the meeting(s) is being held and
by taking other reasonable action to
communicate with persons nad
organizaions known to be interested in
the evaluation, such as sending a notice
of the meeting(s) to persons on its
mailing list and publishing a notice in its
newsletter, at least 45 days before the 
date of the public meeting(s). The State
will provide a copy of such notice to the



Assistant Administrator. States are
encouraged to republish the newspaper
notice at least 15 days before the date of 
the public meeting(s). The State will 
inform the public that oral or written
comments will be accepted and that
attendance at the public meeting(s) is
not necessary for submission of written
comments.
 (3)Notice of the availability of final
findings will be published in the Federal
Register.  The notice will state that
copies of the final findings will be
available to the public upon written
request.  Copies of the final findings will
be sent to persons and organizations
who participated in the evaluation, in
accordance with 15 CFR 928.3(b)(7).
 6. Section 928.5 is amended by
revision paragraphs (a),(b)(1), and
(b)(2)(i) and (iii) to read as follows:

& 928.5 Enforcement

 (a)Procedures and criteria for
invoking and lifting interim sanctions.
(1)As required by section 312(c) of the 
Act:
 (i)The Secretary may suspend
payment of any portion of financial
assistance extended to any coastal
State, and may withdraw any
unexpended portion of such assistance,
if the Secretary determines that the 
coastal State is failing to adhere to-
 (A)The management program or a
State plan developed to manage a
national estuaine reserve established
under section 315 of the Act(16 U.S.C.
1461), or a portion of the program or
plan approved by the Secretary; or
 (B)The terms of any grant or
cooperative agreement funded under 16
U.S.C. 1451-1464.
 (ii)Financial assistnace may not be
suspended under paragraph (a)(1)(i) of
this section unless the Secretary
provides the Governor of the coastal
State with-
 (A)Written specifications and a
schedule for the actions that should be
taken by the State in order that such
suspension of financial assistance may
be withdrawn; and 
 (B)Written specifications stating how
those funds from the suspended
financial assistance shall be expended
by the coastal State to take the actions
referred to in paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(A) of 
this section. 
 (iii)The suspension of financial
assistance may not last for less than 6
months or more than 36 months after the 
date of suspension.
 (2)Requirements.(i)The Assistant
Administrator will identify the need for
interim sanctions through the continuing
review process.  The Assistant
Administrator will use the criteria at 15







 





                    5=6                Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 202 / Friday, October 18. 1991 / Proposed Rules

                    CFR 92&5(a)(3) in determining when to             actions. and a schedule for taking the            an approved State CZM program in
                    invoke interim sanctions.                         required actions. The letter will also            determining whether to invoke interim
                      (ill The Assistant Administrator will           contain the length of the suspension.             sanctions.
                    issue the State a preliminary finding of          which may not last for less than 6                   (A) Ineffective or inconsistent
                    non-adherence with the approved CZM               months or more than 36 months. The                implementation of legally enforceable
                    prc-rarrL or a portion thereof, and/or            Assistant Administrator will establish            policies included in the CZM program.
                    wit@i a term or terms of a grant or               he lenoth of the suspension based on the          Indicators of ineffective or inconsistent
                    cooperative agreement. This preliminary           amount of time that is reasonably                 implementation could include: evidence
                    finding of non-adherence may be                   necessary for the State to take the               of non-compliance with core authorities
                    contained in the draft evaluation                 required actions. If the State can take           by the regulated community-, insufficient
                    findings, or in a preliminary notification        the required actions faster than                  monitoring and inspecting of coastal
                    leuer to the State CZM program                    expected. ffie suspension can be                  development to ensure that it conforms
                    manager. If the preliminary finding is            withdrawn early (but not in less than six         to pro-ram requirements and applicabip
                    contained in a preliminary notification           months).                                          condit0ions; or inadequate enforcement
                    letter. the Assistant Administrator will            (vi) The State must respond to the              action when development is found not
                    comply with the applicable public                 final notification letter by developing a         to be in compliance with the program or
                    participation requiremerits of section            proposed wor- program to accomplish               permit under which it is authorized or is
                    312(b) and NOAA's regulations at                  the required actions on the schedule set          found to be an unpermitted activity.
                    J 928-4. The draft evaluatibn findings or         forth in the final notification letter. The          (B) Inadequate monitoring of the
                    preliminary notification letter containing        State may propose an alternative                  actions of State and local agencies for
                    a peli.-runary finding of non-adherence           approach to accomplishing the required            compliance with the program. Indicators
                    will explain that if the finding of non-          actions and/or an alternative schedule.           of inadequate monitoring of these
                    ad@erence is issued. the State is subject         The Assistant Administrator's approval            agencies could include: evidence of
                    to suspension of financial assistance             of the State's work program will signify          noncompliance of networked agencies
                    arid. if the State fails to take the actions      his/her agreement with the approach               with the CZM prcgram. unresolved
                    specified pursuant to section 312(c) and          and schedule for accomplishing the                conflicts between agencies regarding
                    Chis part. to withdrawal of program               actions necessary to withdraw the                 what constitutes compliance with the
                    approval and financial assistance.                suspension.                                       program. or lack of a mechanism to
                      (iii) The State will be given 30 days             (vii) The Assistant Adrninistrator will         ensure that all State agencies will
                    frorn receipt of the draft evaluation             monitor State performance under the               adhere to the program or to approved
                    filindings or preliminary notification            work program. This may involve                    local coastal programs pursuant to
                    letter to comment on and rebut the                additional direction to the State through         NOAA's regulations at 15 CFR 923-40
                    preliminary finding of non-adherence.             the grant administration process andlor           and new section 306(d)(15).
                    During this 30 day period, the State may          a visit to the State by appropriate                  (C) Non-compliance of local coastal
                    request up to 15 additional days to               NO@@ program staff. evaluation staff              programs with the approved State
                    resuond. for a maximum of 45 days from            and/or other experts to work with the             program. Indicators of non-compliance
                    remp.t. of the draft evaluation findings          State on a specific problem or issue. The         could include: local permitting or zoning
                    or prek minary notification letter.               Assistant Administrator will consider
                      (i v) After considering the State's             proposals to revise the work program on           decisions that are inconsistent with
                    cornmerts, the Assistant Administrator            a case-by-case basis, providing that the          State standards or criteria. widespread
                    w@ U decide whether or not to issue a             State will still be able to accomplish the        granting of varia.n4ces such as to render a
                    f:nal finding of non-adherence. If the            necessary actions within a maximum of             zoning program ineffective in meeting
                    Assistant Administrator decides to issue          36 months.                                        State standards or criteria. changes to
                                                                                                                        local comprehensive plans or zoning
                    a ..nal finding of non-adherence, he/she            (viii) The State must document that it          maps that are inconsistent with State
                    w@11' do so in the final evaluation               has taken the required actions on the             standards or criteria. or inadequate
                    f.n@i@,-_qs issued pursuant to section            schedule established under this section.          monitoring and enforcement. as
                           cr in a final notification letter as       The State must provide its                        described in paragraph (a){3)[i)[A) of
                    ,7-2%,dEd by paragraph fa)[2)(ii) of this         documentation in writing to the                   this section.
                    3ec*@iori@ The Ass@3tant Administrator            Assistant Adm@nistrator. The Assistant
                                                                                                                           (D) Ineffective implementation of
                    im 2  7ivoke interim sanctions provided           Administrator may conduct a follow-up             Federal consistency authority.
                    'b@ secl@on 312(c) immediately or at any          evaluation or otherwise revisit the State
                    [email protected]    issuing the final evaluation           at his/her discretion.                            Indicators of ineffective implementation
                    @:       or f' nal notification letter              (ix) If the Assistant Administrator             could include: not reviewing Federal
                    cc-i.r@:-.- the finding of non-adherence.         determines that the required actions              activities, Federal licenses and permits.
                    b
                      t                                                                                                 including offshore oil and gas
                     u I r.,@t !ater than the next regularly          have been taken. the Assistant
                    sc@e_`_-Ied evaluation.                           Administrator will promptly notify the            exploration and development, and
                      I % I If he Assistant Administrator             Governor and the State program                    Federal financial assistance to State and
                    dec,des to invoke interim sanctions, he/          manager, in %Titing. the NOAA has                 local governments for consistency with
                    she will do so in a letter to the Governor        withdrawn the suspension of financial             the approved C2M program or
                    of @he S!ate and the State CZM program            assistance. LE however. the State does            employing review procedures that are
                    manacer. The letter will contain the              not take the required actions, then the           not in accordance with State and 15 CFR
                    i1formation required in section 312tc)(2)         Assistant Administrator will invoke the           part 930.
                    (A) and (B). This information will                final sanction provisions of section                 (E) Inadequate opportunity for
                    include the amount of financial                   312(d) on program termination and                 intergovernmental cooperation and
                    assistance to be suspended and                    withdrawal of all financial assistance.           public participation in management
                    redirected. the actions the State should            (3) Criteria for invoking interim               program implementation. Indicators of
                    take in order to have the suspension              sanctions. (i) Ite Assistant                      inadequate opportunity could include:
                    withdrawn, how the suspended funds                Administrator may consider the                    not carrying out procedures necessary to
                    s@atl be expended to take the required            following indicators of non-adherence to          insure adequate consideration of the






		Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 202 / Friday, October 18, 1991  / Proposed Rules 		52227

national interest in facilities which are
necessary to meet requirements which
are other than local in nature, not
implementing effectively mechanisms
for continuing consultation and
coordination, not providing required
notice that a management program
decision would conflict with a local
zoning ordinace, decision or other
action, or (after November 5, 1993) not
providing opportunities for public
participation in permitting processes.
consistency determinations and other
simialr decisions pursuant to new
section 306(d)(14).
 (F)Non-adherence to the terms of a 
grant or cooperative agreement,
including the schedule for funded
activities.  The Assistant Administrator
will also consider the extent to which
priorities for expenditure fo Federal
funds reflect an appropriate priority for
activities necessary to implement and
enforce core program authorities
effectively.
 (G)Not submitting changes to the
approved program for Federal approval
in a timely fashion or developing and
implementing changes to the approved
program without Federal approval
which are inconsistent with the Act of
the approved program or which result in
a reduced level of protection of coastal
resources.
 (H)The Assistant Administrator may
consider whether an indication of non-
adherence is of recent origin (in which
case the State may be given a
reasonable opportunity to correct it) or
has been repeatedly brought to the
State's attention without corrective
action in determining whether to invoke
interim sancitons.
 (b)Withdrawal of program approval
and financial assistance. (1)As required
by section 312(d) and 312(e) of the Act:
 (1)The Secretar shall withdraw
approval of the management program of
any coastal State and shall withdraw
financial assistance available to that
State under 16 U.S.C. 1451-1464 as well
as any unexpended portion of such
assistance, if the Secretary determines
that the coastal State has failed to take
the actions referred to in paragraph
         (A)of this section 
 ( )Management program approval
and financial assistance may not be
withdrawn under paragraph (b)(1)(i) of
this section, unless the Secretary gives
the coastal State notice of the proposed
withdrawal and an opportunity for a
public hearing on the proposed action.
Upon the withdrawal of management
program approval under paragraph
(b)(1)(i) of this section, the Secretary 
shall provide the coastal State with
written specifications of the actions that
should be taken, or not engaged in, by




the State in order that such withdrawal
may be canceled by the Secretary
 (2)Requirements.(i)If the Assistant 
Administrator determines that the State
has not taken the actions required in
& 928.5(a)(2), the Assisten
Administrator will provide the Governor
and the State CZM program manager
with written notice of this finding and
NOAA's obligation to withdraw
program approval and financial
assistance under 16 U.S.C.1451-1464.
The State will be given 30 days from
receipt of this notice to respond with
evidence that it has taken the actions
specified pursuant to & 928.5(a)(2).
During this 30 day period, the State may
request up to 30 additional days to
respond for a maximum of 60 days from 
receipt of notice
 (ii)* * *
 (iii)If the State does not request a
public hearing or submit satisfactory
evidence that it has taken the actions
specified pursuant to & 928.5(a)(2) within
30 days of publication of this notice, and
the Assistant Administrator determines
taht the State has failed to take the
actions specified pursuant to
& 928.5(a)(2), the Assistant
Administrator will withdraw program
approval and financial assistance and
will notify the State in writing of hte
decision and the reasons for it. The
notification will set forth actions that
must be taken by the State which would
cause the Assistant Administrator to 
cancel the withdrawal.
*   *       *           *       *
 7. Part 932 is revised to read as 
follows:

PART 932-COASTAL ZONE
ENHANCEMENT GRANTS PROGRAM

Sec.
932.1	General.
932.2	Objectives.
932.3	Definitions.
932.4	Allocation of section 309 funds.
932.5	Criterial fof section 309 project
    selection.
932.6	Pre-application procedures.
932.7	Formal application for financial
    assistance and application review and
    approval procedures.
932.8	Revisions to asessments and
    strategies.

 Authority: Section 309 of the Coastal Zone
Management Act, as amended (16 U.S.C
1456).

& 932.1 General.

 (a)The purpose of this part is to set
forth the criteria and procedures for
awarding coastal zone enhancement
grants under section 309 of the Coastal
Zone Management Act, as amended (16
U.S.C. 1456). This part describes the
criteria States msut address in




developing and implementing coastal
zone enhancement objectives, the
procedures for allocating section 309
funds between weighted formula and
individual review of proposals of special
merit, how the amount of section 309
weighted formula grants will be
determined, the criteria NOAA will use
to evaluate and rank individual
proposals of special merit, and the 
procedures for applying for financial
assistance under section 309.
 (b)A coastal State with an approved
program under section 306 of the
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), 
as amended (16 U.S.C. 1455), is eligible
for grants under this part if the State
meets the following requirements:
 (1)The State must have a NOAA
approved Assessment and Strategy,
submitted in accordance with NOAA
guidance and & 932.8;
 (2)The State must be found to be 
adhering to its approved program and
must be making satisfactory progrss in
preforming grant tasks under section 
306; and
 (3)The State must be making
satisfactory progrss in carrying out its
prevcious year's award under section 309.
 (c)All applications for funding under
section 309 of the CZMA, as amended,
including proposed work programs,
funding priorities and funding awards, 
are subject to the administrative
discretion of the Assistant
Administrator and any additional
NOAA guidance.
 (d)Grants awarded under section 309 
may be used to support up to 100
percent of the allowable costs of
projects under section 309 of the CZMA,
as amended.
 (e)All application and pre-proposal
application forms are to be requested
from and submitted to : National
Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administrtion, Office of Ocean and
Coastal Resource Management Coastal
Programs Division, 1825 Connecticut
Avenue, NW., Suite 724, Washington,
DC 20235.

& 932.2 Objectives.

 (a)The objectives of assistance under 
this part is to encourage each State with
a federally-approved coastal
management program to continually
improve its program in specified areas
of national importance. The Secretary is
authorized to make grants to a coastal
State for the development and
submission for Federal approval of
program changes that support
attainment of one  or more coastal zone
enhancement objectives.
 (b)As required by section 309(a) of
the Act, for purposes of this part, the





 





                          ;2228             Federal Rogisfar / Vol. 55. No 202 / FriJv, 0, tober 13. !991 / Proposed Rules

                          term "coastal, zone ei-@-ancernent                  achieve one or more of the coastal zone                  (d) ProJect of Sc--cial Nferit means a
                          objective- means any of the fotloxving              crihancement objectives.                              project which NOAA will evaluate and
                          objectives:                                           (4) New or revised coastal land                     rank based on the criteria at J 932.5(b).
                          (1) Protection, restoration, or                     sr:quisitiorri, management and                           (e) Fiscal needs means the extent to
                          enhancement of the existing coastal                 restoration program that improve                  a   which a State must rely solely on
                          wetlands base. or creation of new                   State's ability to attain one or more of              Federal funds to complete a project
                          coas'at wetlands.                                   t@e coastal zone enhancement                          Lrider section 309 because State funds
                          (2) Preventing or sign;,ficantly mducing            objectives.                                           Lre not otherwise available.
                          threats to life and destruction of
                          1                                                     (5) New or revised Special Area                        (0 Tec@niccl n 2eds means the extent
                          pro-pertv be ei:rnina"nn developmcr-t               Manacement Plans or plans for A, eas of               to which a State lacks trained personnel
                          ancl@ redevelopment in '111gh-hazarl                Particular Concern (APC). including                   (-,r equipment or access to trained
                          areas, mariaging development in other               enfcrcaa@lle policies and other                       personnel or equ:pment to complete a
                          hazard areas, and ant;cipating and                  necessary implementing mechanisrns or                 project under section 309.
                          managing the effects of potential sea               criteria and procedures for desip, ating                 (g) Assistan! A&27inistratorrneans the
                          level rise and Great Lakes level r;se.              and managing APCs that will improve a                 Ass,istant Administrator for Ocean
                          (3 Attaining                 opportunities          State's ability to ach;eve one or more of             Services and Coastal Zone
                          for ptiblic accel% taking into account              the coastal zone enhanccrn-n!                         I'vianagement, or the INOAA Official
                          cur@ ---nt and future public access needs,          objectives.                                           responsible for directing the Federal
                          to coastal areas of recreational.                     (6) New or revised guidelines,                      Coastal 'Lone Management Program.
                          historical, aestlietic, ecolo.oical, or             procedures and policy documents which                                          0
                          cukural value.                                      are formally adopted by a State and                   ï¿½ 932.4 AHocation of section 309 funds.
                          (4) Reducing marine debris entering                 provide specific interpretations of                      (a) (1) As required by section 309(e) of
                          the Nation'3 coastal and ocean                      c!nforceab!e CZM policies to applicants,              the Act, a State will not be required to
                          environment by managing uses and                    local governments and other agencies                  contribute any portion of the cost of any
                          activities that contribute to the entry of          that will result in meaningful                        proposal for which funding is awarded
                          such debris.                                        improvements in coastal resource                      under this section,
                          (5) Development and adoption of                     management and that will improve a                       (2) As required by section 309(f) of the
                          procedures to assess, consider. and                 State's ability to attain one or more of              act, beginning in fiscal year 1991, not
                          control cumulative and secondary                    the coastal zone enhancement                          less tha'n 10 percent and not more than
                          impacts of coastal growth and                       objectives.                                           20 percent of the amounts appropriated
                          development, including the collective                 (b) Assessment means a public                       to implement sections 306 and 306A of
                          effect on various individual uses or                document, prepared by a State and                     the act shail be retained by the
                          @--. ctivities on coastal resources, such as        approved by NOAA in accordance with                   Secretary for use in implemerting this
                          coastal wetlands and fishery resources.             guidance on Assessments and Strategies                section, up to a maximum of $10,000,000
                          (6) Preparing and implementing                      issued by NOAA (hereafter referred to                 annually.
                          special area management plans for                   as the guidance), that identifies the                    (b) The Assistant Administrator willi
                          important coastal areas.                            State's priority needs for improvement                annually determine the amount of funds
                          (7) Planning for t1he use of ocean                  with regard to the coastal zone                       to be devoted to section 309. which shall
                          resources.                                          enhancement objectives. The                           be not less than 10 percent nor more
                          (8) Adoption of procedures and                      Assessment determines the extent to                   than 20 percent of the total amount
                          enforceable policies to help facilitate the         which problems exist with regard to                   appropriated under section 318(a)(2) of
                          siting of energy facilities and                     each of the coastal zone enhancement                  the Coastal Zone Management Act, as
                          Govemment facilities and energy-                    objectives and the effectiveness of                   amended (16 U.S.C. 1464), taking into
                          re!ated activities and Govemment                    current efforts to address those                      account the total amount appropriated
                          activiiies which may be of greater than             problems. The Assessment includes the                 under section 318(a)(2). The total
                          local significance.                                 factual basis for NOAA and the States                 amount of funds to be devoted to section
                                                                              to determine the priority needs for                   209 shall not exceed $10,000-000
                          932.23 Definition&                                  improvement of management programs                    annually.
                          (,,) A-ogram change means           routine         in accordance with this part.                            (c) Of the total arnount determined in
                          p7ogrann implementation" as defined in                (r) Strategy means a comprehensive,                 paragraph (b) of this section. the
                          15 CFR 923.84 and "amendment" as                    multi-year statement of goals and the                 Assistant Administrator will annually
                          defined in 15 CFR 923.80, and includes              methods for their attainment, prepared                determine the proportion to be awarded
                          the following:                                      by a State in accordance with NOAA                    to eligible coastal States by weighted
                          (1) A change to coastal zone                        guidance and these regulations and                    formula and the proportion to be
                          boiin@:Iaries that will improve a State's           approved by NOAA. that sets forth the                 awarded to eligible coastal States for
                          ab:lity to achieve one or more of the                 ecific program changes the State will               projects of special merit. This
                          coastal zone enhancement objectives.                sp
                          (2', New or revised authorities,                    seek to achieve in one or more of the                 determination will take into account the
                          including statutes, regulations,                    coastal zone enhancement objectives.                  total amount appropriated under section
                                                                              The Strategy will address only the                    318(a)(1) of the CZMA. as amended.
                          enforceable policies, administrative                issue(s) identified in a State's                         (d) Weighted formula funding. (1) A
                          decisions, executive orders, and                    Assessment as a priority need and will                   eighted formula funding target will be
                          memoranda of agreement/                             include specific tasks and milestones. as             w
                          understanding, that will improve a.                                                                       determined for each State that meets the
                          State's ability to achieve one or more of           appropriate.                                          eligibility requirements at I 932.1[b).
                          the coasta! zone enhancement                                                                              The weighted formula funding target
                          objectives.                                           @NOAA guidance is available from the Office of      will be the State base allocation
                          (3) New or revised local coastal                    Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, Coastal        determined by the operation of the
                          .programs and implementing ordinances               Program Division. Universal South Building. room      formula at 15 CFR 927.1(c). multiplied by
                                                                              724. 1a25 Connecticut Avenue. NW.. Washington.
                          that will improve a State's ability to              DC 20235.                                             a weighting factor derived from the





                                     Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 202 / Friday, October 18, 1991 / Proposed Rules                                             52229

                    _@ssistant Administrator's evaluation           that will be funded by weighted formula,           each application to determine the "fiscal
                    and ranking of the quality of the State's       the Assistant Administrator will                   needs" of a State as defined in
                    Strategy, as supported by the State's           determine that:                                    ï¿½ 932.3(e).
                    Assessment. The application of the                 (i) The project is consistent with the            (iii) Technical needs. (5 points) The
                    we#tirg factor may result in a                  State'sapproved Assessment and                     Assistant Administrator will review
                    we;,-'riled formula funding target that     is  Strategy and advances the attainment of            each application to determine the
                    h4h,er or lower than the State's base           the objectives of the Strategy;                    "technical needs" of a State as defined
                    a'1oc-1-.hc:-.. Each State's weighted              (ii) Costs are reasonable and                   in ï¿½ 93' 2.3(fl.
                    formmula funding target will be adjusted        necessary to achieve the objectives of               (c) Section 309 funds not awarded to
                    @o reflect the funds available.
                                                                    both the project and the Str@tegy.                 States under ï¿½ 932.5(a) will be awarded
                       The Assistant Administrator will             Allowability of costs will be determined           to States under ï¿½ 93215(b).
                    @aterrn ine each State's weighting factor       in accordance with the provisions of
                    @@ased on an evaluation and rankina of          0%IB Circular A--87: Cost Principles for           ï¿½ 932.6 Pro-application procedures.
                                                                0
                    the State's Strategy that takes into            State and Local Governmen
                                                                                                    tg; 2                (a) Pre-submission consultaticn. Each
                    ccr@s;deration the following:                      (iii) The project is technically sound;         State is expected to consult with the
                    N L he scope and value of the                      (iv) The State has an effective plan to         Assistant Administrator prior to the
                    proposed program change(s) contained            ensure proper and efficient                        submission of its pre-proposal (see
                    in the Strategy in terms of improved            administration of the project; and                 ï¿½ 932.6(b)) and formal application for
                    coastal resource management:                       (v) The State has submitted the                 section 309 funding. The purpose of th i
                                                                    required project information as specified
                    ,ii) The technical merits of the                                                                   consultation will be to determine
                    Strategy in terms of project design and         in ï¿½ 932.6(b)(1).                                  whether the proposed projects are
                    cost effectiveness: and                            (2) In reviewing projects that will be          consistent with the purposes and
                    (iii) The likelihood of success that the        considered under the weighted formula,             objectives of section 309 and with the
                    S,12te will have in attaining the proposed      the Assistant Administrator will take              State's approved Strategy, to rp,@-:ve
                    program change[s), including an                 into consideration the fiscal and                  any questions concerning eligibility for
                    evaluation of the State's past                  technical needs of proposing States and            funding under section 309 (see
                    Performance and support for the                 the overall merit of each proposal in              ï¿½ 932.1(b)), and to discuss preliminarily
                    S'rategy.                                       terms of benefits to the public.                   the State's recommendations regarding
                    . (3) Each State will be notified                  (b) Section 309 criteria for evaluation         which projects should be funded by
                    individually of its weighting factor, the       and ranking of projects of special merit.          weighted formula and which projects
                    re2sons for assigning this weighting            (1) The Assistant Administrator will               should be individually evaluated and
                    factor, and any changes thereto. In             evaluate and rank State funding                    ranked as projects of special merit.
                    consultation with the Assistant                 proposals of special merit which may be              (b) Pre-proposals. After pre-
                    Administrator, a State may choose to            funded under ï¿½ 932.4(e).                           submission consultation, States shall
                    make substantive changes to its                    (2) In addition to meeting the criteria         submit pre-proposals for section 309
                    approved Assessment and Strategy to             in paragraph (a)(1) of this section,               funding annually on a schedule to be
                    ...;prove its weighting factor, in              proposals will be evaluated and ranked             determined by the Assistant
                    accGrdance wi;h the procedures at               under this subsection using the                    Administrator. These pre-proposals
                    932.8.                                          following criteria:                                shall contain the following:
                    (4) The Assistant Administrator may                (i) Merit. (90 points) The Assistant              (1) A clear and concise description of
                    establish minimum and maximum                   Administrator will review each                     the projects that the State proposes to
                    weighted formula funding targets under          application to determine the following:            be funded under section 309. This
                    932.4(d).                                          (A) Degree to which the project                 description shall explain the
                    (e) Funding for projects o  'f special          significantly advances the program                 relationship of each proposed project to
                    merilf. The Assistant Administrator will        improvements and leads to a program                the State's approved Assessment and
                    award the remaining section 309 funds.          change identified in the State's Strategy.         Strategy and how each proposed project
                    which are not awarded under ï¿½ 932.4(d),         In making this determination, the                  will accomplish all or part of a program
                    ,.c States based on an annual evaluation        Assistant Administrator may consider               change that the State has identified in
                             0                                  merit. the weighting factor derived from the           its Strategy. In addition, each project
                    3k rarking of projects of special
                    ddafined in ! 932.3(d). Funding of              evaluation of the quality of the State's           description shall include:
                    projects of special merit will be'limited       Strategy, as supported by the State's                (i) A specific timetable for completion
                    to t1he highest ranked projects based on        Assessment, relative to the weighting              of each project;
                    +.e cr:teria ï¿½ 932.5(b).                        factors assigned to other eligible States;           (ii] A description of the activities that
                    (p, The Assistant Administrator will
                        each State annually of the total               (B) Overall benefit of the project to           will be undertaken to complete each
                    arno'unt of funds to be devoted to section      the public;                                        project and by whom;
                    309 pursuant to ï¿½ 932.4(b), the proportion         (C) innovativeness of the proposal;               (iii) The identification of any
                    to be awarded by weighted formula                  (D) Transferability of the results to           subawardees, pursuant to 15 CFR
                    pt..,suant to J 93' A(c), the State's           problems in other coastal States; and              923.95(d)(3)(H); and
                    weighted formula funding target                    (E) The State's past performance                  (iv) The estimated total cost for each
                    pursuant to ï¿½ 932.4(d), and the total           under section 309.                                 project.
                    amount of funds available for funding              (ii) Fiscal needs. (5 points) The                 (2) Section 309 funds may be used for
                    for projects of special merit pursuant to       Assistant Administrator will review                any of the following allowable uses
                    ï¿½ 932.4(e).                                                                                        which support the attainment of a
                                                                       I OMB Circular A-87: Cost Principles for State  program change:
                    ï¿½ 932.5 Criteria for section M project          and Local Governments is available Erom the office   (i) Personnel costs:
                                                                    of Ocean and Coastal Resoume ManagemeriL Policy      (ii) Supplies and overhead.
                                                                    Coordination Division. Universal South Building,
                    (a) Section 309 criteria for weighted           room 70L 18n Connecticut Avenue NW..                 (iii) Equipment (pursuant to 15 CFR
                    formula funding. (1) For those projects         Washington. DC 2=5.                                part 24);






                       52230             Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 202 / Fri@3V. Octobe,- 13, 19q1 / Proposed Rules

                          (iv) Projects, studies and reports; and       tf@chnical soundness and overall merit of         eligibility for future funding under this
                          (v) Contractual costs including               section 309 project proposals.                    section for at least one year.
                       subcontracts'. subawards, personal                  (3) The Assistant Administrator will             (h) A State's eligibility for future
                       service contracts with individuals,              make the final determinations on project          funding under this section will be
                       memoranda of agreement/                          selection using the criteria at ï¿½ 932.5(a)        restored after the State demonstrates. tc.
                       understanding, and other forms of                and evaluate and rank projects of                 the satisfaction of the Assistant
                       passthrough funding for the purpose of           soecial merit based on the criteria at            Administrator, that it will conform with
                       c.irrying out the provisions of section          ï¿½ 932.5(b).                                       the req`uirements under this part.
                                                                           (4) If the Assistant Administrator
                          (3) Funds may not be used for land            determines that a State's project                 ï¿½ 932.8 Revisions to assessments and
                       2cq,@isition of low cost construction            pr0l)Osal(s) for weighted formula                 strategies.
                       project3 that are eligible for funding           fun@:Iag fails to meet the criteria at              (a) A State, in consultation with the
                       Lnder section 306A of the Act (16 U.S.C.            932.5(a), the Assistant Administrator          Assistant Administrator, may propose Ik
                       1455).
                                                                        may either reduce or deny the amount              revise its approved Strategy. Revisicn(s,
                          (4) The State may recommend which             available to the State under ï¿½ 932.4(d).
                       projects should be funded by weighted                                                              to an approved Strategy must be
                                                                           (5) Each state will be notified of the         submitted to and approved by the
                       formula under ï¿½ 932.5(a) and which               results of the review of pre-proposls, as         Assistant Administrator prior to the
                       projects should be funded as projects of         described in paragraphs (c)(3) and (4) of         initiation of the contemplated change.
                       Fpecial merit under.1 932.5(b).                  this section, in time @o include approved
                          (5) The pre-proposal shall contain            section 309 projects in their applications          M The Assistant Administrator will
                       documentation of fiscal needs and                for financial assistance pursuant to              review such proposed revision(s) and
                       technical needs, if any. This                    subpart I of 15 Eii part 932.                     determine if public review and comment
                       dricument3tion shall include:                                                                      is required. This determination will be
                          (i) F:3c fiscal needs, information on the     ï¿½932.7 Formal application for financial           based on the extent to which the
                       c*..;rrent State budget (surplus or deficit),    asWatance and application review and              proposed revision(s) changes the
                       the budget of the applying agency                approval procedures.                              original scope of the State's Strategy.
                       (increase or decrease over previous                 (a) Application for financial                    (c) If the Assistant Administrator
                       fiscal year), future budget projections,         assistance under this part must be                determines that public review and
                       arid what efforts have been made by the          developed and submitted on the same               comment is necessary, he/she will
                       applying agency, if any, to secure               schedule as applications for financial            L10tify the State of his/her
                       _-@Iditional State funds from the                assistance under Subpart J of 15 CFR
                       Legislature and/or from off-budget               part 923.                                         determination. The State will be
                       sources such as user fees; and                      (b) Application for financial                  required to provide public review and
                          (h) For technical needs, identification       assistance under this part must be in a           comment in accordance with NOAA
                       wr the technical knowledge, skills and           separate section of the application and           guidance.
                       eqaipr,ient that are needed to carry out         must contain the information specified              (d) A State that wants to revise
                       ,,, r.opsed projects and that are not            at I 932.6(b)(1) for each approved                substantively the program changes
                       a,@ ailable to the applying agency. and          section 309 project.                              identified in its approved Strategy or to
                       ,what efforts the applying agency has               (c) In addition to the information at          address new enhancement objectives
                       mz!de, if any, to obtain the trained             J 932.6(b)(1), applications must also             rot identified as a priority in the original
                       per3onnel and equipment it needs (for            contain documentation of fiscal and               Assessment, also must revise the
                       e@w.,irnple, through agreements with other       technical needs, if any, pursuant to              Assessment through a public process as
                       S1 ate agencies).
                          fb) The Assistant Administrator may              932.6(b)(5), and. following the first          described in NOAA's guidance.
                       re@iuest additional documen'tation of            year of funding under section 309,            a     (e) The Assistant Administrator will
                       F;...cal and technical needs.                    description of how the past year" work            notify the State of his/her decision to
                          I,-) Following the first year of funding      contributed to the attainment of a                approve or deny the proposed
                       ".1der scction 309, the pre-proposal shall       program change, pursuant to                       revision(s) to the Strategy.
                       describe how the past year's work                   932.6(b)(7).
                       contributed to the attainment of a                  (d) Applications will be reviewed for            (f) The Assistant Administrator will
                       progrL-n change as defined in I 932.3(a)         conformance with the regulations at               notify the State of any change in the
                       in one or more of the coastal zone               subpart J of 15 CFR part 923                      weighting of the Strategy at the time he/
                       rnhancement objectives.                             (e) States will be notified of their           she notifies the State of the approval of
                          (.13) The sum of estimated project cost3      section 309 awards at the time they are           projects under this part. The new
                       ror pruiects the State recommends be             notified of their section 306/306A                weighting will apply to the
                       Finded under J 932.5(a) should not               awards.                                           determination of the weighted formula
                       e-,ceed the State's weighted formula                (f) If the Assistant Administrator             funding target in the subsequent funding
                       h-mcling target pursuant to I 932.4(d).          seeks technical advice pursuant to                cycle.
                          (,;), Peview of pre-proposals. (1) The        I 932.8(c)(2), anonymous copies of the            Federal Domestic Assistance Catalog 11-4119
                       Assistant Administrator will make the            project reviews provided to the
                       Rnal determination of which projects             Assistant Administrator on projects               Coastal Zone Management Program
                       4hould be funded by weighted formula             proposed by a State will be made                  Administration.
                       :knd which projects should be funded as          available to the State upon request after           Dated: October 4. 1991.
                       projects of special merit. taking into           October I of each year.                           Frank W. Maloney,
                       ,ircount the State's recommendations.               (g) If the Assistant Administrator
                                                                                                                          Acting Assistant AdministrcfOrfOT Oceon
                          (2) The Assistant Administrator may           finds that a State is not undertaking the         Servi.ces and coastal Zone Management.
                       Seek advice from technical experts in            actions committed to under the terms of
                       ,be fields of the coastal zone                   a section 309 grants. the Assistant               JFR Doc. 91-249m Filed 10-17-4n; 8:45 am
                       enhanccment objectives as to the                 Administrator shall suspend the State's           elLUNG CODE 351




															Appendix F
							NATIONAL ESTUARINE RESEARCH RESERVES
								(APPROXIMATE ACRES BY TYPE)

												OPEN		 TOTAL	SQUARE		 BIO-
	NAME AND LOCATION		DESIGNATED		UPLAND	WETLAND	WATER		LAND AND	 KILO-	   GEOGRAPHIC
								 AREA		  AREA	AREA		 WATER	METERS		REGION

DESIGNATED ESTUARINE RESERVES				(1 SQUARE MILE = 640 ACRES)

1. South Slough, Oregon		  1974		3930		  710	 	  60		    4700	    19.0		Columbian	#17
2. Walmanu Valley, Hawaii	  1976		2710		  720 	 170   	    3600	    14.6		Insular	#25
3. Sapelo Island, Georgia	  1976		1450		 4455		   0		    5905	    23.9		Carolinian	# 7
4. Rookery Bay, Florida		  1978		7000		 1400  	   0		    8400	    34.0		West Inian 	#10
5. Apalachicola, Florida	  1979	     50078	     *67840	    *67840		  185758	   784.1		Louisianian	#11
6. Elkhorn Slough, California	  1980		 430		  880		  20		    1330	     5.4		Californian #15
7. Padilla Bay, Washington	  1980		  64		 1875		 625		    2564	    10.4		Columbian	#19
8. Narragansen Bay,Rhode Island 1980		1035		 1591		   0		    2626	    10.6		Virginian	# 3
9. Old Woman Creek, Ohio	  1980		 371	 	  200		   0		     571	     2.2		Great Lakes	#21
10.Chesapeake Bay, Maryland	1981-90	     *1781		*1781		1258		    4820	    19.5		Virginian	# 5
		(Monie Bay)	       (1981)        (*1335)      (*1335)      (756)          (3426)       (13.9)		
		  (Jug Bay)        (1990)         (*241)       (*240)	     (241)           (722)        (2.9)	
    (Otter Point Creek)        (1990)         (*205)       (*206)      (261)           (672)        (2.7)
11.Jobos Bay, Puerto Rico	  1981		   ?		    ?		   ?		    2800	    11.3		West Indian	# 9
12.North Carolina Components  1982-90	      1599	      *4124	     *4124		    9847	    38.8		Carolinian 	# 6
	 (Curituck Banks)		 (1982)	     (335)	     (*312)	    (*313)		   (960)	    (3.9)		
	  (Rachel Carson)		 (1982)	     (345)      (*1140)	   (*1140)          (2625)	   (10.6) 
    (Mansonboro Island)		 (1990)          (670)      (*2214)    (*2213)          (5097)       (20.6)
        (Zeke's Island)		 (1982)          (249)       (*458)     (*458)          (1165)        (4.7)
13.Tijuana River, California	  1982	      1000		 1000		 150		    2150 	     8.7		Californian	#14
14.Hudson River, New York	  1982            1270         2660          0            4130        16.7		Virginian	# 5
       (Piermont Marsh)
          (Iona Island)
          (Tivoli Bays)
      (Stockport Flats)
15.Wells, Maine			  1984             400         1159          0            1559         6.3		Acadian	# 2
16.Weeks Bay, Alabama		  1986               ?            ?          ?            3028        12.2		Louisianian	#11
17.Waquoit Bay, Masachusetts    1988		*315		 *314          0            2199         8.9		Acadian	# 3
                                                             1570
18.Great Bay, New Hampshire     1989             800          958       4471            6229        24.8  		Acadian	# 2
                                       _______________________________________________________________________
		SUBTOTAL DESINATED RESERVES	     74233        93437      78718          252216      1052.4
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ADDITIONAL COMPONENTS AND EXPANSION OF EXISTING RESERVES IN PROGRESS
4. Rookery Bay(expansion)       1991               ?            ?          ?          142000       574.3		West Indian	#10
14.Hudson River			  1990               ?            ?          ?             402         1.6		Virginain	# 5
                                       _______________________________________________________________________
  SUBTOTAL EXPANSION AND NEW COMPONENTS            ?            ?          ?          142402	   575.9   
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
NEW RESERVES IN DEVELOPMENT
19.Chesapeake Bay, Virgina	  1991             961         2010       1663            4684        19.0		Virginain	# 5
      (Goodwin Islands)                         (58)        (411)      (1138)         (1607) 
	(Catlett Islands)                         (14)        (332)       (571)          (917)
       (Taskinas Creek)                        (372)        (152)         (1)          (525)
     (Sweet Hall Marsh)                        (501)        (881)       (253)         (1635)
20.Delaware				  1992               ?            ?           ?           8842        35.8 		Virginian	# 4
      (St. Jones River)                                                               (5028)       (20.4)  
(Upper Blackbird Creek)                                                               (3814)       (15.4)
21.A.C.E. Basin, South Carolina 1991            7752        68397       59405         135554       646.7		Carolinan 	# 6
22.North Inlet - Winyah Bay, 
		South Carolina      1992             200         7800           ?           8000        32.4		Carolinan	# 7
23.St. Lawrence River Basin,
		New York		   TBD               ?            ?           ?           5000        20.2     	Great Lakes #21
24.San Francisco Bay,California  TBD		   ?            ?           ?              ?           ?		Californian	#16
25.East Florida, Florida	   TBD               ?            ?           ?              ?           ?		Carolinian	# 8
                                       _____________________________________________________________________ 
		      SUBTOTAL NEW RESERVES         8913        78207       61068         162080       754.1
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
	        TOTAL ALL SITES(estimate)        83146	     171644      139786         556698      2382.36

				*Data only available by combination of upland and wetland or wetland and open water. In these instances
				 the acerage is evenly divided, arbitrarily, between both categories.
                        1 square mile = 640 acres = 2.59 square kilometers

BIOGEOGRAPHIC SUB-REGIONS NOT			LOCATION								APRIL 24, 1991
  	   YET REPRESENTED

 1. # 1 - Acadian					Northern Gulf of Maine(northern Maine)
 3. #12 - Louisianian				Mississippi Delta (Mississippi, Louisiana, norther Texas)
 4. #13 - Louisianian				Western Gulf of Mexico (southern Texas)
 5. #18 - Columbian				Washington Coast (Washington)
 6. #20 - Great Lakes				Lake Superior (Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan)
 7. #20 - Great Lakes				Lake Michigan (Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois)
 8. #20 - Great Lakes				Lake Huron (Michigan)
 9. #22 - Fjord					Southern Alaska
10. #23 - Sub-Arctic				Aleutian Islands (Alaska)
11. #24 - Sub-Arctic				Northern Alaska
12. #26 - Insular					Western Pacific Island
13. #27 - Insular					Eastern Pacific Island

* U.S. G.P.O.:1992-313-153:60707








 




                             US Department of Commerce
                             NOAA Coastal Services Center Library
                             2234 South Hobson Avenue
                             Charleston, SC 29405-2413

























                                                                  . 3        1006074 1

                                                                              -1