Toward a management plan for Indiana's shoreline on Lake Michigan

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

TOWARDA MANAGEMENT PLAN
FOR INDIANAPS SHORELINE
ON LAKE MICH-1-GAN

HT393
16
T6 VOLUME. 1
1993
V. 1

@ O-f
@@O-j 6 J \- I
@V' (2-C-11 V\^-cv-,-l&i -0 @ 0)@
0- @t VA VJ
u e-1- c C@@ u AZ
NQA

....... .....
COASTAL INFORMATION DIRECTORY
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Coastal Services Center

D
Result Description Set
D
Toward a management plan for Indiana's shoreline on Lake Michigan Author(s): prepared
by the Northwestern Indiana Regional Planning Commission.
Note: "Prepared for the Indiana Department of Natural Resources."
Publication: Highland, Ind. : The Commission, 199-3.
Physical Description: 2 v. ; 28 cm.
Keywords:

Coastal zone management -- Indiana.

OCLC Control Number: ocm31260399
-------------------
Available at CSC Library OCLC Symbol: NO@
CSC Library Loan Policy
Non-CSC staff must use the Interlibrary Loan (ILL) services at their local public, university,
corporate, or agency library to request CSC library items. Please print this record and give it to
your librarian. It contains important information your librarian will need to expedite your request.

ELL LIBRARIAN:

Most items in our catalog are available for ILL.The loan period is 30 days and you may request
renewals. ILL requests may be submitted through OCLC ILL or on ALA approved forms. Our
OCLC symbol is NO@. Forms should be mailed or faxed to:

NOAA Coastal Services Center Library FAX: (843) 740-1298
ATTN: Interlibrary Loan Dept
2234 S. Hobson Ave.
Charleston, SC 29405-2413

DISCLAIMER: THE DATA AND ASSOCIATED DATA FILES FOUND USING THIS SOFTWARE ARE
PROVIDED "AS IS," WITHOUT WARRANTY TO THEIR PERFORMANCE, MERCHANTABLE STATE, OR
FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK ASSOCIATED WITH THE RESULTS
AND PERFORMANCES OF THIS SOFTWARE IS ASSUMED BY THE USER.

NOAA Coastal Services Center Software Version 2.0
E-mail comments to [email protected] Document generated on 06-Apr-99 15:16:20 EDT

TOWARD A MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR

INDIANA'S SHORELINE ON LAKE MICHIGAN

VOLUME 1

Prepared for the
INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

Property of CSC Library

Prepared by the
NORTHWESTERN INDIANA REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION
8149 Kennedy Avenue
Highland, Indiana

January 1993

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Introduction i

CHAPTER 1: Results of the Public Meetings on an Indiana Shoreline Plan 1-1

Meeting Results 1-1
Advance Preparation for the Meetings 1-3
Publicity and Public Information 1-4
Schedule and Location of the Meetings 1-4
Meeting Procedures 1-5
Attendance and Participation 1-5
Whiting Meeting 1-6
Gary Meeting 1-7
Portage Meeting 1-7
Michigan City Meeting 1-8
Summary 1-9

Attachment 1: Issues Discussed in Public Meetings and Written
Comments and Number of Mentions 1-10
Attachment 2: Wording of Petitions Submitted for Shoreline Plan 1-14
Attachment 3: Selected Excerpts from Shoreline Meeting Statements 1-15
Attachment 4: Our Indiana Shoreline on Lake Michigan (information
brochure) 1-20
Attachment 5: Press Release and Newspaper Editorials and Articles 1-21
Attachment 6: Organizations and Agencies Represented at the Public
Meetings or by Written Comments Submitted by Mail 1-38

CHAPTER 2: Summary of Federal, State and Local Statutes and Regulations
Dealing with Land and Water Uses on the Indiana Shoreline
of Lake hfichigan 2-1

Introduction 2-1

Land Use Regulation/Lakefill & Construction 2-1
Local Land Use Regulation/General 2-10
Water Use Enforcement Issues 2-12
State Watercraft Safety Laws and Regulations 2-15
July 1985 Agreement 2-21
Public Access 2-28

Conclusion 2-31

Appendix 2-33

Draft of Porter County Wetland Ordinance 2-34
Federal/State Agreement with Coast Guard 2-43
Attorney General Opinion 80-37 2-52
Attorney General Opinion 90-8 2-57

CHAPTER 3: An Overview of the Federal Coastal Zone Management
Program and the Implications for Indiana's Participation
in the Program 3-1

Summary 3-2
Coastal Zone Management Program Overview 3-3
Indiana's CZM Program 3-4
CZM Program Requirements 3-7
Federal Consistency 3-15
Exclusion of Federally Owned Land 3-15
Funding 3-16
Two New CZM Programs 3-17
Related State/Federal Coastal Initiatives 3-18
Two Great Lakes CZM States 3-20
Conclusions 3-24
Recommendation 3-26

Attachment 1: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 3-27

CHAPTER 4: Steps Toward an Indiana Shoreline Management Program 4-1

Attachment 1: Governor Bayh's Letter of 1/31/92 to OCRM 4-6
Attachment 2: Governor Bayh's Letter of 1/31/92 to
Congressman Visclosky 4-8
Attachment 3: Congressman Visclosky's Letter of 4/2/92 to
NIRPC 4-9
Attachment 4: Excerpt from Congressional Record of 9/28/92 4-10
Attachment 5: State of Minnesota Letter of Intent 4-11
Attachment 6: State of Ohio Section 305 Grant Application 4-21
Attachment 7: State of Georgia Section 305 Grant Application 4-41

TABLE OF CONTIRM: VOLUME TWO

Pa
Ze

CHAPTER 5: The Indiana Lake Michigan Shoreline: State of Knowledge 5-1

Executive Summary 5-1
Acknowledgements 5-3
Environment 5-4
Hydrology 5-32
Recreation 5-51
Socioeconomic 5-70

Appendix 1: Environment 5-91
Appendix 2: Hydrology 5-124
Appendix 3: Recreation 5-140
Appendix 4: Socioeconomic 5-155

Introduction

The concept of a management policy and plan for Indiana's Lake Michigan shoreline has
been discussed for many years. In the late 1970s, Indiana received program planning funds from
the federal Coastal Zone Management program. A number of important technical studies
resulted but the state fell short of meeting requirements for ongoing participation in the federal
program.

During the 1985 session of the Indiana General Assembly, legislation was passed creating
the Lake Michigan Marina Development Commission (LMMDC). Its voting members are the
mayors of the lakefront cities of East Chicago, Gary, Hammond, Michigan City, Portage and
Whiting. Created to spur marina development on Lake Michigan and its two navigable
tributaries, Portage - Bums Waterway and Trail Creek, the LMMDC began to develop marinas
using state funds for pre-construction planning, design and engineering studies and gap financing
for construction. The Commission's monthly public meetings and those of its General Advisory
Committee became forums for citizens demanding more public access and amenities on the
shoreline.

In June, 1985, Ist District Congressman Peter J. Visclosky proposed the Marquette
Project, a plan to redirect Indiana coastal resource uses. Congressman Visclosky said:

"As steel continues to be made by a reconfigured industry in smaller, more
efficient and safer facilities, let the public sector join with the private to recapture
at least initially -- a narrow strip to the north of our great industrial complex.
Then, as attrition occurs naturally later in this century and the next, and as the
mills age and technology changes, where sites are unused and rail yards are
abandoned, let us take quick steps to reclaim them for the public... This does not
mean that no new industry will locate on the lakeshore, but it does mean that we
should set our priorities in a clear and definite manner... I want to begin
recapturing our lakeshore for our people to use as soon as is possible, even if in
some areas the recovered land is a strip so narrow it is measured in feet."

Although the Congressman's proposal was introduced with fanfare and received some
praise, it was conceptual and futuristic, and not yet associated with an identifiable project or
area. As a result, it was not fully explored and was soon upstaged by growing concern about
rising lake levels.

In response to the high lake levels and severe erosion of the mid-1980s a Natural
Resources Study Committee of the Indiana General Assembly endorsed legislation to allow the
Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) to carry out a comprehensive study to
determine the need for legislation to protect the shoreline, lake and dunes. Introduced in 1986
by the late Senator Ralph Potesta, the bill died in committee.

In 1986, the Indiana General Assembly passed a resolution urgently asking Congress to
take "immediate action" to curb shoreline erosion. And, later that year, the General Assembly's

Interim Committee on Soil Conservation and Agriculture toured the shoreline and recommended
that the IDNR be given authority to adopt rules to regulate the shoreline. No legislation ever
resulted.

A year later, the IDNR contracted with Dr. William Wood of Purdue University's Great
Lakes Coastal Research Laboratory to assess shoreline conditions and lake dynamics along "the
shoreline and adjacent nearshore waters from the Indiana-Illinois border to the Indiana-Michigan
border". In presenting his recommendations, Dr. Wood said, "It is important to recognize that
these recommendations are not predicated on high lake-level conditions, but represent a
suggested approach to sound coastal management." Dr. Wood proposed the establishment of
a Coastal Information System (CIS), a coastal monitoring program to collect and maintain
current data on the shoreline, computer modeling to predict bluff recession and shoreline change,
and a beach nourishment program.

Although lake levels fell and Dr. Wood's recommendations were set aside, the
Legislature authorized the IDNR to hire a: Lake Michigan Specialist. Mr. Stephen E. Davis, a
colleague of Dr. Wood, was selected to fill the important position.

In 1989, State Representative Charlie Brown petitioned the Natural Resources
Commission to adopt a rule prohibiting watercraft within 200 feet of the Lake Michigan
shoreline between Warrick Street in Gary and the Lake/Porter County line. The petition was
based on dangerous conditions, resulting from "density of watercraft intermixed with bathers...
aggravated by the presence of a private facility sometimes referred to as the Wells Street
Beach. "

In analyzing the testimony at a public hearing on the proposed rule which was held in
Gary on January 2, 1990, the IDNR hearing officer, Stephen L. Lucas, concluded:

"The strongest message derived from the public hearing in Gary is that there is
a compelling need to address confusing issues of regulatory jurisdiction and
watercraft law enforcement along the Indiana shoreline of Lake Michigan."

In the spring of 1990, the Natural Resources Commission adopted an order deferring
adoption of the proposed rule to prohibit watercraft. The NRC said:

"The Director of the Department of Natural Resources is urged to establish a
master plan or other broad process to consider watercraft usage in Indiana waters
adjacent to Lake Michigan."

Thus, for nearly two decades, there has been a growing recognition of the need for a
management strategy, policy and plan to protect and, where possible, to reclaim Indiana's coastal
zone by managing and using this environmentally sensitive area wisely. In early 1991, IDNR
Director Patrick Ralston responded to the need for a shoreline plan by contracting with NIRPC
for preparation of this report. For purposes of this report, the terms shoreline and coastal zone
are used interchangeably.

This report, therefore, is premised on the need for a management plan for the Indiana
coastal zone. It recognizes, however, the need to first compile a body of knowledge about the
coastal zone and determine whether the management plan will conform to requirements of an
existing federal program or be independently developed by a state-local consortium or other
mechanism.

Volume one of the report consists of four chapters. The first chapter discusses statements
and written submissions, solicited as a part of a series of public meetings on the future of
Indiana's shoreline. Lee Botts facilitated the meetings and prepared the report. Ms. Botts has
long been in the forefront of environmental policymaking as both administrator and activist.

The second chapter is a survey of federal, state and local statutes which govern Indiana's
coastal zone. It was prepared by David L. Hollenbeck, an attorney in private practice in
Valparaiso, Indiana, who represents several public entities including the Northwestern Indiana
Regional Planning Commission (NIRPQ and the LMMDC.

The third chapter assesses the federal Coastal Zone Management program and the
opportunities and constraints it offers the state of Indiana. It was prepared by Barbara Waxman,
Environmental Services Coordinator NIRPC and Project Director for the LMMDC, who also
served as project manager for the overall shoreline study effort.

The fourth chapter recommends steps toward the development of an Indiana shoreline
management program.

The fifth chapter, which is contained in volume two, is a bibliography of existing plans
and studies about Indiana's coastal zone. It was prepared by Drs. Paul J. Dubowy and Joseph
T. O'Leary, Department of Forestry and Natural Resources, Purdue University.

An appendix contains a comprehensive mailing list of individuals and organizations who
have asked to be kept informed on the shoreline planning process. This list is the property of
the IDNR and NIRPC.

RESULTS OF THE PUBLIC MEETINGS ON AN INDIANA SHORELINE PLAN

In January and February, 1991, four public meetings were held as a first step toward
development of a comprehensive plan for the Indiana shoreline of Lake Michigan. The meetings
were arranged and conducted by the Northwestern Indiana Regional Planning Commission
(NIRPQ under a contract with the Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR).

In addition to the public meetings, NIRPC is also surveying legislation and regulation of
shoreline use by the other states around Lake Michigan and reviewing reports of past shoreline
studies. Results of those activities will be submitted to IDNR with this report on results of the
public meetings and a proposed scope of work for development of a shoreline plan.

MEETING RESULTS

A broad range of issues was raised in the public meetings, with many viewpoints and
interests represented. Attendance was good, considering the generalized purpose and the lack
of a pending controversial action or decision that would stimulate a large turnout.

Although some issues could be considered different aspects of the same subject, about
50 different issues were discussed in the meetings or raised in written comments ( see
Attachment 1). Public access, for example, was mentioned in relation to access for fishing,
swimming, boating and nature observation. Several comments that called for restriction of
private development and other comments that called for recognition of private property rights
are also related to public access.

The question of boating access to beaches, the need for additional public access and the
need to preserve natural areas were cited more times than other topics. Several subjects were
mentioned only once and some development ideas were put forward by one person.

Overall, the issue of restriction of boating access to beaches was the most frequently
mentioned single topic and was the major topic in the meetings at Portage and Gary. Even here,
however, a number of other topics were also raised.

Two petitions were submitted on different aspects of this subject. One petition supporting
continued boating access had a total of 249 signatures on 18 sheets,. A second petition seeking
more restrictions for boats at Ogden Dunes had a total of 130 signatures. Also, copies of a
petition circulated in 1989 on behalf of boating access on the Miller beach were also submitted.
The 1989 petitions had a total of 364 signatures. The wording of all three petitions is shown
in Attachment 2.

Preservation of natural areas, either in reference to a specific location or in general, and

the need for more public access were the topics mentioned next most frequently. The so-called
Migrant Trap" at Whiting was one frequently mentioned specific preservation issue. This
location ad acent to the new Hammond Marina is on property originally acquired by the
Northern Indiana Public Service Commission (NIPSCO) for a generating station that was never
built.

Birdwatchers, or birders as they prefer to be called, frequent the area to observe birds
that rest or stop over here after following the shore of Lake Michigan in migration. Most
comments on this topic were made at the meeting in Whiting but it was also mentioned at all of
the other meetings. Since the public meetings, NIPSCO has contracted with bird expert Ken
Brock of Indiana University Northwest to study the use of the area and the company has
indicated willingness to protect its present usage.

At Michigan City, the utility company's plan to develop the Crescent dune area next to
its generating station there was the chief topic. A company spokesman described the proposal
for residential condominium units that had been endorsed the previous week by the city council
of Michigan City.

The need for response to changing lake levels was another topic discussed at all the
meetings. Most comments called for erosion control, with several persons endorsing beach
nourishment as the preferred method. Two comments at meetings called for regulation of lake
levels. Materials of the Great Lakes Coalition in support of levels regulation were also
submitted. This organization represents riparian property owners.

Setback requirements to regulate development on the shoreline that is subject to erosion
with varying lake levels were endorsed at every meeting. There was divided opinion on
whether private development on the shoreline should be restricted, with some speakers urging
that no more development be allowed but shore property owners speaking on behalf of private
property rights.

In discussion following the formal statements, the most frequently raised question
concerned enforcement authorities of the government jurisdictions along the shoreline. Several
speakers suggested that there is confusion about who is responsible for enforcing boating
restrictions, especially whether local municipalities or state or federal authorities are responsible
for enforcing prohibitions against the presence of boats within marked areas.

Several comments were made about how restricted areas are marked and the fact that
they are marked in different ways at different places. In response to questions, IDNR
spokesman Stephen Davis explained how requests for permits to set out marking buoys are
handled and that different procedures are followed by the federal Coast Guard and the state
Department of Natural Resources.

Several suggestions were made that more enforcement of boating safety requirements and
against drunkenness would be welcomed by boaters as well as shoreline residents and beach

1-2

users. There were several comments about the noise nuisance created by boats with loud motors
that are operated at high speed. Some comments also included suggestions that education for
boaters could help solve some problems.

The need for shoreline planning was another topic mentioned frequently, both oral and
written. Questions about how the plan would be developed and a timetable also seemed to
reflect interest in development of a comprehensive shoreline plan.

All the topics raised and the frequency of their mention are listed in Attachment 1. No
statistical analysis would be valid because some statements concentrated on a single topic but
many referred to more than one. Thus the total number of mentions is greater than the total
attendance and the number of written comments received. Also, because the events were
organized as public information meetings rather than public hearings, issues were raised both
in formal statements and in informal discussion.

A summary description of each meeting is given below. Representative sample comments
are cited in Attachment 3. Advance preparations for the meetings included consultation with
representatives of shoreline interests and promotion of publicity and public information about
their purpose.

ADVANCE PREPARATION FOR THE MEETINGS

Prior to the public meetings, informal exploratory discussions were held with
representatives of interest groups to identify issues that should be considered for the Lake
Michigan shoreline. An outline of an information brochure was distributed to every group with
a request for comments. Results of these discussions were then used to develop final copy for
the brochure that suggested possible topics for consideration in a shoreline plan.

The preliminary discussions took place with the following groups:

1. The Northwest Indiana Forum, representing business and industry.

2. The General Advisory Committee of the Lake Michigan Marina Development
Commission, representing local government, boating, marina, and related interests.

3. Representatives of environmental and conservation groups, including sport fishing
organizations.

Interests of shoreline residents were also represented among the membership of the three
Froups. The organizations in the groups were also invited to assist in publicizing the meetings
in their publications or by other communications to members.

1-3

PUBLICITY AND PUBLIC INFORMATION

The meetings were publicized by advance press notices and by distribution of the
information brochure that was also available at each meeting. The brochure (Attachment 4)
stated the purpose of the meetings, listed shoreline issues and described existing shoreline
responsibilities of local, state and federal agencies.

The schedule of the meetings and description of how they would be conducted was also
included with invitation to participate. A separate enclosed card invited comments by mail and
requested names and addresses for notification of future shoreline planning activities. The names
on the returned cards and the attendance lists for the public meetings will be used for a mailing
list to promote public involvement in any future planning process. A number of agencies as well
as many individuals returned these cards.

The brochure was distributed by mail to selected lists maintained by NIRPC and by
various local organizations to their members. Cooperating organizations included the Northwest
Indiana Forum, the General Advisory Committee to the Lake Michigan Marina Development
Commission, the Save the Dunes Council and the Duneland Audubon Council. The brochure
was also made available to local organizations and institutions for distribution at meetings or
public places such as libraries and agency offices.

Newspaper and radio reporters were present at every meeting and several news stories
were carried in response to the advance press announcements to all area newspapers and radio
and television stations. Several advance newspaper stories in local papers were based on an
Associated Press release from Indianapolis. Other news stories were also printed following each
meeting and interviews with participants were broadcast (Attachment 5). In addition, the
shoreline planning process was endorsed by newspaper editorial comments.

To a complaint at Michigan City that there had been insufficient public notice of the
meetings, members of the audience stated that such events were not always reported in the local
newspaper. Another complaint was made about lack of notice of public meetings on a separate
planning process for the Rails to Trails Proposal. Other comments were made by attendees at
every meeting expressing appreciation for advance publicity and advance public information
about the proposed shoreline planning process.

SCHEDULE AND LOCATION OF THE MEETINGS

The meetings were held approximately one week apart in four separate locations in
different areas of the shoreline. Every meeting was held in a City Hall on a weekday evening
from 7 to 9 p.m. The dates and locations of the meetings were as follows:

1-4

Jan. 23 Whiting

Jan. 29 Gary

Feb. 7 Portage

Feb. 13 Michigan City

MEETING PROCEDURES

The same format was followed at all the meetings. Stephen Davis, Lake Michigan
Specialist for the IDNR, made an opening statement that explained the purpose of the public
meetings and the proposed shoreline plan. He then introduced Lee Botts, who served as
facilitator and moderator. She explained that statements would be limited to three minutes each
in order to allow time for questions and discussions afterwards. (Longer statements were
allowed in the Gary meeting because of the smaller number of persons who wished to make
statements.)

Elected local officials who were present were identified as well as other persons with
official status related to the shoreline such as port authority or marina directors. Names of
speakers were called from the registration cards but opportunity was given for other speakers
after every registrant had spoken.

It was seldom necessary to remind speakers of the time limitations because most persons
honored the request for a short summary statement. Longer written statements were also invited
but written statements were not required. Some exhibits, such as petitions, were also submitted.
All the meetings were characterized by interested and courteous participation from the audience
and interaction between officials and questioners.

ATTENDANCE AND PARTICIPATION

All four meeting were well attended by members of the public and local elected officials
as well as staff of agencies with shoreline interest such as marina operators. A total of 40
organizations, agencies or institutions were represented in comments by speakers. They are
listed in Attachment 6.

Representatives of industry were present at every meeting, but only one formal
presentation was made on behalf of an industrial interest by the Northern Indiana Public Service
Company spokesman at Michigan City. A representative of the USX Company did, however,
answer questions and participate in discussion of the marina to be built by the City of Gary
inside the company-owned breakwater.

1-5

Attendance at all the meetings was dominated by spokesmen for environmental,
conservation, boating, sport fishing and private property interests. The overwhelming majority
of participants at all meetings were white and in that respect did not reflect the racial diversity
of the general area.

All the meetings were lively but orderly and most presentations were made orally.
Questions from the audience and discussion followed the formal presentations in every case.
Persons in the audience who had not made formal statements participated in the discussions as
well as persons who had spoken, so that there was a sense that everyone who wished to had
opportunity to participate.

Several written statements were submitted at the meetings and some later by mail to
supplement oral statements. A total of 37 comments in writing were submitted by mail in
addition to written comments received at the meetings.

Written notes were taken at each meeting by the facilitator and NIRPC and DNR staff
members. All of these notes were reviewed for preparation of this report. Also, a tape
recording was made of the verbal presentations and discussion but, as announced at the
meetings, it was not intended to prepare a verbatim transcript. The tape recordings were also
compared with the notes and the written statements submitted by mail and at the meetings.
While some issues were discussed in every meeting, each session had a somewhat different
emphasis, as described below.

WHITING

A total of 40 persons attended the meeting in Whiting on Jan. 23 and 22 formal oral
statements were made. Mayor Thomas McDermott of Hammond did not make a formal
statement but answered questions and commented at length on development of the Hammond
marina in the discussion that followed.

More than half the speakers at this meeting called for preservation of natural areas on
the shoreline, most of them asking for preservation of the area known as the Migrant Trap. The
area has a stand of cottonwood trees used as a resting area by migrating birds. Citing recent
disturbances in connection with completion of the Hammond Marina nearby, local Audubon
Society members and others are campaigning for its preservation in as nearly a natural state as
possible.

Several speakers expressed concern about water pollution and other changes caused by
industrial use of the shoreline. Mayor McDermott commented that the contribution of industry
to the area's economy must be recognized and that he believes all shoreline uses can be
accommodated. He described development of the Hammond Marina as an effort to expand use
of the shoreline for economic development and other community purposes.

Many of the speakers expressed their feelings about the shoreline being a special asset
to the area and of its significance in their personal lives. One person displayed several drawings

1-6

and paintings of wildlife species in speaking about his appreciation for natural resources in the
area. A majority of the attendees continued listening or taking part in the discussion until the
meeting adjourned at 9 p.m.

GARY

The meeting at Gary on January 28 took place on a cold windy day with a weather
prediction that heavy snowfall would begin in the evening. The weather may have been why
the attendance of 25 persons was the least of all the meetings. A total of 10 statements were
made orally.

Several persons spoke on behalf of preserving boating access to the beach at Miller,
including the owner and operator of the private Wells Street beach facility and her son. Other
Miller residents cited concerns about safety for swimmers and the increase in the number of
boats along the shoreline. The need for enforcement of safety regulations for operators of jet
skis was also cited.

Boater education and confusion about responsibility for marking boat-restricted areas was
discussed. Questions were raised about whether the City of Gary had authority to mark
restricted areas and how the marking is done. One person suggested that 100 foot wide "boating
corridors" be created at every third street along the Miller shoreline to demarcate more clearly
boating access points.

Other topics included concem,about loss of high quality habitat for fish and wildlife and
proposals to restrict or eliminate lakefilling in order to preserve natural shoreline. Water quality
and pollution caused by stormwater runoff and overflows through the Portage-Bums Waterway
were also discussed.

Gary Councilman Gardest Gillespie answered questions about the proposed marina to be
developed by the City of Gary. A USX company spokesman explained that agreement has been
reached concerning leasing of land for location of the marina inside the steel plant breakwater.

Councilman Gillespie also answered questions concerning upkeep of the Lake Street
shoreline and said that the city is seeking ways to restore and maintain the Marquette Park
beach. Several persons continued informal discussion among themselves after the meeting was
adjourned at 9 p.m.

PORTAGE

A total of 56 persons signed registration cards for the February 7 meeting in Portage, and
several additional persons arrived after the meeting began. Oral statements were given by 30
persons, with half of them opposing additional restrictions on boating access to the shoreline.

1-7

Nine persons called for additional boating restrictions, with both boaters and swimmers
calling for better boater education and enforcement of existing restrictions. A suggestion at this
meeting that boaters be allowed access to the beach at the Indiana Dunes State Park was
endorsed in additional written statements submitted later.

Additional topics included preservation of natural areas, including the Migrant Trap at
Whiting. Several statements called for attention to the need for erosion control or endorsed
regulation of lake levels. One speaker advocated creation of a "community marine center" with
extensive recreational facilities to provide better access to Lake Michigan for local residents and
to attract visitors.

A representative of the Gary-Hobart Water Corporation and others spoke about the need
to maintain water quality in the lake. Some speakers mentioned problems with storm water
bypass of sewage treatment plants into Lake Michigan tributaries, including the Portage-Bums
Waterway, as a source of pollution to the lake.

About one-third of the speakers endorsed the need for a shoreline plan. All questions
from the audience were discussed before adjournment at 9 p.m. but again several persons
continued lively conversations afterwards.

MICHIGAN CITY

Mayor Behler of Michigan City made opening remarks of welcome and endorsement for
the shoreline plan. He stressed the need to recognize competing interests in use of the shoreline.
Later Congressman Peter Visclosky and Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore Superintendent Dale
Engquist also endorsed the shoreline planning process as a way to achieve coordination and
resolve conflicts.

A representative of the Beverly Shores Town Council urged provision of additional
parking at the Central Avenue beach to encourage use of this location and reduce pressure on
other National Park Service beaches in that community.

A spokesman for the Northern Indiana Public Service Company described the company's
plans for development of condominiums units, a restaurant and other facilities at the Crescent
Dune area. The plan was criticized by several speakers who made two main points. One was
that the area should be included in expansion of the National Lakeshore. The other was that the
federal government would become liable for erosion control if the beach were donated to public
use as the company had proposed.

Prevention of development in wetlands as well as the shoreline was urged by speakers
in addition to preservation of the Migrant Trap at Whiting. Water quality in tributaries, fish
consumption advisory notices and beach closings due to high coliform bacteria counts were cited
as concerns.

1-8

Erosion control was called for both to protect private property and to protect natural
features of the shoreline such as Mount Baldy. One speaker urged that a single authority be
given responsibility for enforcing boating and noise restrictions.

While several speakers called for increased public access to the shoreline, one speaker
stated that there is already enough public access and that private development should be
encouraged. Several speakers specifically called for restriction of private development in the
Crescent Dune area.

The need to resolve conflict between boating access and swimming use in the Sheridan
Shores section of Michigan City was cited but conflicts between boaters and swimmers received
less attention in this meeting than at Portage and Gary.

Most of the discussion in the question period concerned the Crescent Dune controversy.
Several comments suggested that development of the area would either increase erosion or that
the buildings of the development would be subject to erosion.

SUMMARY

Overall the need for development of a comprehensive shoreline plan appears to have been
confirmed by the results of the four shoreline meetings and in additional comments received by
mail. There appears to be most urgent need to resolve questions of enforcement responsibility
for boating activities and to improve public understanding of where boating access is restricted
at present. The participation in the meetings and the response to public information efforts
suggest that a broad range of issues in addition to boating access should be addressed in a
planning process for future use of the shoreline.

1-9

ATTACBAUM I

ISSUES DISCUSSED IN PUBLIC MEETINGS
AND VaZITTEN COMMENTS AND NUMBER OF MENTIONS*

BOATING ACCESS, SAFETY AND ENFORCEMENT

1. Endorse continued boating access to beaches (29)**

2. Endorse more boating restrictions on beaches to protect swimmers (21)**

3. Need for better marking system/public information for restricted areas (6)

4. Need for more enforcement of boating restrictions (9)

5. Need for more boater education on safety (6)

6. Need for more enforcement on boating violations for noise, speed or
drunkenness (8)

7. Need for clarification of jurisdictional authority/proposal for single
enforcement authority (6)

8. Open State Park Beach to boating access (3)

9. Provide comfort stations and litter baskets for boaters (3)

10. Need for safe haven for small boats in emergencies (4)

PUBLIC ACCESS, PRESERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT

11. Need for more public access to shoreline (28)

12. Restrict public access to shoreline (2)

13. Increase public access for fishing (5)

14. Increase free public access at marinas (3)

15. Develop additional marinas (1)

16. Restrict marina development (1)

17. Use/lease industrial land to increase public access (3)

1-10

18. Protection/recognition of private property rights (4)

19. Preserve natural areas (34)

20. Preserve Migrant Trap at Whiting (13)

21. Develop Crescent Dune (2)

22. Prevent Crescent Dune development (12)

23. Concern about public liability for erosion control if beach is given
to National Park Service by NIPSCO (4)

24. Prevent private/industrial development on shoreline (5)

25. Restrict lakefill (5)

EROSION CONTROL

26. Endorse setback regulations (8)

27. Call for regulation of lake levels (3)

28. Need for erosion control (9)

29. Endorsement for beach nourishment (7)

WATER QUALITY, POLLUTION AND LAND USE

30. Concerns about water quality and pollution (11)

31. Concerns about wetlands, stormwater runoff and sediment from
tributaries (4)

32. Prohibit/regulate off-road recreational vehicles (2)

SHORELINE PLANNING

33. Endorsement of planning process/shoreline plan (24)

34. Oppose shoreline planning (2)

35. Suggest coordination between Calumet Area Remedial Action Plan and
shoreline plan (1)

36. Urge coordinated planning among jurisdictions (5)

37. Develop shoreline as tourist attraction (4)

38. Seek Build Indiana funds for shoreline development (2)

SPECIFIC PROJECT PROPOSALS

39. Restore Lake Street and Marquette Park areas (3)

40. Establish 100 foot wide boating access corridors at every third
street on Miller Beach (1)

41. Increase parking access to Central Avenue Beach National Lakeshore
in Beverly Shores (1)

42. Establish a new fish hatchery in Wolf Lake (1)

43. Protect submerged cultural resources (1)

44. Create a greenway connection to Illinois shoreline (1)

45. Cover National Lakeshore parking lots with asphalt (1)

46. Pay cost of shoreline improvements locally (1)

47. Allow Hovercraft access for shuttle/cruise operations (1)

48. Add spur tours in Lake and Porter Counties to Lake Michigan Circle
Tour (1)

49. Allow development of a hotel/conference center on lakeshore (2)

50. Add bikeways and trails for public access (1)

51. Allow fishing access to west breakwater at Port of Indiana (2)

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

52. Complaint about lack of notice of public meetings (1)

1-12

53. Complaint about lack of public notice for Rails to Trails plan

54. Concern about late issuance of brochure prior to first meeting

55. Single permit process proposed for efficiency and to increase
public participation

The number of mentions of issues is greater than the number of participants in meetings
and written comments received because many comments concerned, more than one issue.
No statistical analysis of these numbers would be valid.

These numbers are for statements in person or by mail. See Attachment 2 for wording
of petitions also submitted for and against boating access as noted in text of report.

1-13

ATTAC11MENT 2

WORDING OF PETITIONS SUBMITTED FOR SHORELINE PLAN

1. PETITION TO MAINTAIN BOATING ACCESS AT MILLER BEACH

A total of 18 pages with 269 signatures

TO: NIRPC-SHORELINE PLAN

To Whom It May Concern:

As homeowners, boat owners, state taxpayers, marina users, we want to be able to use
the shoreline and have access to beaches that are now available to us. We do not want
to lose the right to have easy access from the lake to facilities for food, washrooms, pay
telephones and emergency assistance.

We do not want to change the laws that affect our rights of access to the beach, in the
Miller Beach area, from Montgomery Street to County Line Road.

2. PETITION TO PROHIBIT BOATS ON HALF OF BEACH AT OGDEN DUNES

Five pages submitted with total of 85 signatures.

Since swimmers make up at least half of the Ogden Dunes population, we, the
undersigned, want half of the Ogden Dunes beach designated "No Boats".

3. 1989 PETITION TO MAINTAIN BOATING ACCESS AT MILLER BEACH

Copies of a a petition to maintain boating access in Miller Beach area that was circulated
in late 1989. A total of 27 pages with 364 signatures.

1-L14

ATTACHMENT 3

SELECTED EXCERPTS FROM SHORELINE MEETING STATEMENTS

"I hope the areas in question are preserved, studied and appreciated as unique and
naturally successful ecosystems ... If anything is to be developed we must consider the negative
results of the actions we take ... I am concerned with ... the natural filtering system of the
wetlands. " Porter.

2. "1 do agree that there should be some type of a management plan put into effect for the
Indiana shore of Lake Michigan ... The driving force for a plan is the need for safer enforceable
regulations concerning uses and abuses ... The State Park should specify a mile or so of beach
for a boat'in beach..." Dune Acres.

3. "1 want to speak on behalf of protecting boaters' rights to park on the beach in Miller...
I purchased my home in part because I want to access my boat safely from my home for fishing
and general recreation. One exception to my position deals with jet skis. They are becoming
a problem and special areas should be designated for their use." Gary.

4. "Indiana needs a comprehensive lakeshore management plan. I am glad to see the
Indiana Department of Natural Resources and NIRPC working toward a full scale study of
shoreline issues. " Highland.

5. "...it is important that there be preserve (sic) in Hammond a natural area that is on the
lakeshore. " Hammond.

6. 11 ... more and better fishing sites for shore fishermen. The Jeorse Park isn't safe for small
children or elderly and the port is too high from the water. " Merrillville.

7. "Boats should be allowed to anchor anywhere they please, except to interfere with harbor
access or shipping lanes." Morocco.

8. "Local municipalities and users should pay for shoreline improvements ... it seems that
something is viewed as far more valuable and more respected when one pays for it out of one's
pocket ... it is imperative that all people have equal access to the shoreline." Hammond.

9. "All remaining areas of shoreline should be devoted to low-impact recreation-No
industrial or residential development should be allowed directly on the shoreline. Industry and
residential developers can utilize inland locations but beach users obviously cannot." Hobart.

10. "1 am definitely in favor of having boats along the Ogden Dunes shore ... There is much
greater danger of drowning in the lake than being struck by a boat and being injured." Ogden
Dunes.

1-15

11. "My main concern is that government gets into planning to fix what isn't broken... A few
good enforcement rules on the use of the lakeshore, concurrent jurisdiction between state, county
and city governments, enough manpower (personpower) to enforce these sensible
rules ... understanding of the ebb and flow of lake levels and we will have the best use of a
unique natural resource that will accommodate just about everyone." Gary.

12. "Priority ... long term goal of returning the lakeshore to its original state, including where
possible, restoration of natural areas, removal of lakefills, generous setback laws and cleaner
industrial and citizen use." Schererville.

13. "No residential, commercial or industrial development on the shoreline. Erosion is big
problem. Keep marinas out of Lake Michigan. Stress water quality, especially no wastewaters
from industry." Portage.

14. "There should be private rights first... Land should be sold to whoever has the money.
Boating safety could be one of education ... The environmentalists would make all of Indiana a
park if they thought they could. Enough is enough." Valparaiso.

15. "Human needs before economics for a change." East Chicago.

16. "The Pottawatomi Audubon Society advocates that all undeveloped Indiana shoreline stay
undeveloped and that private development occur only on existing industrial and commercial
sites. " LaPorte.

17. "1 and my friends and family would be very upset if they ban boats from the beach."
Hobart.

18. "There are not enough public access locations to beaches and there are too many
problems at existing beaches which has caused me to quit going there." Lake Station.

19. "Identify safe swimming areas. Profit from State of Michigan experience in making
setback rules/development... Push sand nourishment program." Ogden Dunes.

20. "Acquisition of Crescent Dune before planned destruction by NIPSCO is vital." Beverly
Shores.

21. "Public/private partnership (is needed) in preserving beach and shore areas. " Dune
Acres.

22. "Safe the Migrant Trip from destruction. It's for the birds." Hammond.

23. "My experience supports the proposition that the safety of swimmers is not compromised
by off-the-beach operation of nonmotorized sailing craft ... I have never been involved in an
incident causing bodily injury or damage to someone else's property." Ogden Dunes.

1-16

24. "We are bathers and firmly believe that swimmers and boaters do NOT mix ... Mixing the
two together is an accident waiting to happen." Ogden Dunes.

25. "The impact of the marina and its related projects has yet to be absorbed in the small
communities of Robertsdale and Whiting ... If there is a legacy for the Mayor of Hammond,
NIPSCO, and the IDNR, let it be a Bird Sanctuary on Hammond's lakefront. Let us leave
something for the next generation of people and support all wildlife species." Whiting.

26. "Access to Lake Michigan has to be parceled out so that the various uses are
accommodated--whether it be marina use (for small and large boats), people who want to swim
and bathe, whether they come by car or boat, as well as small boats that start out from the beach
and areas just for people who like to see just plain beach without any activity. " Michigan City.

27. "Free access for boaters and beach users ... free access for hunting and fishing on Lake
Michigan ... free boat ramp." Whiting.

28. "Please save the Migrant Trap." Whiting.

29. "After heavy rains last summer the beaches at Ogden Dunes and the Indiana Dunes
National Lakeshore had to be closed because of high bacterial count ... This should not happen
if rain water was not being run into the sanitary sewers. Portage and other communities need
to enforce their sanitary code." Ogden Dunes.

30. "There is a severe problem with power-boaters, most of whom seem to be active
alcoholics, dumping garbage in the lake, etc." Portage.

31. "Boaters in this area follow the boating laws when nearing the shore. We have had no
injuries due to boaters along this shore line ... We do not need restrictions on motor boats, wind
surfers, or hobie cats. The beach is for fun, do not make it a swimmers only beach." Ogden
Dunes.

32. "No more landfills for industrial expansion. No marinas in the lake or lakeshore -- all
should be inland with access to the lake ... Leave the lake and shoreline as close as possible to
its natural condition. Man tries to change everything and it usually ends up causing more
problems." Michigan City.

33. 1 strongly recommend... lakefill bi-annually, to increase our shoreline and prevent
erosions which are caused by increased lake levels ... This program would not only provide
adequate bathing facilities but would stabilize/increase property values in the entire area.
Portage.

34. "Fishing access should be considered on all breakwaters including the west breakwall at
Port of Indiana. Boat in beaches should be set aside like the Wells Street beach and west of
Lake Street and west of the Port of Indiana and at the Black Ditch and Crescent Dune.
Chesterton.

1-17

35. "We see banning boat access to Ogden Dunes (and other) beach areas as a necessary step
towards fair and equitable use of the lake. A boater has the advantage of mobility and has
access to the entire lake." Ogden Dunes.

36. "The (Save the Dunes) Council believes the Lake Michigan fill law, especially the
amendment that was designed to accommodate the discredited 'Toxic Island' project, violates
the public trust doctrine, and conflicts with the public understanding of the purposes to which
our public resources are put. " Michigan City.

37. "In 1989, there were 26 incidents of beach closings along the Indiana shoreline due to
contaminated water ... More needs to be done to solve this problem and protect public health."
Michigan City.

38. "Many of us are here tonight to oppose State Representative Charlie Brown's proposal
#89-170L prohibiting water craft west of County Line Road to Warwick Street. Mr. Brown
does not own the beachfront, and neither does Mr. Crump." Portage.

39. "As far as Wells Street beach is concerned, if swimmers do not want to be with boaters,
there is plenty of beach to the east of Wells Street in the National Lakeshore. No boats are
allowed for several miles of beach." Hobart.

40. "The Remedial Action Plan and the Shoreline Plan should be coordinated and there
should be as much concern about drinking water and healthy fish as about beaches." Whiting.

41. "1 speak for the species that cannot speak for themselves--the birds, the animals, and
plant life. We must save the Migrant Trap for them." Whiting.

42. "A cooperative effort is needed all along the lakefront to satisfy all needs and users.
IDNR should provide the leadership." Hammond.

43. "As a pleasure boater, I have not been aware of problems between boaters and
swimmers." Gary.

44. "Most boaters are aware of boating and safety rules. Enforcement of existing rules will
solve the problems" Gary.

45. "A license to drive a boat should be required just as a license is required to drive a car."
Portage.

46. "Recreational use of the shoreline continues to grow as Illinois residents come here in
increasing numbers ... Virtually every public beach parking lot is full before noon on nice summer
days and many are turned away ... We are heavily promoting tourism on the lakeshore but what
will happen when people become discouraged because our existing beach areas are not large
enough to accommodate all the visitors?" Hobart.

47. "Preserve what we have left for the good of the public and for public use ... Clear up
misperceptions about where and where not boaters can go and clarify jurisdictions. Look at
model shore plans from other areas." Ogden Dunes.

48. "A community boating center can serve residents and visitors alike and use the shore as
an economic resource ... Public access should be linked to every kind of shore development."
Merrillville.

49. "We should maximize the possibilities for every use of the shoreline." Gary.

1-19

I
I
i
i
1:
0
4:
i
"a,
A.
AT"'FAC-1-4MENT' 4
'I 1-2C)
1
I

N EWS
NORTHWESTERN INDIANA REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION
8149 KENNEDY AVE, HIGHLAND, INDIANA 46322 / phom 923-1060

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT PERSON: Barbara Waxman
(219) 923-1060
(312) 731-2646

Planning for the future is the subject of four public

meetings in January and February to solicit opinions on the many,

and sometimes competing uses, of Indiana's 45 mile Lake Michigan

shoreline.

The meetings will take place from 7 to 9 p.m. at Whiting

City Hall on January 23rd, Gary City Hall on January 29th,

Portage City Hall on February 7th, and City Hall in Michigan City

on February 13th.

The Northwestern Indiana Regional Planning Commission

(NIRPC) will conduct the meetings under a contract with the

Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) as part of the

first phase in development of a shoreline plan. The preliminary

study will also include an inventory of past studies and plans, a

review of existing laws and regulations, and an assessment of the

advantages and disadvantages of Indiana's participation in the

federal Coastal Zone Management Program.

Ms. Barbara Waxman, Staff Planner at NIRPC, says that

citizens will be asked to address a wide range of shoreline

questions: "Are there enough public beaches, boat launch ramps,

or public access points to the shore? Are more marinas needed?

Where should lodging or other commercial facilities be built on

the-shore? How can safety be improved for commercial and

1-21

recreational navigation? What uses are appropriate for shoreline

land that industry no longer needs?"

Mr. Stephen E. Davis, Lake Michigan specialist for the IDNR,

said that "increased attention to shoreline issues is due to a

directive from the Indiana Natural Resources Commission calling

for a master plan to consider growing conflicts among shoreline

users."

Construction of new marinas, changing industrial needs, and

growing demand for public access to beaches and the lake, require

agreement on how to meet many different needs along the water's

edge, according to NIRPC.

Ms. Lee Botts consultant to NIRPC, will serve as facilitator

for the meetings. Speakers will be asked to summarize their

comments in three minute oral statements. Written comments can

be submitted at the meetings or by mail to: Shoreline Plan,

NIRPC, 8149 Kennedy Avenue, Highland, Indiana, 46322.

1-22

Richard B. Esposito Pasquale Rocchio
Publisher Managing Editor

EDITORIALS.-.-
Shoreline
Future of major resource
is. everyone's concern
0
ne of the major complaints of those opposed to
the recent National Lakeshore Enhancement
and Expansion Bill is that they were not told
about the pending legislation and had no chance to
respond to it.
That should not be the case with a pre-study being
conducted by the Northwest Indiana Regional Planning
Commission to identify important issues and questions
that must be answered before a shoreline plan is
formulated.
0
These issues include public access to boating, 0) 2@
beaches, fishing and bird watching; industry; marinas; 0) 9
navigation and ports; and water level fluctuations. U1
They are issues which touch almost everyone living or
working near the shoreline.
The Lake Michigan shoreline is as important and as
unique as the Grand Canyon, Yosemite, the Badlands,
Niagara Falls or any other national wonder which
comes to mind. The difference is that the fragile f1h
shoreline is surrounded by growing towns and cities
and a highly developed industrial complex.
It is its own worst enemy. Lake Michigan, which
created it, also has helped create the vast industrial
and civic complex which thrives along its shore.
While the shoreline is part of Indiana, we cannot
hoard it. Just as the other natural wonders in the
United States, it must be protected and made available
to others who wish to be rejuvenated by its splendor.
It also must be protected because it is essential in the
ecological makeup of Northwest Indiana. The shoreline
is the habitat of innumerable species of animals and
insects. Its flora includes plants which are found no
where else in the world. The wetlands surrounding it
aid in water purification.
Yet the industry and towns bordering it provide
livelihood and economic muscle for not only Northwest
Indiana but the state and nation.
For these reasons the extent of protection and who
should provide it will be a key issue. It is important the
planning commission receives as much information as
possible from various groups.
Four public meetings are slated with the first Jan. 23
in the Whiting City Council Chambers. The
Vidette-Mmenger will publicize each meeting and
report on the discussions and suggestions.
There can"be-no complaints in the spring that "we
weren't informed."

1-23

State surveying p --- ublic about uses of shoreline
PORTAGE, Ind. (AP) - A se- permitted on the beach?" encing rapid change.
ries of public meetings will begin For instance, Hammond and, The preliminary study also will
next month to solicit opinions on the Michigan City and other communi- include an inventory of existing
many, sometimes competing uses of ties are developing new marinas studies and plans; an assessment of
Indiana's Lake Michigan shoreline. with will create much more boat the advantages and disadvantages
Four meetings will be held be- traffic, she said. "There's concern associated with Indiana's participa-
tween mid-January and mid-Febru- about safety in these areas for the tion in a coastal zone management
ary in Michigan City, Gary, Whiting swimmers," she said. plan; a reportidentifying conflicting
and another city, Lee Botts, a con- Some of the other shoreline is- or inadequate laws and regulations;
sultant to the Northwest Indiana Re- sues to be considered are protection and the formation of a committee to
gional Planning Commission who of wildlife habitats and private prop- prepare the development plan.
will facilitate the meetings, said Sat- erty, public access to bird-watching Botts said the planning commis-
urday. areas, tourism, and fluctuations in sion has received a $38,000 con-
We expect to get much more water levels, Botts said. tract from the Indiana Department
sense about what the issues for the The public meetings represent a of Natural Resources to hold the-
shoreline are," she said in a tele- first step in a preliminary study for a meetings. Once the meetings are
phone interview. "Is there enough shoreline management plan. Such a over, area legislators will request
public access to the beach? Where plan was recommended by the Gen- additional state funding for further
should new industry be located? eral Assembly earlier this year for development of the shoreline plan,
Should n w private development be 45 miles of shoreline now expen- she said.

1-24

AIL-_
M
eet
wei la e s uses

t", 5 sessions will study issues for theshoreline are,- she said Saturday.
U1
should new industry be located? Should new p va Vhere id change.
"Is there enough public access to the beach? V this year for 45 miles of shoreline now experiencing rap-
ri te de- The preliminary study also will include an inventory
shoreline development velopment be permitted on the beach?" of existing studies and plans; an assessment of the ad.
For instance, Hammond and Michigan -City and vantages and disadvantages associated with Indiana's
The Associated Press Other communities are developing new marinas that participation in a coastal-zone management plan; a re-
will create much more boat traffic, she said. port identifying conflicting or inadequate laws and reg.
"There's concern about safety in these areas for the ulations; and the formation of a committee to prepare
PORTAGE - A series of public meetings will begin 4 swimmers," she said. onsidered the development plan.
next month to solicit opinions on the -many, sometimes Some of the other shoreline issues to be c anning- commis
1171
gh

competing uses of Indiana's Lake Michigan shoreline. are protection of wildlife habitats and private o erty, Botts said the pl sion has received a
P' Tfluc- $38,000 contract from the -Indiana Department of Natu-
Four meetings will be held between mid-January and public access to bird-watching areas, tourism, an
mid-February in Michigan City, Gary, Whiting and an. tuations in water levels, Botts said. ral Resources to hold the meetings. Once the meetings
other city, said Lee Botts, a consultant to the North- The public meetings represent a first step in a b over, area legislators will request additional state
gre im- are
inary study for a shoreline management plan uch a funding for further development of the shoreline plan,
west Indiana Regional Planning Commission.
"We expect to get much more sense about what the plan was recommended by the General Assembly earlier she said.

NIRPC does study for Lake Mchigan shore
By PHIL WIELAND recreational boaters to the lakefront. All the meetings start at 7 p.m.,
Times Staff Writer Waxman said problems already have and speakers will be allowed three
arisen from boaters coming too close minutes. A question and answer pe-
With growing use and competi- to swimmers, commercial boaters riod will follow the speakers' presen-
tion for space along the 45-mile competing with recreational boaters, tations.
Lake Michigan shoreline in Indiana, boaters complaining of the lack of In addition to the public meetings,
the state is interested in developing a shore anchorage and other hazards. the planning commission has hired
comprehensive, coordinated plan to "The shoreline is so intensely Purdue University professors Joseph
eliminate problems and provide im- used that unless we develop a plan, O'Leary and Paul Dubowy to gather
proved public access. the problems will increase," she said. information on the available litera-
Toward that goal, the Northwest- "We are really interested in how the ture to help with the plan, and lawyer
ern Indiana Regional Planning Com- public feels about the shoreline. David Hollenbeck to review the ex-
mission will hold a series of public There is a tremendous recognition in isting laws governing shoreline use.
meetings as part of a preliminary Northwest Indiana that the shoreline Environmental activist Lee Botts
study for the development of a plan is important and several things have has been hired as an advisor for the
for the Indiana Department of Natu- happened that make this important." study and will serve as moderator for
ral Resources. The modernization of the steel in- the public meetings. The NIRPC is qj
"This is a study to do a study," dustry is freeing up more land for doing the study under a $38,000 con-
said Barbara Waxman, project direc- new use. Also, the continued marina tract with the IDNR. 4
tor for the Lake Michigan Marina development will increase recre- "We want to make sure this 'in- N
Development Commission. "We will ational boating, creating additional credible resource is fully but carefid-
gather information so that once they concern for safety, boater education ly used by all that want to use it,"
do the study they will have the data and the environment, she said. Waxman said. J
to guide them." The public meetings will be held "We want to accommodate pub- -
Waxman said each of the entities Jan. 23 at VVhiting city hall, Jan. 29 lic access, which has always been
occupying the shoreline - communi- at Gary city hall, Feb. 7 at Portage difficult. We hope to improve access
ties, industries, etc. - will be contact- city hall and Feb. 13 at Michigan and public amenities so people can
ed about their plans for use of the City city hall. enjoy the beauty of the lake."
shore.
She also plans to look into the
benefits of the federal coastal zone
management program. Indiana is
one of only five coastal states not in-
volved in the program, which offers
guidance and funding for shoreline
activities.
Opening of the Hammond marina
this yew will add about 1,000 more

1-26

Planned heakings wiffin's, iontensify,
spoth ght on lake's - shoreline
By Rich James and Michigan City City Hall Feb. marina in East Chicago with an-
Staff writer 13. Each session is from 7 to 9 p.m. other to open in Hammond this
Barbara Waxman, a NIRPC plan- spring. Gary and P e are pla@-
The future of Indiana's Lake ner heading the project, said con- ning marinas and DrUgan City is
Michigan shoreline - a 45-mile struction of new marinas, changing working on expansion of its facil-
recreational and industrial jewel - industrial needs and growing de-
will be the subject of four public mand for public access to beaches ity6ary Mayor Thomas V. Barnes""'N
hearings during the next month as and the lake are among the issues plan to build casinos on USS Gary N
the state begins developing a shore- that prompted the study. Works property on the lakeshoreN@
line management plan. Waxman said, "Are there enough has focused attention on land in-
The Northwestern Indiana Re- public beaches, boat launch ramps dustry no longer is using.
gional Planning Commission or public access points to the Should the state not legalize casi-
(NIRPQ under a contract with the shore? Are more marinas needed? nos, an alternate Barnes plan is for
Indiana Department of Natural Re- Where should lodging or other construction of a theme park/mar-
sources (DNR), will engineer the commercial facilities be built on ina combination. Even with casi-
first phase of the study, with results the shore? How can safety be im- nos, Gary intends to pursue marina 1Z
due by late spring. proved for commercial and recre- development.
Stephen E. Davis, a Lake Michi- ational navigation? What uses are
ga ecialist with DNR, said the appropriate for shoreline land that Those attending the Ipublic 8@8- 111Z@.
DJWp
la
st year called for develop- industry no longer needs?" sions will be asked to summarize t
ment of a master plan "to consider There has been considerable pub- their comments in three-minute
growing conflicts among shoreline lic attention on the shoreline since statements while submitting more
users.pf the Indiana General Assembly cre- extensive written comments.
The hearings are set for Whiting ated the Lake Michigan Marina Comments also can be mailed to 4r.@
City Hall Jan. 23,-Gary City Hall Development Commission in 1985. NIRPC, 8149 Kennedy Ave., Hi
Jan. 29, Portage City Hall eb. 7 That has led to the opening of a land, Ind. 46322.

1-27

Tuesday, January 22, 1991

7-
William E. Howard, publisher
TM
Richard High, general manager
IMES, 0 .
.... . .. William Nangle, executive editor
Established Januaty 17, 1904
Published at 601 W. 45th Ave., Munster, Ind. 46321

EDITORIALS
Lake Michigan needs your help
The issue: Reclaiming Indiana's Lake Michigan shoreline
Our opinjon: Residents need to make their opinions heard

People often lament the use to which Michigan City Hall.
we've put the Lake Michigan shoreline in We urge residents to attend the hearings'
Indiana. and present their ideas on what they'd like
Historically, the shore was given over to to see done to improve public access to the
heavy industrial use. The pristine parks take.
were left for Chicago. A series of questions needs addressing.
All that is changing as more and more For instance, are there enough boat launch
land along the lake in Indiana is being re- ramps? Should new industrial uses along
claimed for public use. A plan is in forma- the lake be allowed? Should private resi-
tive stages that will help govern what is dential development be allowed9
done with the lakeshore in the future. The hearings are important in deciding
The Northwestern Indiana Regional the future of Indiana's 45-mile Lake
Planning Commission begins a series of Michigan shoreline. Since public officials
hearings today providing the public input are asking, we think it is imperative citi-
to a comprehensive plan being developed zens take time to voice their opinions.
by the state. If no one speaks up, the bureaucrats will
The hearing will be held at 7 p.m. at make the decisions, and we'll be forced to
Whiting City Hall. Other hearings will be live with lakeshore development that may
held at 7 p.m. Jan. 29 at Gary City Hall, not match the wishes of people living in
Feb. 7 at Portage City Hall and Feb. 13 at the area.

7@- ---T-

In an editorial published Tuesday, The held Tuesday.
Times urged residents to attend one in a se- A hearing will be held at 7 tonight at
ries of hearings being held to gain input for Whiting City Hall. Other hearings are
a plan for future development of Lake scheduled for 7 p.m. Jan. 29 at Gary City
*_Z Michigan's shoreline in Indiana. It was in- Hall, Feb. 7 at Portage City Hall and Feb.
correctlyreported that a he-iring would be 13 at Michigan City Hall.
T

1-28

-Sh.o're'
maj.or
CU
..fib S
Lee Botts, NIRPC consultant
by Susan A. Emery will act as facilitator for th@
The Vidette-Messenger meetings. Botts has been in-
:tr ntal in developing the pre-
tt@
d7e
PORTAGE - Northwest y which includes an inven-
diana residents will get a chance tory of existing studies -and
today to discuss uses for the plans, an assessment of the ad-
Lake Michigan shoreline. vantages and disadvantages of
The first of a* series of four Indiana's participation in the
public meetings is scheduled to Coastal Zone Management Plan,
be conducted at@ 7 p.m. at the a report identifying conflicting or
inadequate laws and regulations,
Whiting City Hall, 1443 119ffi St,
The 45 miles of shoreline are and the formation of a committee
rapidly changing.and have been to prepare the plan.
claimed by many groups for The meeUgs will help NIRPC
their needs. Marina owners and decide whether existing laws and
developers, boaters, en- regulations are adequate, and
vironmentalists and industry gain input to help make the most.
people have been especially efficient use of the shoreline.
vocal in their demands. Botts outlined a list of several
Kn order to accommodate these issues which ere intended to
groups, the development of a stimulate p w
ublic awareness and
shoreline management plan Was thinking on the lakeshore. She
recommended by the General maintains although the meetings
Assembly's Natural Resources are being conducted to determine
Commission last year. The and balance groups' concerns,
shoreline planning process in- discussion should focus on the
cludes identifying issues, estab- issues which have been identi-
lishing goals, pr?posing alterna- fied.
dves, reaching agreement, de- Issues include public access to
veloping strategy and Im- boating, beaches and fishing;
plementing the plan. @ industry; marinas; navigation
Before the plan cam be devel- and ports; water level fluctua-
0
4 a PrelirRiAarY study Will be tions; protection of wildlife and
13G
conducted by the Northwestern private property; handicapped
Indiana Regional Planning access; tourism; and the re-
Commission. The. public meet- sponsibilities and jurisdiction of
ings are the first gep in the pre- different shoreline agencies.
study.

1-29

Lake Michigan
Planning needs to start now;
As Northwest Indiana awakens to the economic
potential of its Lake Michigan s'horeline, planning for its
use becomes crucial. It would be horrible - both for the
sake of appearance and of the envir.onment - if -20 years
from now the lakeshore from Whiting to Michigan City
resembled the U.S. 30 corridor through Lake County.
Things are finally getting under way to create a
master plan for future shoreline use, under the direction
of the Indiana Department of Natural Resources (DNR).
A growing conflict among those wanting to use the
shoreline triggered the state's concern. - .
Public comment is the first step. People interested in
what happens to the area's most valuable natural
resource should take the time and make the effort to
speak up in an informed way.
Among issues that need to be settled are:
N How much public access should there be? What
should be done when public and private rights clash?
0 Should new industrial or residential development
be allowed on the lake and if so where?
11 What should be done with land that industry no
longer needs? Could old waste disposal sites be used for
something if they are cleaned up? If so, what?
N What is the best way to assure boating safety on the
lake? How should increased boat traffic be handled?
N How many more marinas are needed? Where should
they be? How will public access be determined?
N How much commercial development should be
allowed and where?
.11 How should the shoreline be protected from erosion
and other environmental disasters; where should wildlife
habitat and natural areas be preserved?
The DNR has asked the Northwestern Indiana
Regional Planning Commission (NIRPQ to conduct
public hearings to get a feel for what the people want.
The first one is today from 7-9 p.m. at Whiting City Hall.
Others will held at the same time Tuesday at Gary City
Hall; on Feb. 7 at Portage City Hall; and on Feb. 13 at
Michigan City City Hall.
People also can send written suggestions to Shoreline
Plan, NIRPC, 8149 Kennedy Ave., Highland, IN 46322.
Now is the time for citizens to ensure that the '
shoreline is recouped as much as possible and developed
responsibly. e-In r",
MSIL- L) mg, / A23

1-30

Auk
zihore

0 * .1,
i.n put we should think before wc
N take any more away from thf
animal and plant life that need t.
so desperafely," Dorothy Pot.
ven. ucek of Whiting said.
--- - -- Although NIRPC and the DNF
are currently working on thf
by Susan A. Emery shoreline local agencie,
The Vidette-Messenger must play V lky role *in its for.
WHITING - - -Local residents mation.
received the opportunity "We need a multi-jurisdictional
Wednesday to help decide the task'force with the tourism de.
future of the Lake Michigan partment and the state highway
shoreline. department. It's important that
A public meeting at Whiting we approach this (plan) in an all-
City Hall sponsored by the in, manner," formez
Nortliwestern Indiana Regional =MPE@uncjl member Geortc
planning Commission was con- VanTil of Highland said.
ducted here to help NIRPC and Hammond Mayor Thomas M.
)@N, the state Department of Natural McDermott answered questions
from the public during the dis-
Resources determine whether cussion session which followed
existing laws and regulations are the presentations. While ad-
adequate and identify restions
vocating the environment,
that should be addresse as use McDermott defended industry
of the shoreline increases.. which has supported the area.
About 20 residents @each made "Industry has provided us with
three-minute presentations on the a great standard of living for a
identified issues they felt to be number of years. We need to4o
most important. The majority of the best we can to work with
the speakers were concerned them and encourage them to
with public access to beaches,
boating and fishing; boat and kee ent clean," he
saiT our environm,
water safety regulations; the ,
environment; and the limitation Lee Botts, NIRPC consultant,
of industrial use. was facilitator at the meeting.
"We need boat access to beach Botts has been working on a pre-
study for a shoreline manage-
areas and boating safety classes ment plan. The series of four
should be mandatory, " Ham- public meetings is the first step
mond bwt owner Dave Bloom
wd.., . in the pre-study.
"The shoreline must be saved "The purpose is to try and give
L13 as much as possible in its natural everyone a chance to speak.
state, We've had too much of a Whether or not there Is a formal
blacktop mentality," Cedar Lake 1 planning process to develop a
shoreline management plan de-
resident Barbara Dodge said.
"Public safety along the pends on these meetings," she
shoreline should be a priority. It said, adding development of the
@4 should be public land with free plan was not mandatory.
access and support all wildlife The next public meeting will be
species," Carolyn Marsh of conducted at 7 p.m. Tuesday at
Whiting said. Gary City Hall, 401 Broadway.
"Fog, safety sake there should Subsequent meetings will take
be more public launching place at 7 p.m. Feb. 7 at Portage
ramps", said Robert Metnick of City Hall; and at 7 p.m. Feb. 13
wNting. at the Michigan City city Hall.

1-31

Marina advisors
debate shoreline plan

By Courtney Van Lopik As the beginning of the process to "de-
velop a master plan or other broad process
In the speediest meeting of the General Ad- to consider watercraft usage in Indiana wa-
visory Committee (GAC) to take the Lake tam adjacent to Lake Michigan," an pertinent
Michigan Marina Development Commission informafion will be gathered about the shore-
line.
(LMMDC), Chairman Mel Griem told about
a survey of several hundred to 1,000 boaters Public comment will be sought about regula-
who were asked what they think about what's tory jurisdiction, watercraft law enforce-
being done in Indiana. ment, and conflicts along Lake Michigan's
The surveyor was to appear at the January shoreline between various users.
meeting, but was unable to come, so will be
on the March agenda. According to the survey, Those responsible for management and pro-
boaters are concerned most about din in the protection of the shoreline, according to the bro-
water and air in Indiana, and am confused chure, are "complicated by the involvement
about the boat tax. of many public agencies as well as the broad
Griem told the advisors that Barbara Wax- range of private interests." Government
man, Project Director Lee Botts, who is un- agencies include the following at the federal
der contract with Northwestern Indiana Region- level: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; U.S En-
al Plan Comission (NIRPC) to facilitate vironmental Protection Agency (EPA); U.S.
four public meetings as a part of the shore- Fish and Wildlife Service; National Park Serv-
line planning process, and Steve Davia, Lake vice, and U.S. Coast Guard. At the state level
Michigan expert for the Indiana Department are the Indiana Department of Environment-
al Management and Management and DNR. At the county level
of Natural Resources (DNR), begun to are county sheriffs, and municipal govern-
explore shoreline planning by meeting with ments and their police forces, which enforce
the various environmental groups. local zoning and building regulations.
A draft of the pre-public meeting brochure According to Griem, the intent is "con-
was distributed to those who had not already structive legislation to fit with what Indiana
received one and all were encouraged to at. is all about - an attractive place to work, live
tend one or more of the four scheduled meet- and visit."
ings. At the meeting Mike Doyne reported no
Issues and concerns raised included: need news on the Beat Excise Tex.
for public access; need for handicapped access; Local 1014, of the United Steelworkers of
need for shoreline protection methods/devices; America (USWA) and the Great Lakes Sport

eliminate discussion of navigation, poets, and Fishing Council were to be recommended to
level fluctuation in the publication; protect membership with the decision to be made by
natural arm/public access must be sensitive the marine commission's mayors.
to the environment; lake level controls; hunt-
ing on the lake; private property on or near The Work Program Committee will be re-
the shoreline, and wildlife preservation. vised at the next meeting scheduled for March

The meetings will be held from 7 to 9 p.m. on The Hammond marine is scheduled to be
Jan. 23 at Whiting City Hall, Jan. 29 at Gary opened April 1 and will be the third largest
City Hall, Feb. 7 at Portage City Hall and Marina in the U.S.
Feb. 13 at Michigan City Hall.

1-32

Pictures teff story of sho* refine's beauty
By PHIL WIELAND To illustrate his point, Stevens did Chicago's East Side and used to take
Times Staff -Wdter watercolor portraits of prickly-pear him to Whiting Park when he was a'
cacti, six-lined race-runner lizards child, but they didn't remember its
The Lake Michigan shoreline of- (eating ants) and,ruby throated hum- scenery, he said.
fers many natural wonders, and Doug mingbirds. Stevens said he didn't find More than 50 people attended the
Stevens hopes local officials finally out about the meeting until the last hearing, said Barbara Waxman, project
are getting the picture. minute and spent three days with his director for the marina commission.
Stevens, a Munster naturalist and paints and a pot of hot coffee putting They spoke about preserving the
artist, provided his own portrayals dur- the pictures on canvas. wooded area west of the Hammond
ing a recent public meeting at Whiting "I made a special effort for the oc- marina that is a rest area for migrating
City Hall. The meeting, sponsored by casion," he said. "Any plans for the birds.
the Lake Michigan Marina Develop- lake shore have to take these forms of Others spoke residential and indus-
ment Commission, was one of four wildlife into account. I thought it trial development; of the need for
being held to gather information for a would bring it home more clearly with more public access to the lakefront,
management plan for Indiana's Lake pictures." and more public boat launches; for
Michigan shore. Whiting City Planner Dan Botich more boat access and boater safety
The next meeting of the shoreline offered a different sort of pictorial courses; of the importance of water
study panel is 7 tonight at Gary city proof of the necessity of preserving quality and long-range planning; and
hall, 401 Broadway. The meeting is t e a eshore. Botich said he took sev- the need for trails and using the lake-
open to the public. eral photographs of Whiting Park after front for a variety of recreation.
"I'm a naturalist and I lived in a snowfall a few weeks ago. The pic- Hammond Mayor Thomas McDer-
Whiting for four years, so I got to tures got mixed with some he took mott said there has been a lot of crit.i-
know the habitat pretty well," Stevens during his Colorado snowmobiling trip cism of plans to build marinas. He said
said. "I wanted to inform the residents early this month. nobody cared when the shore was lit-
about the lakeshore. I felt many didn't Botich told the hearing panel that, tered with trash, but now that it Is
know about the creatures and the when his parents saw the pictures, it being cleaned up and developed for
many areas near the shore that haven't was the Whiting Park pictures they public use, some people want to pre-
been decimated." asked about. His parents live on serve it "the way it was."

1-33

Friday, February 8, 1991 The News-Dispatch, Michigan City, IN

Shoreline management plan scrutinized'
By Paullene Poparad conservationists and lakefront protect," said Froman. Davis said the DNR and others
News-Dispatch correspondent homeowners. Ogden Dunes Town Councilman have not objected to the illegal
Bob Van Berg, president of Frank Stimson said there will be no buoys because they serve a useful
PORTAGE - Beach access for Salmon Unlimited, opposed trap shoreline to manage if beach purpose. Said Mallonee, "We don't
boaters, more public fishing sites, nets and requested more free launch nourishment isn't undertaken. think we have the answer, but it's a
improved water quality, swimmers sites and expanded parking. Boater Steve Davis of the DNR said up to start."
safety and consistent enforcement Bob Null drew applause when he 500,000 cubic yards of sand to be
of uniform laws have been ident- Davis said his goal is for the
said, "We have a lot of fun with our removed from Burns Waterway Indiana shoreline to be managed as
Lake Michigan shoreline manage- al
ified as critical elements of a new families and don't want to see that may be used for Ogden Dunes beach a whole taking into account I
ment plan. restrained in any way." replenishment if the sand type is affected jurisdictions.
A standing-room-only crowd of But Christine Koste) said many compatible.
more than 60 people jammed boaters have the attitude that they Save the Dunes Council ex-
Portage City Hall last night for own the lake. Commented boat ecutive director Charlotte Read
Porter County's only hearing on the owner Barbara Null, "I do not feel said history has done a terrible job
plan, sponsored by the North- just because you live near the lake of protecting public property from
western Indiana Regional Planning you have priority over it, or me." private interests and suggested that
Commission and the Indiana De- Janet Davis of Porter Beach only water-related development be
partment of Natural Resources. complained that some boaters are allowed along the shoreline.
The fourth and final hearing is noisy and inconsiderate; Dan Read also said public recreational
slated for 7 p.m. Wednesday at Toomey said deepwater swimmers use of the 20 miles of industrially
Michigan City City Hall. shouldn't be forced instead to wade owned lakefront should be explored.
NIRPC has a state grant to in shallow water in fear for their She predicted people of good will
compile a needs assessment for the safety. can agree on the fairest way to
45-mile shoreline; if additional Many boaters and swimmmers manage conflicts among competing
money is appropriated, proposed alike depend on Lake Michigan for users.
alternatives and a draft strategy their drinking water, said Charles Ben Mallonee of the Ogden
would he prepared for public com- Froman, president of Gary-Hobart Dunes Town Council explained how
nient. Specific areas being ad- Water Corp., which serves 250,000 a twin set of buoys creating a buffer
dressed are beach access, industrial customers in Lake and Porter coun- zone along that community beach
uses, shore protection, private de- ties. He said the utility has found up has allowed swimmers and boaters
velopment, ports and navigational to 2 million fecal coliform or- to co-exist. However, some of those
channels-and recreational marinas. ganisms in one cup of water. present criticized the buoys.
Boaters and sportfishers were in "If that isn't addressed we're apt Mallonee said the town has ap-
force last night as well as swimmers, to lose the resource we want to plied for a federal buoy permit.

1-34

A;,

CHESTERTON, INDIANA 46304 (IJSPS 130-100) FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 8,1991
uzens seek opubloic access
E In
to'Lake Micnigan shore
By VICIU URBANIK "I don't feel that just because you and federal governments have al-
Northwest Indiana residents live by the lake that you have any ready taken enough of the shoreline.
speaking at a public forum in Por- priority over me," she said. She called for government bodies to
tage Thursday overwhelmingly Alice Pickford, the owner- "tread lightly" on property owners
called for more public access to the /operator of Wells Street Beach, and to consider their feelings.
Lake Michigan shoreline. said boaters are already restricted at "They wouldn't be living there if
Boaters in particular said they do numerous sites along the short. She they didn't like the area," she said.
not want to see any more beachfront also said boats should not be restpic- Several people also raised con-
eliminated as boating accessible ted to 200 feea out in the water. cerns about the ongoing erosion
sites. Adults may be able to swim to the problem.
The forum which drew roughly shore, but it is too dangerous for Frank Stimson of Ogden Dunes
80 people, was called to hear public children to do so, she said. noted that during high lake levels a
input on a proposed shoreline Tom Serynek of Gary said he few years ago, his town had no
management plan. The Ncrthwes- would like to see the conflicts bet- beach. A shoreline management
tern Indiana Regional Planning ween boaters and swimmers resol- plan needs to address the need for
Commission (NIRPQ and the -In- ved. There are wo many boating beach nourishment and to "make
diana Department of Natural and swimming areas along the lake sure we have a shoreline left to
Resources (DNR) hope to put that are accidents waiting to hap- manage."
together a plan to manage the many pen, he said. Charlotte Read of Tremont cited
conflicting uses along Indiana's 45- He also said the Indiana Dunes a recent report from a Purdue
mile shoreline., National Lakeshore has plans for a University professor who estimated
Lee Botts, an environmental con- boat-in beach at Crescent Dune. that property losses caused by
sultant hireA to oversee the Such plans would fall through if erosion could exceed the costs of
preliminary planning, said the park expansion opponents are suc- the Savings and Loans bailout.
public comments will help planners cessful in getting the dune privately Read said there has been tor,
determine what policies should be developed@ he said. much improper planning along the
enacted to address unmet needs and A few speakers, however, said shoreline. She called for a ban on
to resolve existing conflicts on the boaters should not benefit at the ex- lake fills, and said that public land
lake. pense of swimmers. has not always been adequately
Barbara Waxman, a NIRPC plan- Daniel Toomey of Ogden Dunes protected from private intrusion.
ner, said depending on when the In- said the increased number of boats She also said no new development
diana legislature approves the fun- in Lake Michigan poses a danger to should be allowed along the
ding, the management plan should swimmers who go out at least five shoreline unless it is strictly water-
be completed within two years. feet in the water. He said he does related.
Before it is finalized, another series not think it is fair to restrict swim- Several speakers also said the
of public meetings will be held to mers to two or 6uee feet of water so management plan needs to address
get input on the plan. that boaters can have more space. pollution in the lake. Several said
'Me concern expressed most of- Other speakers called for more that after heavy rains, they have
ten at the forum dealt with a lack of consideration for the people who witnessed severe pollution, ap-
accessibility. live along the lake. parently from treatment plants
Several boaters called for more Janet Davis of Porter Beach said bypassing sewage.
public access at the marinas, noting many lakefront residents are con- @ Residents can provide input on
that state tax dollars were used to cerned about the lake visitors. She how they would like to see the
build them. Others said they noted that there have been problems shoreline managed by submitting
strongly oppose a bill by Rep. Char- with boaters and jet skis at Porter comments to: Shoreline Plan,
lie Brown (D-Gary) to ban boats Beach. She also raised concerns NIRPC, 8149 Kennedy Ave., High-
9
1 ibixiir
b 0 n q@fi-

along Lake County beaches. about noise from boats without land, In., 46322.
Barbara Null, a boater from mufflers and about people who usle The fourth and final meeting thaL
Hobart, said the shoreline belongs alcohol and drugs. while boating. will be held for public invut will b2
to everyone, and that there needs to Liberty Township resident Sue next Wednesday, from 7 to 9 p.m.,
be better facilities for boaters. Showers said she befieves that local at Michigan City Hall.

1-35

Sunday Feb. 17, 1991
The Videt-Messenger

Opinion

Richard B. Esposito Pasquale Rocchio
Publisher Managing Editor

EDITORIALS
Good process
Shoreline plan meetings
provided invaluable input
It was done the way it should have been.
The state Department of Natural Resources
intends to formulate a Lake Michigan shoreline
management plan. That area of Lake, Porter,and
LaPorte counties is important to every facet of the lives
of those who live there. Their input is invaluable and
the DNR was wise to seek it out.
City Hall in Michigan City was the scene Wednesday
for the last of four public meetings sponsored by the
Northwestern Indiana Regional Planning Commission
to get this input.
NIRPC will prepare a scope of work, with
recommendations, based on comments received at the
meetings and will be present it to the DNR which will
use it to develop a plan. The planning process As
expected to begin in a few months.
Those attending the meeting brought up several
major issues on which decisions will have to made.
These include: boating access to beaches; safety for
swimmers; and protection for private property.
Other concerns include balancing lakeshore industry
with the need to preserve the environment; how to and
where to allow public access; preservation of natural
resources; and the need for public information
regarding who is responsible for determining water
laws and regulations.
The exercise was an excellent example of
participatory government. We anxiously await the
DNR's initial working plan and hope citizens have the
opportunity for further input.

1-36

Marina advisors
discuss shoreline

by Courtney Van Lopik
Issues too important to wait several years
have been brought out at the four public meet-
ings sponsored by the Northwestern Indiana
Regional Planning Commission and Indiana Waxman,in a letter to IDNR Director Pat- ing of representative from municipal, state
Department of Natural Resources, according rick Ralston, listed several steps which will and federal agencies to seek a consistent
to Steve Davis, Lake Michigan specialist of improve access to the shoreline by both swim- system for marking restricted areas.
the IDNR. mers and boaters.
Davis reported on the public meeting at Mike Doyne, of the advisory committee
Waxman said the situation for the coming said "Don't restrict the boaters from using
the lake Michigan Marina Development Com- swimmer will be improved by working with lo- the beach.
mission's Citizen's Advisory Committee meet- Waxman said the aim is to distribute a

ing held March 20. cal communities and agencies with enforce-
Davis said shoreline access and buoys, ment responsibilities to achieve consistent brochure at marinas, boat launches, recrea-
how they should be marked and properly set and better identification of swimming and tion facilities and wherever they might be ob-
out, should be dealt with by June. boating areas and to mark clearly restrict- tained by boaters or swimmers and at ap-
ed areas. propriate locations along the shoreline.
Barbara Waxman, project director for the Davis, in discussing Waxman's recommends-
Marina Commission, plans to meet with law tions, mentioned Ogden Dunes' two lines of The advisors were also told kale Eng-
enforcement, IDNR, National Park Service markers plus separated swimming area as a quist, superintendent of the Indiana Dunes
and U.S. Coast Guard to get their agreement, workable method, if buoys with Coast Guard National Lakeshore, said he concured that
and then put together a brochure telling how approved designations are used. "some action is necessary on the issue of
buoys should be marked and where boats can boater/swimmer conflicts, uniform enforce-
go. In her letter, Waxman called for inter- ment policies, and consistent marking or
In the meantime, Davis' advice to municipali- agency agreements on enforcement, saying designated shoreline areas for swimmers and
tion along the shoreline is "go to the Coast coordination and consistency in enforcement boaters."
Guard Station and ask what is approved. " implementation are necessary. The informa- Davis told the advisors that neither the IDNR
Davis noted buoys with Coast Guard ap- tion must be passed along to the public, so nor the Coast Guard can patrol the entire
proved decals must be used for shoreline mark- they understand designations and restrictions. Indiana coastline. He is hopeful all will be
ing. Waxman said she plans to convene a meet- handled the same way.

Portage Journal 3/27/91

ATrACBICENT 6

ORGANIZATTONS AND AGENCIES REPRESENTED AT THE PUBLIC MEETINGS
OR BY WRITTEN COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY MAIL

1 Miller Ikes Boat Club 20. Little Calumet Fishing Coalition

2. Great Lakes Coalition 21. Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore,
National Park Service
3. Ogden Dunes Town Council
22. Northwestern Indiana Regional
4. Salmon Unlimited Planning Commission

5. Lake Michigan Yachting Association 23. Duneland Sierra Club

6. Save the Dunes Council 24. Whiting Boat Club

7. League of Women Voters 25. Pottawatomie Audubon Society

8. Gary-Hobart Water Corporation 26. Hoosier Environmental Council

9. Grand Calumet Task Force 27. Duneland Beach Association

10. Dunes Calumet Audubon Society 28. Touri sm Division, Indiana
Department of Commerce
11. Hoosier Coho Club 29. Cedar Lake Fish and Game
12. Hammond Port Authority Association

13. City of Hammond 30. Department of Forestry, Purdue
University
14. Soil Conservation Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture 31. Hebron Chapter, Future Farmers of
America
15. City of Gary
32. Griffith Chapter, Izaak Walton
16. Local 1010, United States League
Steelworkers
33. Town Council of Beverly Shores
17. Hammond Sanitary District 34. Portage Chapter, American
18. Bums Waterway Authority Association of Retired Persons

19. Gary Port Authority 35. Gary Regional Airport Authority

1-38

36. Northern District, Northern Indiana
Public Service Company

37. Lake County Council

38. Lake County Fish and Game
Protective Association

39. Northwest Indiana Steelheaders,

40. Bums Waterway Better Boating
Association

1-39

SUMMARY OF FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL STATUTES AND

REGULATIONS DEALING WITH LAND AND WATER

USES ON THE INDIANA SHORELINE OF LAKE MICHIGAN

INTRODUCTION

A diverse array of federal, state and local statutes and

rules inter-relate and overlap to form the presently confusing

and difficult regulation scheme for land and water use on the

Indiana shore of Lake Michigan. Enforcement of this regulatory

scheme is also vested at the federal, state and local level. The

following summary is not intended as an exhaustive analysis of

all regulations and their potential conflicts. It is a somewhat

abbreviated look at the major regulatory schemes and their inter-

relationship and potential conflicts caused thereby.

LAND USE REGULATION/LAKEFILL & CONSTRUCTION

Land use regulations dealing with the use of fill materials

to create additional lakefront property are illustrative of the

multi-jurisdictional regulatory scheme. As was recently observed

by the Lake Michigan Federation's Legal Associate, Mark S. Davis:

Today, the practice of using lakefills to create
additional land in the Great Lakes is regulated by a
variety of federal, state and local laws and
regulations. These laws and regulations are often not
@niform in either scope or application and may vary from
Jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The multi-jurisdictional
approach to dealing with. lakefills increases the
likelihood that the regulatory fabric will resemble a
patchwork quilt more than a seamless blanket. This is
true because, although there Ls a clearly stated
national policy to prevent the degradation of the

2-1.

nation's waters and wetlands, there is no single policy
that addresses all of the issues that arise from the
practice of placing fill into the lakes. (GREAT LAKES
LAKEFILLS: A survey of Federal, State, & Municipal Laws,
Policies, & Regulations in the United States, by Mark S.
Davis, p.1)

Since 1972, the Federal Pollution Control Act (Clean Water

Act/33 U.S.C. �1251 et seq.) has provided the federal framework

for regulation of lakefill activity on Lake Michigan. Both the

United States Army Corps of Engineers and the United States

Environmental Protection Agency jointly share jurisdiction and

responsibility for administering the regulatory provisions of the

Clean Water Act.

Section 402 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1342)

authorizes and empowers EPA to issue permits except for dredging

and filling activity which is regulated by the Army Corps of

Engineers pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33

U.S.C. �1344).

Pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, Indiana has

promulgated and adopted water quality standards for Lake Michigan

(330.1 IAC 2-1-1 et seq.). The Army Corps of Engineers cannot

issue a lakefill permit unless a determination is made that the

filling activity will comply with the water quality standards.

Before issuance of a Section 404 permit, the Army Corps of

Engineers must also engage in an extensive evaluation of the

environmental impact of the proposed project. EPA has adopted

extensive guidelines for evaluating the environmental impact of a

2-2

filling or dredging project. (40 CRF S 230.1).

Section 404 (f) of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. �1344)

provides for the exemption of certain activities from the permit

requirements. Activities such as emergency repairs, maintenance

or reconstruction of certain types of breakwaters and bridge

abutments would qualify for the exemption. However, such

activity may require the issuance of a permit by the Army Corps

of Engineers pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act

(33 U.S.C. �403).

On navigation related matters, any structure affecting the

navigation of the navigable waters of the United States

(including Lake Michigan) must be approved by the Army Corps of

Engineers pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 797. The Secretary of

Transportation must also approve the location and plans for

bridges to be constructed over any navigable waters of the United

States. (33 U.S.C. 525 et seq.). Pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 404, the

Army Corps of Engineers is authorized to establish harbor lines

when it determines that it is necessary for the preservation and

protection of a harbor. The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act

is found at 16 U.S.C. 662 and provides that whenever any activity

in the waters of the United States is initiated as the result of

the issuance by any federal agency of a license or permit and

when such activity "impounds, diverts, or otherwise controls any

waters of the United States", such permit or license may not be

issued by the federal agency until such time as that agency has

2-3

consulted the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the

head of the state agency having administration over the affected

resource (Indiana Department of Natural Resources).

Two Indiana statutes specifically address the same or

similar activities regulated by federal statute. I.C. 13-2-4-9

was adopted by the General Assembly in 1990. Pursuant thereto, a

person, other than a public or municipal water utility, may not:

(1) place, fill or erect a permanent structure in;

(2) remove water from;

(3) remove material from;

a navigable waterway without a permit from the
Department of Natural Resources.

Pursuant to I.C. 13-2-4-9 (c), the Department of Natural

Resources shall issue a permit under this section only if the

issuance of the permit will not:

(1) unreasonably impair the navigability of the
waterway;

(2) cause significant harm to the environment; or

(3) pose an unreasonable hazard to life or property.

A separate permit is not required under I.C. 13-2-4-9 for

other permitted activity by the Department of Natural Resources.

However, any permit issued under the alternate permitting

authority of the Department of Natural Resources must also apply

the requirements of I.C. 13-2-4-9 with respect to any of the

permitted activity which is intended to occur within a navigable

waterway. Furthermore, a separate permit is not required under

2-4

I.C. 13-2-4-9 if a permit has been issued under any of the

f ollowing:

(1) 16 U.S.C. �1451 (Coastal Zone Management Act);

(2) 33 U.S.C. �1344 (Clean Water Act);

(3) 40 U.S.C. �6930 (Comprehensive Recovery Compen-
sation and Liability Act).

Anyone violating the provisions of I.C. 13-2-4-9 commits a

Class B Infraction under Indiana law. Since virtually all of the

activities delineated in I.C. 13-2-4-9 (a) would involve filling

and dredging activity requiring a permit under the provisions of

the. Clean Water Act, the actual significance of the Indiana

permitting requirement would seem at best marginal.

The Indiana General Assembly also amended I.C. 4-18-13-1

during the 1990 Session. Pursuant thereto, the owner of land, or

the owner of any easement for public park purposes in, over or

through any land, bordering upon the waters of Lake Michigan may

apply to the Department of Natural Resources for a permit to fill

in, reclaim, or own the submerged land adjacent to and within the

width of the land bordering upon the lake and upon the shore and

the dock or harbor line established by the United States.

I.C. 4-18-13-3 allows the owner of land adjacent to the

shore of Lake Michigan to fill in or construct any dock or wharf

after obtaining the approval of the Natural Resources Commission

of the Indiana Department of Natural Resources.

Pursuant to I.C. 4-18-13-1 (b), once the land is filled in

2-5

and reclaimed, the owner of the land adjoining the filled land

becomes the owner in fee simple of the filled-in land. If the

original owner held an easement over the land, the adjoining

property owner acquires a similar easement over the filled land.

The 1990 amendments added I.C. 4-18-13-4 which places

expiration dates on permits granted pursuant to this section.

Any permit or authority to fill in or reclaim land bordering Lake

Michigan that was issued before July 1, 1990 expired on December

31, 1991. Any permit for such filling or reclaiming of land

activity which was issued after June 30, 1990 now expires five

(5) years after the date the permit was issued.

I.C. 4-18-13-1 contains no standard or criteria for use by

the Department of Natural Resources in determining whether or not

to issue a permit. The absence of any standard or criteria is

troubling. As Lake Michigan Federal Legal Associate, Mark S.

Davis, observed:

Instead, the Department is guided by policy
considerations when making permit decisions. This
approach gives the Department of Natural Resources broad
discretion in deciding whether to issue a permit. Of
course, the absence of discernible standards increases
the possibility of inconsistent determinations,
especially during times when state policy is evolving or
unclear. Presently, state policy is to discourage lake
fills except for those that will aid navigation or
otherwise benefit the public. It is not clear whether a
proposed fill for a non-water dependent activity that is
otherwise beneficial to the public would be allowed as
consistent with state policy. This anti-fill policy is
a departure from past practice which saw a number of
permits issued for fills that serve largely private
purposes. (GREAT LAKES LAKEFILLS: A survey of Federal,
State, & Municipal Laws, Policies, & Regulations in the
United States, by Mark S. Davis, p.52)

2-6

I.C. 4-18-13-1 constitutes Indiana's statutory version of

the Common Law Ripanian Right of owners of lakeshore property

adjacent to submerged land. In its prior form, the statute was

the basis of extensive lakefill activities especially in Lake

County. It is believed that the new statutory language phasing

in expiration dates for permits is indicative of a legislative

intent to disfavor the Ripanian Right permit process. It is also

predictable that the Department of Natural Resources will be

reluctant to issue such permits without appreciable consideration

to the same type of criteria required under federal permitting

statutes.

The "waters of the United States" language contained in the

Clean Water Act includes designated wetlands. There are many

such areas on and adjacent to Indiana's Lake Michigan shoreline.

The Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for regulating land

use activities in designated wetland areas pursuant to Section

404 of the Clean Water Act. Permits are required for virtually

all land use activities in designated wetlands. There is

currently a debate concerning the appropriate definition of a

designated wetland. An appreciable amount of confusion has

resulted from that debate. The federal regulation of wetlands is

at best in flux and may well see significant regulatory changes

in the near future.

In addition to the federal and state regulatory schemes,

2-7

there is currently one lakeshore community (Beverly Shores) which

has initiated local involvement in the dredging and/or filling

issue. The Town of Beverly Shores has implemented a local

wetland protection ordinance which precludes certain types of

construction, dredging and/or filling activities in a designated

wetland. Much of Beverly Shores shoreline and the areas

immediately adjacent thereto qualify as designated wetlands. The

local ordinance requires compliance with a permitting process and

is appreciably more restrictive in its delineation of permitted

activity.

The Porter County Board of Commissioners is currently

examining the feasibility of implementing a county-wide wetland

protection ordinance. That ordinance is currently in its third

draft stage. A copy'of that draft appears in the appendix to

these materials. The Porter County effort has centered on

amending the Porter County Planning and Zoning Ordinance.

Creation of a "wetland overlay" district has been considered.

Overlay zoning is a technique for creating certain limited use

areas predicated upon physical characteristics of terrain. A

permit would also be required under the county wetland ordinance.

The Porter County Wetland Ordinance would be applicable to all

designated wetland areas found in unincorporated Porter County.

As such, any such wetlands on the Indiana shoreline of Porter

County and not within the boundaries of a municipality or the

state or national park property would be included.

2-8

The water in all streams, lakes and other natural bodies in

Indiana is deemed a natural resource pursuant to I.C. 13-2-1-2

and is subject to the control and regulation of the Indiana

Department of Natural Resources. IDNR is empowered to protect

the lakes, streams and springs of the State -of Indiana against

impurities or polution by industrial, municipal, or other sewage

waste (I.C. 14-3-1-14) and to protect and properly manage the

fish and wildlife resources of the state (I.C. 14-2-1-1).

Pursuant to I.C. 14-3-1-14, approval must be obtained from

the Natural Resources Commission of the Indiana Department of

Natural Resources before performing any construction activities

in the waters of Lake Michigan. The Indiana Port Commission is

authorized to construct, maintain and operate port facilities on

Lake Michigan pursuant to I.C. B-10-1-1.

Public Law 177-1989 (I.C. 14-3-15-1 et seq.) creates the

sand nourishment fund for purposes of carrying out the following

functions:

(1) the deposit of sand along the coast of Lake
Michigan in Indiana;

(2) the design and establishment of systems that cause
sand to be deposited along the coast of Lake
Michigan in Indiana;

(3) the preservation or reduction of the degradation
of sand along the coast of Lake Michigan in
Indiana.

The statute is silent as to the process for seeking funding for

such projects.

2-9

The Department of Natural Resources may issue a permit to

any person to take sand, gravel, stone, or other material or

substance from or under the bed of any of the navigable waters of

the State of Indiana (including Lake Michigan). Such activity is

precluded pursuant to I.C. 14-3-5-14.1 without such permit. Any

such activity must be completed in such a fashion so as not to

impede the navigation of such waters, nor damage or endanger any

bridge, highway, railroad, public work or utility, or the

property of any riparian owner or adjoining property or adjacent

property, nor damage the lives of individuals. violation

constitutes a Class B Infraction under Indiana law.

Land use regulation regarding lakefill and construction on

Indiana's Lake Michigan shoreline involves the need to assure

compliance with the complicated multi- jurisdictional permit and

regulatory system. One solution would be to create a "one stop"

multi- jurisdictional inter-government regulatory procedure which

would avoid the "grey areas" caused by overlapping jursidiction

and inconsistent regulations.

LOCAL LAND USE REGULATION/GENERAL

The principal way that local units of government in Indiana

regulate land use within their boundaries is by implementation of

authority delegated to the local unit of government for planning

and zoning purposes. Each of the communities situated on the

Indiana Lake Michigan shoreline has implemented a comprehensive

2-10

planning and zoning ordinance. That local planning and zoning

authority lacks consistency and thoroughness in dealing with

lakeshore development issues. Setback requirements are vague or

nonexistent and are often made inapplicable due to the presence

of pre-existing, nonconforming uses which are specifically

exempted from the local ordinance. This is especially true for

the Lake County shoreline due to the extensive use of lakefill

and construction that has occurred thereon.

The Porter County Planning and Zoning ordinance contains a

comprehensive soil erosion and sedimentation standard which

requires the submission of a soil erosion control site plan prior

to the issuance of a building permit. The soil erosion control

guidelines contained in the ordinance call for the extensive use

of haybales and silt fences to minimize the impact of soil

erosion during construction on steep slopes.

Indiana's failure to participate in the coastal zone

management program has resulted in the absence of a comprehensive

shoreline land use strategy. Each local jurisdiction has "gone

it alone", and the resulting pattern of inconsistencies produces

land use conflicts of significant magnitude.

The municipalities located on the Indiana Lake Michigan

shoreline have no extra-territorial planning or zoning authority

which would extend any municipal planning or zoning ordinance

into the waters of Lake Michigan. Furthermore, Indiana courts

have ruled and the Indiana Attorney General confirmed in official

2-11

opinion 80-37 that a city has "no title to either the waters of

Lake Michigan or the bed of Lake Michigan." A copy of that

official Attorney General opinion appears in the appendix to

these materials.

The creation of port authorities by local units of

government in Indiana is controlled by I.C. 8-10-5. Hammond,

Portage, and Michigan City have utilized this statutory tool for

purposes of implementing lakefront development. Pursuant to I.C.

8-10-1-8, port authorities established by local units of

government are empowered to purchase, construct, sell, lease and

operate docks, wharfs, warehouses, piers and other port terminals

or transportation facilities within their jurisdiction.

Unfortunately, I.C. 8-10-5-7 limits that jurisdictional area to

include only the territory of the municipal subdivision which

created the port authority. As such, port authorities have the

same inherent jurisdictional problem which attaches to the lake-

front communities. There needs to be a legislative response to

clarify the issue created by the lack of extra-territorial

authority of port authorities operating on Lake Michigan.

WATER USE ENFORCEMENT ISSUES

An examination of water use enforcement issues associated

with the recreational use of Lake Michigan waters reveals a

similar pattern of overlapping jurisdictions and conflicts. The

boundaries of each of the municipalities sharing the Indiana Lake

2-12

Michigan shoreline extend only to the shoreline itself. As such,

any enforcement activities by municipal police officers on the

waters of Lake Michigan constitute an effort by that municipality

to exert extra-territorial enforcement authority. On the other

hand, the northern boundary of Lake, Porter and LaPorte Counties

is contiguous to the northern boundary of the State of Indiana

and extends significantly into the waters of Lake Michigan. As

such, county law enforcement officers can patrol the waters of

Lake Michigan and remain well within their jurisdictional

boundaries.

The Indiana Department of Natural Resources maintains an

enforcement division which exercises jurisdiction on the Indiana

waters of Lake Michigan. The DNR Conservation Officers enforce

the recreational watercraft safety laws of the State of Indiana

as well as the fish and wildlife regulations. The United States

Coast Guard also patrols Lake Michigan waters while enforcing

federal regulation.

Department of Natural Resources Conservation Officers can

enforce federal law on the waters of Lake Michigan only when

specifically empowered to do so by the Indiana General Assembly.

Examples of such specific authority are found at:

(1) I.C. 14-2-8-1.8;

(2) I.C. 14-2-8.5-7;

(3) I.C. 14-1-1-30;

(4) 310 IAC 2-31.

2-13

The chief legal counsel of the Indiana Department of Natural

Resources has rendered a legal opinion indicating that unless DNR

receives specific authority from the legislature to enforce

federal statutes, the DNR conservation officers are unable to do

SO. For this reason, DNR perceives its jurisdiction to be very

limited in federal matters.

Through its Division of Fish and Wildlife, the Department of

Natural Resources is responsible for protecting and properly

managing the fish and wildlife resources on Lake Michigan

pursuant to the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Act (I.C.

14-2-1-1 et seq.). Indiana Department of Natural Resources

conservation officers are also responsible for enforcement of the

watercraft safety laws of the State of Indiana as found at I.C.

14-1-1-1 et seq. However, any police officer in the State of

Indiana has the power and is specifically statutorily given the

duty to enforce the watercraft safety laws as well as the lawful

rules duly made and promulgated by the Indiana Department of

Natural Resources. (I.C. 14-1-1-60). Furthermore, conservation

officers employed by the Department of Natural Resources have all

of the powers of police officers for purposes of enforcing the

watercraft safety laws and regulations of the State of Indiana.

As such, county deputy sheriffs are clearly empowered to

enforce the watercraft safety laws and regulations of the State

of Indiana within their respective county boundaries. Municipal

police officers can enforce the watercraft safety laws and

2-14

regulations to the extent that there exists extra-territorial

authority under Indiana law. There is a substantial legal

question concerning the ability of a lakeshore municipality to

adopt local ordinances which have extra-territorial effect. As

such, a question has arisen concerning a lakeshore community's

ability to enforce a local municipal ordinance upon the waters of

Lake Michigan. This issue needs clarification and attention by

the General Assembly. As communities on Indiana's Lake Michigan

shoreline continue to develop recreational facilities, the issue

of enforcement of municipal ordinances will become of greater

concern.

Obviously, Department of Natural Resource conservation

officers have jurisdiction and authority throughout all of the

Lake Michigan waters in the State of Indiana and enforce Indiana

statutes. Personnel from the Coast Guard also patrol the Indiana

waters of Lake Michigan for purposes of enforcing federal laws

and regulations.

STATE WATERCRAFT SAFETY LAWS AND REGULATIONS

As the result of the increased recreational use of Indiana's

Lake Michigan shoreline, conflicts have developed concerning

alternate recreational water uses. Recreational boaters,

fishermen, skiers and swimmers have more regularly come in close

proximity with the expected result of conflict and discord. An

examination of the Indiana recreational watercraft safety

2-15

statutes reveals a number of statutory prohibitions which, if

enforced, could mitigate and minimize the conflict caused by

conflicting water use.

Operation of a recreational watercraft on Lake Michigan is

regulated by state statute and DNR regulation. Generally, no

person shall operate any watercraft on Lake Michigan in such a

manner as to:

(1) unnecessarily endanger the person or property of
another person;

(2) unnecessarily interfere with the safe and lawful
use of the public waters of this state by another
person; or

(3) unnecessarily interfere with or obstruct a special
event sanctioned or otherwise legally permitted
by the Department (another state or the United
States). (I.C. 14-1-1-20)

Daytime operational speed of recreational watercraft on Lake

Michigan is regulated by I.C. 14-1-1-22. Pursuant thereto, it is

unlawful for any person to operate any recreational watercraft at

a rate of speed greater than is reasonable and prudent, having

due regard for the conditions and hazards, actual and potential,

then existing, including weather and density of traffic, or

greater than will permit the operator, in the exercise of

reasonable care, to bring such watercraft to a stop within the

assured clearance distance.

Nighttime speed is regulated by I.C. 14-1-1-13 in that no

person may operate a watercraft during any period between sunset

2-16

and sunrise at a rate of speed greater than ten (10) miles per

hour. It is also unlawful pursuant to I.C. 14-1-1-11 to operate

any motorcraft on Lake Michigan during the period between sunset

and sunrise which is not equipped with a light or lights as

required by the statute.

I.C. 14-1-1-6 makes it unlawful to operate a watercraft on

Lake Michigan unless that watercraft is equipped with a muffler,

an underwater exhaust, or other device which muffles or

suppresses the sound of the exhaust so as to prevent excessive

and unusual noise at all speeds.

Pursuant to I.C. 14-1-1-9 (a), it is unlawful for the

operator of any watercraft on Lake Michigan to throw, dump,

place, dispose or cause or permit to be thrown, dumped, placed or

disposed any litter, filth, putrid or unwholesome substance, or

the contents of any watercloset or cabinet, catchbasin, or grease

trap in or upon the waters of Lake Michigan. Anyone violating

this provision commits a Class B Infraction under Indiana law.

Pursuant to I.C. 14-1-1-16, every person operating a

recreational watercraft on Lake Michigan shall do so in a careful

and prudent manner, having due regard for the rights, safety and

property of other persons, the conditions and hazards, actual and

potential, then existing, including weather, intensity of

traffic, and the possible injury to person or property of other

persons.

The watercraft "rules of the road" are found at I.C.

2-17

14-1-1-26. Pursuant thereto, when two boats are approaching each

other "head to head" or nearly so, each boat shall bear to the

right and pass the other boat on its left side. When two boats

are approaching each other obliquely or at right angles, the boat

on the right shall have the right-of-way. A boat may overtake

and pass another boat on either side if the same can be done with

safety and within assured clearance distances but the boat over-

taken shall have the right-of-way, and a boat leaving a dock,

pier or wharf or the shore shall have the right-of-way over boats

approaching the same.

I.C. 14-1-1-27 provides that no person shall operate any

watercraft so as to approach or pass another boat in such a

manner or in such a rate of speed as to create a hazardous wake

or wash.

I.C. 14-1-1-28 provides that no person shall operate a

watercraft in a circular course around any other boat, any

occupant of which is engaged in fishing or any person swimming.

It is unlawful under the provisions of I.C. 14-1-1-29 for

any person to operate a watercraft so as to approach or pass

within two hundred (200) feet of the shoreline except for the

purpose of trolling or for the purpose of approaching or leaving

a dock, pier, or wharf or the shoreline of the lake. Operation

of any watercraft within the "two hundred (200) foot" distance

from the shore shall be at a rate of speed not greater than ten

(10) miles per hour.

2-18

I.C. 14-1-1-31 provides that all of the statutory and

regulatory requirements of the watercraft safety rules are

applicable whether or not a watercraft is towing any water ski,

water sled, or similar object, or any person thereon. It is

unlawful to operate any watercraft while towing a skier unless

the watercraft is occupied by at least one (1) person other than

the driver of the watercraft who is giving his entire attention

to watching the object or person being towed. (I.C. 14-1-1-22).

No person shall operate a motorcraft in such a fashion so as

to sound any whistle or horn when the passage of such boat is

clear and without danger or when a warning signal i.s not

necessary to prevent injury to person or property. Unnecessary

sounding of a whistle or horn is declared by the statute a public

nuisance and is prohibited pursuant to I.C. 14-1-1-33. Sirens

are also prohibited pursuant to I.C. 14-1-1-34.

The General Assembly amended the Indiana Code in 1989 to

specifically address safety issues associated with underwater

diving activities in any of the waters of Indiana. Pursuant to

I.C. 14-1-7-1, a "diver" is any person wholly or partially

submerged and equipped with a face mask and snorkel or underwater

breathing apparatus. Diving activity shall occur in the waters

of Indiana only when the diver has permanently displayed a

11 divers down flag" in the area in which the diving is occurring

except when the diving activity is occurring in an area

customarily used for swimming only. (I.C. 14-1-7-5). No one may

2-19

operate a watercraft within one hundred and fifty (150) feet of a

diver's down flag unless the watercraft is directly involved in

supporting the diver. No object may be placed in the water

within one hundred feet (100) of a diver's down flag, and any

watercraft involved in supporting the diver must remain within

one hundred (100) feet of the diver's down flag. A diver may not

dive or display a diver's down flag within one hundred and fifty

(150) feet of an anchored watercraft (I.C. 14-1-7-7), and except

during an emergency, a diver shall always surface within one

hundred (100) feet of the diver's down flag. The statute further

provides that if a diver does surface at a distance greater than

one hundred (100) feet from the diver's down flag, the operator

of a motorcraft is not liable for injury to the diver unless the

operator was negligent in the operation of the watercraft.

Pursuant to I.C. 14-1-7-9, any person who violates the diving

provisions commits a Class C Misdemeanor under Indiana law.

Although the preceding discussion might lead to the

conclusion that there is ample statutory provision for safe

operation of recreational watercraft in close proximity to other

Lake Michigan water uses, the problem becomes one of enforcement.

Without clearly delineated a reas for alternate water use

activities, the safety of swimmers, skiers, boaters and fishermen

becomes a matter of intensive expenditure of time and manpower to

enforce the statutory provisions. The problem can be better

2-20

addressed by attempting to isolate differing and conflicting

water use activities by designating areas for such activities.

The function of designating such areas is shared jointly by the

United States Coast Guard and the Indiana Department of Natural

Resources. The respective authority and responsibility for such

designation is at best difficult to discern. DNR has recently

determined that an agreement originally entered into in July of

1985 between the Indiana Boating Law Administrator and the Second

Coast Guard District may substantially clarify the respective

roles of the Coast Guard and DNR on this important issue.

JULY 1985 AGREEMENT

In July of 1985, the Boating Law Administrator of the State

of Indiana entered into an agreement with the Second Coast Guard

District, the purpose of which was to define the relationship

between the State of Indiana and the United States Coast Guard in

the conduct of the recreational boating safety programs

administered by both agencies including the mutual enforcement of

laws relating to watercraft safety on waters within the

concurrent jurisdiction of the state and the United States. A

copy of that agreement appears in the appendix to these

materials.

The agreement made significant and substantive changes to

the relationship between the Department of Natural Resources and

the Coast Guard. However, the DNR operated until recently under

2-21

the assumption that the agreement covered only the Ohio River

waters. DNR assumed that the agreement was not applicable to the

waters of Lake Michigan. This was not necessarily an

unreasonable assumption given the fact that the Second Coast

Guard District is officed in St. Louis, Missouri, and does not

cover the southern shore of Lake Michigan. However, as a result

of a recent meeting with the Cleveland Offices of the Coast

Guard, it was determined that the Coast Guard was of the opinion

that the agreement was applicable to the Indiana Lake Michigan

waters. As such, the agreement is currently under review for

purposes of implementing its substantial provisions on the waters

of Lake Michigan.

The terms of the agreement deal with the following general

categories:

(1) law enforcement;

(2) public education and training;

(3) boating casualty reports and investigative reports;

(4) search and rescue;

(5) regattas and marine parades;

(6) aids to navigation.

Under the terms of the law enforcement section of the

agreement, the State of Indiana assumes primary law enforcement

responsibility for recreational vessels on the waters subject to

concurrent jurisdiction with the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard is

assigned exclusive responsibility for the enforcement of vessel

2-22

inspection and related federal statutes applicable to

non-recreational vessels. In order to avoid duplication of

effort, the agreement dictates that the Indiana Boating

Administrator and the Chief of the Boating Safety Division of the

Second Coast Guard District shall coordinate law enforcement

patrols on waters subject to concurrent jurisdiction in order to

"provide the most effective law enforcement possible with the

vessels and personnel -available."

Without abrogating or limiting the jurisdiction of the State

of Indiana or the United States Coast Guard, the agreement

delineates the respective responsibilities and commitments of

state and federal authorities on water subject to concurrent

jurisdiction. The Coast Guard and Indiana Law Enforcement

Officials jointly agree to jointly cooperate with each other in

the prosecution of violations of their respective regulations.

In the public education and training portion of the

agreement, the Coast Guard agrees to provide boating safety

instructor training for state law enforcement personnel through

the National Boating Safety Course located at the Coast Guard

Reserve Training Center in Yorktown, Virginia. The parties

further agree to coordinate their public education programs by

distributing each others pamphlets, applications and forms.

The Indiana Boating Law Administrator is required by the

agreement to notify the Coast Guard within thirty days of all

boating casualties involving fatalities and thereafter to

2-23

promptly forward to the Coast Guard the completed accident or

casualty report.

The agreement establishes procedures for implementation of

search and rescue efforts on waters subject to concurrent

jurisdiction. The Coast Guard agrees to concentrate its search

and seizure activities primarily on coastal waters, harbor areas,

and inland water areas in the vicinity of Coast Guard facilities.

On other inland waters subject to concurrent jurisdiction, the

Coast Guard will look primarily to search and rescue services

provided by Indiana and the local communities. Both the State of

Indiana and the Coast Guard agree to actively support and

participate in local search and rescue workshops, water safety

councils and other organizations to foster closer cooperation and

coordination among state and local agencies, federal agencies,

and others who have an interest or responsibility in search and

rescue matters.

The agreement sets up a formal structure and procedure for

control over regattas and marine parades.

The agreement delegates to Indiana the authority to regulate

maritime aids to navigation (including regulatory markers) on the

condition that the aids conform to the Uniform State Waterway

Marking System (33 CFR, Subpart 66.10) or the United States

Lateral System of Buoyage (33 CFR, Subpart 62.25). The agreement

constitutes a "general permit" in lieu of individual permits for

all maritime aids to navigation placed in waters subject to

2-24

concurrent jurisdiction. However, the Coast Guard reserves the

right to require Indiana to modify or remove any maritime aid to

navigation (including regulatory markers) when directed to do so

by the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard further reserves the right

to inspect the maritime aids to navigation. The agreement

further provides that Indiana shall inform the Coast Guard of the

nature and extent of any changes in Indiana maritime aids to

navigation after the effective date of the agreement.

In each instance in which a regulatory marker is established

pursuant to the agreement, Indiana shall require the agency or

political subdivision of the state establishing or authorizing

the marker to obtain prior permission from the United States Army

Corp. of Engineers. Indiana is required by the agreement to

annually provide the Coast Guard with a listing of all aids being

administered under the program.

The applicability of the 1985 agreement to the waters of

Lake Michigan will allow DNR and the local communities a

significant amount of responsibility before the establishment of

a regulatory marker system. The Coast Guard will have minimum

involvement in an oversight capacity. Prior to the determination

that the "general permit" concept contained in the agreement

would be applied to the waters of Lake Michigan, DNR had limited

site specific" rule making authority which was shared

concurrently with the Coast Guard. The line of demarcation

between Coast Guard, DNR and local authority and responsibility

2-25

was difficult to discern. DNR now has the acquiescence of the

Coast Guard for implementation of a comprehensive regulatory

marking program on the waters of Lake Michigan. DNR needs to

formulate an implementation strategy for its increased

involvement and participation in the regulatory marker issues on

Lake Michigan.

DNR already has two regulations that address similar issues.

The procedure contained at 310 IAC 2-2-1 provides for the

identification of "regulated areas" and the process for

identifying "unusual conditions or hazards" and the marking of

same. The regulation makes it unlawful to engage in a prohibited

watercraft operation or activity or to engage in a watercraft

operation or activity other than those permitted within an area

identified by a marker placed pursuant to the regulations. 310

IAC 2-27 establishes a water recreation structure permitting

process. This regulation defines a "permanent structure" as any

structure which reasonably requires use of machinery such as

cranes, bulldozers and backhoes for installation and removal, and

generally includes any structure in or over public waters which

would involve the use of poured concrete, steel sheet or timber

pilings or fill materials for support. Pursuant to 310 IAC

2-27-2, a permanent water recreation structure may not be placed

upon the "public waters" of Indiana except in accordance with a

prior permit issued by DNR. The regulation requires that a

conservation officer perform an inspection of the site proposed

2-26

for placement of the permanent water recreation structure. As

such, DNR has administrative rules and regulations which can form

the blueprint for implementation of a comprehensive regulatory

marking system for the waters of Lake Michigan. Integrating

diverse and divergent water recreational uses with a

comprehensive shoreline wide regulatory marker system will avoid

the inherent problems in isolated site specific determinations

and the resulting piecemeal approach to water use issues. The

determination that the 1985 agreement is applicable to the waters

of Lake Michigan should be a stimulus and catalyst for Indiana's

water use planning process.

The general spirit and intent of the agreement is captured

by its concluding language:

The state shall endeavor to conform its laws, rules
and regulations with federal law to the fullest extent
practicable, subject to the federal pre-emption
provisions contained in Title 46 U.S.C. The Coast Guard
and the state shall promptly furnish each other with the
text of any law, rule, or regulation having to do with
numbering, equipping, or operation of vessels which are
the subject of this agreement or any administrative
interpretations thereof.

The agreement is of substantial significance to the

administration of water use regulations on the Indiana waters of

Lake Michigan. As lakefront marina development continues, the

potential need for search and rescue activity will increase. it

is apparent from the agreement that the Coast Guard contemplates

a significant participation in that process by local units of

government. Presently, Lake, Porter and LaPorte County Sheriff

2-27

Departments have units assigned to search and rescue activities

on Lake Michigan. There has also been discussion concerning

municipal involvement in the search and rescue process by those

communities wherein marinas are located.

PUBLIC ACCESS

Public access issues have significantly contributed to the

current debate which has resulted from the significant changes

that are occurring to the land and water uses of the Indiana Lake

Michigan Shoreline. This is especially true in Lake County where

Hammond has "reclaimed" a portion of its shoreline for

construction of a public marina. The City of Gary is in the

process of "reclaiming" a portion of its shoreline for public

development. Although a significant portion of the Lake Michigan

shoreline in Porter and LaPorte Counties is dedicated to public

access, specific issues such as the availability of boat

launching ramps for public use have added to the debate. Public

access issues need to be addressed and resolved as a part of any

comprehensive lakeshore management planning process.

As the result of the public access debate in Lake County,

the General Assembly in 1989 adopted I.C. 14-3-14-1. It applies

only to marinas located in a county having more than two (2)

second class cities (Lake County). The statute prohibits the

State of Indiana from providing monetary assistance or "other

consideration" unless the marina:

2-28

(1) provides a boat ramp without charge for access
by Indiana residents to the water served by the
marina;

(2) provides access to marina property without charge
for fishing by Indiana residents in the waters
served by the marina; and

(3) dedicates at least eight percent (8%) of the
total number of parking spaces at the marina for
parking of vehicles (including boat trailers) by
Indiana residents without charge.

The statute is another example of a piecemeal approach to a

significant issue of public access. Although the statute's

intent is clear, its language leaves much to be desired

concerning implementation. Questions have arisen concerning what

is "other consideration" as well as whether or not Indiana

residents operating commercial fishing operations would be

entitled to utilization of the "free" boat ramp. The statute

also illustrates the land and water use conflicts that can

develop even within the boundaries of an operating marina. The

statute requires the marina to provide access to marina property

"without charge" for fishing but does not specify any

implementation criteria and leaves much to the discretion of the

marina operator. Although the intent and purpose of the statute

would seem to be constructive, the issue of public access needs

to be addressed in a more comprehensive and shoreline-wide

analysis. The Indiana Attorney General was asked in April of

1990 to interpret the provisions of I.C. 14-3-14-1. A copy of

the Attorney General's official opinion 90-8 is in the appendix

2-29

to these materials.

Although not well developed under Indiana law, the Public

Trust Doctrine has emerged in recent years as a significant

component of land and water use management. From its origins in

Roman Law, the Public Trust Doctrine has evolved through English

Common Law and has developed in the United States through federal

and state case law and is also found codified in state statutes

and constitutions.

The Public Trust Doctrine provides that:

Public trust lands, waters and living resources in
a state are held by the state in trust for the benefit
of all of the people and establishes the right of the
public to fully enjoy public trust lands, waters and
living resources for a wide variety of recognized public
uses. The Public Trust Doctrine is applicable whenever
navigable waters or the lands beneath are altered,
developed, conveyed or otherwise managed or preserved.
It applies whether the trust lands are publicly or
privately owned. The Doctrine articulates not only the
public rights in these lands and waters but it also sets
limitations on the states, the public, and private
owners, as well as establishing duties and
responsibilities of the states when managing these
public trust assets. (PUTTING THE PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE
TO WORK, by David C. Salade, Project Manager, National
Public Trust Study).

The Public Trust Doctrine has been recognized and affirmed

by the United States Supreme Court, lower federal courts and

state courts. Under federal case law, each of the fifty states

is responsible for creating its own public trust doctrine for

trust lands and waters within its boundaries. As such, there is

no single "public trust doctrine" that has evolved. Each of the

2-30

fifty states have created their own doctrine. An extensive

review and analysis of the Public Trust Doctrine is beyond the

scope of this effort. The Public Trust Doctrine has not been

well defined in Indiana case law. However, it is anticipatable

that the Public Trust Doctrine in some form will play a

significant role in the future debate surrounding land and water

use management on the Indiana shores of Lake Michigan.

CONCLUSION

The land and water uses of Indiana Lake Michigan shoreline

are regulated and controlled by a piecemeal scheme of federal,

state and local statutes, rules and regulations. In many

instances, the statutes and regulations overlap in their

applicability and inter-governmental cooperation and

communication is necessary in order to clarify many of the "gray

areas" resulting from such overlapping jurisdiction.

The creation of a "one stop" permit process would

appreciably clarify the land use permitting process and expedite

what can be presently and exceeding arduous, time-consuming and

expensive process. Clarification is needed in areas of extra-

territorial authority and jurisdiction. overlapping and

concurrent jurisdiction and enforcement authority also poses

problems. DNR needs to take steps to implement on Lake Michigan

the 1985 agreement with the Coast Guard.

What is needed more than anything else is a comprehensive

2-31

and shoreline-wide plan. Indiana's participation in the coastal

zone management program would be of appreciable assistance in

that regard.

It is predictable that the conflicts and problems associated

with the changing use of Indiana's Lake Michigan shoreline will

continue to grow. Public access issues need to be addressed on a

shoreline-wide planning basis and some issues associated with

extra-territorial authority, jurisdiction and enforcement ability

need to be clarified by the General Assembly.

If Indiana's Lake Michigan shoreline is to fulfill its

potential for recreational and economic growth, a balance must be

found between diverse land and water uses. If the challenge can

be met, the future is bright.

2-32

A P P E N Q I X

1. Draft of Porter County Wetland Ordinance

2. Federal/State Agreement with Coast Guard

3. Attorney General Opinion 80-37

4. Attorney General Opinion 90-8

2-33

FIFTH DRAFT WETLAND ORDINANCE

SECTION I

A. Declaration of Policy.

It is declared to be the public policy of the County of
Porter to preserve, protect and conserve freshwater
wetlands and the benefits derived therefrom, to prevent
the despoilation and destruction of freshwater wetlands,
and to regulate use and development of such wetlands to
secure the natural benefits of freshwater wetlands,
consistent with the general welfare and beneficial to
economic, social and agricultural development of the
County of Porter.

B. Statement of Findings.

1. Acreage of freshwater wetlands in the jurisdiction of
@he County of Porter has been lost, despoiled or
impaired by unregulated draining, dredging, filling,
excavating, building, pollution or other acts
inconsistent with the natural uses of such areas.
Other freshwater wetlands are in jeopardy of being
lost, despoiled or impaired by such unrelated acts.

2. The preservation, protection and conservation of
wetlands is of public concern because of the benefits
they provide. These include:

a. Flood and stormwater control. Wetlands may slow
water runoff and temporarily store water, thus
helping to protect downstream areas from flooding.
Public health and private property in one part of a
watershed may be harmed if wetlands are destroyed in
a different part of that watershed.

b. Wildlife habitat. Wetlands are of unparalleled value
as wildlife habitat, and the perpetuation of scores
of species depends upon them. Many of the species
are migratory and must have nesting, migration, and
wintering habitat. The destruction of one kind of
wetland habitat in one place may reduce populations
of wildlife elsewhere. Where specific wetlands
support endangered species, destruction of those
wetlands may threaten the presence of the endangered
species for all time.

c. Water supplV. Wetlands themselves are a source of
surface water and may, under appropriate hydrological
conditions, serve to recharge groundwater and
aquifers and to maintain surface water flow.

2-34

d. Water ctuality. Many wetlands serve as chemical and
biological oxidations basins that help cleanse water
that flows through them. Wetlands can also serve as
sedimentation areas and filtering basins that absorb
silt and organic matter, thereby protecting channels
and harbors and enhancing water quality.

e. Fisheries. Wetlands provide the spawning and nursery
grounds for several species of fish. The
availability of these fish in lakes and streams may
be adversely affected by the loss of wetlands
adjacent to those waters.

f. Food chains. Food and organic materials supplied by
wetlands support the fish and wildlife of adjacent
waters. Wetlands serve as sources of nutrients in
freshwater food cycles and nursery grounds and
sanctuaries for freshwater fish.

g. Recreation. Wetlands provide important hunting,
fishing, boating, hiking, birdwatching, photography,
camping, and other recreational opportunities. In
addition, wetlands may be critical to recreation
beyond their own borders because of the ability to
protect water quality and protect and produce
wildlife and fish.

h. open space and aesthetic appreciation. Wetlands
provide visual variety in many different settings.
Especially in urban areas, wetland open space
contributes to social well-being by providing relief
from intense development and a sense of connection
with the natural world.

i. Education and scientific research. Because of the
high biological productivity and the variety of plant
and animal species they can support, wetlands can be
of broad social benefit in -providing outdoor
laboratories and living classrooms for studying and
appreciating natural history, ecology, and biology.
Many of the lessons learned and principles evolved
through study of wetlands are applicable to other
environmental issues.

SECTION II.

A. Statement of Purpose.

The purpose of this ordinance is to assure the protection
of the general health, safety and welfare of the residents
and the protection of the wetland resources of the County
of Porter, for now and in the ffuture, through preservation
and conservation of wetlands. and sound management of
development by:

1. Establishment of authority and jurisdiction to
enforce wetland regulat-Lons..

2-35

2. Requiring sound management practices that will protect,
conserve, maintain, enhance and improve the present
quality of wetlands within the community.

B. Authority.

This section is adopted under the authority of Indiana
Code s 36-1-3-1 et-sea. (Home Rule) and Indiana Code s
36-7-4. (Local Planning and Zoning).

C. Definitions

Applicant - means the person giving notice of intention to
engage in any of the activities requiring a permit under
this section.

County - Porter County, Indiana

Development - any improvement or change to property brought
about by human activity, including, but not limited to,
buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling,
grading, paving, excavation or drilling operations.

Executive Secretary - refers to the Executive Secretary of
the Porter County Plan commission pursuant to IC 36-7-4-311
(a).

Fill material - any solid material that displaces water or
reduces water holding capacity..

Hydric soil - a soil that is saturated, flooded, or ponded
long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic
conditions in the upper part.

Hydropbytic vegetation - macrophytic plant life growing in
water, soil or on a substrate that is at least periodically
deficient in oxygen as a result of excessive water content.

Indiana Department of Environmental.Management (IDEM) -
a agency that also approves wetland permits concerning
401(b)-l guidelines.

Mitigation - the act of replacing wetlands under the
t
permitting process of the Army Corp of Engineers.

National Wetlands Inventory - a series of maps produced by
the US Fish and Wildlife Service showing the location and
classification of wetlands in standard topographic areas.

Nationwide Permit - a wetland permit issued by the Army Corp
of Engineers.

Natural water storage capacity - the maximum volume of water
a wetland can contain up to its ordinary high water mark
without alterations to its natural grade or contour.

Periodic maintenance - ordinary inspection and repair of
facilities accessory to use of a wetland. This includes

2-36

erosion control, removal of silt and non-hydrophytic
vegetation from a wetland in ways that do not substantially
disturb hydrophtic land and animal life. Periodic maintenance
does not include any modification of a wetlands contour or
natural water storage capacity.

Permit, Local - permits required by local law.

Permit, Wetland - means the written approval, issued by
Porter County government, where required for the conducting
.of a regulated activity in a wetland or wetland buffer area.

Person - shall include any individual, group of individuals,
association, partnership, corporation, company , business
organization, trust, estate, the: commonwealth or political
subdivision thereof, administrative agency, public or quasi-
public corporation or body, or any other legal entity or its
legal representative, agents or assigns.

Pollution means the presence in the environment: of human
induced conditions or contaminants in quantities or
characteristics which are or xnay be injurious to human, plant
or animal life or to property.

US Army Corp of Engineers - agency authorized by the USA
government to issue permits.for development in and/or around
all wetlands. (over three acres in size).

Wetlands - those areas that are inundated or saturated by
surface or ground water at a frequency and duration
sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do
support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for
life in saturated soil conditions and contain three essential
characteristics: (1) hydrophytic vegetation, (2) hydric
soils, and (3) wetland hydrology, which is the driving force
creating all wetlands. The three technical criteria
specified are mandatory and must all be met for an area to be
identified as wetland. Therefore, areas that meet these
criteria are wetlands.

Wetland Boundary - the delineated wetland area.

Wetland Buffer Area - 25 feet. measured horizontally from the
wetland boundary.

Wetland hydrology - refers to the wetness of an area. The
criteria for Wetland hydrology as outlined in the Field Guide
for Delineating Wetlands must be met to achieve wetland
hydrology. These criteria use the Unified Federal Method for
Wetland Delineation.

SECTION III

A. Regulated Activities.

1. If the property in question is designated by a
qualified soil scientist,- or appears on the National
Wetland Inventory maps, or the Soil Conservation

2-37

wetlands maps as having a wetland(s) or part of a
wetland as part of a development project, any person
desiring to develop said wetland(s) must obtain
approval by the US Army Corp of Engineers before any
local permits or wetland permits may be issued. If an
Army Corp of Engineer permit is required, a wetland
permit is also required.

2. If development plans indicate any change to the wetland
buffer area, a wetland permit will be required.

3. Activities requiring a wetland permit include:

Any form of draining, dredging, excavation, removal of
soil, mud, sand, shells, gravel, flora, fauna or other
aggregate from any freshwater wetland, either directly
or indirectly; and any form of dumping, filling, or
depositing of any soil stones, sand, gravel, mud,
rubbish or fill of any kind, either directly or
indirectly; erecting any structures, roads, the driving
of pilings, or placing of any other obstructions within
25 feet of the edge of the wetland whether or not
changing the ebb and f low of the water; any form of
pollution, including but not limited to, installing a
septic system, running a sewer outfall, discharging
sewage treatment effluent or other liquid wastes into
or so as to drain into a freshwater wetland; killing or
materially damaging any flora or fauna, including the
cutting of trees; and any other activity which
substantially impairs any of the several functions
served by freshwater wetlands or the benefits derived
therefrom.

3. Prohibited Uses:

a. Disposal of waste material including, but not limited
to, sewage, demolition debris, hazardous and toxic
substances, and all waste that would normally be
disposed of at a solid waste disposal site or into a
sewage disposal system or sanitary sewer.

b. Solid waste disposal sites, sludge ash disposal
sites, hazardous waste transfer or disposal sites.

c. Animal feedlots.

d. The draining of wetlands is specifically prohibited
unless the US Army Corp of Engineers finds that the
wetlands being drained are mitigated by wetlands that
will have equal or greater public value. However,
this restriction does not apply to agricultural
drainage projects.

4. The following uses are allowed without a local
permit as long as adverse effects are otherwise
minimized:

recreational and agricultural activities;
temporary structures ;

2-38

temporary boat anchorage;!
maintenance or operation of existing structures.
including maintenance, repair, or operation of oil
or gas pipelines and powerlines;
operation or maintenance of existing dikes and
levees.

5. When evaluating permit, applications, the County of
Porter is required to satisfy the four following
criteria:

a. The approval will not be injurious to the public
health, safety, morals and general welfare of the
community, including the environmental impact;
likely destruction of' wetlands and flora and fauna;
impact of the site preparation on freshwater ebb and
flow and the otherwise normal drainage of the area in
question, especially -as it relates to flood control;
impact of the site preparation and proposed activity
on the quality and quantity of surface, ground and
subsurface water resources; and other resources.

b. The approval will not be injurious to the public
health, safety, morals and general welfare of the
community.

C. The use and value of the area adjacent to the
property included in the wetland area, wetland buffer
area, and offsite wetland areas will not be affected
in a substantially adverse manner.

d. The denial of a permit will result in practical
difficulties in the use of the property.

B. General Development Standards

1. No building, structure, street, alley, driveway or
parking area shall be placed closer than 25 horizontal
feet from the boundary of a wetland.

2o All uses within 50 horizontal feet of the wetland
boundary shall have flood protection grades at least
two (2) feet above the ordinary high water mark.

3. All wetlands, or parts th ereof, must be delineated
on all site plans and primary plats and all US Army
Corp of Engineer permits or variances from the County
Drainage Board ' must be, obtained. Twenty (20) days
before the secondary plat of any subdivision or PRD or
PUD is approved all local wetland permits must be
obtained.

4. No Improvement Location P6=it shall be issued for
any parcel located outside of a subdivision or a PRD
without a wetlands identification from the Federal Soil
Conservation Servicef 01: the National Wetland
Inventory, or by a qualified soil scientist, and a
release from the County Surveyor office showing that

2-39@

the dwelling will not be located within a Regulated
Drain easement.

5. In granting a permit, the County may limit the same
or impose conditions or limitations designed to ' carry
out the public policy set forth in this article. The
county may require a bond in an amount and with surety
and conditions satisfactory to the county securing to
the County compliance with the conditions and
limitations set forth in the permit. The County may
require a written decision by the US Army Corp of
Engineers. The County may suspend or revoke a permit if
it finds that the applicant has not complied with any
of the conditions or limitations set forth in the
permit or has exceeded the scope of the activity as set
forth in the application. The County may suspend the
permit if the applicant fails to comply with the terms
and conditions set forth in the application. The County
shall state upon the record findings and reasons for
all actions taken pursuant to this section.

6. A violation of any Army Corp of Engineer permit issued
is also a violation of this ordinance.

C. Time of Permit--Extension and Renewals.

1. Unless otherwise specified by the County, a permitee
shall begin and complete the activity authorized by the
permit within one year after the date the permitting
agency approves the permit application.

2. The permitee shall provide written notice to the
County Engineer 24 hours prior to the commencement and
completion of the project. No project shall be deemed
to have been completed until approved by the County
Engineer after receipt of notice of completion.

3. If the permitee fails to commence work on the
development within the time specified herein, the
permit shall be void. The permitting agency may renew
a void permit at its discretion. If the permitting
agency does not renew the permit, the holder of the
void permit may make original application for a new
permit.

4. The permitee may m Iake written application to the
permitting agency for an extension of the time to
commence work, but only if the permitee submits the
application prior to the date already established to
commence work. The application for an extension shall
state the reasons the permit requires and extension.

5. The activity authorized in the permit shall be strictly
construed to the task requested by the applicant. If
the applicant wishes to engage in other activity, a
separate permit shall be required.

2-40

D. Inspection.

The County Engineer may cause inspection of the work to be
made periodically during the course of such work and shall
cause final inspection to be made following the completion
of the work.

E. Enforcement.

In addition to possible federal criminal prosecution, the
County may institute injunctive! proceedings to correct any
violation of this ordinance. The County may require the
complete restoration of a wetland to its prior natural
state at the violator's expense. If a permitee engages in
any activity beyond the scope of the permit, the permit
shall be rescinded.

F. Severability.

Every section, provision or Part of this ordinance is
separable from every other section, provision or part of
this ordinance, and if any section, provision or part
thereof shall be held invalid by any court of competent
jurisdiction, it shall not affect any other section,
provision or part of this ordinance.

G. Penalty.

Violators of this ordinance shall be guilty of a
misdemeanor and shall be punishable by a fine not to
exceed $700 or by imprisonment for a period not to exceed
90 days. Each day that a violation continues shall
constitute a separate offense.

H. Authority

The Plan Commission Executive Secretary shall review
applications and issue permits. The Executive Secretary
may refer an applicant to the Technical Advisory Committee
for its advisory opinion. Any aggrieved party may appeal
the Executive Secretary's decision to the Porter County
Board of Zoning Appeals. Thereafter review by Writ of
Certerori shall proceed pursuant to IC 36-7-4-1000 et.
seg.

I. Variances

Variances from III. B shall. impose upon the petitioner the
burden to satisfy IC 36-7-4-918.5. All other variances
shall be governed by IC-36--7-9-.918.4.

J. Notification

Notification of variance petitions should be extended to
include all governmental units having jurisdiction of the
parcel of land is question.. , 1

2-41

PORTER COUNTY
WETLAND PERMIT FEE
PD

Location of wetland(s)

Description of proposed changes to wetland/wetland boundary

Size of wetland(s)
size of remaining wetland area

APPLIES N/A

Army Corp of Engineers permit

Environmental impact

Historic, aesthetic, cultural, scenic, ecological,
recreational impact
Extent of public and private need for proposal

Availability of prudent alternative locations and
methods to accomplish expected benefit

Cumulative effect of this and all other existing and
anticipated activities to the affected watershed

Number of public and/or private supporting
structures
Type of public and/or private supporting structures

Proximity to any waterway

Effect on neighboring land uses

Economic effects

Signature of owner
Address of owner

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY_

Permit approved Denied Date

2-42

FEDERAL/STATE AGREEMENTS

STATEMENT OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE STATE OF INDIANA
AND THE UNITED STATES COAST GUARD.

1* PURPOSE,

A. To define the relationship between the State of Indiana
and the United States Coast Guard in the conduct of the Recreational
Boating Safety Programs including the mutual enforcement of laws
relating to boatin'g @afety on waters within the concurrent
jurisdiction of the State and the United States.

2. BASIC GUIDELINES

A. The State and the United States exercise concurrent
jurisdiction over those waters within the jurisdiction of the State
which are also waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United
States, except as to matters preempted by Federal law.

B. The State has exclusive jurisdiction over those waters withi n
the State which are not waters subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States or waters of the United States.

C. This understanding does not abrogate or limit the jurisdiction
of the State or the United States.

D. All vessels equipped with propulsion machinery not subject to
the numbering laws of the State of Indiana are subject to the vessel
documentation statutes of the United States.

3. TERMS OF UNDERSTANDING.

A. Law Enforcement.

(1) The State has primary law enforcement responsibility
concerning recreational vessels on the waters subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States which are within the
jurisdiction of the State. In these waters the United States has
exclusive responsibility for the enforcement of vessel inspection
and related Federal statutes applicable to non-recreational
vessels.

1.2) The Boating Law Administrator of the State of Indiana
and the Chief, Boating Safety Division of the Second, Coast Guard
District shall coordinate or arrange for coordination of law
enforcement patrols on waters subject to concurrent jurisdiction
in order to avoid duplication of efforts in a given area at a
given time so as to provide the most effective law enforcement
possible with the vessels and personnel available.

2-43

3 A. (3) Numbering violations observed by the Coast Guard
boarding officers will be referred to the State for processing.
In addition, other recreational boating violations may be referred
to the State of Indiana at the discretion of the District
Commander.

(4) Violations of Federal safety standards for boats and
associated equipment detected by State marine law enforcement
officers will be reported to the Coast Guard for disposition.

(5) Violations of vessel inspection or related Federal laws
by non-recreational vessels which are observed by State marine law
enforcement officers will be reported to the Coast Guard for
disposition.

(6). When a complaint is made to the Coast Guard alleging an
offense which is a violation of the State recreational boating
laws or regulations, the Coast Guard will normally refer the
complaint to the proper State or local authority in the
appropriate State jurisdiction. Similarly when a complaint is
made to the State of a violation of any vessel laws or regulations
within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, the State
will refer the complaint to the Coast Guard in accordance with
State Law.

(7) A Coast Guard boarding officer who has observed a
violation of a State boating law or regulation or a State marine
law enforcement officer who has observed a violation of vessel
inspection law or regulations of the United States will generally
be made available to testify for the State or Federal prosecution
for the observed offense or to testify in any other proceeding
relating to the violation.

3. B. Public Education and Training

(1) The parties will cooperate in public educational and
safety information programs. The State of Indiana will distribute
the pamphlet "Federal Requirements for Recreational Boats" and
other Federal boating publications as agreed upon through its home
and field offices. The Coast Guard will distribute any State of
Indiana applications and forms for motorboat numbering, State
Vessel Casualty Report Forms, and such State boating pamphlets
which are made available for that purpose by the State of
Indiana. The Coast Guard will furnish to the Boating Law
Administrator information concerning the time and place of public
education courses within the State which are sponsored by the U.S.
Coast Guard Auxiliary. The State will advise the Coast Guard of

2-44

3. B. (1) any public education courses offered to the boating
public. The parties will, whenever possible, cooperate in
developing a public boating safety education program to be used
within the State.

(2) The Coast Guard will provide boating safety instructor
training for State law enforcement personnel through the National
Boating Safety Course located at Reserve Training Center,
Yorktown, VA. on an was available" basis. Similarly, the State
will provide on an "as available" basis to the Coast Guard,
instructors and facilities for the training of Coast Guard
personnel.

C. Boating Casualty ReMrts and Investigative Revorts

(1) The Boating Law Administrator will within 30 days notify the
Chief of the Boating Safety Division, Second Coast Guard District
of all boating casualties on navigable waters of the United States
which involve fatalities and promptly forward him copies of the
completed accident or casualty report. The Coast Guard will
review the report and take appropriate action. Release of such
reports to the public shall be processed in accordance with
applicable law.

D. Search and Rescue

(1) On the State waters which are not within the jurisdiction
of the United States, the State has exclusive responsibility for
providing search and rescue service. On waters subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States, the State and the Coast Guard
have joint responsibility. The Coast Guard will concentrate its
activity primarily on coastal waters, harbor areas, and inland
water areas in the vicinity of Coast Guard facilities. On other
inland waters subject to concurrent jurisdiction, Coast Guard
planners will look primarily to Search and Re3cue facilities
provided by the States and its political subdivisions.

(2) The State and the Coast Guard agree to coordinate their
search and rescue operations so that the most effective assistance
will be rendered to those in distress on the waters within the
State. To this end, each will encourage the establishment of
mutual assistance and cooperative arrangements between Coast Guard
and State facilities which are established in the same area. The
competent authority for providing Federal search and rescue
assistance on the Federal waters within the State is Commander,
Second Coast Guard District, 1430 Olive Street, St. Louis, MO
63103. This authority is exercised through Rescue Coordination
Center (RCC) St. Louis, MO, telephone number (314) 425-4617. The
competent authority for exercising coordination of State search
and rescue activities on the waters within the State is the
Boating Law Administratore telephone (317) 232-4014.

(3) The State and the Coast Guard agree to actively support and
participate in local search and rescue workshops, water safety
councils, and other such organizations to foster closer
cooperation and coordination among States and local agencies,
Federal agencies, and others who have an interest or
responsibility in search and rescue matters.

2-45

3. E. REGATTAS AND MARINE PARADES

(1) The purpose of this portion of the agreement is to provide
effective control over regattas and marine parades conducted on
the navigable waters of the United States which are subject to the
concurrent jurisdiction of the signatory State, so as to ensure
safety of life in the regatta or marine parade area.

(2) The Commander, Second Coast Guard District, is authorized by 46
U.S.C. Section 13109 to enter into agreements with State
authorities to allow regulation by the State of such classes of
regattas or marine parades on the navigable waters of the United
States which are subject to the concurrent jurisdiction of the
signatory State_when, in the opinion of the District Commander,
the State is able to regulate in such a manner as to ensure safety
of life. This portion of the agreement between the Coast Guard
and the signatory State is made pursuant to that authority.

(3 For the purposes of this agreement, the terms "regatta" or "marine
paradeO both mean an organized water event of limited duration
which is conducted according to a prearranged schedule.

(4) For the purposes of this agreement the term "navigable waters of
the United States" refers to those inland waters of the.-United
States not subject to tidal influence, which are subject to the
concurrent jurisdiction of the signatory State that have been
either congressionally, judicially, or administratively determined
to be navigable waters of the United States using the criteria set
forth in 33 C.F.R. Part 2.05-25 (b) (3) . The navigable waters of
the United States found in the Second Coast Guard District over
which the signatory State exercises concurrent jurisdiction are
listed in Appendix I to this agreement. it is understood that
this list is subject to periodic revision. The Coast Guard will
keep the signatory State informed of any such revision.

(5) It is understood that this agreement neither abrogrates nor
forfeits the right of the Commander, Second Coast Guard District
to regulate any particular regatta or marine parade when he deems
such action to be in the public interest. Events of this type may
include, but are not limited to:

(a) Those cases where a regatta or marine parade is of such
size as to require patrols which the District Commander
knows to be in excess of those available to the State or
States involved, or

(b) Those events on waterways where commercial or other
traffic will be significantly disrupted.

(6) The authorization and regulation of regattas and marine parades
upon the navigable waterways of the United States over which the
signatory State exercises concurrent jurisdiction shall be
managed as follows:

(a) The Coast Guard will expeditiously direct all applications
for regattas and marine parades, with the exception of those
identified in paragraph 5 above, to the appropriate agency of

2-46

E. (6) (a) the State in which the event or the majority of the event is
to be held. The Coast Guard will consider the State agency to
which the application is forwarded to be the lead agency in
coordinating participation in, and the effective control of,
the regatta or marine parade for which the application is
submitted.

(b) If the territory of more than one State is involved, then the
State in which the majority of the event takes place will be
responsible for coordinating participation by all affected
States and will be called the coordinating State. The Coast
Guard will determine in which State the majority of the event
will take place from the information contained in the
application.-

(c) The appropriate State agency will review each application
forwarded to it using its own criteria prior to approving or
disapproving the application.

(d) The appropriate State agency, after approving a regatta or
marine parade will then review all applications using the
criteria found in 33 C.F.R. Part 100 to determine if Coast
Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary assistance is considered either
appropriate or required. if Coast Guard or Coast Guard
Auxiliary assistance is considered either appropriate or
required, then the permit and all pertinent information,
including a statement as to the number of State vessels
assigned to the event, will be sent to the Chief, Boating
Safety Division, Second Coast Guard District along with a
request for the type of assistance desired, e.g.

(i) The issuance or publication of: a Permit, a Local Notice
to Mariners, or Special Local Regulations by the Coast
Guard (Applications for which only the publication of a
Local Notice to Mariners is desired must be received a',
the Second Coast Guard District office by Monday of the
week prior to the week the event is to be held.
Applications for which the publication of Special Local
Regulations is desired should be received at the Second
Coast Guard District office fourteen weeks before the
event is to occur. This latter lead time requirement may
be waived if there are justifying circumstances), or

(ii) The assignment of: a Coast Guard Patrol Commander or a
Coast Guard Auxiliary Vessel Patrol.

(e) Upon receipt of the request for assistance, the Coast Guard
will use the criteria found in 33 U.S.C. 1233 and in 33
C.F.R. Part 100 to determine appropriate Coast Guard actions.

(f) In this regard it is understoo-d that the exercise of the
Coast Guard's authonity to regulate and control regattas and
marine parades is discretionary. Thus, notwithstanding a
State's request or recommendation to regulate an event in a

2-47

3. E. (6) (f) certain mannerr or for the Coast Guard to issue a Local'
Notice to Mariners or Special Local Regulations, the
Commander, Second Coast Guard District retains the right to
regulate and control, or to not regulate or control, all such
events in any manner he determines to be appropriate. The
Coast Guard will notify the signatory State of its intended
determination in all such instances.

F. Aids to Navigation.

(1) Neither party cedes by this agreement any of its powers and
responsibilities to the other.

(2) Indiana is hereby permitted to regulate maritime aids to
navigation, incila-ding regulatory markers, on "State Waters for
Private Aids to Navigation' on the condition that that the aids
conform to the Uniform State Waterway Marking System specified by
Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations, Subpart 66.10 or the United
States' lateral system of buoyage, Subpart 62.25.

(3) This Agreement shall constitute a general permit in lieu of
individual permits as prescribed in Title 33, Code of Federal
Regulations, 66.01-5, for all maritime aids to navigation,
including regulatory markers, which are in conformity with this
agreement and the regulations in Title 33a Code of Federal
Regulations, Subparts 62.25, 66.05, heretofore established or to
be established in Indiana OState Waters for Private Aids to
Navigation" as previously designated or hereafter designated by
the Commandant. The extent of "State Waters for Private Aids to
Navigation" may be modified from time to time as provided in
paragraph 9.

(4) Indiana will modify or remove, or cause to be removed, maritime
aids to navigation, including regulatory markers, established
under the authority of Indiana, without expense to the United
States when so directed by Commandero Second Coast Guard District
(hereinafter 'COAST GUARDn) subject to the right of Indiana to
appeal any such order to the Commandant, whose decision shall be
final.

(5) COAST GUARD shall have the right to inspect the maritime aids to
navigation authorized by this agreement at any time. Whenever
possible prior notice shall be given by the Coast Guard to the
State of Indiana to allow for a joint inspection.

(6) Indiana shall furnish Commander, Second Coast Guard District,
1430 Olive Street, St. Louis, MOp 63103, a listing of the location
and type of aids to navigation established under the authority of
Indiana prior to the effective date of this Agreement. COAST
GUARD shall furnish Indiana a list of all private aids to
navigation under COAST GUARD jurisdiction in the OState Waters for
Private Aids to Navigationo of Indiana in existence prior to the
effective date of this Agreement, which are to be transferred to
the administration of Indiana. The list shall include the
information referred to in 33 CFR 66.01-5 except for the chart or
sketch noted in paragraph (a) of that section.

2-4 8

3 F. (7) Indiana shall inform the COAST GUARD of the nature and the extent
of any change in Indiana maritime aids to navigation as soon as
possible, preferably not less than 30 days in advance of making
the changes.

(8) (a) In each instance in which a regulatory marker is to be
established in 'State waters for Private Aids to Navigationw
Indiana shall require the agency or political subdivision of
the State establishing or authorizing the marker to obtain
prior permission from the District Engineer, U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, having jurisdiction to regulate the waters
involved, or a statement that there is no objection to the
proposed regulation of the water area. A copy of the Corps of
Engineers permit or letter of authority shall be provided by
Indiana to'66AST GUARD upon request.

(b) When a fixed or floating aid to navigation or a mooring buoy
is to be established in "State Waters for Private Aids to
Navigation" Indiana shall require the private party, agency or
political subdivision establishing or authorizing the aid or
mooring buoy to obtain prior permission or a statement of no
objection from the District Engineer concerned.

(9) The Commandant may, upon his own initiative or upon requ-est,
revoke or revise any designation of "State Waters for Private Aids
to Navigationn previously made by him. Written notice will be
given to Indiana (mail address: Dept. of Natural Resources, 606
State Office Bldg. 101 N. Senate Ave. Indianapolis, IN 46204) of
any such action contemplated by the Commandant. Except in an
emergency, Indiana will be afforded a period of not less than 30
days from the date of the notice in which to inform the Commandant
of Indiana's view in the matter before final action is taken to
revoke or revise such designation.

(10) At any time after this agreement has been in effect for one year,
Indiana may withdraw from this Agreement upon giving 90 days
written notice to COAST GUARD. In this event, prior to withdrawal
Indiana will furnish to COAST GUARD data such as that described in
paragraph 6 in order to facilitate resumption of exclusive COAST
GUARD supervision of maritime aids to navigation in navigable
waters of the UNITED STATES within the State of Indiana (nState
Waters for Private Aids to Navigation').

(11) By 1 September annually, Indiana will provide COAST GUARD a
listing of all aids being administered in oState Waters for
Private Aids to Navigation" as of 30 June of that year. This
listing will indicate the number of each type of aid but need not
include the detailed information required under paragraph 6 above.

3 G. General

(1) The State shall endeavor to conform its laws, rules, and
regulations with Federal law to the fullest extent practicable,
subject to the Federal preemption provisions contained in Title 46
U.S.C.. The Coast Guard and the State shall promptly furnish each
other the text of any law, rule, or regulation having to do with
numbering, equipping, or operation of vessels which are the
subject of this Agreement and any administrative interpretations
thereof.

2-49

3. G. (2) The Coast Guard and the State will provide to each other a copy
of statistical and other data pertinent to the matters agreed to
4. LIAISON herein.

Liaison shall be as follows:

FOR THE STATE

Boarina Law Administrator

FOR THE UNITED STATES

Chief
Boating Safety Division
Second
Coast Guard District

2-50

5. DURATION OF AGREEMENT

This agreement remains in effect until cancelled by either party.
The cancelling party will provide the other party with at least 30
days notice. A representative of each party will review the agreement
biennially for the purpose of ascertaining if any revisions are
necessary. A copy of the review will be appended to each party's copy
of the agreement.

(SIGNATURES)

State of Indiana

Captain Caroll Henneke
By
TITLE Boating Law Administator
DATE July 19, 1985

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
U.S. COAST GUARD

By B.F. Hollingsworth
TITLE: Rear Admiral U.S. Coast Guard
Commander, Second Coast Guard District
DATE:

TA
... .......
T E- . ..........
STA INDIANA
,;I @,4`0 INDIANAPOLIS
OFFICES OF ATTORNEY GEN944921VE . ....... ..............

THEODORE L. SENDAK, ATTORNEY GENERAL
219 STATE HOUSE J U L 9
46204
lovember 25,. _1980.

Honorable Steve L. Collins
Indiana State Representative
Box 131, Ogden Dunes IN FORMAT I Oti- -C-0-p-y-@-1
Portage, Indiana 46368

T
OFFICIAJ, OPINIO[i @40. 80-37

Dear Representative Collins:

This is written in response to your request for an opinion
on the following questions:

1. Does the northern boundary line of Lake
County correspond with the northern boundary
line of the State of Indiana in the northwest-
ern corner of the State of Indiana where Lake
County lies?

2. What law enforcement agency is responsible
for safety and law enforcement services on
that portion of Lake Michigan which is north
of the shoreline and south of the State
boundary line?

I
3. In Lake County, does the jurisdiction o.4' t1nie
cities located on the lakeshore extend into
Lake Michigan and, if so, how far?

ANALYSIS

The Indiana Constitution, Article 14, Section 1, concerning
establishment of boundaries of the State, reads:

"In order that the boundaries of the State -nay
be known and established, it is hereby ordained
and declared, that the State 7f-fndiana is bounded,
on the East, by the meridian line, which forms

(Page 1 of 5 pages)

2-52

Honorable Steve L. Collins OFFICIAL* OPINION NO. 80-37
Indiana State Representative
November 25, 1980

the western boundary of the State of Ohio; on the
South, by the Ohio river, from the mouth of the
Great Miami river to the mouth of the Wabash
river; on the West, by a line drawn along the
middle of the Wabash river, from its mouth to a
point where a due north line, drawn from the town
of Vincennes, would last touch the north-western
shore of said Wabash river; and, thence, by a due
north line, uritil the same shall intersect an east
ancT- -we SH-1 in-e--,-Jr awn thi7@uEH__a - U-1
p2_int ten [1
miles north of the s6`u`EFe_r_n extreme of Lake Michi-
gan; on the North, by_said east and west line, un-
til the same shall intersect the first mentioned
meri=aE -1ine, which forms Eh-ewesE-ern boundary of:
the State of Ohio." (Emphasis supplied).

In 1980 O.A.G. No. 26, this office discussed the authority
of the Indiana Department of Natural Resources to promulgate
rules and regulations for the preservation, restoration and admin-
istration of historic sites and structures over that portion of
Lake Michigan north of the shoreline and within the State bound-
ary.

Indiana Code Section 17-1-6-2 describes the bounda ries of
Lake County as:

The district of country within the following
C,
boundaries shall form and constitute the county 0 f
Lake, to wit Beginning on Lake Michigan where
C)
the center line'of range seven [71 west intersects
the same, thence south to the Marble Powers ditch,
thence down the middle of the channel of the same
to the beginning of the Williams ditch, thence
down the middle of the channel of the same to the
state line, thence north with the same to Lake
Michigan, thence eastwardly with the lake to the
place of beginning: Provided, The northern bound-
ary of said county shall be the same as the north-
ern state line." (Emphasis supplied).

Indiana Code Section 17-3-@14-5 discusses the county police
force and reads:

(Page '2 of 5 pages)

2-53

Honorable Steve L. Collins OFFICIAL OPINIO@l 110. 80-37
Indiana State Representative
November 25, 1980

"Each member of the county police force has
general police powers; shall arrest, without
process , all persons who, within his view, commit
any offense, take them before the court having
jurisdiction, and detain them in custody until the
cause of the arrest has been investigated; shall
suppress all breaches of the peace within his
knowledge with authority to call to his aid the
power of the county; shall pursue and commit to
the jail of the county all felons; may execute all
process directed to the sheriff of his county by
legal authority; shall attend upon and preserve
order in all courts of his county; and shall guard
C)
prisoners in the county jail. He shall serve all
process directed to the sheriff of his county from
a court or from the board of commissi.oners- ac-
cording to law." (Emphasis supplied).

Indiana Code Article 14-1, the Watercraft Safety Act, at
Indiana Code Section 14-1-1-2 provides that the provisions of
this Act 114-1-1-1--14-1-1-63] shall apply to all the public
waters of this State and to all watercraft navii-ated or moving
thereon. Indiana Code Section 14-1-1-43 provides that an opera-
tor of any boat involved in any accident or collision on public
waters of this State, resulting in injury or death to any person
or damage to any boat or property to an apparent extent of fifty
dollars ($50.001 or more, shall give notice of such accident to
the office of the county sheriff, state police post, or conserva-
tion office.

Indiana Code Section 14-3-4-9, as last amended by Acts 1978,
P.L. 2, Section 1417, provides that the conservation officers of
the Indiana Department of Natural Resources shall have the power
to enforce the conservation laws, rules and reTilations of this
State, as well as all laws of Indiana. Also, Indiana Code Sec-
tion 14-1-1-60, in pertinent part, reads:

"All peace officers of this state shall have
the power and it sha71-be their duty to enforce
the provisions of this act [14-1-1-1-14-1-1-631
and all lawful rules and regulations duly made and
promulgated by the department thereunder." (Em-
phasis supplied).

The Indiana Constitution, Article 14, Section 2, reads:

'Page 3 of 5 pages)

2-54

Honorable Steve L. Collins OFFICIAL OPINION 110. 80-37
Indiana State Representative
Nbvember 25, 1980

"The State of Indiana shall possess juris-
diction and sovereignty co-extensive with the
boundaries declared in the preceding section
[Indiana Constitution Article 14, Section 1]; and
shall have concurrent jurisdiction, in civil and'
criminal" cases, with the State of Kentucky on the
Ohio river, and with the State of Illinois on the
Wabash river, so far as said rivers form the
common boundary between this State and said States
respectively."

As to law enforcement in the area of Lake County north of
the shoreline and extending to the northern State boundary line,
Indiana Code Chapter 10-1-1, concerning the Indiana State Police
Department, must also be considered. Indiana Code Section 10-1-
1-10, which pertains to the powers of the officers and police
employees, in pertinent part, reads:

"...The police employees of the department shall
prevent and detect offenses, apprehend offenders,
enforce the laws, and perform other duties imposed
upon them by law, and to this end, police employ-
ees of the department [Indiana State Police] have
in any part of the state the same powers with
respect to criminal matters and the enforcement
of the laws re hereto as sheriffs, consta@
bles, and police officers have in their respective
jurisdictions,..." (Emphasis supplied).

See also 1970 O.A.G., No. 44, p. 115.

As to the jurisdiction of the cities located on the lake-
shore in Lake County, 1980, O.A.G. No. 26, supra, stated in part:

"A city has no title to either the waters oil
Lake Michigan or the bed of Lake Michigan. Carner
V. CiU of Michigan City, 453 F. Supp. 33 -(Ina7
1-
978)."

CONCLUSION

It is, therefore, my Official Opinion that:

(Page 4 of 5 pages)

2-55

Honorable Steve L. Collins OFFICIAL OPINION NO. 80-37
Indiana State 'Representative
November 25, 1980

(1) Pursuant to Indiana Code Section 17-1-6-2,
the northern boundary line of Lake County
corresponds with the northern boundary line
of the State of Indiana.

(2) The-Indiana State Police have concurrent ju-
risdiction with the Lake County Sheriff as to
criminal matters and the enforcement of the
laws, north of the lakeshore to the northern
State boundary line. The Uatercraft Safety
Act, Indiana Code Sections [14-1-1-1--14-1-
1-631, provides that all peace officers of
this State, which includes the conservation
officers of the Indiana Department of Natural
Resources, shall have the power and duty to
enforce the provisions of that Act.

3. Lakeshore cities have no title to the waters
or the bed of Lake Michigan.

Yours truly,

THEODORE L. SENDAK
Attorney General of Indiana

TLS:ria

(Page 5 of 5 pages)

2-56

@@Ar -6-,
T
TAT E- INDIANA

INDIANAPOLIS

OFFICES OF ATTORNEY GENERAL ............

LINLEY E. PEARSON, ATTORNEY GENERAL
219 STATE HOUSE
46204 April 17, 1990

The Honorable Paul J. Hric
Indiana State Representative
7039 Northcote Avenue
Hammond, Indiana 46324

INFORHATION COPY

OFFICIAL OPINION NO. 90-8

Dear Representative Hric:

.This is in response to your request for an opinion con-
cerning the following question:

House Bill No. 1089 which passed in
the 1989 session stated that marinas in Lake
County must provide access to Lake
Michigan. They shall provide one free
launching ramp for boats and eight percent
(8%) of the parking free of charge. Prior
to the marinas, people had access to Lake
Michigan the year round. Fences have been
built around marinas and the gates have been
locked preventing year round use of the
lakefront. When the gates are unlocked the
marina still charges five dollars ($5) for
launching a boat. Can they do this?

ANALYSIS

You stated that your intention in introducing and in pas-
sing of House Enrolled Act No. 1089 was to give people access
to Lake Michigan the year round which they had prior to the
building of the marinas.
When reviewing a statute, the court's objective is to de-
termine and implement legislative intent. Wallis v. Marshall
County Com'rs (1989), Ind., 546 N.E.2d 843.

2-57

The Honorable Paul J. Hric
Indiana State Representative
April 17, 1990
Page 2

Language employed in a statute is deemed to have been in-
tentionally used. Lawmakers are assumed to have used language
expressive of their intention. Charles W. Smith and Sons Exca-
vating, Inc. v. Litchfield (1985), Ind. App., 477 N.E.Z2 308.

House Enrolled Act No. 1089, Indiana Code Chapter 14-4-14,
effective January 1, 1990, reads:

Sec. 1. (a) This chapter applies only
to a marina located in a county having more
than two (2) second class cities.

(b) The State may not give money or
other consideration to a marina U-niess
tFie marina:

(1) provides a boat ramp without
charge tor access By Indiana resi-
dents to the waters served by the
marina;

(2) provides access to marina pro-
perty without charge tor fis-ffi5n@gy`
Tndiana residents in the waters
served 15y tFie marina; And

(3) dedicates at least eight percent
(8%) of the total number of parking
spaces at the marina for parking of
vehicles (including boat trailers)
by Indiana residents without charge.

SECTION 2. This act takes effect
January 1, 1990.

Lake County is the only county in Indiana with more than
two (2) second class cities.

The Indiana General Assembly, in the same way it has pro-
vided for marinas in Lake County, has now provided that if a
marina receives money or other consideration from the State it
must meet the requirements of Indiana Code Section 14-4-14-1.

2-58

The Honorable Paul J. Hric
Indiana State Representative
April 17, 1990
Page 3

Since Article 1, � 24 of the Constitution of Indiana prohi-
bits passing a law that will impair the obligation of con-
tracts, Indiana Code Section 14-4-14-1 would apply only to mar-
inas receiving money or other consideration from the State af-
ter January 1, 1990. Also see Adult Group Properties, Ltd. v.
Imler (1987), Ind.App., 505 N.E.Zd 459.
Indiana Code Section 14-4-14-1 was enacted to give Indiana
boaters and fishermen access to Lake Michigan. Ambiguities in
the statutory language should be resolved in favor of the ob-
vious legislative intent.
Indiana Code Section 14-4-15-1(b)(1) prohibits the State
from giving money or other consideration to a marina unless the
marina provides a free boat ramp for use by Indiana boaters.
Indiana residents should not be denied access to the-- free boat
ramp unless public safety considerations require a temporary
closing of the ramp-

Indiana Code Section 14-4-14-1(b)(2) prohibits the State
from giving money or other consideration to a marina unless the
marina provides free access to marina property for fishing.
Indiana Code Section 14-4-14-1(b)(3) prohibits the State
from giving money or other consideration to a marina unless the
marina dedicates at least eight percent (8%) of the total num-
ber of parking spaces at the marina for the free parking Ff
T-n7ffiana vehicles. The use of the phrase "total number" indi-
cates a legislative intent to count all parking spaces reason-
ably related to the marina.

The State of Indiana owns the land lakewards of the ordin-
ary high water mark on the Lake Michigan shore to the northern
boundaries of the State in Lake Michigan.

Public rights to use Lake Michigan are governed by Federal
and State statutes, regulations and rules.

Public Law 163-1985 [IC 14-6-321 established the Lake
Michigan Marina Development Commission to study various plans
and recommendations that are proposed concerning marina devel-
opment along the corridor. The Lake Michigan Marina Develop-
ment Commission may receive grants and appropriations from fed-
eral, state and local governments. IC 14-6-32-12. The Indiana
General Assembly, by P.L. 357-1989(ss), appropriated four mil-
lion ($4,000,000) dollars to the Lake Michioan Marina Develop-
ment Commission to be used to match local funds.

2-59

The Honorable Paul J. Hric
Indiana State Representative
April 17, 1990
Page 4

CONCLUSION

it is, therefore,, my Official Opinion that a marina in Lake
County that receives money or other consideration from the
State of Indiana after January 1, 1990, must comply with
Indiana Code Section 14-4-14-1 and must provide to Indiana res-
idents without charge, a boat ramp tor access to waters__@_erved
by the marina, access to marina property for fishing in the
waters served by the marina and eight percent (8%) of the total
parking spaces at the marina for vehicles (including boat
trailers). After January 1, 1990, the Lake Michigan Marina
Development Commission and other State agencies are prohibited
from giving money or other consideration to marinas in Lake
County unless the marina provides assurance that Indiana resi-
dents will have (1) year-round access to a free boat ramp lo-
cated at the marina, (2) year-round free access to marina pro-
perty for fishing, and (3) free parking in at least 8% of the
total number of parking spaces at the marina.

RespectfLlj4y subm

ey E. P arson
Attorney ne of Indiana

William E. Dai
Deputy Attorney G eral

WED/cmr: 4208p

2-60

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
AN OVERVEF-W OF THE FEDERAL
I COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
I AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR INDIANA'S
f
I PARTICIPATION IN THE PROGRAM
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1 3-1

Along Indiana's forty-five mile Lake Michigan shoreline, significant economic, social,
and physical changes are occurring. A six city commission is developing marinas and local
governments are anxious to use their shorelines to stimulate economic diversity. Steel mills are
downsizing and citizens are urging preservation and restoration of the shoreline environment.
It is apparent that some form of comprehensive shoreline planning is needed to deal with
complex issues such as land use and reuse, conflicts between users, public access, preservation,
natural hazards, and water quality problems.

The federal Coastal Zone Management Program offers an excellent and flexible program
framework as well as technical and financial assistance through which Indiana could develop a
shoreline management program.

In an effort to encourage the six non-participating states to prepare applications for
admittance to the CZM program, (twenty-nine states already participate), the Congress has
authorized program development grants for the first time in more than a decade. Congressman
Peter Visclosky, lst District of Indiana, which includes most of the Indiana shoreline of Lake
Michigan, has indicated his interest in earmarking a program development grant in the fiscal
year 1993 appropriation process. He needs a written request from Governor Evan Bayh by the
end of January 1992. If Congressman Visclosky is successful, a program development grant
could be available soon after October 1992. The 25% local match requirement can be met
through the salaries of existing personnel.

Once in the program, Indiana would receive approximately $525,000 annually to maintain
its CZM program. Again, the local match can be derived from the salaries of existing personnel
and funds provided by shoreline communities as match for low cost public access construction
projects which would be funded through Indiana's CZM program.

Indiana has a head start in the development of its CZM application as a result of technical
and planning documents prepared in the late 1970's when the state sought but failed to attain
federally approved CZM status.

CZM state status would provide Indiana with federal consistency authority to prevent any
unwanted federal government actions or activities in the coastal zone.

CZM state status would also provide Indiana with the ability to finance a wide variety
of technical studies and capital improvements in the CZM zone.

Most importantly, the CZM program will provide the opportunity to plan and implement
policies, programs, and projects to preserve, protect, develop, and where possible, to restore
or enhance the resources of Indiana's coastal zone for this and succeeding generations.

3-2

Cga" Zone, MADUMMI Rmgmm

The coastline of the United States of America extends over 95,000 miles and borders
three oceans and five of the world's largest freshwater lakes (the Great Lakes). Coastal climates
range from tropical to arctic; coastal shorelines vary including rock, sand, erodible clay bluffs
and marsh. Over 50 percent of the U.S. population, many major cities, and most heavy
industry, including oil refineries and electric generating plants, are located in coastal areas.

In the late 1960's the U.S. Congress recognized that coastal resources were being
severely stressed by competing and often conflicting uses. Without proper management, much
of the natural resources would be lost for generations, if not permanently, and significant
waterfront industrial and port sites would become obsolete or need to be redeveloped.

Congress provided the mechanism for establishing a national coastal resource
management framework by passing the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, P.L. 92-583.
The basic goal of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) is to encourage coastal states to
voluntarily develop comprehensive management programs. The CZMA establishes a state-
federal partnership in which states take the lead in managing their coastal resources, while the
federal government provides financial and technical assistance and agrees to act in a manner
consistent with the federally approved state management programs. The CZMA was
reauthorized in 1976, 1980, 1986, and 1990. It is administered by the Office of Ocean and
Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce.

To date, 29 of the 35 states and territories, covering 94 percent of the U.S. coastline,
including the Great Lakes shoreline, have received federal program approval and are
implementing their programs. Of the six non-participating states, the states of Minnesota and
Ohio are currently writing their applications for submission to the Secretary of Commerce.
Indiana, Illinois, Texas, and Georgia are the remaining non-participating states.

From 1974 through 1979, the federal government provided funds to all 35 states,
including Indiana, to partially support planning and development of coastal management
programs. Indiana received over $1.1 million in federal funds and invested the equivalent of
$350,000 in state funds to plan its shoreline management program. Indiana's participation in
CZM ended in 1981 when the legislature failed to pass a bill authorizing the organizational
structure necessary to implement the authorities of the proposed program.

In the ten years since CZM planning ended, significant economic, social, and physical
changes have occurred in the coastal zone. The creation of the six city Lake Michigan Marina
Development Commission has spurred marina development and caused recreational boating to
become an important regional amenity stimulating tourism and related economic development.
Cities, which had long ago relinquished their shorelines to industry, have become increasingly
aware of the valuable resource at their front doors - Lake Michigan. And industry, particularly
steelmakers, made significant investments in modernizing their plants, resulting in the

3-3

elimination of thousands of jobs and the abandoning of old industrial buildings and waste
disposal sites. Thus, it has become apparent that some form of comprehensive shoreline
planning is needed to deal with complex issues such as reclamation and reuse of former
industrial sites, conflicts among various users of the shoreline, demand for public access and
public amenities, recreational versus residential land use, preservation of remnant natural areas,
water quality problems, shoreline erosion, and dredge disposal.

Thus, the purpose of this report is to review the Coastal Zone Management Program to
determine if it provides the state of Indiana with an appropriate fi-amework through which to
manage the state's coastal resources.

Indiana's C2M

During Indiana's earlier CZM planning effort, several technical studies and planning
documents were prepared as a part of the application process for seeldng CZM state status.
These studies and documents have been reviewed to assess the program that was envisioned by
Indiana planners twelve or more years ago and to determine the extent of the planning effort that
would be required to update existing materials and meet federal requirements for program
approval.

In October 1978, the Indiana State Planning Services Agency described the goal of
Indiana's proposed CZM program as follows:

"The goal of the Indiana Coastal Zone Management Program is to
preserve, protect, develo, and where Inssible, restore or enhance
the resources of the 45 mile coastal zone,
Many uses of significant local, regional, and national benefit now
exist in the coastal zone. Between 1915 and 1976, however, these
southern shores of Lake Michigan were a battleground on which
an extensive struggle was waged over the question of development
versus preservation. Compromise naturally resulted. A diversity
of uses ranging from heavy industry to environmental preservation
have all been accommodated in this relatively short and narrow
corridor of land. Therefore, the Indiana CZM Program will not
focus on establishing permissible new uses of the coastal zone,
since there is room for none, but instead, on the goal of increasing
the compatibility of these current uses and assuring that, in the
process, both natural and man-made resources are sustained."

In light of the above stated goals, those associated with Indiana's earlier planning effort
determined that the CZM program would be based on six areas of concern or issues which
needed to be addressed. Those six program areas and a list of goals for each were described
as follows in earlier planning documents:

3-4

Access to Coastal Recreational Resources

A. Improve and enhance existing access to lake-related
public recreation facilities.

B. increase opportunities for such access for recreation
in areas where they are lacking.

C. Focus the enhancement of access in the areas of
swimming and related beach activities, hiking,
fishing (including the primary tributaries), and
boating.

Economic DevelMment

A. Promote the diversification of the region's economy
within the Indiana Coastal Zone, especially in terms
of urban water-fronts, tourism and ancillary
recreational services.

B. Foster the revitalization of the central business
districts of the coastal zone's older communities.

C. Promote, preserve, and enhance economic stability
and efficiency in the coastal zone which will
enhance the region's economy.

D. Develop policy to improve the quality and
management of air and water in the Indiana Coastal
Zone in order to enhance their ability to support
increased commercial and industrial uses.

E. Promote the orderly development of the Port of
Indiana/Bums International Harbor including
expansion of the facilities for handling and storing
a wider variety of cargoes.

III. Natural Hazards

A. Minimize the dangers and impacts of shoreline
erosion upon the health, safety and welfare in the
coastal zone.

3-5

B. Minimize the dangers and impacts of flooding upon
the health, safety and welfare in the coastal zone.

IV. Fish and Wildli

A. Protect and conserve environmentally sensitive areas
including wetlands, natural areas, wildlife habitat,
and other significant terrestrial and aquatic
environments in the Indiana coastal zone.

B. Develop policies and regulations to enhance
fisheries both in the lake, and in the major
tributaries where stocking programs exist or are
planned.

V. Energy Facilily Siting

A. Review and assess State policies and programs for
energy facilities (generation, storage, and
transmission) in the Indiana coastal zone.

B. Develop State policy for the siting of energy-
generating facilities such that Indiana can maintain
and improve its self-sufficiency in the area of
electric power generation.

C. Develop measures mitigating associated
environmental impacts.

VI. Dredge Dispgsal

A. Identify the issues relating to dredge disposal from
the five Indiana coastal zone harbors and other
related dredging projects.

B. Develop State policy of continued study and close
coordination with federal agencies to provide a
forum for the resolution of the issue.

C. Consider concurrently the question of harbor
deepening for proposed deep draft vessels and
possible year round navigation of the Great Lakes -
St. Lawrence Seaway.

3-6

Although these six program areas were relevant and timely twelve or so years ago, some
are probably no longer appropriate as the basis for Indiana's shoreline management program.
Thus, a renewed CZM effort would require a careful assessment of these program areas and
other potential ones as they form the foundation on which the management program would be
developed.

Overall, the federal CZM program has not changed significantly in the years since the
late 1970's when Indiana strove to prepare its application to the U.S. Secretary of Commerce
for inclusion in the program. The nine CZM program requirements remain much the same as
they were in 1978.

In the following discussion, each program requirement is stated and then annotated with
information gleaned from technical studies and planning documents prepared during Indiana's
earlier CZM planning period. This exercise reveals that much of the technical work has already
been accomplished although some of the documents will require updating.

CZM ProgLam

I. Identifiofion of the inland and seaward boundaries of the coastal zone subject to
the management program,

Indiana's earlier CZM planning documents recommended a single management zone with
special management units required by CZM and known as Geographic Areas of Particular
Concern (GAPC). In House Bill 2047 sponsored by the late Senator Carolyn Brown Mosby
while a member of the Indiana House of Representatives, Indiana's coastal management zone
was described as follows:

(1) to the north and west, by the boundaries of the state; and

(2) to the south and east by:
(a) that thoroughfare known as Interstate 90 from the western border of the
state until the point where it crosses the thoroughfare known as U.S. 12/20
just north of Interstate 90 interchange 43; then
(b) that thoroughfare known as U.S. 12/20 for approximately one (1) mile
until it divides; then
(c) that thoroughfare known as U.S. 20 to the point where it intersects the
thoroughfare known as the Porter/LaPorte County Line Road; then
(d) north on that thoroughfare to the point where it intersects that thoroughfare
known as U.S. 12; then
(e) east on U.S. 12 to the Indiana/Michigan border.

3-1

H.B. 2047 also provided that the CZM program could operate in specific geographic
areas of particular concern which were outside the boundaries delineated above if it was
determined that they required "special management attention within the terms of the overall
shoreline program because of their shoreline related value or characteristics."

IL A definition of what shall constitute Mr-missible land uses and water uses within
the coastal zone which have a direct and significant iMpact on the coastal waters.

Indiana's earlier CZM planning documents reflect that a qualitative evaluation of the
impacts of land and water uses on coastal resources was conducted to identify which uses were
direct and significant. Four broad categories of uses were considered:

1. Industrial/commercial, including major steel production and
commercial harbors;

2. Recreational/preservation, including parks, recreational boat
harbors and natural areas;

3. Public services, including energy generating facilities, water
supply, treatment facilities, and the transportation network; and

4. Residential areas.

These four broad categories of use were evaluated using the following parameters:

0 capability and suitability of resources types to
accommodate existing or projected uses;

0 environmental impacts on coastal resources;

0 compatibility of various uses with adjacent uses or
resources;

0 water dependency of the uses; and

0 evaluation of inland or other location alternatives.

A matrix was utilized to evaluate the four broad categories of uses and the report
concluded that "the intensive concentration of varied land and water uses have a high degree of
directed potential impact upon one another and upon the existing or potential environmental
quality of the coastal resources. Only a few uses may offer the potential, over a long period of
time, of deflection inland. What is truly amazing is the degree of compatibility and
environmental quality which does exist in a shoreland in which land and water resources are
already so extensively assigned and utilized."

3-8

III. An invent= and designation of areas of paM:g @l w-ncern (such as natural areas,
wildlife habitat, pgrts) within ft coasW Wng,

In 1979, the Natural Land Institute of the IDNR's Division of Nature Preserves
cooperatively studied natural areas and habitats of endangered and threatened plants and animals
in the coastal zone. The study report included:

1. an inventory and evaluation of natural areas;

2. location and identification of endangered and threatened plant and
animal species.

In addition, the state developed criteria, categories, and a designation process for
identifying and selecting areas of particular concern. Criteria included economic benefits,
scarcity and/or sensitivity. In addition to designations recommended by the state, a public
nomination process was developed.

IV. An identification of the means by which the state R=gses to control the land uses
and water uses referred in to in prggrani Mquirement two Q. including a listing of relevant
constitutional provisions, laws. regulations. and judicial decisions,

In the Legal and Administrative Inventory prepared for the State of Indiana by a legal
consultant in 1976, it is concluded that current federal, state, and local laws are sufficient for
coastal management with respect to water and water related activities. However, "they would
appear to be somewhat deficient and diffused with respect to land and land use activities."

In 1981, the State Planning Services Agency prepared a "Legal Analysis of Statutory an
Administrative Authority for CZM Program Policie ." The analysis examined Indiana law
relative to the six proposed program areas:

0 Access to Coastal Recreational Resources

0 Economic Development

0 Natural Hazards

0 Fish and Wildlife

0 Energy Facility Siting, and

0 Dredge Spoil Disposal

3-9

The legal analysis discussed the powers and authorities in current law which could be
utilized to achieve the stated goals of each proposed program area. Although there is an
occasional reference to the need to clear up an ambiguity in a specific statute, the analysis
concluded that the state had sufficient authority to attain the proposed program's goals.

Clearly, this legal analysis requires revision to reflect changes in the law in the past
decade. Additionally, if program areas change, the statutory basis for addressing any new
program areas will have to be researched.
V. Develppment of broad guidelines on priorities of uses in particular areas including
apecifically those uses of lowest priori1y,

Indiana's earlier CZM planning stated that its recommended priorities of use "are derived
from and are compatible with the goals and objectives of the Indiana Coastal Zone program" and
address the six program areas. Broad guidelines were developed to determine uses of high
priority and uses of low priority.

Coastal dependent uses were considered high priority and included the following:

0 boat harbors, launch ramps
0 fisheries, stocldng and spawning areas, fishing piers
0 erosion and storm protection facilities including beach nourishment
0 harbors, channels, navigation aids and improvements, dredging and disposal sites
0 port terminals
0 industries and utilities which must load and off-load cargo from deep-draft vessels
0 water supply corridors

Uses of low priority were deemed to be those uses which are not coastal dependent. A
list of the low priority uses included the following:

0 forms of recreation which can be deflected inland
0 agriculture
0 transportation improvements which do not provide access to coastal dependent
uses
0 facilities and operations for mineral exploration and extraction including mining
of coastal sand dunes

Here again, if any revisions or additions are made to the previously determined six
program areas, some of the work prepared earlier to meet this requirement will need revision
since uses of high and low priority may change with any changes to the basic program areas.

VI. A descp@ption -of the, organizational structure P=sed to implement the management
program, including the respgnsibilities and inLer-relationshWs of local, areawide, state, regional,
and interstate agencies in the management pLocess.

3-10

Indiana's CZM planners of more than a decade ago evaluated four management
alternatives including:

1. Coastal Zone Management Authority - a separate autonomous
organization at the state level with a director and appropriate staff.

2. Coastal Zone Management Commission - a twenty-three member
commission which would oversee the operation of the Indiana
CZM program and make necessary policy related to the plan.
Program staff support would be provided by the State Planning
Services Agency.

3. Lead Agency/Network - two options were evaluated within this
organizational structure:

a. Indiana Coastal Zone Management Bureau within the Indiana
Department of Natural Resources - an advisory board would
consult with the Bureau director and staff on the CZM plan and
program.

b. Executive Council of the State Planning Services Agency - The
twelve member Executive Council which includes the governor,
lieutenant governor, state budget director, and four legislators
would serve as the policy and oversight body utilizing the State
Planning Services Agency staff.

4. Regional Commission - the Coastal Zone Management Agency would be a special
office within NIRPC operating simultaneously, but using NIRPC staff while under
the supervision of the Executive Council of the State Planning Services Agency.
The CZM agency's director would be appointed by the governor.

Planning documents reflect that the Lead Agency/Network model was selected as the
preferred management structure with the State Planning Services Agency as the lead agency.
It was recommended that:

I . A new council would be created to provide policy direction. It
would consist of representatives of major state agencies and elected
officials from the three coastal counties.

2. A new coastal advisory committee would be established to advise
the policy council. All local units of government, major interest
groups and NIRPC would be involved.

3-11

Senator Mosby's bill, H.B. 2047, created a "Lake Michigan Shoreline Council"
consisting of the following persons:

(1) the director of the State Planning Services Agency;

(2) the director of the State Department of Natural Resources;

(3) the commissioner of the State Board of Health;

(4) the executive director of the State Highway Commission;

(5) the executive director of the State Department of Commerce; and

(6) six (6) elected officials from the shoreline area appointed by the governor from
the following units:
(a) four (4), not more than two (2) of who are from the same city, from cities
with more than fifty thousand (50,000) population according to the most
recent federal decennial census;
(b) one (1) from a city with a population between ten thousand (10,000) and
fifty thousand (50,000) according to the most recent federal decennial
census; and
(c) one (1) from a city or town with a population under ten thousand (10,000)
according to the most recent federal decennial census.

Clearly, the earlier selected management structure will require reexamination in view of
the fact that the State Planning Services Administration no longer exists. Indeed, Senator
Mosby's bill authorized the director of the SPSA to serve as chairman. "He can vote only in
case of a tie vote among other members."

It's interesting to note that the state of Michigan uses its seven member, governor
appointed, Natural Resources Commission as its policymaking body. During the Michigan
program's formative years, a citizen's advisory body known as the Citizens Shoreline Advisory
Council advised the NRC on a wide range of issues, actively soliciting public involvement in
the Coastal Management Program.

VII. A definition of the term "beach" and a planning p oq the protection of, and
I &as for
access to areas of environmental. recreational. historiol. aesthetic, ecological. or cultural value.

Technical Report No. 305, Public Ag&ss to 1he Indiana Shorelin , prepared by IDNR
in 1979, appears to fulfill all of the requirements of this paragraph. However, this
comprehensive report concludes that "a planning process to provide for and improve public
access to the shoreline of Lake Michigan is not deemed warranted. Existing federal, state, and
local legislative authorities and policies, if considered in light of documented recreational needs
and administered effectively, are adequate to meet the demand for public access to the Indiana

3-12

shoreline of Lake 1@fichigan%

It is apparent from public testimony at the shoreline meetings held in early 1991, Lake
Michigan Marina Development Commission and other meetings where Lake Michigan shoreline
issues are discussed, that the public feels that access to the Indiana shoreline remains inadequate.
One very direct benefit of the CZM program in the states of Michigan and Wisconsin has come
from the use of CZM funds to provide grants to local communities for low cost construction
projects to improve public access to the shore.

VIII. A planning pLQoss for energy facilities likel t in or which may
i)@ -o be located
significantly affect the coastal zone,, includinLbut not limited to, a process for anticipating and
managing the iMacts from such facilities.

Technical Report No. 306, Energy Fa-ciH!y Siting Review, was prepared during Indiana's
early CZM planning effort. It had two primary objectives:

a. to review and assess state policies and programs for energy
facilities (generation, transmission, and storage); and

b. to identify and consider the issues likely to affect the coastal zone
in view of future regional energy demands.

The report concluded that Indiana has no state policies or programs for energy facilities
on its coastal zone, although several state agencies exercise some authority regarding energy
facilities. Issues likely to affect the coastal zone in view of future energy demand are air
quality, land availability, water quality and water availability.

IX. A planning p ocess for assessing the effects of shoreline erosion and studying and
evaluating ways to control, or lessen the impact of such erosion and to restore areaL&dversely
affected by such erosion,

Technical Report No. 307, Shoreline Erosion Along 1he Indiana Coast of Lake Michigan,
issued in 1979, concludes that "in view of the limited effort of erosion hazard areas and the
localized nature of the problem within existing units of local government, a state established and
administered shore erosion management program is not warranted." The report states that "a
lack of data on erosion - recession rates in the Long Beach-Duneland Beach area has hindered
efforts to estimate future hazards there, and a study of shore erosion for this area would provide
valuable information." The report suggests that once armed with erosion data, the DNR could
estimate the longevity and effectiveness of retaining walls presently in use as erosion and flood
controls. Then, a local shoreline management program could review and regulate construction
which would be subject to erosion in a fifty year period."

3-13

In the late 1980's the state of Indiana contracted with the Great Lakes Coastal Research
Laboratory at Purdue University in West Lafayette, to prepare a complete assessment of
Indiana's Lake Michigan shoreline. The resulting report is considered one of the most
comprehensive documentation of coastal conditions and dune-bluff recession for any state
bordering on the Great Lakes.

The report concludes that "cerLain well detailed needs for coastal zone management
become evident. - Such a management program should include the following:

a. Coastal Information System - to maintain current, as well as
historic information on coastal recession, shore conditions,
(profiles, beach width, sediment), structure positions and
condition, and land use changes.

b. Coastal Monitoring Program - to include annual aerial photography
of the entire coast to be flown annually, beach and near shore
bathymetry surveys every two to five years, beach profile surveys
and site photography.

C. Coastal Change Modeling - to develop a numerical model for
predicting bluff recession and shoreline change due to lake level
variation and storm wave impact.

d. Beach Nourishment - to encourage beach nourishment as a primary
alternative to remedy heavily impacted erosion zones.

The Federal CZM program could provide Indiana with the funds to implement some of
the Great Lakes Coastal Research Laboratory's recommendations. Michigan and Wisconsin use
their CZM funds for many of the coastal management activities recommended by the Purdue
University study.

From the foregoing discussion of the federal CZM requirements and Indiana's earlier
planning activities to satisfy those requirements and to achieve CZM state status, it can be
concluded that excellent work, much of which is still timely and accurate, has been prepared.
Some materials, however, will require some updating. In some instances, updating win simply
be a matter of adding information that was unavailable ten or more years ago. In other
instances, major premises, such as the six program areas and the organizational structure for
implementing the program, will need to be thoroughly reexamined.

3-14

Eedegg Cansisten
L__@

An important requirement of the federal CZM program is a provision known as "federal
consistency." It requires that each federal agency activity within or outside the coastal zone that
affects any land or water use or natural resource of the coastal zone, must be carried out in a
manner that is consistent with the approved state management program. Federal consistency
authority empowers the state to review all actions in or affecting its coastal zone that are
performed by, supported by, or licensed or permitted by the federal government to determine
if these projects are consistent with the state's coastal zone management program and policies.
Three basic types of federal activities would be subject to review by the designated state
management agency: direct federal agency activities; federally licensed and permitted activities;
and federal assistance to state and local governments.

At present, federal agencies such as the Corps of Engineers and Coast Guard do not
consult with the state of Indiana when they undertake activities such as dredging or maintenance
and emergency reconstruction of such structures as riprap, breakwaters, or bridge abutments in
Indiana waters. An approved Indiana CZM program would require all federal agencies to
confirm that their proposed activities are consistent with the state management program before
those activities can proceed.

In instances where public or private entities, including individuals, are applying for
federal permits to conduct regulated activities within the coastal zone, those proposed activities
could not proceed unless and until they were found to be consistent with Indiana's coastal
management program and policies.

&elusion of Eederaft 2gmed land

Lands in federal ownership are excluded from a state's coastal management program.
Nearly fifteen miles of Indiana's forty-five mile shoreline is within the authorized boundaries
of the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore (IDNL). Of the fifteen miles, approximately eight
miles are owned by the National Park Service and would therefore be excluded from Indiana's
coastal management program.

Although excluded from the management program, federally owned lands must still meet
the consistency review requirement. Thus, future development and maintenance projects within
the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore would be subject to review to determine their consistency
with the state management program.

IDNL Superintendent, Dale Engquist, was asked to query his colleagues in Wisconsin
and Michigan to determine how CZM prograins were viewed by federal park managers. Most
responses were positive and typified by the following from the superintendent of Sleeping Dunes
National Lakeshore in Empire, Michigan:

3-15

"When the State of Michigan received its Coastal Zone Management status over
all of its Great Lakes shoreline areas, the National Park Service became subject
to review, by the State, for all future development projects in the shoreline areas
of Sleeping Bear Dunes. We do not consider this to be an unworkable or
negative relationship in any way. Under proprietary jurisdiction and considering
the large number of private inholding within the park, it lends an extra measure
of confidence to managers and interested citizens by knowing that this level of
review is in place.

Our overall opinion of this process and situation in Michigan is that it is a good
one and will continue to help in our management and development programs."

Fundin

Two types of funding are available through the Federal Coastal Zone Management
program:

0 program development grants
0 program administration grants

Prouam DevelODment Grants

The Coastal Zone Management Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 reauthorized
program development grants through fiscal year 1993. Such a grant may be made to any coastal
state without an approved program if the coastal state demonstrates that the grant will be used
to develop a management program meeting CZM requirements.

The amount of any such grant may not exceed $200,000 in any fiscal year and requires
state matching funds according to a 4 to I ratio of federal to state contributions. No more than
two grants may be awarded to any coastal state. The CZM appropriation bill for fiscal year
1992 earmarks program development grants of $200,000 each for Ohio, Minnesota, and Texas.

Representative Peter J. Visclosky of Indiana's Ist Congressional District, has indicated
his willingness to seek a program development grant for Indiana in the fiscal year 1993
appropriation process. In a January 16, 1992 letter, Congressman Visclosky says, "If the State
of Indiana is, in fact, interested in participating, as would be evidenced by written affirmation
from the Governor's office, I would be happy to support the state's efforts in the Appropriations
Committee. " As preparation for the fy 1993 appropriations bill has already begun, Congressman
Visclosky needs to hear from Indiana by the end of January. If he is successful, those funds
could be available after October I Y 1992.

3-16

Program Administration Oranit-s

Once state management programs have been approved by the U.S. Secretary of
Commerce, they become eligible for annual program administration grants.

Funds are allocated by a formula of shoreline mileage and coastal population, with
minimum and maximum shares for the smallest and largest states. Based on a total funding level
of $35 million, which is approximately the amount that has been available for the past several
years, Indiana would receive about $525,000 annually once its program receives federal
approval. States are required to match CZM funds based on specified federal-state ratios. The
federal-to-state funding ratios are 4 to I for the first fiscal year, 2.3 to I for second fiscal year,
1.5 to I for the third fiscal year, and I to I for each fiscal year thereafter.

Many state programs meet part of the matching requirement by providing grants to local
entities for small construction projects and requiring the grant recipient to provide the non-
federal match.

Two Mew CZM RDmm

The 1990 Coastal Zone Management Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990
established a new program for controlling nonpoint source pollution and a grant program to
encourage improvements to existing CZM programs.

Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program

CZM states will be required to develop and implement certain management measures to
restore and protect coastal waters as a result of the new Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control
Program. Management measures are described as economically achievable measures for
controlling the addition of pollutants to coastal waters through the application of the best
available nonpoint pollution control practices, technologies, processes, site criteria and operating
methods.

By 1995, CZM states must submit their nonpoint source pollution management programs
to NOAA. Funds have been authorized to assist in meeting this new program requirement. The
current CZM appropriation contains $2 million for fiscal year 1992. It is anticipated that the
Congress will provide funds to implement the coastal nonpoint source pollution prevention
programs in each CZM state when it reauthorizes the Coastal Zone Management Act.

Coastal Zonc Enhancemeat Grants

The 1990 Amendments also establish a new enhancements grant program to encourage
states to continually improve their CZMA programs in one or more of eight identified areas.
The Coastal Zone Enhancement Objectives include: (1) coastal wetlands management and

3-17

protection; (2) natural hazards management (including the potential for Great Lakes level rise);
(3) public access improvements; (4) reduction of marine debris; (5) assessment of cumulative
and secondary impacts of coastal development; (6) special area management planning; (7) ocean
resource planning; (8) siting of coastal energy and government facilities.

Grants will be made to coastal states to provide funding for development and submission
of program changes that support one or more of the coastal zone objectives.

ZdaW Sodefflederal Coas-W

In the following discussion, three distinct coastal initiatives are briefly described because
of their possible implications for shoreline planning in Indiana.

Remedial Action Planning

The Indiana Harbor and Ship Canal, Grand Calumet River, and waters near the shores
of Lake Michigan, have been designated one of forty-three polluted Areas of Concern (AOC)
in the Great Lakes region. Under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement between the United
States and Canada, a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) is being prepared to clean up and restore this
heavily industrialized and environmentally degraded area. The Indiana Harbor and Ship
Canal/Grand Calumet River RAP is being prepared by the Indiana Department of Environmental
Management (IDEM) and a committee representing the community known as the Citizens'
Advisory for the Restoration of the Environment (CARE).

What role might an Indiana CZM program serve in cleaning up and restoring the Indiana
Harbor and Ship Canal/Grand Calumet River ACC? This question has immediate relevance
because of the new provisions in the CZM Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 requiring states
to develop and implement management measures to restore and protect coastal waters.

CZM funds are used by other Great Lakes States to finance small RAP construction
projects, such as habitat restoration or enhanced public access to the shore, assist local
governments in revising their land use plans, or prepare public education programs to build
support for AOC cleanup and motivate residents to do their part to reduce harmful runoff and
pollution.

OveralL remedial action planning and the CZM program can be highly complementary.
The RAP process could focus on remediation measures and CZM resources could be devoted
to planning and financing the restoration and reuse of the land.

3-18

Revisions to the National FLo-gd Insurance EjQgmm

Legislation currently under consideration by the Congress, will revise the National Flood
Insurance Program to include a comprehensive erosion management program. H.R. 1236, the
National Flood Insurance, Mitigation and Erosion Management Act of 1991, passed the House
of Representatives in May 1991. A nearly identical version, S. 1650, is nearing committee
mark-up in the Senate.

The erosion management element of the legislation would direct the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) to map the coastal and Great Lakes' shorelines to establish the
erosion hazard area. Based on FEMA's designation of high erosion areas, Indiana's shoreline
communities would be required to adopt thirty and sixty year setback lines. No new
development would be allowed lakeward of the sixty year setback line. Existing structures could
be maintained and improved although improvements, defined as those improvements that would
increase the value of the structure by fifty percent, would not be allowed.

With the progression of shoreline erosion, some existing structures could eventually reach
the ten year setback line. At that time the property owner could submit a relocation claim.

Corps of Eneincers Review of Indigna's Beachfrgnt ManagemenLEEggram

In July 1991, the Indiana Department of Natural Resources received an inquiry from the
U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers. The IDNR was asked to provide statutes, administrative rules,
regulations and guidelines that show that the state has established a beach front management
program.

The Corps of Engineers' inquiry is a result of Section 309 of Public Law 101-640, the
Water Resources Development Act of 1990, which provides:

"Not later than I year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit
to Congress a report on the advisability of not participating in the planning, implementation, or
maintenance of any beach stabilization or renourishment project involving Federal funds unless
the State in which the proposed project will be located has established or committed to establish
a beach front management program that includes--
(1) restrictions on new development seawafd of an erosion setbick line (based on
preproject beach size) of at least 30 times the annual erosion rate;
(2) restrictions on construction of new structural stabilization projects, such as seawalls
and groins, and their reconstruction if damaged by 50 percent or more;
(3) provisions for the relocation of structures in erosion-prone areas;
(4) provisions to assure public access to, beaches stabilized or renourished with Federal
funds after January 1, 1991; and
(5) such other provisions as the Secretary may prescribe by regulation to prevent
hazardous or environmentally damaging shoreline development.'

3-19

Two pending projects could be impacted if Indiana is penalized for its lack of a beach
front management program.

1. Maintenance dredging in Michigan City's Outer Harbor is
scheduled for 1993. The dredge spoils will be placed offshore of
Mount Baldy.

2. The Indiana Shoreline Program is a fifty year program which will
provide beach nourishment for a two mile portion of the shoreline
from Michigan City to Beverly Shores. Authorized by the
Congress in 1986, the final design was completed in 1990 and
awaits approval by the Corps of Engineers. The project's present
worth value is $20 million.

Great LW= CZM Staes

There is great diversity among the 29 states and territories taking part in the Coastal
Zone Management Program. Beyond obvious differences in size, region and extent of present
development along their coasts, there are major differences in political systems within the states
and territories and differences in levels of public support for CZM activity. As a result, the
nature and structure of CZM programs vary widely from state to state. Some states passed
comprehensive legislation as a framework for coastal management, while others used existing
land-use legislation as the foundation for their federally-approved programs or networked
existing, single-purpose laws into a comprehensive umbrella for coastal management. In order
to determine how CZM has been tailored to meet the needs of individual states, CZM programs
in Michigan and Wisconsin were reviewed. In both states, only relatively small appropriations
have been needed to match CZM dollars. Most of the match is derived from the salaries of
existing personnel who are administering various elements of the state's CZM program.

hUCHIGAN

Federal Approval Date: August 1978
Federal Funding FY88: $1,883,000
Federal Funding FY89: $1,934,000
Federal Funding FY90: $2,014,000

Backgro-und

3-20

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

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

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

Some Program AccomRlishment-&

Michigan effectively uses its CZM funds in a variety of ways as the following reflects:

0 Public Access - The Michigan Coastal Management Program awards funds to 30-40
communities a year for low-cost construction of projects. Each award amount ranges
from $3,000 to $50,000. These grants provide considerable benefits to communities
attempting to increase or improve public access opportunities. Funds have been used for
a variety of projects including board waiks, handicapped access, parking and lighting at
fishing and beach access sites.

0 Permit Simplification - Michigan has at least seven state laws which regulate land and
water activities. It will process about 6300 permit applications in 1991. In order to
consolidate the processing of those permit applications, a "one stop shopping" process
is employed through which a single application form is submitted to the DNR. A
computer system purchased with CZM funds is used to maintain all data and track the
application's processing. An initial review determines which statutes are involved, who
should receive public notice of the application, and whether a Corps of Engineers' permit
is also required. If a Corps permit is required, the same application form is sent to the
Corps for its independent processing. @ince 1984, Michigan has been granted federal

3-21

authority for Section 404 permits on all of the state's inland waters.

0 Tools for Effective Decisionmaking

0 annual aerial photography and video of the shoreline to (1) monitor
for violations, and (2) identify problems such as facilities that are
failing

0 base line data monitoring system through which two universities
monitor off shore bottom changes and recession rates for use in
permitting decisions

0 50% of the DNR salaries and equipment for coastal monitoring

0 computerized geographical information system which consolidates
environmental quality and resource management data. The data
base includes information on sensitive area, critical habitats, flood
plains and sediment quality data ftm point sampling sites.

0 Educational Materials - Several booklets and technical documents
have been developed and published on the issue of wetlands
protection. The Wetland ProW&n Ullidgh provides
information on the Wetlands Protection Act, defines and discusses
the value of wetlands, and explains Michigan's wetland permitting
process. A brochure, Michig-an Wetlands: A Guide for Propftrty
Qwners and Homebuildus, is aimed at educating property owners
and local officials who are involved in development. The MCMP
developed the Wetland D-etermination -M-miW fQr Field Testing to
provide written and operational guidance in identifying wetland
characteristics and indicators used in making wetland
determinations. The primary purpose of the manual is to formalize
the wetland determination process practiced by DNR personnel in
conducting wetland determinations.

0 Funds for local governments

0 local zoning ordinance studies

0 marina planning studies

3-22

0 Funds for inventories of natural resources

0 natural habitat inventories and migratory bird counts by local
environmental groups

WISCONSIN

Federal Approvai U%W. May 1978
Federal Funding FY88: $799,000
Federal Funding FY89: $799,000
Federal Funding FY90: $833,000

Background

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

The Coastal Management Section within the Department of Administration is the lead agency
for implementing the coastal management program. The program is implemented under the
policy guidance of the Wisconsin Coastal Management Council (WCMQ, a decision-maldng
body created by Executive Order. WCMC is responsible for setting the program's policies and
maldng major program decisions. The Council is also responsible for coordinating Federal, state
and local coastal activities and for advising the Governor on coastal matters.

Since 1980, the Council has been organized to include legislators and representatives of state
agencies, local governments, tribaR governments and interested citizens. The 33 regulatory
responsibilities are primarily carried out through the Department of Natural Resources Oake bed
activities, water quality, and fish and game management), the Department of Transportation
(harbor assistance), the Public Service Commission (power plant and transmission line siting),
and county governments (shoreland zoning). The 15 coastal counties make up the landward
coastal zone boundary. Counties are served by one of the three regional planning commissions,
each of which has a coastal specialist on its staff.

3-23

Some Program Af&gmplishments

0 Public Access - More than fifty low cost construction projects for improved public access
to the state's shoreline have been funded in the past five years. Some examples include
the Manitowoc pedestrian walkway along the City's waterfront, a parkway and walkway
for Green Bay, a walkway and viewing area at Sturgeon Bay, a coastal trail and visitor
center for the Village of Ephraim, and a floating dock at the Kewaunee Marina.

0 Shoreline Redevelopment - A Waterfront Action Group, comprised of representatives of
state agencies, was established to encourage shoreline redevelopment and coordinate
funds for projects.

CZM funds were used to plan and construct a 150 slip marina and waterfront park on
abandoned land in the City of Kewaunee. The development of this waterfront site
catalyzed significant private investment during 1988 and 1989, in addition to attracting
over 100,000 tourists annually.

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

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

o Coordination with Remedial Action Plans - CZM funds were used to finance a number
of technical studies related to toxic sediments and public participation efforts as a part
of two separate remedial action plans for contaminated harbors.

Conclusions

(1) Existing and emerging Indiana shoreline problems and opportunities require regional
comprehensive planning and policymaking. Such issues as demand for public access,
conflicts between shoreline users, development pressures on remaining natural areas,
development of marinas and related facilities, residential versus recreational development,
changing land and water uses due to surplus industrial lands, the need for environmental
remediation and restoration, shoreline erosion, tourism and economic development, can
best be addressed through the planning and policymaking framework of a shoreline

3-24

management program.

(2) The federal Coastal Zone Management Program offers a flexible framework and an
annual grant through which Indiana could establish a shoreline management program.
Approximately $500,000 would be available annually and could be used for needed
programs such as a coastal monitoring to collect data needed to make permitting,
enforcement and construction decisions. Funds could also be used to provide grants to
local communities for low cost public access projects and to assist with remediation and
restoration of contaminated areas. Moreover, CZM could provide an opportunity to
develop a shoreline management program that meets Indiana's needs.

(3) The required matching dollars can be derived from the salaries of current state personnel
who are engaged in coastal activities and a portion of their supervisors' time.
Additionally, low cost construction grants to communities can be matched by the
community thereby satisfying the matching funds requirement. Moreover, it is unlikely
that an Indiana CZM program will require any new state appropriations. Indeed, the
federal grant will enable the state to hire additional employees to assume program
responsibility.

(4) Preparation of Indiana's application to the U.S. Department of Commerce for CZM status
could be financed by a program development (planning) grant of up to $200,000, which
could be available in October 1992. Representative Peter J. Viscloslky has advised of his
willingness to support the State's efforts for CZM status by earmarldng the grant for
Indiana during preparation of the fiscal year 1993 appropriation bill.

(5) Several excellent technical and planning studies were prepared by the state of Indiana in
the late 1970's as a part of earlier efforts to become a CZM state. Much of that material
remains timely and useful and would provide a head start in the planning process leading
to the preparation of a new application.

(6) CZM's federal consistency requirements would provide Indiana with the authority to stop
any unwanted federal government actions or activities in Indiana's coastal zone.

(7) CZM status for Indiana would cause other federal funds to become available to Indiana.
Conversely, Indiana's lack of a beach management program could result in a loss of
certain federal funds.

(8) Indiana's Area of Concern, the Indiana Harbor and Ship Canal and Grand Calumet River,
are locatcd, at least in part, within the proposed coastal zone. CZM funds could be used
to finance technical studies and restoration projects to augment Remedial Action Plan
resources.

3-25

Re
&gmmendation

The Federal Coastal Zone Management program offers a framework, process, and
funding through which Indiana can comprehensively address the protection, use, and future of
one of its most delicate and precious natural resources, the Lake Michigan coastal zone.

Indiana should advise Congressman Peter Visclosky and Senators Richard Lugar and Dan
Coats of its interest in pursuing a federally approved coastal management program and ask them
to support the state's efforts by earmarldng a $200,000 program development grant for fiscal
year 1993.

Indiana should also advise the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management of its
interest in becoming a CZM state and its need for OCRM's technical assistance.

During the ten to twelve month period before the program development grant would be
available, an intensive planning process should be conducted with IDNR staff and northwest
Indiana interests - citizens, elected officials, industry/business, and environmentalists - to
reexamine the previously proposed program areas, adding and deleting as input indicates. Every
effort should be made to develop a program through which all interests, state, and local, will
derive some benefit. Through a careful planning process involving close consultation with IDNR
staff and considerable public input, a comprehensive and responsive program framework and
public support for it will be in place by the time the program development grant is received.
The technical activities necessary to prepare an application to the Secretary of Commerce can
then begin.

3-26

ATTACHMENT 1 S-882
71:8001

COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT OF IM

(PL 92-593, 16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq., October 27, 1972; Amended by PL 93-412,
January 2, 1975; PL 94-370. JWY 26. 1976; PL 95-219, December 28, 1977; PL 95-372,
September 18, 1978;_ PL 96-464, October 17, 1980; PL 98-620, November 11, 1984; PL
99-272, April 7,1986; PL-"-626, November 7,1986; PL 101-508, November 5,1990)

SHORT TITLE Lakes, territorial sea, exclusive economic zone, and Out-
er Continental Shelf are placing stress on these areas
SEC. 301. This title may be cited as the "Coastal Zone and are creating the need for resolution of serious
MatTagement Act of 1972". conflicts among important and competing uses and val-
ues in coastal and ocean waters.
CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS (Former 302(f)-(i) redesignated as (g)---(j) by PL
SEC. 302. The Congress rinds that - 96-464].
(a) There is a national interest in the effective manage- (g) Special natural and scenic characteristics are being
ment. beneficial use, protection, and development of the damaged by ill-planned development that threatens these
coastal zone. values.
(b) The coastal zone is rich in a variety of natural, (h) In fight of competing &-mands and the urgent need
commercial, recreational. ecological, industrial, and esthetic to protect and to give high priority to natural systems in
resources of immediate and potential value to the present* the coastal zone.' present state and local institutional
and future well-being of the Nation. arrangements for planning and regulating land and water
(c) The increasing and competing demands upon the uses in such areas are inadequate.
lands and waters of our coastal zone occasioned by pop- (i) The key to more effective protection and use of the
ulation growth and economic development. including land and water resources of the coastaf zone is to en.
requirements for industry, commerce, residential' courage the states to exercise their full authority over the
development. recreation, extraction of mineral resources lands and waters in the coastal zone by assisting the
and fossil fuels. transportation and navigation. waste dis- states, in cooperation with Federal and local
posal. and. harvesting. of fish, shellfish. and other living governments and other -vitally affected interests. in
marine resources, have resulted in the loss of living developing land and water use programs for the coastal
marine resources, wildlife. nutrient-rich areas. perma- zone, including unified policies, criteria, standards,
nent and adverse changes to ecological systems, decreas- methods, and processes for dealing with land and water
ing open space for public use, and shoreline erosion. use decisions ef more than local significirim.
(d) The habitat areas of the coastal zone, and the fish. 6) Tbe national objective of atu1ning a greater degree
shellfish, other living marine resources, and wildlife of energy self-sufficiency would be advanced by
therein, are ecologically fragile and consequently ex- providing Federal Financial assistance to meet state and
t,emely vulnerable to destructions by man's alterations. local needs resulting from new or expanded energy activi-
[302(a) amended by PL 101-5081 ty in or affecting the coastal zone.
(e) Important ecological, cultural. historic, and es- [302(k)-(m) added by.PL 101-508]
thetic values in the coastal zone which are essential to the (k) Land uses in the coastal zone. and the uses of
yvell-bcing of all citizens are being irretri.evably damaged adjacent lands which drain into the coastal zone. may
or lost. significantly affect the quality of coastal *aters and
[302(f) added by PL 96-464; amended by PL 101-5081 habitats, and efforts to control coastal water pollution
(f) New and expanding demands for food, energy, from land use activities must be improved.
minerals. defense needs, recreation, waste disposal, (1) Because global warming may result in a substan-
transportation, and industrial activities in the Great tial sea level rise with serious adverse effects in the

3-&-91 ftM by THE BUREAU OF NATX)Nft AFFAIRS, INC.. WMWOW D.C. 2=7 7

3-27

71:8002 FEDERAL LAWS

coastal zone, coastal states must anticipate and plan for commercial and industrial developments in or adjacent
such an occurrence. to areas where such development already exists,
(m) Because of their proximity to and reliance upon (E) public access to the coasts for recreation purposes,
the ocean and its resources, the coastal states have (F) assistance in the redevelopment of deteriorating
substantial and significant interests in the protection, urban waterfronts and ports, and sensitive preservation
management, and development of the resources of the and restoration of historic, cultural, and esthetic
exclusive economic zone that can only be served by the coastal features,
active participation of coastal states in all Federal pro. (G) the coordination and simplification of procedures
grams affecting such resources and, wherever appropri- in Order to ensure expedited governmental decision-
ate, by the development of state ocean resource plans as making for the management of coastal resources,
part of their federally ipproved coastal zone manage- (H) continued consultation and coordination with, and
ment programs. . the giving of adequate consideration to the views of,
CONGRESSIONAL DECLARATION OF POLICY affected Federal agencies, n
(1) the giving of timely and effective notificatio
(303 revised by PL 96 -4641 of, and opportunities for public and local government
SEC. 303. The Congress finds and declares that it is participation in, Coastal management decisionmaking,
the national policy- (30:1(2)(1) amended by PL 101-5081
(1) to preserve, protect, develop, and where possible, M assistance to support comprehensive planning, con-
to restore or enhance, the resources of the Nation's servation, and management for living marine re-
coastal zone for this and succeeding generations; ' .sources, including planning for the 3itiDS Of Pollution
(2) to encourage and assist the states to exercise control and aquaculture facilities within the coastal zone,
effectively their responsibilities in the coastal zone and improved coordination between State and Federal
through the development and implementation of manage- poastal zone management agencies and State and wild-
ment programs to achieve wise use of the land and water life agencies, and
resources of the coastal zone. giving full consideration to (303(2)(J) amended by PL 101*-5081
ecological, cultural, historic, and esthetic values as well (IQ the study and development, in any case in which
as the needs for compatible economic development, the Secretary considers it to be appropriate, of plans for
which programs should at least provide for- addressing the adverse effecti upon the coastal zone of
[303(2) introductory paragraph amended by PL land subsidence and of sea level rise; and
101-5081 [303(2)(K) amended by PL 101-5081
(A) the protection of natural resources. including (3) to encourage the preparation of special area
wetlands, floodplains, estuaries, beaches, dunes, barrier management plans which provide for increased specificity
islands, coral reefs, and fish and wildlife and their in protecting significant natural resources- reasonable
habitat, within the coastal zone, coa3tal-dependent economic growth. im@;@ protection
(B) the management of coastal development to of life and property in hazardous areas, including those
minimize the loss of life and property caused by areas likely to be affected by land subsidence, sea level
improper development in flood-prone. storm surge, rise, or fluctuating water levels of the Great Lakes, and
geological hazard, and erosion-prone areas and in area improved predictability in governmental decisionmaking,
likely to be affected by or vulnerable to. sea leVel rise, (303(3) amended by PL 101-5081
land subsidence, and saltwater intrusion, and by the
destruction of natural protective features such as beach- (4) to encourage the participation and cooperation
es, dunes, wetlands, and barrier islands. of the. public, state and_ local governments. and
(303 (2)(B) amended, former (C)-(I) redesignated as interstate and other regional agencies, as well as of the
new (D)-(J) and new (C) added by PL 101-508) Federal agencies having programs affecting the coastal
(C) the management of coastal development to'im- zone, in carrying out the purposes of this title;
prove, safeguard, and restore the quality of coastal [303(4) amended and (5) and (6) added by PL
waters, and to protect natural resources and existing 101-5081
uses of those waters. (5) to encourage, coordination and cooperation with
(D) priority consideration being given to coastal- and among the appropriate Federal, State, and local
.dependent uses and orderly processes for siting major agencies, and international organizations where appro-
facilities related to national defense, energy'. fisheries priate, in collection, analysis, synthesis, and dissemina-
development, recreation, ports and transportation. and tion of coastal management information. research re-
the location, to the maximum extent practicable, of new Sulu. and technical assistance, to support State and

amwan"w"i A"a r

3-28

S-882
COASTAL ZONE ACT 71:6003

Federal regulation of land use practices affecting the (4) 71he tem "coastal state" means a state of 1he
coastal and ocean resources of the United States; and United States in, or bordering on, the Atlantic. Pacific.
(6) to respond to changing circumstances affecting the or Arctic Ocean. the Gulf of Mexico. Long Island Sound.
coastal environment and coastal resource management or one or more of the Great Lakes. For the purposes of
by encouraging States to consider such issues as ocean this title, the term also includes Puerto Rico. the Virgin
uses potentially affecting the coastal zone. Islands. Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands, and the Trust Territories of the
DEFINITIONS Pacific Islands. and American Samoa.
SEC. 304. For the purposes of this title - (304(4) amended by PL 96-4641
(1) The term "coastal zone" means the coastal waters (5) The term "coastal energy activity" means any of
(including the lands therein and thereunder) and the adjai. the following activities if. and to the extent that (A) the
cent shorelands (including the waters therein and conduct, support. or facilitation of such activity requires
thereunder), strongly influenced by each other and in and involves the siting, construction. expansion. or
proximity to the shorelines of the several coastal states. operation of any equipment or facility: and (8) any
and includes islands, transitional and intertidal areas, salt technical requirement exists which. in the determination
marshes, wetlands, and beaches. The zone extends, in of the Secretary, necessitates that the siting. construc-
Great Lakes waters. to the international boundary tion. expansion, or operation of such equipment or facili-
between the United States and Canada and. in other tv be carried out in. on in close proximity to. the coastal
areas, seaward to the. outer limit of the outer limit of ione of any coastal state.
State title and ownership under the Submerged Lands (i) Any outer Contineriml Shelf energy acOvity.
Act (43 U.S.C. 1301 et seq.), the Act of March 2, 1917 (ii) Any transportation. conversion. treatment.
(48 U.S.C. 749), the Covenant to Establish a Common- transfer, or storage of liquefied natural gas..
wealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in Political (iii) Any transportation, transfer. or storage of oil,
Union with the United States of America, as approved natural gas, or coal (including, but not limited to, by
by the Act of March 24, 1976 (48 U.S.C. 1681 note), or means of any deep-wzter pon, as defined in section 3(10)
section I of the Act of November 20, 1963 (48 U.S.C. of the Deepwatev Port Act of 1974 (33 U.S.C. 1502(10))).
1705, as applicable. The zone extends inland from the For purposes of @his paregTaph. the siting, construc-
shorelines only to the extent necessary to control tion. expansion, or operation of any equipment or facility
shorelands, the uses of which have a direct and significant shall be 'in close proximity to the coastal zone of any
impact on the coastal waters. Excluded from the coastal coastal state if such sIting, conseruction. expansion. or
zone are lands the use of which is by law subject solely to operation has.. or is likely to have, a significant effect on
the discretion of or which is held in trust by the Federal such coastal zone.
Government, its officers or agents and to control those . (6) Ile tam "energy facilidw" me@m any equipment
geographical areas which are likely to be affected by or or facility which is or will be used primarily -
vulnerable to sea level rise. (A) in tM exploration for. or the development, produc-
(304(l) amended by PL 101-5081 tion. con.version. storage... transfer, processing. or
(2) The term,-coastal resource of national significance" transportation of, any energy resource. or
means. any coastal- wetland, beach, dune, barrier island. (B) for the manufacture. production, or assembly of
reef. estuary, or - fish and wildlife habitat, if any equipment. machinezy. products. or devilms which are in-
such area is determined by a coastal state to be of volved in any zctivfty described in subparagraph (A).
substantial biological or natural storm protective value. The term includes. but is not limited to (i) electric
(New 304(2) added by PL 96-464 and former-304(2)- generating plants. (H) 9,-groleum refineries and associated
(16) redesignated as (3)-(17) by PL 96-4641 facilities; (iii) gasification plants. (iv) facilities used for
(3) The tewm "coastal waters" ma= (A) in the Great the transportation, conversion, treatment, transfer, or
Lakes area, the waters within the territorial jurisdiction storage of liquefied natural gas; (v) uranium enrichment
of the United States consisting of the Great Lakes, their or nuclear fuel processing facilities; (vi) oil and gas
connecting waters, harbors. roadsteads. and estuary-type facilities. including platforms, assembly plants, storage
areas such as bays. shallows, and marshes and (B) in depots. tank farms. crew and supply bases, and refining
other areas, those waters. adjacent to the shorelines, complexes. (vii) Facilities including deepwater ports. for
which contain a measurable quantity or.percentage of sea the transfer of petroleum. (viii) pipelines and transmis-
water, including, but not limited to, sounds. bays. sion facilities: and (in) terminals which are associated
lagoons, bayous, ponds. and estuaries. with any of the foregoing.

Published by THE BUREAU OF NATI(MALAFFAIRS. INC.. Wa&&V=. D.C. 2=7 9

3-29

71:8004 FEDERAL LAWS

(6a) The term 'enforceable policy' means State poli- Federal Government; any state. regional. or local govern.
cies which are legally binding through constitutional ment: or any entity of any such Federal, state. regional,
provisions. laws, regulations, land use plans, ordinances, or local government.
or judicial or administrative decisions, by which a State (15) The term "public facilities and public services"
exerts control over private and public land and water means facilities or services which are financed, in whole
uses and natural resources in the coastal zone. or in part, by any state or political subdivision thereof.
[304(6a) added by the PL 101-5081 including, but not limited to, highways and secondary
(7) The term "estuary" Means that part of a river or roads. parking, mass transit, docks, navigation aids. fire
stream or other body of water having unimpaired connec- and police protection, water supply, waste collection and
tion with the open sea. where the sea water is measurably treatment (including drainage), schools and education.
diluted with fresh water derived from land drainage. The and hospitals and health care. Such term may also in-
term includes estuary-type areas of the Great Lakes. clude any other facility or service so financed which the
(8) The term "estuarine sanctuary" mearts a research Secretary rinds will support increased population.
area which may include any part or all o(an estuary and (16) The term "Secretary" means the Secretary of
any island, transitional area. and upland in, adjoining, or Commerce.
adjacent to such estuary. and which constitute to the ex- (17) The term 'special area management plan'
tent feasible a natural unit. set aside to provide scientists means a comprehensive plan providing for natural
and students the opportunity to examine over a period of. resource protection and reasonable coastal-dependent
time the ecological relationships within the area. economic growth conWning a detafled and'comprehensive
(9) The term "Fund" means the Coastal Energy Im- statement of policies; standards and criteria to guide
pact Fund established by section 308(h). public and private uses of lands and waters: and
(10) The term "land use" means -,Mties which am mechanisms for tirnely implementation in specific
conducted in. or on the shorelands wilhin. the coastal geographic areas within the coastal zone.
zone. subject to the requirements outlined in section [304(17) added by PL 96-4641
307(g). (Ili) The term "water use" me.= a use, activity, or
0 1) The term "local government" means any political project conducted in or on waters within the coastal
subdivision of. or any special entity created by, any zone.
coastal state which (in whole or part) is located in. or has (304(18) revised by PL 101-5081
authority over, such state's coastal zone and which (A)
has authority to levy taxes, or to establish and collect MANAGEMENT PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT
user fees. or (B) provides any public facility or public ser- GRANTS
vice which is financed in whole or pan by taxes or user
fees. The term includes. but is not limited to, anyschool SEC. 305. (a) In fiscal years 1991, 1992, and 1993,
district. fire district. transportation authority, and any the Secretary may make a grant annually to any coastal
other special purpose district or authority. state without an approved program if the coastal state
(12) The term "management program" includes. but is demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Secretary that the
not limited to. a comprehensive statement in words. grant will be used to develop a management program
maps. illustrations. or other-media of communication. consistent with the requirements set forth in section 306.
prepared and adopted by the state in accordance with the The amount of any such grant shall not exceed $200,000
orovisions of this title. setting forth objectives. policies. in any fiscal year, and. shall mqttire State matching
nd standards to guide public and private uses of lands funds according to a 4-to-1 ratio of Federal-to-State
and waters in the coastal zone. contributions. After an initial grant is made to a coastal
(13) The term "outer continental shelf eneW activity" state: pursuant to thiz subswion, no subsequent grant
means any exploration for, or any development or shall be made to that coastal staw pursuant to this
production of. oil or natural gas from the outer con- subsection unless the Secretary finds that the coastal
tinental shelf (as defined in section 2(a) of the Outer state is satisfactorily developinS its management pro-
Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 133 1 (a)). or the gram. No coastal state is eligible to receive more than
siting. construction. expansion. or operation of any new two grants pursuant to this subsection.
or expanded energy facilities directly required by such ex- (b) Any coastal state which has completed the devel-
ploration, develop!nent. or production. opment of its management program shall submit such
(14) The term "person" mem any individual: any cor- program to the Secretary for review and approval pursu-
poration. partnership. association, or other entity ant to section 306.
organized or existing under the laws of any state: the [305 revised by PL 101-5081

Enwbonmma Fwpams- 10

3-30

COASTAL ZONE ACT 71:8005

ADMINISTRATIVE GRANTS (D) An identification of the means by which the State
(306 revised by PL 101-508] proposes to exert control over the land uses and water
SEC. 306. (a) The Secretary may make grants to any uses referred to in subparagraph (B), including a list of
coastal state for the purpose of administering that state's relevant State constitutional provisions, laws, regula-
management program. it the state matches any such tions, and judicial decisions.
grant according to the following ratios of Federal-to- (E) Broad guidelines on priorities of uses in particular
State contributions for the applicable fiscal year: areas. including specifically those uses of lowest priority.
(1) For those States for which programs were ap- (F) A description of the organizational structure pro-
proved prior to enactment of the Coastal Zone Act posed to implement such management program, includ-
Reauthorization Amendments of 1990, 1 to I for any ing the responsibilities and interrelationships of local.
fiscal year. areawide, State, regional, and interstate agencies in the
(2) For programs approved after enactment of the management process.
Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of (G) A definition of the term 'beach' and a planning
1990, 4 to I for the first fiscal year, 2.3 to I for the process for the protection of, and access to, public
second fiscal year, 1.5 to I for the third fiscal year, and I beaches and other public coastal areas of environmental,
to I for each fiscal year thereafter. recreational. historical, esthetic, ecological, or cultural
(b) The Secretary may make a grant to a coastal state value.
under subsection (a) only if the Secretary finds that the (H) A planning process for energy facilities likely to
management program of the coastal state meets all be located in, or which may significantly affect. the
applicable requirements of this title and has been ap- coastal zone, including a process for anticipating the
proved in accordance with subsection (d); management of the impacts resulting from such
(c) Grants under this section shall be allocated to facilities.
coastal states with approved programs based on rules (1) A planning process for assessing the effects of, and
and regulations promulgated by the Secretary which studying and evaluating ways to control, or lessen the
shall take into account the extent and nature of the impact of, shoreline erosion, and to restore areas ad-
shoreline and area covered by the program, population of versely affected by such erosion.
the area, and other relevant factors. The Secretary shall
(3) The State has-
establish, after consulting with the coastal states, maxi- (A) coordinated its program with local, statewide, and
mum and minimum grants for any fiscal year to promote interstate plans applicable to areas within the coastal
equity between coastal states and effective coastal zone-
management. (i) existing on January 1 of the year in which the
(d) Before approving a management program submit- State's management program is submitted to the Secre-
ted by a coastal state, the Secretary shall find the tary, and
following: (ii) which have been developed by a local government,
(1) The State has developed and adopted a manage- an areawide agency, a regional agency, or an interstate
ment program for its coastal zone in accordance with agency, and
rules and regulations promulgated by the Secretary, (B) established an effective mechanism for continuing
after notice, and with the opportunity of full participa- consultation and coordination between the management
tion by relevant Federal agencies, State agencies. local agency designated pursuant to paragraph (6) and with
governments, regional organizations, port authorities, local governments, interstate agencies, regional agencies,
and other interested parties and individuals, public and and areawide agencies within the coastal zone to assure
private, which is adequate to carry out the purposes of the full participation of those local governments and
this title and is consistent with the policy declared in agencies in carrying out the purposes of this title; except
section 303. that the Secretary shall not find gay mechanism to be
(2) The management program includes each of the effective for purposes of this subparagraph unless it
following required program elements: requires that-
(A) An identification of the boundaries of the coastal (i) the management agency, implementing any
zone subject to the management program. management program decision which would conflict
(B) A definition of what shall constitute permissible with any local zoning ordinance, decision, or other ac-
land uses and water uses within the coastal zone which tion, shall send a notice of the management program
have a direct and significant impact on the coastal, decision to any local govermnent whose zoning authority
waters. is affected:
(C) An inventory and designation of areas of particu- (ii) within the 30-day period commencing an the date
lar concern within the coastal zone. of receipt of that notice, the local government may

3-8-9l Published by THE BUREAU OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS, INC. Washington, D.C. 20037

3-31

71:8006 FEDERAL LAWS
submit to the management agency written comments on (B) Direct State land and water use planning and
the management program decision, and any rccommen- regulation.
dation for alternatives; and (C) State administrative review for consistency with
(iii) the management agency, if any comments are the management program of all development plans.
submitted to it within the 30-day period by any local projects, or land and water use regulations. including
government- exceptions and variances thereto, proposed by any State
(1) shall consider the comments; or local authority or private developer, with power to
(11) may, in its discretion, hold a public hearing on the approve or disapprove after public notice and an oppor-
comments; and tunity for hearings.
(111) may not take any action within the 30-day (12) The management program contains a method of
period to implement the management program decision. assuring that local land use and water use regulations
(4) The State has held public hearings in the develop. within the coastal zone do not unreasonably restrict or
ment of the management program. exclude land uses and water uses of regional benefit.
(5) The management program and any changes there- (13) The management program provides for--
to have been reviewed and approved by the Governor of (A) the inventory and designation of areas that con-
the State. tain one or more coastal resources of national signifi-
(6) The Governor of the State has designated a single cance; and
State agency to receive and administer grants for imple. (B) specific and enforceable standards to protect such
menting the management program. resources.
(7) The State is organized to implement the manage- (14) The management program provides for public
ment program. participation in permitting processes, consistency deter-
(8) The management program provides for adequate minations, and other similar decisions.
consideration of the national interest involved in plan- (15) The management program provides a mechanism
ning for, and managing the coastal zone, including the to ensure that all State agencies will adhere to the
siting of facilities such as energy facilities which are of program.
greater than local significance. In the case- of energy (16) The management program contains enforceable
facilities, the Secretary shall find that the State has policies and mechanisms to implement the applicable
given consideration to any applicable national or inter- requirements of the Constal Nonpoint Pollution Control
state energy plan or program. Program of the State required by section 6217 of the
(9) The management program includes procedures Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of
whereby specific areas may be designated for the pur- 1990.
pose of preserving or restoring them for their conserva- (e) A coastal state my amend or modify a manage-
tion, recreational, ecological, historical, or esthetic ment program which it has submitted and which has
values.
(10) The State, acting through its chosen agency or been approved by the Secretary under this section,
agencies (including local governments, areawide agen- subject to the following conditions:
cies, regional agencies, or interstate agencies) has au- (1) The State shall notify the Secretary of
thority for the: management of the coastal zone in ac- any proposed amendments, modification, or other pro-
cordance with the management program. Such authority gram change and submit it for the Secretary's approval.
shall include power- The Secretary may suspend all or part of any grant
(A) to administer land use and water use regulations made under this section pending State submission of the
to control development to ensure compliance with the proposed amendments, modification, or other program
management program, and to resolve conflicts among change.
competing uses; and - (2) Within 30 days after the date the Secretary
(B) to acquire fee simple and less than fee simple receives any proposed amendment, the Secretary shall
interests in land, waters, and other property through notify the State whether the Secretary approves or
condemnation or other means when necessary to achieve disapproves the amendment, or whether the Secretary
conformance with the management program. finds it is necessary to exend the review of the proposed
(11) The management program provides for any one amendment for a period not to exceed 120 days after the
or a combination of the following general techniques for date the Secretary received the proposed amendment.
control of land uses and water uses within the coastal The Secretary may extend this period only as necessary
zone: to meet the requirements of the National Environmental
(A) State establishment of criteria and standards for Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). If the
local implementation, subject to administrative review Secretary does not notify the coastal state that the
and enforcement. Secretary approves or disapproves the amendment with-

3-32

COASTAL ZONE ACT S-882
71:8007

in that period, then the amendment shall be conclusively (b) The Secretary may make grants to any eligible
presumed as approved. coastal state to assist that state in meeting one or
(3)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), a more of the following objectives:
coastal state may not implement any amendment. modi- (1) The preservation or restoration of specific areas
fication, or other change as part of its approved manage- of the state that (A) are designated under the manage.
ment program unless the amendment, modification. or ment program procedures required by section 306
other change is approved by the Secretary under this (d)(9) because of their conservation recreational, eco-
subsection. logical. or esthetic values. or (B) contain one or more
(B) The Secretary, after determining on a preliminary coastal resources of national significance, or for the
basis, that an amendment, modification. or other change purpose of restoring and enhancing shellfish production
which has been submitted for approval under this sub. by the purchase and distribution of clutch material on
section is likely to meet the program approval standards publicly owned reef tracts.
in this section, may permit the State to expend funds (306A(b)(1) amended by PL 101-508)
awarded under this section to begin implementing the (2) The redevelopment of deteriorating and under-
proposed amendment, modification, or change. This pre. utilized urban waterfronts and ports that are designated
liminary approval shall not extend for more than 6 under section 305(b)(3) in the state's management
months and may not be renewed. A proposed amend- program as areas of particular concern.
ment, modification, or change which has been given (3) The provision of access of public beaches and
preliminary approval and is not finally approved under other public coastal areas and to coastal waters in
this paragraph shall not be considered an enforceable accordance with the planning process required under
policy for purposes of section 307. section 305(b)(7).
[Editor's note: Sec. 6206(b) of PL 101-508 provides: (c) (1) Each grant made by the Secretary under
(b) Additional Program Requirements.-Each State this section shall be subject to such terms and con-
which submits a management program for approval ditions as may be appropriate to ensure that the *grant
under section 306 of the Coastal Zone Management Act is used for purposes consistent with this section.
of 1972, as amended by this subtitle (including a State (2) Grants made under this section may be used for-
which submitted. a program before the date of enactment (A) the acquisition of fee simple and other interests
of this Act), shall demonstrate to the Secretary- in land. .
(1) that the program complies with section 306(d)(14) (B) low-cost construction projects determined by the
and (15) of that Act, by not later than 3 years after the Secretary to be consistent with the purposes of this
date of the enactment of this Act; and section, including but not limited to, paths, walkways,
(2) that the program complies with section 306(d)(16) fences, parks, and the rehabilitation of historic buildings
of that Act, by not later than 30 months after the dam of and structures; except that not mom than 50 percent
publication of final guidance under section 6217(g) of of any grant made under this section may be used for
this Act."] such construction projects;
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (C) in the case of grants made for objectives
IMPROVEMENT GRANTS described in subsection (b)(2)-
[306A added by PL 96-464] (i) the rehabilitation or acquisition of piers to
provide increased public use, including compatible
SEC. 306A (a) For purposes of this section- commercial activity,
(1) The term 'eligible coastal state' means a coastal (ii) the establishment of shoreline stabilization
state that for any fiscal year for which a grant is measures including the installation or rehabilitation of
applied for under this section- bulkheads for the purpose of public safety or increasing
((A) has a management program approved under public access and use, and
section 306: and (iii) the removal or replacement of pilings where
(B) in the judgment of the Secretary, is making such action will provide increased recreational use of
satisfactory progress in activities designed to result in urban waterfront areas,
significant improvement in achieving the coastal manage- but activities provided for under this paragraph shall
ment objectives specified in section 303(2)(A) through not be treated as construction projects subject to the
(1). limitations in paragraph (B);
(2) The term 'urban waterfront and port' means any (D) engineering designs, specifications, and other
developed area that is densely populated and is being appropriate reports; and
used for, or has been used for, urban residential (E) educational, interpretive, and management costs
recreational, commercial, shipping or industrial pur- and such other related costs as the Secretary determines
poses. to be consistent with the purposes of this section.

3-8-91 Published by THE BUREAU OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS, INC. Washington, D.C. 20037

3-33

71:8008 FEDERAL LAWS
(d)(1) The Secretary may make grants to any coastal (B) After any final judgment, decree, or order of any
state for the purpose of carrying out the project or Federal court that is appealable under section 1291 or
purpose for which such grants are awarded, if the state 1292 of title 28, United States Code, or under any other
matches any such grant according to the following ratios applicable provision of Federal law, that a specific Fed-
of Federal to state contribution for the applicable fiscal eral agency activity is not in compliance with subpara-
year: 4 to I for fiscal 1986. 2.3 to I for fiscal year.1987-, graph (A). and certification by the Secretary that medi-
1.5 to I for fiscal year 1988; and I to I for each fiscal ation under subsection (h) is not likely to result in such
year after fiscal year 1988. compliance, the President may, upon written request
(Former 306A(d)(1) deleted and new (d)(1) added by from the Secretary, exempt from compliance those cie-
PL 99-2721 menu of the Federal agency activity that are found by
the Federal court to be inconsistent with in approved
(2) Grants provided under this section may be used State program if the President determines that the
to pay a coastal state's share of costs required under acthrity is in the paramount interest of the United
any other Federal program that is consistent with the States. No such exemption shall be granted on the basis
purposes of this section. of a. lack of appropriations unless the President has
(3) The total amount of grants made under this specifically requested such appropriations as part of the
section to any eligible coastal state for any fiscal budgetary process, and the Congress has failed to make
year may not exceed an amount equal to 10 per centurn available the requested appropriations.
of the total amount appropriated to carry out this (C .) Each Federal agency carrying out an activity
section for such fiscal year. subject to paragraph (1) shall provide a consistency
(e) With the approval of the Secretary, an eligible determination to the relevant State agency designated
coastal state may allocate to a local. government, an under section 306(d)(6) at the earliest practicable time.
areawide agency designated under section 204 of the but in no cast later than 90 days Wore final approval of
Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development the Federal activity unless both the Federal agency and
Act of 1966. a regional agency, or an interstate agency, the State agency agres to a different schedule.
a portion of any grant made under this section for [307(c)(1) revised by PL 101-502]
the purpose of carrying out this section; except tnat (2) Any Federal agency which shall undertake any
such an allocation shall not relieve that state of the development project in the coastal zone of a state shall
responsibility for ensuring that any funds so allocated insure that the project is. to the maximum extent prac-
are applied in furtherance of the state's approved ticable. consistent with the @nfbr=bI@ policies of ap-
management program. proved state management programs.
(f) In addition to providing grants under this section, [307(c)(2) amended by PL 101-5031
the Secretary shall assist eligible coastal states and their
local governments in identifying and obtaining other (JXA) After ftna@ approval by the Secretary ofa state's
sources of available Federal technical and financial management program. any applicant for a required
assistance regarding the objectives of this kction. Federal license or permit to conduct an activity, in or
COORDINATION AND COOPERATION outside of the coastal zone, affecting any land or water
. use or natural r@soum of the coastal zone of that state
SEC. 307 (a) In carrying out his functions and respoff- shall provide in the application. W thg Hccmaing@ or per-
sibilities under this title, the Secretary shall consult with, mitting agency a certification that the propmed activity
cooperate with. and. to the maximum extent practicable. complies with the anformbla policies of the state's
coordinate his activities with other interested Federal approved program and that such activity will b@g conduct-
agencies. ed in a manner consistent with the program. At the same
(b) The Secretary shall not approve the management tirne. the applicmt shall fumish W th@ atate or its
program submitted by a state pursuant to section 306 un- designated agency a copy of the cenificatim With an
less the views of Federal agencies principally affected by nece&sary infonnadon and data. FAch mwW otate shall
such program have been adequately considered. establish procedures for public notice in the cam of ail
(c)(1)(A) Each Fadend agency activity witNa or such certifications and, to the eatent it d@pgzn appropri-
outside the coastal zone that affects any land or water ate, procedum for public hearings in connection them
use -or natural rewurce- of the coastal zone shall be with. At the earliest practicable time. the stato or its
carried out in & manner which is consistent to the - designated agency shall notify the Fedmi asency con-
maximum extent practicable with the enforceable poli- cerned that the staw concurs with or obje= to the
cies of approved State management programs. A Federal applicant's certification. If the staw ow its designated
agency activity shall be subject to this paragraph unless agency fails to furnish the required notification within
it is subject to paragraph (2) or (3). six months after receipt of its copy of the Qppiicant's

3-34.

S-882
COASTAL ZONE ACT 71:8009
certification. the state's concurrence with the certifica- (iii) the Secretary finds. pursuant EO subparagraph (A).
tion shall be conclusively presumed. No license or permit that each activity which is described in detail in such plan
shall be granted by the Federal agency until the state or is consistent with the objectives of this title or is
its designated ageRcy has concurred with the applicant's otherwise necessary in the interest of national security.
certification or until, by the state's failure to act. the If a state concurs or is conclusively presumed to co'n.
concurrence is conclusively presumed, unless the Secre- cur, or if the Secretary makes such a finding, the
tary, on his own initiative or upon appeal by the appli- provisions of subparagraph (A) are not applicable with
cant, finds, after providing a reasonable opportunity for respect to such person. such state, and any Federal
detailed comments from the Federal agency involved license or permit which is required to conduct any activi-
and from the state, that the activity is consistent with ty affecting land uses or water uses in the coastal zone of
the objectives of this title or is otherwise necessary in the such state which is described in detail in the plan to which
interest of national security. such concurrence or Finding applies. If such state objects
(307(c)(3)(A) amended by PL 101-5081 to such certification and if the Secretary fails to make a
(B) After the management progTam of any coastaf finding under clause (iii) with respect to such certifica-
stateha,s been approved by the Secretary under section tion. or if such person fails substantially to comply with
306.*anv person who submits to the Secretary of the such plan as submitted. such person shall submit an
Interior'any plan for the exploration or development of, amendment to such plan. or a new plan. to the Secretary
or productl'on from. any area which has been [eased un- of the Interior. With.respect Lo any amendment or new
der the outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. plan submitted to the Secretary of the Interior pursuant
1331 et seq.) and regulations under such Act shall. with to the preceding sentence, the applicable time period for
respect to any exploration, development. or production purposes of concurrence by conclusive presumption un-
described in such plan and affectini, any land use or water der subparagraph (A) is 3 months.
(d) State and local governments submitting
use or natural resource of the co;3,;,al zone of such state, applications for Federal assistance under other Federal
attach to such plan a certification that each activity programs, in or outside of the coastal zone, affecting any
which is described in detail in such plan complies with the land or water use of natural resource of the coastal zone
enforceable policies of -Quch state's approved management shall indicate the views of the appropriate state. or local
program and wilI bt carried out in a manner consistent agency as to the relationship of such activities to the
with such program. No Federal official or agency approved management program for the coastal zone.
shall grant such person any license or permit for any ac- Such applications shall be submitted and coordinated in
tivity described in detail in such plan until such state or accordance with -the provisions of title IV of the Inter-
its designated agency receives a copy of such certification governmental Coordination Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 1098).
and plan, together with any other necessary data and in- Federal agencies shall not approve proposed projects
formation, and until - that are inconsistent with the enforceable policies of a
(307(c)(3)(B) introductory text amended by PL coastal state's management program, except upon a
101-5081 finding by the Secretary that such project in consistent
(i) such state or its designated agency, in accordance with the purposes of this title or necessary in the interest
with the procedures required to be established by such of national security.
state pursuant to subparagraph (A), concurs with such (307(d) amended by FL 101-508,1.
person's certification and notifies the Secretary and the (e) Nothing in this: title shall be congrued-
Secretary of the Interior of such concurrence-. (1) to diminish either Federal or state, jurisdiction.
*00 concurrence by such state with such certifica- responsibility, or rights in the field of planning, develop-
tion is conclusively presumed as provided for in subpara- ment, or control of water resources, submerged. lands, or
graph (A). except -if such state fails to concur with or navigable waters: nor to displace. supersede, limit, or
object to such certifleation within three months after modify any interstate compact or the jurisdiction or
receipt of its copy oT such certification and supporting responsibility of any legally established joint or common
information. such state shall provide the Secretary, the agency of tw'o or more states or oftwo or more states and
appropriate federO agency, and such person with a the Federal Government. nor to limit the authority of
written statement describing the status of review and the Congress to authorize and fund projects,
basis for further delay in issuing a final decision, and if (2) as superseding. modifying, or repealing existing
such statement is hot so provided. concurrence by such laws applicable to th@ variou's Federal agencies. nor to
state with such certification shall be.-conclusively pre- affect the jurisdiction, powers, or prerogatives of the
sumed: or International Joint Commission. United States and
[(ii) revised by PL 95-372. September 18. 19781 Canada. the Permanent Engineering Board. and the

R&*hsa DV THE OUREAU OF NATIONAL AFFAIR2. INC., wa&Nty@, D.C. 2CMY 15
3-35

71:8010 FEDERAL LAWS

United States operating entity or entities established pur- loans made pursuant to this section as in effect before
suant to the Columbia River Basin Treaty. signed at the date of the enactment of the coasta@ Zone Act
Washington, January 17, 1961, or the International Reauthorization Amendments of 1990, and any repay-
Boundary and Water Commission, United States and ment schedule established pursuant to this Act as in
Mexico. effect before that date of enactment, are not altered by
(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, any provision of this title. Such loans shall be repaid
nothing in this title shall in any way affect any require- under authority of this subsection and the Secretary may
ment (1) established by the Federal Water Pollution Con- issue regulations governing such repayment. If the Sec-
trol Act, as amended, or the Clean Air Act, as amended, rotary finds that any coastal state or unit of local
or (2) established by the Federal Government or by any government is unable to meet its obligations pursuant to
state or local government pursuant to such Acts. Such this subsection bemuse the actual increases in employ-
requirements shall be incorporated in any program ment and related Population'resulting from coastal ener-
developed pursuant to this title and shall be the water gyactivity and the facilities associated with such activity
pollution control and air pollution control requirements do not provide adequate revenues to enable such State or
applicable to such program. unit to meet such obligations in accordance with the
(g) When any state's coastal zone management appropriate repayment schedule, the Secretary shall,
program, submitted for approval or proposed for after review of the information submitted by such State
modification pursuant to section 306 of this title, includes or unit, take any of the following actions:
requirements as to shorelands which also would be sub- (A) Modify the terms @nd conditions of such loan.
ject to any Federally supported national land use pro- (B) Refinance the loan.
gram which may be hereafter ena 'cted, the Secretary, (C) Recommend to the Congress that legislation be
prior to approving such program, shall obtain the con- enacted to forgive the loan.
currence of the Secretary of the Interior. or such other (2) Loan repayments made pursuant to this subsection
Federal official as may be designated to administer the shall be retained by the Secretary as offsetting collec-
national land use program with respect to that portion of tions, and shall be deposited into the Coastal Zone
the coastal zone management program affecting such in- Management Fund established under subsection (b).
land areas. (b)(1) The Secretary shall established and maintain a
(h) in case of serious disagreement between any fund, to be known as the 4coutal Zone Management
Federal agency and a coastal state - Fund' (hereinafter in this section referred to as the
(1) in the development or the initial implementation of 'Fund'), which shall consist of amounts retained and
a management program under section 305: or deposited into the Fund under subsection (a).
(2) in the administration of a management program
approved under section 306. (2) Subject to amounts provided in appropriation
the Secretary, with the cooperation of the Executive Of- Acts, amounts in the Fund shall be -available to the
Fice of the President. shall seek to mediate the differences Secretary for use for the following:
involved in such disagreement. The process of such (A) Expenses incident to the administration of this
mediation shall, with respect to any disagreement title, in an amount not to exceed-
described in paragraph (2), include public hearings which 6) $5,000,000 for fiscal year 1991;
shall be conducted in the local area concerned. Iii) S5,225,0001or fiscal year 1992,
(i) With respea to appeals under subsections (c)(3) Iiii) $5,460,125 for fiscal year 1993;
and (d) which are submitted after- the date of the @iv) $5,705,830 for fiscal year 1994; and
enactment of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization (v) $5,962,593 for fizW year 1995.
Amendments of 1990, the Secretary shall collect ah (B) After us@-u4d@r subparagraph (A)-
application fee of not less than S2M for minor appeals (i) projects to address management issues which are,
and not less than $500 fbir major appeals, unless the Yegional in smip, including iRt@r5M9@ P900m;
Secretary, upon consideration of an applicant's request (ii) demonstration projects which have high potential
for a fee waiver, detervWnes that the applicant is unable for improving coastal zone management, especially at
to pay the fee. The Semtary shall collect such other fees the local level;
as are necessary to recover the full costs of administering (iii) emergency grants to State coastal zone manage-
and processing such appeals under subsection (c). ment agencies to addsm. unforeseen oir disaster-related
[307(i) added by PL 101-5081 Circumstances;
COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT FUND (iv) appropriate &war& recognizing excellence in
[308 revised by PL 95-372; PL 101-5081 coastal zone management as provided in section 314;
SEC. 308. (a)(1) The obligations of any coastal state (v) program development Grants as authorized by
or unit of general purpose local government to repay section 305; and

3-36

S-882
COASTAL ZONE ACT 71:8011

. (vi) to provide financial support to coastal States for criteria established by the Secretary under subsection
use for investigating and applying the public trust doc- (d). The Secretary shall ensure that funding decisions
trine to implement State management programs ap. under this section take into consideration the fiscal and
proved under sectioa 306. technical needs of proposing States and the overall merit
(3) On December I of each year, the Secretary shall of each proposal in terms of benefits to the public.
transmit to the Congress an annual report on the Fund, (d) Within 12 months following the date of enactment
including the balance of the Fund and an itemization of of this section, and consistent with the notice and partici-
all deposits into and disbursements from the Fund in the pation requirements established in section 317, the Sec-
preceding fiscal year. retary shall promulgate regulations concerning coastal
COASTAL ZONE ENHANCEMENT GRANTS zone enhancement grants that establish-
[309 revised by PL 96-464; PL 101-508] (1) specific and detailed criteria that must be ad-
dressed by a coastal state (including the State's priority
SEC. 309. (a) For purposes of this section, the term needs for improvement as identified by the Secretary
coastal zone enhancement objective'. means any of the after careful consultation with the State) as part of the
following objectives: State's development and implementation of coastal zone
(1)' Protection, restoration, or enhancement of the enhancement objectives;
existing coastal wetlands base, or creation of new coastal (2) administrative or procedural rules or requirements
wetlands. as necessary to facilitate the development and implemen-
(2) Preventing or significantly reducing threats to life tation of such objectives by costal states; and
and destruction of property by eliminating development (3) other funding award criteria as are necessary or
and redevelopment in high-hazard areas, managing de- appropriate to ensure that evaluations of proposals, and
velopment in other hazard areas, and anticipating and decisions to award funding, under this section are based
managing the effects of potential sea level rise and Great on objective standards applied fairly and equitably to
Lakes level rise. those proposals.
(3) Attaining increased opportunities for public ac- (e) A State shall not be required to contribute any
cess, taking into account current and future public ac- portion of the cost of any proposal for which funditiff is
cess needs, to coastal areas of recreational, historical, awarded under this sectiou.
aesthetic, ecological, or cultural value. (f) Beginning in fiscal year 1991, not less than 10
(4) Reducing marine debris entering the Nation's percent and not more than 20 parcent of the amounts
coastal and ocean environment by managing uses and appropriated to implement sections 306 and 306A of this
activities that contribute to the entry of such debris. title shall be retained by the Secretary for use in imple-
(5) Development and adoption of procedures to assess, menting this section, up to a maximum of M0,0M,000
consider, and control cumulative and secondary impacts annually.
of coastal growth and development, including the collec- (g) If the Secretary finds that the State is not under-
tive effect on various individual uses or activities on taking the actions committed to under the ten= of the
coastal resources, such as coastal wetlands and fishery grant, the Secretary shall suspend the State's eligibility
resources. for further funding under this section for st least one
(6) Preparing and.implementing special area manage- year.
ment.plans for impoi-tant coastal areas.
(7) Planning for the use of occan'resources. TECHNICAL ASSRSTANCE
(8) Adoption of procedures and enforceable policies to (310 added by PL 101-308]
help facilitate the siting of energy facilities and Govern- SEC - 3 10. (a) The Sec?egaey shah conduct a program
ment facilities and onerSy-related activities and Govern- of technical assistance and manaam@nt-odenwd research
ment activities which may be of greater than local necessary to support the development and implcmenta-
significance. tion of State COUW management program amendments
(b) SubjQct to the limitations and goals established in under section 309, and appropriate to the furtherance of
this section, the Secretary may make grants to coastal international cooperative efforts and technical assistance
states to provide funding for development and submis- in coastal zone management. Each department, agency,
sion for Federal approval of program changes that sup- and instrumentality of the executive branch of the Fed-
port attainment of one or more coastal zone enhance- eral Government may nwist tho Sgrrptary, an a reim-
ment objectives. bursable basis ca, otherwiso, in carrying out the purposes
(c) The Secretary shall evaluate and rank State pro- of this section, including the fumishins of information to
posals for funding under this section, and make funding the extent permitted by law, tht transfer of personnel
awards based on Ilose proposals, taking into account the with their consent and withomt prejudice to their position

3-8-91 Puwwzoa W THE 13UREALLOF mATIONALAFFAIRS. INC., VUcenuqwn, D.C. 2=,? 17
3-37

71:8012 FEDERAL LAWS

and rating, and the performance of any research, study, evaluation. Each evaluation shall be prepared in report
and technical assistance which does not interfere with form and shall include written responses to the written
the performance of the primary duties of such depart- comments received during the evaluation process. The
ment, agency, of instrumentality. The Secretary may final report of the evaluation shall be completed within
enter into contracts or other arrangements with any 1213 days after the last public meeting held in the State
qualified person for the purposes of carrying out this being evaluated. Copies of the evaluation shall be imme-
subsection. diately provided to all persons and organizations partici-
(b)(1) The Secretary shall provide for the coordina- pating in the evaluation process.
tion of technical assistance, studies, and research activi- [312(b) revised by PL 101-5081
ties under this section with any other such activities that (c)(1) The Secretary may suspend payment of any
are conducted, by or subject to the authority of the portion. of financial assistance -extended to any coastal
Secretary. state under this title, and may withdraw any unexpencled
(2) The Secretary shall make the @esults of research portion of such assistance, if the Secretary determines
and studies conducted pursuant to this section available that the coastal state is failing to adhere to (A) the
to coastal states in the form of technical assistance management program or a State plan developed to
publications, workshops, or other means appropriate. manage a national estuarine reserve established under
(3) The Secretary shall consult with coastal states on section 315 of this title, or a portion of the program or
a regular basis regarding the development and imple- plan approved by the Secretary, or (B) the terms of any
mentation of the program established by this section. grant or cooperative agreement funded under this title.
PUBLIC H .EARINGS (2) Financial assistance may not be suspanded under
paragraph (1) unless the Secretary provides the Gover-
SEC. 311. All public hearings required under this title nor of the coastal state with-
must be announced at least thirty days prior to the hear- (A) written specifications and a schedule for the
ing dute. At the time of the announcement. all agency actions that should be taken by the State in order that
materials pertinent to the hearings, including documents. such suspension of financial assistance may be with-
studies. and other data, must be made available to the drawn; and
public for review and study. As similar materials are sub- (8) written specifications stating how those funds
sequently developed. they shall be made available to the from the suspended financial assistance shall be expend-
public as they become available to the agency. ed by the coastal state to take the actions referred to in
REVIEW OF PERFORMANCE subparagraph (A). - 1
[312 revised by PL 96-4641 (3) The suspension of financial assistance may not last
SEC. 312. (a) The Secretary shall conduct a con- for less than 6 months or more than 36 months after the
date of suspension.
tinuing review of the performance of coastal states (312(c) amended by PL 99-272; revised by PL
with respect to coastal management. Each review shall 101-5081
include a written evaluation with an assessment and
detailed findings concerning the extent to which the state (d) The Secretary shall withdraw approval of the
has implemented and enforced the program approved by management program of any coastal state and shall
the Secretary, addressed the coastal management needs withdraw financial assistzrice. available to that State
identified in section 303(2)(A) through (K), and ad- under. this title as well as any unexpended portion of
hered to the terms of any grant, loan. or cooperative such assistance, if the Secretary cletemines that the
agreement funded under this title. coastal state has failed to take the actiow referred to in
[312(a) amended by PL 101-5081 subsection (c)(2)(A).
(b) In-evaluating a coastal state's performance, the. (312(d) revised by PL 101-5081
Secretary shall conduct th@ @valuation-,in an open and (e) Management program approval and financial
public manner, and provide full opportunity for public: assistance may not be withdrawn under subsemion (d),
participation. including holding public meetings in the: unless the Secretary gives the coastal state notice of
State being evaluated and providing opportunities for the proposed withdrawal and an opportunity for a
the submission of written and oral comments by the public hearing on the pr9posed action. Upon the with-
public. The Secretary shall provide the public with at drawal of management program approval under this
least 45 days' notice of such public meetings by placing a subsection (d), the Secretary shall provide the coastal
notice in the Federal Register, by publication of timely state with written specifications of the actions th@t
notices in newspapers of general circulation within the should be taken. or not engaged in, by the state in
State being evaluated, and by communications with order that such withdrawal may be canceled by the
persons and organizations known to be interested in the Secretary.

Envippwom MOWN is

3-3 8

S-882
COASTAL ZONE ACT 71:8013

(f) (Repealed] (2) 5 local governments which have made the most
[312(f) repealed by PL 101-5081 progress in developing and implementing the coastal
zone management principles embodied in this title, and
[Editor's note: Section 9(b) of PL 96-464 provides: (3) up to -10 graduate students whose academic study
d seventy days after promises to contribute materially to development of new
-(b) Within two hundred an
the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of or improved approaches to coastal zone management.
Commerce shall issue such regulations as may be (c) In making selections under subsection (b)(2) the
necessary or appropriate to administer section 312 of Secretary shall solicit nominations from the coastal
the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (as states, and shall consult with experts in local government
amended by subsection (a)" of this section)."]
planning and land use.
(d) In making selections under subsection (b)(3) the
RECORDS AND AUDIT Secretary shall solicit nominations from coastal states
SEC. 313. (a) Each recipient of a grant under this and the National Sea Grant College Program.
title or of financial assistance under Sec. 308 shall (e) Using sums in the Coastal Zone Management
_h records as the Secretary shall prescribe, Fund established under section 308, the Secretary shall
keep suc
including records which fully disclose the amount and establish and execute appropriate awards, to be known
disposition of he funds received under Ile grant and of as he 'Walter B. Jones Awards', including-
the proceeds of such assistance, the total cost of the pro- (1) cash awards in an amount not to exceed S5,000
ject or undertaking supplied by other sources. and such each;
other records as will facilitate an effective audit. (2) research grants; and
(b) The Secretary and the Comptroller General of the (3) public ceremonies to acknowledge such awards.
United States, or any of their duly authorized represen- ADVISORY COMMITTEE
tatives, shall
(1) after any grant is made under this title or any finan- SEC. 314. [Repealed]
cial assistance is provided under section 308(d)-, and
(2) until the expiration of 3 years after - [314 repealed by PL 99-2721
(A) completion of the project, program, or other un- NATIONAL ESTUARINE RESEARCH
dertaking for which such grant was made or used, or RESERVE SYSTEM
(B) repayment of the loan or guaranteed indebtedness [315 head amended by PL 101-508]
for which such financial assistance was provided, SEC. 315. (a) Establishment of the System.-There is
have access for purposes of audit and examination to any established the National Estuarine Reserve Research
record, book. document. and paper which belongs to or is System (hereinafter referred to in this section as the
used or controlled by, any recipient of the grant funds or 'System') that consists of-
any person who entered into any transaction relating to (1) each estuarine sanctuary designated under this
such Financial assistance and which is pertinent for pur- section as in effect before the date of the enactment of
poses ot'determining if the grant funds or the proceeds of the Coastal Zone Management Reauthorization Act of
such financial assistance are being. or were, used in ac- 1985;and -
cordance with the provisions of this title.- (2) each estuarine area designated as a national es-
(The second 313 was added by PL 10 1 -5081 tuarine reserve under subsection (b).
WALTER B. JONES EXCELLENCE IN COASTAL Each estuarine sanctuary referred to in paragraph (1) is
ZONE MANAGEMENT AWARDS hereby designated as a national estuarine reserve.
SEC. 313. (a) The Secretary shall, using sums in the (b) Designation of National Estuarine Reserves.-
Coastal Zone Management Fund established under sec- After the date of the enactment of the Coastal Zone
tion 308, implement a program to promote excellence in Management Reauthorization Act of 1985, the Secre-
@ols,al zone management by identifying and acknowl- tary may designate an estuarine area as a national
edging outstanding accomplishments in the field. estuarine reserve if-
(b) The Secretary shall select annually- (1) the Governor of the coastal State in which the
(1) one individual, other than an employee or officer area is located nominates the area for that designation;
of the Federal Government, whose contribution to the and
field of coastal zone management has been the most (2) the Secretary finds that-
(A) the area is a representative estuarine ecosystem
significant; that is suitable for long-term research and contributes to
the biogeographical and typological balance of the
*Subsection (a) revised Section 3 12 of this Act. System-,

Puttiw%ed by THE ISUREAU OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS. INC., waoington. D.C. 2OW7 19

3-39

71:8014 FEDERAL LAWS

(B) the law of the coastal State provides long-term (i) for purposes of acquiring such lands and waters,
protection for reserve resources to ensure a stable envi- and any property interests therein, as are necessary to
ronment for research; ensure the appropriate long-term management of an
(C) designation of the area as a reserve will serve to area as a national estuarine reserve,
enhance public awareness and understanding of estuar- (ii) for purposes of operating or managing a national
ine areas, and provide suitable opportunities for public estuarine reserve and constructing appropriate reserve
education and interpretation; and facilities, or
(D) the coastal State in which the area is located has (iii) for purposes of conducting educational or inter-
complied with the requirements of any regulations issued pretive activities; and
by the Secretary to implement this section. (B) to any coastal State or public or private person for
(c) Estuarine Research Guidelines. The Secretary purposes of supporting research and monitoring within a
shall develop guidelines for the conduct of research national estuarine reserve that are consistent with the
within the System that shall include- research guidelines developed under subsection (c).
(1) a mechanism for identifying, and establishing (2) Financial assistance provided under paragraph (1)
priorities among, the coastal management issues that shall be subject to such terms and conditions as the
should be addressed through coordinated research within Secretary considers necessary or appropriate, to protect
the System; the interests of the United States, including requiring
(2) the establishment of common research principles coastal States to execute suitable title documents setting
and objectives to guide the development of research forth the property interest or interests of the United
programs within the System, States in any lands and waters acquired in whole or part
(3) the identification of uniform research methodolo- with such financial assistance.
gies which will ensure comparability of data, the broad- (3)(A) The amount of the financial assistance pro-
est application of research results, and the maximum use vided under paragraph (1)(A)(i) with respect to the
of the System for research purposes; acquisition of lands and waters, or interests therein, for
(4) the establishment of performance standards upon any one national estuarine reserve may not exceed an
which the effectiveness of the research efforts and the amount equal to 50 percent of the costs of the lands,
value of reserves within the System in addressing the waters 9 and interests therein or $5,000,000, whichever
coastal management issues identified in subsection (1) amount is less.
may be measured; and (315(e)(3)(A) amended by PL 101-508)
(B) The amount of the financial assistance provide
(5) the consideration of additional sources of funds for d
estuarine research than the funds authorized under this under paragraph (1)(A)(ii) and (iii) and paragraph
Act, and strategies for encouraging the use of such funds (1)(B) may not exceed 70 percent of the of the costs incurred
within the System, with particular emphasis on mecha- to, achieve the purposes described in those paragraphs
nisms established under subsection (d). with respect to a to reserve; except that the amount of the
In developing the guidelines under this section, the financial assistance provided under paragraph
Secretary shall consult with prominent members of the (1)(A)(iii) may be up to 100 percent of any costs for
estuarine research community. activities that benefit the entire System.
(d) Promotion and Coordination of Estuarine Re- [315(e)(3)(B) amended by PL 101-508]
search.-The Secretary shall take such action as is (f) Evaluation of System Performance,- (1) The Sec-
necessary to promote and coordinate the use of the retary shall periodically evaluate the operation and man-
System for research purposes including- agreement of each national estuarine reserve, including
(1) requiring that the National Oceanic and Atmo- education and interpretive activities, and the research
spheric Administration, in conducting or supporting es- being conducted within the reserve.
tuarine research give priority consideration to research (2) If evaluation under paragraph (1) reveals that the
that uses the System; and operation and management of the reserve is is deficient, or
(2) consulting with other Federal and State agencies that the research being conducted in the reserve is
to promote use of one or more reserves within the not consistent with the research guidelines developed
System by such agencies when conducting estuarine under subsection (c), the Secretary may suspend the
(e) Financial Assistance.-(1) The Secretary may, in eligibility of that reserve for financial assistance under
subsection (e) until the deficiency or inconsistency is
accordance with such rules and regulations as the Secre- remedied.
tary shall promulgate, make grants- (3) The secretary may withdraw the designation of an
(A) to a coastal State- estuarine area as a national estuarine reserve if evalua-

Environment Reference 20
3-40 I

'COASTAL ZONE ACT S-882
71:8015

tion under paragraph (1) reveals that- zone including identification and discussion of Federal,
(A) the basis for any one or more of the findings made regional, state, and local responsibilities and functions
under subsection (b)(2) regarding that area no longer therein: (9) a summary of outstanding problems arising
exists; or in the administration of this title in order of priority;
(B) a substantial portion of the research conducted (10) a description of the economic, environmental, and
within the area, over a period of years, has not been social consequences of energy activity affecting the
consistent with the research guidelines developed under coastal zone and an evaluation of the effectiveness of
subsection (c). financial assistance under section 308 in dealing with
(g) Report.-The Secretary shall include in the report such consequences, (11) a description and evaluation
required under section 316 information regarding- of applicable interstate and regional planning and
(1) new designations of national estuarine reserves; coordication mechanisms developed by the coastal
(2) any expansion of existing national estuarine states; (12) a-summary and evaluation of the research,
reserves, studies, and training conducted in support of coastal zone
(3) the status of the research program being conduct- management; and (13) such other information as may
ed within the System; and be appropriate.
(4) a summary of the evaluations made under subsec- [316(a) amended by PL 96-464]
tion (f). (b) The report required by subsection (a) shall contain
such recommendations for additional legislation as the
[315 amended by PL 96-464; revised by PL 99-2721 Secretary deems necessary to achieve the objectives of
COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT REPORT this title and enhance its effective operation.
(c) (1) The Secretary shall conduct a systematic
[316 head revised by PL 96-4641 review of Federal programs, other than this title, that
SEC. 316. (a) The Secretary shall consult with the affect coastal resources for purposes of identifying
Congress on a regular basis concerning the administra- conflicts between the objectives end administration of
tion of this title and shall prepare and submit to such programs and the purposes and policies of this
the President for transmittal to the Congress a report title. Not later than I year after the date of the enact-
summarizing the administration of this title during each ment of this subsection, the Secretary shall notify each
period of two consecutive fiscal years. Each report, which Federal agency having appropriate jurisdiction of any
shall be transmitted to the Congress not later than conflict between its program and the purposes and
April I of the year following the close of the policies of this title identified as a result of such Nvi9W.
biennial period to which it pertains, shall include, but (2) The Secretary shall promptly submit a report to
not be restricted to (1) an identification of the state the Congress consisting of the information required
programs approved pursuant to this title during the under paragraph (1) of this subsection. Such report
preceding Federal fiscal year and a description of those shall include recommendations fop changes necessary to
programs; (2) a listing of the states participating in resolve existing conflicts among Federal laws and
the provisions of this title and a description of the programs that affect the uses of coastal f6sOuF=-
status of each state's programs and its accomplishments (316(c) added by PL 96-4641
during the preceding Federal Fiscal year; (3) an itemiza-
tion of the. allocation of funds to the various coastal
states and a breakdown of the major projects and areas RULES AND, REGULATEONS
on which these funds were expended; (4) an identifi- SEC 317. The Secretary shall devclop and PFOMOB&M,
cation of any state programs which have been reviewed pursuant to section 553 of title 5, United States Code,
and disapproved and a statement of the reasons for such after notice and opportunity for full participation by rele-
action; (5) a summary of evaluation findings prepared vant Federal agciflcics, AM@ agencies, loc9l Government$,
in accordance with subsection (a) of section 312. and a regional organizations, poet authorities, and other in-
description of any sanctions imposed under subsmions terested parties, both public and private, such rules and
(c) and (d) of this section; (6) a listing of all activities regulations as may be necessawy to carry out the
and projects which, pursuant to the provisions of sub-
section (c) or subsection (d) of section 307, are not provisions of this title.
consistent with an applicable approved state manage- AUTHORRZAT@OH OF APPROPREATEONS
ment program; (7) a summary of the regulations issued SEC. 318. (a) Thm-eamnuthorized to bg appropriated
by the Secretary or in effect during. the preceding to the Secretary -
Federal Fiscal year-, (8) a summary of'& coordinated
national strateGy and program for the Nation's coastal [3 IS(&) revised by PL 96-W. PL 99-272; ?L 101-5081

PubfthW PV THE SUREAU OF HAnONAL AFFAIRS, INC., WOSMTM D.C. 2M 21

3-41

71:8016 FEDERAL LAws

(A) such sums, not to exceed $750,000 for each of the SEC. 15. ADMINISTRATION
fiscal years occurring during the period beginning Octo- (a) [Repealed by PL 95-2191
ber 1, 1990, and ending September 30, 1993, as may be (b) [Superseded by subsection (b) of . PL 95-219.
necessary for grants under section 305, to remain avail- See editor's note below.]
able until expended-,
(2) such sums, not to exceed S42,000,000 for the fiscal (c) [Repealed by PL 99-2721
year ending September 30, 1991, $48,890,000 for the SEC. 16. SHELLFISH SANITA TION REGULA-
fiscal year ending September 30, 1992, $58,870,000 for VONS.
the fiscal year ending September 30, 1993, S67,930,000 (a) The Secretary of Commerce shall -
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1994, and (1) undertake a comprehensive review of all aspects of
$90,090,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, the molluscan shellfish industry, including, but not
1995, as may be necessary for grants under sections 306, limited to, the harvesting, processing, and transportation
306A, and 309, to remain available until expended; of' such shellfish. and
(3) such sums, not to exceed $6,000,000 for the fiscal (2) evaluate the impact of Federal law concerning
year ending September 30,' 1991, $6,270,000 for the water quality on the molluscan shellfish industry.
fiscal year ending September 30, 1992, $6,552,000 for The Secretary of Commerce shall, not later than April
the fiscal year ending September 30, 1993, $6,847,000 313. 1977, submit a report to the Congress of the findings,
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1994, and comments. and recommendations (if any) which result
$7,155,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, from such review and evaluation.
1995, as may be necessary for grants under section 315, (b) The Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare
to remain available until expended; and shall not promulgate final regulations concerning the
(4) such sums, not to exceed $10,000,000 for each of national shellfish safety program before June 30, 1977.
the fiscal years occurring during the period beginning At least 60 days prior to the promulgation of any such
October 1, 1990, and ending September 30, 1995, as regulations, the Secretary of Health, Education, and
may be necessary for activities under section 3 10 and for Welfare, in consultation with the Secretary of Commerce,
administrative expenses incident to the administration of' shall publish an analysis (1) of the economic impact of
this title; except that expenditures for such administra-, such regulations on the domestic shellfish industry, and
tive expenses shall not exceed S5,000,000 in any such (2) the cost of such national shellfish saf@ty program
fiscal year. relative to the benefits that it is expected to achieve.
(b) There are authorized to be appropriated until [Editors note. Inaddition to repealing Section 15(a)
October 1, 1986, to the Fund, such sums, not to exceed of PL 94-370, sub=tion (b) of PL 95-219 amended
S800,000,000, for the purposes of carrying out the Section 5316 of Title 5, United States Code as follows:
provisions of section 308, other than subsection (b), of "(140) Assistant Administrator for Coastal Zone
which not to exceed $150,000,000 shall be for purposes Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad-
of subsections (c)(1), (c)(2) and (c)(3) of such ministration.
section. (141) Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National
[318(b) amended by PL 96-4641 Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
(c) Federal funds received from other sources shad (142) Assistant Administmtors (3), National Oceanic
not be used to pay a coastal state's share of costs under and- Atmospheric Administration.
section 306 or 309. (143) GencM Couns* National Oceania@ and
[318(c) amended by PL 96-464) Atmospheric Administration."]
(d) The amount of any grant, or portion of a grant, [Editor's note: Sections 2 through I I and 13 of
made to a State under any section of this Act which is PL 96-464 amended and bave been incorporated into the
not obligated by such State durino the fi=l year, or existing language of this Act. Section 12 of FL 96-464
during the second fiscal year after the fiscal year, for follows:)
which it was first authorized to be obligated by such
State shall revert to the Secretary. The Secretary shall SEC. 12. CONGRESSMYAL DISAPPROVAL
add such reverted amount to those funds available for PROCEDURE.
grants under the section for such reverted amount was (a) (1) The Secretary, after promulgating a final
originally made available. rule, shall submit such final rule to thG Congms for
[318(d) added by PL 99-6261 review in accordance with this section. Such final rule
[Editor's note: In addition to amending existing scc@ shall be -delivered to each House of the Congress on
tions of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 and the same date and to each House of the Congress while
adding new sections to the Act, PL 94-370 includes the it is in session. Such final rule shall be referred to the
following sections:) Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

Emtonn*M; ROPMW 22

_3 - 4 2

S-882
COASTAL ZONE ACT 71:8017
of the Senate and to the Committee on Merchant (5) Notwithstanding any other provision of this
Marine and Fisheries of the House, respectively. subsection, if a House has approved a concurrent
(2) Any such final rule shall become effective in resolution with respect to any final rule of the
accordance with its terms unless, before the end of the Secretary, then it shall not be in order to consider in
period of sixty calendar days of continuous session, such House any other concurrent resolution with respect
after the date such final rule is submitted to the Congress, to the same Final rule.
both Houses of the Congress adopt a concurrent resolu- (c) (1) If a final rule of the Secretary is disapproved
tion disapproving such final rule. by the Congress under subsection (a)(2), then the
(b) (1) The provisions of this subsection are Secretary may promulgate a Final rule which relates
enacted by the Congress- to the same acts or practices as the final rule disapproved
(A) as an exercise in the rulemaking power of the by the Congress in accordance with this subsection.
House of Representatives and as such they are deemed Such final rule-
a part of the Rules of the House of Representatives (A) shall be based upon-
but applicable only with respect to the procedure to be (i) the rulemaking record of the final rule dis-
followed in the House of Representatives in the case of approved by the Congress; or
concurrent resolutions which are subject to this section, (ii) such rulemaking record and the record estab-
and such provisions supersede other rules only to the lished in supplemental rulemaking proceedings con-
extent that they are inconsistent with such other rules, ducted by the Secretary in accordance with section 553 of
and title 5, United Stateg Code. @n any case in which the
(B) with full recognition of the constitutional right Secretary determines that it is necessary to supplement
of either House to change the rules (so far as relating the existing rulemaking record. and
to the procedure of that House) at any time in the same (B) may contain such changes as the Secretary
manner and to the same extent as in the case of any considers necessary or appropriate.-
other rule of that House. (2) The Secretary after promulgating a final -rule
(2) Any concurrent resolution disapproving a Final under this subsection, shall submit the final rule to the
rule of the Secretary shall, upon introduction or receipt Congress in accordance with subsection (a)(1).
from the other House of the Congress, be- referred (d) Congressional inaction on, or rejection of a
immediately by the presiding officer of such House to concurrent ' resolution of disapproval under this section
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transporta- shall not be construed as an expression of approval
tion of the Senate or to the Committee on Merchant of the final rule involved, and shall not be construed
Marine and Fisheries of the House, as the case may be. to create any presumption of validity with respect to
(3) (A) When a committee has reported a con- such final rule.
current resolution, it shall be at any time thereafter in (e) (1) Any interested party may institute such
order (even though a previous motion to the same effect actions in the appropriate district court of the United
has been disagreed to) to move to proceed to the con- States. including actions for declaratory judgment, as
sideration of the concurrent resolution. The motion may be appropriate to construe the constitutionality
shall be highly privileged in the House of Representa- of any provision of this section. The district court
tives, and shall not be debatable. An amendment to immediately shall certify all questions of the consti-
such motion shall not be in order, and. it shall not be tutionality of this section to the United States court
in order to move to reconsider the vote by which the of appeals for the circuit involved, which shall hear
motion was agreed to or disagreed to. the matter sitting en banc.
(13) Debate in the House of Representatives on the (2) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any
concurrent resolution shall be limited to not more than decision on a. matter certified undeir. paragraph (1)
ten hours which shall be divided equally between those shall be reviewable by appeal directly to the Supreme
favoring and those opposing such concurrent resolution Court of the United States. Such appeal shall be brought
and a motion further to limit debate shall not be not later than twenty days afw the decision of the
debatable. In the House of Representatives, an amend- court of appeals.
ment to, or motion to recommit, the concurrent (@).[Repealedl
resolution shall not be in order, and it shall not be.
in order to move to reconsider the vote by which such [12(e)(3) repealed by PL 98-6201
concurrent resolution was agreed to or disagreed to. (f) (1) For purposes of this sectoop-
(4) Appeals from the decision of the Chair relating (A) continuity of session is broken only by an ad-
to the application of the rules of the House of Repre- journment sine die, and
sentatives to the procedure relating to a concurrent (B) days on which the House of Representatives is
resolution shall be decided without debate. not in session because of an adjournment of more

34-91 PuNiOnd by THE BUREAU OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS, INC.. WasraVem. D.C. 2CM7 23

3-43

71:8018 FEDERAL LAWS

than Five days to a day certain are excluded in 1329, and 1330) and with State plans developed pursu-
the computation of the periods specified in subsection ant to the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as
(a)(2) and subsection (b). amended by this Act. The program shall serve as an
(2) If an adjournment sine die of the Congress update and expansion of the State nonpoint source man-
occurs after the Secretary has submitted a final rule agement program developed under section 319 of the
under subsection (aX I), but such adjournment occurs- Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as the program
(A) before the end of the period specified in under that section relates to land and water uses affect-
subsection (a)(2); and ing coastal waters.
(B) before any action necessary to disapprove the (b) Program Contents. - Each State program under
final rule is completed under subsection (a)(2); this section shall provide for the implementation, at a
then the Secretary shall be required to resubmit the minimum, of management measures in conformity with
Final rule involved at the beginning of the next regular the guidance published under subsection (S), to protect
session of the Congress. The period. specified in sub- coastal waters generally and shall also contain the
section (a)(2) shall begin on the date of such resub- following:
mission. (1) Identifying land uses. - The identification of, and
(g) For purposes of this section: a continuing process for identifying, land uses which,
(1) The term "Secretary" means the Secretary of individually or cumulatively, may cause or contribute
Commerce. significantly to a degradation of -
(2) The term "concurrent resolution" means a con- (A) those coastal waters where there is a failure to
current resolution the matter after the resolving clause attain or maintain applicable water quality standards or
of which is as follows: "That the Congress disapproves protect designated uses, as determined by the State
the final rule promulgated by the Secretary of Commerce pursuant to its water quality planning processes; or
dealing with the matter of which Final rule (B) those coastal waters that are threatened by rea-
was submitted to the Congress on (The sonably foreseeable increases in pollution loadings from
blank spaces shall be filled appropriately.) new or expanding sources.
(3) The term "rule" means any rule promulgated (2) Identifying critical coastal areas. - The identifi-
by the Secretary pursuant to the Coastal Zone Manage- cation of, and a continuing process for identifying, criti-
ment Act (16 U.S.C. 1450 et. seq.). cal coastal areas adjacent to coastal waters referred to in
(h) The provisions of this section shall take effect paragraph (1)(A) and (B), within which any new land
on the date of the enactment of this Act and shall uses or substantial expansion of existing land uses shall
cease to have any force or effect after September 30, be: subject to management measures in addition to those
1985. provided for in subsection (S).
[Editor's note: Sec. 6217 of P.L. 101-508 did not (3) Management measures. - The implementation
amend the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, but and continuing revision from time to time of additional
provides the following: management measures applicable to the land uses and
PROTECTING COASTAL WATERS areas identified pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2) that
are necemary to achieve and maintain applicable water
SEC. 621.7. (a) In Genera.l. - (1) Program devvlop- quality standards under section 303 of the Federal Wa-
ment. - Not later than 30 months after the date of the ter Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1313) and protect
publication of final guidance under subsection (g), each designated uses.
State for which a management program has been ap- (4) Technical awistance. - The provision of technical
proved pursuant, to section 306 of the. Coastal Zone and other assistance to local governments and the public
Management Act of 1972 shall prepare and submit to for implementing the measures referred to in paragraph
the Secretary and the Administrator a Coastal Nonpoint (3), which may include assistance in d@v@loping ordi-
Pollution Control Program for approval pursuant to this nances and regulations, technical guidance, and model-
section. The purpose of the program shall be to develop ing to predict and assess the effectiveness of such mea-
and implement management measures for nonpoint sures, training, financial incentives, demonstration
source pollution to restore and protect coastal waters, projects, and other innovations to protect coastal water
working in close conjunction with other State and local quality and designated uses.
authorities.
(2) Program coordination. - A State program under (5) Public participation. - Opportunities for public
this section shall be coordinated closely with State and participation in all aspects of the program, including the
local water quality plans and programs developed pursu- use of public notices and opportunities for comment,
ant to sections 208, 303, 319, and 320 of the Federal nomination procedures, public hearings, technical anct
Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1288, 1313, financial assistance, public education, and other means.

3 - 4 4:'

S-882
COASTAL ZONE ACT 71:8019

(6) Administrative coordination.- The establishment The Secretary shall make amounts withheld under this
of mechanisms to improve coordination among State paragraph available to coastal States having programs
a,encies and between State and local officials responsi- Approved under this section.
ble for land use programs and permitting. water quality (4) Withholding water pollution control assist-
permitting and enforcement, habitat protection, and ance.-If the Administrator finds that a coastal State
public health and safety, through the use of joint project has failed to submit an approvable program as required
review, memoranda of agreement, or other mechanisms. by this section, the Administrator shall 'withhold from
(7) State coastal zone boundary modification.-A grants available to the State under section 319 of the
proposal to modify the boundaries of the State coastal Federal Water Pollution Control Act. for each fiscal
zone as the coastal management agency of the State year until such a program is submitted. an amount equal
determines is necessary to implement the rccommenda- to a percentage of the grants awarded to the State for
tions made pursuant to subsection (e). If the coastal the preceding fiscal year under that section, as follows:
management agency does not have the authority to (A) For fiscal year 1996, 10 percent of the amount
modify such boundaries, the program shall include rec- awarded for fiscal year 1995.
ommendations for such modifications to the appropriate (B) For fiscal year 1997, 15 percent of the amount
State authority. awarded for fiscal year 1996.
(c) Program Submission, Approval, and Impiementa- (C) For fiscal year 1998. 20 percent of the amount
tion.-(l) Review and approval.- Within 6 months awarded for fiscal year 1997.
after the date of submission by a State of a program (D) For fiscal year 1999 and each fiscal year there-
pursuant to this section, the Secretary and the Adminis- after, 30 percent of the amount awarded for fiscal year
trator shall jointly review the program. The program 1998 or other preceding fiscal year.
shall be approved if- The Administrator shall make amounts withheld under
(A) the Secretary determines that the portions of the this paragraph available to States having programs ap-
program under the authority of the Secretary meet the proved pursuant to this subsection.
requirements of this section and the Administrator con- (d) Technical Assistance.-The Secretary and the
curs with the determination: and Administrator shall provide technical assistance to coast-
(B) the Administrator determines that the portions of al States and local governments in developing and imple-
the program under the authority of the Administrator menting programs under this section. Such assistance
meet the requirements of this section and the Secretary shall include-
concurs with that determination. (1) methods for assessing water quality impacts asso-
(2) Implementation of approved program.-If the ciated with coastal land uses;
program of a State is approved in accordance with (2) methods for assessing the cumulative water qual-
paragraph (1), the State shall implement the program, ity effects of coastal development;
including the management measures included in the (3) maintaining and from time to time revising an
program pursuant to subsection (b), through- inventory of model ordinances, and providing other as-
(A) changes to the State plan for control of nonpoint sistance to coastal States and local governments in iden-
source pollution approved under section 319 of the Fed- tifying, developing, and implementing pollution control
eral Water Pollution Control Act: and measures; and
kB) changes to the State coastal zone management (4) methods to predict and assess the effects of coastal
program developed under section 306 of the Coastal land use management measures on coasW water quality
Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended by this Act. and designated uses.
(3) Withholding coastal management assistance.- (e) Inland Coastal Zone Boundaries.-M Review.-
If the Secretary finds that a coastal State has failed to The Secretary, in consultation with the Administrator of
submit an approvabIc program as required by this sec- the Environmental Protection Agency, shall, within 18
tion, the Secretary shall withhold for each fiscal year months after the effective date of this title, review the
until such a program is submitted a portion of grants inland coastal zone boundary of each coastal State
otherwise available to the State for the fiscal year under program which has been approved or is proposed for
section 306 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of approval under section 306 of the Coastal Zone Manage-
1972, as follows: ment Act of 1972, and evaluate whether the State's
(A) 10 percent for fiscal year 1996. coastal zone boundary extends inland to the extent
(B) 15 percent for fiscal year 1997. necessary to control the land and water uses that have a
(C) 20 percent for fiscal year 1998. significant impact on coastal waters of the State.
(D) 30 percent for fiscal year 1999 and each fiscal (2) Recommendation.-If the Secretary, in consulta-
year thereafter. tion with the Administrator, finds that modifications to

3-8-91 Pubomw " THE BUREAU OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS. INC., wasnwvcn. D.C. 20W? 25
3-45

71:8020 FEDERAL LAWS
the inland boundaries of a State's coastal zone are measures in reducing pollution loads and improving
necessary for that State to more effectively manage land water quality.
and water uses to protect coastal waters, the Secretary, (3) Publication.-The Administrator, in consultation
in consultation with the Administrator. shall recommend with the Secretary shall publish-
appropriate modifications in writing to the affected (A) proposed guidance pursuant to this subsection not
State. later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of
(f) Financial Assistance.-(I) In generai.-Upon re- this Act, and
quest of a State having a program approved under (B) final guidance pursuant to this subsection not
section 306 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 12.ter than 18 months after such effective date.
1972, the Secretary. in consultation with the Adminis- (4) Notice and comment.-The Administrator shall
trator. may provide grants to the State for use for provide to coastal States and other interested persons an
developing a State program under this section. opportunity to provide written comments on -proposed
(2) Amount.-The total amount of grants to a State guidance under this subsection.
under this subsection shall not exceed 50 percent of the (5) Management measures.-For purposes of this sub-
total cost to the State of developing a program under this section, the term "management measures" means eco-
section. nomically achievable measures for the control of the
(3) State share.-The State share of the cost of an addition of pollutants from existing and new categories
activitv carried out with a grant under this subsection
and classes of nonpoint sources of pollution, which re-
shall be paid from amounts from non-Federai sources. flect the greatest degree of pollutant reduction achiev-
(4) A I location. -Amounts available for grants under able through the application of the best available non,
this subsection shall be allocated among States in ac- point pollution control practices, technologies, processes,
cordance with regulations issued pursuant to section siting criteria. operating methods, or other alternatives.
306(c) of the Coastal. Zone Management Act of 1972, (h) Authorizations of Appropriations.-
except that the Secretary may use not more than 25 (1) Administrator.-There is authorized to be appro-
percent of amounts available for such grants to assist. pria ted to the Administrator for use for carrying out this
States which the Secretary, in consultation with the, section not more than S1,000,000 for each of fiscal years
Administrator. determines are making exemplary pro- 1992, 1993- ' and 1994.
gress in preparing a State program under this section or (2) Secretary.-(A) Of amounts appropriated to the
have extreme needs with respect to coastal water quality. Secretary for a fiscal year under section 318(a)(4) of the
(g) Guidance for Coastal Nonpoint Source Pollution Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, -as amended by
Control.-M In GeneraL@The Administrator. in. con,- this Act, not more than $1.000,000 shall be available for
sultation with the Secretary and the Director of the use by the Secretary for carrying out this s=ion for that
United States Fish and Wildlife Service and other Fed- fiscal year, other than for providing in the form of grants
erat agencies, shall publish (and periodically revise under subsection (f).
thereafter) guidance for specifying management mea- (B) There is authorized to be appropriated to the
sures for sourczs of nonpoint pollution in coastal waters. Secretary for use for providing in the form of grants
(2) Content.-Guidance under this subsection shal.1 under subsection (f) not more than-
include, at a. minimum.- (i) $6,000,000 for fiscal year 1992-,
(A) a description of a range of methods. measures. or 60 S12,000.000 for fiscal year 1993-,
practices, including structural and nonstructurai controls (iii) S 12,000,000 for fiscal year 1994-, and
and operation and maintenance procedures, that const:i- (iv) S 12,000,090 for fiscal year 1995.
tute each measure; (i) Definitions.-In this section--
(B) a description of the-categories and subcategories (1) the term "Administrator" means the Administra-
of activities and locations for which each measure may tor of the Environmental Protection Agency;-
be suitable: (2) the term "coastal State" has the meaning given
(C) an identification of the individual pollutants or the term "coastal state" under section 304 of the Coastal
categories or classes of pollutants that may be controlled Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1453);
by the measures and the water quality effects of the (3) each of the terms "coastal waters". and "coastal
measures; zone" has the meaning that term has in the Coastal
(D) quantitative estimates of the pollution reduction Management Act of 1972,
effects and costs of the measures-, (4) the term "coastal management agency" means a
(E) a description of the factors which should be taken State agency designated pursuant to section 306(d)(6) of
into account in adapting the measures to specific sites or the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. aters
locations. and (5) the term "land use" includes a use of w
adjacent to coastal waters; and
(F) any necessary monitoring techniques to accompa- (6) the term "Secretary" means the. Secxetary of
ny the measures to assess over time the success of the Commerce.]

EmWaimm :PWpanw-- 26

-4 - 4 (;

STEPS TOWARD AN INDIANA SHORELINE
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

When first conceived, this study's purpose was to gather basic data about Indiana's Lake
Michigan shoreline and to recommend a program through which this diverse and ecologically
unique area could be managed, protected and improved.

During the course of researching the Coastal Zone Management (CZM) program, one
of the tasks contained in this study, staff of the Northwestern Indiana Regional Planning
Commission (NIRPQ concluded that this federal program offered Indiana the necessary
regulatory framework and incentives to properly manage its shoreline. Thus, although the entire
shoreline report had not yet been completed, NIRPC staff felt that preliminary findings regarding
the CZM program warranted the early attention of the Indiana Department of Natural Resources
(IDNR).

Thus, in January, 1992, NIRPC staff met with representatives of the IDNR to apprise
them of the opportunities and requirements of the CZM program and the potential for obtaining
a grant in fiscal year 1993 to begin development of an Indiana Coastal Zone Management
program.

NIRPC staff recommended that the planning and public involvement process that would
ensue would be basic to the development of a shoreline management program and would not
necessarily obligate the State of Indiana to participate in the CZM program if it was later
determined that a State-local program was more advantageous to the State of Indiana.

Communication with lst District Congressman Peter J. Visclosky and his staff confirmed
the need for prompt communication from the State of Indiana as requests of the Commerce,
Justice, State, and Judiciary Appropriations Subcommittee with jurisdiction over funding for the
CZM Program had to be submitted by mid-February, 1992.

Thus, on January 31, 1992, Governor Evan Bayh wrote to Trudy Coxe, Director of the
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM), expressing the state of Indiana's
interest in obtaining a CZM program development grant (Attachment 1). A letter of the same
date to Congressman Visclosky requested the Congressman's assistance (Attachment 2).

Several weeks later, Congressman Visclosky advised NIRPC that he had testified in
support of funding for a management program development grant for the State of Indiana
(Attachment 3).

Conaressional Action

In September, 1992, the Congress agreed to a conference report which appropriated CZM
funds, "Not to exceed $800,000 for program development grants for the states of Georgia,
Minnesota, Ohio, Indiana and Texas in accordance with the authorization." The Congressional
Record of September 29, 1992, is Attachment 4.

4-1

Allotments to each eligible state for management program development grants under
Section 305 of the Coastal Zone Management Act "take into account the extent and nature of
the shoreline and area covered by the program, population of the area, and other factors."
Grants "shall not exceed $200,000 in any fiscal year" and "shall require state matching funds
according to a 4 to 1 ratio of Federal to State contributions".

Although Section 305 grants were authorized for fiscal years 1991, 1992 and 1993, no
grants were made in 1991. Fiscal year 1992 grants were made to Ohio, Minnesota, Georgia and
Texas. Texas received $200,000, Ohio and Georgia received $135,000 each, and Minnesota
received $130,000. Ohio, which has recently submitted its coastal management plan to the U.S.
Secretary of Commerce for federal review and approval, may not require an additional program
development grant in FY 1993. Minnesota, Georgia and Texas are expected to seek grants in
1993. However, no coastal state is eligible to receive more than two grants from section 305.

Indiana can reasonably expect a section 305 management program development grant of
approximately $130,000 in 1993. Although section 305 grants are not specifically authorized
beyond 1993, the office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM) does have some
funds that could be awarded for program development. These are funds recaptured from a CZM
loan program. Specific authorization from Congress for a second management program
development grant for Indiana in fiscal year 1994 should be pursued through the offices of
Congressman Visclosky and Senators Lugar and Coats.

Letter of Intent

Conference Report language notwithstanding, each state that is interested in applying for
section 305 funds must provide the OCRM with a letter of intent which includes the following:

I . Commitment of Governor

A commitment from the state's Governor in the form of a letter signed by the
Governor that indicates his/her support for program development;

2. How Section 306 RN,uirements Will Be Met

A document summarizing how the state will meet the major requirements of
section 306 which are:

0 Boundaries
0 Permissible land and water uses
0 Areas of particular concern
0 Means of state control
0 Organizational structure
0 Beaches and public access
0 Energy facility siting
0 Shoreline erosion
0 Nonpoint pollution control

4-2

3. Assurances of Legal Authorities

Assurances that all of the necessary legal authorities to implement the state's
program are in place or can be reasonably expected to be in place at the end of
two years; and

4. OWn Public Process

Assurances that the management program development process will be an open
and public process.

A copy of the State of Minnesota's letter of intent is Attachment 5. Indiana should strive
to submit its letter of intent as early as possible in 1994, although there is no specific deadline
for submission. Two chapters contained in this report, An Overview of the Federal Coastal
Zone Management Program and the Implications for Indiana's Participation in the Program and
Summaa of Federal, State and Local Statutes and Regulations Dealing with Land and Water
Uses on the Indiana Shoreline of Lake Michig , should be helpful in preparing items two and
three of the Letter of Intent.

Following the letter of intent, an application for a program development grant is required.
Copies of applications from Ohio and Georgia are Attachments 6 and 7, respectively. Georgia's
application may have more relevance to Indiana's future planning process since Ohio's efforts
are more advanced. Applications undergo review which takes approximately 75 days. Program
development grants are awarded between July and October.

RMscd -Schedule

February 15, 1993 Submit letter of intent

February, 1993 Request assistance from Rep. Visclosky and Senators Lugar and
Coats to earmark a second development grant for Indiana for FY
1994

April 15, 1993 Submit application for FY 1993 grant

July/August, 1993 Receive FY 1993 program development grant

Spring, 1994 Submit application for FY 1994 program development grant

July/August, 1994 Receive second program development grant

Fall, 1995 Submit approvable Indiana CZM program

The State of Georgia's Section 305 grant application, (Attachment 7), provides some
helpful guidance for Indiana in determining the scope of work for the first year of CZM

4-3

planning. The first four work tasks in the Georgia scope of work are described as public
involvement, boundary, authority and organization, and federal consultation.

1. Public Involvement

The Governor will appoint a Coastal Advisory Council (CAC). The CAC will
conduct monthly public meetings at various locations along the shoreline. The
CAC will provide a mechanism for analysis of key issues, development of policy,
and guidance to staff in the development of the CZM program.

2. Boundary

The coastal boundary and its justification as described in Georgia's previous CZM
planning effort will be reviewed in light of current CZM rules and policies. A
document will be provided identifying key issues, exempt federal lands, special
management areas, rivers, and a map depicting the proposed Georgia Coastal
Zone boundary line.

3. Authority and Organization

All relevant statutes, regulations, case law, and other local and state legal
authority will be evaluated with respect to management of the coastal zone.
Efforts will focus on enforceability of policies, reduction of conflicting
authorities, and identification of any shortcomings, unwritten policies, and
policies not adopted by law. Legislation will be introduced to correct any
deficiencies or needs identified by the evaluation. Comprehensive legislation may
be necessary; however, networking of existing authorities as a means of reducing
additional legislation will be the preferred course of action.

4. Federal Consultation

Relevant federal agencies will be contacted and their input solicited in the
development of the CZM program. They will be subject to the CZM programs
consistency review and will, therefore, be involved in developing the list of
actions requiring consistency review. Their concerns on matters of national
interest will also be sought and federal agencies who have a major role on
Georgia's coast will be contacted individually to solicit input.

These four work tasks plus initial work on the policies and general issue areas which will
be incorporated into Indiana's Coastal Management Program could comprise Indiana's first year
CZM planning effort.

4-4

Attachment 8, the executive summary from Ohio's draft Coastal Management Program,
provides a succinct overview of Ohio's proposed program. The summary refers to forty-one
specific policies which fall within nine issue areas as making up much of the substance of the
Ohio Coastal Management Program. The nine issue areas are:

0 Coastal erosion and flooding
0 Water quality
0 Water quantity
0 Ecologically sensitive areas
0 Energy and mineral resources
Environmental quality
0 Fish and wildlife management
0 Ports and shoreline development
0 Recreation and cultural resources

In closing, it is apparent that the apathy and inertia that thwarted Indiana's earlier efforts
to achieve CZM state status are thankfully gone. The public meetings on the future of the
shoreline and editorial comments in local papers regarding the meetings and their purpose
reflected strong interest in protecting and properly managing Indiana's Shoreline on Lake
Michigan.

All of the elements of a successful planning process are in place:

0 Indiana Governor Evan Bayh and Department of Natural Resources Director
Patrick Ralston support the exploration of a program to guide the use and
protection of Indiana's Lake Michigan shoreline area;

0 Under the leadership of Indiana Department of Environmental Management
Commissioner Kathy Prosser, a small but dedicated staff in IDEM's Northwest
office, and a policyinaking committee known as the Citizens Advisory for the
Remediation of the Environment, a remedial action plan is being developed for
the northern part of Lake County, Indiana, including the coastal region and
nearshore waters;

0 The incoming Clinton Administration promises to focus more attention and
resources on the environment;

0 Citizens are concerned about public access to the shoreline and preservation and
restoration of the natural environment, as evidenced by comments made during
public meetings on the shoreline's future;

0 Funding is available to assist Indiana in planning its management program.

Finally, changing shoreline uses and stron g public support for the wise use and protection
of Indiana's shoreline require a management policy, plan and strategy. The federal Coastal Zone
Management program offers an opportunity through which to accomplish state and local goals.

4-5

ATTACHMENT 1
Y .;@ . @Irr
,41

OFFICE OF,rHE GOVERNOR

INDUKAPOLIS, INDIANA 40204-2797

EVAN BAYH
GOVERNOR

January 31, 1992

Ms. Trudy Coxe, Director
Office of Ocean & Coastal Resource
Management
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration
United States Department of Commerce
Washington, D.C. 20235

Dear Ms. Coxe:

I write in reply to your letter of January 9, 1992, advising
me of the availability of fiscal year 1992 funds under Section
303 of the Coastal Zone Management Act to assist coastal states
that do not have a federally approved coastal management program
in the development of such a program. As your deadline for
letters of intent is near, Indiana would prefer to seek a 1993
grant.

The Indiana Department of Natural Resources initiated a
review of the Coastal Zone Management Program nearly a year ago
and concluded that changing physical, social and economic
conditions along Indiana's Lake Michigan shoreline require a
comprehensive management plan and strategy.
Thus, we welcome the availability of a management program
development grant to assist Indiana in preparing its coastal
management program consistent with the Coastal Zone Management
Act.

please accept this letter as an expression of strong interest
by the State of Indiana in obtaining a fiscal year 1993 program
development grant. I have asked Indiana Ist District Congressman
Peter J. Visclosky to lend his support to that request on the
House Appropriations Committee.

4-6

The assistance of your staff in helping Indiana to meet the
requirements for the grant will be very much appreciated. Please
communicate with:

Patrick R. Ralston, Director
Indiana Department of Natural Resources
402 West Washington Street, Room 264
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
(317) 232-4020

Thank you for communicating with me about the Coastal Zone
Management Prograza. We look forward to working with you.

sincerely,
T@s
Evan Bayh

EB/tlb

4-7

-4.; @-O tzk_, LrJ ---r- r I @_L

ATTACHMENT 2

too

OFFICE Of THE GOVERIVOR

INDIANAPOLIS. INDIANA 48204-2797

EVAN SAYR
GOVERNOR

JanuarY 31, 1992

%,..'The Honorable Peter'J. Visclosky
U.S. House of Representatives
420 Cannon Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Pete:

I write to advise you of the State of Indiana's interest in
developing a coastal management program consistent with the
requirements of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act.

As you know, Program Development Grants are authorized
through fiscal year 1993 in amounts up to $200,000 for each state
that is currently not participating in the program.

I am enclosing correspondence to Trudy Coxe, Director, Office
of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, advising her of the
State of Indiana's interest in seeking a fiscal year 1993 Program
Development.Grant.

I would be grateful for any assistance you are able to
provide in the Appropriations-committee in support of a $200,000
grant to assist Indiana in preparing its coastal management
program.
Thank you for any help you can offer.
sincerely,

Evan Bayh

EB/tlb

4-8

Congress of the United States
House of Representatibes
Washington, DC 20515-1401

April 2, 1992

Dear Jim:

I wanted to give you an update on the Coastal Zone management
program development grant we have previously discussed.

Today, I testified before the Commerce, Justice, State, and
Judiciary Appropriations Subcommittee to request a $200,000 Coastal
Zone Managemtne program development grant. Knowing of the state of
Indiana's support for inclusion in the Coastal zone Management
program, I will continue to work for this grant which will assist in
developing Indiana's Coastal Zone Management program plan.

I look forward to continuing to work with you on projects
important to the people of Northwest Indiana.

Sincerely,

Peter J. Visclosky
Member of Congress

PJV: rc
cc: Barbara Waxman

4-9

V IS C~LOS~K~Y TO 91~919~9~"5~011 ~P~O~O2/~0~02

ATTACHM NT 4
September 28, ~Y99~0q2 C~4qONGRE~qS~qS~q@~~qJ~qO~6qN ~2q"~8qC~qC~)~8qR~8qD~q_~qj~j~8q0~j~qj~qS~k
~lcgI:~~;~e;~I ~0q&~nt~er and the SAP ~P H 9~4q@57
search ~a~m~d rescue system, ~0qWAT w~o~o~d~w~i~i~j~e ~Y~l~q=~0q& for ~D~7~-M ~qP~gr~arn ~g~n~qm~a~g~e~qm~e~n~t are ~L~O ~0~1~1~o~c~l~u~r~a~g~e ~l~a~v~e~g~qu~n~e~a~t an promising
provided ~1~1~2 ~qi ~o~t ~4qU~qi~t~i~o~n~s~. ~F~.~A~s~e~a~r~c~qh ~a~r~d ~r~a~- ~R~-~r~o~w~l,~qh ~a~r~e~a~R~. Including ~r~o~d~g~O~ql~o~g ~qb~y~0~a~t~e~l~l~,
The conferees ~a~qj~a~o ~a~r~e ~q4~r~e~o~qd that ~t~h~'~.~@ ~c~i~n I a ~i~'~nt. ~Y ~d~"v~"~l~vPrn~0~u~% of u~-~0~4~0~r~at~I~l~l~qmd ~o~p~qw~t~o~a prod.
~~~~~r~-~N~R~-~X~T ~P~v~o~,~1~'~t~&~,~,n ~-~h~o~u~h~l ~b~. a ~c ~qf nos ~ meat includes ~8qM~,O~qW ~u~c~t~q and markets; additional us" for fish by.
~d~w~~s~qW~I~64~, and brought into ~I~t~n~a with our- for ~e a t~i~o~n ~qp~e~r~qm~a~n~e~a~t buoys for the ~P~r~O~d~u~ct~K and ~0~n~7~l~qM~n~qm~en~t~A~I~q)~y-~G~0~u~n4 moth-
r~~t budget pr~oje~ct~l~o~n~n and fiscal realities. ~qCh~o~s~a ~0 ~a~y , ~r~v~t~o~qg System network. o~it~s for p~r~o~c~e~s~q~1t~i~g f~i~s~l~i watts,- and improved
The ~P~O~0qAr~-~O~fb~it~i~n~qg ~f~a~t~e~l~l~I~L~6 ~P~f~4~0~W~r~a~qM~1p~p~p~p~p~2p~p~ ~q7~*~h~o ~C ~a~l~l~a~s ~O~X~A~0~0t also ~i~0C~I~D~d~O~n ~K~Q~U~F~L~C~u~l~TU~r~0 ~%nd hatchery ~te~c~qt~i~li~q~ue~s.
b~ r~o~e~o~n~f~l~e~ur~o~d to ~o~4~b~ur~e reliability Ana ~qS~4qW1~,0~00 ~f~o~r t~h~e ~I~t~o~qt~s for ~qN~qUr~I~n~e ~E~n~g~ql~- The conferees ~b~e" included ~s4,~q10~q0~.~8q0~0 for
~~~~~qW~n~a~n~O~8 of ~C~U~qM~M~t ~C~4~qP~4~8qW~I~lt~y~. A r~e~P~e~at ~n~6~er~i~n~g in ~qt P r~a~qb~d~r~g~. ~F~ql~orId~A~. t~o 'Ju- A~l~qUk~a ~K~r~o~q~l~ldf~i~g~h monitoring, Of ~v~r~qb~i~C~qh
of t~~e G~O~qP~qS~-~q1~1~4q7~-~4qWpr~t~i~our~e~qm~e~nt will ~no~t be ~h~A~n~o~e t~qh~e ~q"~s of oceanic and ~at~qm~o~f~i~- ~3~1~"~2~0~0~.~0~qw ~'~g~h~n~6~i~l be ~av~i~d~ql~abl~e only for ~ora~b
tolerated. ~pb~er~j~o too ~. a to th~e m~g~-r~it~i~qm~e i~n~d~u~str~v rn~a~n~a~ge~r~n~e~nt ~a~n~a r~e~s~e~a~r~o~b. and of which
Finally~. the ~c~o~n~f~e~ro~a~a ~A~q0~1~y ~a~nd~a~z~z~a We Ant~! for Instrumentation to ~on~su~r~e the ~qd~e~v~el~- ~$~q=.o~qo~o shell ~t~>~o ~ev~a~l~l~a~bl~e to the Bering Sea
Senate report ~ql~a~ng~qWe r~o~q~u~e~s~t~qlu~i~r Me Do~- ~o~r~qm~e~nt of the ~O~a~D~ab~i~l~it~Y f~or ~2~1~6~0~8~8~3~0~r~Y ~c~Or~n- ~F~i~sh~er~m~o~u~'s A~r~s~o~c~i~at~ion to ~V~qm~P~a~qn ~t~M~O~I~n~O~s~s
~~rtm~e~n~t; of Commerce ~a~nd ~O~f~f~lo~o of ~qM~an~a a- ~Vut~er modeling ~of ~9~-~1~01~1~ml climate ~O~b~q=~l~r~s~, ~h~Y~- ~V~qI~tt~l~i~s needed by ~W~e~S~t~o~r~n ~A~J~&~e~k~&~t villages RD-
~n~~t and ~DUd~i~r~et to ~s~t~l~b~q=~l~t budget ~r~6~que~at~a, ~dr~u~io~g~y, ~c~i~lr~r~e~nta, and atmo~g~o~t~ier~ic data. plying for ~c~o~r~n~qm~u~U~tt~Y ~d~e~v~o~ql~o~i~r~i~h~q=t Qt~'~Ot~qU
~~~~~n~n~l~n~f~f ~I~n ~qM~c~a~l ~v~A~K~r ~2~Q~D~d~. ~x~r~h~l~t~Q~L ~O~o~nt~a~l~u ~E~l~z~o~n instrumentation will he ~IL~t~ili~Z~ed fur_ ~q(~C~,~4~4qM~,~g~) ~ava~i~l~A~bl~e under th~e ~I~n~sh~or~e~-~o~qf~qf~shore
detailed ~o~ut~y~e~a~r budget pr~o~qJ~e~ct~l~o~n~s for each ~&z~n~o~b~g other t~h~4qW~B~. ~t~h~e Measurement of pr~o~p~c~h~s~l~.
~~~~~l~l~s~t~o aeries. ~A~j~o~n~g~-~s~h~o~r~s a~e~d~i~n~m~e~n~t ~t~r~a~n~u~v~a~r~v~, for ~s~n~o~u~l~t~o~r~- Of the ~amou~n~u; Included to ~U~n~p~ql~e~qm~a~u~t ~t~qh~e
NATIONAL ~0~C~4AN~Z~qU~V~1~0~Z WE Of ~6~9~t~U~a~r~i~6~s~, And f~or t~qh~e ~@~b~h~RZ~l~c~6~qm~0~'~)~t Of ~qU~4~@~ri~n~o ~b~i~m~,~L~L~n~m~i rr~o~quc~t~i~o~n Act, ~3~1~0q0~0~,~0~qW
Th~e ~&~qw~f~o~r~b~n~o~o ~A~6~8~T~q"~qM~o~nt ~w~r~o~q"(1~6~9 ~g~qmu~n~d~-tr~uth~i~n~g ~sa~t~e~ll~i~r~m V~r~o~a~t~h~er ~a~nd ~o~o~o~- shall be ~nv~a~ll~abl~e to ~t~un~qd marine ~qm~s~o~q=~6
~~~~~.~4qW~qA~0qN for ~N~a~t~i~o~qm~i~l Ocean ~8~9~r~v~t~o~e ~p~r~o~- ~a~l~l~t~o data collection. ~I~%~e c~o~nf~or~o~qm note that observers in the North Pacific fisheries. In
gram. the Institute ~ha~s been ~a~n~o~o~qm~fu~l In securing ~f~Add~qW~o~n~, ~s~qW~,000 shall be ~s~v~g~qi~ql~a~qb~l~e only ~f~or
~qne c~o~n~f~o~r~e~n~o~o ~a~kr~o~e~qm~ant ~pr~ov~id~o~e ~$~qM~,0~0~0 ~0qW percent matching ~f~U~nd~i~s ~E~qM~qM the State harbor ~n~o~;~.1 r~a~n~hAr~q0~k by Me State Of Al~a~tk~a~.
for ~t~h~o Ch~a~r~l~i~m~l~-~o~n Harbor ~op~o~c~i~al ~&~r~o~a man- ~a~m~d the ~pr~i~v~a~t~~6 ~f~t~o~o~qw~r (or ~I~I~A ~Pr~o~gr~i~L~qm~s ~S~1~2~4 and ~qM~,0~0~0 ~sb~al~l be available ~o~v~il~qy for ~qb~Ar~b~or
~T~ue go. this ~Dr~o~qj~e~c~t~; is to Offers NOAA a unique opportunity to Into- ~por~D~o~L~K~e r~n~i~v~ar~c~h in the Gulf of Maine pur~s~u-
~~~~~~R~D~S ~t~h~I~D ~4~n~v~i~r~o~qw~n~a~nt~a~l Quality Of the grate nine existing academic ~I~M~q4 research ant to ~th~o ~r~e~c~o~qm~qm~o~n~d~at~qi~o~n~a of the ~0qb~u~l~f of
harbor While ~qm~ai~pt~a~l~h~in~g the broad m~i~x of ~D~r~o~K~r~ams and centers to ~t~h~e ~I~qmD~ar~t~A~n~t M~A~I~n~a ~h~Rr~b~or porpoise recovery ~t~o~sAn.
~a~"~f ~'~t~h~p~s~'~a~qh~a~'rb~or. ~T~h~a~, ~TA~qmp~a~-~gt~. ~P~e~t~e~r~ab~u~r~g 2n~a~r~qw~e ~*~r~A~w~t~a~l area i~n Of the ~(~u~nd~E provided ~qi~b~r Stellar ~i~qm~a lion
~O~qm~I~l~r~o~h~e~n~g~ivo ~p~L~a~n t~h~m Gulf of Mexico. recovery. ~$7~5~0~.0~00 ~s~b~a~l~L be ~a~v~g~a~4qW~s only ~f~o~r
will d~e~v~e~l~o~p ~g~D~a~e~l~f~i~c ~z~a~ar~l~qa~o~qm~e~nt ~Uk~e~q"~U~r~q" Th~s ~o~a~n~f~er~e~n~c~e ~a~gr~o~o~n~%~6~a~t Includes the ~1~1~q@t~ate o~l Al~a~al~c~k Department of Fish sod
for ~t~h~e harbor that ~o~q" be ~In~c~or~p~o~r~%~0qW Into
~~~~t~h Carolina Coastal Council's ~.~q"~er~a~l~l~y ~S~7~,0~0~0.0~00 Tor the National Marine ~qS~a~n~e~qW~ary ~0,~n~,~.
~p~r~o~k~@~r~arn~, ~T'h~e ~q~9~n~i~b~r~o~e~s ~l~n~t~@~cn~d Lunt ~w~i~t~b~l~o The ~c~o~nf~or~o~e~s r~o~c~o~n~u~n~o~n~O ~0qW~.~0qW~.~0qW~q0 for the
approved ~o~o~A~s~0qW zone -~A~q"~qf~qt~q"t ~I~D~I~-~s~. t~h~e funds provided~. the ~qM~a~n~qwr~o~y Bay Sam~)~-
Of the ~q&~n~8q" provided for the Co~ast~a~l marine ~qm~h~e~r~i~e~s ~In~I~t~l~a~qw~r~o ~q(~0qW~A~R~F~qI~N~q]~. Of
~~~~a~u ~qS~a~l~l~e~n~o~o.Pr~o~gr~am. the conferees expect tu~Ar~y ~a~nd the ~qSt~e~llw~a~g~o~u B~t~i~nk ~q8~q"~c~t~u~ar~y b~e this ~a~ni~o~u~r~it. 'act less t~h~a~n ~qS~qM~.~8qW in to con-
that ~S~4qM~,0~0~0 will be allocated to the U~al~v~e~r~- ~f~u~zd~a~d at the ~qf~qtll ~b~md~qg~et ~n~P~i~l~u~e~st love) for tinue t~h~e South A~t~'~l~a~nt~i~e~t p~h~e~&~a ~*~( ~@~h~s pro-
~~~~~ of South Carolina ~qS~o~qb~oo~l ~o~t Public ~f~l~G~e~alv~e~ar ~I~qM~_ gram.
Realm and the B~ar~u~ch ~1~q=t~lt~4t~o for ~oo~ot~t~n~u- Further, the conferees intend that ~t~A~e Golf ~I~qm~e ~c~o~n~f~"~r~V~a~'~s ~h~a~v~o Included ~M~W ~I~n~c~r~o~o~qm of
~t~~~U ~Of~'t~h~O ~Y~6~8~qW~C~h ~0~4 ~I~D~I~qU~C~qU~V~O ~A~%~&~A~&~(~r~8~- of the ~P~ar~a~l~l~o~n~e~s ~v~A~d the ~0~or~d~el~ql Bank ~l~qf~qt~@ ~11~.~1~(~j~o~,~O~D~O ~i~n~t support ~0~j~, ~f~0d ~$~r~a~o~qd~o~r ~t~o~,
~M~~~t 4~0( a~qW~a~qll~, ~'~h~Ig~l~%~-~8~&l1~n~tt~Y ~0~8~t~a~a~r~t~e~s~, in ~r~1~n~e ~B~az~l~et~u~ar~i~o~a b~e funded at ~S~qM~.~0~q0~0 ~a~b~ov~'~o International fisheries ~0~0~qm~g~n~i~a~o~l~o~n~s~. ~2p~p~1p~p~p~
~~~~~a~qb~o~r~at~io~n with th~e National Marine ~F~I~R~b- ~t~h~e budget r~e~au~e~st- ~I~%~e ~G~a~l~f ~o~t ~t~h~e amount; ~S~qM)~qA~qW Is ~f~b~r t~qb~e Great ~l~A~k~e~s Fish-
"Ito ~j~s~r~v~i~a~o ~Sout~l~qm~at~er~a F~l~ab~o~r~l~e~s ~IAb~Q~rfi~, F~0q"~qlo~n~a~s~a~nd Cordell Bank National Ma- ~ory ~Co~r~Am~i~s~s~i~o~n ~S~p~ec~qi~qf~qt~c~a~l~q)y ~V~qA ~&~qw~l~s~t the
rine ~qS~a~n~t~t~u~ar~l~o~o host the ~qI~&~qM~o~a~t seabird and state of ~v~o~n~n~o~n~t With ~@~q"~& ~l~a~qm~D~qf~qt~v control
Wry In ~8qO~qW~qU~S~0qW~U~. South Carolina~. marine mammal brooding colony in the ~*~o~n i~n 1.~4~%~k~o C~t~l~a~r~n~p~l~a~l~n ~4qW ~4q=.~t~qM ~t~a ~&~x~a~l~o~t in
The conferees recommend ~0qU~0qW~,~(~q*~D for a
~~w,~;w~a~gr~a~qw to ~a4~d~r~o~s~a tan ~&~8q4~0~q1 ~b~l~o~o~n~t ~C~qM~- ~Un~e~nt~a~l United ~qf~qit~*~qW. This ~ar~s~a~, w~h~i~n~k I& ~g~o~n~er~A~l sea lamprey control ~D~r~o~gr~a~qm~s In ~t~h~e
~~ on ~t~&~e ~v~r~q~a~t~, ~qM~A~u~l o~qWt~l~in~o Ila Hawaii. ~a~qm~a~n~g the five most ~p~r~o~d~o~o~t~iv~a ~qw~a~r~i~n~e re- Great L~Ak~o~s~, ~$4~0~0~.~4qW~q0 is for the P~a~0qd~qf~l~o Salm-
T~b~m ~qA~qw~qd~s an to ~h~o granted to the State of ~g~qio~n~s In the world, has ~r~e~c~o~l~q"~d both ~u~s~- on Commission ~qW ~o~a~r~r~y out to Obligations
~l~~wj~a~l~i to Perform research ~a~n~d ~r~em~a~d~l~a~t~i~o~qm t~i~o~n~a~ql ~a~n4 international ~q"~o~qw~n~it~l~q6~n of ~i~t~s u~nd~or Me ~r~l~a~c~lt~l~o Salmon T~z~e~a~t~y -~I~t~h r~t~u~a~r~d
~l~U~e ~Oo~nf~o~r~s~e~s note that no funding has biological aria bun= resources. ~l~l~ow~o~v~e~v. ~vo me ~tr~a~w~sbou~nd~i~t~r~y ~r~qiv~e~qm-~0qM~e ~qT~a~k~u~.
boon provided for the P~rI~n~C~O William Sound ~t~n~e~s~s resources ~a~q" facing ~s~t~9~f~i~l~t~i~c~a~nt~qX~y ~In- Stikine. ~a~nd A lack Rivera,
oil Spill Recovery ~I~n~s~ut~u~t~o established ~b~v ~o~r~e~q"~I~ng threats to ~t~bair survival~. ~qC~ur~qm~at ~7~1~8 conference ~a~qm~e~qm~a~nt ~j~a~e~l~a~d~e~q ~q=~.~O~qW
Section ~qW~a~l of the Oil pollution ~A~ot of ~1~9~q% ~o~y~r~n~Dt~o~qm~s of the" threats an ~BO percent ~4~e- ~for the ~B~acra~r~n~onto River Winter Ran Chi-
~(~M MEW~. ~qM~I) due to ~t~h~e fact that the ~g~o~v~- ~c~q"~6~5 In ~p~o~p~u~l~a~t~i~o~a~s of ~s~e~v~e~r~i~d ~a~f~t~ab~i~r~0qb~. ~q" ~U~1~1~0~k ~8~a~l~m~o~G ~(~"~i~r~u~v~e ~@~qf~qt~o~d~s~t~c~c~t~t ~qr~r~o~g~4~qw~q.~.
e~m~qm~q"t ~h~z~A ~r~&~o~e~i~v~od ~L~u~(.~A~n~l~o~s from U~qW ~A~@rr~O~f~l well ~q" the federal ~I~t~At~i~n~g ~q" threatened of Ile ~S~a~cr~a~m~o~nt~o River ~w~qin~L~er r~u~n Chinook
YOU~q" Battlement agreement t~h~q" am to be ~qI~o~c~a~l Stellar "a ~h~o~l~t~s ~a~n~d ~t~h~e winter ~r~u~A of ~sa~l~qmou b~av~"~. been ~q1~1s~t~e~d as threatened under
used under that agreement for some of ~t~he Chinook salmon. ~t~h~e ~F~ed~or~a~l Endangered Species Act ~b~v the
~"~~y ~p~u~r~p~o~s~q" for Which ~t~h~o institute ~w~a~s as- Th~e additional ~qtu~n~4~t~a~g ~qp~ov~i~d~ed ~o~bou~ld be ~r~i~a~k~a~u~u~qm marine ~F~i~a~h~e~r~i~o~s ~qS~qw~d~c~o~. no Coal
~~~~l~l~a~h~m~L ~qV~h~o o~o~nf~o~r~c~o~n intend ~t~Z~a~c funds ~u~l~md ~qW~. ~qw~qm~a~qn ~a~n~d ~qW~o~U~l~t~a~r ~c~o~nt~a~qm~i~n~s~at up- of the ~c~4pt~lvo brooding program is to rear
(or ~t~qh~o Institute should be provided fr~n~qm take In ~s~e~ab~ir~d~u and marine n~i~ar~n~a~n~p~ql~s~, ~i~n- w~i~n~t~or-ru~n ~C~h~U~no~o~f~t ~a~al~qmo~n under ~oo~ntr~oll~e~qd
m~~~l~e~s ~r~&~@~e~l~r~ad ~fr~o~rn t~2~t~o ~9~6tt~l~o~qM~on~t agree~- rlud~i~n~g t~he ~qm~i~l~i~o~a~ct~iv~e waste from the conditions until they ~b~o~o~o~m~qw r~e~pr~o4~e~c~t~iv~e~l~y
meat. F~a~qm~l~l~o~n d~t~im~p~a~lt~e and proposed d~r~&~1~g~e ~qm~z~t~u~r~v ~i~s~d~u~l~u~t~. ~b~i~c~a~t~ur~s ~a~d~u~l~qu would thou b~e
no ~c~o~n~t~ar~en~o~e ~A~gr~e~a~s~n~o~u~t~, r~e~Qo~s~r~u~n~t~i~n~d~i~i ~u~p~o~l~i~n ~f~r~o~r~t~t a" ~F~r~V~A~U~L~A~0~0 ~qf~qt~y~: establish an ~U~b~e~d as ~h~a~trb~6r~y ~b~r~o~o~d~8t~o~c~k Toe ~o~o~r~t~l~i~n~u~ed
~$~7~,0~00 for two programs at ~t~qh~o Now Jersey electronic ~t~r~a~n~k~i~n~g ~e~y~s~t~er~n ~w~h~l~o~h ~v~V~i~l~l help p~r~o~p~a~g~r~i Lion of L~b~e ~m~>~a~c~l~e~a_
Marine ~&~c~l~o~n~o~e~a ~G~o~n~s~q"~w~um~. To ~a4dr~e~a~s the prevent or ~qm~l~n~l~x~n~l~t~e oil spill mortality for 'no Captive Bro~o~qd~s~to~c~k ~qPr~o~qgr~a~qw ~t~v~a~uld ~r~o~-
problem of water ~d~o~g~r~a~d~a~t~i~6~a at ~4m~all boat seabirds- ~a~ud m~ar~t~n~e ~qm~amma~l~a~; Lind ~t~s~e~t~a~b~l~L~sh ~c~O~V~er ~W~1~,~1~t~er ~V~q@~i ~a~a~lm~o~u b~ir ~n~o~i~4~in~g ~I~,~0~qW Ju-
Marinas ~U~I~P~A~U~9~11~0~dt th~d ~U~n~i~t~ad ~S~t~A~t~A~I~S~, ~- ~v~a~ab~ir~d~-~n~i~)h~ar~y ~n~k~r~i~a~l~L~o~r~la~a program to ~h~o~l~p ~v~e~-~a~l~l~o ~s~s~0~m~o~n at ~0~0~1~8~qm~a~n ~N~at~l~o~a~a~l Fish
~~~~.~4~0~0 Is ~L~n~o~lud~ed. The ~f~i~g~r~e~e~qM~en~t provides ~d~ev~e~l~o~D ~a~n~d ~qM~$~@~l~u~t~al~n a ~s~u~"t~a~'~q"~b~"~s ~r~l~,~"~h~f~.~'ry H~a~t~ch~Ary Instead of r~el~6~i~t~e~g~n~t~r them Into the
~S~~~~q0~4qW to take ~t~4v~ant~a~ge of a recently d~(~jv~o~ql- program. This would result to ~ai~g~n~i~f~i~ca~mt w~l~t~d, ~tr~e~r~i~s~f~orr~ia~t~, the juv~er~i~l~l~e fish to fresh
o~~~4 w~a~t~A~r ~a~t~i~a.1.~1~t~y g~no~d~el ~for an ~ax~o~Q of benefits. Including assessment of pollution ~a~nd !~4~a~Jt w~a~t~o~r hold f~a~C~A~I~L~U~e~Z, ~3~10~1~a~l~h~C ~t~h~e
Now fnr b~qurn~qa~qn health; a c~ql~qo~qa~qn~q. ~q&~qu~qn~0qWn~qa~qb~qj~q0 ~q1~q3~qS~qA~q, f~ql~qs~q@h ~qR~qt them- ~qf~q4~qc~qi~ql~ql~qt~qi~qe~qs for three years until
York Harbor to ~qa~qR~qs~qa~8q@ t~qh~qe ~qI~6qm~qP~qa~qot~qo of own- ~q; a safe an~qd efficient shipping ~qIn~6qW~q;tr~qy~q'~q,
blued Bower overflow ~qd~qi~qs~qo~qh~qar~qg~qe~qs on oxygen ~8q'~qr~qy maturity ~qa~qud r~qe~@tur~qo~ql~qn~qg the Ash to Coleman
~ql~o~v~qe~ql~qe in the region. ~2qZ~qj the protection and ~qr~qe~qet~qo~qr~qat~qi~qo~qn of wild- N~q&t~qi~qo~qn~q&~qJ Flab l~qla~qt~qc~qb~qo~qr~qY to ~qb~qa spawned,
~I'h~qo ~qeo~quf~qo~6qm~qo~qo ~qR~qgr~qo~qar~qn~qa~qnt provides a total lift. ~qw~qh~ql~q,~q:~q,~qh would ~qM~q-~qO~qu~qt~ql~qy ~qi~qz~qo~qr~qw~qa~q*~qq ~qt~qh~qe ~qv~qn~qn~2qw~qr run
~;328q@
of ~qW~q'~2qM~qs~q'~8qw~qo for ~qc~qo~0q"~qt~qa~ql Zone Mean ~q0~6qm~qo~qn~qt ~qWA~qT~qI~qO~qN~qA~ql~qo ~qMA~qI~qV~qN~qE ~qFa~q:~qs~qm~qr~qH~qy SERVICE ~qa~qg~qg supply, This ~qef~qf~qort~qsh~qal~ql be considered a
~D~r~O~qf~qf~qf~qa~q.~q4~q1~q8~q- Of this ~qA~6qM~qou~qn~qt~q. ~qS~q41~q,~q3~q1~q1~q,~q4~q0~q0 is T~qh a Conference ~4qw~qe~qem~qe~qnt ~qp~qc~qov~qld~qr~q,~q@~qi ~qo~qup~qp~ql~qo~8qm~qe~qz~qi~qt to. not a ~qr~qe~qp~ql~qa~qc~4qw~qn~qe~qa~qt for, efforts
available for C~qZ~0qM ~qJrr~qa~qn~0qw (~q5~q7~q,~q1~q1~2qW~q.0~q0~q0 is pro- ~q3217,~8q"~q. ~2qW~qO for the National Merino Fisheries to ~qI~qn~qcr~qe~4q"~qo ~qn~qat~qur~qs~qd ~qpr~qo~qdu~qct~ql~qo~qn~q. ~
v ~d~qed ~qt~q3~qir~qo~qu~qg~qh the appropriation ~q"C~qo~qa~qst~qA~qd ~qS~qo~qn~q-~ql~qo~qo (N~qN~qI~qF~0qS). T~qh~qe ~qo~qv~qa~qif~qer~qi~q4~qt~qy~qn ~qs~qi~4qm ~qaw~qar~qo of a ~6qw~q*~qD~qo~qs~q&~ql to
One ~2qY~2qA~qn~8qU~qr~qom~qe~qnt F~qa~qod~q")~q. The ~qo~qo~qn~qf~qA~qi~qr~4q~ Lu- T~qh~qo ~qco~qnf~qo~qr~0q"~qa ~qm~qa~qv~q@~qi~qt ~qt~qb~qAr riot l~qo~qa~q& ~qU~qU~q16~qD ~qe~qf~qi~qt~qa~qb~ql~qi~q,~q%~qh a ~qI~qIA~qL~qIV~qO plant ~qD~qur~qse~qry and
~2d ~qt~qZ~qa~qt ~qt~qZ~qe ~q$~q7~q.~q8~2qW~q,D~qD~q0 appropriated from tile ~00q=~q5,~qO~8qM ~qo~qf the funds provided for ~qt~qh~qe aqua- x~qe~qr~qi~qs~qco~qp~qf~qi d~qo~4qm~qo~qa~qutrat~qi~qb~qa project at the
~Z~N~q% fund be u~qu~qod ~qfor the following pu~qr~qp~qo~qoe~qs~q, culture program be u~qz~qod to continue support Tiburon l~qa~qb~q(~qi~qru~qtor~qy- '~qT'h~qe conferees ~qe~qx~qp~qe~qo~qt
(1) Not ~8qW exceed ~6qU~4q&~q.~q0~2qW for ~qpr~qo~qg~qr~q%~8qm do. of the N~qo~qu~qv~qort. Marine ~qS~qc~qi~qen~4q" Center ~qi~qn Or. N~qOAA ~qU~q) ~qu~qQ~qo~qv~qa~qr~qi~qt~qt~qe ~qfu~ql~qlv ill ~qt~q'~q-~qa~qr~qr~qY~q1~q1~8qw Out ~qt~qh~ql~qo
v~e~ql~qopm~qe~qn~qt grants for the States of ~qG~qe~qor~qi~qn~qa~q. ~qP~qg~qo~qn and that th~qw.~q,~qo f~qu.d~qo ~q1~q@~qc ~qp~qr~quv~qi~qct~qe~qa ~qj~qw ~qe~qx~q- pr~qopo~qti~qa~ql.
~Z

(I:

~V~.
~U~L~a~qn~qm~qa.~2qw~q, ~qG~8qw~qo, ~8qw~q4~qla~qn~qa. ~qa~qnd T~qe~qx~qa~qt In ~qa~qc- ~qL~qkd~q!t~ql~qt~qu~qj~qj~qly as ~qD~qc~qq~qj~qs~qibl~qe, T~qhe ~qc~q,~6qmf~qer~qp~qm, ~qba~q%~q,~qo ~ql~qoo~ql~qu~qded ~0q$~q1.~00q0~q0~q,~q0~8qW for
~68qC~o~rdA~qn~qo~qa w~qj~q(~qj~ql the ~q1~qjut~qh~qo~qr~qi~qz~qKt~qi~qa~qn, ~qT~ql~qj~qa ~qc~qo~qn~qf~qor~qo~qn~qo~qe ~qa~qg~qr~qo~q6~0qm~qm~qit ~qw~qe~quld allow ~qr~qq~q@~q- ~qS~qp~qu~ql~qdy hook ~qh~q4~qa~qs~qe ~qC~qo~qS~qt-~qq~q. as ~qr~qe~qn~qU~qo~qat~qo~qd~q. And
(2~q) ~04qV~q.~q0~q00~q,~qO~qD~qD for pr~qo~qgr~qzrn g~6qm~qn~qt~q3 ~6q0 ~qB~qt~qa~qt~qe~qr~q,~q. proximately ~q$6,400,000 to r~qe~q7n~qa~qln I~qm ~qth~qf~qo export, N~qOA~qA ~0qW fully fund t~qh~qe ~0ql~qe~qs~qse With
~a~n~d ~q- ~q6~qa)t~qon~qst~qa~qll~q-~qK~qe~qn~qn~qa~qd~qY ~0qf~0qt~qgh~qa~qr~qy ~qd~qa~qvo~ql~qop~0qm~qe~qa~qt ~qfu~qu~qa~qF~q. pro~qv~qi~qa~qe~qd In this A~qe~qt.
(~3) ~q2~q9~qW ~qr~qd~qn~qL~qa~qL~qU~qL~qI~q@~qg ~qA~q&~q@~qj~qd~qi In ~qZ~qC~qc~q0~qt~qdA~q4~qC~q0 With ~qgrA~qn~qt~qa p~qro~qK~qr~qa~qrn~q. ~q'~2qM~q(~ql ~qc~qo~qllf~qgr~qa~qe~qs urge that ~qR ~q1~q1~q1~qhe ~qc~qn~qn~qf~qm~qr~qo~qn~qo~qu agreement provides ~qz~qio~qt
~L~b~e ~qa~qu~qth~qor~qt~qz~qa~qt~qi~qo~qn~q. high priority be given to r~qt~qs~qe~qar~qc~qh d~qe~qs~qi~qg~qn~4qN l~qe~qW. than ~q%~q4.~q2~q34.~q0~8qW for ~qO~qo~qf~6qM~ql~qo~qf~qf ~q*~q@~qP~2q@~qZ~qt~qO~ql~ql~qs

4~q-10

STATE OF
MINNESOTA
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

500 LAFAYETTE ROAD, ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55155-4037

January 29, 1992

Ms. Trudy Coxe, Director
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA
1825 Connecticut Avenue N. W.
Washington, D.C. 20235

Dear Ms. Coxe:

I am responding to your letter of January 9, 1992 wherein you request an
indication from Minnesota of our intent to proceed with the development of a
Coastal Resource management Program (CRMP). Before responding to the specific
subject areas you suffest, it will be helpfur to discess existing
intergivernmental relationships along the Lake Superior coastline, our "Norht
Shore".

In the mid 1970's, as I am sure you are aware, a Coastal Zone Management
planning program was conducted in Minnesota. unfortuately the program was
perceived by the North Shore public and local officials as a series of new state
and federal mandates which were being imposed on the North Shore by St. Paul and
Washington, D.C. This effort was taking place at about the same time as the
development of new federal leghislation expanding the Boundary Waters Canoe Area,
Rare II planning within the Superior National Forest, establishment of Voyageurs
National Park, and major environmental litigation in state and federal court
over the disposal of taconite tailings in lake Superior by Reserve mining
Company. Concurrent with these developments was the general strengthening of
environmental management in Minnesota through shoreland and floodplain
management programs, the state protected waters permit program, the water
appropriation permit program, the NPDES program, solid waste management, air
quailty programs, the State Environmental Quality Act, and soil and water
conservation management, to name a few. These new or more aggressive state and
federal management programs were, and still are to a great extent, considered as
"top down" management programs were, and still are to a great extent, considered as
further exacerbated because new mandates were not always accompanied by new
financial resources.

Coastal Zone management in Minnesota was one of the victims of negative
reaction to the top down approach. In 1978, at the request of virtually all of
the local government units on the North Shore, the Governor suspended
participation in the program

4-11

DNR WATERS TEL: 612-296-0445 Jan 30,92 8:41 No.001 P.

Ms. Trudy Coxe
January 29, 1992
Page Two
Despite assurance to the contrary, Coastal Resources Management is still
perceived by many of the public and some local officials as the imopstiton of
new federal regulations. The most difficult problem ahead in the development of
a CRMP for Minnesota will be overcoming these perceptions. The healthy result
of this situation is that we can expect close public Scrutiny, therefore we
intend to structure a planning process 'that maximums public participation.
This should lead to a strong product that will have broad public support.

I think you will learn that Minnesota is proud of our programs, We think we
have natural resource and environmental management prgrams in place that rank
among the best In the nation. The development of those programs did not come
without growing pains and, one of the most serious of these is the lack of trust
between local, state and federal management efforts, Over recent years one of
the major efforts in natural resource management in Minnesota has been the
establishment and maintenance of trust between state and localinterests. As
the Department of Natural Resources Commissioner this is one of MY primary
personal goals as well.

In the mid 1980's North Shore interests developed concern over our efforts to
update and expand the State Shoreland Management Regulations. Informal
discussions were held between- state and local officials and members of the
general public about the need to develop land use management standards
specifically for Lake Superior, After several months of discussion the
Department agreed to a locally initiated land use planning program for the North
Shore. The local entity that conducted the planning effort is the North Shore
Management Board (NSMB).

The NSMB represents all of the local units of government on Lake Superior,
outside of the City of Duluth which exercise zoning authority. It consists of
the counties of Cook Lake, and St. Louis; the Cities of Grand Mara Is, silver
Bay, Beaver Bay and Two Harbors; and Duluth and Lakewood Townships within St.
Louis County. The NSMB is a legally constituted Joint Powers Board formed
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59. The NSMB has enter d Into a
Cooperative Agreement with the Grand Portage Indian Reservation to coordinate
and cooperate on matters of mutual concern. The Grand Portage Reservation has
representation on the NSMB and on the Citizens and Technical Advisory
Committees to the Board.

The NSMS proceeded, from 1987 through 1989, In the development of the North
Shore Management Plan (NSMP), The NSMP establishes shoreland use policies,
development standards,, and administrative review provisions, The MP has been
formally adopted through the state rule making process as the State Shoreland
Management Rule for the North Shore of Lake Superior. Since Its adoption as
state rule in 1989 the provisions of the.NSMP have been incorporated into the
land use management programs of all of the participating North Shore
communities.

4-12

DNR WATERS TEL: 612-296-0445 Jan 3,92 8:41 No.001 P.

Ms. Trudy Coxe
January 29, 1992
Page Thrae
In the development of the NSMP the department of Natural Resources worked as a
partner with the NSMB, The Board recognized the Plan must ultimately comply
with State Statutes, but both entities agreed a good deal of latitude exists in
how to specifically comply with state mandates. It was within this latitude the
Plan was developed to uniquely address North Shore development issues. Locally
there has been excellent acceptance of the Plan; primarily, I believe, due to
the "ownership" which resulted through local leadership in plan devlopment.
As a result of the partnership between the Department and the NSMB a good deal
of trust has been built. We believe that this trust can be used to bridge
issues which in other times, were barriers to cooperative management. The
Department has committed to the NSMB that if Minnesota elects to develop and
participate In a CRMP it will only be through a continuation of a state/local
partnership.

Attached are specific responses to Minnesota's intended approach to meet the
requirements of section 305(a) and(b) of the Coastal Zone Mananagement Act as
requested in your January 9, 1992 letter.

We look forward, In partnership with the North Shore Management Board, to
working with you and your staff in the development of a Coastal Res
Management Program for Minnesota,

If you need additional information, please feel free to contact Regional
Hydrologist Dan Retka (1201 East Highway 2, Grand Rapids, MN 55744, telephone:
218/327-4416) or North Shore Management Board staff Cheryl Erickson (330 Canal
Park Drive, Duluth, MN 55802, telephone 218/722-5545),

Sincerely,

Ronald Nargang
Deputy Commissioner

Enclosures
cc: Pat Bloomgren, MPCA
Ron Harnack, BWSR
Kent Lokkesmoe,DNR
Dan Retka, DNR
Cheryl Erickson, NSMB

4-13

DNR WATERS TEL: 612-296-0445 Jan 30,92 8:41 No.001 P.

GERARAL APPROACH TO SECTION 305 (a) and (b)
COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT

There are four general issue areas to be addressed in the letter
of intent:

1. Commitment from the state's Governor.

On February 11, 1991 by letter to Timothy R. E. Keeney (copy
enclosed) Governor . Arne H, Carlson provided that letter of
support. In companion letters Governor Carlson assigned the
Department of Natural Resources as the lead state agency and
assured the North Shore Management Board of the State's intent to
continua the cooperative relationships which have beer developed.

2. A document summarizing how the state will meet the major
requirements of Section,306.

In reviewing the information contained in this response it must be
recognized that any of the specific measures developed meet the
requirements of section 306 will be developed during the CRM
planning process. The responses contained herein only present
the range of issues that will likely be considered. The planning
process will address all issues required under the Federal Act and
resultant administrative regulations.

Section 306 requires the management program address;

Boundaries.

There are several program jurisidictional boundaries which will be
considered during program development. Except when considering the
non point program it is expected the boundary cosidered will be
the NSMP jurisdictional boundary and the Shoreland management
boundary in the City of Duluth.

The jurisdictional boundary of the North Shore Management Plan "is
the 40 acre subdivision lines of the rectangular coordinate system
established in the U.S. Public Land Survey, nearest to the landward
side of a line 1000 feet from the shoreline of Lake Superior or 300
feet landward from the center line of U.S, Highway 61, whichever
is greater. However, the boundary between Lakewood Township and
the western corporate limits of Two Harbors is the ce ter line of
the U.S. Highway Expressway-" (Taken from the North Shore
management Plan, December, 1988.) In the City of Duluth where the
NSMP does not have Jurisdiction it Is anticipated the coastal
boundary considered will be the statutory boundary of the State
Shoreland Management Program which is 1000 feet from the shoreline
of Lake Superior and 300 feet from the boundary of t e St. Louis
River (assuming the CRMP Will extend into the Estuary Enclosed
is a copy of the Duluth Zoning Regulations, Oct. 1987 which include

4-14 1 D. Retka, MNDNR - 1/24/92

TEL, 612-296-0445
Jan 30, 92 8:41 No.001 P.

the zoning regulations in effect, the use districts and maps
showing the shoreland limits.

In the development of the Non Point Pollution Program of the CRMP
which is now required pursuant to Section 6217 it is anticipated
the Lake Superior watershed boundary in Minnesota will be
considered. Within that context there are jurisdictional
boundaries of existing state and local management programs which
Will undoubtedly be incorporated into the non point program.

Permissible land And water uses.

The NSMP has identified ShorelandManagement Areas which are
Protected Resource, Residential, CCommercial-Rural , Commercial-
Urban, Resort Commercial, and industrial. For each ar a goals and
policies have been developed to guide development decisions.

The City of Duluth, within their Zoning Regulations, have developed
use districts.

The State Protected Waters Permit Program (see Minnesota Statutes,
Section. 103G.245 and Agency Rules, Parts 6115.0150 through
6115,0280) provides protection for in water and near water lake
beds. The Protected Waters Permit Program regulates any filling,
excavation including spoil disposal, placement of sturctures, water
level controls, bridges and culverts, intakes and outfalls,
drainage and certain mining activities. Protected waters are
mapped on a statewide basis and include all lakes and Types 3, 4,
and 5 wetlands greater than 10 acres in size in rural areas and 2.5
acres in size in incorporated areas. A stream with a total
drainage area of two square miles at its mouth is also, protected
waters.

For those wetlands not included in the Protected Waters Permit
Program the 1991 State Legislature enacted the Wetland Conservation
Act Of 1991. This is otherwise referred to as the No Net Loss
Wetland Program. Enclosed is a copy of the Conference Committee
Report which includes the Act. Also enclosed are a Summary of the
Act and a Summary of Exemptions from the Act.

Water use within the coastal area is controlles by the state Water
Appropriation Permit Program required pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes, Section 103G.271. Agency Rules have been developed and
are contained in Review of Permit Applications for Appropriation
and Use of Waters, Minnesota Rules, Parts 6115.0600 through
6115.0810.

Soil and water conservation programs are generally implemented by
local Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCD) under guidance
of the State Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) , Statutory
authority for this program is contained in Minnesota Statutes,
Chapter 103C.

The State Board of Water and Soil Resources is also primarily

2 D. Retka, MNDNR- 1/24/92
4-15 4qf I

DNA WATERS TEL: 612-269-0445 JAN. 30, 92 8:41 NO. 001 P.

resonsible for a Local Water Planning program conducted pursuant
to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 103B. This program is not mandatory
but is incentive driven. All of the countries in the Lake Superior
Watershed have completed a Local Water Plan or are in the process
of completing one.

Primary responsibility for water quality management in Minnesota
is assigned to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency under
Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 115 and 116 (enclosed). The MPCA
administers the NPDES program, the Non Plant Pollution Control
Program under section 319 of the Clean Water Act, and provides
water quality certification to the Corps of Engineers in the
administration of the section 404 permit program, amoung other
duties.

Areas of particular concern.

The NSMP has identified Special Protection Districts which will be
reviewed. The DNR administers a Scientific and Natural Areas
Program which will be incorporated. The North Shore contains eight
State Parks and six Waysides which may contain special features.
A Remedial Action Planning process has been underway in the Duluth-
Superior Harbor over the past several years. A Comprehensive Port
Development Plan is nearing completion through the efforts of DNR,
the Superior Port Authority of Duluth and the City of Duluth.
Results of all of these efforts will be imcorporated.

Erosion hazard areas have been identified as part of the NSMP
development process. Work continues on more accurately identifying
erosion areas. The structure setback provisions of the NSMP (page
32) have been incorporated into local zoning ordinances.

Board guidelines on the priority of uses in particular areas aer
identified in the Shoreland Management Area Maps of the North Shore
Plan and in the use districts in the Duluth zoning controls.

Means of state control.

The Shoreland Management Program in Minnesota is implemented
through state developed minimum statandars which, by law, must be
incorporated into local ordinances. (See Minnesota Statutes,
Section 103F.201 through 103F.221.) The North Shore Management
Plan constitutes the state minimum development standards for shoreland
North Shore Planning boundary. The State Shoreland Management
Rules contitite the minimum regulations by a local unit of
areas not included in the jurisdiction of the North Shore Plan.
Failute to adopt the minimum regulations by a local unit of
government requires the State, through the Department of Natural
Resources, to adopt the minimum standards for the unit of
government. This authority has been exercised in Minnesota,
although not on the North Shore.

In-water activities are regulated directly by the State pursuant
to the Proteccted Waters Permit Program desctibed above. The

D. Retka, MNDNR - 1/24/92

4-16

TEL: 612-0445 Jan 30,92 8:41 No. 001 P.

boundary of State jurisdiction over protected water is the
ordinary high water level (OHW) , which on Lake Superior or is
elevation 602. certain activities conduted aboves the OHW that
have impact on adjacent areas below the OHW are also regulated.
mining of beach gravel where lake wave action is expected to
replenish the mined material is an example of the application of
this administrative interpretation.

The CRMP for Minnesota is expected to be a combiation of State
establishment of mining standards for local impelementation with
State administrative review and direct State regulation of certain
activities. Any necessary linkages between state agencies or state
and local agencies will be developed as part of CRMP development.

Organizational structure

As indicated above, the backbone of planning for Coastal Resource
Management will be the partnership which has developed between the
State and local government through the North Shore Management
Board. The Department and the NSMB have under disscussion the
enclosed draft Cooperative Agreement which specifies the details
of this partnership for Coastal Resources planning. This draft
agreement and agreements to be developed with the other layers in
coastal management, namely the Pollition Control Agency, the Board
of Water and Soil Resources and the City of Duluth will be the
basis for the necessary coordination during program development,
in the draft agreement with DNR and the NSMB agrees to provide
leadership in coordinating local input to the non point problem
development process since the boundary of the non point program
will undoubtedly be larger than the Section 306 boundary.
Beaches and public access.

Public access considerations for the boating/fishing public are
presently being addressed through implementation of the enclosed
North Shore Harbors Plan, June 1991. Access for the non-boating
public are being incorporated into the harbor development proccess.

Other access for the non-boating public is provided in the eight
North Shore State Parks, six Waysides as well as other public
facilities. For example, the City of Duluth has developed a
Lakewalk Project which provides public- contact with the Lake
through downtown Duluth and the Canal Park area.

Energy facility siting,

Minnesota Statutes, Section 116C.51 through 116C.69 provide
authority and procedures for the sighting of major energy
facilities. This authority will be documented In the Coastal
Resource planning process.

Shoreline erosion.

The NSMP has napped erosion hazard areas and develop setback
provisions related to the rate of erosion. Work continues In the

D. Retka, MNDNR - 1/24/92

4-17

DNR WATERS TEL: 612-296-0445 Jan 3, 92 8:41 No. 001 P.

more precise definition of areas where development is subject to
damage due to erosion.

Non point polution control.
It is the Minnesota's Intent to develop a non point pollution
control program consistent with section 6217 of the Coastal Zone
Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990. It is expected that
existing programs which regulate land use, sanitary systems,
vegetative alterations, and shoreland grading and filling will be
a major component of the Non Point Program. These regulations will
be supplemented with soil erosion control programs conducted by the
State Board of Water and Soil Resources and the local Soil and
Water Conservation Districts.

In addition each county has or is in the process of completing a
local water plan, The local water plans identify of water and land
management problems within the local jurisdiction and develop
priorities and methodologies for dealing with the identified
issues. It is expected that each local water plan will be related
to the non point program.

3. Assurances of legal authorities.

Enclosed is a copy of Minnesota Statutes, Chapters I03A through
103I, These statutes constitute the basic Water Law of Minnesota.
There are several key Agency Rules developed to further carry out
the directive of the Water Law. Enclosed are Agency Riles, Parts
6115.0150 through 6115.0280 the protected Water Permit Rules;
Parts 6115.0600 through 6115,0810, the Water Appropriation Permit
Rules; and Parts 6120.2500 through 6120.3900, the shoreland
Management Rules, Also enclosed is the North Shore Managment Plan
which is another key regulatory document.

We anticipate there will be need to reference other statutes and
state and local regulations during program development but the
majority of the legal tools are contained in the enclosed
documents. We feel there is sufficient authority contained in the
existing laws and regulations to adequately meet the objectives of
the Coastal Resources Program without the need to create new legal
authorities.

4. Open public process.

It is anticipated the-development of a Minnesota Coastal Resources
Program will closely parallel the development of the orth Shore
Plan through the use of its advisory committees. Existing
Technical Advisory (TAC) and Citizenes Advisory committees (CAC) are
in place, The TAC is represented by each of the key federal, state,
and local natural resource management agencies. The CAC has
members from the key stakeholders along the shore. The composition
of each committee is identified in the NSMP.

4-18 5 D. Retka, MNDNR 1/24/92
60.P DEC-11-92 FRI 17:28 NOAA OCRM

DNR WATERS TEL: 612-296-0445 Jan 30,92 8:4l No.001 P.

In addition to plan development utilizing the two existing
committees it is anticipated there will be a series of public
meetings (probably two or three) at different location, along the
Shore at both the beginning and near the end of the a planning
process at a minimum. In earlier plan development additional
public meetings were held as necessary, public working forums were
used, public presentations by resource professionals were hosted,
and so on. All of the meetings of the Board and is advisory
committees are open to the public and are hold along the North

Shore for the convenience of the local public. Mailing lists are
maintained to distribute meeting minutes, agendas, and related

materials. A newsletter is published on a bimonthly basis and is
presently distributed to 1200 addresses. Periodic news relases
are prepared and distributed to the local and regional media.
Press conferences for the Duluth media that serve the area are held
at significant milestones.

Enclosed are the following
-the February 11, 1991 letter from Governor Carlson to Keeney,
-a February 11, 1991 letter from Governor Carlson to MDNR
designating DNR as the lead state agency for Coastal Resource
planning,
-a February lip 1991 letter from Governor Carlson to the North
Shore Board,
-the Duluth Zoning Regulations, Oct,, 1987,
-the Conference Committee Report on H.F. No. l, the Wetland
Conservation Act of 1991,
-a Summary of the Wetlands Conservation Act,
-a Summary of Exemptions to the Wetlands Conservation Act
-Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 115,
-Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 116
-a draft Cooperative agreement between the Department Of
Natural Resources and the North Shore Management Board
relating to Coastal Resources Program development
-the North Shore harbors Plan, June, 1991,
-Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 103A through 1031,
-Agency Rules, Parts 6115.0010 to 6115.0810 in including the
Protected Waters Permit Rules and the Water Appropriation
Permit Rules,
-Agency Rules, Parts 6120.2500 to 6120.3900, the State
Shoreland Management Rules, and
-the North Shore Management Plan, December, 1988.

4-19 6 D. Retka, MNDNR - 1/24/92
DEC-11-92 FRI 17:28 NOAA OCRM
P.10

DNR WATERS TEL: 612-296-0445 Jan 30,92 8:41 No.001 P.
SENT BY: XEROX Telecopier 7017: 7-15-92 : 2:44PM : ARROWHEAD CENTER- 1 218 327 4283:# 4
STATE OF MINNESOTA
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
130 STATE CAPITOL
RAM PAUL 55155

ARNE H. CARLSON
GOVERNOR

February 11, 1991

Timothy R.E. Kenney, Director
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA
1025 Connecticut Avenue N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20238

Dear Director Kenney:

The State of Minnesota, in cooperation with local units of
government along wht North Shore of Lake Superior, has reseived
to accelerate management of that resource and meek the
opportunity to participats in the Coastal Resources Management
Program.

The Departement of Natural Resources will serve as the
responsible state agency and will execute the program
responsibilities through its Division of Waters in copperation
with the North Shore Management Board which is a joint powers
board created under state law and is comprised of the general
purpose local governments controlling land use along Lake
Superior.

Minnesot statutes provide all necessary authorities to proceed
with development of a program consistant with federal
requirements. In addition, we are very pleased with renewed
state and local cooperative efforts that have resulted in
completion of the North Shore Management Plan. Shoreland
ordinandes are in effect in all North Shore counties as well as
the City of Duluth and there is a clear commitment to
consistant protection of the shoreland resource.

We appreciate your prompt action for enrollment in the program
or notification of additional steps required to effect our
partisipation. Please direct correspondence or requests to
Commissioner Rodney W. Sando, Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources, 500 Lafayette Road, St. Paul, Minnesota 85155-4037.

Warmest regards,

ARNE H. CARLSON
Governor

AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER

P.11 4-20 DEC-11-92 FRI 17:29 NOAA OCRM

OHIO ATTACHMENT 6
Department
of Natural
Resources

George V. Voinovich - Governor
Frances S. Buchholzer Director

July 10, 1992

Ms. Ellen Brody AUG 1992
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
OCRM, Coastal Programs Division
1825 Connecticut Avenue, NW RECEIVED
Washington, D.C. 20235

RE: Section 305 Grant Application for Ohio Coastal Management Program
Development

Dear Ms. Brody:

Enclosed is the above- referenced application for funding assistance under
Section 305 of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended to
support completion of the development of Ohio's Coastal Management Program.

We appreciate the continuing assistance of your agency and look forward to
working closely with you in the coming months. If you have any questions or need
additional information or documentation, please call Mike Calvin, Coastal Manage-
ment Administrator at (614) 265-6413.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey F. Nogawick, Chief
Office of Real Estate and Land Management

JFN:ag
Enclosure

RECYCLED PAPER Fountain Square Columbus, Ohio 43224-1387
DNR 0001 4-21

OHIO COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

Ohio Department of Natural Resources
Office of Real Estate and Land Management

SECTION 305, CZMA, PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT GRANT APPLICATION

FOR PERIOD OF OCTOBER 1, 1992 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1993

Submitted to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
U.S. Department of Commerce
July 10, 1992

Contact:
Michael Colvin, Coastal Management Administrator
Office of Real Estate and Land Management
Ohio Department of Natural Resources
Fountain Square, Building C-4
Columbus, Ohio 43224
(614) 265-6413

4-22

CONTENTS

State Clearinghouse Intergovernmental Review Transmittal (Single Point of Contact)

Application - Standard Form 424

Budget Information - SF 424A

Assurances Non-construction Programs

Certifications Regarding Lobbying; Debarment, Suspension and other Responsibility
Matters; and Drug-fre e Workplace Requirements

Program Narrative

Supporting Budget Detail

Statement of Work

4-23

OHIO
Department
of Natural
Resources
George V. Voinovich - Governor
Frances S. Buchholzer - Director

July 10, 1992

Ms. Linda Wise
State Clearinghouse
Office of Budget and Management
30 East Broad Street, 34th Floor
Columbus, Ohio 43266-0411

RE: Ohio Coastal Management Program (OCMP) - Program Development Grant
Application (U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA)

Dear Ms. Wise:

Enclosed is ODNR's application for federal funds under Section 305 of the
federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. This is a final application and it is
our understanding that it will be assigned a 45 day review period.

If you have any questions regarding this application, contact Mike Colvin,
Coastal Management Administrator at (614) 265-6413.

Sincerely,

J. William Moody, Chief
0ffice of Budget and Finance

JWM:ag
Enclosure

RECYCLED PAPER Fountain Square Columbus, Ohio 43224-1387
DNR 0001 4-24

APPLICATION FOR 2. DATE SUBMITTED Applicant Identifier OMB Approval No. 0348-0043
FEDERAL ASSISTANCE 7/10/92
1. TYPE OF SUBMISSION: DATE RECEIEVED BY STATE State Application Identifier
Application Preapplication 7/10/92 Applied for
Construction Construction
4. DATE RECEIVED BY FEDERAL AGENCY Federal Identifier
Non-Construction Non-Construction

L APPLICANT INFORMATION

Legal Name: Organizational Unit:
Ohio Department of Natural Resources Office of Real Estate and Land Management
Address (give city, county, state, and zip code): Name and telephone number of the person to be contacted on matters involving
Office of Real Estate and Land Management this application (give area code)
Fountain Square, Building C-4 Michael Colvin
Columbus, Ohio 43224 (614) 265-6413
Franklin County
6. EMPLOYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (EIN): TYPE OF APPLICANT: (enter appropriate letter in box) a
31 - 6402047 A. State H. Independent School Dist
B. County I. State Controlled Institution of Higher Learning
8. TYPE OF APPLICATION: C. Municipal J. Private University
D. Township K. Indian Tribe
New Continustion Revision E. Interstate L. Individual
F. Intermunicipal M. Profit Organization
If Revision, enter appropriate letter(s) in box(es): G. Special District N. Other (Specify):
A. Increase Award B. Decrease Award C. Increase Duration
D. Decrease Duration Other (specify): 9. NAME OF FEDERAL AGENCY:

10. CATALOG Of FEDERAL DOMESTIC 11.419 11. DESCRUOTUVE TITLE OF APPLICANT'S PROJECT: Ohio Coastal
ASSISTANCE NUMBER: Management Program Development. The proposed
TITLE: work program is focused on completing Ohio's
final draft program document, environmental impac
12 AREAS AFFECTED BY PROJECT (cities,counties, states, ect.): assessment; adopting rules and policies; and,
Portions of Lucas, Wood, Ottawa , Erie, completing the organizational development
Sandusky, Lorain, Cuyahoga, Lake and necessary to fully implement the OCMP.
Ashtabula counties.
13. PROPOSED PROJECT. 14. CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF:
State Date Ending Date a. Applicant b. Project
10/1/92 9/30/93 Statewide 9, 5, 11, 13, 19, 20 and 21

15. ESTIMATED FUNDING: 16. IS APPLICATION SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY STATE EXECUTIVE ORDER 12372 PROCESS?
a. Federal $135,000 .00 a. YES, THIS PREAPPLICATION WAS MADE AVAILABLE TO THE
STATE EXECUTIVE ORDER 12372 PROCESS FOR REVIEW ON:

b. Applicant .00 DATE July 10, 1992
33,750
c. State .00 b. NO. PROGRAM IS NOT COVERED BY E.O. 12372
d. Local .00 OR PROGRAM HAS NOT BEEN SELECTED BY STATE FOR REVIEW

e. Other .00

f. Program Income .00 17. IS THE APPLICANT DELINQUENT ON ANY FEDERAL DEST?
g. TOTAL 168,750 .00 Yes If "Yes," attach an explanation. No

18. TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. ALL DATA IN THIS APPLICATION/PREAPPLICATION ARE TRUE AND CORRECT. THE DOCUMENT HAS BEEN DULY
AUTHORIZED BY THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE APPLICANT AND THE APPLICANT WILL COMPLY WITH THE ATTACHED ASSSURANCES IF THE ASSISTANCE IS AWARDED
a. Typed Name of Authorized REpresentative b. Title
Jeffrey L. Nogawick Chief, Office of Real C. Telephone number
Estate and Land Management (614) 265-6395
d. Signature of Authorized Representative e. Date Signed

Previous Endoris Not Usable Standard Form 424 (REV 4-88)
4-25 Prescribed by OMB Circular A-102
Authorized for Local Reproduction

OMB Appro, o. 0348-0044
BUDGET INFORMATION - Non-Construction Programs

SECTION A - BUDGET SUMMARY
GrantprogFam Catalog of Federal Estimated Unobligated Funds New or Revised Budget
Function Domestic Assistance
or Activity Number Federal Non-Federal Federal Non-Federal Total
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g)
1.Coastal Management $
Erop, valaiagent 11,412 135 000 33,750 168,750

4.
S. TOTALS $

SECTION B -BUDGET CATEGORIES
6 Object Class Categories GRANT PROGRAM, FUNCTION OR ACTIVITY Total
Section 305 (1) Federal (2) Non-Federali- (3) (4) (5)
a. Personnel 37,505 $ 24,300 $ 61,805
01% b. Iringe Benefits
14,585 @9,450 4,035

c. Travel
2,900- 2.900

d. Equipment

e. Supplies
470 470

f. Contractual
122260-, 16,460
Construction

h. Other Print1iigc,&".mai ling
and legal Aotices 672280 63,080
6. Yotal Divect Charges (sum of 6a - 6h)
168,750. 168,750
j. Ondirect Charges
0 0
k. TOTALS (sum of 6i and 61) 5 168,750 $ $ 168.750
FIR-1 Mr,"17
7. Program Income 0 $ 0
Authorized for Local Reproduction Standard Form 424A (4-88)
Prescribed by OMB Qrculat A-i02

OMS Appowal No. 0348-0040

ASSURANCES - NON-CONSTRUCTION PROGRAMS
Note.- Certain of these assurances may not be applicable to your project or program. If you have questions,
please contact the awarding agency. Further, certain Federal awarding agencies may require applicants
to certify to additional assurances. If such is the case, you will be notified.
As the duly authorized representative of the applicant I certify that the applicant:

1. Has the legal authority to apply for Federal (e) the Drug Abuse Office and Treatment Act of
assistance, and the institutional, managerial and 1972 (P.L. 92-255), as amended, relating to
financial capability (including funds sufficient to nondiscrimination on the basis of drug abuse, (f)
pay the non-Federal share of project costs) to the Comprehensive Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism
ensure proper planning, management and com- Prevention, Treatment and Rehabilitation Act of
pletion of the project described in this application. 1970 (P.L. 91-616), as amended, relating to
2. Will give the awarding agency, the Comptroller nondiscrimination on the basis of alcohol abuse or
General of the United States, and if appropriate, alcoholism; (g) �� 523 and 527 of the Public Health
the State, through any authorized representative, Service Act of 1912 (42 U.S. C. 290 dd-3 and 290 ee-
access to and the right to examine all records, 3), as amended, relating to confidentiality of
books, papers, or documents related to the award; alcohol and drug abuse patient records; (h) Title
and will establish a proper accounting system in VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. �
accordance with generally accepted accounting 3601 et seq.), as amended, relating to non-
standards or agency directives. discrimination in the sale, rental or financing of
housing; (i) any other nondiscrimination
3. Will establish safeguards to prohibit employees provisions in the specific statute(s) under which
from using their positions for a purpose that application for Federal assistance is being made.
constitutes or presents the appearance of personal and (j) the requirements of any other
or organizational conflict of interest, or personal nondiscrimination statute(s) which may apply to
gain. the application.
4. Will initiate and complete the work within the 7. Will comply, or has already complied, with the
applicable time frame after receipt of approval of requirements of Titles 11 and III of the Uniform
the awarding agency. Relocation Assistance and Real Property
5. Will comply with the Intergovernmental Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-646)
Personnel Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. H 4728-4763) which provide for fair and equitable treatment of
relating to prescribed standards for merit systems persons displaced or whose property is acquired as
a result of Federal or federally assisted programs.
for programs funded under one of the nineteen These requirements apply to all interests in real
statutes or regulations specified in Appendix A Of property acquired for project purposes regardless
OPM's Standards for a Merit System of Personnel of Federal participation in purchases.
Administration (5 C.F.R. 900, Subpart F).
6. Will comply with all Federal statutes relating to 8. Will comply with the provisions of the Hatch Act
nondiscrimination. These include but are not (5 U.S.C. H 1501-1508 and 7324-7328) which limit
limited to: (a) Title V1 of the Civil Rights Act of the political activities of employees whose
1964 (P.L. 88-352) which prohibits discrimination principal employment activities are funded in
on the basis of race, color or national origin; (b) whole or in part with Federal funds.
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as 9. Will climply, as-applicable, with the provisions of
amended (20 U.S.C. H 1681-1683, and 1685-1686), the Davis-Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. �� 276a to 276a-
which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex; 7), the Copeland Act (40 U.S.C. � 276c and 18
(c) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as U.S.C. H 874), and the Contract Work Hours and
amended (29 U.S.C. 6 794), which prohibits dis- Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C. H 327-333),
crimination on the basis of handicaps; (d) the Age regarding labor standards for federally assisted
Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended (42 construction subagreements.
U.S.C.�� 6101-6107), which prohibits discrim-
ination on the basis of age;

Standecd ForM 4248 (4-881
PrescribW by OMS Circular A-102
Authorized for Local Reproduction
4 - 2 7'

CERTIFICATIONS REGARDING LOBBYING; DEBARMENT, SUSPENSION AND OTHER
RESPONSIBILITY MATTERS; AND DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE REQUIREMENTS

Applicants should refer to regulations cited below to determine the certification to which they are required to attest.
Applicants should also review the instructions for certification included in the regulations before completing this form.
Signature of this form provides for compliance with certification requirements under 31 U.S.C. 91352, :New Restrictions on
Lobbying," and 15 CFR Part 26 "Government-wide Debarment and suspension (Monprocurement) and Government-wide Restrictions for
Drug-Free Workplace (Grants)." The certifications shall be created as material representation of fact upon which reliance
will be placed when the Department of Commerce determines to award the covered transaction, grant, or cooperative agreement.

commission of embezzlement, theft, forgary, bribery,
1. LOBBYING falsification or destruction of records, making false
As required by � 1352 Title 31 of the U.S. Code for persons statements, or receiving stolen property:
entering into a grant or cooperative agreement over
$100,000, the applicant certifies that: (c) Are not presently indicted for or otherwise criminally
or civilly charged by a government entirty (Federal, State,
(a) No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be or local) with commission of any of the offenses enumerated
paid by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for in paragraph 2.A.(b) of this certification; end
influencing or attempting to influence an officer or (d) Have not within a three year period preceding this
employee of any agency, a Member of Congress,in connection application had one or more public transactions (Federal,
with making of any Federal grant, the entering into of any State, or Local) terminated for cause or default; and
cooperative, and the extension, continuation, renewal,
amendment, or modification of any Federal grant or a. Where :he applicant is unable to certify to any of the
cooperative agreement; statements in this certification, he or she shall attach an
(b) If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have explanation to this application.
been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or C. Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension,
attempting an officer or employee of any agency, Member of Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion - Lowered Tier Covered
Congress, an or an employee of a Member of Congress in Transactions (Subgrants Or Subcontracts)
connection with this Federal grant or cooperative agreement,
the undersigned shalt complete Standard Form - LLL,
"Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," in accordance with its (a) The prospective lower tier participate certifies, by
instructions; submission of this proposal, that neither it not its
principles is presently debarred, suspended, proposed for
(c) The undersigned shall require that the Language of this debarment, declared ineligible, or valunterily excluded from
certification be included in the award documents for all participation in this transection by any federal department
subawards at all tiers (includiing subgrants, contracts under of agency.
grants and cooperative agreements, mid subcontracts) and (b) Where the prospective lower tier participant is unable
that all subrecipients shall certify and disclose to certify to any of the statements in this certification,
accordingly. such prospective participant shall attach an exlanation to
This certification is a material representation of fact upon this proposal.
which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or
entered into. Submission of this certification is a
prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction
imposed by 1352, title 31, U.S. Code. Any person who fails 3. CERTIFICATION REGARDING DRUG-FREE
to file the required certification shell be subject to a
civil penalty of not Less then $10,000 and not more than WORKPLACE REQUIREMENTS
$100,000 for each such failure. GRANTEES OTHER THAN INDIVIDUALS

A. The grantee certifies that it will provide a drug-free
2. DEBARMENT, SUSPENSION, AND OTHER workplace by:
RESPONSIBITY MATTERS (a) Publishing a statement notifying employess that the
As required by Executive Order 12549, Debarment and unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession
Suspension, and implemented under 15 CFR Part 26, for or use of a controlled substance prohibited in the
prospective participants in primary covered transactions. grantee's workplace and specifying the actions that will be
taken against employees for violation of such prohibition;
A. The applicant certifies that it and its principals: (b) Establishing a drug-free awarness program to inform
(a) Are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for employees about ---
debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from
covered transactions by any Federal department or agency; (1) The dangers of drug abuse in the workplace;

(b) Have not within a three-year period preceding this (2) The grantees policy of maintaining a drug-free
application been convicted of or had a civil judgement workplace;
rendered against them for commission of fraud or a criminal
offense in connection with obtaining, attempting to obtain, (3) Any available drug counseling, rehabilitation, and
or performing a public (Federal, State, or Local) employee assistance programs; and
transaction or contract under a public transaction;
violation of Federal or State antitrust statutes or (4) The penaalties that may be imposed upon employees for

4-28

PROGRAM NARRATIVE

The Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) proposes a number of activities
for funding assistance through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM) to complete development of
the Ohio Coastal Management Program (OCMP) to the stage where ODNR may submit a
final draft coastal program document for federal approval and funding under Section
306 of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) for program administration. The
geographic area affected by the program is the coastal area of Lake Erie including
the counties along Lake Erie. The population served includes all Ohioans and other
users of Lake Erie and coastal area resources.

The public review draft of the Ohio Coastal Management Program (OCHP) document
has been distributed, public hearings and public meetings have been conducted and
written comments have been solicited from state, local, fedoral and regional agen--
cies, public and special interest organizations, and the general ppblic. Additional
consultation and coordination has been undertaken with representatives of local
jurisdictions and planning agencies regarding the proposed OCHP and specific issues
such as enforcement of flood plain management regulations, the Lake Erie erosion
hazard area, and other authorities affecting activities in the coastal area.

This project is needed to complete policy and organizational development for
full implementation of the coastal management program. The project tasks will be
reflected in a final draft program document, draft environmental impact statement,
maps of the Lake Erie erosion hazard area and other products which will inform the
public, resource and regulatory agencies and other affected parties on how to ensure
consistency with the state's coastal management policies.

As shown in the Statement of Work, ODNR will Complete SOVaTal tasks antecedent
to activities for which program development funds are requested. ODNR will prepare
a modified OCMP document and responsiveness summary. Memoranda of Understanding
with will be developed with participating state agencies. And, work will be com-
pleted on the preliminary identification of the Lake Erie erosion hazard area and
original rules for enforcement of the erosion hazard area. From this stage, with
funding assistance and other support from NOAA, ODNR will prepare the final OCMP
document and fully develop the organization and authority to implement a federally
approved coastal management program.

The tasks will be undertaken by staff of the Coastal Haragement Section and
Office of Real Estate and Land Management, Division of Geological Survey, ODWR legal
counsel, and the Attorney General's Office with assistance from members of ODNR's
Integrated Management Team, and the state agency Policies and Programs Coordinating
Committee.

4-29

OHIO COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT
Ohio Department of Natural Resources
Office of Real Estate and Land Management

SECTION 305 GRANT APPLICATION
FOR PERIOD I OCTOBER 1992 THROUGH 30 SEPTEMBER 1993

BUDGET

The state and federal funds allocated to the development of the Ohio Coastal
Management Program (OCMP) are summarized in the table below. Total federal funds
requested are $135,000. The Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) will pro-
vide $33,750 in matching funds in the ratio of 4:1 as prescribed in Section 305 of
the federal Coastal Zone Management Act.

Other state funds, personnel services, supplies and equipment and technical"
resources are also being allocated to the development of the OCMP. This grant
application and budget summary reflect the expenditure of funds and allocation of
resources in high priority tasks for completing program development and attaining
full implementation of a federally-approved coastal management program.

A. BUDGET SUWARY

FEDERAL STATE TOTAL

PERSONNEL 37,505 24,300 61,805
FRINGE 14,585 9,450 24,035
TRAVEL 2,900 2,900
SUPPLIES 470 470
CONTRACTUAL 12,260 12,260
PRINTING/
MAILING/NOTICE 67,280 67,280

TOTALS: 135,000 33,750 168,750

B. PERSONNEL AND FRINGES

This project will provide federal funding assistance for one full time position
in the Coastal Management Section, a summer intern, and part time assistance from
the Ohio Attorney General's Office. Payrolls issued for employees of the state of
Ohio have certain payroll related charges added. The employees paid from federal
funds will be eligible for full fringe benefits as established in state law and
estimated as follows:

Percent

Retirement 13.31%
Health Insurance (charged at rates in accordance with O.R.C. Sec. 124.82)
Life Insurance (charged at $0.26/$1000 of coverage, O.R.C. Sec. 124.81)
Disability Leave (computed at 1.65% of gross pay, O.R.C. Sec. 124.385)
Accrued Leave (computed at 1.75% of gross pay, O.R.C. Sec. 125.211)
ESTIMATED TOTAL 28.00%'

-2-
4-30

Similarly, other employees of the Coastal Management Section, the Office of
Real Estate and Land Management and ODNR working on the program development tasks
described in this application receive full fringe benefits as provided by state
law.

C. TRAVEL

Coastal Management Program staff will travel out-of-state to attend meetings
and consult with OCRM staff. Other out-of-state and in-state travel related to
program development activities will be covered at the expense of ODNR and has not
been included as a part of the state's matching share of the Section 305 grant
proposal. All reimbursable cost for state employees will be according to rates and
requirements established rules of the Office of Budget and Management. The travel
budget for this project is described as follows:

Destination. Number and CosL_22LTHR Total Cost
OCRM, Wash. D.C. 4/$600 (2 days, 1 night) $2,400
Program Managers Meeting 1/$500 (3 days, 2 nights) $500

TOTAL: $2,900

D. SUPPLIES

The supplies required in this project include envelopes and stationery for the
notification of shoreland property owners and local governments of ODNR's determina-
tion of the Lake Erie erosion hazard area estimated at $170, and supplies needed in
updating the inventory of shoreline structures and fills for the administration of
Lake Erie submerged lands estimated at $300. Other*supplies are included in the
cost estimates for printing and mailing of the OCMP document and draft and final
environmental statements.

TOTAL: $470

E. COKTRACTUAL

This project includes a number of contractual costs for services related to
public hearings, and public information and education on the OCMP. These costs are
detailed as follows:

Activity Cost

Recording transcript for hearings
on Lake Erie erosion hazard area
identification $300/hearing (4 hearings)

Court Recorders for hearings on
erosion hazard area rules $400/hearing (2 hearings)

Faci lity rental $360

Publication of OCMP news and
information in cooperation with
Ohio Sea Grant $1,800/quarter (3 quarters)

-3-

4-31

Seminar on Coastal Management
Program Policies and Priohibitions $2,500

Coastal Area Real Estate Seminar $2,000

TOTAL: $12,260

F. PRINTING, MAILING AND LEGAL NOTICES

The total cost of printing and mailing has been estimated for the Lake Erie
erosion hazard area identification and the final draft OCMP document and environmen-
tal statements. These costs are detailed as follows:

OCMP document and related materials

Draft OCMP document/Draft EIS $17,200

Legal notice for hearings $1,200

Final OCMP document/Final EIS $15,000

OCMP Policies Summary and Program
Consistency Guidance $3,600

ODNR Consolidated Permit Applic. $1,800

Lake Erie erosion hazard area identification

First notification (7000 letters
by certified mail @$2.29) $L6,030

Legal notice for 4 hearings $3,000

Notification to objecting persons $5,400

Notification of ruling on
objections and final
identification $2,700

TOTAL: $67,280

G. ALLOCATION OF STAFF TIME BY TASKS

The following is a breakdown of the staff time, in months, by task:

FEDERAL STATE TOTAL

OCMP document and draft
environmental statement 2 1 3

Prepare for and conduct
public hearings 1 2

Final draft OCMP document and
environmental impact statement 3 1 4

-4-

4-32

State consistency guidance 1.5 1 2.5

OCMP policies summary/
federal consistency guidance 1.5 1 2.5

ODNR Consolidated Permit
Application 1 0.5 1.5

Legal Analysis of OCMP 1 0.5 1.5

Lake Erie submerged lands
inventory 3 1 4

Compile table of federal agency
contacts for consistency review 0.5 0.5 1

Prepare two educational
seminars on OCMP 0.5 3 3.5

Assist development of Lake
Erie erosion hazard program 1 2 3

Program Administration/
clerical 6 6

TOTAL: 16 18.5 34.5

The Coastal Management Section anticipates hiring a new position in the first
quarter which will assist in implementing procedures for reviewing coastal area
activities for consistency with coastal management policies, namely preparing the
consolidated permit application and state and federal consistency guidance. Also,
assistance will be provided in publishing the final OCMP document and environmental
statements, preparing the summary of responses to comments and assisting with public
hearings and associated activities.

Fed eral funding may be utilized to support the work of staff in the Coastal
Management Section or Office of Real Estate and Land Management depending upon the
date of hiring a new position or unanticipated contingencies. The above itemization
reflects the allocation of staff time within the Coastal Management Section and
support staff within ODNR for these tasks in the final stages of program develop-
ment. As noted in the preface to the budget summary, there are personnel and other
costs associated with program development activities that are not included in this
project. Other activities to be undertaken by the coastal management staff with the
cooperation and assistance of ODNR divisions and other agencies include coordination
with other agencies and local interests, and compiling background material to sup-
port the development of Ohio's assessment and strategy for program enhancement, and
the coastal nonpoint pollution control program.

-5-

4-33

OHIO COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
SECTION 305 PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

STATEMENT OF WORK

The following identifies the objectives, jobs, tasks, and milestones of the
project. ODNR has been developing policies, rules and procedures for implementing
the Ohio Coastal Management Program (OCMP) since the state coastal management law
was effected in 1989. ODNR has solicited public input on the draft OCMP document
and rules for implementing various provisions of the program and public participa-
tion will continue to be an important element of program development. Also, the
Coastal Resources Advisory Council will continue to serve its important role in
advising the Director and Department on policies, plans and programs for comprehen-
sive coastal resource management.

The major remaining tasks in program development include the completion and
adoption of the final OCMP document, determining the Lake Erie erosion hazard area
and effecting rules for enforcing the erosion hazard area, and providing information
to the public, shoreland property owners, and local jurisdictions on coastal manage-
ment policies and procedures for ensuring consistency with those policies.

The involvement of NOAA, Coastal Programs Division is essential to the success-
ful completion of the project. While trips to NOAA's Office of Ocean and Coastal
Resource Management headquarters office in Washington, D.C. are detailed in the
budget summary, we wish to stress that ODNR will be making every effort to consult
with NOAA staff and familiarize the agency with the organization and resources of
ODNR and the state of Ohio which will be utilized to implement a federally approved
coastal management program.

The tasks and subtasks are described below, followed by benchmarks (in paren-
theses) which indicate the quarters within which the work is scheduled. The first
quarter of the Section 305 program development project begins in October, 1992 and
the fourth quarter ends at the end of September, 1993. In many instances, the tasks
result in specific products. These program development products are specified
milestones in the accompanying list which is organized by the quarters within which
the tasks are expected to be completed or the products provided (i. e. document
printed or rules filed). As indicated, important subtasks are already underway and
the program development project tasks schedule takes this into account.

TASK I. Final Draft OCMP Document and Environmental Assessment

Subtasks

1. The Coastal Management Section will consult with NOAA, Coastal Programs
Division, on the modified OCMP document and refinements to program organi-
zation and authority necessary to meet requirements of the CZMA. (Ist
quarter)

2. The Coastal Management Section will consult with local jurisdictions,
state agencies, federal agencies and coastal area interests on modifica-
tions to the OCMP document and implementing rules, regulations and poli-
cies of the OCMP. (Ist quarter)

-6-

4-34

3. The Coastal Management Section will reformat the OCMP document, prepare
final draft MOUs, and make any necessary adjustments to coastal area
boundary maps. (1st quarter)

4. The Coastal Management Section, with the assistance of staff from REALM
and other ODNR Divisions, will prepare the environmental impact assessment
on implementation of the OCMP to be utilized as the basis for NOAA's Draft
EIS on the OCMP. (1st quarter)

5. The Coastal Management Section will complete the final draft OCMP document
and other associated documents or materials specified by the Coastal
Programs Division. (end of 1st quarter)

6. The Coastal Management Section will coordinate with NOAA in preparation of
Draft EIS;'printing and distribution of Draft EIS and OCMP document;
public notice of federal hearings on the OCMP.and conducting hearings;
preparation of responsiveness summary regarding public comments on the
Draft EIS; and corresponding revisions to OCMP document@

Budget Estimate for Task I Activities: $50,000 (federal assistance)

TASK II. Legal Review and Analysis

Subtasks

1. As directed, ODNR legal counsel and an Assistant Attorney G eneral will
review the pub'lic review draft OCMP document and subsequent revised text
and make recommendations regarding amendments or revisions deemed neces-
sary or beneficial in meeting federal program approval requirements. (Ist
quarter)

2. An Assistant Attorney General will. consult with the program administrator,
ODNR legal counsel and OCRM staff as necessary, conduct legal analyses of
OCMP organization and policies, and prepare any required reports or docu-
mentation deemed necessary by OCRM regarding state authorities necessary
to meet the requirements of 15 CFR, Part 923. (1st quarter)

Budget Estimate for Task II Activities: $8,000 (federal assistance)

TASK III. Guidance for Achieving Consistency with Coastal Management Policies

Subtasks

1. The Coastal Management Administrator and staff will consult with NOAA,
ODNR's Integrated Management Team and state agency Policies and Programs
Coordinating Committee on federal consistency procedures and mechanisms
for ensuring state consistency. (1st, 2nd, 3rd quarters)

2. The Coastal Management Section will prepare a federal consistency assess-
ment form with attached OCMP policies summary for use by applicants for
federal permits or federal financial assistance. (2nd and 3rd quarters)

-7-

4-35

3. The Coastal Management Section will prepare guidance for achieving state
consistency with OCMP policies:' procedures for implementing MOUs, compre-
hensive list of state and local review agency contacts. (2nd and 3rd
quarters)

4. The Coastal Management Section will work with the Office of the Chief
Engineer and Division of Geological Survey in preparing a procedural guide
and application forms for an ODNR consolidated permit--application. It is
expected that the application form will serve any combination of the
following-ODNR controls on coastal area activities: beach erosion struc-
ture permit (ODNR Chief Engineer authority); submerged lands lease or
permit (ODNR Director authority, REALM); Lake Erie erosion hazard area
permit (ODNR Director authority, Division of Geological Survey). (3rd and
4th quarters)

Budget Estimate for Task III Activities.: $20,000 (federal assistance)

TASK IV. Lake Erie Erosion Hazard Area

Subtasks

1. ODNR will notify landowners and local governments by cert 'ified mail of
preliminary identification of Lake Erie erosion hazard area. Following
notification prescribed in Ohio's coastal management laws, ODNR will
conduct four public hearings in coastal counties. If practicable, the
hearings will also cover the rules for enforcing the erosion hazard area.
(Ist quarter)

2. Division of Geological Survey staff will, with assistance of the Coastal
Management Section, review objections filed; prepare findings to support
ruling on objections and final identification of erosion hazard area;
notify each objecting person of ruling to modify or leave identification
unchanged; notify by certified mail the affected municipality, county or
township of modifications made as a result of an objection. (Ist and 2nd
quarters)

3. Division of Geological Survey staff will prepare maps illustrating the
final identification of Lake Erie erosion hazard area. ODNR will notify
by certified mail each affected municipality, county and township. (2nd
quarter)

4. ODNR will file with the Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review (JCARR) the
original erosion hazard area enforcement rules. The Coastal Management
Section will assist the Division of Geological Survey in conducting public
hearings (if practicable, combine'with hearings on identification of Lake
Erie erosion hazard area). (1st quarter)

5@ The Division of Geological Survey and Coastal Management Section will
evaluate comments and recommendations. The rules will be revised and
amended as appropriate and final rules will be filed with JCARR. (2nd
quarter)

Budget Estimate for Task IV Activities: $32,000 (federal assistance)

-8-

4-36

TASK V. Lake Erie Submerged Lands Administration

1. The Coastal Management Section will work with the Real Estate Section,
REALM, to develop a comprehensive inventory of structures and fills upon
Lake Erie submerged lands. An intern position will be established to
perform necessary field work, records review and compilation of data for
use in submerged lands administration. (3rd and.4th-quarters)

Budget Estimate for Task V Activities: $10,000 (federal assistance)

TASK VI. Public Education and Outreach

Subtasks

1. The Coastal Management Section will work with the Ohio Sea Grant Program,
The Ohio State University, and publish OCMP news and information as a
supplement in the Ohio Sea Grant bi-monthly publication, Twine Line) and
distribute same on a broader scale as stand alone bulletins. This is a
one-time pass through to the Ohio Sea Grant Program for the final stages
of development of the OCMP. The Ohio Lake Erie Office is working with
ODNR and other state agencies represented on the Lake Erie Commission to
develop a similar cooperative venture with Ohio Sea Grant involving
publishing information about Lake Erie related programs among all the
agencies represented on the Commission. Future OCMP information and
education activities will be administered directly by ODNR. However,
collaborative activities with Ohio Sea Grant will continue. (1st, 2nd and
3rd quarters)

2. ODNR Will conduct two seminars,, one targeting the real estate industry,
and another targeting landowners developers and local jurisdictions. The
Coastal Management Section will @ork with other ODNR divisions and state
agencies and independent organizations in preparing the agenda and educa-
tional materials for distribution. Topics covered will include Ohio's
public trust law and rules for the administration of Lake Erie submerged
lands; flood hazard area and erosion hazard area requirements, and the
consistency requirements of the OCMP for projects in the coastal area
which are subject to state or federal approval. (2nd and 3rd and 4th
quarters)

Budget Estimate for Task VI Activities: $15,000'(federal assistance)

TASK VII. Administration

1. Supervise staff; consult and coordinate with NOAA and other state, federal
and local agencies; provide assistance to state and federal agencies,
local jurisdictions and the Coastal Resources Advisory Council on coastal
management issues and problems. (continuing)

2. Perform clerical and administrative tasks; prepare revised OCMP document
and final document; update and maintain mailing lists, files and records.
(continuing)

4-37

3. Prepare OCMP implementation plan and application for federal assistance
for OCMP implementation under Section 306, CZMA, and other pertinent
authorities. Prepare budget, organize staff and technical resources.

Budget Estimate for Task VII Activities: $33,750 (state match)

-10-

4-38

PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT MILESTONES

The milestones listed below are based upon ongoing program development activi-
ties and the completion of certain subtasks prior to October 1, 1992. These in-
clude:

Prepare summary of comments received on public review draft OCMP document

Obtain and incorporate comments from NOAA on draft OCMP document

Prepare revised draft MOUs with state agencies participating in OCMP

Prepare first draft OCMP document modified in response to initial public review
and NOAA recommendations; coordinate among participating agencies

Prepare first draft environmental assessment for Draft EIS on implementation of
OCMP

Prepare revised draft rules for enforcement of Lake Erie erosion hazard area

Complete mapping of the Lake Erie Erosion Hazard Area; update list of shoreland
property owners

The following are milestones for the major tasks and subtasks of this program
development project:

ist Quarter:

Complete'legal analysis and opinion on the OCMP and supporting authorities of
state and local government

Provide notification and conduct hearings on identification of Lake Erie
Erosion Hazard Area

File final rules for enforcing Erosion Hazard Area

Submit draft OCMP document and environmental assessment to NOAA for OCRM
review

OCRM comments to ODNR

Submit final draft OCMP document and environmental assessment to OCRM

2nd Quarter:

File original rules and conduct hearings on rules for enforcing Lake Erie
erosion hazard area

Draft EIS Notice of Intent in the Federal Register

Environmental statement scoping

_11-

4-39

OCMP/Draft EIS notice of availability in Federal Register; Draft EIS
distributed for public review

ODNR rules on objections to identification of Lake Erie Erosion Hazard Area;
make any necessary modifications and notify local governments of modifications;
rule on objections to modifications

ODNR makes final identification of Lake Erie Erosion Hazard Area and notify by
certified mail appropriate local authorities

Develop Coastal Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program management team to
oversee development of the program. Contact areawide agencies, Resource
Conservation and Development programs, and other public and special interest
organizations.to ensure adequate interaction among nonpoint source pollution.,
interests

3rd Quarter:

Federal hearings on OCMP/Draft EIS

Complete response to comments on Draft EIS and necessary document revisions

Complete OCMP Policies Summary and Consistency Guidance

Complete guidance for state consistency

Final OCMP document submitted to Governor for review, documentation and sign-
off

Final OCMP document/Final EIS Notice of Availability in Federal Register;
distribution for public review

Prepare application to NOAA for federal assistance under Sec..306, Sec 6217

4th Quarter:

Prepare comprehensive inventory of all structures and fills upon-Lake Erie
submerged lands

Publish-ODNR consolidated permit procedures and application forms

NOAA completes approval findings

Formal program approval and notice of approval in Federal Register

-12-

4-40

ATTACHMENT 7

STATE OF GEORGIA
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
COASTAL RESOURCES DIVISION
ECOLOGICAL SERVICES SECTION

CZM PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT SECT. 305

GRANT APPLICATION

FOR PERIOD 1 OCT. 1992 THROUGH 30 SEPT. 1993

SUBMITTED 5 JUNE 1992

CONTACT: STUART A. STEVENS, PH.D.
CHIEF, ECOLOGICAL SERVICES
COASTAL RESOURCES DIVISION GA DNR
ONE CONSERVATION WAY
BRUNSWICK, GEORGIA 31523
(912) 264-7218

4-41

STATE OF GEORGIA
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
COASTAL RESOURCES DIVISION
ECOLOGICAL SERVICES SECTION
CZM PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT SECT. 305

GRANT APPLICATION

FOR PERIOD 1 OCT. 1992 THROUGH 30 SEPT. 1993

Table of Contents

SECTION 1: FEDERAL APPLICATION FORMS

2'
Budget Information (SF424A)L 3
Assurances - Non Construction '(SF424B).-- 5
;,,'.certification Re: Debarment, etc. (CDF)li)* 7
State Executive Order Review Request . . . . . . . . 9

SECTION 2: STATEMENT OF WORK

Task 1. Public Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . - .11
Task 2. Boundary . . . . . . . . . . . . ;.*. . : . .2.3
-Task 3. Authority and Organization . . . . . . . . . 15
Task 4. Federal Consultation . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Task 5. Program Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Task 6. Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Personnel Vitae . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
organizational charts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

SECTION 3: BUDGET

A. Budget Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
B. Fringe Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
C. Equipment Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 377...
D. Travel Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38-:
E. Printing, supplies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
F. Grant Cost by Tasks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
G. Staff Time by Tasks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

SECTION 4: INDIRECT COST

Not Applicable.. No indirect cost charged.

SECTION 5: AUDIT INFORMATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

4-42

imem or iNaTural Kesources
One Conservation Way, Brunswick, Georgia 31523-8600
Joe D. Tanner, Commissioner
. Duarte Harris; Director
Coastal Resources Division
912/264-7218
f@@9 2/262-3143
June 3, 1992

Mr. David McKinnie
South Atlantic Region office of Ocean
and Coastal Resource Management
NOAA
National Ocean Service
1825 Connecticut Avenue, NW...
Wasrhington @DC

'for Grant
RE. Draft C`ZM Proposal
Application by State of Georgia

Dear Mr. McKinnie:

I have enclosed for your-review and information,. a copy
of the draft CZK Program Development Section 305 - Grant
Application for the time period of 1 Oct. 1992 thru 30 Sept.
1993, Source 1 11.419. The final application package will be
forwarded to Commissioner Tanner for execution prior to
submission to your office.
If, you have questions or nieed additional. information,
please call either Duane Harris, Director of Coastal
Resources Division or myself at (912) 264-7218.

Sincerely,

Stuart A. Stevens, Ph.D.
Chief, Ecological Services

SAS.,rmd

ATTACHMENT

4-43

STATE OF GEORGIA
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
COASTAL RESOURCES DIVISION
ECOLOGICAL SERVICES SECTION

CZM PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT SECT. 305
GRANT APPLICATION

FOR PERIOD 1 OCT. 1992 THROUGH 30 SEPT. 1993

SECTION 1: FEDERAL APPLICATIONS FORMS

4-44

Page 2
OMB Approval No. 0348-0043
APPLICATION FOR 2. DATE SUBMITTED Applicant Identified
FEDERAL ASSISTANCE 6/5/92
1. TYPE OF SUBMISSIONS 3. DATE RECEIVED BY STATE State Application Identifier
Application Preapplication
Construction Construction
4. DATE RECEIVED BY FEDERAL AGENCY Federal Identifier
Non-Construction Non-Constrction
5. APPLICANT INFORMATION

Legal Name Organizational Unit:
Coastal Resources Division Georgia Department of Natural Resouces

Address (give city, county, state, and zip code): Name and telephone number of the person to be contacted on matters involving
this application (give area code)
One Conservation Way C. Duane Harris
Brunswick, GA 31523 (912) 264-7218

6. EMPLOYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER IDENTY 7. TYPE OF APPLICANT: (enter approprate letter in box) A
58-1130945 A. State H. Independent School Dist.
8. TYPE OF APPLICATION B. County I. State Controlled
New Contrussion Revision C. Municipal J. Private University
D. Township K. Indian Tribe
If Revision, enter appropriate letter(s) in Box(s) E. Interstate L. Indivdual
A. Increase Award B. Decrease Award F. Intermunicipal M. Profit Organization
C. Increase Duration D. Decrease Duration G. Special District N. Other (Specify)
Other (specify):

9. NAME OF FEDERAL AGENCY: Department of Commerce
NOAA; sponsoring program

10. CATALOG OF FEDERAL DOMESTIC 11.419 11. DESCRIPTIVE TITLE OF APPLICANTS PROJECT:
ASSISTANCE Evaluation of Georgia's role withine the
TITLE: Coastal Zone Management Act (Program Federal Coastal Zone Management Program
Development Section 305)

AREAS AFFECTED BY PROJECT (cities, counties, states, ect.)

Georgia Coastal Area

12 PROPOSED PROJECT: 14. CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF:
Start Date Ending Date a. Applicant b. Project
10/1/92 9/30/93 First First

15 ESTIMATED FUNDING 16. IS APPLICATION SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY STATE EXCUTIVE ORDER 12271 PROCESS?
a. Federal 135,000 .00 a. YES THIS PREAPPLICTION/APPLICATION WS MADE AVALIABLE TO THE
b. Applicant 33,000 .00 STATE EXECUTIVE ORDER 12372 PROCESS FOR REVIEW ON
c. State .00
d. Local .00 DATE June 15, 1992
e. Other .00 b. NO PROGRAM IS NOT COVERED BY .O. 12372
f. Program Income .00 OR PROGRAM HAS NOT BEEN SELECTED BY STATE FOR REVIEW
g. TOTAL 168,931 .00 17. IS THE APPLICANT DELINQUENT ON ANY FEDERAL DEST?
YES If "Yes: attach on explanation NO
18. TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF, ALL DATA IN THIS APPLICATION/PREAPPLICATION ARE TRUE AND CORRECT, THE DOCUMENT HAS BEEN DULY
AUTHORIZED BY THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE APPLICANT AND THE APPLICANT WILL COMPLY WITH THE ATTACHED ASSURANCE IF THE ASSISTANCE IS AWARDED
Name of Authorized Representive b. Title c. Telephone Number
Joe D. Tanner Commissioner, DNR 404/656-3500
d. Signature of Authorized Represenitive e. Date Signed

Previous Editions Not Usable Standard Form
Authorized for Local Reproduction

4-45

aus App,
auDGET INFORMATION - ston-Construction PrOgrams

SECTWX A - suam" v
now of ftvkw @
Acdeftv mao-fe&6,86 TOW
ld) W
CZH Program S 135,000 33,931 168,931
11.419
Develo sent
Section 305

TOTAU 135,000 S 33, 31 168,931
Tow
Moog Chm Cafteft'sa (IlSection 305 (at 43)
a. fta" 9 11,905 6 S 111,905
1
(3N 40,554 40,554
7,400 7,400
6,890 6,890
Ob %UpPft& 582 582
L Camusawa 0 0
CONWANNO 0 0
.......... ....... A..S-
COW (printins) 1,600 1,600
1689931 168,931
0 0
168,931
b. Mlr"lb"wQiGlwd40D 168,931
6,'
0 0
LS - - . -j
qsnd" Fam 424A W"),
MANW&W 1w LOGO 0- MAP r.@A- &-100

SEMON C - NOWFEDERAL RESOURCES
let Gram ft fbi Nm!n"- -0%hw sommas ---J!L-TOIALS
L 33,931 S 33,931
CZM Prog;am Develo2ment Section 305

M TOMS buft Of Imft 3 Old 11) S 33,931 33,931

SECTION D - FORECASTED CASH NEEDS

Total lor W Toor 104 ago a" Go"" ud 008"4W CMMGW
135,000 6 38,604 32,13'2 S 32,,132 32,132
33,931 8,482 @@483, 8,484;
15. V@TA& bua 09 NFAM I I W4 W) 16 ',931 47,086 40916 i4' 5 40@615 S 40@616
SECOam g suDUT FS'RMAM OF FEDEFAL FUHM UEEDED FOR IALAW= OF THE PROJEa

01 Gamma ftg@ -------
id ugend
@,CZM P@rora@mDev@elq iue@ntSp@-ction @301 6 135,000 135,000

135,000 50000'"
SECTM F - OTM BUDGET INFORMT8093
@@TOTALS

33,93 1
Pro
C M-

(Iq
[See attached budget ion and tasks 4escriotions (0
SF A24A 14-98) Pmp 2
-afi A- 102
AiMmlind ftr P^Woduc*m

Page 5

OM Approval No. 0348-0040

ASSURANCES - NON-CONSTRUCTION PROGRAMS
Note: Certain Of these assurances may not be applicable to your project or program. If you have questions.
please contact the awarding agency, Further. certain Federal awarding agencies may require applicants
to certify to additional assurances. If such the case, you be notified.
As the duly authorized representative of the applicant I certify that the applicant:
1. Has the legal authority to apply for Federal (e) the Drug Abuse Office and Treatment Act of
assistance, and the Institutional, managerial and 1972 (P.L. 92-255), as amended, relating to
financial capability (including funds sufficient to nondiscrimination on the basis of drug abuse: (f)
pay the non-Federal share of project costs) to the Comprehensive Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism
ensure proper planning, management and com- Prevention, Treatment and Rehabilitation Act of
pletion of the project described in this application. 1970 (P.L. 91-616), as amended, relating to
nondiscrimination or the basis of alcohol abuse or
2. Will give the awarding agency, the Comptreller alcoholism: (g) 523 and 527 of the Public Health
General of the United States, and if appropriate, Service Act of 912 (42 U.S.C. 290 dd-3 and 290 ee-
the State, through any authorized representative, 3), as amended, relating to confidentiality of
access to and the right to examine all records, alcohol and drug abuse patient records; (h)Title
books. papers, or documents related to the award; VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 968 (42 U.S.C.
and will establish a proper accounting system in 3601 et seq.), as amended, relatingto non-
accordance with generally accepted accounting discrimination in the sale, rental or financing of
3. Will establish safeguards to prohibit employees housing; (I) any other nondiscrimination
from using their positions for a purpose that application for Federal assistance is being made;
or organizational conflict of interest, or personal and (j) the requirements of any other
gain. nondiscrimination statute(s) which any apply to
the application.
4. Will initiate and complete the work within the 7. Will comply, or has already complied, with the
applicable time frame after receipt of approval of requirements of Titles II and III of the Uniform
the awarding agency. Relocation Assistance and Real Property
5. Will comply with the Intergovernmental Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-646
Personnel Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1 4728-4763) which provide for fair and equitable treatment of
relating to prescribed standards for merit systems persons displaced or whose property is acquired as
for programs funding under one of the nineteen a result of Federal or federally assisted programs.
statutes or regulations specified In Appendix A of These requirements applyy to all interests in real
OPM's Standards for a Morit System of Personnel property acquired for project purposes regardless
Administration ( C.F.R. 900, Subpart F). of Federal participation in purchases.
6. Will emply with all Federal statutes relating to 8. Will comply with the provisions of the Hatch Act
nondiscrimination. These Include but are not (5 U.S.C. 1501-1608 and 7324-7328) which limit
limited to: (a) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of the political activities of employees whose
1964 (P.L. 88-352) which prohibits discrimination principal employment activites are funded in
on the basis of race, color or national origin; (b) whole or in part with Federal funds.
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as 9. Will comply, as applicable, with the provisions of
amended (20 U.S.C. 1691-1683, and 1885-1686). the David-Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. 276a to 276a-
which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex: 7), the Copeland Act (40 U.S.C. 270c and 18
(c) Section 504 of the Rehabillitation Act of 1973, as U.S.C 874), and the Contract Work Hours and
amended (29 U.S.C. 794), which prohibits dis- Safety Standard Act (40 U.S.C. 327-333),
crimination on the basis of handicaps; (d) the Age regarding labor standards for federally assisted
Discrimination Act of 1978, as amended (42 construction subagreements.
U.S.C 6101-6107), which prohibits discrim-
ination on the basis of age;

Authorized for Local Reproduction
4-48

10. Will comply, if applicable, with flood Insurance 13. Will assist the awarding agency in assuring
Purchase requirements of Section 102(a) of the compilance with Section 106 of the National
Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (P. L. 93-234) Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16
which requires recipients in a special flood hazard U.S.C. 470), EO 11593 (identification and
area to participate in the program and to purchase protection of historic properties), and the
flood insurance if the total cost of Insurable Archaeological and Historic preservation Act
construction and acquisition 1s $10,000 or more. 1974 (16 U.S.C. 469a-1 et seq.).
11. Will comply with environmental standards which 14. Will comply with P.L. 93-348 regarding the
may be prescribed pursuant to the following: (a) protection of human subjects Involved in research,.
institution of environmental quality control development, and related activities supported by
measures under the National Environmental this award of assistance.
Policy Act oF 1969 (P.L. 91-190) and Executive 15. Will complyly with the Laboratory Animal Welfare
Order (EO) 11514;(b) notification of violation Act of 1966 (P.L. 89-544, as amended, 7 U.S.C.
facilities pursuant to EO 11738; (C) protection of
wetlands pursuant to E0 11990; (D) evaluation of 2131et seq.) pertaining to the care. handling, and
flood hazards in floodplates in accordance with EO treatment of warm blooded animals held for
11968, (E) assurance or project consistency with research, teaching, or other activites supported by
the approved State management program this award of assistance.
developed under the Coastal Zone Management 16. Will comply with the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning
Act of 1972 (18 U.S.C. ## 14 51 at seq.); (f) Prevention Act (42 U.S.C. ## 4801 at seq.) which
conformity of Federal actions to State (Clear Air) prohibits the use of lead based paint
Implementation Plane under Section 176(c) construction or rehabilitation of residences
Clear Air Act of 1956, as amended (42 U.S.C.# structures.
7401 et seq.); (g) protection of underground source
of drinking water under the Safe Drinking Water 17. Will cause to be performed the required the financial
Act of 1974, as amended, (P.L. 93-523); and (h) and compliance audits in accordance with the
protection of endangered species under the Single Audit Act of a 1964.
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, (P.L. Act 18. Will comply with all applicable requirements of all
93-205). other Federal laws, executive orders, regulations
and policiees governing this program.
12. Will comply with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
of 1968 (16 U.S.C. # 1271 et seq.) related to
protecting components or potential components of
the national wild and scenic rivers system.

TITLE
SIGNATURE OF AUTHORIZED CERTIFING OFFICIAL
Commissioner, GA DNR

APPLICANT ORGANIZATIONS

Georgia Department of Natural Resources DATE SUMMITTED

4-49

c~qF~R~qT~~Y~qF~z~qc~~q%T~X~q0~qN~qS ~qRE~qG~qA~qM~M~~qq~qG ~qW~qSBY~qI~qN~qG~~ DEBARMENT,, s~qU~qS~qV~q?~~qH~qr~S~q0~qH AND O~qr~d~qZ~qR
R~J~ES~qP~qO~qN~qS~I~qB~q7~qL~qI~qT~qY ~qH~qA~qTT~qE~qR~qS~9 AND DRUG-MEE ~qW~q0~qW~qM~j~qA~qc~qr~~ ~qn~q2~qQ~qU~qI~qR~qM~qU~qM~IT~qs~
~~ic~~~~o ~t~h~o~u~ql~qd ~v~o~0qf~0qt~' to ~e~q@~4qW~q6 ~q@~@~o~qq~o~e to d~et~er~s~qi~qm t~qh~e ~c~i~p~t~qi~qf~ql~e~s~t~ql~a~n to ~t~4qA~qj~e~qh ~q~qN~a~qy ~a~p~q6 ~p~c~4qQ~j~qq~v~e~qd to ~i~t~t~e~tt.
ic~n~~s should oleo ~r~o~l~v~qI~O~W ~th~O ~qI~n~c~er~u~c~t~qi~q" for ~c~a~r~t~qq~q1~qj~e~s~t~ql~e~" Included ~q4~n the ~r~e~qg~u~qt~f~i~t~qt~q" ~qh~e~0qf~0qt~p~o ~e~e~w~qp~qk~e~qe~q�~F~q4 this form.
~~~~~~~ of ~t~h~qi~g ~qfo~qm ~qp~r~e~v~2qW~1~1 ~qq~u~? ~e~m~p~q"~p~ql~qi~o~n~c~e~ with certification r~e~qqu~qi~p~a~r~4~n~t~t ~t~s~u~qi~e~r 21 ~f~qi~.~qe.~qc~. ~q@~q1~q3~4q% ~a~qn~a~w ~qa~4~etr~qi~et~ql~e~qm an
Lobbying," end ~8q0 C~F~Q Part ~q2~q9 Debarment ~a~nd ~qS~U~S~P~o~e~s~qi~c~a ~q(~N~o~4qW~e~c~u~r~i~t~o~qi~qe~nt~q) And ~q1~q6~q4~qt~r~qi~et~qi~o~qm for
~~u~~~~~" ~U~a~ql~o~ql~a~q" ~q1~1~3~1~'~8~Rt~8~q1~*~' ~1~q1~6 e~a~r~l~qI~ql~qI~c~a~l~ql~q" ~8q0~a~ql~ql be treated ~m~o ~v~Q~qW~q1~6~q1 ~?~4q"~T~o~2~a~n~t~o~e~qi~e~n ~0~q1 fact ~%~8qR~qM ~1~4qA~qI~c~qh ~?~0~q1~q1~6~qm~e
will ~qW ~~qi~e~c~a~d ~q0~@~e~q~:~@ ~q0~0 ~D~G~8qW~P~T~m~a~n~e ~4q0 ~qe~a~a~qw~p~e~o ~qd~o~t~a~r~a~ql~n~e~Q to award the ~e~v~q"~r~e~qd ~qt~?~q"~a~c~t~ql~e~n, @rent, ~s~p ~ee~4qq~qm~p~o~qe~qo~v~o ~s~q9r~#~q~t~.
~c~a~qm~qi~s~s~qi~o~n of ~qf~o~r~qq~e~r~qV~@ ~qL~?~qI~qb~4q"~,
~qf~a~qi~s~qo~f~q1~c~o~t~qo~e~" of ~U~'~qf~qt~0~v~2q*~' ~qM~6qU~R~qO ~qI~M~q1~0~6
As required by ~q9 UP ~qV~2qM~0 ~q3~1 of ~t~qh~O ~qU~-~0- ~qC~Q~qd~2 for ~8qW~S~O~qM ~0~2~0~@~a~v~x~l~n~e~o~' or ~r~qf~qt~o~qf~v~qq~r~@~qo ~o~t~o~2qk~y~D ~qR~?~C~@~qP~qw~2qw~o~.
e~'~~"~er~~~ '~0qI~nt~q'~a~q, ~a~8qY~Q~r~e~q'~n~q'~4qG~t~G~r ~c~o~4~0qw~2qW~v~3 ~@~S~r~e~c~f~f~@~Z~n~Q Over ~qC~8q0 APO Me ~qP~P~O~O~G~0qM~q@~qY ~0qW~q9~9~0q0~q6 ~qQ~G~P ~Q~P ~(D~qe~qh~(~9~F~V~q9~0~Q ~C~P~q4~6~1~q1~n~s~qa~ql~y
~~~O~0~~0~0~6~ ~6qW~t ~s~8qw~qo~e~r~qn~t ~e~0~e~e~qC~6qH~&~I ~t~qh~a~e~g ~O~v ~e~q0~v~qi~qa~ql~qy ~Q~qh~a~r~qe~(~b~qe by a ~qg~o~q"~P~r~e~'~v~n~qe ~a~n~qe~qc~qe~qr ~6qv~a~i~qo~e~r~e~ql~" state,
(a) me ~f~~d~e~e~a~qt ~f~i~qP~qw~4qW~qq~qu~e~'~qJ~" ~qf~v~n~-~,~"~i New ~8qb~N~qA ~qP~&~6qM of ~W~qi~ql~qi. be or ~qa~e~c~a~6qU ~e~qf~t~qh ~c~qM~qn~qI~s~8~q0~@~n of ~qa~qw ~8q0 ~t~qN~Q ~e~qf~qt~e~qm~e~s ~@~7~R~0~*~r~*~8qW~-~-
paid ~t~~ or an ~qb~a~qh~a~8qU ~8q0 the ~u~n~qd~e~qM~ql~4qo~qv~qd, to ~o~t~0qw person far in ~qp~o~?~s~qa~T~t~8qo ~qZ~.A~.~6qm~qD ~@~q0 ~2qw~o ~qa~n~q6
~qW~(~~N~~~i~n~qe ~G~P to ~2qW~qt~u~en~c~e ~V~'~@ ~o~qf~qf~ql~e~o~r or ~d ~(~S~6qi~l ~:~ I
~~v~ ~qN~a~v~qb~qw~ ~qt~qh~r~e~@~qb ~qp~c~?~qq ~'~2qP~'~8~z~4q@~q#~R~qv Me
~~~~ ~o~q' ~qq~F~qm~qf~qt~8qH~qw~@~g ~qC~qr~o~qd~e~f~-~s~qt~,
with ~~~q"~n~2 ~e~qf ~qW~@~q? ~qf~e~4qA~r~qf~qt~ql ~4qV~R~O~0q*~, ~- ~t~q*~6 ~q0~q*~#~*~'~q9~F~qj ~qI~v~4q*~6 of ~qW~0qW~q:~' ~.
Own~, ~C
~~~i~n~~~~~~~, ~(~a~k~? ~Q~q@ ~0~@~5~qv Crone no, ~q0. ~?~W~q%~o~p~o ~t~qh~e ~o~p~p~qa~qg~e~t~n~e go ~qO~qm~6qM~e ~qq~0 ~e~a~r~qt~qg~qv~qv ~qq~0 env at ~t~qh~i~p
statements In ~6qW~o ~e~a~r~4qd~qe~q0~e~6qW~c~q"~o ~qh~o ~e~@~' ~6qM~qo ~0qA~6qW attach An
(b) I I env ~2qf~2qt~w~t~qt~3 ~o~t~qh~or ~T~qh~qm ~q6~0~c~2qm~p~o~qq ~C~q"~8qW~2qw~6qW~0qa ~qf~u~n~qd~s~'~qh~q"
be" paid ~c~r ~m~0qM ~qt~@~o ~2q"~qI~qd ~2~a ~t~g~0qV ~qp~Q~r~o~o~n to? ~2qM~6qf~6ql~u~s~qm~qin~qg or ~i~qg.
~tt~~w~~i~~qg ~c~a ~o~qv~qe~qg~e~o~p a? ~a~4qm~qa~g~qr~i~a~qo ~8~q? ~8qM ~8qW~G~A~C~qY~. "amber do ~q1~n~o~qk~qI~q0~qI~0qW~qk~q9~2qW ~q&~8qd ~qV~e~qa~t~i~n~qe~qw~qy ~qa~qw~qa~Lr~3~qg~a~A - ~qj~c~@~q@~V~e~qd Igoe ~qC~q&~4~0~p~a~qd
~ca~~g~~~~~~ @A or ~e~N ~a~m~qp~qR~o~qy~e~e of a ~qk~qw~qb~l~p of ~qe~a~v~qv~qM~a~a In
connection ~u~qft~qt~q) MOO ~qR~e~2qJ~ar~a~qt ~q6~r~an~t ~*~r ~S~q@~r~e~a~qm~a~qt,
t~h~e u~~q*~~s~qI~qg~n~ed ~e~qN~0qM ~c~c~a~qp~6qW~t~o ~@~2qf~2qt~e~@~t~0qf~0qt~P~qA ~qU~6~7~q% - ~0qW~, ~qC~2qo no ~2qp~qv~c~4q"~8qh~5~qo ~qt~qa~q*~P ~q@~qO~qc~? @won"', by
~~0~1a~~l~~~r~d ~q@~c~v~i~n ~Q~o ~qt~2qM ~6q-
rust of Me ~0qe~n~q@ ~@~0qn~qq~qt~q)~c~q ~qo~qc ~o~qr~n~p DO
I Ono, ~q0~0 ~0qW~(~qW~g~0qm~qa~qv ~qd~z~6qm~o~@~4q@~_~q@~o ~0~q=~q@~" ~0q@~~' ~6qP~0qW~qW~G~qJ for
lei The ~~n~qd~o~r~t~q�~4q*~%~o~qd O~q@~O~qa~qq ~p~s~4q"~qQ~p~o ~6qa~a~qe ~4qd~o ~qa~qw~t~qv~qa~ql~qt ~4q0 AM ~(~:~0qW~o~?~C~-~qj ~qo~f~t~a~4qH~qg~qo~qb~q@~0~0 ~qC~@~q? ~4q@~4qM~O~P~4qH~qV ~q6~2~a~qa~u~l~qk~8qw #no
~~f~i~~~t~qf~o~n be ~qo~qm~q@~qu~2qk~qo ~qg~o ~8q0~;~4~D ~qb~qw~e~@~qD ~qd~qn~l~2q@t~m ~8qf~8qt~e ~a~qa~qa ~qP~9~?~qt~0qW~qP~0~qe~qq~e~A ~qD~o ~qq~6qW ~qq~?~8qf~8qt~0qw~q_~>~4qU~q@ ~qb~q@ ~qc~y~qq~7 ~qQ~C~4q&~P~qb~qq ~qd~qs~2qp~?~qt~a~qf~qf~ql~qt
~~~q* OR ~M~qi~q% ~6qO~o~u~@~a ~q@~qg ~q"~z~2qW~qg~qI~n~qQ ~qQ~t~0q&~qn~qM~4qA~qO, ~g~a~n~qe~F~qf~qt~q@~q0 ~qW~W~0qf~0qt~F ~O~qQ ~a~qo~qw~t~0qv~o
its ~W~i~qd ~4q"~r~o~qw~t~E~n~t~a~o ~S~Y~8qW ~Q~2qJ~q=~0qM~p~c~e~qu~qp ~e~r~6qd ~0qm MOTO no ~6qp~qv~6qw~g~6qU~v~qo ~q@~C~a~@~3~-~@ ~4qH~Q~@~?
that sit ~0qn~a~qq~q@ ~e~a~f~"~6qW~qv ~Q~7~6q0 ~(~2qA~qm~qa~c~o~e ~0qW ~C~qW~q1~q1~q9~q7 ~qq~0 ~q&~V~qY ~2q0 ~6q*~6 ~qo~e~a~qe~a~qm~qq~qn ~qD~o ~0qN~q1~q0 ~@~o~P~qt~qo~qf~qf~e~a~t~qi~o~n~.
~c~~~~d~i~qm~qt~qY~. ~qf~qt~a~qh ~qG~2qH~C~6qA ~q0~;~@ ~4q"~0qO~qm~qq~qg~e~n to
this ~~~qn~0qM~e~n~6qd~q" ~qg~o ~(~) ~qM~"~ ~e~c~)~?~4qW ~q9~m~e~qt ~t~2qv~a~n
~~~~i~~h r~~qt~qi~b~"~m~o ~L~q-~a~s ~qPQ~C~@~-~'~C~qd ~E~"~8qM~a ~qQ~2qM~G ~qw~o ~v~qn~6q& ~0~?
~n~~~qW Into. ~qg~i~q&~n~qg~o~qo~qO~o~m ~0q0 Me ~e~a~v~0qV~q0~q0~0q0~qt~qI~o~n Do a
pr~r~qu~i~s~qi~t~o ~qV~a~? ~q=~2qH~v~z~qo ~c? ~c~-~A~qe~0qM~n~qj ~qq~a~qt~o ZOO ~qt~v~q"~a~c~qt~ql~e~n
~~~m~d ~b~qV ~qI~qI~qS~qS~qR, ~qe~qi~q@~qq~o ~4q%~, ~qU~.~qQ. ~qC~z~2q&~. AM ~qG~qn~qn~qm ~0qO~qw ~qf~a~8qW
to file the ~&~'~2q@~qO~p~c~qo ~C~0~9~6qW~qI~C~0~2~q0~e~n ~c~qh~a~q;~qa ~qh~@~qD ~0~%~4q&~q;~qf~qt~qQ to a
~~~f~~i ~U panel ~Q~qv of Rae Roo@ then ~q9~6q3~'~qa~4qw ~q&~R~qA ~q~qn~qt ~qW~r~t
~$~10~0~00~9 lop ~O~@~4qA ~o~u~g~qc~@ ~qf~3~qg~qa~u~r~qo.

~qn. ~'~0qm~o ~qo~v~qm~q@~co
2. ~qD~qz~8qu~6qk~2qR~2qm~qT~qz~o ~2qM~'~q@~C~6qo~qz~-~@~q1~0q0~0q0~4q=~4q0~0 ~2q=~'~6qn we ~qt~3~qv ~0
RESP~qO~8qN~2qS~qE~2qW~qC~qE~8qX~6qZ~6qU ~6qM~'~qU~@~6qK~qU~q5~0q=
COD ~C~n~2qA~q9~qQ~qv~P~a~q3 ~qC~-~:~q@~0qA~o~0qo~o~qn ~qq~q@~qO~qQ ~qq~qh~o
~~ ~~qw~v~c~q4 ~q@~@~v ~qGn~o~g~u~2qf~2ql~v~o ~q@~?~qe~-~q-~^~L? ~4qW~,~q3~@l~j~qg, ~q9~c~qa~o~qw~a~@~,~a~qQ ~q6~n~q@ ~u~e~'~)~qa~c~@~q~qv~u~qa ~qd~qq ~qg~V~q6~,
~~~~~~M~1~0~n~, ~t~qn~8q&~? ~0q0 On Re~2q" ~Q~? ~qM~Q ~(~3~q6 ~(~q3 ~qP~?~q@ ~2qr~qo~4qm~c~ql
~p~~~~qw~~qo~v~o ~qP~?~q@~G~g~e~2qv
A. The ~C~00q"~8qO~2qU~qC~qC~q7~q@~qQ ~qG~qO~qP~0qQ~2q0~8q9~8qq~q0~q0 ~0q2~6qN~qO~4q@ ~24qM ~qc~qy~16qd ~4q9~0q2~0q0 ~6qF~q?~4qo~8qn~2q@~2qg~qz~28qW~qs
~2qC~8qb~2qD
(~8) Ape ~q@~0qQ~qQ ~12qp~qG~q@~qC~qi~q@~q2~6qq~4qV ~8qC~qc~2qt~q-~q@~qv~qec~6qO, ~0qO~4qn~8qp~4qa~16q4~q@~24qA, ~qe~qr~4q@~q)~6qa~qg~0qv~6qm
~qd~et~W~r~a~e~n~qe~q@ ~qC~q@~q' ~6qO~qP~00qM
~c~o~q"~r~e~qd ~0qe~qr~6qv~2qo~2qu~28q0~qc~qy~00qn ~8q@~8qv ~qe~08qm ~0qp~qo~16qf~16qt~6qn~8q@ ~0qe~qp ~0qc~2q3~0qo~2q%~16q" ~40qV~8qD ~12qM~qo ~6qd~q2~qj~28q@ ~qo~4qg ~q(~q@~8q@~q*~24qA ~24qn~qg~q@~6qn ~4q0~q0 ~28qM~q@~6qo
~q(b~q) ~N~o~w~i~t rat ~qu~8qO~q%~16qM~qa o ~8q(~q>~q-~q?~qa~qC~q0~2q4~2qI~qR~8q2 ~16qA~0q1~0q0 ~8qq~2q2~8qD Me ~8qO~qP~qC~q7~4q4~q0~q0~q0 ~2qP~qS~16qU~qG~04q7 0~0q0
~.~.~n~t~8qi~qc~qA ~2qb~qo~qq~qn ~4q=~qr~08qA~qe~qt~qa~2qe ~qa~2qq ~qG~qv ~8qb~q@~2qd ~4q0 ~qC~2qO~qV~2qO~2qR ~28qW~q'~8qO~qc~qm~q!~q@~qn~0qt
~7~qA ~qa~0qec~4q@~qf~qo~q@ ~08qMc~qn ~4qq~q0~q? ~q0~2q0 ~6qQ~qv~qc~ql~q@~8qo Go ~4q0 ~qe~qp~2qo~qo~8qo~qv~12q& ~8qC~6qS~2qD ~0qa~q:~qr~qZ~qV ~qO~qV~qO~4q@~4qa~qo~0qb~4q@~qo ~qC~q7~20q&
.~0 ~4q@~qa ~qQ~qG~qR~q7~q;~6q=~qq~0q5~qe~q@ ~qU~0q@~qQ~0q@~qD ~q(~qS~4q@~q)~qC~qO~4qC~qR~8qO~qV~qZ~2qO~qO ~qO~qe~qt~qc~qs~q;~q@~qD~qe~2qg~16qK ~4qq~q0 ~08qn~qQ~q0~4q6~qR~q0
or ~p~e~r~f~v~qr~qv~4ql~qp~q@~4qo ~q0 ~00qP~2qZ~08qA~8qq~qa ~8qc~q9~qa~4qe~qo~qp~qo~4qa~qo ~0qO~qQ~qO~qQ~qO~qO ~q0~q-~q@~q? ~08qk~q2~4qM~4qa~2qD
~t~r~e~ms~e~c~t~0qo~qo~qn ~q0~q1~q? ~qC~qG~qY~q4~q?~qQ~q(~q9~q2 ~q0 ~04qP~6qI~12qW~qC ~qe~qv~qo~4qm~4qu~0q@~4q@~qC~qn~qo~qo ~0qq ~4q@ ~2q5 ~0qV~0q@~qZ~qQ
~qo~qp

4~q-50

drug abuse violations occurring in the workplace;

c)Making it a requirement that each employee to be engaged s.The grantee shall insert in the space provided below the
in the performance of the grant be given a copy of the site(s) for the performance or mark done in connection with
statement required by paragraph (e) the specific grant:

d)Notifying the employee in the statement required by Place of Performance (stree address, city, county, state,
paragraph (a) that, oo o condition of employment under the zip code)
grant, the employee will.

(1)Abide by the terms of the statement and

(2)Notify the employer of any criminal drug statute Check if there are workplace on file that are
convicition for a violation occuring in the workplace no not identified here.
later than five days after such conviction:

e)Notifying the agency within ten days after receiving GRANTEES WHO ARE INDIVIDUALS
notice under subparagraph (d) (2) from an employee or The grantee certifies that a condition of the grant, be
otherwise receiving notice of such conviction; or she will not engage in the unlawful manufacture,
distibution, offinsing procescusion or use of a controlled
f)Taking one of the following criteria, within 30 days of substance in conducting any activity with the grant
receiving notice under subparagraph (d) (2), with respost to
any employee who is as convicted.

(1)Taking appropriate prevent action against such an
employee, up to and including termination or

(2)Requiring such employee to participate satisfactorlly in
a drug abuse assistance or rehabiliation program approved
for such purposes by Federal, State, or legal heath, law
enforcement, or either appropriate agency

(g)Making a good faith effort to continue to maintain a
drug-free workplace through anticipation of paragraph
(a), (b), (c), (d), and (f)

Page 9
Georgia Department of NaturAl Resources
One Conservation Way, Brunswick, Georgia 31523-8600
Joe D. Tanner, Commissioner
Duane Harris, Director
Coastal Resources Division
912/264-7218
15 June 1992 FAX 912/262-3143

Mr. Charles H. Badger
office of Planning and Budget
254 Washington Street, S.W.
Atlanta, GA 30334

RE: Draft CZM Proposal for Grant.
Application by state of Georgia

Dear,Mr. Badger:

I have enclosed for your review and information,- a copy
of the draft CZM Program Development Section ' 305 - Grant
Application for the time period of I Oct. 1992 thru 30 Sept.
1993, Source # 11.419. Please have, this presented-for.';
Executive order Review.

If you have questions or need other information, please
advise.

sincerely,

Stuart A. Stevens, Ph.D.
Chief, Ecological Services

SAS:rmd

ATTACHMENT

4-52

STATE OF GEORGIA
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
COASTAL RESOURCES DIVISION
ECOLOGICAL SERVICES SECTION

CZM PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT SECT. 305
GRANT APPLICATION

FOR" PERIOD I OCT. 1992 THROUGH 30 SEPT. 1993

SECTION 2: STATEMENT OF WORK

4-53

Page 11

TASK DESCRIPTION

No. I Title: Public Involvement.

Total Grant Cost: $29,312 Federalt $23,048 State: $6,264

Work completed by Grantee. Number of staff months: 8.2.

Coordination with governmental-agencies, land owners,
conservation organizations,' interests groups, local and
regional planning and zoning authorities, and the general
public is essential to the development and administration of
coastal management programs. Governor Zell Miller will
appoint -.a Coastal Advisory Council (CAC) wholfs,_ members--,-,.-..
represent those listed above. The state will recommend this'
Council meet monthly in order to progress as rapidly as
possible towards a federally approved CZM Program. This
Council provides a mechanism for analyses of key issues and
provides policy and guidance to staff in the development of
the state CZM Program.

DESCRIPTION:

The attached budget and tasks descriptions describe in
detail staff time and cost of this task. Work will involve
monthly meetings with the CAC. This council will meet along
the coast to insure coastal residents have the chance to
address the 'Council. Additional meetings will be held with
local governments and planning organizations. News releases,
at least once per quarter, will be issued to advise the
public of program status. Presentations by program staff
will be given to any interested group as requested. in
addition, staff will solicit invitation to specific groups to
discuss program status.

83PECTED PRODUCTS & TIMETABLE2

individual time sheets: monthly.
CAC agenda and meeting minutesg monthly.
Public information brochure.
News release: quarterly.
Summary of workshop/retreat: biannual.
Summary of comments and conflicts identified by impacted
organizations.

4-54

Page 12
GCZM Task 1
page 2

Benchmarks:

1st Quarter: GCZM brochure; Governor's announcement;
develop list of public and private organizations
impacted

2nd Quarter: Summary of work shop/retreat; news release
on progress

3rd Quarter: Summary of comments from organizations
summary of conflicts identified; news releaSE- on.

4th Quarter: Summary of workshop/retreat; news release progress lease
on progress

4-55

Page 13

TASK DESCRIPTION

No. 2 Title: Boundary.

Total Grant Cost: $19,072 Federal: $16,462 State: $2,610

Work completed by Grantee. Number of staff months: 5.5

BAC1GROUND r

Regulations. f proposed: to -.,protect -the.., coast must be
defined within 'a specific area, i.e., 'those areas the
management of which is necessary to control uses which have
direct-and 'significant@: impacts on coastal waters., The
coastal boundary must-include all vital areas such as
saltmarshes and components of the sand sharing system. A
large amount of,acreage may be excluded due to the acreage of
coastal Georgia -currently under direct authority of the
federal government through the Department of the Interior
(Fish and Wildlife Service and National Park Service) and
Department of Defense (Army andNaval Bases).

DESCRIPTIONs

The attached budget and tasks descriptions describe in
detail staff time and cost of this task. Previous efforts by
the State of Georgia defined a coastal boundary based upon-
political subdivision of coastal counties. The previous
boundary and its justification will be carefully studied in
light of current CZM Rules and policy. special management
areas, such as Sanctuaries, will be identified for inclusion
within the boundary.- The estuarine area of the state has
been determined for some rivers. All rivers will be mapped
to determine, as close as possible, the estuarine area.
Consultation with neighboring states will be undertaken to
insure no conflicts exist between their existing CZM approved
boundary and Georgia's proposed boundary.

EXPECTED PRODUCTS & TIMETABLEQO

Individual time sheets: monthly.
List of key issues.
identify federal lands exempt@
Identify special management areas.
Identify estuarine area along all rivers.
Map/brochure indicating boundary.

4-56

GCZM Task 2 Page 14
page 2

Benchmarks:

ist Quarter: Identify key issues, federal lands
exempt, and special management areas; summary of
estuarine area on all rivers

2nd Quarter: Summary of consultation with South
Carolina regarding interstate boundary

3rd Quarter: Summary of consultation with Florida
regarding interstate boundary; draft map- o:E
boundary

4th Quarter:'. Summary of public hearinig'' on :'boundary;
final description and-map of.boundary

4-57

Fage 15

TASK DESCRIPTION

No. 3 Title: Authority and organization

Total Grant Cost: $49,950 Federal: $39,508 State: $10,442

Work completed by Grantee. Number of staff months: 14.0

BACKGROUND:

This- wil-I-be- the most, tima- consuminc.F task proposed' this
grart award period. Although.production,of:,.a CZM document
plan is essdntial-'-to-- the, program, withouti enforceable
legislation to support the document, the program will fail.
Given the schedule of Sessions of the Georgia General
Assembly, staff of the Department must complete analysis of
existing authorities early this grant award period. Any
legislative action sought must be drafted by*,,September of
1993 for consideration at the 1994 Session -of - the, Georgia
General Assembly. All relevant statutes, regulations', case@
law,' and other local and state legal authority should be,;."..
within the responsibilities and authorities of the state CZM-,
Program. This would create a centralized permitting system
for coastal activities resulting in a reduction in paperwork-
easing the permitting process for the public.

DESCRZPTION:

The attached budget and tasks descriptions describe in
detail staff time and cost of this task. Staff of the CZM
Program will expend most of their efforts evaluating existing
state and local authority with respect to management of the
coastal zone. Efforts will focus on analysis of laws to
insure enforceability of policies and reduction of
conflicting authorities. Staff will also investigate
existing monitoring of policies and laws as applied to
determine any 3hortcomings. Policies, not adopted by law,
and unwritten policies of various authorities will be
reviewed for possible inclusion in any proposed additional
authorities. Although comprehensive legislation may be
necessary, networking will be considered as a means of
reducing additional legislation.

EXPECTED PRODUCTS A TIMETABLEG.

individual time sheets: monthly.
Summary of coastal authorizations.
Copies of priority authorizations.
Draft of proposed authorizations.
Summary of public hearing.'
Final proposed authorizations.
4-58

Page 16
GCZM Task 3
page 2

Benchmarks:

ist Quarter: Summaries of all state and local
authorities impacting coastal Georgia; copies of
authorities considered highest of priority for
further evaluation

2nd Quarter: Identify framework for operation of state
CZM Program

3rd Quarter: Draft legislation, rules MOU's
executive orders,, and/or-.- other,- authorities
proposed; summary of public hearing on draft
authorities

4th Quarter: Copies -.,.of final legislation, rules,
MOWS, executive orders, and/or other authorities
proposed

4-59

Page 17

TASK DESCRIPTION

No. 4 Title: Federal Consultation

Total Grant Cost: $13,531 Federal: $9,877 State: $3,654

Work completed by Grantee. Number of staff months: 3.7

Relevant federal agencies must-be'inalWed,.in .any effort
to develop an approved CZM Program.. These agencies will be-
subject to consistency review and' must, be -AnCluded"..in
development. of the consistency list. In addition, federal
agencies can identify concerns of national interests which
must be addressed in any coastal management,plan. Contacts@
must provide for mutual understanding regarding each agenty"s-t?,
participation during program development and possible impacts...
to that agency following approval of the Program.

DESCRIPTION:

The attached budget and tasks descriptions describe in
detail staff time and cost of this task. GCZM staff will
identify specific staff within ,each federal agency to act as
liaison with that agency. meetings will be scheduled, in
cooperation with OCRM, to inform interested agencies of
Georgia's efforts in order to solicit input on concerns of
national interests and to insure federal agencies are
involved in a timely manner with developing the Georgia CZM
Programo Federal agencies will also be involved in
developing the list of actions requiring consistency review.
Federal agencies who now have a major role an Georgiats coast
will be contacted individually to solicit input.

ZXPECTED PRODUCTS 6-TIMETABLEs

Individual time sheets: monthly,
Summary of joint federal agency meeting.
Summary of individual federal agency meetings.
List of national interests concerns.
List of actions requiring consistency review.

4-60

Page 18

page 2

Benchmarks:

Ist Quarter: Summary of Joint meeting with all
interested federal agencies

2nd Quarter: Summary of individual meeting with corps
of Engineers, Fish and Wildlife Service, National
Park Service, and Department of Defense (Army and
Navy staff)

3rd Quarter: Summary of comments from federal agencies.
identifying national interests concerns; summary-of -
joint meeting with all interested federal agencies

4th Quarter: List of actions -requiring consistenCY -
review; distribution of list to federal agencies
for review; summary of consultations

4-61

Page 19

TASK DESCRIPTION

No. 5 Title: Program Document

Total Grant Cost: $29,472 Federal: $26,341 State: $3,131

Work completed by Grantee. Number of staff months: 8.6.,-

BACKGROUND I-

Any activity which-has-the potential impact.-of a Coastal
Zone Management Program must.have a comprehensive, planning
document to guide Program staff, users (developers, planners,
local governments, etc.), and the general public. Such.
documents should describe the need for management and the
impacts-,of implementing the management strategy. That@..
strategy -must be clearly described in concise, easily'.'.
understood language and must include goals and objectives of_.
the management authority with respect to the area of concern.'

DESCRIPTXONS

The attached budget and tasks descriptions describe in
detail staff time and cost of this task. Although -a
comprehensive planning document is necessary for program
approval and to provide proper program guidance, available
staff resources will be insufficient to complete the document.:-
during the first planning year. Therefore, efforts will be
concentrated to produce portions of the final document which
correspond to tasks planned this grant period. Draft
sections will be available for review by all interested
parties. Final sections will be presented to OCRH for
inclusion in the comprehensive document to be prepared the
following grant period by GCZM.

EXPECTED PRODUCT8 A TIMETABLE:

individual time sheets., monthly.
List of uses of.regional benefit.
Summary of comments received from public hearing.
Draft sections of document: boundary
authority and organization
federal consultaton.

4-62

Page 20
GCZM Task 5
page 2

Benchmarks:

ist Quarter: Review of model CZM management plans from
other states.

2nd Quarter: Identify uses of regional benefit.

3rd Quarter: Draft summary of portions of document
including sections on boundary, national interests,
authority, organization, and additional authorities
needed

4th Quarter: Issuance of public for review of
draft document; *summary of public hearing on
document; final summary of portions of document

4-63

Page 21

TASK DESCRIPTION

No. 6 Title: Administration

Total Gran t Cost: $11,122 Federal: $3,292 State: $7,830

Work completed by Grantee. Number of staff months: 2-5:

BACKGROUND:
Proper leadership from individuals familiar:`,-.;`with
Georgia's coast and knowledgeable of''key individuals ^within
agencies, organizations, interests groupst . and the general
public will be necessary if Georgia accomplishes its goal of,,...
a federally approved CZM Program. Staff of-Coastal Resources:
Division-.-are@committed to this goal and will devote necessary',;...
time to achieve this goal.

DESCRIPTIONs

The attached budget and tasks descriptions describe in
detail staff time and cost of this task. The Division
Director will provide guidance for development of the Program
and act as liaison with elected officials, the commissioner
of Natural Resources, and Board of Natural Resources. The
Chief, Ecological Services Section, will supervise the CZM
Program staff, act as Georgia's contact with OCRM, and
supervise the day to day operations of the Program. The
Chief is familiar with coastal Georgia and issues facing the
coast. Both the Director and Chief will review and approve
all documents and official actions of the Program. The
involvement of the Director and Chief will shorten the
learning curve for staff hired and insure accomplishment of
proposed tasks.

EXPECTED PRODUCTS A TIMETABLE;

Individual time sheets: monthly.
CAC agenda and meeting minutes.
Staffing of State's CZM Program.
Marsh Act brochure.
Shore Act brochure.
Appointment of Coastal Advisory Council (CAC).

4-64

Page 22
GCZM Task 6
page 2

Benchmark s:

Pre-Award Quarter: Marsh brochure and Share brochure;
copies of recruitment announcements for CzM
positions; appointment of CAC; minutes of first
meeting of CAC; minutes of subsequent CAC meetings
prior to grant award date

1st Quarter: Full staffing of CZM Program

2nd Quarter: Summary of site visit to South Carolina
Coastal Council to review approved CZM Program;---
grant@ - award, request@:. for. final.,,: , year. - fundhi4, `for'-
program development.
3rd Quarte*r: Summary@ of site visit to Florida CZM to
review approved CZM.Program.'

4th Quarter: Summary of site visit to North Carolina
CZM to review approved.CZM@Program

4-65

Page 23

BIOGRAPHY

CHARLES DUANE-HARRrs
Present 'Position

Director, Coastal Resources Division, Georgia Department of
Natural Resources, One Conservation Way, Brunswick, Georgia
31523-8600

Educattarr

B.S. Biological Science,, Colorado St ate University, March
1970

EmployMent

Georgia DepartTnent of Natural Resources*.*

Marine Biologist -. 1970 -'1975.
oyster Project Leader - 1975 1977.
Artificial Reef Project Leader 1977 1978.
Research Unit Manager - 1979.
Assistant Chief of Fisheries - 1980.
Chief of Fisheries - 1981 - 1982.
Director, Coastal Resources Division - 1983 - Present.

*Georgia Game & Fish Commission - 1970 - 1972.

other

Administrator of all Grants and cooperative Agreements
received by Coastal Resources Division since 1983.

South Atlantic Fishery Management Council activities:

Member - Snapper/Grouper Plan Development Team 1977
1980.
Member - Scientific and Statistical Committee 1980
1982.
Council Member - 1983 - 1988.
Vice Chairman - 1984/85
Chairman - 1985/86
Council Designee to International Convention for the
Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), Madrid, Spain
1987.

4-66

Page 24

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission activities:'

member - Advisory Committee - 1981 - 1982.
Commission Member - 1983 - Present.
Vice Chairman - 1988 - 1989.
Chairman - 1990 - 1991.

Advisory Board Member - Southeast Consortium for Undersea
Research - 1982 - 1989.

Certified Fisheries scientist - American Fisheries Society
1979 - Present.

Scuba Instructor - National Association of Underwater
lastrur-tors.and.Warld-Undervater:..F.ederaticm,-.!.- ',1980
Present-., T&uqht-Scuba-Diving as.-a-course-in Continuing
Education, Brunswick "nior-Cd1lecje-, 1978 - 1985. Taught
Scuba Diving to employees of Georgia Department of
Natural Resources, 1980 - 1988.

Completed approximately 700 Scuba Dives, most offshore of the
coast of Georgia.

Served as Expert Witness In: chance v. 'Certain Artifacts
Found and Salvaged From the NASHVILLE'alk/a the
RATTLESNAKE, Her Engines, Boilers, Tackle, etc. in rem.,
Defendant, State of Georgia, Claimant. No. CV483-391.
United States District Court, S. D. Georgia, Savannah
Division. August 16, 1984..

Examples of Presentations:

"Georgia's Coastal Resources", Georgia Water Association
Annual Meeting, Atlanta, 1985.

"Multi-CounCil Management", Eleventh Annual Marine
Recreational Fisheries Symposium, Tampa, 1986.

"Georgia's Coastal Fisheries", Teachers,, Environment, and
Free Enterprise Institute, Armstrong State College,
Savannah, annually, 1986 - 1992.

"Georgia's Coastal Resources". Leadership Georgia,
Moultrie, 1992,.

"Experiences of Leadership", Keynote Address, presented
to Dublin/Laurens County Leadership Program Graduation,
Dublin, 1992.

"Wetlands Management Under Georgia's Coastal Marshland
Protection and Shore Assistance Acts", presented at
Environmental Law Institute, Atlanta, 1990.

"The Department's Role in Aiding and Assisting Georgia's
Seafood Farmers", presented at the Georgia Farm Bureau
Federation Annual Meeting, Jekyll Island, 1978.

4-67

Page 25

Publications

Harris, C. D. 1986. Multi-Council Management. IN: Stroud,
R. H. Editor. Multi-jurisdictional Management of Marine
Fisheries. marine Recreational Fisheries 11.
Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Marine Recreational
Fisheries Symposium, Tampa, Florida, May 1 and 2, 1986.
National Coalition for Marine Conservation, Inc.,
Savannah, Georgia. 1986. 237 p.

Harris, C. D. 1980. Survey of the Intertidal and Subtidal,
oyster Resources of the Georgia Coast. Georgia
Department of Natural Resources, Coastal. Resource&--
Division-, Brunswick,::Georqia-.-
'Harris-f C. D. i97S.''''Loication and Exploration of Natural
Reefs on Georgials'Outer.Continental..Shelf.' Final
Report.-to the'U.*S. Fish@-4nd Wildlife'Service.

Harris, C. D. 1978. The Fisheries Resources on Selected
Artificial and-.Live Bottom Ree*fszon Georgia's Continen-
tal Shelf. Final Report'-to the U.S. Fish and-Wildlife
.Service.

Harris, C. D. 1977. Marine Reef Investigations in Georgia.
IN:. CupkA, D. M., P. J. Eldridge and G. R. Huntsman,
Editors. Proceedings of Workshop on the Snapper/Grouper
Resources of the South Atlantic Bight. South Carolina
Marine Resources Center, Tech. Report No. 27.

Harris, C. D. 1975. Feasibility Analysis of Using Remotely
Sensed Data for Mapping Georgia's Intertidal Oyster
Resources. Final Report to the National Marine
Fisheries Service, St. Petersburg, Florida.

Harris, C. D. 1974. observations on the White Shrimp
(Penaeus setiferus) in Georgia. Georgia Department of
Natural Resources, Came and Fish Division, Coastal
Fisheries Office, Brunswick, Contribution Series Number
27, 54 p.

Mahood, R. K, C. D. Harris, J. L. Music, Jr. and B. A.
Palmer. 1974. 'Survey of the Fisheries Resources in
Georgia's Estuarine and Inshore Ocean Waters. Parts I
IV. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Game and
Fish Division, Coastal Fisheries Office, Brunswick,
Contribution Series Numbers 22, 23, 24, and 25.

4-68

RESUME Page 26
1 June 1992

Stuart Albro Stevens
Georgia Department of Natural Resources
Coastal Resources Division
One Conservation Way
Brunswick, Georgia 31523
W) (912) 264-7218 H) (912) 267-9357

Bi'rth Date: October 30, 1953
Height: 5,1711
Weight: 170 lbs.
Health: Excellent
Hobbies: Three children, martial Arts and antique toys

EDUCATIQN,

Ph. D. 1983'---.-University'of- Georcli-a-.. Facus: Estuarine Ecology
M. S.@' 1977 - University of Georgia Focus: Statistics
B. S. 1975 - University of,South Carolina Focus: Marine Sciences

RESEARCH/EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE

1992 to present- Chief, Ecological Services
Georgia Department of Natural Resources
Coastal..Resources Division

Administers provisions of the Coastal Marshlands Protection-Act
and Shore Protection Act for alteration of coastal wetlands and sand
sharing system. Reviews and evaluates applications for alteration' of-
wetlands and beaches including examining plans and drawings, site
inspections, and estimating biological or other impacts in order- to
recommend whether permits should be issued. Gathers and prepares
evidence for court presentations relative to unauthorized activities or-.-
challenges to permit actions. Coordinates with federal, state, and
local governments on evaluation of applications and jurisdictional
determinations. Supervises professional and clerical staff to
accomplish Branch goals and objectives. Administers all aspects of
Georgia's efforts with respect to Coastal Zone Management through
direct supervision of the Department's Coastal Zone Management Program.
Drafts legislation and supports the passage of laws through the
legislative process. Acts as liaison between local, state, and
federal officials and the general public to insure all are advised of
the State's efforts with respect to Georgia CZM. Supervises the
Shellfish Program requiring close coordination with staff of the
Program to insure goals and objectives are met and the Sanitation
Project, within the Program, meets Federal NSSP guidelines. Registered
agent to lobby in behalf of environmental legislation impacting
Departmental responsibilities.

1990 to 1992 Chief, Mars h & Beach Section
Georgia Department of Natural Resources
Coastal Resources Division

Administered provisions of the Coastal Marshlands Protection Act
and Shore Assistance Act for alteration of coastal wetlands and sand

4-69

Fage 27

sharing system. Reviewed and evaluated applications for alteration of
wetlands and beaches including examining plans and drawings, site
inspections, and 'estimating biological or other impacts in order to
recommend whether permits should be issued. Gathered and prepared
evidence for court presentations relative to unauthorized activities or
challenges to permit actions. Coordinated with federal, state, and
local governments on evaluation of applications and jurisdictional
determinations. Supervised automation of applications, files, and other
pertinent information to provide quick retri 'eval of information.
Supervised professional and clerical staff to,accomplith Section goals
and objectives. Supervised the Shellfish Program requiring close
coordination with staff of the Program to insure goals and objectives
are met and the Sanitation Project, within the Program, meets Federal
NSSP guidelines. Identified problems and needs of the State and
industry relative to shellfish and provided administrative guidance to
the Program to respond to these needs and problems. Registered-agent-:,
to lobby in behalf of environmental legislation impacting,,,-Departmental,

1989 to 1990' Assistant Chief,'Narsh-& Beach. sibtion
- Georgia Department of Natural Resources
Coastal Resources-Vivision

Administered provisions of the Coastal Marshlands Protection Act
and Shore Assistance Act for alteration of coastal wetlands' and sand
sharing system.. Assisted Section Chief with rev 'iew and evaluation of
applications for alteration of wetlands and beaches. Gathered 'and
prepared. 'evidence for court presentation relative to unauthorized
activitio-o or challenges to permit actions. Coordinated with federal,
@tate, and local governments on evaluation of applicationio-and
jurisdictional determinations.

1984 to 1989 Shellfish Program Leader
Georgia Department of Natural Resources
Coastal Resources Division

Directed and controlled all aspects of the State0s Shellfish
Program including administering the shellfish budget, formulating and-
executing management decisions, and supervising Shellfish Sanitation.
The project consisted of managing the States's oyster and clams
resources for public and commercial use. Responsibilities included but
were not limited to: Field sampling, data collection, verification,
and analyses, report writing, supervision and trAining oZ professional
staff, and preparation of management recommendations. A primary
responsibility was devising and implementing long range goals for
enhancing the Shellfish Program, organizing actions to achieve these
goals, and evaluating success of actions taken.

1983 to 1984 Marine Biologist
Georgia Department of Natural Resources
'Coastal Resources Division

Major responsibilities were acting as project biologist
responsible for tagging related to penaeid shrimp migration and
monitoring of shrimp stocks. These projects required me to manage
budgets, supervise other biologist, boat crews, laborers and
administrative staff; design and implement sampling programs; analyze
and interpret data; and make management recommendations. other duties
included supervisiah of Georgialgi Endangered Species Program and

4-70

Shellfish Sanitation Project and participation as a member of the
State's marine mammal response team,

1981 to 1983 Natural Resource Planner
Georgia Department of Natural Resources'
Coastal Resources Division

Responsibilities included review of documents related to
environmental concerns, scrutinizing various permits for alteration of
marshlands, assessing the impact of marsh manipulation, and conferring
with members of the Georgia Coastal Management Board.

1981 Coordinator of the SapELo Island
National Estuarine Sanctuary
Georgia Department of Natural Resources..
Coastal Resources Division

Duties were supervision of staff, purchasing and budget
management, develoing management planer preparing educational
materials', and lecturing to the public.

RESEARCH PROPOSALS

Evaluation of Georgia's role within the federal Coastal Zone
Management Program. 1992. Submitted to NOAA/0CRM.
-Expanded water, quality sampling of the Georgia Coast. 1991. Funded
through EPA Nearshore Coastal Waters Program. Second year funds
awarded for 1992.,
-Shellfish and Finish Resource Enhancement along Coastal Georgia.
1988. Funded through oil spill settlement funds, state of Georgia.
-Water Quality Assessment of the Savannah River and Other Pollution
Impacts along Coastal Georgia. 1938. Funded through oil spill
settlement funds, State of Georgia.
Feasibility of Increasing oyster Production in Georgia Estuarine
Waters. with others. Submitted to Gulf and South Atlantic_
Fisheries Development Foundation, Inc. 1988.
Feasibility of Increasing oyster Production in Georgia. Submitted to
Gulf and South Atlantic Fisheries Development Foundation, 1986.
Aspects of biodepostion, sedimentation, and reef structure on
intertidal oyster reefs. Funded by Sapelo Island Research
Development Foundation, 1980.
Aspect of biodeposition, sedimentation, and reef structure on
intertidal oyster reefs. Submitted to Larner Fund for Marine
Research, 1980.
Factors controlling the success of oyster reefs in Georgia . Submitted
to NOAA Sea Grant 1 980.
The site quality index as a management tool for the oyster industry.
Submitted on NOAA Sea Grant, 1979.
Ecological interactions and control in a salt marsh: An experimental
approach. (R. Wiegert principle investigator) Submitted to NSF,
1978.
A critical examination of species diversity as simulated by systems
modeling. Submitted to KSF, 1975.

4-71

TEACHING EXPERIENCE Page 29

Chief instructor at Stevens Academy of Marital Arts, 1983 to present
-Instructor at Golden Isles Karate DOJO, Inc. 1982.
-Advisor for county science projects, too numerous to list
-Facilitator Team Member, Salt Marsh Ecology Workshop, 25 - 28'March,
1982.
-Chief instructor for Sapelo Island Tang Soo Do Moo Duk Kwan School,
1980 to 1981

-
Laboratory instructor of biology, 1978 to 1979
-Instructor for FORTRAN for forestry, winter 1977.
Instructor for statistics, spring and fall 1976, spring 1977
Instructor for FORTRAN, graduate level, winter
-Teaching assistant for statistics, fall 1975

UBLICATIONS

Allomeric relationships of shrimp of the genus Penaeus in Georgia.
In preparation.
-The occurrence of Haplosporidium nelsoni in oysters, Crassostrea,
vigninica, in coastal Georgia. 1989. with R. Walker and P.
Heffernan. In preparation for J. of Invertebrate Pathology.
-The distribution of the oyster pathogen, Perkinsus marinus, in the
coastal waters of Georgia. 1990. with R. Walker and P. Heffernan.
Submitted to the Georgia Journal- of Science.
Lethal parasites in, oysters from coastal Georgia, with discussion Of
disease ,and management implications. 1991. with E. Lewis, F Kern,.-
A. Rosenfield, R. 'Walker, and P. Heffernan. In press. Marine
Fisheries Review.
-Increasing hard clan, Mercenaria mercenaria- (L.) production by
utilizing closed shellfishing areas in coastal Georgia. with R.
Walker. 1991. North American J. of Fish. Management 11:267-276.
-Hard clam harvesting season in the coastal waters of Georgia. '1988.
with R. Walker and P. Heffernan. Malacology Data Net,
2(5/6) 105-112
Hard clam, Nercenaria mercenaria (L). recruitment into Christmas
Creek after harvesting. 1988. with R. Walker. GA Dept. Hat. Res.
Coastal Res. Div.. Contribution No. 43, pp. 15.
Hard clam, Mercenaria mercenaria (L.), resources of Christmas
Creek, Little Cumberland, and Cumberland Islands, Georgia. 1988.
with R. Walker. GA Dept. Nat. Res. Coastal Res. Div. Contribution
No.41, pp. 30.
Evaluating the Economic Importance off shellfish to the Georgia
Economy. 1987 with D. Ofiara. Submitted to North American J.
Fish. Management.
Shellfish in Georgia: Resource Description and Economic Significance
the Shellfish Harvesting and Processing SECORS. 1987.
with D. Ofiera. Georgia See Grant College Program, pp. 34.
Motion under the ocean. 1983, Coastlines, Georgia 6(1) :28-29.
-Largemouth Bass., Freshwater anglers delight. 1983 coastlines,
Georgia 5(3),12-15
Ecology of intertidal oyster reefs: Food, distribution and
carbon/nutrient flow. Ph. D dissertation, Univ. Of Georgia 195 p.
The Sea Wave-- a powerful force. of nature. 1982. coastlines,
Georgia 5(1):8-9
-Oysters are natures engineers. 1981 coastlines, Georgia
-Georgia oysters--delicacy of the marsh. Coastlines, Georgia 4(5):10-12

4-72

-Marsh gas and cordgrass. 1981. Coastlines, GA 4(4):7. Page 30
-No more dents. 1981. PV4, April, p. 71.
-Fight that rust! 1980. PV4, October, p. 46.
-A linear systems model of an int*ertidal oyster community. 1977. p.
26-34. with R. Dame. In: Vernberg, F. et al. The dynamics of an
estuary as a natural ecosystem. Ecological Research series, Gulf
Breeze, FL.
-The process of simulating an intertidal oyster community. 1977. MS
thesis, University of Georgia, 75 p.
-See also, Edwards, L. 1982. Oyster reefs: Valuable to more tha'n
oysters. Sea Frontiers, 28(l):23-25.

PRESENTATIONS

Georgia legislative developments. Law Institute, 16-17 July 1992,
savannah, Ga., invited speaker.
25
-Regulation .. :of Georgia.,' s . sensitive, -marshes r'and. sharelineb'. @CRDC'
June 1992, Brunswick,-Ga.',.-invited.sipeak er and panel moderator.
-DNR's role on the coast' Amendments to the Shore and Marsh Acts and
State efforts with CZM. Governor's Environmental Advisory Council,
13 May 1992, Atlanta,.Ga., invited speaker. !-
state regulation of development in sensitive areas, River corridors,
mountains, and marshlands. Real Property Law Institute, State Bar
of Georgia, 14-@,16 May 1992t,-Amelia Island, Fl., invited speaker.
Georgia I a- , wetland,.;and shoreline - regulatory : authority. State/Federal
Floodplain Management coordination Meeting, 18 December 1991,
Atlanta, invited speaker.
Revisions to Submerged -Lands Leasing.Act." Annual- Genera I 'Neetincf-- ' af@-
Georgia Marine Business Association, 14'.December 1991, Beliville-,-'..
Ga.
-Managing wetlands: Issues at Federal, State, and local levels,
President?s Managerial Intern Program, 20 November 1991, Atlanta,
panel expert.
-Habitat protection under the coastal Marshlands Protection Act and
Shore Assistance Act. Erosion & Sedimentation Control Workshop,
Level 1 and 2, Savannah, 31 October 1991, invited speaker.
-Amendments to the Marsh Act. Wetlands Conservation Study Committee, IS
September 1091, Savannah.
-Georgia0s fragile beaches: management concerns. Earth Day 1991,
Brunswick Collegep April, 1991, Brunswick.
-Protecting Georgia's coast without participation in the Federal
Coastal Zone Management Program. Coastal States Organization, 10
December 1990, St. Simons island.
-Numerous presentations to industry, legislative groupse, and
professionals.
-Impacts of pollution on coastal water quality. Key Note Address
delivered to the Georgia Environmental Health Association, Jekyll
island, GA., 19 - 22 July, 1989.
-Co-instructor for training of biologist to respond to hazardous
discharges (4 hours). 1988.
-Co-instructor for training of sanitarians, inspectors, and law
enforcement officers dealing with shellfish regulations statewide
(a separate sessions in regional offices, 6 hours training per
session) 1988. Coastal Georgia Historical
History of shellfish harvest in Georgia.
Society, Januaryp 1988, along with historic displays and field
trips.
Georgia's shellfish management strategy. Ga. Southern College Graduate

4-73

Page 31
Seminar Series, 1988.
-Major oil spills and water quality. Ga. Water Pollution Control
Assoc., Jekyll Island, August, 1987.
-Evaluation of shellfish harvesting areas affected by oil spills. 1987
GSASSC, Orlando, Fl., May, 1987.
Savannah River oil spill: Clean up and environmental assessment. GA
Water and Pollution Control Association, 1987.
Georgia's oil spill response. GSASSC, Orlando, Florida, 1987.
Status report on Savannah River oil spill,Ga. Fish. Workers Assoc.,
Columbus, 1987.
Riparian rights and the issue of shellfish Harvesting. GSASSC,
Biloxi, Mississippi, 1986.
Riparian rights in Georgia's marshes, GA Fish. Workers Assoc.,
Atlanta, 1986
What's new about oysters, clams, and mussels. Coastal Georgia Audubon
Society, Brunswick, April, 1983.
-Natural food source of oysters in Georgia. NSA, Hilton Head,- SC; 1983
-The.. mite quality index as a possible management tool for the oyster
industry-. - ER - Jekyll Island, GA, 1979.
-Factors controlling the success of oyster reefs.--in Georgia. SEERS,
Jacksonville, FL., 1978.
-An intertidal oyster bed model: Diversity vs. Steady state. South
Carolina Academy of Sciences 1975

PROFESSIONAL TRAINING SINCE GRA dUATION (formal courses and workshops
HOURS
-State Purchasing Procedures, 1981 6
-Orientation 1981
-Employee Interviewing, 1981
-Employee Performance Appraisal Guide-lines, 198L 7,
-Management in State Government, Level 1, 1982 26
Marine Mammal Recovery training, 1983 16
--management in State Government, Level 11, 1983 40
Employee Assistance Program, 1984 2
Managing the Troubled Employee, 1984 7
-Oyster and Clam Workshop, 1985 a
-Sea Turtle Recovery Workshop, 1985 8
-Position Description Writing Workshop, 1985 6
-Fair Labor Standards Act - Interpretation Workshop, 1985 2
-Techniques of Supervision, 1985 a
-How to Manage Time, 1986 5
-
Management by Wondering Around, 1986 8
-How to work with people, 1987
Purchasing workshop, 1988
Flexible Benefits Workshop, 1988 6
-Managing for multiple priorities, 1989 6
-managing organizational Change, 1989 36
-managing organizational change: An Evaluation, 1989 2
-Dealing with upset citizens and the public, 1989 a
-Geostatistics: Theory, Practice, and PC Appl 1989 40
-managing organizational Change: An Update, 1990 2
Conflict Management and and Negotiation Skills, 1990 8
-Regulatory Response to a Natural Disaster, 1990
-DOAS Telephone Use, 1990
interactive Management (Xerox), 1991
--Southern Conference on Wetlands, 1991 24
Principles a Applications of Beach Renourishment, 1992 12
-Manager's Role as Coach, 1992 7

A. .7 .7 d, 4
Employee Management Relations, 1992 4
-computer training: MICROSTAT 11, 1988, Ga Tech 10
SMART Integrated, I - IV, 1987, DNR 20
Lotus 1-2-3, 1986,.BC 20
Advanced DOS, 1986, BC 6
Wordperfect, 1986, BC 16
SAS/PC, 1986 MAREX 8
Autocad CAD/CAM ?
Numerous cassette series on self improvement including:
The New Time Management
Negotiating: Getting To Yes
The Do's and Don'ts of Delegation
Creativity: Where Do New Ideas Come From
Effective Public Speaking
Now to Sell Yourself, Services, and Products
The Subliminal Winner
The Secrets of Power Negotiating
Powerful-.Business Writing.-tkills
Stress Management
Winning Management Strategies
Effective Negotiating
Hov to'Listen Powerfully
Science of Self Confidence
Goals: How to set them, How.to-.reach them.,,
Bringing [email protected] best in people
Non-money motivators
organizational politi'cs
Projecting a positive-4winning image
Lifeplanning
CPR

HONORS AND

nominated State Manager of the Year, 1990 and 1992
--appointed Chairman, Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference, study@_
Committee on Surveys, 1988, 1989
appointed Chairman, National Pollution indicator Study, Committee on
Shoreline Survey Methods, 1988
-nominated Dept. Natural Reoources Employee of the Year, 1987
-Who's Who in the South and Southwest, 1985
-Awarded special meritoriouo increase for outstanding performance in
state government, 1984
-Sigma Xi, 1982
-
outstanding Marine Science Student Award, 1975
-Who's Who in American Colleges and UniversAties, 1975

STATE AND GOVERNMENT-PUBLICATXONS

Stevens, S., L. Connally, and K. Melton. 1981. Sapelo Island National
Estuarine Sanctuary- draft management plan. Submitted to U.S.
Dept. Commerce, NOAA Sanctuary Program office, 80 pp.

Stevens, S. and C Cowman 19820' Georgia's Shellfish Sanitation
Program - A ;roposel. Submitted to Commissioner's Office for
updating Program, 13 pp.

4-75

Page 33
Stevens, S. with S. Shipman and V. Baisden. 1984. Survey of Georgia's
major marine fisheries resources. Annual Report 1983. U.S. Dept.
of commerce, NOAA, NMFS Office, 51 pp.
Stevens, S. with S. Shipman. 1984. Penaeid shrimp migration and,growth
along the Georgia coast. Annual Report 1983. U.S. Dept. of
Commerce, NOAA Office, 29 pp.

Stevens, S. and M. Melton. 1984. A bibliography of research conducted
in the Sapelo, Island National Estuarine Sanctuary. Prepared for
U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA, Sanctuary Programs office, 66 pp.
Stevens, S. with S. Shipman. 1984. Penaeid shrimp migration and
growth along the Georgia coast. Completion Report 1982. U.S.
Dept. of Commerce, NOAA, NMFS Office, 142 pp.
Stevens, S. and S. Shipman. 1984. Survey of Georgiafs.major7marinw-
f isheries, . resources Completion Report- 1982 U'@`S.@ - Dept. of'
commercei-90AA' NMFS'[email protected]'---
Stevens, S. with J. Music and K. Shaffer. 1985. Survey of Georgia's
major marine fisheries resources. Annual Report 1984. U. S.
Dept. of Commerce, NOAA, NMFS Office, 73 pp.
Stevens, S. 1985. Penaeid shrimp migration along the.Georg.ia coast-,
U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA, NMFS-Office, 33 pp.

Stevens' -S. with C. Cowman. 1985. A description.of biol6gical and
ph@sical.* parameters affedtinq the sanitary. quality of Georgia's
shellfish resources*. A Sanitary Survey. Submitted to U.S. Food.
and Drug Administration, 150 pp.
Stevens, S. 1986. revision of Stevens, S4 with Cowman. 1985., 160 p.
Stevens, S. 1987. revision of Stevens, S. 1986. 165 p.

Stevens, S. with J. Veazeyo 1988. revision of Stevens, S. 1987. 150 p.
Stevens,' S. with J. Veazey. 1989. revision of Stevens, S. 1988. 170 p.

Stevens, S. with J. Veazey. 1990. A description of biological and
physical parameters affecting the sanitary quality of Glynn and
Camden County, Georgia shellfish resources: A Sanitary Survey.
Submitted to U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 108 pp.

REFERENCES

Available on request

4-76

48mm or WAS= I
ME= fzmm= MTV=

mom or

Ulm mmom

COLML Emu=
on==
com

an= dmmum AM= CIDAM memo AM EMT= w :HIEF. ECOLOGIC4 SERIL
UGM 5500=
3WU 540000M 3/7 W3
as 4VU how ?am cc. sumn stmom
2@ ship=

Gmaeu mumm or amu REVORM
Comm azwmw
AUMM 1"]

am= %WM=
olle=
Slooml
M S2.73S.46 Sad-ft.
DOW mulzu

-7
smog ommm M= am= rMum 59CEM um am= an PHIEF. ECOLOGICAL SERW
SIOD310 Sw= $500002
lw 54000001 3/7 W
jig itickeff4m 4VU Room T" Dr. stowt stav@
sma M"m
see C46ow riahwum sm

SISM ANLM smm scram can am= ow lcozam TWU 11 "=CIL SHELLFISH PRO. MR. CD4 PROGRAM
M00113 %642 5100132 sm S*WO 3 STAFF
M SU8.42 fimi-ft. Ldw S7.OVw. Labu 9 .20r. SA m 37/3
Lummou emn Lumwd Law haonkb mimm nwvmm ftwfiaw bbAwtte I and V111i

val"lu C= =mw max= gmuxw "Imum "m=
PWCM-" $Wow 3MM65
slomm wl Ldw V.00/bc-
WE #Now vulto sm LNUM cuft SWP
but= cleftlmd

Page 36

STATE OF GEORGIA
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
COASTAL RESOURCES DIVISION
ECOLOGICAL SERVICES SECTION

CZM PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT SECT. 305
GRANT APPLICATION

FOR PERIOD 1 OCT. 1992 THROUGH 30 SEPT. 1993

SECTION 3: BUDGET

A:... Budget, Summary
Funds dedicated to. the plAnning"and- deve'lopment of
Georgia's Coastal Zone Management Program are summarized in
the table below. Total federal-funds requested is $135,000
with state match at 3:1 of $33,931. These funds will allow
the Department to undertake a study of existing authorities
for coastal management and propose addit-ional authorities as
necessary to meet... f ederal. requirements for- approval of the
CZM Program.

Section:-2 of this grant award--application contains an
organization al chart for the Department which indicates the
proposed position withinthe Chain of command for the CZM
Program. The CZM Program will be staffed by 3 FTE's paid-
from federal funds and 0.54 FTE's paid from state match.

BUDGET SUMMARY

FEDERA STATE TOTAL

PERSONNEL $87,000 $24,905 $111,905

FRINGE 31,528 9,026 40,554

TRAVEL 7,400 0 7,400

EQUIPMENT 6890 0 6890

SUPPLIES 582 0 582

OTHER (PRINTING) 1,600 0 1,600

TOTALS $135,000 $33,931 $168,931

4-79

Page 37

B. Fringe.
Fringe benefits for the 3.54 positions funded by this
award are calculated as follows:

FRINGE

FICA 7.65
Retirement 17.89
Health Insurance 10.7

TOTAL 36.24%

All-employees-paid'- from--. federal" funds will -be subject to
status as non-merit.. state employees eligible for full
benefits. All fringe benefit rates are set by state law.

C. Equipment.
The follow ;table lists individual-" equipment items._..'
Items-.,, listed will' equip of f ices within the-'Coastal Regional
Headquarters of the Department for use by CZM staff.
space. will be provided but.items listed must-. be.'. purchased'.'
All other equipment needs of the CZM Proqram`for'this grant:
award year will be provided by the state. Office- items.,
listed match office furniture currently on site* Computer
equipment will be dumb terminals for access to to the Coastal,.-
Resources Division's NCR multi user/multi tasking UNIX based
system providing a diversity of electronic capabilities. All
equipment will be purchased according to state approved
purchasing procedures.

EQUIPMENT

IT NO. ESTIMATED COST

Desk - CZM TA 1 $1,200
Desk - CZM RT 1 1,100
Credenza - CZM TA 1 900
Chair - CZM TA & RT 2 600
Bookcase - CZM PLI TAO RT 3 650
Computer drawer - CZM TA & RT 2 240
Computer terminal - CZM TA & RT 3 1,300
Lateral File - CZM TA & RT 2 900

TOTAL $6,000

Key to abbreviations used in table:
PL - CZM Program Leader
TA - CZM Technical Assistant
RT - CZM Resource Technician

4-80

eage

D. Travel Budget.

Out-of-state travel to Washington, D.C. is required for
czm Program staff to participate in meetings with OCRM.
Additional out-of-state travel is required for staff to
inspect federally approved CZM programs in North Carolina,
South Carolina, and Florida. Travel to South Carolina and
Florida will also be necessary to coordinate establishment of
the Georgia coastal boundary. All reimbursable cost for
state' employees will be according to statewide travel
regulations which includes contract airfare. The following
describes the travel budget.

Number
Destil3ation (cost per triRl. T-9 t -4 COSt

Washington, D.C. 6 $5,400
($900 for 3-da si 2 nights)
y

South Carolina CZM 600
(4 days, 3 nights)

North-Carolina CZM 600
(3 days, 2 nights)

Florida CZM 1 800
(3 days, 2 nights)

TOTAL: $7,400

E. Printing and Supplies.
Funds are required to cover printing cost of public
informational brochures about the state CZM Program and for
printing of public notices and the summary of the program
document. supplies required will be utilized within the CZM
offices at the Coastal Regional Headquarters. All
expenditures for printing and supplies will be according to
approved procurement procedures.

4-81

F. Grant Cost By Tasks.

CORE STAFF TIME BY TASKS
(months of staff time)

Tasks Eedera slate =A-18
1. Public Involvement 7.0 1.2 8.2

2. Boundary 5.0 0.5 5.5

3. Authority/Organization 12.0 2.0 14.0

4. Federal Consultation 3.0 0.7 3-7

8.6
5... Pr%xjrvw,Vocument@- ID'.'i,'6

6. Administration 2-al

TOTALS: 36.'0 6:.,s 42.5

COST BY TASKS
(Dollar Amo unts Rounded)

Task Federa state T-otals

1. Public Involvement 23,048- 6?264 29,312

2. Boundary 16,462.. 2e610 19,072.

3. Authority/Organization 39,508 10,442 49,950

4. Federal Consultation 9,877 3,654 l3t531

5. Program Document 26,341 3,131 29t472

6. Administration 3,292 7,630 11, M

TOTALS: $118,528 $33,931 $1520459

G. staff Time By Tasks
Following is a'detailed description of the core staff
time proposed for each individual tasks.

4-182

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
3 6668 00004 3887 1
'I I -- r