[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







           D



              ....... .....
                              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


           D

           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.

           D

           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. ï¿½1251 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. ï¿½1344).

              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. ï¿½1344)

         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. ï¿½403).

              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. ï¿½1451 (Coastal Zone Management Act);

              (2) 33 U.S.C. ï¿½1344 (Clean Water Act);

              (3)  40 U.S.C. ï¿½6930 (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:


























                                               
 









                                                                                   3

                                                     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, ï¿½ 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











                                                          S

                     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.




                                                                                                                                      24

                                                                      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

~0


                                                                 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

        2.



        3.



        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) ï¿½ï¿½ 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. ï¿½
              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. ï¿½ï¿½ 276a to 276a-
              which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex;             7), the Copeland Act (40 U.S.C. ï¿½ 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.ï¿½ï¿½ 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 ï¿½ 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


              &L


                                                                                    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
 

~0



             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~qï¿½~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~qï¿½~4q*~%~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

 00



                  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