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









      United States Department of Commerce

   Combined Coastal Management Program and
    Final Environmental Impact Statement for
                  the State of Ohio



                      March 1997







                      Prepared by:

     Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
      National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
              U.S. Department of Commerce
            1305 East-West Highway, NIORM3
              Silver Spring, Maryland 20910

                          and

       Division of Real Estate and Land Management
           Ohio Department of Natural Resources
                    Fountain Square
                   1952 Belcher Drive
               Columbus, Ohio 43224-1386




The preparation of this publication was financed by the Office of
      Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, NOAA.




















































































   Printed on recycled paper
An equal opportunity employer-M/F / H







                                              ABSTRACT

.     ~DESIGNATION:         Final Environmental Impact Statement

       TITLE:               Proposed Federal Approval of the Ohio Coastal Management Program

       ABSTRACT:            The State of Ohio has submitted its Coastal Management Program to the
                            Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Managgement for approval pursuant to
                            section 306 of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 as
                            amended (CZMVA), 16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq. Approval would allow program
                            administrative grants to be awarded to 'the state and would require that
                            Federal actions be consistent with the program. This document includes a
                            copy of the program, which is a comprehensive management program for
                            coastal land and water use activities. It consists of numerous policies on
                            diverse management issues which are administered under Ohio laws and is
                            the culmination of several years of program development. The Ohio Coastal
                            Management Program promotes the beneficial use of coastal resources,
                            prevents their impairment, and manages major activities that substantially
                            affect numerous resources. The program will enhance decision-making
                            processes used for determining the appropriateness of actions in the coastal
                            area.

                            Approval and implementation of the pro-ram will enhance governance of
                            Ohio's coastal land and water uses according to the coastal policies and
                            standards contained in Ohio's statutes, authorities and rules. Federal
                            alternatives to program approval include delaying or denying approval, if
                            certain requirements of the Coastal Zone Management Act have not been
                            met. The state could modify parts of the program or withdraw its application
                            for Federal approval if either of the above Federal alternatives results from
                            circulation of this document. This document includes responses to comments
                            received on the draft EIS published in August 1996.

       APPLICANT:           State of Ohio, Department of Natural Resources

       LEAD AGENCY:  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
                            National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
                            Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management

       FEDERAL
       CONTACT:             Diana Olinger
                            Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
                            NOAA - U.S. Department of Commerce
                            1305 East-West Highway, N/ORM3
                            Silver Spring, Maryland 20910
                            (301) 713-3113, ext. 168
                            E-mail: dolinger@ coasts.noaa.nos.gov



                                                    i






STATE
CONTACT:              Michael Colvin
                    Ohio Department of Natural Resources
                    Fountain Square
                    1952 Belcher Drive
                    Columbus, Ohio 43224-1386
                    (614) 265-6413
                    E-mail: mike.colvin @dnr.state.oh.us

COMMENTS:             Comments on the Final Environmental Impact Statement may be sent to
                    NOAA at the address noted above. Pursuant to the National Environmental
                    Policy Act, NOAA must wait a minimum of 30 days before making a final
                    decision.






    NOTE TO READERS

.   The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 requires that an environmental impact
    statement be prepared as part of the review and approval process by Federal government agencies
    of major actions which significantly affect the quality of the human environment. The Federal action
    contemplated is approval of the Ohio Coastal Management Program under section 306 of the Federal
    Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended (CZMA). It is the general policy of the Federal
    Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM) to issue combined environmental
    impact statements and program documents.

    Part I of this final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was prepared jointly by the Office of
    Ocean and Coastal Resource Management and the State of Ohio, and provides summary information
    concerning the Ohio Coastal Management Program (OCMP), including how the state has addressed
    the requirements of the CZMA. Part II of the FEIS is a description of Ohio's Coastal Management
    Program and was prepared by the state. It has been reviewed by the OCRM and is relied upon as a
    description of the proposed action for purposes of NEPA. Part III fulfills the remaining NEPA
    requirements for an FEIS and was prepared by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource
    Management with assistance from the State of Ohio.

    An immediate effect of federal approval of the Ohio program is the qualification of the state for
    Federal matching funds for use in administering the program. In addition, the CZMA provides a
    procedure for the state to review Federal actions for consistency with its approved coastal
    management program.

    For purposes of reviewing this proposed action, the key questions are:

           -      whether the Ohio program is consistent with the objectives and policies of the
                  national legislation;

           -      whether the award of Federal funds under section 306 of the Federal Act will help
                   Ohio to meet those objectives;

           -      whether Ohio management policies and authorities are adequate to implement the
                  program; and

           -      whether there will be a net environmental gain as a result of program approval and
                   implementation.

    OCRM has made a preliminary determination that the answers to these questions are affirmative.






                     OHIO COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
                                          AND
                   FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

                                 TABLE OF CONTENTS


Volume I

Part I.       OVERVIEW
             A. Summary of the Ohio Coastal Management Program I
             B. Changes the Program Will Make                                         6
             C. The Federal Coastal Zone Management Act                               7
             D. Cross Reference to Program Requirements                               9

Part II.    DESCRIPTION OF THE OHIO COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
             Gubernatorial Letter
             List of Tables and Figures                                              i

             List of Abbreviations                                                   iii

             Program Overview                                                        vii

             Chapter 1     Introduction                                               1-1

             Chapter 2     Setting: Past and Present                                 2-1
                           Natural History and Geography                             2-1
                           Impact of Human Activities                                2-3
                           Institutional and Political Response                      2-4

             Chapter 3     Extent of the Coastal Area                                3-1
                           Establishing the Coastal Area Boundary                    3-1
                           Summary Description of the Coastal Area Boundary          3-4

             Chapter 4     Program Organization                                      4-1
                           Administrative Structure to Implement the OCMP            4-1
                           Implementation Authorities                                4-11
                           Organizational Structure of the OCMP                      4-18
                           Achieving Consistency with Coastal Management Policies 4-25

             Chapter 5     Management Policies                                       5-1
                           Coastal Erosion and Flooding                              5-4
                           Water Quality                                             5-24
                           Ecologically Sensitive Resources                          5-45
                           Ports and Shore Area Development                          5-68
                           Recreational and Cultural Resources                       5-80
                           Fish and Wildlife Management                              5-99


                                            v






              Environmental Quality                                    5-108
              Energy and Mineral Resources                             5-122
              Water Quantity                                           5-130

Chapter 6     Special Management Areas                                 6-1
              Past Designation Process                                 6-1
              Generic Areas of Particular Concern                      6-2
              Specific Areas for Preservation and Restoration          6-9
              Future Designation Process                               6-12
              Coastal Resources of National Significance               6-13

Chapter 7     Federal Consistency                                      7-1
              Consistency for Federal Activities and Development
                     Projects                                          7-1
              Consistency for Activities Requiring a Federal
                     License or Permit                                 7-6
              Consistency for Federal Assistance to State and
                     Local Governments                                 7-10
              List of Federal Activities and Development Projects;
                     Licenses and Permits; and Assistance Subject
                     to Federal Consistency Requirements               7-13

Chapter 8     Erosion Mitigation Process                               8-1
              Assessing Erosion                                        8-1
              Process to Manage Effects of Erosion                     8-2
              Technical and Financial Assistance                       8-2

Chapter 9     Shorefront Access and Protection Planning                9-1
              Procedures                                               9-1
              Programs                                                 9-5
              Existing Facilities, Trends and Needs                    9-8
              Management Policies and Legal Authorities                9-12
              Definition of Beach                                      9-12

Chapter 10   Energy Facility Planning Process                          10-1
              Inventory of Existing and Planned Energy Facilities
                     in Ohio's Coastal Area                            10-2
              Procedures for Assessing Facility Site Suitability       10-5
              Articulation of State Policies                           10-12
              Public Participation and Consideration of the National
                     Interest in the Energy Facility Site Process      10-13

Chapter 11   Interim Response to Public Comments                       11-1
              Response to Comments on 1992 Draft OCMP Document   11-2
              Response to Comments on Notice of Intent                 11-5




                               Ai






Part III.     REQUIREMENTS OF THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL
             POLICY ACT (NEPA)
             A. Purpose and Need for Action                                         2
                    1. The Coastal Zone Management Act
             B. Alternatives to the Proposed Action                                 3
                   1. Approve the OCMP
                    2. Deny Approval (no action) on the OCMP
                    3. Delay Action on the OCMP
             C. Description of the Affected Environment                             7
                    1. Physical Characteristics
                    2. Socio-economic Characteristics
                    3. Environmental Quality
                    4. Natural Resources
             D. Environmental Consequences                                          22
                    1. Impacts Directly Resulting from Federal Approval
                    2. Impacts Attributable to the OCMP
             E. Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Effects                           28
             F. Relationship between Short-Term Uses of the Environment and the
                    Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity           29
             G. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources             30

Part IV.      LIST OF PREPARERS

Part V.       LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS
             RECEIVING COPIES OF FEIS

Part VI.      REFERENCES--FEIS

Part VII.   COMMENTS ON DEIS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS


Volume II

Appendices
      A.     Narrative Boundary Description
      B.     Coastal Boundary Maps
      C.     O.R.C. Chapter 1506 Coastal Management
      D.     O.R.C. Chapter 1507 Shore Erosion
      E.     Memoranda of Understanding Between State Agencies and OCMP
      F.     Coastal Resources Advisory Council Sunshine Rule
      G.     Rules for Designating Lake Erie Coastal Erosion Areas
      H.     Rules for Enforcing Lake Erie Coastal Erosion Areas
      I      Coastal Flood Hazard Area Rules
      J.     Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program and Ohio Nonpoint Source
             Management Program Description
       K.     Wetlands Authorities



                                          vii






            * Ohio EPA Section 401 Certification Regulations and Review Guidelines
            * State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Exceptions to Section 404
                     Nationwide Permits
            * Wetlands Mitigation Policies used in Section 401 Reviews
          ï¿½   Ohio EPA Policy for Purchase of High Quality Wetlands as Partial
                     Mitigation for Wetlands Destruction
            *Ohio EPA Standard Wetlanid Mitig-ation Conditions
            * Executive Order 90-68
            * Ohio Department of Natural Resources Policy Statement on Wetlands
   L. Rules for Leasing of Lake Erie Submerged Lands
M.    Summary of Special Management Area Nominations
N.    Highlights of Remedial Action Plans for Lake Erie Areas of Concern
0.    Program Modification Procedures
P.    List of Federally Held or Managed Land in the Coastal Area
Q.    Regional and National Consideration
          *   Land and Water Uses of Regional Benefit
          *   Coordination with Federal Agencies
            * Consideration of the National Interest


































                                     viii






                                                  PART I
                                               OVERVIEW

       A.     Summary of the Ohio Coastal Management Program

       The State of Ohio has developed the Ohio Coastal Management Program (OCMP) describing current
       state coastal legislation and management policies. With the exception of implementation of Ohio's
       new coastal erosion program mandated by O.R.C. ï¿½1506.06-.09 and amendments to Ohio's Coastal
       Management Act, the OCMP proposes no new state programs, regulations, or laws. It is based on
       an approach termed "networking," which is a framework and process for linking existing state
       programs, agencies, and laws into a system that will meet Federal requirements for an effective state
       coastal management program.

       Part II of this document describes the laws, regulations, and programs that are the basis of the
       OCMP. Chapter 5 includes 41 policy statements and authorities, which set forth the goals of coastal
       management in Ohio, and various policies and authorities embodied in statute and regulations.

       In 1988, the Ohio legislature enacted the Ohio Coastal Management Act, S.B. 70 (O.R.C. Chapter
       1506) which provides a comprehensive framework for the OCMP and requires the Ohio Department
       of Natural Resources (ODNR) to identify and manage Lake Erie coastal erosion areas, implement
       the Lake Erie Access Plan, and administer the leasing of state submerged land. As a result, having
       significantly enhanced its management capability and having completed most of the development
       of the coastal erosion program, the state now seeks Federal approval of its program. This summary
.       briefly describes the key aspects of the program and the benefits of participation in the Federal CZM
       program.

       1.     Program Authorities and Oraanization

       The OCMP is a "networked" program made up of several Ohio natural resource protection and
       hazard management programs. The lead agency for implementing the program, as prescribed by the
       Ohio Coastal Management Act, is the ODNR. Within ODNR the Division of Real Estate and Land
       Management (REALM) has the lead for coordinating the programs of ODNR and other state
       agencies into a comprehensive CZM program. The organizational structure of the program and
       specific means of coordinating the various agencies included in the program are discussed in Chapter
       4 of Part II.

       State laws and regulations included in the OCMP are summarized in policy statements which are
       organized into nine issues listed below. Detailed descriptions of each policy, its underlying authority
       and implementation process are provided in Chapter 5 of Part II of this document.

       Coastal Erosion and Flooding

       The Ohio DNR is responsible for implementing a comprehensive coastal erosion and flood plain
       management program with the elements listed below. The ODNR is currently completing
       development of the erosion management program pursuant to changes to Chapter 1506 enacted in
       May 1994. This program is described in detail in Management Policies, Chapter 5 of Part II of this



    Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part I - 1                                        March 1997






   document. Maps delineating Lake Erie coastal erosion areas are currently available for public
   review. State statutory authorities require the DNR to:

          *      Delineate 30 year coastal erosion areas;
          *      Enforce rules regulating new structures in coastal erosion areas;
          *      Allow local authorities to adopt erosion area management regulations in compliance
                 with state policies;
          *      Administer a permit system for erosion control structures;
          *      Provide technical assistance for erosion control projects and permit process
                 standardization;
          *      Coordinate with the Army Corps of Engineers as provided for in the Rivers and
                 Harbors Act of 1899;
          *      Enforce compliance by local governments with the National Flood Insurance
                 Program (NFIP);
          *      Require that state agencies, in licensing and permitting, mandate compliance with the
                 NFIP when their regulatory jurisdiction preempts local regulations, and prohibit
                 financial disaster assistance within noncompliant counties and municipalities; and
          *      Regulate design and construction of dams, dikes and levees.

   Water Qualitvy

   The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) is responsible for implementing the state's
   water quality program. The objectives of this program are to:

          *      Assure attainment of State Water Quality Standards;
          *      Provide financial support for research and pollution abatement projects;
          *      Promote soil and water conservation and prevention of agricultural and urban
                 sediment pollution in cooperation with ODNR; and
          *      Implement the Ohio Nonpoint Source Management program in cooperation with
                 ODNR through a broad matrix of authorities.

   Wetlands and other Ecoloeicallv Sensitive Resources

   The ODNR and Ohio EPA share authority for protecting Ohio's coastal wetlands and other
   ecologically sensitive resources. The Ohio EPA regulates certain activities in wetlands through its
   state water quality laws, particularly through certification of federally-permitted and licensed
   activities pursuant to section 401 of the Clean Water Act. Ohio EPA's certification process includes
   a sequenced review which requires projects to avoid, minimize, and mitigate for any loss of
   wetlands. The ODNR also has authority to acquire, manage, and restore coastal wetlands. The
   programs require the state to:

          *      Regulate wetland development activities through section 401 certification of
                  compliance with the State's water quality standards, including the antidegradation
                 policy;
          *      Develop and maintain a statewide wetlands inventory and data base;
          *      Acquire, protect and restore coastal wetlands;



Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part I - 2                                        March 1997







          *      Protect habitat of rare and endangered species;
          *      Restrict the taking and possession of threatened native animal species; and
                  Restrict the taking, removal, transportation and sale of endangered or threatened
                  native plant species.

   Ports and Shoreline DeveloDment

   The ODNR has broad authority to protect the public trust in Lake Erie waters and underlying lands
   through the submerged lands leasing program, submerged lands preserves, and permits for salvage
   and recovery of submerged abandoned property.

   Recreation and Cultural Resources

   The ODNR is responsible for implementing a comprehensive plan to improve public access to Lake
   Erie's shoreline and waters through the following principal programs:

          *      Protect public access rights through the submerged lands leasing program;
          *      Provide for public access within the state nature preserve system, state parks system
                  and state wildlife areas;
          *      Prepare, maintain and update a Lake Erie public access facilities inventory; assess
                  needs and prepare plans and policy recommendations to increase public access;
          *      Provide grants for public access improvements;
          *      Protect historically and archaeologically significant resources and abandoned
                  submerged property;
          *      Regulate watercraft safety; and
          *      Require licensure of hunters, trappers and anglers and provide hunter and trapper
                  education.

   Fish and Wildlife Management

   The ODNR is responsible for management of all commercial and non-commercial taking of fish and
   wildlife as well as the protection of non-game and endangered species. The ODNR is required to:

          *      Regulate the taking of fish and wildlife;
          *      Protect all wildlife including nongame and endangered species;
          *      Investigate water pollution, fish kills and stream litter; and
          *      Protect fish habitat.

   Environmental Oualitv

   The Ohio EPA implements a broad range of air quality, solid waste, and hazardous waste programs
   to protect Ohio's natural resources so as to:

                  Attain and maintain National Ambient Air Quality Standards;
                 Regulate hazardous, solid and infectious waste facilities;
                  Enforce requirements of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and



Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part I - 3                                     March 1997







                  Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
                  (CERCLA); and
                  Establish long range solid and hazardous waste management plans and hazardous
                  waste pollution prevention plans.

   The Ohio Department of Health regulates marina construction. ODNR, Ohio EPA and other state
   and local law enforcement officers prohibit the dumping of litter.

   Enerav and Mineral Resources

   The ODNR implements management programs regarding oil and gas, and mineral development for
   Lake Erie as well as surface mining, while the Ohio Power Siting Board is responsible for the
   coordinated review of major energy facilities. Key authorities:

          *      Require certification of major utility facilities;
          *      Require 10-year demand, resource and site inventory forecasts for energy generation
                  and transmission activities;
          *      Regulate oil and gas extraction;
          *      Regulate removal of minerals and other substances from Lake Erie and from under
                  its lake bed; and
          *      Regulate permit issuance for surface mining.

   Water Ouantitv

   The ODNR implements several authorities that affect the withdrawal of waters from Lake Erie.
   These programs:

          *      Regulate water diversions from Lake Erie;
          *      Require large facilities to register capacity and submit annual withdrawal reports; and
          *      Develop a long-term water resources plan for the Lake Erie basin.

   2.     Boundary

   The Ohio coastal area includes all of the waters of Lake Erie to the international boundary with
   Canada, the islands in the lake, the bed of the lake, and adjacent shorelands within Ohio. The inland
   coastal management boundary of the Ohio coastal area, which is described in Chapter 3 of Part II,
   includes all shorelands subject to erosion or flooding, estuarine areas and wetlands, and other areas
   the use of which may directly and significantly affect Lake Erie waters. The inland extent of the
   boundary varies based on the biogeographic features of the area. For example, the boundary extends
   inland approximately 16 miles along the Maumee River while in urban areas, the coastal boundary
   generally is less than a half mile from the shore. The inland boundary was developed based on
   substantial public input.







Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part I - 4                                     March 1997







   3.     Geo2ra-ohic Areas of Particular Concern

   The OCMP, based on a public participation process, has designated the following area as geographic
   areas of particular concern: critical fish habitat, ports and harbors, state nature preserves and wildlife
   areas, coastal erosion and flood hazard areas, public parks and access areas, wetlands, historic and
   archeological sites and those portions of Areas of Concern designated by the International Joint
   Commission that lie within the proposed OCMP management boundary. Seven specific areas are
   identified as Areas for Preservation and Restoration - these are primarily state nature preserves of
   exceptional value. The APR designation helps guide resource managers to restore or preserve the
   specific ecological, historic, or aesthetic values of these areas. These areas and a process for future
   designation of special management areas are described in Chapter 6 of Part II.

   4.     Other Special Plannine Reauirements of the CZMA

   The CZMA requires that states specifically address the issue of shoreline erosion, shorefront access,
   and energy facility siting as part of program development. The OCMP responses to these
   requirements are found in Chapters 8, 9, and 10 of Part II.




































Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS   Part I - 5                                           March 1997







   B.     Changes the Program Will Make

   Existing state authorities will be used to implement and enforce the Ohio Coastal Management
   Program. The program will result in changes in the way coastal resources are managed in the state
   by requiring the ODNR to monitor all state actions which could affect coastal resources, and to
   resolve conflicts between state agency decisions and the provisions of the OCMP. The program will
   also enhance implementation of core programs addressing hazards, wetlands, and access.

   Ohio's objective in developing a coastal management program is to establish a comprehensive,
   coordinated approach for the protection, preservation and orderly development of the state's coastal
   resources. Specific management activities, including the operation of Ohio's core regulatory
   programs, are conducted by a variety of individual agencies. This collection of individual activities
   is tied together into a comprehensive program or "network" by Ohio's coastal management law,
   O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.03, which requires that all state agency projects and permits be consistent with the
   OCMP.

   The Coastal Management section of the ODNR's Division of Real Estate and Land Management, is
   the lead entity for reviewing state and Federal agency actions to ensure consistency with the OCMP.
   Chapter 4 of Part II of the document describes the procedures that REALM will use to implement
   state consistency requirements. These procedures include draft Memoranda of Understanding
   (MOU) between ODNR and several other state agencies. These MOUs, which will be finalized
   before program approval, provide that disagreements between agencies that cannot be resolved at
   the agency level will be referred to the governor for resolution. In addition, section 307 of the
   CZMA requires that Federal agency actions be consistent with the OCMP, once it is approved by
   OCRM. Chapter 7 of Part II describes how Ohio will implement the federal consistency provisions
   of the CZMA.


   The CZMA provides incentives and a national direction to assist states in addressing coastal issues
   and problems. The following are the principal anticipated effects of Federal program approval:

          *      Federal section 306 grants estimated to total $800,000 annually will be made to Ohio
                  to assist in program implementation activities by the state and local entities; and

          *      State implementation of the Federal consistency provisions of the CZMA will ensure
                  that Federal activities, federally licensed and permitted activities, and Federal
                  assistance to state and local governments are consistent with the OCMP.

   A more detailed description of the effects of federal approval of the OCMP is provided in Part mII
   of this document.










Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part I - 6                                         March 1997







   C. The Federal Coastal Zone Management Act

   In response to intense pressure on coastal resources, and because of the importance of coastal areas
   of the United States, Congress passed the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 as amended
   [CZMA], (16 USC 1451). The CZMA authorizes a Federal program to encourage coastal states and
   territories to develop comprehensive coastal management programs. The CZMA has been
   reauthorized on several occasions, most recently in 1996 with the enactment of the Coastal Zone
   Protection Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-150). The program is administered by the Secretary of Commerce,
   who in turn has delegated this responsibility to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
   Administration's (NOAA) National Ocean Service (NOS). Currently, 30 states and territories have
   coastal programs approved by the Assistant Administrator of the National Ocean Service.

   The CZMA affirms the national interest in the effective protection and careful development of the
   coastal zone by providing assistance and encouragement to coastal states to voluntarily develop and
   implement management programs for their coastal areas. The CZMA authorizes financial assistance
   grants under section 305 for program development and section 306 for program implementation to
   provide coastal states and territories with the means for achieving these objectives. The Section 305
   program development section was re-authorized by Congress in the 1990 amendments to the CZMA
   (P.L. 101-508, November 5, 1990) and in the 1996 amendments to the CZMA (P.L. 104-150, June
   3, 1996). OCRM awarded the ODNR a section 305 grant of $135,000 on October 1, 1992 to
   complete development of the OCMP, with subsequent grants of $138,000 in 1993 and $100,000 in
   1995.

   Sections 305, 306, and 307 of the CZMA and implementing regulations published on June 28, 1996,
   as codified at 15 CFR Part 923, provide the requirements and procedures for state management
   program development and Federal approval. In summary, the requirements for program approval
   are that a state develop a management program that among other things:

           1.     Identifies and evaluates those coastal resources recognized in the Act that require
                  management or protection by the state or territorial government;

          2.     Re-examines existing policies or develops new policies to manage these resources.
                 These policies must be specific, comprehensive, and enforceable, and must provide
                 an adequate degree of predictability as to how coastal resources will be managed;

          3.     Determines specific uses and special geographic areas that are to be subject to the
                 management program, based on the nature of identified coastal concerns. Uses and
                  areas subject to management should be based on resource capability and suitability
                  analyses and socio-economic considerations;

          4.     Identifies the inland and seaward areas subject to the management program;

          5.     Provides for consideration of the national interest in planning for the siting of
                  facilities; and





Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part I - 7                                        March 1997







          6.     Includes sufficient legal authorities and organizational structure to implement the
                 program and to ensure conformance to it.

   In arriving at these substantive aspects of the management program, states are obligated to follow        0
   an open process which involves providing information to and considering the interests of the general
   public, interest groups, local governments, and regional, state, interstate, and federal agencies.

   Section 303 of the CZMA provides guidance on specific national objectives that warrant full
   consideration during the implementation of approved state coastal management programs.

   Section 305 of the CZMA authorized four annual grants to states desiring to develop a coastal
   management program. After its management program receives federal approval, the state is then
   eligible for annual grants under section 306 to implement the program. Section 306A of the CZMA
   also provides that states may use a portion of their section 306 awards for low cost construction
   projects that result in the preservation of important natural areas, improved public access, or renewal
   of urban waterfronts.

   Section 307 contains the Federal consistency provisions of the CZMA to ensure that Federal actions
   are consistent with the state's federally approved management program. Paragraphs (1) and (2) of
   section 307(c) require that Federal activities and development projects in or directly affecting the
   coastal zone be consistent to the maximum extent practicable with a federally approved state
   management program. Subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 307(c) require that federally licensed
   and permitted activities affecting the coastal zone also are consistent with federally approved state
   management programs. Section 307(d) requires Federal assistance to state and local governments
   for projects affecting the coastal zone to be consistent with federally approved state management
   programs. Federal regulations implementing section 307 are found at 15 C.F.R. Part 930.

   Section 309 establishes a coastal enhancement grant program. This section provides that a portion
   of section 306 funds is available to states to develop program changes which strengthen their CZM
   program's ability to address particular coastal issues. State efforts to seek such improvements are
   meant to focus on priorities based on a self-assessment of the nine objectives listed in section 309.
   These objectives include, among others, stronger wetland protection, improved management of
   coastal hazards and additional public access.

   Section 312 directs the Secretary to evaluate the performance of state coastal management programs
   on a continuing basis. OCRM formally reviews the implementation of each state program on a three
   year cycle.

   Section 315 establishes a National Estuarine Research Reserve System to preserve representative
   estuarine areas for long-term scientific and educational purposes. The Old Woman Creek National
   Estuarine Research Reserve, located east of Huron, Ohio, was designated in 1980.

   The Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 (CZARA) established a new Coastal
   Nonpoint Pollution Control Program (CNPC), in addition to updating the CZMA. The State of Ohio
   has agreed to submit its updated Nonpoint Source Management Program as the basis for an
   approvable CNPC to NOAA and U.S. EPA within 30 months of program approval (see Appendix
   J).  After Ohio submits its coastal nonpoint program, NOAA  and EPA will make a final
   determination regarding its compliance with section 6217.


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part I - 8                                          March 1997







   D.     Cross Reference to Program Requirements

                       How the Ohio Coastal Management Program Meets the
                        Reauirements of the Coastal Zone Manaaement Act:

                                                                   CZMA                 Program
   CZMA Section         Requirements                         Approval Regulations        Document
                                                               (15 C.F.R. Section)
   306(d)(1)            Full participation/program
                        adequacy ...........................       923.3                Full document

   306(d)(2)(A)         Boundaries .........................       923.31 - 923.34       Ch. 3, App. A,B

   306(d)(2)(B)         Uses subject to management ......... 923.11                      Ch. 4, 5

   306(d)(2)(C)         Areas of particular concern ........       923.21, 923.22        Ch. 6

   306(d)(2)(D)         Means of control ...................       923.41                Ch. 4, 5

   306(d)(2)(E)         Guidelines on priorities of uses...        923.21                Ch. 6

   306(d)(2)(F)         Organizational structure ........... 923.46                      Ch. 4

   306(d)(2)(G)         Shorefront planning process ........       923.24                Ch. 9

   306(d)(2)(H)         Energy facility planning process...        923.13                Ch. 10

   306(d)(2)(I)         Erosion planning process ...........       923.25                Ch. 8

   306(d)(3)(A)         Plan Coordination ..................       923.56                Ch. 4, App. Q

   306(d)(3)(B)         Continuing consultation mechanisms .....   923.57                Ch. 4, App. Q

   306(d)(4)            Public Hearings ....................       923.58                Ch. 2, App. Q

   306(d)(5)            Gubernatorial review and approval          923.48                Part II
                                                                                         (Gubernatorial
                                                                                         Letter)

   306(d)(6)            Designation of recipient agency....        923.47                Ch. 4

   306(d)(7)            Organization.......................        923.46                Ch. 4

   306(d)(8)            Adequate consideration of national
                        interests..........................        923.52               Ch. 10, App. Q




Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part I - 9                                     March 1997






   306(d)(9)             Areas for preservation/restoration...         923.22                 Ch. 6

   306(d)(10)(A)         Administer regulations; control
                         development; resolve conflicts ..... 923.41                         Ch. 4

   306(d)(10)(B)         Powers of acquisition, if necessary           923.41                 Ch. 5, 9, App.Q

   306(d)(11)            Techniques of control .............. 923.41 - 923.44                 Ch. 4

   306(d)(12)            Uses of regional benefit ........... 923.12                          App. Q

   306(d)(13)            Inventory and designation of
                         coastal resources of national
                         significance and enforceable policies
                         to protect such resources ............. No Regulations              Ch. 6

   306(d)(14)            Public participation in permitting
                         consistency and other similar
                         decisions .......................... No Regulations                 Ch. 4, 7, App.Q

   306(d)(15)            State agency adherence to program             No Regulations         Ch. 4

   306(d)(16)            Enforceable policies to implement
                         Coastal Nonpoint Source Program               6217 Guidance
                         required by CZARA ï¿½6217 ............ issued Jan. 1993                Ch. 4, App. J

   307(b)                Consideration of Federal agency
                         views ............................................ 923.51  App. Q

   307(c)&(d)            Federal consistency procedures                923.53                 Ch. 7

   307(f)                Incorporation of Federal air and
                         water quality standards ................ 923.45                     Ch. 5, App. Q
















                          Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part I - 10               March 1997
Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part I - 10                                          March 1997







                                        STATE OF OHIO
         '~~~ ~OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
                                     GCOLUMBUS 43266-0601
GOVERNOR

                                      February 28, 1997

 Dr. D. James Baker
 Under Secretary and Administrator
 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
 HCHB Room 5128
 14th and Constitution Avenue N.W.
 Washington, D.C. 20230


 Dear Dr. Baker:

 It is with great pleasure that I submit the Ohio Coastal Management Program (OCMP) to the
 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for approval. This program represents
 the culmination of many years of commendable effort of numerous state agencies, local
 communities, advisory councils and citizens dedicated to improved stewardship of our coastal legacy
 for the benefit of all our citizens. It marks the beginning of a new era of more integrated and
 balanced resource protection, preservation, restoration and development.

 The OCMP, as presented herein, meets the requirements of the Coastal Zone Management Act
 (CZMA). I have reviewed and certify that the State of Ohio has the authority and the institutional
 capabilities to implement the OCMP. The Ohio Department of Natural Resources was statutorily
 charged with the responsibility for developing and administering the OCMP, and I hereby designate
 that agency to receive and administer grants under the CZMA.

 The State of Ohio greets with wholehearted enthusiasm this opportunity to join the national coastal
 community and looks forward to a continued constructive working relationship with NOAA and with
 our fellow coastal states. Should you have any questions during the review period, please contact
 Donald C. Anderson, Director, Ohio Department of Natural Resources, at 614-265-6879.


 Sincerely,




 Geor      Voinovich
 Governor

 GVV:ag







                                                  TABLES





   Table         Title                                                                Page

      1          National Flood Insurance Participation Status                        5-17

      2           Tributary Designations                                               5-29

      3          Air Quality Standards Nonattainment Status                            5-109






                                                  FIGURES

   Figure        Title                                                                 Page

      1          Map of Lake Erie Region                                               2-2

      2           Boundary of Ohio's Coastal Area                                       3-3

      3           ODNR Table of Organization                                           4-19

      4           REALM Table of Organization                                          4-20

      5           Relative Location of Areas of Concern (AOCs)                         6-10

      6           Ohio's Lake Erie Watershed                                           7-3



















Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS    Part II - i                                   March 1997







                                          LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS



       AOC           Area of Concern
       APC           Area of Particular Concern
       APR           Area for Preservation and Restoration
       BUSTR         Bureau of Underground Storage Tank Regulation
       CAA           Clean Air Act
       CBRS          Coastal Barrier Resources System
       CDF           Confined Disposal Facility
       CERCLA        Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation & Liability Act
       CFR           Code of Federal Regulations
       CMP           Coastal Management Program
       COE           U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
       CZARA         Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990
       CZMA          Coastal Zone Management Act
       CWA           Clean Water Act
       DEIS          Draft Environmental Impact Statement
       DERR          Division of Emergency and Remedial Response (Ohio EPA)
       DNAP          Division of Natural Areas and Preserves (ODNR)
       DOW           Division of Wildlife (ODNR)
       DPR           Division of Parks and Recreation (ODNR)
       DSW           Division of Surface Water (Ohio EPA)
       DSWC          Division of Soil and Water Conservation (ODNR)
       EDATA         Eastgate Development and Transportation Agency
       EIS           Environmental Impact Statement
       ERAC          Environmental Review Appeals Commission
       FEMA          Federal Emergency Management Agency
       FONSI         Finding Of No Significant Impact
       FWPCA         Federal Water Pollution Control Act
       GAPC          Geographic Areas of Particular Concern
       GLPC          Great Lakes Protection Fund
       GLWQA         Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
       HWFB          Hazardous Waste Facility Board
       IJC          International Joint Commission
.      IMT           Integrated Management Team, ODNR


    Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II - iii                               March 1997







  JCARR         Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review
  LaMP          Lakewide Management Plan
  LEPC          Local emergency planning committee
  LEPF          Lake Erie Protection Fund
  LWCF          Land and Water Conservation Fund
  MCL           Maximum contaminant level
  MOU           Memorandum of Understanding
  NAAQS         National Ambient Air Quality Standards
   NANPCA       Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act
  NAWMP         North American Waterfowl Management Plan
   NCP          National Contingency Plan
   NEPA         National Environmental Policy Act
  NFIP          National Flood Insurance Program
   NOACA         Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency
   NOAA         National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
   NPDES         National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
   NPS           National Park Service
   NRTF          National Recreational Trails Fund
   OAC           Ohio Administrative Code
   OAQDA         Ohio Air Quality Development Authority
   OBM           Office of Budget and Management
   OCAP          Ohio Capability Analysis Program
   OCDRCM    Ohio Commission on Dispute Resolution and Conflict Management
   OCMP          Ohio Coastal Management Program
   OCRM          Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
   ODA           Ohio Department of Agriculture
   ODH          Ohio Department of Health
   ODNR          Ohio Department of Natural Resources
   ODOD          Ohio Department of Development
   ODOT          Ohio Department of Transportation
   Ohio EMA    Ohio Emergency Management Agency
   Ohio EPA    Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
   OHPO          Ohio Historic Preservation Office
   OHS           Ohio Historical Society
   OHSPB         Ohio Historic Site Preservation Board
   ORC           Ohio Revised Code


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II - iv                               March 1997







   OWC-NERR Old Woman Creek - National Estuarine Research Reserve
   OWDA          Ohio Water Development Authority
  PPCC           Policies and Programs Coordinating Committee
   PSB           Power Siting Board
   PL            Public Law
   PUCO          Public Utilities Commission of Ohio
   RAP           Remedial Action Plan
   RCRA          Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
   REALM         Division of Real Estate and Land Management (ODNR)
   SERC          State Emergency Response Commission
   SCORP         Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan
   SIP           State Implementation Plan
   SMA           Special Management Area
   SWCD          Soil and Water Conservation District
   TMACOG    Toledo Metropolitan Area Council of Governments
   TSD           Technical Support Documents
   USC           United States Code
   U.S. EPA      United States Environmental Protection Agency
   WLA           Wasteload Allocations
   WQBEL         Water Quality Based Effluent Limit
   WQA           Water Quality Act (1987 amendments to CWA)
























Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II1 - v                                  March 1997






                                     PROGRAM OVERVIEW

   The purpose of the Ohio Coastal Management Program (OCMP)  is to integrate management of
   Ohio's Lake Erie coastal area in order to preserve, protect, develop, restore and enhance its valuable
   and sometimes vulnerable resources. The OCMP is a cooperative action of the state and its political
   subdivisions to manage coastal resources, control activities that affect them, and foster their
   sustainable use for the benefit of all citizens of this state.

   This document describes the OCMP for Ohio citizens and for all who benefit from Lake Erie's
   resources. It sets forth a framework for government action through the establishment of substantive
   policy statements regarding coastal erosion and flooding, water quality, ecologically sensitive areas,
   ports and shore area development, recreational and cultural resources, fish and wildlife habitat,
   environmental quality, energy and mineral resources, and water quantity. The document describes
   the statutory and regulatory underpinnings of these policies and describes the institutional
   mechanisms by which improved integrated management will be accomplished.

   As a result of passage of the Ohio Coastal Management Law in 1988 and rules and policies since
   adopted, the state and its political subdivisions possess the authority to adequately manage our
   coastal resources. However, the 1988 law also recognized that improved coordination through a
   comprehensive program is necessary. This requires effective networking of state and local agency
   actions, clear establishment of priority issues and well-focused efforts to meet established goals.
   While the framework of the OCMP relies upon state and local agencies and their authorities,
   enhanced coordination and consistency will be achieved through state and federal agency adherence
   to the policies contained herein. Local governments should be able to rely upon this framework as
   a guide for planning when coastal waters and resources are affected by land use and development.

   As lead agency, the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR), in a process of strategic
   planning, has identified six areas of strategic emphasis to guide OCMP initiatives and activities.
   They are: (1) water resources and watersheds, (2) coastal land use and development, (3) coastal
   habitat, wetlands and natural areas, (4) coastal flooding and erosion, (5) recreational opportunities,
   and (6) fisheries and wildlife resources.   Public input throughout the process of program
   development has helped guide the identification and prioritization of the strategies and specific
   actions that are detailed in a separate OCMP strategic action plan. The department and networked
   agencies, as described in this document, will focus efforts upon these priority issue areas.
   Performance of the OCMP will be evaluated based on the outcomes of these actions and whether we
   are meeting Ohio's long-term goal for coastal management: sustaining a healthy coast.

   The proposed OCMP represents the culmination of many years of effort by local, state and federal
   agencies, with substantial participation of local citizens and interest groups. It marks a significant
   milestone in the course of Ohio's efforts to develop a coordinated and fully implementable coastal
   program pursuant to the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972, as amended.
   However, the program described in this document is a dynamic process. ODNR will re-assess
   priorities and goals on an ongoing basis through strategic management, and program enhancements
   and modifications will be made with continued public participation.





Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS   Part II - vii                                   March 1997








                                              CHAPTER 1

                                            INTRODUCTION

         In recognition of the intense pressures facing our nation's coastal regions, Congress enacted the
      Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.), which was signed
      into law on October 27, 1972. The Act and subsequent amendments affirm a national commitment
      to the effective protection and rational development of coastal areas. To effect results, the CZMA
      authorizes a federal financial assistance program to assist coastal states in the development and
      implementation of coastal management programs and requires that federal actions be consistent
      with approved state coastal management programs. Responsibility for the oversight of this
      program rests with the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM), National
      Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U. S. Department of Commerce.

         Ohio recognizes that the Lake Erie coastal area is one of its most valuable land-water
      interfaces. It is imperative that this region be properly managed to guarantee the perpetual use and
      protection of its abundant resources. The Ohio Coastal Management Program (OCMP) is an
      especially important means of working toward these goals.

         The OCMP has been designed to foster the integrated management of the coastal area. It is the
      framework within which public and private entities will work to preserve, develop and restore the
      region's unique values. Yet this program does not advocate the abdication of local zoning powers.
.,    It does encourage and may assist the establishment of local ordinances or resolutions to manage
      waterfront uses or to control certain activities in designated flood hazard and coastal erosion areas.

         The OCMP is a synthesis of agency responsibilities and regulatory authorities into a
      comprehensive and functional plan. It establishes a set of coastal management objectives and
      facilitates intergovernmental cooperation to ensure that these objectives are indeed implemented.
      Not only does it describe the various policies, standards and criteria that guide land and water uses
      in the coastal area, but it also cites the statutes and rules under which they will be carried out by
      different levels of government. Further, the OCMP specifically delineates which coastal activities
      are subject to management.

      Benefits of a Federally Approved Coastal Management Program

         Two major benefits are expected for Ohio following federal approval of the OCMP. First,
      federal approval of the OCMP will open the door to available federal funds to enhance coastal
      management in Ohio. This will yield numerous benefits to Ohio's residents, some of which include
      the following:

         *   Assistance for erosion and flood hazard area management;
         *   Consolidation and streamlining of various governmental coastal permit procedures to
              facilitate the application process for residential, commercial and industrial developments;
         *   Enhanced protection of coastal natural areas, wetlands and fish and wildlife habitats;



      Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 1 - 1                               March 1997








   * Improvement of coastal water and air quality;
   *   Expansion of coastal recreation access;
   * Assistance to local governments to develop and implement comprehensive lakeshore
       master plans;
   * Funding for a local assistance grant program designed to implement, enforce or administer
       any aspect of the OCMP.

   Second, the federal consistency requirement of Section 307 of the CZMA becomes effective
upon approval of the state's coastal management program. All federal activities and development
projects, permitting and licensing, and financial assistance activities affecting any land or water use
of the defined coastal area must be consistent with the approved OCMP, subject to federal
regulations in 15 C.F.R. Part 930. Federal consistency is a powerful tool to assure federal
consideration of the state's coastal management program, maximum state coordination, and
oversight of activities in the coastal area.

MAJOR COMPONENTS OF THE OCMP

   Major components of the OCMP, briefly described here, include a coastal area boundary,
organizational network for improved governmental coordination in the coastal area, management
techniques and policy statements for nine coastal issue areas, and designation of Special
Management Areas (SMAs).

Coastal Area Boundarv y

   Consistent with the CZMA, the Ohio coastal area is statutorily defined as "the waters of Lake
Erie, the islands in the lake, and the lands under and adjacent to the lake, including transitional
areas, wetlands and beaches. The coastal area extends in Lake Erie to the international boundary
line between the United States and Canada and landward only to the extent necessary to include
shorelands, the uses of which have a direct and significant impact on coastal waters as determined
by the director of natural resources" (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.01(A)). The OCMP will provide for specific
management only of those uses with direct and significant impacts on coastal waters within the
parameters of this boundary. Included within the boundary are lands subject to lake flooding and
erosion, estuaries and wetlands, coastal recreation areas and areas of lake-related uses. The extent
of the proposed coastal management boundary and the process by which boundary maps have been
developed are described in Chapter 3.













Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II  1 - 2                              March 1997








Organization and Authorities

   The Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) will improve coordination among existing
agencies and levels of government in a networked manner to carry out the coastal management
policies.

   First, by state law (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.02), ODNR is the designated lead agency for the
development and implementation of the Ohio Coastal Management Program. ODNR will: (1)
administer the program and monitor its progress, (2) administer the federal consistency
requirement, (3) coordinate and facilitate conflict resolution, (4) consider the national interest in
project implementation, and (5) foster comprehensive planning.

   Second, numerous state and federal agencies have responsibilities that pertain either directly or
indirectly to the coastal area. In these cases, ODNR will assure that agency actions are consistent
with OCMP policies. This will be accomplished through memoranda of understanding with state
agencies, case-by-case reviews and performance reviews, and conducting formal consistency
reviews of federal activities, as outlined in Chapters 4 and 7. ODNR will also promote the OCMP,
consulting with relevant state agencies on their respective roles within the program's mandates.

   Third, area-wide planning agencies will assist in the review of coastal activities and programs
to assure sufficient consideration of regional interests.

   Finally, local government has or may assume direct implementation responsibility for certain
land use planning and regulatory aspects of the OCMP.  For example, local governments have
responsibility for floodplain administration. Municipalities or counties may assume responsibility
for permitting of new permanent structures in coastal erosion areas, as described in Chapter 5.

   A detailed description of the organizational framework, authorities and mechanisms for
implementing the OCMP is provided in Chapter 4.

Policy Statements

   The OCMP is composed of 41 policy statements within the following nine issue areas:

    1.  Coastal Erosion and Flooding
   2.  Water Quality
   3.  Ecologically Sensitive Areas
   4.  Ports and Shoreline Development
   5.  Recreation and Cultural Resources
   6.  Fish and Wildlife Management
   7.  Environmental Quality
   8.  Energy and Mineral Resources
   9.  Water Quantity




Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II  1 - 3                              March 1997








   Detailed explanations of these issues and policies are provided in Chapter 5. i

Special ManaQement Areas

   Several types of environments in the coastal area are designated as Special Management Areas
(SMAs). The rare nature, critical importance or precarious existence of many areas requires that
they receive priority attention. The OCMP differentiates between two types of SMA. An Area of
Particular Concern (APC) is an area, either generic or site-specific, requiring special management.
The OCMP establishes use priorities as a framework for decision making with regard to these
areas. Initially, the OCMP has selected only generic management areas as APCs, but site-specific
areas could be designated in the future. The Area for Preservation and Restoration (APR)
designation is applied to specific areas determined to require attention to preserve or restore the
recreational, ecological, historic or aesthetic values of an area. A process for establishing new
SMAs is also provided. APC and APR designations are discussed and listed in Chapter 6.





































Ohio Coastal Management Program & Filnal EIS  Part II  1 - 4                               March 1997








                                             CHAPTER 2

                                  SETTING: PAST AND PRESENT

   Natural History and GeoeraDhv

        The coasts of the United States are some of the most vital and productive ecosystems on earth.
   Water dependence of commerce and industry and the desirability of coastal living have attracted
   nearly half the U.S. population to the nearshore region.

        Our nation's "fourth seacoast" extends 4,600 miles along the southern shores of the Great Lakes,
   the largest and most utilized "inland sea" in the world. Ohio is fortunate to occupy a favored
   position along this nationally significant lakeshore. The state's citizens, 41 percent of whom live
   within the Lake Erie basin, are entrusted with the stewardship of 262 miles of mainland and island
   shores, as well as 3,277 square miles of its waters (Figure 1). Ohio reaps numerous benefits from
   the wealth of natural, scenic and economic resources found therein.

        Approximately 33,000 acres of valuable coastal wetlands in Ohio support at least 250 species
   of nesting birds, including the nation's symbol, the bald eagle. Shallow waters in the island and bay
   region provide fish spawning grounds and nurseries, sustaining a commercial and sport fishing
   industry that provides numerous benefits to citizens of Ohio. Ohio's role as a major mineral producer
   is rooted in abundant salt, sand, gravel, limestone and gypsum deposits in the coastal area. The
   lake's waters and many fine sand beaches attract millions of visitors annually for swimming, fishing,
   boating and camping. The scenic, rocky shores and slow-paced lifestyle of the Lake Erie islands
   provide a unique respite from mainland cares. Strategically located close to valuable midwest coal
   fields and grain centers, the lake ports have established their preeminence as transshipment points
   for regional and worldwide commerce. Abundant fresh water is essential for many manufacturing
   processes. Consequently, industrial development has thrived on the lakeshore, and urban and
   residential growth has followed, resulting in a shore that is more than 82 percent developed.

        The area's bountiful natural heritage that provides these cultural benefits is partly the result of
   dynamic geologic processes that transpired over billions of years. The Great Lakes region has been
   primarily influenced by sedimentation, erosion and glacial activity.

        The area's geologic foundation consists of ancient igneous and metamorphic bedrock that was
   periodically covered by shallow seas and subsequent sediment deposits. These sediments hardened
   into layers of sandstone, shale, limestone and dolomite that were, in turn, carved into wide valleys
   by river systems and advancing glacial ice. Varying erosion qualities of these sedimentary rocks
   account for some of today's picturesque landforms; less resistant shales and fractured limestones
   were scraped out to form lake areas, leaving more resistant shale cliffs in the east and a chain of
   limestone and dolomite islands to the west.







Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 2 - 1                                     March 1997










                                    Lake
                                            Michigan ~~~~~~~~~~Lake O.ntario


                                           /                             ~~~~~~~~~~River Q
                                                                            BUFFALO
                                    S.Clair River 



                                                              ERE     -pEIU4SYLVAN4'A
MICHIGANMCIGNa
INDIANA OI-tc







                     I                                                     ~~~~~~~~~~~~Figure  I

                                                       Lake Erie Region








        Four major stages of continental glaciation affected the Great Lakes area during the past 1 to
   2 million years. Thick ice sheets advanced into the region, eroding soil and bedrock that was then
   deposited in other locations.

        About 14,500 years ago, the last of the ice sheets slowly melted and retreated, releasing large
   volumes of water. This meltwater and precipitation in the drainage basin collected in pools in the
   basins created by previous glacial scouring. As the ice margin continued to retreat, these pools
   enlarged to form a large post-glacial lake in what is now the Lake Erie basin. The elevation of this
   lake changed as retreat of the ice margin exposed lower outlets or its re-advance blocked outlets.
   About 4,000 years ago, the upper Great Lakes began to drain through the Lake Erie basin, causing
   a rise in the lake level.

   Impact of Human Activities

        Human pressures have left their mark on the Lake Erie environment as well. Early inhabitants
   were hunters who roamed the region in search of mastodon and caribou nearly 14,000 years ago.
   Archaeological evidence shows that they eventually adapted to the area's natural abundance by
   settling into a more sedentary, agricultural lifestyle.

        European explorers happened upon Lake Erie in the 17th century on their way to the "Orient."
   Fur traders led a wave of American colonists who achieved dominance on land with their 1794
   victory over the Indians at Fallen Timbers, near the present site of Toledo. But British naval power
   and economic control of the fur trade continued to exclude Americans from the waters of the Great
   Lakes. The fiery Battle of Lake Erie was a decisive victory for the Americans, part of a series of
   events that ultimately allowed them to wrest supremacy from the British.

        Indians and Europeans alike stood in awe of the vast resources they found in the Lake Erie
   region. Lake waters brimmed with sturgeon and whitefish. Seas of grassy savannahs supported wild
   oats 3 meters high. This deceptive bounty prompted J. Disturnell to remark in 1863 that the fisheries
   were "so inexhaustible...that were a population of millions to inhabit the lake shore, they would fur-
   nish an ample supply...without any sensible diminution." Thus did the region's first settlers establish
   a precedent, overlooking the need for prudent resource conservation.

        By 1900, the population of Ohio's coastal counties had not yet reached 1 million. However,
   despite Disturnell's rosy optimism, the settlers had already wrought considerable changes in the land,
   the water and the area's natural resources. In fact, 25 million acres of woodlands were cleared prior
   to the turn of the century. Savannahs were burned and swamps tiled and drained. The lake soon
   became the dumping ground for raw sewage from scores of small towns. Effluents from tanneries,
   breweries, chemical works, oil wells and mines, and sawdust from lumber yards on all the Great
   Lakes accelerated the normally slow process of the lake's aging.

        Settlement of the area has wrought dramatic changes in the Lake Erie wetlands and estuaries.
   An extensive barrier beach-wetland system originally comprised the shoreline westward from
   Sandusky to Toledo and northward to Detroit. Wetlands of the original Black Swamp covered nearly
   300,000 acres throughout the western Lake Erie watershed. Today, only an estimated 33,000 acres



Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 2 - 3                                   March 1997








   of coastal wetlands remain in Ohio. Such wetland loss is primarily attributed to drainage practices
   associated with agriculture, filling and dredging. In particular, urban development during low water
   periods has blocked the landward extension of wetlands during times of high water.

   Institutional and Political Response

        Over time, the U.S. and Canada began to recognize the serious threats to the Great Lakes region.
   It became apparent to both countries that degradation of the lakes by any state, province, or nation
   could have widespread effects upon the lakes and their shoreline residents. Thus, in 1909 the U.S.
   and Canada joined to sign the Boundary Waters Treaty, under which the International Joint
   Commission (IJC) was established in 1912. The Commission became responsible for investigating
   and making recommendations for resolving transboundary water issues, including Great Lakes
   problems referred to it by either or both of the governments. The U.S. established its unilateral
   interest in Great Lakes water quality with pollution investigations conducted from 1910-1912 by the
   U.S. Public Health Service. The Great Lakes Fishery Commission was established by convention
   in 1955 to develop and coordinate fishery research and management, to advise governments on
   measures to improve the fisheries and to develop and implement programs to control the sea lamprey
   population.

        But the problems have not been easily resolved, and new conflicts have arisen frequently. The
   difficulties inherent in developing critical shorelands peaked as the 1960s came to a close. The
   public became concerned in Ohio when high coliform bacteria counts resulted in closed beaches and
   the anoxic (oxygen-deprived) area of the Central Basin extended to more than 1,500 square miles
   in 1970. The lake had not died, but had been degraded considerably since 1920. Prime farmland
   and valuable marshes in the coastal area had been lost to urbanization. Utility, navigation, industrial,
   municipal, recreational and environmental interests all joined to voice their concerns over losses due
   to the lake's battered condition.

        This public outcry stimulated a massive governmental response. Many organizations, task
   forces, agencies and federal, state, local and provincial laws were created to respond to the
   multifaceted conflicts. The Great Lakes Basin Commission began developing a comprehensive plan
   for water resources information on limnology, navigation, shore erosion, recreation and other areas,
   and included recommendations for improved resource development. The Ohio State University's
   Stone Laboratory at Put-In-Bay conducted research on Lake Erie's fish and benthic communities and
   the effects of various land and water uses upon them. The Ohio Department of Natural Resources
   (ODNR), Division of Wildlife (DOW), developed a Fish Work Group Report that addressed the
   entire Lake Erie drainage basin through specific biological, social and economic discussions. This
   1970 report reviewed historic, current and projected human activities and their impacts upon the
   Lake Erie fisheries resources. The Division of Geological Survey developed databases on beach and
   shore erosion, lake sediments, water quality and lake water masses, including currents. The Ohio
   Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) developed plans to improve Lake Erie water quality.

        The year 1972 saw the initiation of several major Lake Erie protection measures. First, regional
   agencies (Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency [NOACA] and Toledo Metropolitan Area
   Council of Governments [TMACOG]) developed local water quality management plans mandated


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 2 - 4                                    March 1997








   by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) of 1972 (P.L. 92-500). Second, the U.S. and
   Canada signed the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement that established the Water Quality Board
   and the Science Advisory Board of the UC. The third measure came into effect when Congress
   passed the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA, P.L. 92-583), which provided financial and
   technical assistance to states for the development and implementation of comprehensive programs
   to protect and manage their coastal resources and to establish National Estuarine Research Reserves.

       The Governor of Ohio, by Executive Order in 1973, placed responsibility for developing a
   coastal management program with ODNR. To help the department initiate program planning and
   development, the federal Office of Coastal Zone Management (now the Office of Ocean and Coastal
   Resource Management, OCRM) made four grants to Ohio that were matched with state funds.

       ODNR's Division of Water had an important coordinating role as the designated lead for coastal
   management from 1974 to 1988. In 1974, the first program development grant was used to compile
   resource and institutional databases from existing sources of information. Local individuals,
   government officials and diverse interest groups helped identify coastal issues by participating in a
   series of county-wide workshops and by responding to questionnaires. Public concern was especially
   strong with regard to erosion and flooding, declining wildlife populations, loss of valuable natural
   and historic sites, air and water quality, mineral development, and recreational issues.

       By 1977, ODNR possessed a clearer view of both critical issues and information gaps. Thus,
   it was able to effectively channel the second year grant money into appropriate areas. One of the first
   actions was to coordinate research efforts between various agencies. This yielded 11 separate studies
   concerning critical resources and specific land use inventories.

        That same year, ODNR also organized County Advisory Groups. These seven groups ranged
   from 30 to 50 members and represented a diverse cross section of the population. This innovative
   approach formed the basis of the public involvement effort and served as a model for similar
   programs in other states. Meetings revolved around the nomination of special management areas,
   determination of the coastal area boundary and designation of uses subject to management. The
   year's work culminated in the compilation of 75 policy alternatives relating to the main public
   concerns.

        To further increase public awareness of lake issues, ODNR implemented an extensive public
   education campaign. In addition to submitting articles to local newspapers, the agency also
   published a quarterly newsletter called "The Beacon" and other public information materials. ODNR
   produced a slide show and financed three public-service announcements for television. Staff
   members conducted numerous public meetings in coastal communities and encouraged the full
   participation of county and regional planning commissions. The planning commissions proved
   especially helpful in assessing the impact of various land uses upon their respective shore areas.

        In 1978, recommendations from previous years' work were converted into objectives and
   proposed policies which, along with a proposed organization and implementation mechanism, were
   set forth in a recommended Coastal Management Program for Ohio's Lake Erie shoreline.




Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 2 - 5                                   March 1997








       In 1979, ODNR published a draft document of its proposed coastal management program.
   Additional efforts focused on formulating legislation based upon the document.  This entailed
   extensive involvement with advisory groups, interest groups and municipalities to develop
   legislation acceptable to all parties. A coastal bill was introduced in the Ohio House of Repre-
   sentatives, where it was reported out of committee but never voted on by the full House. Unfortu-
   nately, political and economic factors discouraged the bill's reintroduction in 1981. This limited
   ODNR's coastal activities since legislation was needed to establish a coastal management program
   and provide for erosion and floodplain hazard area management. Efforts to develop a federally
   approved management program ended in early 1981. Nonetheless, the department remained
   involved in areas such as wetlands, lake access, erosion, floodplain management and water
   diversions. ODNR continued to meet with interest groups to promote coastal management and
   cooperated with other Great Lakes states on regional issues.

       The 1980s brought further institutional activity such as the formation of the Council of Great
   Lakes Governors. The Council's first achievement was the creation of the Great Lakes Charter in
   1985. Prompted by the threat of potential water diversion projects, this charter expressed a firm
   commitment to regional cooperation in Great Lakes management. The Council also opposed oil
   drilling in U.S. waters and, in the spring of 1986, formulated the Great Lakes Toxic Substances
   Control Agreement.

       In 1987, Canada and the U.S. strengthened the toxic control provisions of the Great Lakes Water
   Quality Agreement. This re-emphasized the ecosystem approach to Great Lakes management and
   addressed both air and groundwater pollution. The FWPCA of 1972 was also updated in 1987. The '
   revised version included provisions that address toxic wastes and nonpoint source pollution control.
   Ohio received federal approval of the Ohio Nonpoint Source Management Program in 1989.

       The same year, Ohio's Governor created the Lake Erie Office within ODNR to coordinate
   existing programs and develop ways to better manage and protect Lake Erie. The state also moved
   ahead with its Lake Erie Access Program, established the Division of Water Transportation in the
   Department of Transportation and initiated remedial action plans for Ohio's four "Areas Of Concern"
   pursuant to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA).

       Throughout the 1980s, ODNR's Division of Water played a vital role in policy development as
   the lead entity for coastal program development. The division worked with citizen groups,
   municipalities and state and local governments to develop an Ohio coastal management program.
   The division developed, and provided staff to assist in the passage of, the Ohio Coastal Management
   Law.

        In 1987, a bill based on the previous coastal legislation and designed to fill gaps in needed
   authorities was introduced as Senate Bill 70. Both the House and the Senate unanimously approved
   S.B. 70 and submitted it to the Governor, who signed it on December 13, 1988. It became effective
   on March 15, 1989. The Ohio Coastal Management Law establishes a coastal management program
   within ODNR and creates the mechanisms for improving Lake Erie resource management. Rather
   than supplant existing ordinances, zoning authorities or government agencies, this program provides
   a framework to guide public and private activities in the coastal area. Components of the law



Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 2 - 6                                   March 1997








   include defining the landward boundary of the coastal area, establishing a grant program for local
   communities, simplifying and consolidating various permitting activities, creating an advisory
   council to promote public participation in the coastal program and adopting the management
   program. To improve resource management, ODNR is required to identify coastal erosion areas and
   administer a permit system for construction within such areas, implement the Lake Erie Access Plan
   and administer the leasing of submerged lands.

       In 1989, reports were published by both the Ohio Lake Erie Shore Area Redevelopment Task
   Force and the Ohio Coastal Resource Management Project Task Force. These independent groups
   were formed to provide a balanced perspective regarding the use of the Lake Erie resources, and their
   suggestions have been incorporated wherever possible within this management plan.

       Water quality programs have received a significant boost in Lake Erie and the Great Lakes. On
   February 26, 1989, the Great Lakes Governors signed a unique environmental agreement to create
   the Great Lakes Protection Fund, a $100 million endowment for regional action to combat toxic
   pollution. It is the first regional effort of its kind. The Ohio Legislature created the Lake Erie
   Commission and the Lake Erie Protection Fund by amending Ohio's coastal management law in
   1990. Annually, a portion of the Great Lakes Protection Fund is returned to Ohio and the other
   participating states. The Lake Erie Commission uses the fund to support water quality and
   environmental health related research, remedial action projects and other activities to establish a firm
   base for implementing a basinwide system of water quality management for Lake Erie and its
   tributaries. The Lake Erie Commission also is charged with advising the directors of Natural
   Resources and Environmental Protection on policies and programs related to coastal management
   and long-term, comprehensive protection of Lake Erie water resources and water quality that are
   consistent with the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement and the Great Lakes Toxic Substances
   Control Agreement.

        On November 5, 1990, Congress enacted the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments
   of 1990 (CZARA). Several new provisions affect Ohio's coastal management program. CZARA
   strengthened the CZMA by reaffirming the requirement that federal actions affecting any land or
   water use or natural resource of the coastal area, regardless of location, be consistent with state
   coastal management policies and by establishing a new, voluntary coastal zone enhancement grants
   program to improve the coastal management program in identified areas such as coastal wetlands,
   hazards, public access improvements and special area management planning. A major finding of
   Congress was the clear essential connection of water quality and aquatic resources protection to the
   nation's and the states' economic vitality and the quality of human uses of coastal areas and coastal
   resources. To address the impacts of nonpoint source pollution on coastal water quality, Section
   6217, "Protecting Coastal Waters," provides that each state with an approved coastal management
   plan must develop and submit to the United States'Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and
   NOAA for approval a Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program. This is to serve as an update
   and expansion of the Ohio Nonpoint Source Management Program as well as to build upon coastal
   management efforts.

        In September 1991, Governor Voinovich announced the establishment of a new Ohio Lake Erie
   -Office, separate from ODNR, to assist the Lake Erie Commission in its Lake Erie protection agenda.


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 2 - 7                                   March 1997








   Located in Toledo, the Ohio Lake Erie Office enjoys proximity to organizations such as the Great
   Lakes Commission in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and the International Joint Comm-ission in Windsor,
   Ontario. This office assists in administering Lake Erie Protection Fund grants; plays an important
   role in advising the Governor and the directors of relevant agencies on the development,
   implementation and coordination of Lake Erie programs and policies; and serves to increase
   representation of Ohio's interests in regional, national and international forums pertaining to
   resources of the Great Lakes.

        In February 1992, the Ohio Coastal Management Program (OCMP) published a Public Review
   Draft Document that incorporated findings and policies from the earlier program development
   process as well as advisory council and other task force suggestions. The OCMP conducted two
   public hearings during May of that year in Huron and Cleveland and public meetings in Toledo and
   Ashtabula to provide an opportunity for comments on program policies, authorities, the coastal
   boundary and other aspects of the proposed program. The 1992 Public Review Draft document was
   then revised in 1993 to incorporate revisions in response to public and agency review and comment.

        Throughout 1993, ODNR held numerous meetings with local officials, coastal area residents
   and other interested individuals to discuss proposed rules for enforcing a coastal erosion area permit
   system, preliminary coastal erosion area maps and the broader context of the Coastal Management
   Program. The dialogue established through these meetings clarified several issues that needed to be
   addressed by amendments to Ohio's Coastal Management Law. Amendments were enacted in May
   of 1994, and in the fall of that year ODNR began working with an external ad hoc advisory group
   to change previously adopted rules for designating coastal erosion areas. Following that process,
   ODNR filed amendments to those rules as well as the new rules for enforcing the permit system in
   coastal erosion areas. Work then continued in 1995 to modify this document to incorporate the
   coastal erosion area policy changes and to update agency authorities and policies. Chapter I11
   contains specific responses to public comments received regarding the 1992 draft document and
   during the public involvement process conducted between 1993 and 1995.






















Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 2 -8                                     March 1997








                                         CHAPTER 3

                             EXTENT OF THE COASTAL AREA

      Ohio's coastal area is defined in the state coastal management law as "the waters of Lake Erie,
the islands in the lake, and the lands under and adjacent to the lake, including transitional areas,
wetlands, and beaches. The coastal area extends in Lake Erie to the international boundary line
between the United States and Canada and landward only to the extent necessary to include shore-
lands, the uses of which have a direct and significant impact on coastal waters as determined by the
director of natural resources" (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.01(A)).

      A narrative description of the boundary is located in Appendix A. Boundary maps are found
in Appendix B. The scale of these maps is 1 inch equals 1 mile, except for Maps 3 and 4 for Ottawa
County, the scale for which is 1 inch equals 1.13 miles. By comparing these maps to topographic
maps and maps of flood hazard areas, it can be seen how the coastal area boundary conforms to
natural landforms, surface waters and physical and cultural features.

Establishing the Coastal Area Boundarv

      ODNR conducted an extensive examination process to determine which areas along the Lake
Erie shoreline should be included within the coastal area boundary. The CZMA provided the basis
for determining the coastal boundary. Section 304 of that Act defines the term "coastal zone." For
areas of the Great Lakes "the zone extends, in Great Lakes Waters, to the international boundary
between the United States and Canada." Further, "the zone extends inward from the shorelines only
to the extent necessary to control shorelands, the uses of which have a direct and significant impact
upon coastal waters." The CZMA uses the term "zone," whereas Ohio's coastal management law
describes the "coastal area." Coastal area and coastal management area are the terms that will be
used throughout the OCMP document.

      Federal regulations pursuant to the CZMA (15 C.F.R. ï¿½ 923.31) require that the inland
boundary of Ohio's coastal management area include those areas for which management is necessary
to control uses that have direct and significant impacts on coastal waters; special management areas;
marshes and wetlands that contain flora typical of the region; beaches; transitional areas, i.e., areas
subject to storm surge and areas containing vegetation that survives because of conditions associated
with proximity to coastal waters, and dunes and rocky shore areas to the point of upland vegetation;
and islands in their entirety, except when uses of interior portions do not cause direct and significant
impacts.

      In 1974, for purposes of preliminary planning and coordination, ODNR initially defined the
coastal area boundary as encompassing Ohio's nine-county coastal area. Although useful for
preliminary studies, such a generalization proved inadequate for detailed planning. Furthermore,
lands supporting uses with no direct and significant impact on coastal waters would have been
included. Coastal management staff conducted a detailed survey of both coastal resources and
related issues to refine the boundary.




Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 3 - 1                               March 1997








      In 1977, after examining several approaches for inland boundary determination, ODNR
proposed as a guide a boundary that would extend 1,000 meters inland from the shoreline. This area
would be enlarged around critical coastal resource areas and reduced in urban and developed areas,
allowing for consideration of both biophysical and cultural features.

      This recommendation was presented in 1977 to county advisory groups as a guide for local
determination of the inland boundary. Discussions among ODNR and the county advisory groups
led to a consensus that the following uses, resources and features should serve as the basis for
establishing the coastal area boundary:

      *     Lands subject to lake erosion;
      *     Lands subject to lake flooding;
      *     Estuaries and coastal wetlands;
      *     Lake-related recreation areas, including beaches;
      *     Activities affecting lake water quality; and
      *     Other areas with lake-related uses.

It was agreed that, where possible, recognizable cultural and political features should determine the
boundary rather than a uniform 1,000-meter zone.

      Most advisory groups formed subcommittees in 1978 to establish the boundary in their
respective areas. Maps were presented for review to the full advisory committees, local government
officials and county planning agencies.

      In March 1989, the state coastal management law became effective, providing the statutory
definition of Ohio's "coastal area" quoted above from O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.01(A) and consistent with 15
C.F.R. Subpart D. As broadly illustrated in Figure 2, the coastal area includes the Ohio waters of
Lake Erie, the islands in the lake and lands adjacent to Lake Erie. The definition of coastal area in
the state coastal management law reflects the consensus view developed among the county advisory
groups that lake-related resources and land uses that have an impact on coastal waters should define
Ohio's inland coastal area boundary.

      ODNR consulted with local government, state agencies and the public after the state coastal
management law went into effect in an effort to further refine the proposed coastal area boundary.
ODNR prepared boundary maps based upon the above-listed criteria and the specific
recommendations developed by the county advisory committees. Note that, by and large, these
criteria relate to the potential for projects and activities to have an impact upon coastal waters. Also
during this period of time, local water quality planning agencies, Ohio EPA and other agencies were
developing Remedial Action Plans (RAPs) for each of four Areas of Concern (AOCs) designated
under the 1987 Protocol Amending the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. These are severely
polluted areas of the lower Maumee, Black, Cuyahoga and Ashtabula Rivers and the corresponding
areas contributing to the pollution of coastal waters and sediments. The State of Ohio is committed
to restoring and protecting water quality and beneficial uses in these coastal waters (refer to Chapter
6). ODNR included portions of these AOCs within the coastal area boundary, recognizing the poten-




Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 3 - 2                              March 1997








                            Boundary of Ohio's Coastal Area








                          0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~stbl
   C)~~~~~~~
0~~Lua

                                               Ottawa~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.r $


                                                                                     Cuyahoga~:
C~~~odSadeL
                        CD                                                                                                 *    *'*'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~







                                                                     Figure~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~                  2;~








tial for direct and significant impacts on coastal waters of present and future activities and remedial
actions.

      Coastal area boundary maps and a narrative description were published in the Public Review
Draft OCMP document in February 1992. Two public hearings and two public meetings and open
houses provided additional opportunities to raise questions and make specific recommendations on
the proposed boundary. Subsequent to the public review, planning agencies, local governmental
officials and others provided assistance and consultation on modifications to the proposed boundary.

      The boundary has been expanded to provide additional protection to the Old Woman Creek
National Estuarine Research Reserve near Huron and the Mentor Marsh State Nature Preserve. The
boundary has been modified where possible to coincide with the area covered under the Port
Development Plan adopted by the city of Sandusky. Also, the boundary has been adjusted to include
former swamp lowlands that drain to the lower Maumee at Toledo in recognition of the potential for
activities to affect coastal water quality and the potential for the enhancement of wetlands in an
urban setting. Other refinements to the boundary were made to ensure inclusion of Lake Erie coastal
erosion areas, coastal flood hazard areas and certain tributary stream reaches where potential exists
for direct and significant impacts to coastal waters.

      The boundary also was adjusted to include the Swan Creek seiche area in Lucas County. This
modification was made at the request of the Toledo Metropolitan Area Council of Governments
(TMACOG) in its written and oral comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
published in August 1996.

      The management area was developed in coordination with the states of Michigan and
Pennsylvania to ensure a continuous coastal area boundary across state lines (15 C.F.R. ï¿½ 923.34).
The states of Michigan and Pennsylvania expressed confidence, following publication of the 1992
Public Review Draft document, that OCMP policies to be applied within the Ohio coastal boundary
were compatible with their own state coastal management programs.

Summarv DescriDtion of the Coastal Area Boundary

      The inland boundary of the coastal area must be precise enough to permit a determination of
whether a specific property or activity is located within the coastal management area (15 C.F.R. ï¿½
923.31 (a)(8)). The inland boundary extends north-westward to the Ohio-Michigan state line and
eastward to the Ohio-Pennsylvania state line. The lakeward boundary extends to Ohio's borders with
Michigan, Ontario and Pennsylvania.

      Coastal area maps with precise boundary lines and narrative descriptions have been developed
by ODNR in conformance with the definition in state statute and consistent with the federal
requirements regarding inland boundaries. The coastal area includes the above-listed uses, features
and coastal resources and is defined in terms of political jurisdictions and physical and cultural
features (see Appendices A and B).





Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part 11 3 - 4                             March 1997








            The coastal area encompasses bays, embayments and tributaries to incorporate lake-influenced
      transitional zones and includes extensive wetlands of the western basin and other wetlands and
      estuarine areas of the central basin. It includes the islands and Marblehead Peninsula in their
      entirety. In the western basin, the coastal area extends many miles upstream on major tributaries to
      include the lake-influenced waters and adjacent shorelands, the uses of which may result in direct
      and significant impacts upon these waters. For example, it extends upstream approximately 16 miles
      from the mouth of the Maumee River into Lucas and Wood counties. It extends approximately 14
      miles up the Sandusky River into the city of Fremont in Sandusky County. From the mouth of the
      Maumee River east into Ottawa and Sandusky Counties, the inland boundary ranges from almost 1
      mile to several miles. This area includes extensive coastal wetlands, lands subject to coastal
      flooding and lands along many major and minor lake-influenced tributaries.

            Moving eastward into Erie County, the transition to the central basin becomes evident where
      the coastal area boundary becomes more constricted. From the mouth of the Huron River in the port
      city of Huron, it follows several miles of the Huron River and includes adjacent wetlands, floodplain
      areas and adjacent shorelands. Erie County begins to show higher relief and less expansive lake-
      influenced areas and areas subject to coastal flooding. The inland boundary ranges from 2 miles to
      about an eighth of a mile or less, with certain areas extending farther landward along tributary
      streams and associated shorelands. The coastal area surrounds the Old Woman Creek National
      Estuarine Research Reserve east of the city of Huron.

            Continuing east through the central basin into Lorain, Cuyahoga, Lake and Ashtabula
:.,    Counties, the coastal area extends inland on average from about one-eighth mile to one-quarter mile,
      but continues to incorporate lake-influenced tributaries, embayments, wetlands and estuarine areas.
      Eastward to the Pennsylvania border, the coastal area generally follows the higher bluffs and is
      extended landward primarily to incorporate coastal erosion and flood hazard areas. The Mentor
      Marsh wetlands system in Lake County also is incorporated. In urban areas, the coastal boundary
      is generally less than one-half mile from the shore.

            The OCMP management area incorporates all coastal erosion areas as defined in 1996
      pursuant to O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.06 and O.A.C. 1501-10 through 1501-13 (see Chapter 5, Policy 1).
      Because the line that defines these areas moves landward as bluff recession occurs, the coastal
      management boundary likewise will continue to move landward, where necessary, to ensure
      continued inclusion of coastal erosion areas. Such changes in the coastal boundary will occur in the
      limited areas where the two boundaries coincide, and the coastal boundary will extend no farther
      than the coastal erosion area, as adjusted.

            The coastal management area is subject to all management policies and federal and state
      consistency requirements. Federal lands that are owned, leased, held in trust by, or whose use is
      otherwise subject solely to the discretion of the federal government are excluded from the coastal
      area boundary as shown in Appendix B. (The federal areas located on the Appendix B maps are not
      precisely to scale. The maps merely identify the location of such excluded areas and should not be
      construed to exclude any areas other than those federal lands to be excluded as stated above.)
      Appendix P provides a list of all such properties in Ohio's coastal area.




      Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 3 - 5                             March 1997








                                         CHAPTER 4
                               PROGRAM ORGANIZATION

    This chapter contains four sections. Section 1 describes the administrative infrastructure of the
State of Ohio, its key departments and the institutional framework within which coastal area
activities are regulated and managed.

    Section 2 describes the specific authorities through which the OCMP is implemented.

    Section 3 details the institutional relationships and coordination mechanisms that ensure
effective implementation of the program at the state and local level.

    Section 4 describes the mechanisms for achieving state consistency. This discussion follows
program implementation in the setting of permits, grants, state development projects and general
enforcement of other provisions of O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.01 et seq.

SECTION 1. ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE TO IMPLEMENT THE OHIO COASTAL
             MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

    The State of Ohio has numerous departments that exercise statewide jurisdiction over activities,
some of Which occur within, or affect resources of, Ohio's coastal area. Coastal area projects are
developed, financially assisted or regulated in accordance with the authorities and police powers of
the executive agencies. This section describes the general statewide authority exercised by these
departments as well as the authority of local governments and special districts.

    The Governor. the Cabinet. and the General Authority of the State

    The executive branch of Ohio's government consists of six elected officials: the Governor,
Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, Secretary of State, Auditor of State and Treasurer of State.
In addition, the executive branch includes the departments or agencies responsible for administering
state law and policy in major areas such as Ohio's natural resources.

    As head of the executive branch, the Governor coordinates all of the agencies in the state's
executive department, oversees preparation of the budget and supervises state programs. The
composition of the Governor's Cabinet varies from administration to administration, but generally
includes department directors and others selected by the Governor.

    The majority of laws enacted by the General Assembly are implemented by the administrative
departments. The Governor appoints the heads of these agencies, who serve at the Governor's
pleasure. While there is no rigid pattern for the structure of a department, most departments function
through the collective efforts of their divisions' assigned duties. Division heads are usually
appointed by and are responsible to the director of the department.




Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 4 - 1                                March 1997








    Maior State Agencies

    Major state agencies that regulate, fund and/or generate activities that occur within or could
affect coastal areas include:

        Department of Natural Resources

        As the state of Ohio's umbrella agency responsible for development, conservation and wise
        use of the state's natural resources, the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) is
        the designated agency for development and implementation of the OCMP. ODNR
        possesses the organizational structure and processes necessary to improve the coordination,
         integration, predictability and efficiency of governmental decision making related to
         coastal management.

         The state coastal management law embodied in O.R.C. Chapter 1506 empowers the
         Director of Natural Resources with broad authorities to cooperate with other agencies of
         the state and its political subdivisions, to adopt rules for the implementation, centralized
         administration and enforcement of the OCMP and to provide coastal management
         assistance grants awarded from federal and state funds for coastal management purposes.
         With the enactment of the state coastal management law, ODNR's director delegated
         responsibility for the program development and administration to the Division of Real
         Estate and Land Management (REALM). Section 3 of this chapter provides details
         regarding REALM's responsibility for administering the OCMP and implementing specific
         provisions of Ohio's coastal management law.

         ODNR's divisions and offices carry out the statutory requirements of ODNR with the
         approval of the director and advice of many boards and councils. ODNR's headquarters
         is located in Columbus, and numerous field offices and facilities of various divisions are
         located in the coastal area. Fourteen divisions carry out ODNR's statutory responsibilities
         with respect to coastal area resource management:

         ï¿½ The Division of Real Estate and Land Management, in addition to administering
             the coastal management program, is responsible for comprehensive recreation
             planning; master land-use planning for lands under the jurisdiction of ODNR;
             conducting ODNR's interdisciplinary environmental review process; administering the
             state NatureWorks local park grant program, the National Recreational Trails Fund
             and the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund Program; acquiring real property;
             coordinating the Statewide Trails Program; managing property including Lake Erie
             submerged lands and canal lands; and administering the submerged lands preserves
             program and the permit program for salvaging submerged abandoned property. The
             division will be responsible for implementing a permit system for construction of new
             permanent structures in coastal erosion areas following final designation of those
             areas. The division also operates the Ohio Capability Analysis Program (OCAP), a
             computerized natural resources geographic information system; inventories and maps


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part 11 4 - 2                              March 1997








             soil resources; conducts land planning courses for local officials; and obtains and
             analyzes aerial photographs and satellite imagery for a variety of land use applications.

           ï¿½ The Division of Geological Survey locates, maps and analyzes the geologic, mineral
             and fossil fuel resources of the state. This division also counsels citizens, government
             and industry on geologic matters. The division's Lake Erie Geology Group conducts
             coastal investigations and research on coastal erosion, sedimentation, wetlands,
             hydrology and habitat within Lake Erie and the Lake Erie watershed. This Group
             provides geological information and technical assistance to coastal constituents and
             agencies and provides educational opportunities through workshops, field trips and
             student internships. The Lake Erie Geology Group is responsible for identifying and
             mapping coastal erosion areas and monitoring the extraction of sand and gravel
             resources from the bed of Lake Erie. The Division operates two research vessels on
             Lake Erie and has specialized sampling and geophysical surveying equipment for use
             on Lake Erie.

         o   The Division of Wildlife manages and protects the wildlife of the state, provides
             hunting and fishing areas, stocks fish and wildlife, enforces hunting, fishing and
             trapping regulations, conducts fish and wildlife management research, administers the
             state endangered species law, acquires and manages wetlands and other habitats for
             wildlife conservation purposes and administers a program to protect and restore
             nongame and endangered species. Areas and facilities managed by the division within
             the coastal area are Magee Marsh, Metzger Marsh, Pickerel Creek, Portage River, Put-
             In-Bay Hatchery Aquatic Resource Education Center, Toussaint Creek, Dempsey's
             Lake Erie Access Area, Green Island, Little Portage River Access, Mallard Club
             Marsh, West Harbor Refuge, Pipe Creek, Mazurik Lake Erie Access Area, Honey
             Point and Willow Point. The division also maintains three wildlife production areas
             as well as Crane Creek Experiment Station on Lake Erie. The station is devoted to
             wetlands research, waterfowl management and restoration of habitat important to
             North America waterfowl and other wetland dependent wildlife. The division's Lake
             Erie Fish Research Units in Sandusky and Fairport Harbor produce basic data and
             undertake special investigations to support Lake Erie fisheries management.

         ï¿½ The Division of Engineering provides professional and technical, engineering and
             related administrative support services required by ODNR in improving, using and
             managing its properties and associated resources. The division serves as the principal
             representative of the director in all aspects of engineering, planning, designing,
             contracting, surveying, inspecting and managing ODNR's construction and capital
             improvements projects. The division issues permits for construction of erosion
             control structures and provides technical assistance pertaining to erosion control. In
             cooperation with the Division of Geological Survey, the division is authorized to
             prepare Ohio's plan for the management of shore erosion along Lake Erie.




Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 4 - 3                           March 1997








             The Division of Water has broad responsibilities for managing Ohio's surface and
             groundwater resources. The division collects hydrologic data; develops groundwater
             resources and pollution potential maps; issues permits for the construction of dams,
             dikes and levees; inspects existing dams; operates the state canal systems; administers
             the state floodplain management program; and conducts water supply studies. The
             division develops the state's floodplain management requirements (minimum
             standards) for development undertaken by state agencies and works with coastal
             communities to ensure that local flood hazard regulations are being understood and
             implemented.

         o   The Division of Natural Areas and Preserves is responsible for acquisition and
             management of natural areas of the state and for the scenic river preservation program.
             The division administers the state endangered plant law and maintains the state's
             Natural Heritage Database on the occurrences of rare plant and animal species, unique
             geologic areas and other locations of special interest. This division cooperates with
             local governments, special districts and independent organizations, some of which
             own and manage areas dedicated within the state nature preserve system. The division
             also administers and manages ODNR's coastal wetlands research and educational
             programs through a cooperative state/federal partnership with the National Estuarine
             Reserve Research System. This program is headquartered in the Ohio Center for
             Coastal Wetlands Research facility at Old Woman Creek National Estuarine Research
             Reserve (OWC-NERR). Coastal preserves and facilities managed by the division are
             Sheldon Marsh, Dupont Marsh, Mentor Marsh, Headlands Dunes, Lakeside Daisy-
             Colleen "Casey" Taylor and Ruth E. Fiscus and Old Woman Creek National Estuarine
             Research Reserve.

             The Division of Parks and Recreation is responsible for developing and managing
             Ohio's state park system. State parks within the coastal area are Cleveland Lakefront,
             Crane Creek, Geneva, Headlands Beach, East Harbor, Lake Erie Islands and Maumee
             Bay.

         o   The Division of Soil and Water Conservation provides technical and financial
             assistance and program guidance to Ohio's 88 local soil and water districts. It sets
             agricultural pollution control and urban sediment pollution abatement standards and
             coordinates their local implementation. The division administers the NatureWorks
             funding for pollution control and the nonpoint source management program within
             ODNR.

         o   The Division of Watercraft administers registration, operation and safety laws for all
             watercraft using Ohio's waterways; operates a watercraft safety program; and assists
             communities in developing boating facilities. The division also administers the
             NatureWorks Lake Erie access local grants program.




Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 4 - 4                             March 1997








              The Division of Oil and Gas regulates all oil and gas field operations to protect the
             resource base, the environment and public safety.

         o   The Division of Recycling and Litter Prevention administers a statewide, litter
             control and recycling pro-ram and makes grants to local governments for specific
             local litter control projects.

         o   The Division of Civilian Conservation Corps conducts conservation work projects
             from several centers throughout the state.

         o   The Division of Forestry protects and manages Ohio's state forests and provides
             technical assistance to landowners on sound forest management.

         ï¿½   The Division of Mines and Reclamation regulates the mining and reclamation of
             coal and industrial minerals and enforces a mine safety program. Industrial mineral
             operations within the coastal area are regulated by this division.

        Environmental Protection Agency

         The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) has authority to regulate air and
         water pollution, solid and infectious waste disposal, hazardous materials management,
         sewage treatment and public water supply facilities and water quality planning. Ohio EPA
         is also responsible for water quality planning, pollution prevention programs and waste
         minimization planning. For Ohio EPA administrative purposes, the state is divided into
         five districts. District offices at Bowling Green in Wood County, and at Twinsburg in
         Portage County, serve the western and eastern areas of Lake Erie, respectively. Major
         policy decisions and oversight for Lake Erie programs and regulatory functions are coordi-
         nated from Ohio EPA's Central Office in Columbus.

         Seven divisions located in the Central Office as well as the district offices carry out Ohio
         EPA's regulatory authorities:

         o   The Division of Air Pollution Control ensures that clean air standards set by US EPA
             pursuant to the 1970 Clean Air Act and its 1990 amendments are met throughout
             Ohio. Division services that contribute to that enforcement include surveillance,
             monitoring, inspection, evaluation of new sources and permit applications, emissions
             inventorying, litigation support, and technical assistance to industry and the public.

         o   The Division of Drinking and Ground Waters works to assure an adequate supply
             of safe drinking water through implementation of the 1974 Federal Safe Drinking
             Water Act and its amendments. The division regulates public water supply systems
             and maintains and interprets ground water data in support of other Ohio EPA
             activities.



Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part 11 4 - 5                            March 1997








        ï¿½ The Division of Emergency and Remedial Response oversees investigation and
             cleanup work at abandoned and unregulated hazardous waste sites; works with U.S.
             EPA to oversee superfund site cleanup; provides assistance to communities and
             industries during spills and other environmental accidents; oversees the treatment,
             storage and disposal of PCBs through a federal grant; administers the Right-to-Know
             Program for the State Emergency Response Commission; regulates the cessation of
             regulated operations; and conducts criminal investigations of improper handling and
             disposal of hazardous wastes.

         o The Division of Hazardous Waste Management provides "cradle-to-grave"
             regulation of hazardous wastes, which includes monitoring and permit enforcement
             of generation, transport and disposal in compliance with state and federal rules.

        ï¿½ The Division of Solid and Infectious Waste Management regulates the disposal of
             solid waste, construction and demolition waste, and infectious waste through facility
             permits and construction oversight inspections, complaint investigation, local solid
             waste management plan review, and landfill closure plan review.

         o The Division of Surface Water works to meet the objectives of the Federal Clean
             Water Act (CWA) by issuing permits for treated stormwater and wastewater
             discharge, monitoring and enforcing permit compliance, and overseeing the treatment
             of industrial wastewaters before discharge into public sewage treatment systems. The
             division also establishes water quality standards, determines whether Ohio streams
             and lakes meet the requirements of the CWA and conducts detailed water quality
             studies. Wetland-related activities, development and implementation of Remedial
             Action Plans for the Cuyahoga, Maumee, Black and Ashtabula rivers, toxics
             monitoring and evaluation; and nonpoint source pollution monitoring and projects are
             coordinated by the division.

             Other Ohio EPA programs located only in the Central Office have relevance to
             coastal area environmental quality responsibilities. The Division of Environmental
             and Financial Assistance administers the Ohio Water Pollution Control Loan Fund for
             municipal wastewater facilities construction and control of nonpoint source pollutants,
             pursuant to Title VI of the CWA. The Pollution Prevention Section works with
             agency divisions to integrate pollution prevention concepts into agency policy and
             regulations. The Environmental Education Fund awards grants for projects to increase
             awareness and understanding of environmental issues.

        Department of Health

        The Ohio Department of Health (ODH) has legislative authority for plan approval
        including location, construction and development of all marinas, campgrounds,
        manufactured home parks and swimming pools. ODH further works in concert with other



Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 4 - 6                            March 1997








        state agencies and local health departments to ensure proper licensure and sanitation of the
        above-mentioned areas.

        ODH is also the coordinating agency for collection of bathing-beach water samples,
        regulation of private drinking water systems, posting of swimming advisories and
        administration of Clean Vessel Act grants. The department is responsible for issuing fish
        tissue consumption advisories, working in conjunction with Ohio EPA and ODNR.

        Department of Development

        The Ohio Department of Development (ODOD) administers federal community
        development programs and other state and federal financial assistance and service
        programs. ODOD's Office of Local Government Services administers the federal
        Community Development Block Grant program to promote community and economic
        development in small cities and nonurban counties.

        Department of Transportation

        The Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) plans, builds and maintains a safe,
        efficient, accessible transportation system that integrates highway, transit, rail, air and
        water networks to foster economic growth and personal travel.

        Department of Agriculture

        The Ohio Department of Agriculture (ODA) enforces state agricultural laws and
        regulations governing the production, handling, distribution and marketing of agricultural
        products.

        Historic Preservation Office

        The Ohio Historic Preservation Office (OHPO) is the historic preservation agency of the
        State of Ohio. OHPO determines compliance with provisions of the National Historic
        Preservation Act of 1966. OHPO identifies historic places and archaeological sites;
        nominates eligible properties to the National Register of Historic Places; reviews
        rehabilitation work on income-producing National Register properties for federal in-
        vestment tax credits; monitors federally-assisted projects for effects on historical,
        architectural and archaeological resources; consults on conservation of buildings and sites;
        and offers educational programs and publications. OHPO is a division of the Ohio
        Historical Society (OHS), whose functions include maintaining archaeological and historic
        sites, registering landmarks, and operating museums and a research library.







Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 4 - 7                             March 1997








    Boards. Commissions and Authorities

    Among Ohio's Boards, Commissions and Authorities, several have jurisdiction affecting
activities in the coastal area:

        Lake Erie Commission

         The Lake Erie Commission consists of the directors of ODNR, Ohio EPA, ODOD, ODH,
         ODOT and ODAG. The commission meets quarterly or more frequently and is responsible
         for (1) ensuring coordination of water quality, toxic pollution control and resource
         protection policies and programs, (2) reviewing and making recommendations regarding
         management of Lake Erie water resources consistent with the Great Lakes water quality
         and toxic substances control agreements, (3) recommending modifications to the coastal
         management program, (4) implementing the Great Lakes and Lake Erie protection funds,
         (5) ensuring a basin-wide approach to lake issues, (6) enhancing Ohio's representation in
         state, regional, national and international forums regarding lake issues, and (7) promoting
         education regarding wise management of Lake Erie resources.

         The Ohio Lake Erie Office was created to assist the commission in its efforts. The office
         is located in Toledo, Ohio. The executive director reports to the chair of the commission
         and serves as secretary for the commission.  The Lake Erie Office performs functions
         important to coastal management, including: (1) assisting the commission in administering
         grants from the Lake Erie Protection Fund, (2) advising the governor and directors of
         relevant departments and agencies on the development, implementation and coordination
         of Lake Erie programs and policies, and (3) increasing representation of Ohio's interests
         in regional, national and international forums pertaining to resources of the Great Lakes.

         Port Authorities

         There are 11 port authorities on Lake Erie: Toledo-Lucas County, Vermilion, Huron,
         Put-in-Bay, Kelleys Island, Lorain, Cleveland-Cuyahoga County, Chagrin River, Fairport
         Harbor, Ashtabula and Conneaut. O.R.C. Chapter 4582 authorizes any county, municipal
         corporation or township to establish a port authority. With almost $18 billion in annual
         exports from Ohio, these authorities play an important role in international trade. Port
         authorities also work cooperatively with federal, state and local governments, and the
         Army Corps of Engineers in activities including harbor development and maintenance,
         waterfront development, redevelopment and rehabilitation.

         Hazardous Waste Facility Board

         The Hazardous Waste Facility Board (HWFB) determines whether applications for new
         hazardous waste facilities should be granted or denied according to criteria established in
         Ohio law. The HWFB is composed of the Director of Ohio EPA, the Director of ODNR,



Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part 11 4 - 8                             March 1997








        the Chairman of the Ohio Water Development Authority, a chemical engineer and a
         geologist employed by a state university.

        Environmental Review Appeals Commission

        The Environmental Review Appeals Commission (ERAC) is an appellate review board
        that hears appeals of decisions of the Ohio EPA Director regarding regulations and the
        issue and renewal of licenses, permits and pollution control certification. The ERAC also
        hears appeals of Board of Health actions regarding Solid Waste Facility licenses.

        Power Siting Board

        The Power Siting Board is a seven-member board that rules on the siting of major power
        generation and transmission facilities in the State of Ohio by issuing or denying certificates
        unless the activity is regulated under interstate commerce by the Federal Energy Regulatory
        Commission. The Director of ODNR and the Director of Ohio EPA serve as members of
        the Board.

        State and Local Government Commission

        The State and Local-Government Commission serves as a forum for discussion and
        resolution of issues affecting state, local and federal governments. It studies relationships
        among levels of government in terms of the division of responsibility in providing public
        services. Thirteen members comprise the commission, with the Lieutenant Governor
        serving as chairperson. The commission is required to recommend to the governor and
        General Assembly any legislation or constitutional amendments that would resolve
        identified problems.

         Water Development Authority

        The Ohio Water Development Authority is an independent agency that provides financing
        to local governments for water, sewer, solid waste and energy projects by issuing revenue
        bonds to be retired with fees from the projects. The directors of Ohio EPA, ODNR and
        ODOD serve on the seven-member authority.

        Ohio Commission on Dispute Resolution and Conflict Management

        The Ohio Commission on Dispute Resolution and Conflict Management (OCDRCM) is
        charged with helping agencies and individuals learn practical ways to solve disputes.
        OCDRCM was the first commission in the nation to be sponsored jointly by all three
        branches of state government and to serve as a statewide resource for dispute resolution
        and conflict management information and referrals.





Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 4 - 9                            March 1997








         Local Aaencies

        The following are the local, county and regional entities that control or affect activities in
    the coastal area:

        Municipalities

         The form and powers of municipalities in Ohio are specified in the Ohio Constitution and
         the Ohio Revised Code. In general, municipalities provide the services associated with
         local government: police and fire protection, water supply, traffic control, zoning and
         building pen-nits, and public health regulation and sanitation. A municipal corporation is
         classified as a city if its population exceeds 5,000, otherwise, an incorporated municipality
         is called a village. "Any municipality may frame and adopt or amend a charter for its
         government and .. . exercise thereunder all powers of local self-government,' according
         to Article XVIII, Section 7, of the Ohio Constitution. It is under this home rule authority
         that cities and villages may adopt charters that vary their form of government from that
         provided under the general laws of the State of Ohio.

         Municipalities with coastal flood hazard areas contribute to implementation of the OCMP
         by participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFLP) and enforcement of
         ordinances which meet or exceed standards required for such participation (see Policy 3).
         Municipalities additionally may elect to adopt and enforce ordinances to administer the
         OCMP permit for construction of permanent structures in Lake Erie coastal erosion areas

         (see Policy 1).

         Townships

         Townships in Ohio are divisions of the counties that exercise only those powers
         specifically delegated to them by the General Assembly, including the power to levy taxes.
         Townships are governed by a three-memnber board of trustees. Township responsibilities
         include road maintenance, police and fire protection, zoning and cemetery management.

         Counties

         The county is the major local subdivision of the state. Counties have been created to serve
         as agencies for the administration of state law. The major difference between a county and
         a municipality is that a municipality is created by the state upon the request of the people
         living within it for their interest and advantage, but a county is created by the state in order
         to carry out state policy. The people of the county must adopt a charter in order for the
         county government to exercise such broad powers.

         Counties with coastal flood hazard areas contribute to implementation of the OCMP by
         participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and enforcement of
         ordinances that meet or exceed standards required for such participation (see Policy 3).


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part 11 4 - 10                            March 1997








         Counties additionally may elect to adopt and enforce ordinances to administer the OCMP
         permit for construction of permanent structures in Lake Erie coastal erosion areas (see
         Policy 1).

         Special Districts

         Ohio law has authorized the creation of a variety of special districts to serve specific
         governmental purposes. A special district is not a part of another governmental unit but
         is a unit in and of itself. It has an independent budget and means of financing. Examples
         of special districts include conservancy districts, park districts, solid waste management
         districts, joint recreational districts, port authorities, regional water and sewer districts, soil
         and water conservation districts, joint economic development zones, general health districts
         and city health districts.

         Local Health Departments

         Local health departments may operate at the municipal or county level under a city health
         district board, general health district or combined district board of health. They serve a
         broad spectrum of health-related functions. Examples of the health department actions that
         may affect activities in the coastal area include enforcing regulations for private water
         systems and household sewage disposal systems, conducting bathing-beach water quality
         sampling programs, and licensing manufactured home parks.

    Regional Plannina Aaencies

         County-wide and regional planning agencies also provide input on coastal management
    policy development and implementation. These agencies also serve an important coordinating
    function for the OCMP on issues of common interest among local jurisdictions in the coastal
    area. Regional planning agencies in the coastal area are the Toledo Metropolitan Area Council
    of Governments (TMACOG) and the Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency
    (NOACA). Each serves as the local clearinghouse for the intergovernmental review of federal
    assistance applications coordinated by the State Clearinghouse. The Ashtabula County Planning
    Commission and the Erie County Regional Planning Commission perform planning and
    intergovernmental review services for Ashtabula and Erie County, respectively. TMACOG and
    NOACA are involved in water quality planning and the development of Remedial Action Plans
    (RAPs) for the Maumee River and Cuyahoga River Areas of Concern (AOCs).


SECTION 2. IMPLEMENTATION AUTHORITIES

    The primary state statutory authority for implementation of the OCMP is O.R.C. Chapter 1506,
which incorporates coastal management law into O.R.C. Title 15, Conservation of Natural
Resources. By definition in O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.01(B), the OCMP is " ... the comprehensive action of
the state and its political subdivisions cooperatively to preserve, protect, develop, restore, or enhance


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 4 - 11                              March 1997








the resources of the coastal area and to ensure the wise use of the land and water resources of the
coastal area ... ." O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.02 designates ODNR as the lead agency for the development and
implementation of the OCMP. This statute requires the director of ODNR to develop and adopt the
coastal management program document and to administer the OCMP in accordance with the
program document, O.R.C. Chapter 1506, and administrative rules adopted under it. O.R.C. Chapter
1506 is contained in its entirety in Appendix C.

    As an overview of authorities to manage activities in the coastal area, the following identifies
ODNR's responsibilities derived from O.R.C. Chapter 1506 and additional state statutory authorities
to implement Ohio's coastal management policies. The authorities are organized into nine issue
areas that correspond to those described in Chapter 5, Management Policies, and include both
enforceable and enhancement authorities as described in that chapter.

Coastal Erosion and Floodina

    *   Delineate 30-year Coastal Erosion Areas (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.06, O.A.C. ï¿½ 1501-6-10 to 1501-
         6-13)

    *   Enforce rules regulating new structures in Coastal Erosion Areas (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.07,
         O.A.C. ï¿½ 1501-6-21 to 1501-6-28)

    * Require owners of property in Lake Erie Coastal Erosion Areas to notify buyers of the
         land's status prior to any transaction (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.06)

    * Allow local authorities to adopt regulations in compliance with O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.07 (O.R.C.
         ï¿½ 307.37 and O.A.C. 1501-6-27)

    * Administer a permit process for construction of erosion control structures (O.R.C. ï¿½
         1507.04)

    * Provide financial assistance for erosion and flood control projects (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1507.06)

    *   Provide technical assistance for erosion control projects (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1507.10)

    *   Cooperate with the Secretary of the Army, acting through the chief of engineers of the U.S.
         Army Corps of Engineers in conducting studies of Lake Erie shorelines and methods of
         arresting shore erosion and resulting damage (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1507.02)

    *   Enforce compliance by local governments with the National Flood Insurance Program
         (NFIP) (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.04, O.A.C. 1501:22-1-01 to 1501:22-1-08)

    *   Require that state-funded and financed developments comply with the NFIP and that when
         state regulatory jurisdiction preempts local regulations, ensure that the development



Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 4 - 12                          March 1997








         complies with the NFIP before granting a permit, license or authorization (O.R.C. ï¿½
         1521.14)

    *   Prohibit financial disaster assistance within noncompliant counties and municipalities
         (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1521.14)

    *   Require that all state agencies and political subdivisions consult with ODNR, Division of
         Water, regarding avoidance of uneconomic, hazardous or unnecessary use of floodplains
         for public facilities (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1521.14)

    *   Regulate design and construction of dams, dikes and levees (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1521.06 et seq.,
         O.A.C. 1501:21)

Water Qualitv

    * Assure attainment of State Water Quality Standards (O.R.C. Chapters 3734, 3745, 6111
         and 6121, O.A.C. 3745-1)

    *   Control discharges into waters of the state by requiring permits to construct facilities and
         by establishing and enforcing effluent limitations under the national pollutant discharge
         elimination system (O.R.C. ï¿½ 6111.03, O.A.C. 3745-31 and 3745-33)

    *   Administer a permit system to control injection well drilling in compliance with the "Safe
         Drinking Water Act" and the CWA (O.R.C. ï¿½ 6111.043 and 6111.0444, O.A.C. Chapter
         3745-34)

    *   Regulate discharge of dredge or fill material in accordance with Section 401 of the Clean
         Water Act (O.R.C. ï¿½ 6111.03, O.A.C. Chapter 3745-32)

    *   Establish uniform regulations regarding solid waste disposal sites and facilities (O.R.C.
         3734.02 and 3734.05, O.A.C. 3745-50 through 58, 3745-63, -65 and -69)

    *   Prohibit the sale or distribution for sale of phosphorus-containing household laundry deter-
         gents in the Lake Erie basin (O.R.C. ï¿½ 6111.10)

    *   Prepare a state water quality management plan to assess technical needs for pollution
         control and institutional mechanisms to enforce controls (O.R.C. ï¿½ 6111.41 and 6111.42)

    *   Administer a state revolving loan fund program to provide financial assistance for publicly
         owned wastewater treatment facilities (O.R.C. ï¿½ 6111.03 and 6121.03)

    *   Provide financial support for research and pollution abatement projects (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.23)




Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 4 - 13                           March 1997








    * Coordinate policies and programs pertaining to Lake Erie water quality through the Lake
        Erie Commission (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.21)

    * Promote soil and water conservation and prevention of agricultural and urban sediment
        pollution (O.R.C. Chapters 1511 and 1515, O.A.C. 1501:15-5)

    *   Provide financial and technical assistance for soil and water conservation purposes (O.R.C.
        ï¿½ 1515.02)

    *   Implement the Ohio Nonpoint Source Management Program through a broad matrix of
        authorities

    * Require emergency planning to prevent and contain environmental contaminant releases
        (O.R.C. Chapter 3750)

    * Provide emergency response to spills (O.R.C. Chapters 6111 and 3750)

    * Supervise the design, construction and operation of public water supply systems (O.R.C.
        ï¿½ 6109.07, O.A.C. 3745-81 through 83, and -85, -89, -91, -92, -95 and -99)

    *   Administer the state Safe Drinking Water Act (O.R.C. Chapter 6109, O.A.C. 3745-81 and
        -82)

    *   Regulate construction and operation of water supply and wastewater disposal systems
        (O.R.C. ï¿½ 3701.04, 6111.03, 6109.07, and O.A.C. 3745-9)

    * Regulate underground hazardous and petroleum materials storage facilities and above-
        ground hazardous waste storage (O.R.C. ï¿½ 3737.87, 3737.88, 3737.881, 3737.882 and
        O.A.C. 1301:7-9 and 3745-54)

    * Regulate oil, gas, coal and mineral operations (O.R.C. Chapter 1509, 1513 and 1514,
        O.A.C. 1501-9-1, -3, -5, -7 and -9 through -11)

    * Regulate subsurface injection of brine and other wastes associated with oil and gas
        operations (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1509.22)

Ecoloeicallv Sensitive Resources

    * Regulate wetland development activities through water quality standards, including the
        antidegradation policy, and Ohio EPA's Section 401 Water Quality Certification (O.R.C.
         ï¿½ 6111.03(0) and 6111.03(P), O.A.C. 3745-1 and 3745-32)

    * Minimize adverse impacts to wetlands in carrying out state agency responsibilities
        (Executive Order 90-68)


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 4 - 14                        March 1997








    *   Acquire, protect and restore coastal wetlands (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1501.01, O.R.C. Chapters 1517,
         1531 and 1541)

    *   Acquire, protect and manage state nature preserves (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1517.05 and 1517.06. O.A.C.
         1501:17

    *   Protect habitat of rare and endangered species (O.R.C. ï¿½ 6111.03(0), 6111.03(R), O.A.C.
         3745-1-05(C))

    * Restrict the taking and possession of threatened native animal species (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1531.25
         and 1531.99, O.A.C. 1501:31)

    * Restrict the taking, removal, transportation and sale of endangered or threatened native
        plant species (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1518.02, O.A.C. 1501:18)

    * Regulate the sale of purple loosestrife (O.R.C. ï¿½ 927.682)

    * Regulate the importation, sale and possession of exotic species of fish (O.A.C. 1501:31-19-
         01)

Ports and Shoreline DeveloDment

    * Protect the public trust in Lake Erie waters and underlying lands through submerged lands
         leasing program (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.10 and 1506.11 and O.A.C. ï¿½ 1501-6-01 through 1501-6-
         06), submerged lands preserves (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.31) and permits for salvage and alteration
         of submerged abandoned property (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.32)

    *   Regulate the discharge and disposal of dredged material (O.R.C. ï¿½ 6111.03(P) and O.A.C.
         3745-1)

    *   Regulate commercial dredging of mineral resources (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1505.07)

Recreational and Cultural Resources

    * Protect public access rights through submerged lands leasing program (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.11
         and O.A.C. ï¿½ 1501-6-01 through 1501-6-06)

    * Provide for public access within the state nature preserve system and state parks system
         (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1517.05 and O.R.C. Chapter 1541, O.A.C. 1501:17 and 1501:41)

    * Prepare, maintain and update a Lake Erie public access facilities inventory; assess needs
         and prepare plans and policy recommendations to increase public access (O.R.C. ï¿½
         1506.05)



Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 4 - 15                           March 1997








    ï¿½ Provide grants for public access improvements (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.02 and 1506.05)

    ï¿½ Protect historically and archaeologically significant resources and abandoned submerged
        property (O.R.C. ï¿½ 149.55, 149.51, 149.56, 1506.31 and 1506.32, O.A.C. 149-1-02)

    *   Regulate watercraft safety (O.R.C. Chapter 1547)

    * Require licensure of hunters, trappers and fishermen and provide hunter and trapper
        education (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1533.10, 1533.111 and 1533.32, O.A.C. 1501:31)

    *   Conduct a watercraft safety and education program (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1547.52 and 1547.521)

    *   Administer the refuge harbor program jointly with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
        (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1547.71)


Fish and Wildlife Management

    ï¿½   Require hunter safety and trapper education courses (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1533.10 and 1533.111,
        O.A.C. 1501:31)

    *   Regulate the taking of fish (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1531.08 and O.A.C. 1501:31) and wildlife (O.R.C.
        Chapter 1533 and O.A.C. 1501:31)

    * Protect all wildlife, including nongame and endangered species (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1531.02,
         1531.08 and 1531.25, O.A.C. 1501:31)

    ï¿½   Establish state wildlife areas (O.R.C. Chapter 1531.06, O.A.C. 1501:31)

    ï¿½ Investigate water pollution, fish kills and stream litter (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1531.29 and 1531.02)

    ï¿½ Protect fish habitat (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1531.29 and 6111.03, O.A.C. 3745-27-01 and 3745-1)

    ï¿½ Acquire and develop fishing access areas (O.R.C. 1531.06)

Environmental Oualitv

    * Attain and maintain National Ambient Air Quality Standards (O.R.C. Chapters 3745, 3706,
        and 5709 and O.A.C. 3745)

    ï¿½   Regulate hazardous, solid and infectious waste facilities (O.R.C. Chapter 3734, O.A.C.
        3745)




Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 4 - 16                         March 1997








        Enforce requirements of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and
        Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA)
        (O.R.C. Chapter 3734, O.A.C. 3745-50 through 58, 3745-63 and 3745-65 through 69)

    * Establish long-range solid and hazardous waste management plans and hazardous waste
        pollution prevention plans (O.R.C. Chapter 3734, O.A.C. 3745-52-20, 3745-54-73, 3745-
        54-75, 3745-34-04)

    *   Regulate marina construction (O.R.C. ï¿½ 3733.22 and 3733.24, O.A.C. 3701-35)

    *   Prohibit dumping of litter (O.R.C. ï¿½ 3767.32)

Enervgy and Mineral Resources

    * Require certification of major utility facilities (O.R.C. Chapter 4906, O.A.C. 4906)

    *   Require 10-year demand, resource and site inventory forecasts for energy generation and
        transmission activities (O.R.C. ï¿½ 4935.04, O.A.C. 4901:5)

        Regulate storage of energy related resources (coal, oil and gas) (O.R.C. ï¿½ 4906.06, O.A.C.
        4906)

     *   Regulate oil and gas extraction (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1509.02 and O.A.C. 1501:9)

    * Regulate removal of minerals and other substances from Lake Erie and under its lake bed
         (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1505.07)

    * Regulate surface mining activities (O.R.C. Chapter 1514 and O.A.C. 1501:14-1 through
         1501:14-4)

Water Ouantitv

    * Regulate water diversions from Lake Erie (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1501.30 through 1501.32 and O.A.C.
         1501-2-01 through 1501-2-10); coordinate with Great Lakes states and provinces regarding
         certain such regulatory actions (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1503.32)

    *   Require large facilities to register capacity and submit annual withdrawal reports (O.R.C.
         ï¿½ 1521.16)

    *   Develop and implement a long- range water resources plan for the Lake Erie Basin (O.R.C.
         ï¿½ 1521.15)

    *   Develop regional water management plans (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1521.03)



Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 4 - 17                        March 1997








    *   Require the filing of well logs (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1521.05)

    *   Assist in ground water conflict resolution (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1521.03(E)) and designate ground
        water stress areas (O.R.C ï¿½ 1521.16(B))


SECTION 3. ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE OF THE OHIO COASTAL MANAGEMENT
             PROGRAM

The Role of the Division of Real Estate and Land Management

    The Division of Real Estate and Land Management (REALM) is organized to serve the director
and ODNR in carrying out certain mandates of state and federal law including Lake Erie coastal area
management. Tables of Organization for ODNR and REALM are illustrated in Figures 3 and 4,
respectively.

    REALM contains six sections: Coastal Management, Land Management, Real Estate, Resource
Analysis, Administration, and Facilities Management. The programs operating within these sections
work in an integrated management setting. REALM conducts department-wide planning,
environmental review coordination, real estate management, administration of the federal Land and
Water Conservation Fund and state NatureWorks local park grant program, land capability analysis
and remote sensing, capital improvements planning, comprehensive recreation planning and master
planning for ODNR lands. The office has focused on integrated management to address ODNR's
priority programs and to assist in implementing the specific strategic plans of ODNR's divisions.

    The staff and technical resources of the Land Management, Resource Analysis and Real Estate
Sections help support the Coastal Management Section. An Assistant Attorney General provides
legal advice and assistance in rulemaking, and in regulatory or contractual actions. An Assistant
Attorney General has assisted the Coastal Management Section in reviewing proposed OCMP
authorities and policies and will assist in mediating disagreements between federal agencies and
ODNR regarding consistency of federal actions with the policies of the OCMP.

    REALM is charged with specific responsibilities in developing and implementing the OCMP.
The following are REALM's coastal management responsibilities, some of which are keyed to
corresponding policies in Chapter 5:

         Coastal Management Program Administration. REALM is responsible for coordinating
         the development of rules for the implementation, administration and enforcement of the
         OCMP and for preparing and amending the OCMP document. The Coastal Management
         Section prepares the program budget, uses state and federal funds to support program activ-
         ities and provides grants for a wide range of coastal-related projects. Staff are responsible
         for coordinating with all ODNR divisions and state agencies networked in the OCMP. The
         Coastal Management Administrator is responsible for coordinating with ODNR's federal
         counterpart, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Office of


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 4 - 18                             March 1997








  OHIO DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
F
  TABLE OF ORGANIZATION                                                                                                               March 1996
                 L~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

                                                         I~~~~~~
                                                        GOVERNOR|





                                                         I~~~~~~
                                                          DIRECTOR
3 O

                   PARKSm~~~ &|~ LIASST. DIRECTOR
                         n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

                DEPUTYD|IRECTOR DEPUTY DIRECTOR

                                                      I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~7


        '~ ~ ~ ~~~~~EILTO SEMPOEEPBICE
                                                 |LGSLATIONERrVICYES || INFORMLATIOl |CHIEF COUNSEL



    |   RECREATION                WILDIFEuuuuuuu |     BUDGET &             COMPUTERS &         |    FRSY            |    |RECLAMATION
                                                |   FINANCE    I':COMMUNICATIONS|

     I ENGINEERING    [-4        OIL & GAS      II QUALITY           I-I    MARKETING    IWATER                      L2       SOIL & WATER
   I   ENGr                  o: IINI                    ':ERING  [t                Cs::c   I     '""|'"|'_Q__1_1_SERVICES   CONSERVATION   I

   I REAL ESTATE & LAND |       RECYCLING &                                                         WATERCRAFT                GEOLOGICAL
     MANAGEMENT              LITTER PREVENTION                                                                                  SURVEY


     CIVILIAN                                                                                      NATURAL AREAS & 
     CONSERVATION                                                                                 PRESERVES







                        REAL ESTATE & LAND MANAGEMENT

                                          FEBRUARY 1997





                                                    CHIEF 






                      COASTAL    l   H         LAND      hiIlRESOURCE   li i                                         FACILITIES [i
ADMINISTRATION~l                                 MANAGEMENT  MAAEETRA SAEANALYSIS                                        MANAGEMENT  H



                   *coastal
                          -   Management   Grants~~~~                Acquisition             Information              Facilities
                     MAnagminit       -ratintSrvcs Services



                      -  Environmental ~State Lands                  Canal Lands          Analytical Services         Facilities
                          Environmental     ~Planning                                                               Maintenance



                      Submerged             Comprehensive              Property            Data ConversionGrnd
                        Lands                  Planning              Management                ServicesGrud




        K   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Reclamation








        Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM), on program implementation,
        evaluation and enhancement.

        Administration of Lake Erie submerged lands (Policy 16).

        Administration of the Submerged Lands Preserves program and salvage permitting process
        for abandoned submerged property (Policy 26).

        Conducting ODNR's consistency reviews of federal projects, activities requiring federal
        licenses or permits, and federal assistance activities in accordance with the requirements
        of the federal CZMA and implementing regulations (see Chapter 7, Federal Consistency).
        The Coastal Management Section is responsible for coordinating these reviews within
        ODNR and consulting with other agencies with coastal management responsibilities to
        ensure consistency with the rules, regulations and policies of the OCMP.

        Conducting consistency reviews of state agency projects and activities subject to the
        approval of any state agency. The Coastal Management Section is responsible for
        coordinating these reviews within ODNR and consulting with other agencies networked
        in the coastal management program to ensure consistency with the policies of the OCMP
        (see Section 4 of this chapter, "Achieving Consistency with Coastal Management
        Policies").

        Administering the Coastal Management Assistance Grants Program.

        Preparing and maintaining a current inventory of public access facilities and preparing and
        publishing plans and policy recommendations for enhancing public access to Lake Erie
         (Policy 21).

    REALM exercises significant direct controls over activities in the coastal area. Among
REALM's responsibilities cited above, direct controls include (1) controlling uses of Lake Erie
public trust waters and submerged lands through submerged lands leasing, (2) providing special
protection for abandoned property and features and formations in Lake Erie by establishing
submerged lands preserves as well as policies and rules governing access to and use of preserves,
and (3) regulating the recovery, alteration or salvage of abandoned submerged property through
permitting.

    ODNR, through the authority of the director and/or departmental divisions, exercises many
other direct controls, including: (1) controlling development of permanent structures in Lake Erie
coastal erosion areas through permitting, (2) regulating erosion control structures on the shoreline
of Lake Erie through construction permits, (3) regulating water diversions of Lake Erie through
permits, and (4) controlling many other activities in the coastal area through the enforceable
authorities of O.R.C. Title 15, Conservation of Natural Resources. These authorities are listed in
Section 2 and are presented as enforceable policies in Chapter 5, including citations from O.R.C.
Chapters 1501 through 1548.


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 4 - 21                             March 1997








Mechanisms for Networking the OCMP

    Many authorities provide the basis for implementing the coastal management program,
including controls exercised by other state agencies. The preceding Section 2 provides an overview.
Chapter 5 contains the detailed descriptions of all enforceable policies and enhancement policies
used in the coastal management program. These authorities are networked into the OCMP, and
REALM has the responsibility to monitor the implementation of these policies for activities affecting
the coastal area and to ensure consistency of state activities. Thus, the State of Ohio primarily will
use direct state land and water use planning and regulation, control technique 306(e)(1)(B), (15
C.F.R. ï¿½ 923.43), to implement the full range of policies and management techniques. Two
exceptions are floodplain management (Policy 3) and administration of a permit system for
construction of permanent structures in coastal erosion areas (Policy 1), for which the OCMP will
use control technique 306(e)(1)(A), (15 C.F.R. ï¿½ 923.42), or state establishment of criteria and
standards for local implementation.

    The OCMP is organized within ODNR to integrate the activities of the divisions with coastal
management authorities and responsibilities.

    The Integrated Management Team assists REALM in coordinating and executing coastal
management responsibilities. The Integrated Management Team consists of key individuals
representing ODNR's divisions who work cooperatively with REALM's Coastal Management
Section to implement the OCMP to ensure that actions of their respective divisions are consistent
with the OCMP and ultimately to ensure that ODNR's actions are consistent with coastal
management policies. The Director of ODNR directed the chief of each division with significant
relevant coastal responsibilities to select a key individual to serve on the management team. Individ-
uals from REALM and the divisions of Natural Areas and Preserves, Parks and Recreation, Forestry,
Soil and Water Conservation, Water, Watercraft, Wildlife, Geological Survey, and Engineering
comprise the ODNR Integrated Management Team. The entire team meets regularly. and portions
of the team meet with respect to specific issues as they arise.

    The Divisions of Geological Survey, Water, Engineering and REALM have specific
designation, enforcement and technical responsibilities pertaining to coastal flooding and erosion
areas, shore erosion protection, and use of Lake Erie waters and submerged lands. REALM's Coastal
Management Section will coordinate ODNR's review of consolidated permit applications and
monitor overall program performance.

    ODNR's various divisions provide input in department-wide environmental reviews conducted
by REALM. The Coastal Management Section integrates these interdisciplinary reviews in the
OCMP's consistency review process (discussed in Section 4 of this chapter) and coordinates with
other state, federal and local agencies.

    Outside of ODNR, the OCMP is networked with other state agencies having authority and
responsibilities in the coastal area. One method of coordination is through the Lake Erie
Commission. Agencies represented on that commission are the Departments of Health, Agriculture,


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS   Part II 4 - 22                               March 1997








Ohio EPA, Transportation and Development. The Chief of REALM is the Director of ODNR's
designee to the commission.

    The OCMP uses a Policies and Programs Coordinating Committee (PPCC) to ensure continuing
communication among the agencies networked in the program and to help coordinate the activities
of the agencies. The PPCC consists of the Coastal Management Administrator, Executive Director
of the Lake Erie Office, individuals designated by the directors of the five agencies in addition to
ODNR on the Lake Erie Commission, and an individual designated by the Ohio Historical Society.
The responsibilities of those serving on the PPCC include serving as agency liaisons for coastal
management purposes and helping to ensure that actions by the respective agencies, or subject to the
approval of or funding by the agencies, are consistent with coastal management policies. The PPCC
assists ODNR and other agencies with program implementation. Further details on how this relates
to other mechanisms in forming a comprehensive program are provided in Section 4 of this chapter.
The PPCC will also participate in periodic program evaluation and planning to enhance the OCMP.

    Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) have been developed between ODNR and the Ohio EPA
and the Department of Transportation (see Appendix E). The MOUs are a critical component of the
networked coastal management program. The purpose of the MOUs is to facilitate consultation and
coordination between ODNR and agencies networked in the OCMP. The'MOUs set forth the
responsibilities of the agencies to ensure consistency with coastal management policies of activities
subject to state agency approval and to provide mechanisms for mediating determinations of
inconsistency.

    The MOUs describe actions that will be undertaken by each agency to minimize duplication and
delays while ensuring that activities affecting the coastal area are adequately reviewed. The MOUs
contain a statement of purpose and describe coordination processes with ODNR. Steps are detailed
for ensuring consistency of state projects, activities that require a state permit or license, and projects
receiving state financial assistance. The MOUs set forth steps to be followed to mediate disagree-
ments and designate agency liaisons for these purposes.


Cooperation with Other Promrams

    The OCMP cannot achieve its integrated management goals without working with the following
additional programs that have complementary objectives. Important OCMP linkages exist with the
first two listed programs, which have a common federal partner, NOAA.

    The National Estuarine Research Reserve (NERR) Program, administered in Ohio by the
Division of Natural Areas and Preserves (DNAP) at the Old Woman Creek State Nature Preserve
and National Estuarine Research Reserve (OWC-NERR), plays an important role in the development
and implementation of Ohio's coastal management policies. Strong institutional relationships exist
with the OCMP as a result of OWC-NERR's involvement in ODNR's interdisciplinary environmental
reviews, nonpoint source pollution management, coastal wetlands research and wetlands protection
policy development.  An MOU  between DNAP and REALM sets forth Ohio's policy to fully


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 4 - 23                               March 1997








integrate the OWC-NERR into Ohio's broad-based approach to managing Lake Erie's coastal
resources (see Appendix E). This institutional arrangement promotes a strong, substantive and
collaborative working relationship between the two programs. The DNAP cooperates with REALM
in mutual administrative support and technical and other assistance in implementing the OCMP. The
OWC-NERR program administrator is a member of the OCMP's Integrated Management Team.

    The Ohio Sea Grant College Program, administered by The Ohio State University, is a
partnership of Ohio colleges and universities, agencies, industries, the public and federal
government, working to increase the enjoyment, development and balanced use of Lake Erie and
marine resources. The program accomplishes its goals through supporting research and providing
education and advisory or extension programs. Technology transfer is accomplished by the Advisory
Service, its four extension specialists and advisory committees of citizens representing diverse
interests in Lake Erie.

    The OCMP works directly with Ohio Sea Grant and indirectly through the Ohio Lake Erie
Office to publish information on coastal management issues and promote a better understanding of
the problems and opportunities in protecting, developing and restoring coastal resources. ODNR and
agencies networked in the OCMP publish articles about policies and programs affecting Lake Erie
interests in the Lake Erie Commission Supplement to Ohio Sea Grant's bimonthly publication, Twine
Line. Ohio Sea Grant staff and extension specialists consult ODNR on a wide range of coastal issues
and participate in meetings of the OCMP's Coastal Resources Advisory Council. Such interaction
enhances the Council's ability to make sound recommendations on policies, plans and programs for
long-term, comprehensive coastal management.

    The Coastal Resources Advisory Council an important linkage for policy development and
public outreach. The Council, created pursuant to O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.12, consists of 19 members
representing a broad range of interests, experience and knowledge relating to the management, use,
conservation and development of the coastal area. It annually selects a chair from its members and
holds meetings at least quarterly in the coastal area. Its meetings are open to the public, as are the
records of its proceedings (Appendix F - Sunshine Rule). The Council advises and makes
recommendations to ODNR's director on the development of coastal management policies, plans and
programs, and on ways to enhance cooperation among governmental agencies having an interest in
coastal management. REALM assures effective interaction between the Council and OCMP by
involving members of the Integrated Management Team and PPCC in meetings of the Council. The
Council assists ODNR with public participation in the development of the OCMP, including public
meetings and hearings.

    The Submerged Lands Advisory Council, created pursuant to O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.37, consists of
nine members, including the Director of Natural Resources or designee, the Director of the Ohio
Historical Society or designee, and seven members appointed by the Governor interested in and
knowledgeable about the preservation of shipwrecks and submerged resources. At least two
members must be experienced in scuba diving, and at least one member must be a professional
salvor or surveyor. The Council is an important linkage between the coastal management program
and sport diving interests, maritime heritage interests and others concerned with the protection and


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 4 - 24                           March 1997








     utilization of shipwrecks and other submerged resources. The Council may make recommendations
     to the Coastal Resources Advisory Council, the Directors of Natural Resources and the Ohio
     Historical Society, and members of the General Assembly regarding creation and boundaries of
     submerged lands preserves, issuance of permits for salvage or recovery of submerged abandoned
     property, and other policy or legislative issues relating to management and preservation of
     submerged resources.

          Cooperation with local governments and planning agencies in the coastal area is vital to the
     coastal management program. Many of the policies of the OCMP directly affect or call for action
     by local jurisdictions. The OCMP consults with county planning agencies, area-wide planning
     agencies, and local communities on submerged lands issues, Lake Erie coastal erosion area
     designation and enforcement, coastal flood hazard area regulation, and other aspects of coastal
     management. Coastal Resources Advisory Council meetings provide an opportunity for information
     exchange and input by local and regional entities on coastal management policy making. There are
     also linkages between local jurisdictions and several state agencies that are represented on the Lake
     Erie Commission and ODNR's PPCC. This is important because the PPCC helps state agencies with
     responsibilities in the coastal area to be knowledgeable about local issues, coastal activities and other
     coastal management concerns. In turn, the agencies represented on the PPCC assist ODNR in
     helping keep constituents and local agencies informed about coastal management program activities,
     policy making and opportunities for cooperative projects.

          Finally, ODNR's partnership with NOAA will play an important role in effective administration
i     of the coastal management program.  NOAA must work closely with ODNR to maximize the
     protection and use of the coastal area based upon Ohio's needs, while also satisfying national needs.
     The CZMA is administered by OCRM. OCRM's Coastal Programs Division administers funding
     and oversees the development and implementation of the OCMP. ODNR receives essential policy
     guidance from NOAA, and in turn, with other coastal states, Ohio helps shape federal coastal
     management policies.


     SECTION 4. ACHIEVING CONSISTENCY WITH COASTAL MANAGEMENT POLICIES

          This Section discusses measures to avoid conflicts and achieve consistency in program
     implementation at the state level. State consistency is essential in achieving improved coordination,
     increasing predictability in decision making, and ensuring that the OCMP is a comprehensive
     program.

          Ohio law, O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.03, states that "no project or activity directly affecting the coastal area
     that is proposed by or subject to the approval of any agency of the state shall be implemented or
     approved until the Director of Natural Resources has determined that it is consistent with the policies
     in the coastal management program document." When the following activities directly affect the
     coastal area, they must be consistent with the policies in the OCMP document:

          1.  State agency projects and activities;


     Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 4 - 25                             March 1997








    2.  Applicant activities that require state permits, licenses or certifications.

    "State agency" or "agency of the state" means any governmental entity of the state and includes,
but is not limited to, any board, department, division, commission, bureau, society, council,
institution, state college or university, community college district, technical college district, or state
community college. It does not include the general assembly or any court (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.01(G)).

    Achieving state consistency with Ohio's coastal management policies is fundamentally a
proactive effort. It will be of benefit to both the sponsors of projects affecting the coastal area and
the state or local agencies that enforce Ohio's policies through permitting, licensing and other
actions.

    Benefits to developers and project sponsors will include: determining more quickly and
precisely what permits or other authorizations are required for a given project and understanding
better why and on what basis permits and approvals would be issued, denied, or conditionally
granted. In this way, project planning will be expedited and predictability of decision making
improved.

    Benefits to state and local agencies will include: enhancing each agency's knowledge of the
enforceable authorities and policies of other state and local agencies with responsibility in the coastal
area; improving the coordination of project reviews between and among agencies; identifying
opportunities and taking action to simplify and consolidate the regulation of activities in the coastal
area; and improving monitoring and enforcement through communication and networking.

    The OCMP will use its enforceable authorities and policies, clearly identified in Chapter 5, to
ensure state consistency.  These policies and effective consultation and coordination among
networked state and local agencies will combine to assure that projects directly affecting the coastal
area will be consistent with the state's coastal resource management policies.

    The substantive and procedural criteria for determining consistency are unique to each
enforceable authority and policy cited in Chapter 5. In practice, ODNR uses information generated
by agencies that implement these policies or controls on activities affecting the coastal area. When
a project is subject to one or more enforceable authorities, the Coastal Management Section,
REALM, reviews information provided by the responsible agency(ies) and may consult with other
state, federal or local agencies. In appropriate cases, ODNR will notify the public of consistency
reviews and provide an opportunity for comment prior to the final consistency determination.

    ODNR will publish a policies summary and consistency guidance for state and local agencies
and permit applicants. The guidance will provide detailed procedures for complying with the
consistency requirement. This information and the technical assistance provided by agencies
networked in the OCMP will assist developers and any state agencies that require permits or other
approvals for their projects. The OCMP strongly encourages early coordination and preapplication
consultation with the agencies that implement coastal management policies.



Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 4 - 26                             March 1997








    Within ODNR, REALM has the administrative responsibility for consistency reviews, using the
existing interdisciplinary environmental review process. REALM may monitor individual projects
during implementation and evaluate overall consistency performance by ODNR and state agencies.

    Although not subject to the consistency requirement, projects for which state financial
assistance is sought may benefit from the consistency process. State agencies providing financial
assistance for projects that would directly affect the coastal area should provide the OCMP policies
summary and consistency guidance to the project sponsor. In this way, the sponsor will be
encouraged to consult with appropriate agencies to ensure consistency with coastal management
policies.

     By coordinating the rules and policies of agencies networked in the program, the OCMP will
simplify and consolidate the regulation of activities in the coastal area consistent with the Ohio
Coastal Management Law (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.02(A)(5)). Agencies of the state will benefit from
consultation that will assist decision making and avoid potential conflicts between different
authorities that bear on the same project or activity. The sponsors of projects that affect the coastal
area will benefit as well. There will be fewer potential delays, and the predictability of decisions by
agencies that exercise authority in the coastal area will be improved. The enhanced coordination in
the OCMP improves the environment for local and regional economic development consistent with
the protection and management of the state's coastal resources.

Consistency for State Proiects

    Each state agency has responsibility to certify and ensure that its own proposed projects are
consistent with coastal management policies. However, the ultimate authority to determine
consistency rests with the Director of ODNR. The director may concur with another state agency's
or division's certification of consistency or object and require that a particular project not be
implemented or approved unless it is modified to be consistent with OCMP policies. The denial of
a state permit cited in Chapter 5 or a violation of state law cited as an enforceable policy would
automatically be grounds for a determination by the director that the project or activity is not
consistent with coastal management policies. State projects and activities that are subject to
consistency review are listed at the end of this chapter. To the maximum extent practicable, the
direct state activities and development projects shall be carried out in a manner consistent with all
applicable policies whether enforceable or not.

The following procedure is to be followed by the agency responsible for a proposed state project:

    1. Determine whether the project will directly affect coastal resources.

    2. Determine which OCMP policies apply.

    3. Consult as needed with other relevant state agencies.





Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 4 - 27                              March 1997








    4.  Submit to ODNR (Coastal Management Section, REALM), at least 90 days before final
         decisions are made by the agency or any participating agency, a notification that includes
         a consistency certification, location map and site plan, and a project description
         commensurate in detail with its size and scope.

         The certification should read as follows: "I certify that the proposed project complies with
         and will be conducted in a manner consistent with the policies of the Ohio Coastal
         Management Program."

    5.  Provide additional supporting data and list all applications, approvals and denials received
         from state, local or federal agencies for all activities associated with the project. Document
         consultation and findings.

    ODNR shall inform the state agency of its concurrence in or objection to the consistency
certification in writing within 45 days of receipt of the notification described in item 4 above.
ODNR may notify the agency within that time that the final response will be delayed and provide
reasons for the delay. The extension period shall be 15 days or less. Additional extensions shall
not be provided unless mutually agreed to between ODNR and the agency.

    Upon completion of its review, ODNR will notify the state agency in writing that the proposed
project is either consistent or inconsistent with policies of the OCMP. If found consistent, no further
reviews by ODNR will be necessary. If found inconsistent, ODNR will clearly identify the rule,
regulation, or policy the action does not meet and will recommend ways that the action should be
modified, if possible, to ensure consistency. ODNR may also request additional information
necessary to make its determination. Revised proposals shall be resubmitted to ODNR for
determination of consistency. ODNR will notify the state agency and the agency(ies) with approval
authority of its determination within 30 days of receipt of the revised proposal.

Consistency in Activities Reauiring a State License. Permit or Other ApDroval

    For a project or activity directly affecting the coastal area subject to the approval of any agency
of the state, each state agency that has regulatory or other enforceable authority will review the
project for consistency. The permitting agency assumes responsibility for notifying and clarifying
to the applicant the OCMP consistency requirement and the applicable policies and authorities.

    The following procedure is to be followed by the authorizing agency:

     1.  Determine whether the regulated activity will directly affect coastal resources.

    2.  Inform the applicant of the OCMP consistency requirements and request necessary
         documentation.

    3.  Review the application to ensure the activity contemplated is consistent with and will be
         conducted in a manner consistent with applicable coastal management policies.


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 4 - 28                               March 1997








          4. Consult as needed with the applicant and with relevant state agencies.

          5.  Notify ODNR (Coastal Management Section, REALM) as follows:

               a.  An agency that has not developed a Statement of Coastal Management Policies
                   approved by ODNR (see following section on Mechanisms to Ensure State
                   Consistency), shall notify ODNR of its finding that the proposed activity is or is not
                   consistent with its enforceable policies at least 30 days before a final action is taken.

               b.  An agency that has developed a Statement of Coastal Management Policies shall
                   notify ODNR if the proposed activity is found not to be consistent with coastal
                   management policies at least 30 days before a final action is taken.

          6. Notify ODNR in any case whether the project has met the agency's enforceable
               requirements (e.g., state agency intends to grant approval; agency intends to deny approval;
               agency intends to withhold approval until it meets standards or complies with rules).

          For each proposed activity about which a state agency has notified ODNR pursuant to paragraph
      5., ODNR will base its consistency determination upon the approvals of the state agencies enforcing
      the policies and authorities in the coastal management program document. Whenever a project does
      not meet the requirements of one or more state or local agencies that implement enforceable coastal
      management policies, the Director of ODNR will require that the project not be implemented until
i-  it is determined that it is consistent with the policies in the coastal management program document.
      Assurance from a state agency that its approval will be granted provided specific conditions or
      requirements are met could be the basis for a determination of consistency by the Director of ODNR,
      contingent upon the project adhering to those requirements.

          ODNR will notify the applicant and the authorizing agency in writing of its consistency
      determination. In any determination of inconsistency, ODNR will clearly identify the rule, regulation
      or policy that the action does not meet and will recommend to the applicant in writing ways that the
      action should be modified, if possible, to ensure consistency. ODNR may request additional
      information necessary to make its determination. Revised proposals must be resubmitted to ODNR
      for determination of consistency. ODNR will make a new determination of consistency based upon
      the action of the agency enforcing the applicable policy. ODNR will notify in writing the applicant
      and the state agency(ies) with approval authority of its determination within 30 days of receipt of the
      revised proposal.

          While all state agencies will participate in the consistency review process, each state agency is
      ultimately responsible for implementing only its specific authorities.








      Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 4 - 29                               March 1997








Mechanisms to Ensure State Consistency

    Statements of Coastal Management Policies

    The Ohio Coastal Management law, in O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.03, provides for discretionary
development by each state agency of a statement of coastal management policies, subject to the
approval of ODNR's director. ODNR recommends that, for appropriate classes of activities, a state
agency develop a statement of coastal management policies. This statement must, at a minimum,
be as stringent as the corresponding OCMP policy provisions. The OCMP encourages state agencies
to develop statements of coastal management policies as a means to assure consistency and avoid
case-by-case reviews of projects and activities that singly and cumulatively do not have the potential
to cause significant impacts upon coastal resources. A statement must include:

    1.  A list of the agency's projects or activities that, if implemented or approved, would directly
         affect the coastal area (refer to Chapter 3) and that are determined by agreement between
         ODNR and the agency to be consistent with the policies of the OCMP;

    2.  A provision that incorporates the approved statement into the agency's administrative
         policies and decision-making processes; and

    3.  A provision for the annual review of consistency performance by ODNR, with revocation
         of approval if consistency performance is determined to be unsatisfactory.

    REALM will consult at least annually with each agency using a statement of coastal
management policies. OCMP staff will request information on the number and location of projects
implemented under the statement. State agencies will be encouraged to provide information on
consultations with agencies that enforce coastal management policies. REALM may select projects
at random for on-site review and consult with other agencies that exercise applicable enforceable
authorities.

    ODNR will notify any agency whose approval is to be revoked, providing a written justification
for the revocation. The revocation shall be effective 30 days after the date of notification. An
agency whose statement of coastal management policies is revoked may submit for ODNR approval
a new statement no earlier than six months after the revocation date.

    Memoranda of Understanding

    Several agencies networked in the OCMP have developed MOUs with ODNR to facilitate
consultation and coordination and help ensure consistency (see Appendix E and Section 3 of this
chapter, "Mechanisms for Networking the OCMP"). These MOUs address activities requiring case-
by-case review and those exempt from review (categorical exclusions).






Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 4 - 30                             March 1997








          Early Coordination

          ODNR will use early coordination meetings and "preapplication consultation" to communicate
     the requirements of the OCMP and to help ensure that an activity will be implemented in a manner
     consistent with the OCMP. OCMP policies and consistency guidance to be published by REALM
     may be used or adapted for use in grants manuals, procedural guides and other publications of state
     agencies that provide financial assistance or that regulate activities.

          Interagency Consultation

          Any state agency can use the Policies and Programs Coordinating Committee (PPCC) to
     coordinate project planning or to provide consultation in the planning or review of a project affecting
     the coastal area. To request such assistance, an agency representative should contact REALM's
     coastal management administrator. The PPCC will assist REALM in ensuring overall program
     consistency by monitoring select projects during implementation. This will help refine OCMP con-
      sistency mechanisms and assist in determining when categorical exclusions and case-by-case reviews
      are appropriate.

     Conflict Resolution

          Ohio's coastal management legislation requires all state agencies to "cooperate with the
     Department of Natural Resources in the implementation of the coastal management program"
.     (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.02).  This provision, and the provision requiring state consistency (O.R.C. ï¿½
      1506.03) greatly decrease the potential for conflict. Nevertheless, OCMP policies may lead to con-
      flicts between parties with various rights and authorities. Therefore, the OCMP provides formal
      conflict resolution processes.

          Conflicts between state agencies, or between ODNR divisions, over issues related to coastal
      management policies will be addressed initially by REALM upon request by a state agency or ODNR
      division. Upon receipt of a written request for mediation describing the activity or issue over which
      there is a serious disagreement, the Coastal Management Administrator will within 15 days schedule
      a meeting of the parties involved. If mediation efforts by REALM do not resolve the disagreement,
      the directors of the respective agencies, or chiefs of the respective divisions, will meet. If unresolved
      at that level, ODNR will refer the matter to the Office of the Governor for mediation, in the case of
      conflicts between agencies. REALM will refer unresolved ODNR conflicts to ODNR's director, for
      mediation.

          Ad hoc Cabinet Clusters related to specific issues (e.g., Energy Policy) may be used to resolve
      conflicts at the direction of the Governor. Ultimate resolution of interagency conflicts, however,
      rests with the Governor.







      Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 4 - 31                               March 1997








    The formal MOUs between ODNR and the major networked agencies with relevant
responsibilities in the coastal area include specific conflict avoidance and resolution components.
The provisions in those MOUs shall take precedence over those stated above for the signatory
agencies.

    State agencies are encouraged to be proactive in managing problems to avoid serious
disagreements requiring formal conflict resolution measures. Whether seeking to become more
effective in managing conflicts, or desiring third party assistance in dispute resolution, state or local
agencies may wish to seek the services of the Ohio Comm-ission on Dispute Resolution and Conflict
Management.











































Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part 11 4 - 32                             March 1997








                         State Activities and Development Projects;
                             Licenses, Permits and Approvals
                        Subject to State Consistency Requirements


I.  Direct State Activities and Development Proiects

    Department of Administrative Services, Office of the State Architect and Engineer

         State capital improvement projects other than Ohio Department of Natural Resources and
             Ohio Department of Transportation.
         Land acquisition and disposal.

    Ohio Department of Natural Resources

         Capital improvements projects.
         Master land use plans.
         Establishment of Lake Erie submerged lands preserves.
         Land acquisition and disposal.

    Ohio Department of Transportation

         State highway projects.
         Land acquisition and disposal.

II. Licenses. Permits and ADDrovals

    Ohio Department of Agriculture

         Permits for the use of pesticides and herbicides.

    Ohio Environmental Protection Agency

         Permits to Install for air sources.
         Section 401 Water Quality Certifications.
         National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits.
         Injection well drilling permits.
         Solid waste disposal plant and site permits.
         Permits to Install for wastewater facilities.
         Permits to Install for solid waste facilities.
         Hazardous waste facility permit renewals and revisions.
         Plan approvals for public water supply systems.




Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 4 - 33                        March 1997








    Ohio Department of Health

    Marina construction and improvement plan approvals.
    Private water supply system pen-nits.

    Ohio Department of Natural Resources

        Submerged land leases.
        Coastal erosion area permits.
        Erosion control structure permits.
        Offshore mineral removal from Lake Eric, permits and leases.
        Water diversion permits.
        Leases and licenses for use of state lands.
        Underwater salvage permits.
        Permits for darns, dikes and levees.
        Authorization for use of explosives or other deleterious substances in state waters
        Oil and gas extraction permits.
        Surface mining permits.

    Public Utilities Commission, Power Siting Board

        Certification of major utility facilities.

    Hazardous Waste Facility Board

        Installation and operation permits for new facilities and modifications.























Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part 11 4 - 34                              March 1997








                                         CHAPTER 5
                                 MANAGEMENT POLICIES


    The OCMP is a long-range program for protection and management of our coastal resources.
It is a prospective and progressive program. Full implementation of the OCMP begins with the
adoption of the program document and evolves through state and local implementation of its
enforceable policies and other management measures. As indicated in the previous chapter on
program organization, the OCMP relies on action and oversight by local jurisdictions and state
agencies for ensuring consistency with coastal management policies.

    Coastal management policies promote the wise management of those land and water uses
having direct and significant impacts upon the Lake Erie coastal area. Certain policies focus upon
the protection of significant natural areas, such as wetlands, that embody the unique values of the
Ohio coast. Other policies have been established in an effort to simplify governmental procedures
and foster agency cooperation regarding coastal activities. These management policies are
sufficiently specific, comprehensive and enforceable to enable Ohio to implement a program of
rational development and resource protection for the Lake Erie coastal area. Ohio's management
policies are essential to provide the specific guidance needed by the state and its local jurisdictions
to undertake the OCMP cooperatively.

Managed Coastal Activities

    The OCMP does not affect all activities and projects in the coastal area. Only those activities
considered to have a direct and significant impact on the coastal lands, waters and resources are
identified as managed activities. "Direct and significant impact" is defined as the result of any action
causing or likely to cause (1) changes in the manner in which land, water or other coastal resources
are used, (2) changes in the environmental quality of coastal resources, or (3) limitations on the range
of uses of coastal resources. The state will consider potential individual and cumulative impacts of
such uses on coastal waters.

    The management approach of the OCMP addresses the potential impacts of coastal activities
on coastal resources rather than the general land uses, such as agriculture, water-dependent
commercial development and port operation, with which certain coastal activities are associated.
Land use planning and controls such as zoning are the responsibility of local governments. The
OCMP encourages local governments to exercise their responsibilities and may also provide funding
assistance for the development of port and waterfront master plans. When such plans are adopted
as the basis for local land-use decisions and local regulatory controls, they facilitate decision making
by the state of Ohio regarding, for instance, whether the state may lease areas of Lake Erie waters
and submerged lands to local government or a private littoral property owner for particular uses or
developments.






Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part 11 5 - 1                              March 1997








Policy Development

    As stated earlier, the State of Ohio has an effective existing regulatory framework for managing
coastal area activities. This structure forms the basis of OCMP authorities and policies. To build
upon that framework and determine the manner in which such policies would be prioritized,
integrated and reinforced with nonenforceable policies, a coastal management policy development
process was initiated. The first step in this process was the identification of issues and concerns that
were compiled from many sources, including local governments, waterfront industries, ports, local
planning agencies, interested citizens, the Coastal Resources Advisory Council, and state and federal
agencies. Preceding ODNR's public hearings, meetings and solicitation of written comments on the
OCMP document, there had been extensive organized participation by the general public, local
jurisdictions and public and special interest groups in policy development. The state's early efforts
to develop a coastal program are described in Chapter 2.

    Many recommendations from these studies and ODNR's public participation efforts have
become policy through subsequent amendments to Ohio's coastal law, ODNR rulemaking and policy
development. Other recommendations continue to shape program implementation and enhancement.
The OCMP adopts the assumptions of the Lake Erie Shore Area Redevelopment Task Force, and
presents in this chapter policies for resource protection, management and development that are
reflective of these assumptions. Those assumptions are:

    *   Benefits to be derived from Lake Erie and its shore are dependent upon the continued
         improvement of water quality in coastal area waters.

    *   The shoreline is a finite resource.

    *   Multiple use of the resource as a whole is inherently in the public interest.

    *   Competition for use of shoreline areas and coastal waters is increasing.

    *   Limitations on government revenues require more examination of user fees and
         public/private partnership initiatives.

    With the above assumptions in mind, the State of Ohio's policies have been organized and
prioritized with continued input from the general public, local jurisdictions, state, federal and
regional agencies, independent organizations and public and special interest groups. As a result,
ODNR has identified the following priority coastal management issues, not in order of priority:

    * Water resources and watersheds.

    ï¿½   Coastal land use and development.

    * Coastal habitat, wetlands and natural areas.



Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 5 - 2                              March 1997








    * Coastal flooding and erosion.

         Recreational opportunities.

         Fisheries and wildlife resources.

    Activities at the state and local level directed toward accomplishing the above-stated ends will
be of highest priority for funding under OCMP administration funding.

Organization of this Chanter

    This chapter presents the coastal management policies that address the above-listed priority
issues and additional policies organized in the same way under major issue topics. Each topic is
introduced by a brief summary of concerns regarding the issue. Specific policies for achieving the
coastal management objectives related to the issue are described.

    The framework for implementation and the authorities responsible for such implementation are
outlined in the text that follows each list of policies under the heading: Authorities and
Administration. All policies document existing statutory authority, current governmental programs
or established state policy. Additional information regarding coastal area resources, the boundaries
of the coastal area, policies, rules and other details of the coastal management program are found in
Volume II, Appendices.

    In the OCMP, policies are classified as enforceable and enhancement policies as follows:

     1.  An enforceable policy is regulatory and legally binding.  It mandates that certain
         requirements be satisfied prior to the initiation of a specific activity in the coastal region.
         Such a policy has statutory authority based upon provisions of the Ohio Revised Code.
         Enforceable policies are binding for federal consistency purposes, pursuant to Section 307
         of the CZMA. Enforceable policies are underlined in the text of this chapter and are
         followed by the appropriate Revised Code citation in parentheses.

    2.  An enhancement policy provides guidance or preferences regarding certain activities, but
         is not legally binding. It may be a formal state policy or recommendation, or statute with
         discretionary authority.

    Taken together, these two types of policies offer a clear view of the content of the OCMP. They
specifically show who will be affected by the OCMP, in what fashion and when. The policies
provide a clear sense of direction and predictability for decision makers who must address coastal
issues in their daily work.







Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 5 - 3                               March 1997








                           COASTAL EROSION AND FLOODING

Uses Subiect to Management

    *   Construction or redevelopment of permanent structures in Lake Erie coastal erosion areas.

    *   Construction of erosion control structures.

    *   Development in coastal and riverine flood hazard areas.

    *   Construction of dams, dikes and levees for flood control.

Erosion

    Erosion along the Ohio shore of Lake Erie is a serious problem, requiring increased attention
and effective action by the state. Each year, nearly 1.6 million tons of material is eroded along
Ohio's lakeshore, with significant and far-reaching implications for public safety, health and welfare.
Record-high lake levels in the early 1970s and again in the mid 1980s caused extensive damage to
residential, commercial, industrial and agricultural property. Beaches were inundated by high lake
levels and eroded by waves, leaving structurally unprotected bluffs more vulnerable to wave erosion.
Erosion of dikes and barrier beaches exacerbated wetland loss, negatively affecting coastal wildlife
populations, overall water quality and the natural capacity of the environment to absorb flood waters.

    Of the estimated 1.6 million tons of material eroded along the shore each year, only about 20
percent is sand-sized sediment that remains along the shoreline. The remainder is fine-grained
sediment that disperses in the lake, increasing water turbidity and sedimentation rates. Increased
turbidity reduces recreational opportunities and increases treatment costs for public water supplies.
Increased sedimentation disrupts valuable aquatic habitats, hurting fishery resources and the
commercial and recreational fishing industries they support.

    The effects of erosion on the Ohio shore of Lake Erie have been documented by the Division
of Geological Survey. Field studies examined the modem physical setting (e.g., shore stratigraphy,
shore relief, shore orientation, beach width, nearshore slopes, nearshore sediment, wave climate) and
cultural setting (e.g., land use, shore protection structures) that influence the rate of shore erosion
and recession, both temporally and geographically. Historical charts and aerial photographs
document temporal changes in the physical and cultural settings.

    A century ago, sand beaches fronted most reaches of the Ohio shore of Lake Erie. Along the
high-bluffed shore east of Cleveland, the beach was used as a roadway by settlers coming to Ohio.
Today, many beaches have been eroded. Where beaches remain, they are narrow and segmented and
provide little natural protection from erosion. In their place are numerous (approximately 4,000)
erosion control structures built to protect urban development.




Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part 1 5 - 4                             March 1997








    The shore of Lake Erie varies considerably in relief and composition. Eastward from Toledo
to Huron, the shore consists of low-relief clay banks, sandy barrier beaches, or armor-stone dikes,
except for the rock-bound shore in the Marblehead-Catawba Island area. From Huron to Conneaut,
the shore consists of 20-to 65-foot-high bluffs of till and/or bedrock. Easily eroded materials (sand,
clay and till) make up about 75 percent of the Ohio lakeshore.

    The two principal erosion processes are wave erosion and mass wasting (Carter, Benson and
Guy, 1981; Carter and Guy, 1988). Most wave erosion occurs during spring and fall storms, when
the greatest amount of wave energy is expended along the shore. The amount of mass wasting of
the upper bluff material is largely dependent upon the frequency and amount of wave erosion at the
bluff toe. As the bluff toe erodes, the profile steepens, inducing mass wasting in the upper bluff.

    Although much of the Ohio lakeshore is composed of materials easily eroded by waves, erosion
rates vary over time and from place to place. Natural factors such as shore composition, beach
distribution, nearshore depths, storm frequency, lake level and shoreline orientation contribute to
these variations. Man-made erosion control structures and offshore disposal of sand dredged from
harbors also contribute to these variations and often aggravate existing or create new erosion
problems.

    The OCMP recognizes that along some reaches, erosion control structures have slowed erosion
with minimal apparent adverse impact, while along many other reaches, armoring the shore has been
detrimental. Despite adverse impacts associated with some erosion control structures they are an
integral part of the Ohio lakeshore. Without them, many of the buildings located near the bluff edge
would now face an even greater threat from erosion. The OCMP promotes proper design of new
erosion protection structures and recognizes the benefits of nonstructural erosion control measures
and combinations of structural and nonstructural measures. Recognizing the merits of nonstructural
erosion control measures, Ohio has selected five shoreline properties "otherwise protected" by public
ownership as additions to the federal Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS), thereby protecting
the existing natural barriers and the adjoining aquatic and upland habitats. This brings to 10 the
number of units in the CBRS. The "otherwise protected" areas are Sheldon Marsh, Old Woman
Creek, Kelleys Island North Pond, Mentor Marsh/Headland Dunes and Arcola Creek. These areas
will help demonstrate the value of natural barriers and nonstructural shoreline stabilization measures
designed to mimic, enhance or restore natural stabilization systems.

         For many years, numerous agencies, organizations and experts have warned that continued
exposure of public and private investments to the risk of natural hazards, including coastal erosion,
has widespread deleterious-impacts upon state, local and national economies. Despite erosion and
flooding risks, more than 85 percent of Ohio's shorelands are developed, and development is
expected to continue.

    Erosion-related damages on the Great Lakes were estimated at $290 million in 1985 and 1986
(DeCooke) and at $9 million in 1985 in Lake County, Ohio. Losses cited by the Lake County
Planning Commission include loss of real estate structures, real estate value, private protection



Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 5 - 5                             March 1997








expenditures, public protection expenditures and loss of real estate tax revenues, all typical losses
suffered by the public and by private individuals when development is exposed to erosion risks.

    Without exception, those who warned of the consequences have repeatedly urged that the most
effective and fiscally responsible means to ameliorate losses to public and private investment is to
encourage the location of development out of harm's way. Guiding development outside risk areas
reduces costs to the general public through higher insurance premiums, direct emergency
reimbursements or low-cost loans for damages, and replacement of public infrastructure.

    Under the OCMP, identification of Lake Erie coastal erosion areas and control of new
permanent structures through state or local permits will improve decisions by shoreland property
owners and developers (see Policy 1). The coastal erosion area program will reduce property
damage through hazard avoidance. In addition, proposed erosion control measures will be reviewed
to help ensure their effectiveness and to eliminate or minimize potential adverse impacts on coastal
processes and the adjacent lakeshore (see criteria under Policies 1 and 2). And lastly, by designating
units of the federal Coastal Barrier Resources System as Special Management Areas (see Chapter
6) the OCMP is promoting the protection of other natural features along the coast and promoting the
use of nonstructural measures for erosion control where practicable.

    Erosion is a natural process that never will be eliminated entirely.. Despite the obvious hazards
and the knowledge of potential for erosion, construction has continued within known high-risk
erosion areas. Erosion control structures are not feasible or cost effective in some areas along the
shoreline. Other management approaches involving building and zoning regulations must be
considered. Basic coastal erosion area information must be provided to developers and potential
shorefront owners. More importantly, they must use such information to make intelligent decisions.
Increased efforts are needed to provide this information and to offer management assistance.
Pursuant to Ohio's Coastal Management Act of 1988, preliminary maps identifying land anticipated
to be lost to erosion over a 30-year period have been distributed to local jurisdictions for public
inspection. Coastal erosion areas were identified according to uniform and well-established
scientific protocol, in accordance with administrative rules adopted in 1991 and substantively
amended in 1996. A permit for construction, erection or redevelopment of any permanent structure
within a coastal erosion area will be required in accordance with the Coastal Management Act.
Construction will be allowed within such areas with provision for effective erosion control measures.
The expected outcome is to encourage wiser choices regarding development in coastal erosion areas,
creating an incentive to develop further from the shore.

Flooding

    The destructive capacity of lake and riverine flooding in Ohio's Lake Erie coastal area has also
been observed and documented. A 1977 ODNR report, Coastal Hazards: Erosion, Recession and
Flooding, outlines the causes and effects of flooding and describes the critical nature of the area
where lake and riverine flood waters meet. Previous studies have detailed the results and damages
from particular occurrences on a localized basis. In addition, the U.S. Geological Survey in 1974
prepared a series of maps of flood prone areas for'the entire Ohio Lake Erie basin at the request of


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part 11 5 - 6                            March 1997








the 89th Congress as expressed in House Document 465. These maps are on file with the U.S.
Geological Survey and ODNR's Division of Water. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers prepared
a Report on Great Lakes Open-Coast Flood Levels in 1977 and a Revised Report on Great Lakes
Open-Coast Flood Levels in 1988. Both studies were prepared for the Federal Emergency Man-
agement Agency (FEMA), which, in administering the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP),
provides detailed flood hazard information to all designated and participating communities.

    While the areas subject to flooding are reasonably well known, the timing and occurrence of
such flooding along the lake is highly unpredictable, often resulting from sudden storms and short-
term fluctuations in barometric pressure. More predictable flooding along rivers and streams takes
place in the spring when rainfall and snowmelt occur, the ground is either saturated or frozen, and
runoff is high. Ice jams also compound the flooding problem at these times.

    In the late 1960s, direct flood damages in Ohio averaged $20 - $25 million annually. Today,
annual damages have escalated to more than $100 million and are expected to rise even further.
Again, despite the availability of data that recommends the contrary, development has continued to
occur on Lake Erie's flood hazard areas. One reason for this is that many people mistakenly believe
that federal expenditures on flood control devices have eliminated the possibility of severe flood
damages. Although such structures have prevented some damage, they cannot offer complete
protection against all floods. Furthermore, the federal government will not finance projects that cost
more to build than the value of properties they are designed to protect. Flood damages also increase
when flood protection structures interfere with the free flow of water. Water backs up or is diverted
onto properties that were previously flood free. Paved and built-over areas and the loss of natural
protective systems like wetlands compound flooding by concentrating rainwater runoff that results
in an increase in floodwaters.

    The shortcomings of a flood protection policy based solely upon physical structures have
become apparent. The current trend is to focus on nonstructural alternatives such as floodplain
regulations, flood proofing, wetland preservation, stream management and public acquisition of
floodplain lands. Although such strategies can reduce potential flood damages, they are often
difficult to implement. This difficulty is primarily due to a confusing combination of building codes,
zoning regulations and NFIP Standards that, at times, contradict one another and result in
enforcement problems. Public administrators have lacked a unified management plan that
coordinates the various activities of agencies with responsibilities pertaining to floodplain
management.













Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 5 - 7                              March 1997








        POLICY 1 - LAKE ERIE COASTAL EROSION AREA MANAGEMENT

    IT IS THE POLICY OF THE STATE OF OHIO TO MINIMIZE THREATS TO
HUMAN SAFETY AND PROPERTY DUE TO LAKE ERIE-RELATED EROSION WHILE
PROTECTING THE FUNCTIONS OF NATURAL SHORE FEATURES BY:

    A. DELINEATING THE BOUNDARIES OF LAKE ERIE COASTAL EROSION
        AREAS (O.R.C. d 1506.06 AND O.A.C. 1501:6-10 THROUGH 1501:6-13):

    B. ADMINISTERING AND ENFORCING A PERMIT PROGRAM FOR CONSTR-
        UCTION ACTIVITIES IN LAKE ERIE COASTAL EROSION AREAS (O.R.C. .
        1506.07. O.A.C. 1501:6-21 THROUGH 1501:6-28):

    C. REOUIRING OWNERS OF PROPERTY IN LAKE ERIE COASTAL EROSION
        AREAS TO NOTIFY BUYERS OF THE LAND'S STATUS PRIOR TO ANY
        TRANSACTION (O.R.C. 4 1506.06(F)): AND

    D. ENCOURAGE STRATEGIC RETREAT WHERE NATURAL FUNCTIONS OF
        BLUFFS, DUNES AND COASTAL BARRIERS CAN BE MAINTAINED EF-
        FECTIVELY AND SELECTIVE FORTIFICATION TO PROTECT EXISTING
        DEVELOPMENT VULNERABLE TO LONG-TERM RAPID EROSION.

Authorities and Administration

    Pursuant to O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.06 and 1506.07, ODNR will administer a permit system for
construction, erection and redevelopment of permanent structures within Lake Erie coastal erosion
areas. The purpose of this management approach is to promote wise decision making with respect
to the location of permanent structures and thereby reduce risk and loss to private property, public
infrastructure and natural protective features. It is intended that property owners will increasingly
choose to locate structures outside coastal erosion areas as a result of this action. In cases where
construction does occur within the coastal erosion areas, protection measures consistent with OCMP
policies and review criteria will be provided.

    The management strategy entails two components authorized by the Ohio Coastal Management
Law: (1) identification of Lake Erie coastal erosion areas (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.06) and (2) administration
of the permit program within those areas (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.07). Policies 1.A. and 1.B. below set forth
the authorities as they will exist during program implementation. However, at the time of
publication of this document and Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), one important
process for finalizing these authorities remains to be completed. ODNR must make a final
identification of coastal erosion areas after conducting the continuing process for affected
landowners to object to ODNR's preliminary identification of such areas. It is important for coastal
area jurisdictions and interests to continue to be informed regarding this process, as described in the
following paragraph.



Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS     Part II 5 - 8                                  March 1997








          ODNR completed its preliminary identification of Lake Erie coastal erosion areas in accordance
      with administrative rules that became effective June 14, 1996 (O.A.C. 1501-6-10 to 1501-6-13; see
      Appendix G). On September 30, 1996, property owners and local jurisdictions were notified of the
      preliminary identification and informed regarding how to obtain additional information and how to
      object to the preliminary identification. Eight public hearings (one in each coastal county bordering
      Lake Erie) were held to hear public comments on the preliminary identification. All public hearings
      and review and comment periods were extensively publicized throughout Lake Erie region.
      Following the notification of jurisdictions and property owners, 120 days was provided by law for
      property owners to object to the manner in which ODNR identified coastal erosion areas on their
      property. That period ended at midnight February 4, 1997. ODNR now has 90 days to review and
      rule on the objections presented. Following that, ODNR will notify each objecting person, and
      another 60-day objection and 60-day review period will take place. At the conclusion of ODNR's
      review, the agency will make the final identification of the coastal erosion areas. The final maps will
      be distributed to local authorities. (This authority is further explained in Policy 1.A. below.) Once
      the final identification has been made, owners of property within coastal erosion areas must notify
      buyers of that status (see Policy 1.C. below).

          Based on the preliminary identification of Lake Erie coastal erosion areas released September
      30, 1996, the extent of coastal erosion areas in each county is estimated to be as follows: Lucas -
      7 miles, Ottawa - 24 miles, Sandusky - 4 miles, Erie - 17 miles, Lorain - 14 miles, Cuyahoga - 12
      miles, Lake - 24 miles, Ashtabula - 21 miles. Approximately 55 percent of the Ohio mainland
      coastline was preliminarily designated within preliminary Lake Erie coastal erosion areas. These
--.   numbers may change in response to objections filed by lakefront property owners.

      A.  To minimize erosion damages, ODNR was directed to identify coastal erosion areas on Lake
          Erie (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.06). These areas represent the land likely to be lost to shore erosion within
          the next 30 years if no additional approved erosion control measures are implemented. The
          delineation of coastal erosion areas is based upon scientific analysis of shore recession
          conducted by ODNR's Division of Geological Survey. The methodology was developed based
          upon many years of experience dealing with coastal erosion along Lake Erie and consultation
          with the public, local authorities and the coastal programs of other Great Lakes states. An
          external working group assisted with revisions to the rules in 1995. The rules governing the
           identification of Lake Erie coastal erosion areas are contained in O.A.C. 1501:6-10 through
           1501:6-13 (see Appendix G). The mapping and tabulation of data for the preliminary identi-
           fication of coastal erosion areas have been completed according to the procedures described in
          those administrative rules. Shoreland property owners and local governments will be notified
          that property or territory may lie in a coastal erosion area, in accordance with the procedures
           discussed above. At least once every 10 years, ODNR shall review and may revise the
           identification of Lake Erie coastal erosion areas.

      B.  Construction, erection or redevelopment of any permanent structure within a coastal erosion
           area requires a permit from the Director of ODNR (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.07). A permanent structure
           is defined as any residential, commercial, industrial, institutional or agricultural building, any
           manufactured home as defined in O.R.C. ï¿½ 4501.01, or any addition to such a structure if it


      Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 5 - 9                             March 1997








    exceeds 500 square feet at ground level, and any septic system that receives sewage from a
    single-family, two-family, or three-family dwelling. Recreational vehicles as defined in O.R.C.
    ï¿½ 4501.01 are not included (O.A.C. 1501-6-21). Final rules for enforcing the permit system in
    Lake Erie coastal erosion areas are included in Appendix H. These rules were officially filed
    with the Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review (JCARR) in July, 1995 and refiled by ODNR
    in final form in June, 1996.

    Permits will be issued only when the site is or will be protected by an effective erosion control
    measure - structural, nonstructural or a combination of the two - that is approved by the
    Director OR if the following criteria are met:

    1. The permanent structure will be movable or will be situated as far landward as applicable
         zoning resolutions or ordinances permit; and

    2. The applicant will suffer exceptional hardship if the authorization is not given.

    As indicated above, a person may seek authorization to build or redevelop within a coastal
    erosion area by installing an effective erosion control measure to protect the proposed new
    permanent structure or by demonstrating that existing erosion control measures will be
    effective. ODNR will assess whether any proposed erosion control measures are effective in
    protecting the permanent structure without causing or contributing to unacceptable adverse
    effects on the shore, littoral zone or coastal processes. Erosion control measures will be
    evaluated in terms of the following, as specified in O.A.C. 1501-6-24:

    *   Potential individual or cumulative impact, including any adverse effects on sand resources
         and coastal processes;

    * Potential for accelerating erosion along the adjacent shoreline;

    *   Stability of the existing or proposed slope;

    * The effectiveness of existing erosion control measures at the proposed site and along the
         adjacent shoreline;

    * The integrity of the existing or proposed erosion control measure, its appurtenances and
         its component materials; and

    * The effectiveness of proposed structural and/or nonstructural measures to protect the
         permanent structure.

    Each permit application must be reviewed on its own merits. Potential applicants are
    encouraged to initiate preapplication consultation by contacting ODNR's Coastal Management
    Section, Division of Real Estate and Land Management.



Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 5 - 10                           March 1997








    Erosion control measures typically require a permit from the State of Ohio under O.R.C. ï¿½
    1507.04, a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) pursuant to Section 10 of the
    Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and a Section 401
    Water Quality Certification from Ohio EPA under O.R.C. ï¿½ 6111.03(0) and ï¿½ 6111.03(P). In
    addition, a submerged lands lease is required from the State of Ohio if any erosion control
    measure extends into the waters or onto the lands underlying the waters of Lake Erie (O.R.C.
    ï¿½ 1506.11 and O.A.C. ï¿½ 1501-6-1 through 1501-6-6). Therefore, a variety of factors, in addition
    to those noted above, are also considered during comprehensive and coordinated review by
    ODNR and Ohio EPA. These include, but are not limited to, impacts on water quality, fish and
    wildlife, and public uses such as navigation, water commerce and recreation. See Policy 12
    Wetlands and Appendix K for a detailed description of the relevant criteria and coordinated
    review process with respect to Section 10/404 Permits and Section 401 Water Quality
    Certifications. See Policy 16 Public Trust Lands and Appendix L for details regarding pro-
    tection of the public trust during review of proposed structures.

    (NOTE: ODNR's comprehensive review of any proposed activity that is subject to a permit
    requirement as described in Policy 2 [O.R.C. ï¿½ 1507.04] will incorporate evaluation of the first
    four factors described above, whether or not the structure is proposed to protect a new
    permanent structure.)

    Any construction activities within a Lake Erie coastal erosion area may be stopped by director's
    order if they are found to be in violation of O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.07. Unauthorized construction
    activities are subject to a civil penalty (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.09) or a fine (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.99).

    The law allows municipal corporations and counties to adopt coastal erosion area ordinances
    and resolutions. ODNR can provide model zoning regulations to assist local jurisdictions in the
    adoption of coastal erosion area ordinances or resolutions. Counties are authorized to enact
    coastal erosion areas standards as part of the local building code by O.R.C. ï¿½ 307.37. A permit
    from ODNR's director "is not required within the territory of any county or municipal
    corporation that has adopted and is enforcing a Lake Erie coastal erosion area resolution or
    ordinance within its zoning or building regulations if the resolution or ordinance has been
    reviewed by the Director ... and meets or exceeds the standards established under division (B)
    of this section" (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.07(c)(1)).

    If local controls are approved by the Director of ODNR as meeting or exceeding standards
    established by ODNR (O.A.C. 1501:6-21 through 28), then the county or municipality will be
    the permitting authority for construction projects in the coastal erosion areas. The Director of
    ODNR retains the authority to review the local implementation and enforcement of local stan-
    dards every two years. If the director determines that the local standards are inadequately
    enforced, permitting authority reverts back to ODNR for the territory of the affected county or
    municipal corporation.

    Even with local implementation of coastal erosion area regulations, a landowner will still be
    required to apply for a permit from the Corps of Engineers and ODNR for the construction of


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 5 - 1 1                           March 1997








    any erosion control structures on Lake Erie. The OCMP will develop a consolidated permit
    application procedure so that an applicant may submit one application package to ODNR to I
    obtain ODNR approvals.

C.  No residential property owner who has been informed that his or her holdings are located in a
    coastal erosion area shall sell or transfer any interest in the property without providing written
    notice to the purchaser or grantee explaining that the land is included in a coastal erosion area
    (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.06(F)). Such notice is to be provided on the property disclosure form for
    transfer of residential real property, in accordance with O.R.C. ï¿½ 5302.30.

D.  Ohio's Lake Erie shore is highly developed, and the realities of significant preexisting economic
    investment must be recognized. In coastal erosion areas where the existing level of
    development is substantial, continued stabilization may be prudent to protect life and property.
    ODNR will focus its funding efforts (see Policy 5) upon appropriate comprehensive projects
    in such areas, if a demonstrated statewide or regional public benefit will result. Where
    practicable and advantageous, ODNR encourages the use of nonstructural techniques in
    conjunction with or instead of structural controls. Within areas where it would be more
    effective to maintain the natural functions of beaches, dunes, bluffs and littoral zones, or where
    construction would measurably increase erosion elsewhere, construction and related shore pro-
    tection will be discouraged and relocation facilitated. In its administration of its authorities, and
    in the provision of financial and technical assistance for erosion control projects and coastal
    erosion management, ODNR will emphasize and encourage strategic retreat and selective
    fortification.


























Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS   Part II 5 - 12                               March 1997








                       POLICY 2 - SHORE EROSION CONTROL

    IT IS THE POLICY OF THE STATE OF OHIO TO PROMOTE SOUND DECISIONS
REGARDING CONTROL OF SHORE EROSION BY:

    A. ISSUING PERMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF SHORELINE EROSION
        CONTROL STRUCTURES (O.R.C. S 1507.04):

    B. PROVIDING TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO THE PUBLIC ON SHORELINE
        EROSION CONTROL STRUCTURES (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1507.10); AND

    C. DEVELOPING A PLAN FOR THE CONTROL OF SHORE EROSION AND
        MAKING THE PLAN AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1507.10).

Authorities and Administration

A.  Any person planning to construct a beach, groin or other structure to arrest or control erosion,
    wave action or inundation along or near the Ohio shoreline of Lake Erie must first submit plans
    and specifications to the Division of Engineering, ODNR, for review in accordance with O.R.C.
    ï¿½ 1507.04. Plans and specifications for shoreline erosion control structures will be reviewed
    by the division in accordance with coastal engineering standards specific to the proposed
    structure. A permit to construct the structure will be issued by the Chief Engineer if the
    proposed structure is in compliance with any applicable laws and rules and is of sound coastal
    engineering  design.    Administrative  rules  as  are  necessary  for the  administration,
    implementation and enforcement of this authority will be developed and adopted by the Chief
    Engineer.

    A submerged lands lease is required if the proposed shoreline erosion control structure will
    extend into the waters or onto the lands underlying the waters of Lake Erie (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.11
    and O.A.C. 1501-6-1 through 1501-6-06). In addition, a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE)
    Section 10/404 permit and Ohio EPA Section 401 Water Quality Certification normally are
    required. Because these authorizations are also required for construction in Lake Erie, factors
    in addition to sound coastal engineering design are considered during comprehensive and
    coordinated review by ODNR and Ohio EPA. These factors include, but are not limited to,
    impact on water quality, fish and wildlife, fish and wildlife habitat, and public uses such as
    navigation, water commerce and recreation. See Policy 12 Wetlands and Appendix K for a
    detailed description of the relevant criteria and coordinated review process with respect to
    Section 10/404 Permits and Section 401 Water Quality Certifications. See Policy 16 Public
    Trust Lands and Appendix L for details regarding protection of the public trust.

B.  ODNR encourages property owners to spend ample time and effort in the initial planning phase
    of a shoreline erosion control project. Consideration should be given to all potential means to
    control shore erosion, including nonstructural and structural measures and a combination of
    both. Design of a shoreline erosion control project must be based on the site-specific conditions


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS    Part II 5 - 13                               March 1997








    and the desired level of erosion protection. Consideration also should be given to designing and
    implementing a coordinated shoreline erosion control project among adjacent property owners,
    rather than individual, property-by-property projects. Coordinated shoreline erosion control
    projects can be more effective, less disruptive to natural processes and less costly than
    individual projects.

C.  The Chief Engineer of ODNR, in cooperation with the Division of Geological Survey, is
    authorized by O.R.C. ï¿½ 1507. 10 to prepare a shore erosion prevention plan and to develop a
    program to provide technical assistance to the public. The Division of Geological Survey
    publishes and updates reports on Lake Erie shore erosion and flooding. These reports contain
    technical data on physical setting, coastal processes and shore recession, and general
    recommendations on shore protection.







































Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part 11 5 - 14                              March 1997








                        POLICY 3 - FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT

          IT IS THE POLICY OF THE STATE OF OHIO TO MINIMIZE FUTURE FLOOD
       DAMAGES AND PREVENT POTENTIAL LOSS TO EXISTING DEVELOPMENT IN
       COASTAL FLOODPLAINS BY:

          A. REOUIRING ALL COUNTIES AND MUNICIPALITIES WITH COASTAL
             FLOOD HAZARD AREAS TO PARTICIPATE IN THE NATIONAL FLOOD
             INSURANCE PROGRAM OR TO ADOPT ORDINANCES MEETING OR EX-
             CEEDING PROGRAM STANDARDS (O.R.C. d 1506.04 AND O.A.C. 1501:22-1-01
             THROUGH 1501:22-1-08):

          B. REOUIRING THAT ANY STATE FUNDED OR FINANCED DEVELOPMENT
             LOCATED WITHIN THE 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN COMPLY WITH THE
             FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT CRITERIA OF THE NATIONAL FLOOD
             INSURANCE PROGRAM. ANY STATE AGENCY HAVING REGULATORY
             .TURISDICTION THAT PREEMPTS THE AUTHORITY OF POLITICAL
             SUBDIVISIONS TO REGULATE DEVELOPMENT IN FLOODPLAINS SHALL
             ENSURE THAT BEFORE GRANTING A LICENSE. PERMIT. OR OTHER
             AUTHORIZATION. THE DEVELOPMENT COMPLIES WITH THE NATIONAL
             FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM CRITERIA (O.R.C. d 1521.14):

is C. REOUIRING THAT NO STATE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE IN CONNECTION
             WITH A FLOOD DISASTER SHALL BE DISBURSED TO OR WITHIN ANY
             COUNTY OR MUNICIPALITY THAT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE
             FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT CRITERIA OF THE NATIONAL FLOOD IN-
             SURANCE PROGRAM (O.R.C. B 1521.14): AND

          D. REQUIRING THAT ALL STATE AGENCY AND POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS,
             PRIOR TO EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS,
             STRUCTURES, ROADS, BRIDGES, OR OTHER FACILITIES IN LOCATIONS
             THAT MAY BE SUBJECT TO FLOODING OR FLOOD DAMAGE, NOTIFY AND
             CONSULT WITH THE DIVISION OF WATER AND SHALL FURNISH SUCH
             INFORMATION AS THE DIVISION MAY REASONABLY REQUIRE IN ORDER
             TO AVOID THE UNECONOMIC, HAZARDOUS OR UNNECESSARY USE OF
             FLOODPLAINS IN CONNECTION WITH SUCH FACILITIES (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1521.14).

       Authorities and Administration

       A. O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.04 mandates that all communities with coastal flood hazard areas designated
          under the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-234) must either participate in the
          NFIP or enact regulations that meet or exceed the standards required for such participation
          (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.04). These standards are set forth in O.A.C. 1501:22-1-01 through -08 (see
          Appendix I). The law further states that, if the Director of ODNR determines that a county or


       Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 5 - 15  March 1997








    municipality is in violation of this requirement, the director may request that the Attorney
    General bring an action for appropriate relief against the noncompliant community. The
    director may also request that an action be brought against any developer conducting a
    development activity in a designated flood hazard area within a county or municipal jurisdiction
    not in compliance with O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.04. Table 1 lists all communities in the coastal area with
    such identified floodplain areas and indicates their participation in the NFIP. All Ohio coastal
    area communities with identified floodplain areas either participate in the NFIP, or have adopted
    floodplain management ordinances which comply with the standards of that program.

    Nonparticipation in the NFIP results in restrictions on federal or federally related financing
    within the flood hazard areas. Most importantly, nonparticipating community residents will not
    be eligible to purchase flood insurance, no federal grants or loans for buildings within flood
    hazard areas will be made and most forms of federal disaster assistance will not be available
    following flood disasters. ODNR is the designated state agency responsible for coordinating
    floodplain management activities with federal, state and local governments (O.R.C. ï¿½
    1521.03(C) and (D)). Local communities will be given assistance in developing acceptable
    floodplain management regulations by the ODNR's Division of Water.

    Local governments may grant variances to their floodplain regulations only when the strict
    enforcement of such regulations due to physical conditions of the land would cause undue
    hardship for landowners. Requests for relief from local floodplain regulations must be made
    to the locally designated variance body. Variances granted by local governmental units must
    conform to state law and the intent of federal laws and programs, including the NFIP where
    applicable.

B.  State agencies that undertake, fund or finance developments located in floodplain areas must
    ensure that such projects or activities are consistent with the NFIP standards (O.R.C. ï¿½
    1521.14). This requirement extends to activities permitted by state agencies where state law
    preempts local governments from setting flood damage prevention standards. O.R.C. ï¿½ 1521.14
    further stipulates that the state develop flood damage reduction standards that shall be consistent
    with the floodplain management criteria of the NFIP. ODNR provides technical assistance and
    guidance to state agencies to ensure that such projects meet these criteria. The Director of
    ODNR may request the Attorney General to bring civil action for injunctive relief against any
    state agency that violates the statute (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1521.14).

C.  O.R.C. ï¿½ 1521.14 requires that state disaster funds in connection with a flood be withheld from
    a "noncompliant" community until the community takes action to establish or re-establish
    compliance. A community is considered "noncompliant" if it either does not participate in the
    NFIP or has not adopted local floodplain regulations that are consistent with that program. All
    Ohio coastal communities are listed as compliant by the State of Ohio.







Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 5 - 16                              March 1997








                                          TABLE 1

                    National Flood Insurance Program Participation Status
                                  of Shoreline Communities
                                     (As of March, 1997)

                                                Participation               Current Map
Community                                           Status                        Date

ASHTABULA COUNTY                                      R                         01-02-81
Ashtabula                                             R                         02-01-80
Conneaut                                              R                         02-15-80
Geneva-on-the-Lake                                    R                         12-04-79
North Kingsville (NSFHA)                              R                         N/A

LAKECOUNTY                                            R                         09-20-95
Eastlake                                              R                         02-18-81
Fairport Harbor*                                      NP                        05-15-80
Grand River                                           R                         09-20-95
Lakeline (NSFHA)                                      R                         N/A
Mentor                                                R                         09-20-95
Mentor-on-the-Lake                                    R                         08-01-79
North Perry                                           R                         07-16-79
Painesville                                           R                         02-02-77
Timberlake (NSFHA)                                    R                         N/A
Willoughby                                            R                         01-16-81
Willowick                                             R                         12-04-79

CUYAHOGA COUNTY
     (no unincorporated coastal areas)
Bay Village                                           R                         12-01-77
Bratenahl                                             R                         06-15-81
Cleveland                                             R                         08-01-78
Euclid                                                R                         08-17-81
Lakewood                                              R                         02-01-78
Rocky River                                           R                         05-16-80

LORAIN COUNTY
     (no unincorporated coastal areas)
Avon Lake                                             R                         11-02-77
Lorain                                                R                         03-03-92
Sheffield Lake                                        R                         03-01-78
Vermilion                                             R                         11-12-82
(continued)


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 5 - 17                            March 1997








Table 1 continued
                                                      Participation                  Current Map
Community                                                Status                          Date

ERIE COUNTY                                                R                            09-20-95
Bay View                                                   R                            09-15-77
Huron                                                      R                            04-03-78
Kelleys Island*                                            NP                           08-17-81
Sandusky                                                   R                            07-05-77

SANDUSKY COUNTY                                            R                            01-17-79
Fremont                                                    R                            04-17-84

OTTAWA COUNTY                                              R                            11-04-92
Marblehead                                                 R                            02-01-84
Oak Harbor                                                 R                            04-01-82
Port Clinton                                               R                            09-30-77
Put-in-Bay                                                 R                            09-30-77

WOOD COUNTY                                                R                            12-17-91
Perrysburg                                                 R                            05-02-83
Rossford                                                   R                            05-02-83

LUCAS COUNTY                                               R                            03-16-83
Harbor View                                                R                            N/A
Maumee                                                     R                            03-28-80
Oregon                                                     R                            03-15-78
Toledo                                                     R                            06-04-80

R - Regular program, final approved ordinances in effect
NP - Nonparticipating community, flood insurance not available
NSFHA - No special flood hazard area has been identified in the community

* Although Fairport Harbor and Kelleys Island are not participating in the NFIP, both communities are considered
to meet the Coastal Management Program requirements by having adopted floodplain management ordinances that
comply with the standards of the NFIP.

COMMENTS: The City of Ashtabula has been in a "Probation" status in the NFIP since 1993 due to deficiencies
in the city's floodplain management program. The Federal Emergency Management Agency uses the probationary
period as an official notice to the community and its residents that they are not implementing an effective and
compliant local floodplain management program. During the probationary period, flood insurance is still available;
however, all new and renewed flood insurance policies will carry a penalty $50.00 surcharge. In March, 1996, the
city submitted information addressing outstanding issues. FEMA is in the process of reviewing the city's
submission to determine if all issues have been addressed. "Probation" is expected to remain in effect through
April 1997.




Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS     Part II 5 - 18                                  March 1997








    D.   As provided in O.R.C. ï¿½ 1521.14, all departments and agencies of the state, and local
         governmental units, prior to expenditure of funds for, or construction of buildings,
         structures, roads, bridges or other facilities in locations that may flood, shall notify and
         consult with the Division of Water to avoid unwise floodplain use. Recommended
         Division of Water floodplain regulation criteria are based on a 100-year level of flood
         protection for most developments. However, certain critical developments, which if
         flooded would create an added dimension to a potential flood disaster, need to be
         protected to the 500-year flood.












































Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 5 - 19                              March 1997








                POLICY 4 - FLOOD PROTECTION AND MITIGATION i

    IT IS THE POLICY OF THE STATE OF OHIO TO PROMOTE EFFECTIVE FLOOD
PROTECTION BY:

    A. REGULATING THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF DAMS. DIKES AND
         LEVEES. AND INSPECTING THEIR USE AND OPERATION (O.R.C. ~ 1521.06
         et seq.);

    B. CONDUCTING DETAILED STUDIES AND INVESTIGATIONS OF ALL
         FACTORS RELATING TO FLOODS AND FLOOD PROTECTION:

    C. ESTABLISHING CONSERVANCY DISTRICTS WHERE LOCALLY DESIRED;
         AND

    D. PROMOTING THE PROTECTION AND RESTORATION OF WETLANDS FOR
         FLOODWATER STORAGE.

Authorities and Administration

A. The Chief of the Division of Water in ODNR requires construction permits for new dams, dikes
    and levees and makes periodic inspections of existing dams, dikes and levees pursuant to
    O.R.C. ï¿½ 1521.06 et seq. While the construction, permitting and inspection authorities include
    flood protection structures, the law applies to all types of dams, dikes and levees, regardless of
    purpose.

    All dams, dikes and levees constructed in Ohio and not exempted by O.R.C. ï¿½ 1521.062 or the
    Chief of the Division of Water shall be inspected periodically to assure that continued operation
    and use of the dam, dike or levee does not constitute a hazard to life, health or property (O.R.C.
    ï¿½ 1521.062). The chief shall order the owner of the dam, dike or levee to perform repairs or
    other measures necessary to safeguard life, health or property. Owners of dams, dikes and
    levees subject to O.R.C. ï¿½ 1521.062 are required to secure approval of plans to repair, improve,
    alter or remove a dam, dike or levee.

B. ODNR's Division of Water is authorized to conduct detailed studies and investigations of all
    factors relating to flood and flood protection in the state as funds are appropriated; and to
    cooperate with the U.S. government and with any political subdivision of the state in planning
    and constructing flood protection works (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1521.03).

C.   Conservancy districts can be established along the shoreline for the purpose of constructing
    flood protection measures. A conservancy district is a political subdivision formed in
    accordance with O.R.C. ï¿½ 6101.05 by local landowners to address a common water and/or
    erosion problem. Once formed, a conservancy district is a political subdivision of the state;



Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS     Part II 5 - 20                                  March 1997








    however, affected lands remain under private ownership unless actually purchased by the
    district for project development or maintenance purposes.

D. An important function of wetlands is the temporary storage of floodwater and a resulting
    reduction in peak flows. Therefore, protection and restoration of wetlands is a desirable
    nonstructural approach to lessening the dangers and damages of flooding. The State of Ohio
    is committed to protecting and enhancing existing wetlands, restoring degraded wetlands and
    developing new ones. The OCMP uses a variety of authorities and mechanisms to accomplish
    wetland preservation, as discussed in Policy 12.










































Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 5 - 21                            March 1997








   POLICY 5 - SHORE EROSION AND FLOOD HAZARD MITIGATION ASSISTANCE

    IT IS THE POLICY OF THE STATE OF OHIO TO ASSIST LAKE ERIE COASTAL
COMMUNITIES EXPERIENCING FLOODING AND SHORE EROSION PROBLEMS TO
MINIMIZE FUTURE DAMAGES BY:

    A. ADMINISTERING FUNDS FOR PROTECTION OF LAKE ERIE SHORES AND
         WATERS (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1507.05); AND

    B. PROVIDING TECHNICAL INFORMATION AND ASSISTANCE FOR
         ADDRESSING EROSION AND FLOOD HAZARD CONCERNS (O.R.C. ï¿½
         1507.10).

Authorities and Administration

A.  ODNR administers the state permit and lease fund, that consists of monies derived from the
    granting of permits and leases under O.R.C. ï¿½ 1505.07 for the removal of sand, gravel, stone,
    gas, oil and other substances from and from under the bed of Lake Erie and from applications
    for construction permits submitted under O.R.C. ï¿½ 1507.04 (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1507.05). The
    department administers the fund for, among other purposes, protection of Lake Erie shores and
    waters, the investigation and prevention of erosion. Funds may be used to partially fund erosion
    protection projects. The Chief Engineer of ODNR may enter into agreements with counties,
    municipal corporations, townships, park boards and conservancy districts or any other state
    departments or divisions for the purpose of protecting publicly owned littoral property by
    constructing and maintaining projects to prevent, correct and arrest erosion along the shore of
    Lake Erie and in any rivers that are connected with the lake, and any other watercourses that
    flow into the lake (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1507.06).

    The state also may provide financial assistance for the construction of conservation works of
    improvement for flood and erosion projects. The Director of ODNR, upon recommendation
    by the Ohio Soil and Water Conservation Commission, is authorized to enter into agreements
    with boards of county commissioners to cost-share in improvements constructed by the county
    for a soil and water conservation district. The state share shall be paid from funds appropriated
    for such purposes and shall not exceed 50 percent of the nonfederal cost of the project (O.R.C.
    ï¿½ 1515.16).

    ODNR coordinates the state role in the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service P.L. 83-
    566 Watershed Program (16 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.), which provides assistance to local
    communities, agencies and landowners in the planning and development of adequate flood
    control, storage and farm land drainage projects. The state may provide technical assistance to
    aid local agencies in meeting nonfederal obligations (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1521.03).

B. Technical information and assistance is available from several sources. ODNR's Division of
    Water provides public information on flooding and flood mitigation; coordinates determinations


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS   Part II 5 - 22                               March 1997








    of community eligibility for NFIP; and directs communities and homeowners to other available
    sources of assistance. The Chief Engineer is required to establish a technical assistance
    program on shore erosion protection for local governments and property owners (O.R.C. ï¿½
    1507.10). The Division of Engineering provides technical information on the design of shore
    erosion control structures.   The Division of Geological Survey provides site-specific
    information on geologic setting, geologic processes, shore recession rates and shore protection
    measures.

    The Ohio Emergency Management Agency is responsible for disaster preparedness, operations
    and recovery. The agency provides local governments with assistance in designing emergency
    management plans and training programs and coordinating response to disasters with the FEMA
    and other state agencies.

    The Ohio Sea Grant Program arranges workshops on site conditions and available options for
    real estate professionals, appraisers, coastal property owners and local government officials.
    Fact sheets have been developed on Lake Erie erosion topics. Additional technical assistance
    is available on coastal erosion causes, erosion abatement alternatives and homeowner options.
    Site visits are coordinated with groups of property owners.































Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part lI 5 - 23                           March 1997








                                     WATER QUALITY

Uses Subiect to Manaoement

    *   Activities involving public water supplies, to ensure that a sufficient and safe public water
         supply is available for the population along Lake Erie.

    *   Activities involving any process, system, or practice that may be a source of water quality
         degradation.

    *   Activities causing nonpoint or diffuse source of water pollution.

    *   Activities addressed by Remedial Action Plans (RAPs) for Ohio's four International Joint
         Commission-designated Areas of Concern (AOCs), the Maumee, Black, Cuyahoga and
         Ashtabula Rivers.

    *   Activities affecting ground water.

    One of the most serious problems that adversely affects the Ohio coastline is the pollution of
Lake Erie and its tributaries. Water pollution has greatly accelerated the Lake's natural
eutrophication process. Even without human interference, however, Lake Erie would be
considerably more eutrophic than other Great Lakes due to its shallowness, relative warmth, and the
high fertility of the surrounding basin's soils. The two factors of human activities and local, natural
conditions, have resulted in a Lake Erie characterized by excessive plant nutrients, over-abundant
plankton and algae populations, extensive areas with low levels of dissolved oxygen, areas with high
quantities of toxic chemicals and diminished fisheries.

    By the 1960s and early 1970s, water quality had become so poor that nearly the entire
hypolimnion (lowermost layer of colder water in a thermally-stratified lake) of the central basin was
devoid of oxygen during summer months. Massive algal blooms were common in the western basin.
However, in recent years, the water quality of Lake Erie has improved. Almost all beaches have
reopened, and fish populations are rebounding. Evidence documents that nutrient enrichment of the
lake and oxygen depletion in the central basin have decreased. Algal blooms once prevalent in the
western basin have been nonexistent in recent years. Since 1970, open lake phytoplankton
abundance has decreased and species composition has shifted more toward that of mesotrophic lakes.

    Toxics, however, remain a serious concern. Tumors have been found on fish in several of Lake
Erie's tributaries. Although most Lake Erie fish pose no health risk for the majority of people,
Maumee Bay catfish should not be eaten, and limitations on consumption of other species are
advised. There are 42 sites in the Great Lakes basin designated as AOCs by the International Joint
Commission (IJC). AOCs are specific areas that suffer from severe environmental degradation that
has negatively impacted water quality and has limited beneficial uses of the area. Four such areas
have been designated in Ohio: the lower reaches of the Maumee River, the Black River, the
Cuyahoga River and the Ashtabula River.


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part 1 5 - 24                              March 1997








       Nutrient enrichment, particularly from phosphorus, presented a water quality problem needing
   specific attention. More than 78 percent of this nutrient originates from nonpoint sources such as
   agriculture, livestock waste, urban runoff, on-site disposal systems and the atmosphere. Sewage
   treatment plants are the second major source of phosphorus, contributing approximately 20 percent.
   High nutrient levels have far-reaching consequences, including foul-tasting drinking water and
   reduced fish populations. Sewage treatment facilities are being improved with expenditures of more
   than $1 billion in the Lake Erie basin. The goal of reducing the average phosphorus concentration
   of certain targeted municipal wastewater treatment facilities has nearly been achieved.

       Many Lake Erie tributaries deliver heavy sediment loads to Lake Erie. ODNR estimates of
   sediment loads for Ohio's portion of Lake Erie indicate that roughly 2 million tons are derived
   annually from tributaries and 1.6 million tons from the shoreline. Fined-grained sediments from
   certain watersheds clog shipping channels, damage fish habitat, complicate water supply treatment,
   contribute to nutrient enrichment and adversely affect recreational use of the lake. In Ohio alone,
   the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers spends approximately $10 million annually to dredge an
   estimated 2 million cubic yards of sediments from the shipping channels and harbors of Lake Erie.

       In 1972, Congress amended the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA P.L. 92-500, 33
   U.S.C. 1251 et seq., renamed the Clean Water Act in 1977), establishing as its objective the
   restoration and maintenance of the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters.
   This includes the national goals of eliminating the discharge of pollutants into navigable waters;
   wherever attainable, achieving safe water quality levels for fish, shellfish, wildlife and recreational
 users, and eliminating the discharge of toxic pollutants in toxic amounts. Further, the governments
   of the United States and Canada entered into the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA)
   in the same year. The agreement provides for the restoration and enhancement of water quality in
   the Great Lakes system. Similar to the FWPCA, the GLWQA and its subsequent revisions called
   for the prohibition of toxic discharges in toxic amounts and for the. virtual elimination of the
   discharge of all persistent toxic substances. Inherent in both the FWPCA and the GLWQA was the
   development of coordinated planning processes, the development of best management practices and
   the utilization of the best available technologies for controlling pollution.

       As required by the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement and the Great Lakes Critical Programs
   Act of 1990 amending the Clean Water Act, a lake-wide management plan (LaMP) is being
   developed for Lake Erie. The main purpose of the LaMP is to assess and reduce the impacts and
   loadings of toxics into the lake, but it will address other sources of stress to Lake Erie as well. Some
   of these other issues include the impacts of exotic species, loss of habitat and nutrient dynamics.

       Under the leadership of U.S. EPA and Environment Canada, Ohio, as the lead state, has been
   working with a binational group of state, federal and provincial agencies to develop a Concept Paper
   describing the framework upon which to build the LaMP. The geographic boundaries will include
   the lake proper, near shore, bays and river mouths. The institutional structure of the LaMP consists
   of a Management Committee, Work Group, Public Forum and several subcommittees. Current
   subcommittee issues include an assessment of beneficial use impairments, development of



   Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 5 - 25                           March 1997








ecosystem objectives, compilation of contaminant sources and loadings information, and public
involvement.

    Public involvement is considered an important component of the LaMP. Mechanisms are being
developed to involve various levels of public representation in every LaMP initiative. Four public
workshops were held in May and June, 1995 to solicit public input in the identification of ecosystem
objectives for the lake. These results were considered in a technical workshop in October, 1995 to
determine which sets of objectives are conceivable for the lake. These objectives are being further
considered by the Work Group and are being taken back to the public for further review and to add
values. Once objectives are determined, indicators will be developed to measure the progress in
meeting these objectives.

    A beneficial use impairment assessment is currently under way to assess which of the 14
beneficial uses listed in the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement are impaired. An initial LaMP
report is scheduled for completion in March, 1997.



































Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final BIS  Part 11 5 - 26                           March 1997








                    POLICY 6 - WATER OUALITY

      IT IS THE POLICY OF THE STATE OF OHIO TO MAINTAIN AND
   IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF THE STATE'S COASTAL WATERS FOR THE
   PURPOSE OF PROTECTING THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE AND TO
   ENABLE THE USE OF SUCH WATERS FOR PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY,
   INDUSTRIAL AND AGRICULTURAL NEEDS, AND PROPAGATION OF FISH,
   AQUATIC LIFE AND WILDLIFE BY:

   I. ASSURING ATTAINMENT OF STATE WATER OUALITY STANDARDS
      AND OTHER WATER OUALITY RELATED REOUIREMENTS (O.A.C.
      3745-1] THROUGH:

      A. CONTROLLING DISCHARGES INTO WATERS OF THE STATE BY
         REOUIRING PERMITS TO CONSTRUCT FACILITIES AND BY
         ESTABLISHING AND ENFORCING EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
         UNDER THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION
         SYSTEM (NPDES. SECTION 402 CWA. O.R.C. ~ 6111.03):

      B. ADMINISTERING A PERMIT SYSTEM TO CONTROL INJECTION
         WELL DRILLING IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE "SAFE DRINKING
         WATER ACT" AND THE CWA (O.R.C. ~ 6111.043 AND 6111.044):

      C. REGULATING DISCHARGE OF DREDGE OR FILL MATERIAL INTO
         SURFACE WATERS INCLUDING WETLANDS IN ACCORDANCE
         WITH SECTION 401 OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT (O.R.C. ~ 6111.03):

      D. ESTABLISHING UNIFORM REGULATIONS REGARDING SOLID
         WASTE DISPOSAL SITES AND FACILITIES (O.R.C. 3734.02 AND
         3734.05);

      E. PROHIBITING THE SALE OR DISTRIBUTION FOR SALE OF
         PHOSPHORUS-CONTAINING HOUSEHOLD LAUNDRY DETER-
         GENTS IN THE LAKE ERIE BASIN (O.R.C. ~ 6111.10):

      F. PREPARING A STATE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN TO
         ASSESS TECHNICAL NEEDS FOR POLLUTION CONTROL AND
         INSTITUTIONAL MECHANISMS TO ENFORCE CONTROLS (O.R.C.
         ï¿½ 6111.41 AND 6111.42); AND

      G. ADMINISTERING A STATE REVOLVING LOAN FUND PROGRAM TO
         PROVIDE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR PUBLICLY OWNED
         WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES (O.R.C. ï¿½ 6111.03 AND
         6121.03).


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 5 - 27  March 1997








   II. COORDINATING, THROUGH THE LAKE ERIE COMMISSION, STATE
        AND LOCAL POLICIES AND PROGRAMS PERTAINING TO LAKE ERIE
        WATER QUALITY; REVIEWING, AND MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS
        CONCERNING, THE DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF
        POLICIES, PROGRAMS AND ISSUES FOR LONG-TERM, COM-
        PREHENSIVE PROTECTION OF LAKE ERIE WATER RESOURCES AND
        WATER QUALITY THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE GREAT LAKES
        WATER QUALITY AGREEMENT AND GREAT LAKES TOXIC
        SUBSTANCES CONTROL AGREEMENT (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.21).

   III. USING THE LAKE ERIE PROTECTION FUND (LEPF) TO ESTABLISH A
        FIRM SCIENTIFIC BASE FOR IMPLEMENTING A BASINWIDE SYSTEM
        OF WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT FOR LAKE ERIE AND ITS
        TRIBUTARIES; SUPPORTING RESEARCH TO IMPROVE THE
        SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE ON WHICH LAKE ERIE AQUATIC
        RESOURCE PROTECTION POLICIES ARE BASED (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.23).

Authorities and Administration

I.   State Water Quality Standards

    The State of Ohio is committed to maintaining and improving the quality of its coastal waters.
Ohio EPA is the agency responsible for ensuring that state water quality standards are met. All water
quality standards, enforcement procedures and authorities of Ohio EPA have been approved by the
USEPA as being consistent with federal water quality goals established by the Clean Water Act
(CWA).

    Water quality standards set forth in O.A.C. Chapter 3745-1 establish minimum requirements
for all surface waters of the state. Water quality standards consist of two parts: designated uses and
numerical or narrative criteria designed to protect the uses. The water quality use designations are
assigned to protect reproducing populations of fish, plants, and associated vertebrate and invertebrate
organisms. Lake Erie itself is designated as Exceptional Warmwater Habitat, State Resource Water,
Public Water Supply, Agricultural and Industrial Water Supply, and Bathing Waters (O.A.C. 3745-1-
3 1). Tributaries within the coastal area are designated for various uses as indicated in Table 2.

    O.A.C. 3745-1-05 outlines the state's antidegradation policy. Existing water uses in Lake Erie
and its tributaries shall be maintained and protected, and degradation that would interfere with such
uses is prohibited. Where the existing water quality exceeds those levels necessary for propagation
of fish, shellfish, wildlife, and recreation, waters shall be maintained and protected unless the Direc-
tor of Ohio EPA determines otherwise through public notice and intergovernmental coordination.
In addition, degradation of water quality shall not interfere with or become injurious to existing or
planned uses, and the Director of Ohio EPA shall require that the most stringent statutory and
regulatory controls be employed by all new point sources.



Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS      Part 11 5 - 28                                  March 1997








0
:5                                                                 TABLE 2 - TRIBUTARY DESIGNATIONS



                                                           Aauatic Life Habitat                                          Water Supply                    Recreation

                                       State Resource      Warm        Exceptional       Seasonal                                                         Primary
        Stream Segment*                   Water            Water        Warmwater         Salmonid              Agricultural          Industrial          Contact



        Maumee River
~,       - from Perrysburg bridge to mouth                     X                                                     X                     X                  X
         - remaining segment within coastal area  X           X                                                      X                    X                   X
        Portage River                                         X                                                     X                     X                  X
        Toussaint River                                       X                                                      X                    X                  X
        Sandusky River                                        X                                                     X                     X                  X
        Huron River                                           X                               X                      X                    X                  X
        Old Woman Creek                      X                X                                                     X                     X                  X
t9      Vermilion River                                                         X              X                     X                     X                  X
        Black River                                           X                               X                     X                     X                  X
        Rocky River                          X                X                               X                      X                    X                  X
S0       Cuyahoga River
         - entirety of Ship Channel,
          N & SS RR bridge to mouth**                                                                                                     X                   X
         - remaining segment
          within coastal area                                 X                                                      X                    X                  X
         Chagrin River                        X                X                               X                     X                     X                  X
         Grand River                                           X                               X                     X                     X                  X
         Ashtabula                                             X                                                                           X                  X
         Conneaut Creek                                                                        X                     X                     X                  X
          (Designated coldwater habitat)






         * Segment of stream in coastal area
         ** June-January -- Limited Resource Water; February-May -- Fish Passage








    A. Permits to Install and NPDES Enforcement

         1.  The Ohio EPA is authorized by O.R.C. ï¿½ 6111.03 to issue permits for the discharge
             of conventional pollutants, toxic pollutants, and nutrients to waters of the state
             pursuant to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES, Section
             402, CWA) consistent with the State Water Quality Management Plan (Section 208,
             CWA). Limits set for permit issuance are based on Technical Support Documents
             (TSDs) that compile all background material for the planning regions and Water
             Quality Based Effluent Limit (WQBEL) reports that use the TSDs, toxicity test results
             and Wasteload Allocations (WLAs).

        2.  The Ohio EPA monitors, through monthly operating reports submitted by permitted
             dischargers, the quality of effluent discharged, tracks compliance with NPDES
             permits, and takes enforcement action against entities when necessary (O.R.C. ï¿½
             6111.03).

        3.  Sewage treatment plants are regulated by the requirement to obtain from the Director,
             Ohio EPA a "permit to install" a new source of pollution (O.A.C. 3745-31-02).

        4.  Ohio EPA administers and enforces the publicly owned treatment works pretreatment
             program in accordance with the CWA pursuant to O.R.C. ï¿½ 6111.03. This allows the
             agency to apply and enforce pretreatment standards contained in O.A.C. 3745-3;
             approve or deny requests for publicly-owned pretreatment programs and oversee or
             implement such programs; and set the terms and conditions of permits as necessary
             to achieve compliance with O.R.C. Chapter 6111.

        5.  Ohio EPA regulates the discharge of toxics into publicly owned treatment works or
             waters of the state through NPDES permits. It may take enforcement action when
             necessary and enforces National Municipal Policy to ensure compliance by permittees
             with water quality standards as mandated by the 1981 amendments to the CWA
             (O.R.C. Chapter 6111). Ohio EPA recommends, identifies and assesses the impact
             of controls for the discharge of toxic materials to protect the public health and the
             environment from effects due to toxic chemical exposures via surface waters of the
             state.

        6.  The director may "issue, modify, or revoke orders to prevent, control, or abate water
             pollution" by requiring the construction of new disposal systems or modifying existing
             ones pursuant to O.R.C. ï¿½ 6111.03(H)(2). This refers to all sewage system and waste
             treatment works including all pipes, conduits, etc. used to conduct or collect a
             waterborne sewage or other waste to a point of disposal or treatment. Further, the
             director may modify terms or conditions of a permit consistent with the CWA to
             require the maximum use of technology furthering the elimination of wastes into
             waters of the state (O.R.C. ï¿½ 6111.031).



Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 5 - 30                            March 1997








    B. Injection Well Drilling Regulation

         Ohio EPA administers a program established under O.R.C. ï¿½ 6111.043 and 6111.044 to
         regulate the injection of wastes into waters of the state. When the director reviews permits
         under the program, the director must find before issuing a permit that the activity will
         comply with the CWA, the "Safe Drinking Water Act" and the State Clean Water Act
         (O.R.C. ï¿½ 6111). Unless otherwise authorized by the director, "no person shall drill a new
         well or convert an existing well for the purpose of injecting sewage, industrial wastes, or
         other wastes, without having obtained an injection well drilling permit issued by the
         director of environmental protection" (O.R.C. ï¿½ 6111.043 and O.A.C. Chapter 3745-34).

    C.  Section 401 Water Quality Certification

         Any activity that requires a federal permit pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA or Section
         10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, or any other federal permit or license for an
         activity that may result in any discharge into navigable waters, must be consistent with the
         state's water quality standards (O.R.C. ï¿½ 6111.03). Rules that, in part, set forth criteria for
         Section 401 Water Quality Certification are contained in O.A.C. Chapter 3745-32 (See
         Appendix K for the entire text.) Policy 12 further describes OCMP policy on regulation
         of activities affecting wetlands through the 401 process.

    D.  Regulation of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities

         Ohio EPA has established uniform regulations throughout the state governing solid waste
         disposal sites and facilities and requires issuance of licenses from local boards of health
         for disposal sites (O.R.C. ï¿½s 3734.02 and 3734.05). Detailed plans for such sites, facilities
         and methods of operation must be approved by the Director of Ohio EPA prior to issuance
         of any permit (O.R.C. ï¿½ 3734.02). See Policy 31 for further details.

    E.  Regulation of Phosphorus-containing Detergent

         Within the State Water Quality Management Plan, Ohio EPA has developed the Ohio
         Phosphorus Reduction Strategy for Lake Erie to quantify phosphorus loadings into Lake
         Erie from Ohio, and to identify those mechanisms that, if properly implemented, would
         reduce such loadings. Pursuant to the strategy, Ohio prohibits the sale and distribution for
         sale of household laundry detergents containing more than 0.5 percent by weight of
         phosphorus in all Ohio counties in the Lake Erie watershed (O.R.C. ï¿½ 6111.10).

    F.  State Water Quality Management Planning

         Ohio EPA prepares a State Water Quality Management Plan under provisions of the CWA,
         Sections 205(j), 208, 303 and 604(b). The plan is used to assess technical needs for
         pollution control and to identify institutional mechanisms necessary to enforce controls.
         It is a compilation of various reports addressing a number of issues related to protecting


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part 11 5 - 31                             March 1997








         and improving Ohio's water quality. The plan incorporates reports that are prepared by
        Areawide Planning Agencies established under Section 208 and that address water quality
        management needs in their areas. It also includes the Phosphorus Reduction Strategy,
         305(b) Water Quality Inventory, the Nonpoint Source Assessment and Nonpoint Source
        Management Plan, and Remedial Action Plans (RAPs) and others.

    G.  Funding Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment Systems

         As the designated lead agency, Ohio EPA is authorized to administer the Water Pollution
         Control Loan Fund (O.R.C. ï¿½ 6111.036), in conjunction with the Ohio Water Development
        Authority (OWDA). This fund was established pursuant to the CWA of 1987 to provide
        financial assistance for publicly owned wastewater treatment systems and nonpoint source
         pollution controls. Provisions require the state to match every five federal dollars with one
         dollar from its own funds. The Water Pollution Control Loan Fund statute authorizes state
         funding of the program (O.R.C. ï¿½ 6111.036). Financial assistance from the fund is limited
         to projects appearing on a priority list that is prepared by the Director of Ohio EPA and that
         ranks projects principally on the basis of relative water quality and public health benefits
         and financial need of the applicant.

         OWDA is responsible for certain financial matters pertaining to the State Revolving Loan
         Fund Program. These duties include distributing funds to contractors and receiving loan
         payments from communities, issuing revenue bonds, and offering financial advice. The
         loan payback period may not exceed 20 years, and interest rates are set by Ohio EPA
         through a public participation process. The revolving fund may use bonds issued upon the
         incoming interest payments of the initial loans to provide additional funding for future
         wastewater treatment projects. OWDA is also authorized to make loans and issue bonds
         unrelated to the State Revolving Loan Fund Program to raise the necessary local share of
         financing for these projects (O.R.C. ï¿½ 6121.03 and 6121.04).

II. Lake Erie Commission

    The Lake Erie Commission plays a key role in ensuring coordination of state and local policies
and programs pertaining to Lake Erie water quality. The commission makes recommendations
concerning the development and implementation of policies and programs for long-term,
comprehensive protection of Lake Erie water resources and water quality consistent with the Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement and Great Lakes Toxic Substances Control Agreement.

    The commission, described in Chapter 4, operates under a work plan developed with public
input and holds meetings quarterly. Meetings and records of the commission are open to the public.
The broad-based representation on the commission and interaction with the public and interest
groups facilitated by the agencies and the Ohio Lake Erie Office help to ensure the development of
sound resource protection policies and the promotion of environmentally sustainable economic
development.



Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II1 5 - 32                         March 1997








IeI. Lake Erie Protection Fund

    The Lake Erie Protection Fund (LEPF) is supported by payments from the Great Lakes
Protection Fund (GLPF), the Lake Erie license plate program, Erie ... Our Great Lake credit card
program, donations and bequests. The GLPF, a regional trust fund established by the Great Lakes
states, divides one-third of its net earnings among member states in proportion to their respective
contributions.

    Ohio uses these funds in grants to advance the goals of the Toxic Substances Control
Agreement, the OCMP and the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. The Lake Erie Commission
prepares and publishes a Lake Erie protection agenda describing proposed uses and priorities of the
protection fund for succeeding state fiscal years. The Commission also regularly publishes a State
of the Lake Report that documents the state's progress, deficiencies and goals in managing its Lake
Erie resources. The Commission solicits proposals for water quality and ecosystem change research,
monitoring, aquatic habitat restoration, coastal management initiatives implementation and other
activities consistent with these goals.

(NOTE: Nonpoint sources of pollution such as construction site, mine and agricultural runoff also
degrade water quality. Such sources are addressed in Ohio's Nonpoint Source Management Program,
as explained in Policy 8. Regulations enforced by Ohio EPA to prevent and reduce water pollution
resulting from airborne pollutants as well as from solid, infectious and hazardous wastes are detailed
in Policies 30 and 31, respectively.)



























Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Pa rt II 5 - 33                           March 1997








          POLICY 7 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINANTS: PREVENTION
                          AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

       IT IS THE POLICY OF THE STATE OF OHIO TO PREVENT AND/OR
   MINIMIZE TO THE GREATEST EXTENT POSSIBLE, DAMAGES TO THE PUBLIC
   HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE, AND TO THE ENVIRONMENT FROM
   CONTAMINANTS BY:

   A. REOUIRING OWNERS OF FACILITIES SUBJECT TO O.R.C. CHAPTER 3750.
       EMERGENCY PLANNING. TO COMPLY WITH THE STATE'S RIGHT TO
       KNOW AND SPILL PREVENTION LAWS: AND

   B: PROVIDING FOR EMERGENCY RESPONSE TO ALL SPILLS WITH A
        COORDINATED AND PLANNED EFFORT MAXIMIZING RESOURCES AND
       MINIMIZING ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE (O.R.C. CHAPTERS 6111 AND
        3750).

Authorities and Administration

    Ohio's State Emergency Response Commission (SERC) is authorized to coordinate emergency
planning efforts (O.R.C. Chapter 3750). SERC accomplishes this through administration by Ohio
EPA's Division of Emergency and Remedial Response (DERR). Pursuant to O.R.C. ï¿½ 3745.01, Ohio
EPA administers "the laws pertaining to chemical emergency planning, community right-to-know,
and toxic chemical release reporting." The director "shall adopt rules in accordance with Chapter
119 of O.R.C. that are consistent with and equivalent in scope, content, and coverage to, and no more
stringent than the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986" 42 U.S.C.A.
 1001 (O.R.C. ï¿½ 3750.02) and 42 U.S.C.A. 11023 (O.R.C. ï¿½ 3751.02).

A.  The State of Ohio strives to prevent accidental releases of environmental contaminants and to
    minimize their effects when they do occur by enforcing O.R.C. Chapter 3750 Emergency
    Planning. The specific requirements of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know
    Act of 1986 (also known as SARA Title III) and the corresponding Ohio Revised Code
    provisions include four basic reporting requirements, as follows:

    1.  Owners of facilities with extremely hazardous substances (360 chemicals listed by
        U.S. EPA) must identify themselves and participate in emergency planning (O.R.C.
        ï¿½ 3750.05).

    2. Owners of facilities identified must report all spills or releases of substances covered
        by Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act
        (CERCLA) or by SARA (O.R.C. ï¿½ 3750.06).






Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 5 - 34                             March 1997








    3.  Owners of identified facilities must provide to Ohio EPA (1) a Material Safety Data
         Sheet and (2) a list of chemicals stored and their human health hazard (O.R.C. ï¿½
         3750.07).

    4.  Owners must complete a Facility Identification form, Chemical Inventory form and
         Facility map (O.R.C. ï¿½ 3750.08).

    As provided in O.A.C. Chapters 3750-20, 3750-25 and 3750-30, a facility must comply with
O.R.C. Chapter 3750 when all of the following conditions are met:

    1.  The facility is subject to the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard;

    2.  The facility stores a Hazardous Chemical and/or an "Extremely Hazardous Substance"
         (EHS): and

    3.  A quantity in storage of one of these Hazardous Chemicals or Extremely Hazardous
         Substances is in excess of the "Threshold Quantity" (TQ).

    Oil releases are addressed under O.R.C. ï¿½ 3750.06 and the CWA, as amended 33 U.S.C. 1251
et seq. The federal Spill Prevention Control and Counter-measure program and related regulations
for oil storage facilities provide directions to industries to plan their response to any possible spillage
from their facilities (40 CFR 112). Preventive engineering, such as containment dikes, were also
called for to prevent spills from reaching waterways.

B.  SARA Title III directs communities and industries to work together in developing response
    plans and procedures for hazardous spills. Local emergency planning committees (LEPCs) of
    each emergency planning district are required to "prepare and submit ... a chemical emergency
    response and preparedness plan for the district" to SERC (O.R.C. ï¿½ 3750.04). (Within the
    coastal area, each of the nine counties is a separate emergency planning district.) These local
    "Hazardous Materials Emergency Management Plans" include an identification of local
    hazardous facilities and routes used to transport hazardous materials, emergency response
    procedures, evacuation plans, and a list of response personnel and equipment.

    The Ohio Emergency Management Agency (Ohio EMA) coordinates local plan development
    and makes recommendations to SERC, which is responsible for final approval or disapproval
    (O.R.C. ï¿½ 3750.02). Plans have been prepared for all nine coastal counties. As of June 1995,
    plans for Ashtabula, Lake, Cuyahoga, Lorain, Wood, Ottawa, Erie, Lucas and Sandusky
    counties have been reviewed, and the Commission has concurred with them.

    DERR follows the National Contingency Plan (NCP) guidance for spill response and cleanup.
    To facilitate spill reporting, Ohio EPA operates a toll-free 24-hour telephone number. DERR
    investigates reported releases and provides local governments with telephone assistance in
    evaluating incidents and in directing the company's cleanup efforts. DERR also coordinates
    efforts to assure compliance with cleanup levels and disposal methods.


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 5 - 35                           March 1997








    Ohio EPA has drafted rules and standards governing the storage and disposal of PCBs at
    commercial facilities (O.R.C. ï¿½ 3734.122). The agency has a cooperative agreement with U.S.
    EPA to conduct PCB compliance inspections, of which 65 are made annually across the state
    of Ohio. Such inspections foster a greater awareness in Ohio of the special handling and
    disposal requirements regarding PCBs.
















































Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 5 - 36                            March 1997








                     POLICY 8- NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION

        IT IS THE POLICY OF THE STATE OF OHIO TO CONTROL NONPOINT
    SOURCE WATER POLLUTION IN ORDER TO REDUCE SEDIMENT, NUTRIENTS
    AND OTHER POLLUTANTS AND OTHERWISE IMPROVE THE WATER QUALITY
    OF LAKE ERIE AND ITS TRIBUTARIES, THUS REDUCING DAMAGE TO AQU-
    ATIC HABITATS AND LOWERING COSTS OF WATER TREATMENT AND
    CHANNEL DREDGING, BY USING A BROAD ARRAY OF STATE AND LOCAL
    AUTHORITIES TO REGULATE AND MANAGE THE CONTRIBUTING SOURCES
    AND ACTIVITIES.

Authorities and Administration

    The State of Ohio manages and regulates activities that contribute to nonpoint source pollution
through a complex but coordinated array of institutional mechanisms and authorities. A complete
analysis of these mechanisms and authorities and how they operate to achieve stated goals and
comply with federal regulations is contained in the Ohio Nonpoint Source Management Program
document. Eight major sources of nonpoint source contaminants are addressed by this program, and
the roles and responsibilities of all agencies and organizations involved with implementation are
described therein.

    The State of Ohio developed the Nonpoint Source Management Program document pursuant
to Section 319 of the CWA.  The program was developed in 1988 and updated in 1992 by ODNR
under an agreement with Ohio EPA. (The 1992 update is yet to be approved by U.S. EPA.) The
program specifies Best Management Practices for the eight major sources of nonpoint pollutants:
agriculture, hydromodification/habitat modification, land disposal, mining, oil field wastes,
silviculture, urban runoff and construction site erosion and a section addressing specific ground
water issues. Section 319 funds are allocated based on the program's recommendations and policies.
Funds have been used to initiate local watershed treatment and aquatic restoration and protection
projects. The Program has incorporated a policy that at least 10 percent of each year's Section 319
funds go toward pollution prevention projects, and that goal is usually exceeded. Promoting public
awareness about nonpoint pollution issues has been identified as critical to the future success of
pollution control projects and programs and is therefore a major program goal. State funds have
been appropriated to ODNR to help implement local nonpoint projects.

    Section 6217 of CZARA directs states to develop Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs
to be implemented through changes to the state coastal management plan and the state nonpoint
source management plan. REALM held several initial meetings in 1993 to begin coordinating
program development and implementation through cooperation with a Division of Surface Water
(Ohio EPA) - Division of Soil and Water Conservation (ODNR) team. However, the OCMP has
decided to focus its primary efforts on core program development. Changes to CZARA are
anticipated to allow additional time for states now developing core coastal management programs
to develop their coastal nonpoint source pollution programs. Pending this change, the OCMP
intends to initiate development of the coastal nonpoint program following federal approval of the


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS   Part II 5 - 37                               March 1997








OCMP core program. Key aspects of the program are the development of additional enforceable
authorities, where needed, and provision for public involvement and education in all phases of the
program. Details of this program and a narrative discussing Ohio's Nonpoint Source Management
Program are provided in Appendix J.
















































Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 5 - 38                           March 1997








                       POLICY 9 - POTABLE WATER SUPPLY

        IT IS THE POLICY OF THE STATE OF OHIO TO ENSURE THAT A SAFE
    SUPPLY OF WATER IS AVAILABLE FOR PRIVATE, COMMUNITY, INDUSTRIAL,
    AGRICULTURAL AND COMMERCIAL USES ALONG LAKE ERIE BY:

    A. ADMINISTERING THE STATE SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT (O.R.C.
        CHAPTER 6109):

    B. SUPERVISING THE DESIGN. CONSTRUCTION. AND OPERATION OF PUBLIC
        WATER SUPPLY TREATMENT AND DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS (O.R.C.
        6109.07); AND

    C.  REGULATING PRIVATE WATER SYSTEMS (O.R.C. ~ 3701.344. O.A.C. 3701-28).

Authorities and Administration

A.  The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency is the principal water quality regulatory agency
    over public water systems in Ohio and is the state administrator of P.L. 93-523, the Safe
    Drinking Water Act and its Amendments 42 U.S.C. 300(f) et seq. Ohio EPA's Division of
    Drinking and Ground Waters derives its authority from the State Safe Drinking Water Act,
    O.R.C. Chapter 6109. The statute does not apply to public water systems that meet all of the
    following criteria:

    i.  Consist only of distribution and storage facilities and do not have any collection and
        treatment facilities;

    2.  Obtain all of their water from, but are not owned or operated by, a public water system;

    3.  Do not sell water to any person; and

    4.  Are not carriers that convey passengers in interstate commerce.

    The Division of Drinking and Ground Waters oversees compliance with and monitoring of
    maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for public drinking water. Primary standards have been
    established for contaminants, including toxic chemicals, that have been shown to directly affect
    the health of consumers (O.A.C. 3745-81). Secondary standards have been established for
    contaminants that may cause economic or aesthetic impacts but that have not been shown to
    directly affect the health of consumers (O.A.C. 3745-82). Additional treatment is required if
    any contaminant exceeds a primary standard. Improvements are discussed and may be
    recommended if a contaminant exceeds secondary standards. Appropriate enforcement actions
    are taken for failure to meet requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act.




Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS   Part II 5 - 39                               March 1997








B.  The Ohio EPA Division of Drinking and Ground Waters reviews plans and issues plan approval
    for construction or substantial improvement of public water systems. Installation of or
    substantial changes to a water system requires the approval of Ohio EPA based on requirements
    of the State Safe Drinking Water Act and the rules adopted thereunder.

    The division also has primary responsibility for on-site survey inspections of public water
    systems and maintains a laboratory certification program for commercial, private, state and
    industrial facilities conducting biological and/or chemical analysis on potable water.

C.  Local health departments regulate private water supply systems in accordance with rules
    promulgated by the Public Health Council of the State of Ohio (O.R.C. ï¿½ 3701.344, O.A.C.
    370 1-28). Those water systems that regularly serve fewer than 15 service connections and do
    not regularly serve an average of at least 25 individuals daily at least 60 days out of the year are
    subject to regulation. A private water supply system includes any well, spring, cistern, pond or
    hauled water. In the event that the Director of the Ohio Department of Health (ODH)
    determines that a public health district is not properly enforcing the private water system rules,
    ODH will enforce the private water supply system program in that district. The ODH also
    investigates private water supply systems for potential contamination at the request of the local
    health department.
































Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part 11 5 - 40                              March 1997








            POLICY 10 - AREA OF CONCERN REMEDIAL ACTION PLANS

        IT IS THE POLICY OF THE STATE OF OHIO TO COORDINATE THE
    DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF REMEDIAL ACTION PLANS FOR
    OHIO'S FOUR LAKE ERIE BASIN AREAS OF CONCERN AS IDENTIFIED IN THE
    INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION'S (IJC) REPORTS ON GREAT LAKES
    WATER QUALITY.

Authorities and Administration

    In 1974, the Water Quality Board of the International Joint Commission (IJC) began identifying
problem areas along the Great Lakes in its reports on Great Lakes water quality. By 1981, many of
the problems caused by conventional pollutants had been alleviated by improvements in effluent
treatment by both municipal and industrial dischargers. However, persistent environmental quality
problems remained in many areas. In 1985, to address the problems at these locations, the IJC
requested that the jurisdictions (states and provinces) prepare Remedial Action Plans (RAPs) for
each of their Areas of Concern (AOCs). This request became a requirement of the Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement in 1987 and a statutory requirement under the Great Lakes Critical
Programs Act amendment 33 U.S.C. 1268 to the 1990 CWA.

    The Ohio EPA is responsible for the preparation of RAPs for four AOCs identified as highly
polluted sites along the Lake Erie shoreline. These areas are the lower Maumee, Black, Cuyahoga
and Ashtabula Rivers and harbors.  RAPs are the framework to provide a systematic and
comprehensive ecosystem approach to restore these areas to beneficial use and to track the
effectiveness of remedial activities as they are implemented.

    RAPs are to be developed with significant local community involvement. Develop-
ment/implementation teams include representatives from local, state and federal government
agencies, elected officials, industry and business, special interest groups, academia and the general
public. Ohio's four RAPs have established active community RAP teams. Stage 1 RAP reports,
identifying the impaired uses and sources of pollution, have been completed for all four AOCs.

    All of the RAP groups are beginning to develop Stage 2 RAP reports that will recommend
remedial actions, identify responsible parties and search for sources of funding. The major task of
the Stage 2 process is to accomplish implementation of the identified remedial actions. Where
possible, identified remedial actions are already being implemented. More information on RAPs for
AOCs is provided in Chapter 6, Special Management Areas.










Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 5 - 41                               March 1997








                         POLICY 11 - GROUND WATER

       IT IS THE POLICY OF THE STATE OF OHIO TO PROMOTE THE
   PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT OF OHIO'S GROUND WATER RESOURCES
   BY:

   A. REGULATING ACTIVITIES AND ENFORCING RULES REGARDING THE
       CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF WATER SUPPLY AND WASTE-
       WATER DISPOSAL SYSTEMS (O.R.C. ~ 3701.04. O.R.C. d 6111.03. O.R.C. S
       6109.07. AND O.A.C. 3745-9):

   B. REGULATING UNDERGROUND HAZARDOUS AND PETROLEUM MATER-
       IALS STORAGE FACILITIES AND ABOVE-GROUND HAZARDOUS WASTE
       STORAGE (O.R.C. ~ 3737.87. 3737.88. 3737.881. 3737.882 AND O.A.C. 1301:7-9
       AND 3745-54):

   C. REGULATING OIL. GAS. COAL AND MINERAL OPERATIONS (O.R.C.
       CHAPTER 1509. 1513 AND 1514. O.R.C. ~ 1509.22):

   D. REGULATING SUBSURFACE IN.TECTION OF BRINE AND OTHER WASTES
       ASSOCIATED WITH OIL AND GAS OPERATIONS (O.R.C. B 1509.22):

   E. PREPARING GROUND WATER POLLUTION POTENTIAL MAPS; AND

   F. COORDINATING STATE ACTIVITIES REGARDING GROUND WATER
       ISSUES.

Authorities and Administration

A. &B.

   The Ohio Department of Health (ODH), Ohio EPA, and the State Fire Marshal administer the
state's ground water programs relating to water quality concerns. All three bodies implement
permitting, monitoring and planning activities and provide technical assistance to local governments.

   ODH is authorized to administer programs, monitor water quality, and enforce compliance with
regulations pertaining to private water systems under the authority of the Public Health Council in
O.R.C. ï¿½ 3701.344.

   Ohio EPA has general supervisory power over public water supplies pursuant to O.R.C. ï¿½
6111.03 and O.A.C. 3745-81 through 3745-99. Construction or installation plans for a public water
system must be approved by Ohio EPA in compliance with requirements of the Safe Drinking Water
Act (O.R.C. ï¿½ 6109.07 and O.A.C. 3745-91). State standards for the location, construction, opera-
tion, and modification of wells are set forth in O.A.C. Chapter 3745-9. Ohio EPA also administers


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS   Part II 5 - 42                               March 1997








wastewater disposal programs and regulates hazardous and nonhazardous materials management and
disposal.  Ohio EPA's Division of Drinking and Ground Waters implements the ground water
protection requirements of the CWA (O.R.C. ï¿½ 6111.03); manages the state's Underground Injection
Control program which regulates the types and amounts of waste that can be injected into
underground geologic formations (O.A.C. 3745-34); monitors ground water quality, and manages
and works to achieve voluntary participation in Ohio's Wellhead Protection Program (O.A.C. 3745-
91).

    Ohio EPA enforces the state's ground water protection standard (O.A.C. 3745-54-92) that
provides that the owners and operators of facilities that treat, store or dispose of hazardous waste
must comply with conditions specified in the facility permit that are designed to ensure that
hazardous constituents under O.A.C. 3754-54-93 detected in the ground water from a regulated unit
do not exceed the concentration limits under O.A.C. 3745-54-94 in the uppermost aquifer underlying
the waste management area beyond the point of compliance under O.A.C. 3745-54-95 during the
compliance period under O.A.C. 3745-54-06.

    The State Fire Marshal (Ohio Department of Commerce) has responsibility for regulating
underground storage tanks in Ohio, through its Bureau of Underground Storage Tank Regulation
(BUSTR) (O.R.C. ï¿½ 3737.87 and O.A.C. 1301-7-9), in accordance with the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA, 40 C.F.R. ï¿½ 280). O.A.C. 1301-7-9 establishes performance standards,
design and construction standards, financial responsibility, a listing of regulated substances and
operating requirements.

C.  ODNR regulates oil, gas, coal and industrial mineral extraction (see Policies 36 and 38).

D.  The Division of Oil and Gas, ODNR, administers a permit program for subsurface injection and
    other brine management activities that specifically prohibits contamination of surface and
    underground waters (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1509.22).

E.  ODNR's Division of Water prepares ground water pollution potential maps that illustrate the
    relative vulnerability of ground water to contamination. The maps evaluate the major geologic
    and hydrogeological factors that affect ground water vulnerability. These factors are combined
    with hydrogeologic settings to produce color-coded maps with ground water pollution potential
    information. Each map is accompanied by a report that includes general geologic and
    hydrologic information. Planners, managers and local officials can use the maps and reports
    to evaluate potential for contamination from various pollution sources and thereby direct land-
    use activities to appropriate areas. Water quality protection, monitoring and cleanup efforts also
    can be facilitated through use of pollution potential maps.

F.  The State of Ohio has a comprehensive ground water policy, the Ohio Ground Water Protection
    & Management Strategy. State agencies with regulatory and programmatic jurisdiction over
    ground water, i.e., Ohio EPA, Ohio Department of Health (ODH), Ohio Department of
    Agriculture (ODA), Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) and ODNR, prepared the
    strategy with the assistance of federal agencies, regional planning agencies, citizen's groups, and


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 5 - 43                           March 1997








    business and professional associations working through a Ground Water Task Force. State
    agencies are responsible for implementing the initiatives of the strategy. The strategy directs
    limited state resources to priority needs and emphasizes proper development and protection and
    management of the ground water resources.

    The ground water strategyconan  si principal initiatives, each of which includes program
recommendations:

    1. Controlling sources of ground water contamination;

    2.  Assessing Ohio's ground water;

    3.  Coordinating agency activities;

    4.  Targeting critical areas;

    5.  Regional and local ground water protection and management; and

    6.  Education, training, research and technology transfer.

    The state agencies listed above, and the Department of Development, the Public Utilities
Commission of Ohio (PUCO) and the Bureau of Underground Storage Tank Regulation in the
Department of Commerce, formed the State Coordinating Committee on Ground Water (SCCGW)
to promote exchange of agency information and coordination of programs and activities. The
SCCGW meets on a regular basis and is developing a Comprehensive Ground Water Protection and
Management Plan, a State Management Plan for pesticides, and technical standards for well
construction and sealing.





















Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final Els  Part 11 5 - 44                            March 1997








                        ECOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE RESOURCES

Uses Subject to ManaCement

    *    Activities involving the filling, dredging or alteration of wetlands and special aquatic
          sites.

    *    Activities affecting natural areas, nature preserves, wildlife habitat areas and areas of
          exceptional ecological significance.

    ï¿½    Activities threatening rare and endangered plant and animal species.

    *    Activities involving the introduction or propagation of exotic species.

Wetlands

    Wetlands are considered a critical natural resource in Ohio because they serve many beneficial
natural functions and are greatly diminished throughout the state relative to the original extent of
wetlands in Ohio. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Report to Congress, Wetlands Losses in the
United States -1  780s to 1980s (Dahl, T.E., 1990), estimated Ohio's loss at 90 percent of an original
5 million acres. In pre-settlement times, nearly 300,000 acres of marshes spread from the Great
Black Swamp of northwest Ohio eastward along Lake Erie. Conversion of Lake Erie marshes and
coastal wetlands to other uses has continued. A Division of Wildlife (DOW) inventory showed a
45 percent decline in acreage from 1954 to the mid-1970s. Since that time, however, losses have
been partially offset as a result of increased state and federal regulatory authority (Sections 401 and
404, CWA) and more aggressive acquisition and restoration efforts of recent years. Today, an
estimated 33,000 acres of wetlands remain within the coastal management area.

    The Ohio Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan published by ODNR in 1988 identified the
following threats to remaining wetlands:

    Agricultural drainage - Losses attributable to drainage improvement projects involve both direct
conversion and incidental results of stream and drainage system modification. Thousands of acres
of low-lying coastal marshes have been diked and drained for farming, although some are flooded
in fall for waterfowl. Such areas are not irreversibly converted to nonwetland uses. In fact, some
of these areas have reverted to marsh by landowner design or by the encroachment of higher lake
levels.

    Development - Ohio's lacustrine and adjacent palustrine wetlands are threatened by the
construction of marinas and waterfront developments such as condominiums and resort
communities. This is particularly critical in the Lake Erie region, where unprecedented development
and economic growth is occurring because of the area's attractiveness for outdoor recreation and
tourism and its quality of life amenities. It is extremely difficult to quantify such losses, because


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 5 - 45                             March 1997








many are piecemeal losses, partial habitat alterations and secondary and cumulative effects upon
wetlands. 

    Mounting pressure exists to convert diked (and sometimes pumped) wetlands in cropland use
to nonagricultural and nonwater dependent uses such as residential, recreational and resort
development. This can represent an even greater threat to wetlands than agricultural use because
such development is irreversible and is often adjacent, or in close proximity, to other marshland.
Secondary and cumulative impacts of such development are serious concerns.

    Nonpoint Source Pollution - The degradation of wetlands through nonpoint source pollution
is more difficult to assess and manage. Ohio EPA and ODNR have developed the state's Nonpoint
Source Assessment and Management Plan, which in 1988 identified hydrologic/habitat modification
activities as the principal nonpoint source threat to wetlands in Ohio. Ohio's 1993 Statewide
Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) reaffirmed this.

    Secondary impacts on off-site or "downstream" wetlands is a serious concern with respect to
many large-scale earth disturbing developments and activities. Inadequate erosion control and
stormwater runoff control measures can result in the downstream siltation of aquatic habitats
including wetlands.

    No comprehensive study has been conducted since 1989, and there is no concrete evidence to
suggest that dramatic changes have occurred in either the nature or extent of these threats. One
possible exception is that marina development has declined significantly since the late 1980s.
However, as stated earlier, losses are being slowed by regulatory and other protective efforts, and
a decline in the rate of loss is occurring. As of 1997, it is difficult to quantitatively assess this change
in loss rate, but it is important to do so. The OCMP, through program administration funding,
intends to improve tracking of individual and cumulative losses and restorations to assess and
monitor the status and trends of coastal wetlands. The recently developed Ohio Wetlands Strategy
includes a proposal for a biennial report to assess and summarize status and trends, including all
enforcement actions.

    The outlook for coastal wetlands reflects positive trends in statewide wetlands conservation.
The Ohio EPA protects wetlands by including the term wetlands in the Ohio Water Quality
Standards and Section 401 Regulations and Permit Procedures. The acquisition and protection of
coastal area wetlands has been enhanced by increasing partnership projects for wetlands acquisition
and restoration developed among public, private and independent agencies and organizations.

    To aid wetlands regulation, monitoring and enforcement, acquisition and protection strategies,
and other planning and management activities for wetlands conservation in Ohio, a statewide
wetlands inventory has been developed. Managed by ODNR's Division of Wildlife (DOW), it is a
remotely sensed inventory from satellite imagery. It has been designed to be used by resource
managers, agricultural interests, local and regional agencies and other public and private interests
for a wide variety of wetlands related purposes. The inventory has been completed for all nine


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 5 - 46                             March 1997








coastal area counties and shows approximately 33,000 acres of wetlands within Ohio's coastal
management area. About one-half of that acreage is either publicly owned and managed or is owned
and managed by hunting clubs and nonprofit conservation organizations, as follows:

                                                                       Total
                                                   Wetland             Acreage
            Ownership                             Acreage              Owned

ODNR

      Parks and Recreation                          1,400               5,653
      DNAP                                          1,200               1,849
      DOW                                          4,500                6,762

USFWS (Ottawa NWR)                                  5,350               8,316
The Nature Conservancv                                133                770
Hunting Clubs                                       4.300               8,000
                  TOTAL                           16,883               31,350

    In 1993 and 1994, the DOW completed the Mallard Club and Pickerel Creek wetland restoration
projects and broke ground on the Metzger Marsh restoration project. These projects will add nearly
2,400 acres of viable wetlands along the Lake Erie coast.

    Several thousand acres of former wetlands in the coastal region exist in productive or marginally
productive agricultural status. Some of these areas have high potential for restoration and
management as habitat for migratory waterfowl, other wetland-dependent fish and wildlife, and rare
species of plants and animals. Ohio is situated in the Lower Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Joint
Venture region of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) developed by agree-
ment between Canada and the United States in 1986. Lake Erie Marshes is a focus area of the
NAWMP in which thousands of acres of coastal area wetlands are being protected, restored and
enhanced through the cooperative efforts of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Wildlife
and other public, private and independent organizations. More than 650 acres of privately owned
previously drained coastal area wetlands have been restored through DOW cost-sharing projects with
farmers and other landowners. Restoration projects within NAWMP focus areas and joint venture
boundaries receive the highest priority.

    Diking of many coastal wetlands is essential for their survival, because it is usually the only
means of protecting wetlands whose landward advance during periods of high lake levels is restricted
by inland development. Maintenance and reconstruction of dikes is a continual, expensive and
necessary task, especially during periods of high water. In addition to units of the Ottawa National
Wildlife Refuge and several state wildlife areas, privately owned diked marshes are an important
component of Ohio's coastal wetland resource base. Diked marshes require expensive maintenance
and carefully planned water level management and other controls to maintain fish and wildlife


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 5 - 47                          March 1997








habitat values and overall productivity. Many benefits important to the general public interest are
realized by the active management of these wetlands.

Natural Areas and Endanaered Species

    Early explorers of the Lake Erie region described vast areas of wetlands, upland hardwood
forests and miles of sandy beaches. Development proceeded quickly until very little of the shore had
escaped human impact. Efforts to protect the remnants started late and have met with only limited
success in recent years due to high land costs, limited funds and conflicting ideas on appropriate land
use. Presently, Ohio's coastal area has within its boundary six designated state nature preserves:
Mentor Marsh, Headlands Dunes, Old Woman Creek, DuPont Marsh, Lakeside Daisy and Sheldon
Marsh. These six areas collectively total about 1,920 acres and are managed by ODNR's Division
of Natural Areas and Preserves. The Nature Conservancy and the Cleveland Museum of Natural
History are also involved in acquisition and/or management of several natural areas in the coastal
area.

    In addition to protecting large, undisturbed sites, it is also important to consider the ecological
diversity - the plants, animals and physical features that make up the coastal landscape. The loss
of even a few species due to habitat alteration and other environmental disturbances can impair the
ecosystem's function and harm recreation, water supply, commercial fish production and overall
ecosystem stability. The loss of predator fish species in Lake Erie with subsequent overabundance
of other species is a good example. ODNR's Division of Natural Areas and Preserves (DNAP),
maintains the state's Natural Heritage Database, which is a repository of information on Ohio's rare
plant and animal species and unique natural features.

    Continued protection of remaining natural coastal areas and elements of diversity requires an
increased understanding of intricate ecosystem relationships and the system's susceptibility to
disturbance. More importantly, a firm public commitment and capital improvement funding are
needed to preserve such areas in the coastal area.

Exotic Species

    The introduction of exotic species, or nonindigenous flora and fauna, to the coastal area
environment has been documented since settlement of the region. Since the 1800s, 139
nonindigenous species, mostly plants, have become established in the Great Lakes. Thirteen have
substantially affected the region's ecosystem, economically as well as ecologically. Three examples
illustrate this problem in Lake Erie:

1. Zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) were almost unheard of in the Lake Erie coastal area
until 1989. But by the end of the year, zebra mussels had colonized nearly everywhere in Lake Erie.
Zebra mussels are being reported from other sites in all of the Great Lakes and are spreading beyond
the Great Lakes to other lakes and rivers. Zebra mussels originated from the Caspian region of west-
ern Russia and spread throughout Europe with the construction of canals and increased shipping.


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 5 - 48                             March 1997








      Their invasion into the Great Lakes appears to have occurred due to the discharge of freshwater
     ballast by one or more transoceanic ships. Zebra mussel infestation in water intake structures for
     power plants and municipal water treatment plants causes significant reductions in pumping
      capabilities. Recreation is affected due to extensive deposits of zebra mussel shells on Lake Erie
     beaches. Cooling water inlets on boat engines can become clogged. Ecological and human health
      impacts are possible because the filter feeding zebra mussels can rapidly accumulate organic
     pollutants within their tissues. This may have implications for human consumption of fish and
      waterfowl. Clearer water resulting from the mussels' cleansing ability may cause rapid aquatic weed
      growth and declining zooplankton levels, thus further disrupting the food chain. Zebra mussel
     pollutant uptake and food chain relationships are currently being studied.

      2.  Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) has become a major pest in Lake Erie coastal area
      marshes. This is a significant problem for protecting and managing many wetland areas that provide
      important resting and feeding areas for migratory waterfowl and habitat for other marsh-dependent
      fish and wildlife species. This plant invades marshes and grows in profusion, creating a monoculture
     habitat to the detriment of wildlife and other plants and plant communities. Purple loosestrife is only
     one example of problems with nonindigenous flora. However, many habitats and plant associations
     suffer from the presence of weed species. Protecting the integrity of natural areas and nature
     preserves can require intensive management to maintain desired natural conditions.

     3.  The common carp (Cyprinus carpio) is another problem species.  Carp were apparently
     introduced into Ohio waters in the Cincinnati area and around Fremont in the Lake Erie coastal area
*[    in the late 1 800s. Carp are often present in great numbers and may contribute to turbidity problems,
     adversely affecting the germination and growth of aquatic plants and interfering with the spawning
     success of other species of fish.

          Through the coastal management program, ODNR will be increasing the state's efforts, working
     with other Great Lakes states and public and private interests to develop, adopt and enforce policies
     that will help prevent the invasion and spread of exotic species.


















     Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 5 - 49                           March 1997








                       POLICY 12 - WETLANDS

      IT IS THE POLICY OF THE STATE OF OHIO TO PROTECT, PRESERVE AND
   MANAGE WETLANDS WITH THE OVERALL GOAL TO RETAIN THE STATE'S
   REMAINING WETLANDS, AND, WHERE FEASIBLE, RESTORE AND CREATE
   WETLANDS TO INCREASE THE STATE'S WETLANDS RESOURCE BASE BY:

  A. REGULATING ACTIVITIES IN WETLANDS THROUGH THE ENFORCE-
      MENT OF OHIO WATER OUALITY STANDARDS FOR ANY ACTIVITY
      THAT MAY RESULT IN ANY DISCHARGE INTO WETLANDS AND OTHER
      WATERS OF THE STATE (O.R.C. 4 6111.03(0). O.R.C. ~ 6111.03(P). O.A.C.
      3745-1 AND 3745-32):

   B. PROVIDING LEADERSHIP AND TAKING ACTION TO MINIMIZE ADVERSE
      EFFECTS TO WETLANDS IN CARRYING OUT STATE AGENCY RESPON-
      SIBILITIES, AND, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, AVOIDING
      UNDERTAKING CONSTRUCTION OR PROVIDING FINANCIAL ASSIS-
      TANCE FOR CONSTRUCTION THAT WILL SUBSTANTIALLY DEGRADE OR
      DESTROY THE NATURAL AND BENEFICIAL FUNCTIONS OF WETLANDS
       (GOVERNOR'S EXECUTIVE ORDER 90-68);

   C. ACQUIRING WETLANDS OR INTEREST IN WETLANDS AND THE BUFFER
      LANDS THAT MAY BE NEEDED FOR THEIR PROTECTION; RESTORING
      AND MANAGING PREVIOUSLY CONVERTED OR DEGRADED WETLANDS;
      AND PROVIDING ASSISTANCE TO PRIVATE OWNERS FOR WETLANDS
      RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT;

   D. COOPERATING WITH THE OLD WOMAN CREEK NATIONAL ESTUARINE
       RESEARCH RESERVE, THE OHIO SEA GRANT COLLEGE PROGRAM AND
       OTHER INSTITUTIONS IN EDUCATION AND RESEARCH. THE STATE
      WILL ENCOURAGE WETLANDS RESEARCH AND PRIORITIZE FUNDING
      ASSISTANCE FOR RESEARCH THAT ENHANCES COASTAL MANAGE-
       MENT; AND

   E. PROVIDING INFORMATION ON WETLANDS RESOURCES AND TECHNI-
       CAL ASSISTANCE TO ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS REQUESTING
       HELP IN WETLANDS CONSERVATION PROJECTS.

Authorities and Administration

A. All coastal area wetlands fall within the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
   (COE) in regulating activities under the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (Section 10) and/or the
   CWA (Section 404). The scope of the state's authority under Section 401 of the CWA and Ohio


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 5 - 50  March 1997








    water pollution control laws is coterminous with that of the COE and covers all surface waters
    within the coastal area, including wetlands. However, state water pollution control law extends
    the state's authority to require a state water quality certification for all applicants for an federal
    license or permit to conduct any activity that may result in any discharge into the waters of the
    state (O.R.C. ï¿½ 6111.03(P)). "Waters of the state" include wetlands (O.A.C. 3745-32-01(N)).
    "Wetlands" are defined in state regulations as "areas where the water table is at, near, or above
    the land surface long enough each year to support the growth of water dependent vegetation and
    to result in the formation of characteristic wet soil types. These include marshes, swamps, bogs
    and similar areas" (O.A.C. 3745-32-01(0)). Revision of Section 401 rules, which will change
    this definition to be consistent with the federal wetland definition, is under way.

    Wetlands are "state resource waters" (O.A.C. 3745-1-05(A)(8)(c)). Present ambient water
    quality may not be degraded for all substances determined to be toxic or to interfere with any
    designated use as determined by the Director, Ohio EPA (O.A.C. 3745-1-05(C)(7)). Existing
    uses shall be maintained and protected (O.A.C. 3745-1-05 (C)(1)). No further degradation that
    would interfere with or become injurious to existing designated uses is allowable.

    The discharge of dredged or fill material or the creation of any obstruction or alteration is
    prohibited in wetlands unless the Director, Ohio EPA, determines that the activity will (1) not
    interfere with the attainment or maintenance of water quality standards, and (2) not result in a
    violation of any applicable provision of the CWA, including: (a) effluent limitations described
    in Section 301; (b) water quality related effluent limitations as described in Section 302; (c)
    water quality standards and implementation plans as described in Section 303; (d) national
    standards of performance as described in Section 306; or (e) toxic and pretreatment effluent
    standards as described in Section 306. Notwithstanding an applicant's demonstration that these
    criteria are met, the director may deny an application for a Section 401 certification if the
    director finds that the discharge or obstructions or alterations will result in adverse long- or
    short-term impact on water quality (O.A.C. 3745-32-05).

    There are water quality certification exemptions. No Section 401 water quality certification
    need be obtained if the discharge of dredged or fill material is part of the construction of a
    federal project specifically authorized by Congress, provided the effects of such discharge are
    included in an environmental impact statement submitted to Congress prior to the actual
    discharge (O.A.C. 3745-32-03).

    The director may impose terms and conditions as a part of the Section 401 water quality
    certification that are necessary to ensure compliance with the applicable laws and to ensure
    adequate protection of water quality (O.A.C. 3745-32-05(C)). Also, prior to the issuance of a
    water quality certification or prior to, during or after the discharge of dredged or fill material,
    to ensure adequate protection of water quality, the director may require that the applicant
    perform various environmental quality tests (O.A.C. 3745-32-05(D)). The director may revoke
    a Section 401 water quality certification if the director concludes at any time that any applicable
    laws or regulations have been or are likely to be violated (O.A.C. 3745-32-06). Section 401


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 5 - 51                              March 1997








    certifications are issued, modified, revoked or denied and may be challenged in accordance with
    the provisions of the rules of procedure of the Ohio EPA, Chapter 3745-47 of the
    Administrative Code (O.A.C. 3745-32-07). Procedural rules require public notice regarding
    such Ohio EPA actions; public notice is given when the agency begins consideration of issuance
    of Section 401 certification.

    In conducting reviews of activities subject to the state's Section 401 certification authority, Ohio
    EPA follows review guidelines established for three major categories of projects: fill projects,
    dredging projects, and bulk commodity facilities. The guidelines are presented in flowchart
    format and require consideration of water dependency and alternatives to activities in wetlands
    and other waters. An assessment must be made to determine whether proposed fill needs to be
    located in an aquatic environment to fulfill a project's basic purpose. Consistent with the federal
    law, applicants are required to evaluate alternatives to aquatic fills. It is the responsibility of
    the applicant to provide data and information and to demonstrate the water-dependency of the
    activity and/or, as applicable, that alternative nonwetland sites do not exist. In the alternatives
    analysis, an application must document that the project reflects efforts at avoidance of wetlands,
    minimization of wetland impacts found to be unavoidable and mitigation of unavoidable
    wetland impacts. This sequencing. within the alternatives analysis is based on National
    Environmental Policy Act regulations and CWA Section 404(b)(1) guidelines.

    If an applicant produces an acceptable alternatives analysis and mitigation plan and has worked
    to minimize environmental impacts, Ohio EPA may grant water quality certification for
    proposals to fill wetlands. However, certification is denied when feasible alternatives to filling
    wetlands exist or when a wetland is of high quality or value. State water quality certification
    regulations and procedures are included in Appendix K.

    "Water dependency" means that a project must be located on or in a water body to fulfill its
    basic project purpose. Projects that could also be constructed on upland property, including
    support facilities such as parking lots for projects that are water dependent, are not considered
    water dependent. Federal regulations (40 CFR 230.10) define the term water dependency for
    special aquatic sites, including wetlands.

    Ohio's antidegradation policy states that (1) existing beneficial uses shall be maintained and
    protected; (2) if a waterbody is exceeding the level of quality expected of that water body, water
    quality cannot be lowered except in cases of demonstrated social or economic need; and (3) in
    waters designated as State Resource Waters (which includes all wetlands), no lowering of water
    quality is allowed at all. Ohio EPA defines degraded wetlands using best professional judgment
    based on site visits and documentation. Functional values are evaluated as part of this analysis,
    which is done on a case-by-case basis. In permitting wetland fills, Ohio EPA assures that
    wetlands created, restored or enhanced as mitigation will fully replace the functions performed
    by the wetland which was destroyed, thereby avoiding a violation of water quality standards,
    including the antidegradation policy.



Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 5 - 52                              March 1997








    Ohio's current water quality standards make no functional value distinctions among wetland
    types, extending all Ohio wetlands the same degree of protection. This can lead to excessive
    efforts to protect wetlands of relatively low functional value and inadequate protection of high-
    quality wetlands. Any wetland determined to be a water of the state and within the jurisdiction
    of the Clean Water Act is by definition a State Resource Water under Ohio's current water
    quality standards, and according to the antidegradation policy, its water quality may not be
    degraded. Fills are permitted in these areas only after sequencing (avoidance, minimization)
    and wetland mitigation to replace lost functional values.

    Ohio's water quality standards for wetlands will be modified to accurately reflect ecological
    goals that are appropriate and attainable for all wetland types. Appropriate and highly specific
    designations will allow water quality standards to more accurately describe ambient conditions
    in wetlands as well as reflect Ohio's goals for its wetlands resources. Ohio EPA is in the
    process of developing water quality standards for wetlands that will provide a standardized,
    objective methodology for evaluating wetland functions. These changes in the standards will
    allow Ohio EPA to direct limited program resources towards appropriate levels of protection
    for wetlands with different functional values.

    Ohio EPA's review of mitigation proposals is guided by written mitigation policies, the text of
    which is included in Appendix K. (It should be emphasized that, prior to approval of a
    mitigation proposal, adherence to Section 404(b)1 guidelines is required. These guidelines
    stipulate the sequencing process, i.e., that an applicant must demonstrate there is no practicable
    alternative and then demonstrate that impacts will be minimized before proceeding with a
    mitigation proposal.)

    The mitigation policies require (1) a minimum of 1.5 mitigated (restored or created) acres for
    every 1 acre of affected wetlands, (2) replacement of functions and values, (3) replacement of
    affected wetland type, (4) location as close to the affected wetlands as practicable, preferably
    at the project site or within the same watershed, and (5) a minimum of five years of monitoring
    and submission of data to Ohio EPA by the applicant.

    Mitigation conditions most often attached to 401 water quality certifications are monitoring of
    water quality, hydrology and vegetation; an on-site meeting with Ohio EPA in the third year of
    post-mitigation construction; and a guarantee that the wetland will not be filled, drained or
    otherwise converted to upland, including a deed restriction to this effect if the property is sold.
    (Ohio EPA's standard wetland mitigation conditions are included in Appendix K.)

    In reviewing applications for water quality certification, Ohio EPA solicits input from ODNR
    and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. ODNR may provide comments or data regarding fish
    and wildlife impacts, biological and other natural resources, and potential effects upon resources
    or uses of concern to ODNR. Ohio EPA receives and incorporates in its administrative record
    comments and recommendations submitted by ODNR and the Fish and Wildlife Service to the
    Corps of Engineers (COE). Comments by ODNR are submitted in part to express the views of


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 5 - 53                              March 1997








    the state regarding the conservation of fish and wildlife resources in accordance with the Fish
    and Wildlife Coordination Act and other applicable laws and regulations.

    State authority provides increased protection of wetlands beyond controls over activities under
    the COE's Section 10/404 permit authority. State law provides that the Director, Ohio EPA may
    certify or deny certification to any applicant for a federal license or permit to conduct any
    activity that may result in a discharge into the waters of the state (O.R.C. ï¿½ 6111.03(P)).
    Further, O.A.C. 3745-32-02 sets forth the specific requirements that a Section 401 water quality
    certification is required to obtain the following: (1) a permit from the COE pursuant to Section
    10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act; (2) a permit from the COE pursuant to Section 404 of the
    Clean Water Act; (3) a permit from the COE under both Section 10 and 404; and (4) any other
    federal permit or license that may result in any discharge to waters of the state.

    In addition, increased protection of wetlands beyond the scope of the COE's authority is realized
    through the state's water pollution law and regulations. As an illustration, in December, 1996,
    the COE published the final rule for the administration of its nationwide permit program
    regulations. The Corps' permits are not valid until the state certifies that the discharge does not
    violate the state's water quality standards. Ohio EPA denied water quality certification for
    nationwide permits 17 - discharges associated with hydropower projects and 21 - surface coal
    mining activities.

    Also, state water quality certification has imposed general and specific conditions on many
    nationwide general permits. A list of Ohio EPA's water quality certification exceptions to
    Section 404 Nationwide Permits is provided in Appendix K.

    The Environmental Review Appeals Commission (ERAC), an appellate review board, separate
    and distinct from the Ohio EPA (see Chapter 4, Section 1), has ruled that the director's action
    of issuing water quality certification to an applicant with the condition that a portion of a
    wetland not be filled is reasonable and lawful because wetlands are waters of "exceptional
    ecological significance" within the meaning of O.A.C. 3745-1-05 and are therefore subject to
    the antidegradation policy of Ohio's water quality standards (EBR 79-42, 8/30/79). This
    decision construing Ohio EPA regulations has been sustained on appeal to the Franklin County
    Court of Appeals and the Ohio Supreme Court.

B.  Above and beyond the state's water pollution control laws, Section 401 implementing
    regulations and review guidelines, Governor's Executive Order 90-68 states (E.O. 90-68):
    "Consistent with the policies of the Ohio Nonpoint Source Management Program and Coastal
    Management Program, each state agency shall apply this policy in support of decisions to issue
    or deny permits or to authorize activities subject to the approval of the agency. To the extent
    permitted by law, state agencies will enforce the following sequence of mitigation options:
    avoidance of impacts to wetlands, minimization of impacts to wetlands, and finally, mitigation
    or compensation measures for unavoidable wetland impacts." (Appendix K contains the
    complete text of E.O. 90-68.)


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part I1 5 - 54                            March 1997








    Ohio EPA's Wetlands Mitigation Policies Used in Section 401 Reviews (see Appendix K)
    effectuates E.O. 90-68 in support of decisions on whether or not to authorize discharges of
    dredged or fill material in surface waters including wetlands. Ohio EPA's mitigation policies
    are much more detailed, thereby enhancing the predictability of whether a state water quality
    certification would be granted or denied for an activity affecting wetlands.

    ODNR follows its published wetlands policy, consistent with E.O. 90-68, in providing input to
    Section 404 permitting by the Corps of Engineers and Section 401 certification actions by Ohio
    EPA. This helps ensure consistency of policies and actions by the State of Ohio in furtherance
    of E.O. 90-68.

    E.O. 90-68 orders each agency of the state to take action to minimize adverse effects to
    wetlands and to conserve and enhance wetlands and their beneficial functions. Each state
    agency is to avoid undertakings that would degrade or destroy wetlands by utilizing an
    alternatives analysis in planning and implementing projects. Further, each agency, in
    considering the acquisition, disposal of real property, or granting of any lease, license or other
    interest, is to determine whether wetlands may be affected and to take steps to protect wetlands,
    restore wetlands, and otherwise implement the policy of the State of Ohio.

    The effect of E.O. 90-68 is limited to the extent that state agencies have authorities and
    discretion in implementing the mandates of their respective programs. An important effect of
    E.O. 90-68 on state agency activities and decisions is enhanced consideration of wetlands
    protection early in planning and decision making processes.

    ODNR's wetlands policy provides an example of state agency decision making consistent with
    E.O. 90-68. Implementing provisions of ODNR's wetlands policy includes the following:
    requiring wetlands conservation measures in the planning of water resources developments and
    capital improvements projects; prioritizing funding for wetlands acquisition and protection;
    requiring that ODNR's regulatory programs be administered in a manner that avoids
    unnecessary wetlands damages and losses; and directing land managing divisions to act
    affirmatively to preserve and enhance wetlands. (Appendix K contains the full text of ODNR's
    Policy Statement on wetlands.)

C.  It is the policy of the OCMP to seek increased dedicated public funding for wetlands restoration,
    enhancement and management. This includes financial assistance such as tax abatements and
    other incentives for private owners when long-term benefits to the general public interest will
    be realized. Coastal wetlands are protected by acquisition of land interests under various
    programs. ODNR has the authority to appropriate property for specific uses and purposes on
    behalf of any division in the department (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1501.01).

    The Division of Natural Areas and Preserves (DNAP) administers the State Nature Preserve
    Program (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1517.05) to protect and manage outstanding examples of Ohio's natural
    heritage. Private owners may sell or donate qualifying wetland areas to the division.


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 5 - 55                          March 1997








    Alternatively, they may dedicate their wetland properties to the preserve system or maintain
    these wetlands as natural areas under the Ohio Natural Landmarks Program.

    The Division of Wildlife (DOW) protects wetlands by acquiring and managing lands as wildlife
    areas. DOW has the authority to acquire and manage lands and waters or their surface rights
    for the specific purpose of fish and wildlife management, preservation, propagation, and
    protection, nongame recreational pursuits, public fishing and hunting grounds and preservation
    of the flora and fauna (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1531.06).

    ODNR also protects wetlands by acquiring and operating lands as state parks. The Division of
    Parks and Recreation (DPR) acquires and manages these lands for public protection and use
    (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1541.02). Similarly, Ohio's park district agencies may acquire lands for the
    conservation of the natural resources of the state (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1545.11).

    Many independent organizations and private interests acquire and protect wetlands. Their
    management and preservation efforts for various conservation and recreation purposes assure
    the continued protection of important wetland areas.

    The National Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan provides a process for identifying wetlands
    that should receive priority attention for federal or state acquisition. The 1993 Statewide
    Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) published by ODNR, REALM, consistent
    with the National Plan, highlights the importance of wetlands to outdoor recreation. Under this
    plan, ODNR is increasing funding from a variety of sources for the acquisition and restoration
    of wetlands. Lake Erie area wetlands are given a high priority in the Ohio Wetlands Priority
    Conservation Plan due to declining wetland types within the ecoregion, their high degree of
    public benefit and their vulnerability to development.

    Many programs assist coastal wetlands acquisition by ODNR, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service, local governments and independent organizations. Coastal wetlands conservation
    grants (Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act, Title m1, Public Law 101-
    646) are utilized by ODNR and DNAP for the acquisition of wetlands and buffer lands at high
    priority sites (e. g., aquatic habitats associated with coastal barrier land forms). Federal Land
    and Water Conservation Fund Act grants are used for both state and local wetlands conservation
    projects. ODNR's Ohio Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan, developed under the SCORP,
    assigns high priority to the acquisition-protection of coastal area wetlands. In the past five
    years, ODNR's Division of Wildlife and its many partners have protected, restored and en-
    hanced approximately 3,800 acres of Lake Erie wetlands under the NAWMP. ODNR's DNAP
    has expanded the Sheldon Marsh State Nature Preserve by 75 acres in the past three years and
    plans a 311-acre addition to the Mentor Marsh State Nature Preserve with a coastal wetlands
    conservation grant, supplemented by the state's income tax refund checkoff program.

    Wetlands acquisition and restoration projects under the North American Waterfowl
    Management Plan (NAWMP) are assisted through federal matching funds originating through


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 5 - 56                              March 1997








    the North American Wetlands Conservation Act (P.L. 101-233, as amended). The investment
    is multiplied through the agreements and partnerships entered into by DOW and a variety of
    conservation organizations, businesses and governmental agencies.

    DNAP also cooperates in partnership projects with other agencies and independent
    organizations and private landowners to acquire, protect and restore wetlands that serve as
    outstanding examples of Ohio's natural heritage. Wetlands are also being inventoried, restored
    and enhanced on existing public lands in state parks and other areas.

    Public/private partnerships are essential to accomplishing the state's wetlands conservation
    objectives. The first project in the NAWMP's Lake Erie Marshes focus area, in cooperation
    with the Winous Point Shooting Club, resulted in the designation of the 2,400-acre Muddy
    Creek Bay as a waterfowl refuge. This bay is the most concentrated staging area for black
    ducks on the continent. On a smaller scale, partnership projects for wetlands restoration on
    private lands are also important. DOW assists landowners with the restoration of small isolated
    wetlands that are vitally important to waterfowl and other migratory and wetland dependent
    wildlife. The Lake Erie Marshes focus area of the NAWMP is of the highest priority for
    restoration projects with private landowners. Through 1995, DOW had assisted in the resto-
    ration of more than 650 acres of previously drained privately owned wetlands.

    The Division of Soil and Water Conservation works cooperatively with the U. S. Natural
    Resources Conservation Service to provide additional incentives for wetland protection on
    privately owned lands under the federal Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP). The WRP is
    focused chiefly on wetlands in agricultural production, providing cash payments to property
    owners for permanent conservation easements on wetland property and cost-sharing for
    restoration. The DSWC has provided piggy-back funding for the WRP targeted at riparian
    wetlands. This policy of assisting in paying down the costs of the permanent easement has
    allowed the state to receive enhanced federal funding for more set-asides. As a result, nearly
    3,100 acres of wetlands were protected in the state during the first year of the WRP.
    Approximately 250 acres were in coastal counties, and the protection of more than 500
    additional acres in riparian areas of the Maumee River watershed is expected to enhance water
    quality in the Lake Erie basin. The Division has set aside nearly $600,00 in NatureWorks funds
    to expand the use of this program to help achieve the state's nonpoint source water quality
    goals.

    The OCMP will promote increased financial, technical and cooperative assistance for private
    owners to promote long-term wetlands protection and management.

D.  In partnership with the Ohio Sea Grant College Program, the OCMP strives to increase the
    usefulness of wetlands research to state and local decision makers and improving coastal
    management. The Lake Erie Protection Fund program may provide assistance for research and
    coastal wetlands restoration projects, with a particular emphasis on projects that may benefit
    wetlands restoration and management elsewhere in the coastal area and Great Lakes system.


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 5 - 57                              March 1997








    Public education and outreach are mutual objectives for which these programs strive to
    maximize existing resources.

    One of the premier locations for wetlands research and education on Lake Erie and the entire
    Great Lakes is the Old Woman Creek State Nature Preserve and National Estuarine Research
    Reserve (OWC-NERR). A memorandum of agreement between the OWC-NERR and the
    OCMP formalizes an institutional linkage intended to maximize the benefits of the use of the
    OWC-NERR for long-term scientific research, monitoring and educational programs. Assess-
    ing the impact of nonpoint sources of pollution in the watershed of the NERR is a high priority
    for research and is intended to be useful to other geographic locations in the coastal area.

E.  A broad network of individuals and institutions provides information and technical assistance
    on wetland issues ranging from acquisition-protection projects and strategies to mitigation
    options, research, education, inventorying, and wetlands restoration and development. The
    OCMP endeavors to maintain effective linkages and networks to maximize the resources that
    may be devoted for coastal wetland conservation purposes. The Ohio Sea Grant College
    Program and member institutions provide information generated from wetlands research.
    Information on wetlands protection through state and federal regulatory authority is readily
    available from Ohio EPA, Division of Surface Water. ODNR's DOW manages the statewide
    wetlands inventory and provides a wide range of technical assistance for planning and
    management purposes. The Lake Erie Geology Group of the Division of Geological Survey
    also provides technical assistance on the hydrology and geology of coastal wetlands. The
    OWC-NERR cooperates with the OCMP by interacting to disseminate information on wetlands
    and related coastal management issues and acting as a clearinghouse for information and policy
    on coastal management issues. DNAP's Natural Heritage Database inventory may contain
    information on high-quality wetland communities. This information is available to the public
    and local government for planning purposes. DNAP may also provide technical assistance on
    the protection of these areas and on the restoration of natural wetland communities.



















Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 5 - 58                             March 1997








                  POLICY 13 - NATURAL AREAS AND FEATURES

   IT IS THE POLICY OF THE STATE OF OHIO TO PRESERVE SIGNIFICANT
NATURAL AREAS AND OTHER OUTSTANDING FEATURES OF OHIO'S NATURAL
HERITAGE BY:

   A. ACQUIRING, DEDICATING AND MANAGING STATE NATURE PRESERVES
        (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1517.05, 1517.06);

   B. MANAGING THE STATE'S NATIONAL ESTUARINE RESEARCH RESERVE
        PROGRAM;

    C. CREATING AND MAINTAINING WILD, SCENIC AND RECREATIONAL
        RIVERS (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1517.14 THROUGH ï¿½ 1517.18);

    D. MAINTAINING AN UP-TO-DATE INVENTORY OF NATURAL AREAS AND
        OTHER NATURAL FEATURES AND ENCOURAGING THEIR PRESERVA-
        TION THROUGH PRIVATE ORGANIZATION PROTECTION EFFORTS AND
        LOCAL GOVERNMENT REGULATION; AND

    E. RECOGNIZING AS NATURAL LANDMARKS PRIVATELY OWNED
        NATURAL AREAS NOT SCHEDULED FOR ACQUISITION.

Authorities and Administration

A.   ODNR, Division of Natural Areas and Preserves (DNAP) administers and operates a system of
    state nature preserves pursuant to O.R.C. ï¿½ 1517.05. The intent of the system is to preserve
    through acquisition and dedication natural areas of state or national significance. "'Natural area'
    means an area of land or water which either retains to some degree or has re-established its
    natural character, although it need not be completely undisturbed, or has unusual flora, fauna,
    geological, archaeological, scenic, or similar features of scientific or educational interest"
    (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1501.01). These areas include, but are not limited to, sites characteristic of Ohio's
    presettlement landscape types, natural vegetation and geological history.

    Dedicated nature preserves are held in trust for the uses and purposes set forth in O.R.C. ï¿½
    1517.05 for the benefit of the people of the state, of present and future generations. They are
    managed and protected in the manner approved by, and subject to rules established by, the Chief
    of the DNAP. These preserves shall not be taken for any other use except another public use-
    after a finding by ODNR of the existence of an imperative and unavoidable public necessity for
    such other public use and with the approval of the governor (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1517.06).





Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS       Part ]- 5 - 59                                    Maxch 1997








    Potential sites are evaluated for designation by DNAP based on the following internal criteria: i

    I1.   Whether the area complements the state's existing preserve program.

    2.   Whether it is a good representative of the community type that once existed in the region.

    3.   Whether it contains state or federal endangered flora or fauna.

    4.   Whether there is evidence of significant human disturbance of the area.

    The division cooperates closely with local and national conservation organizations, nonprofit
    organizations, natural history museums, and universities in locating and identifying areas
    worthy of preservation. Through the Natural Areas State Income Tax Checkoff Program, the
    public is able to assist in acquisition and preservation of these natural areas, scenic rivers and
    endangered species by contributing a portion of its tax refund to the DNAP.

    Nature preserves are classified as scientific, interpretive or scenic, with scientific areas being
    the most restrictive in use and scenic areas being the least restrictive. Preserves are managed
    for the following uses and purposes:

    I1.   For conducting scientific research;

    2.   For teaching biology, ecology, natural history, geology, coastal processes and other related
          subjects;

    3.   To provide habitats for plant and animal communities;

    4.   As reservoirs of natural materials;

    5.   To serve as places of natural interest and beauty;

    6.   For fostering public visitation and observation of the natural world;

    7.   To promote understanding and appreciation of the aesthetic, cultural and scientific values
          of these areas; and

    8.   To preserve and protect such natural areas from any uses that would destroy their natural
          or aesthetic conditions. Active recreation, camping and organized sports are prohibited.

B.  Ohio's only designated National Estuarine Research Reserve is at Old Woman Creek.  The
    National Estuarine Reserve Research System (NERRS) was established by Section 315 of the
    Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, 16 U. S.C. 146 1, to provide financial assistance awards
    on a 50-50 matching basis to coastal states (including Great Lakes) for acquisition, development


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS   Part 11 5 - 60                               March 1997








    and operations of estuarine areas as natural field laboratories. These areas are used primarily
    for long-term scientific and educational programs that provide information essential to local,
    regional and national coastal decision making. The Reserve's administrative offices --
    designated as the Ohio Center for Coastal Wetland Studies -- are located on-site at Old Woman
    Creek.

    To guarantee long-term protection of Old Woman Creek estuary, and to ensure fulfillment of
    the goals and objectives of the NERRS Program, the Reserve is managed by DNAP as a nature
    preserve. Budget and policy decisions are made by the chief of DNAP in coordination with the
    on-site NERRS Program Administrator and the Chief of the Sanctuaries and Reserves Division
    (SRD)/National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)/U.S. Department of Com-
    merce.

C.  The Director of ODNR or the director's representative is authorized to create, supervise, operate,
    protect and maintain wild, scenic and recreational river areas (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1517.14). Areas that
    possess water conservation, scenic, fish, wildlife, historic or outdoor recreation values may be
    preserved, and adjacent lands of sufficient width necessary to protect those values may be
    included. ODNR is responsible for preparing and maintaining plans for the establishment,
    development, use and administration of these areas as part of comprehensive state plans for
    water management and outdoor recreation. The department also cooperates with federal wild,
    scenic and recreational river programs.

    ODNR does not, as a result of such designation, restrict land use of property owners within the
    designated area. However, the Chief of DNAP does participate in watershed-wide planning
    with federal, state and local agencies to protect the wild, scenic and recreational values of these
    areas. DNAP administers federal financial assistance for such areas and may expend funds
    appropriated by the Ohio general assembly for acquisition, protection and maintenance of
    property (O.R.C. ï¿½ 15'17.17). Channel modifications, construction and road building by state
    agencies and political subdivisions are prohibited within wild, scenic and recreational rivers
    outside municipal limits without plan approval by the Director of ODNR (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1517.16).

    "Wild river areas" are free of impoundments, inaccessible except by trail, with essentially
    primitive shorelines and watersheds and unpolluted waters. "Scenic river areas" are free of
    impoundments, accessible in places by roads, with largely undeveloped watersheds and
    primitive shorelines. "Recreational river areas" are accessible by roads or railroads, have some
    development along their shorelines, and may have undergone some impoundment or diversion
    in the past (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1517.16).

    Segments of five Lake Erie tributaries have been designated as Scenic Rivers. All designated
    segments of these rivers (the Chagrin, Grand, Cuyahoga, Sandusky and Maumee) lie outside
    the proposed Coastal Management boundary. Nevertheless, wise watershed management
    through implementation of stormwater management techniques and nonpoint source pollution
    control in these areas has a highly beneficial impact on coastal area water quality. The Scenic


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 5 - 61                            March 1997








    Rivers Program cooperates with the Ohio EPA and ODNR's Division of Soil and Water
    Conservation to encourage watershed protection on designated streams within the basin. (See I
    Appendix J for additional detail regarding the Scenic Rivers Program's role in nonpoint source
    pollution control.)

D.  DNAP systematically identifies ecologically significant natural areas, communities, species and
    features to analyze and establish land protection priorities. This information is also provided
    to planners and government officials for local protection programs and regulations, and to
    developers to direct development away from sensitive areas.

E.  The Ohio Natural Landmark Program, is designed to make landowners aware of significant
    natural features, encourage them to protect these features and provide technical assistance as
    needed. This is a nonbinding notification and recognition program for owners of natural areas
    that are not presently scheduled for acquisition. Such areas are then recognized as a part of the
    registry of natural areas, and technical assistance through DNAP is available to manage them.




































Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part If 5 - 62                              March 1997








                  POLICY 14 - RARE AND ENDANGERED SPECES

         IT IS THE POLICY OF THE STATE OF OHIO TO PRESERVE AND PROTECT
    RARE, THREATENED AND ENDANGERED PLANT AND ANIMAL SPECIES TO
    PREVENT THEIR POSSIBLE EXTINCTION BY:

    A. RESTRICTING THE TAKING OR POSSESSION OF NATIVE ANIMAL
         SPECIES. OR THEIR EGGS OR OFFSPRING. THAT ARE THREATENED
         WITH STATEWIDE EXTINCTION (O.R.C. d 1531.25 AND O.R.C. 4 1531.99):

    B. REGULATING THE TAKING. POSSESSION. REMOVAL. TRANSPORTATION
         OR SALE OF NATIVE PLANT SPECIES LISTED AS ENDANGERED OR
         THREATENED WITH EXTIRPATION (O.R.C. 1518.03): AND

    C. PROTECTING THE WATERS THAT PROVIDE A HABITAT FOR RARE AND
         ENDANGERED SPECIES (O.R.C. 6111.03(0). O.R.C. ~ 6111.03(R). O.A.C. 3745-1-
         05(C).

Authorities and Administration

A. ODNR, Division of Wildlife (DOW) protects fish and wildlife species threatened with statewide
    extinction under O.R.C. ï¿½ 1531.25. The division, with approval from the Wildlife Council,
    restricts the taking or possession of native species of wild animals, their eggs, or offspring
    threatened with statewide extinction. This restriction includes all species on the United States
    list of endangered fish and wildlife native to Ohio or that migrate within the state. The taking
    of species threatened with statewide extinction for zoological, educational, scientific or
    propagation purposes requires a written permit from the Chief of the Division of Wildlife
    (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1531.25 and O.A.C. 1501:31-23 and 1501:31-25). Any violation of this Section is
    considered a first degree misdemeanor pursuant to O.R.C. ï¿½ 1531.99.

    Through the Nongame Wildlife Income Tax Checkoff Program, funds are made available to the
    DOW for protection and management of rare and endangered animals, including habitat
    purchase and protection and research.

B. ODNR, Division of Natural Areas and Preserves (DNAP), has identified, designated, and listed
    plants that are native to Ohio that are in danger of extirpation or threatened with becoming
    endangered (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1518.01 and O.A.C. 1501:18-1). This list includes all species native to
    Ohio that are listed on the United States list of endangered and threatened plants. The removal
    or injuring of endangered and threatened plant species without permission from the private
    property owner or the removal from public property is prohibited (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1518.02). The
    taking of endangered and threatened plants for botanical, educational, scientific, or for
    propagation in captivity to preserve the species requires a written permit from the Chief of the
    DNAP pursuant to O.R.C. ï¿½ 1518.03.


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS     Part II 5 - 63                                March 1997








    Through the Natural Areas Income Tax Checkoff Program, funds are made available to DNAP
    for the protection and management of rare and endangered plants, including habitat purchase
    and protection and research.

C.  The Ohio EPA, through the state water quality standards (O.A.C. 3745-1), provides additional
    protection to aquatic species identified as threatened or endangered. The Antidegradation
    Policy (O.A.C. 3745-1-05(C)) protects waters of exceptional ecological significance (e.g.,
    waters that provide a habitat for state and federally identified threatened or endangered species).
    Present ambient water quality in such waters will not be degraded for all substances determined
    to be toxic or to interfere with any designated use as determined by the Director of Ohio EPA.
    This authority is used through various permitting actions such as National Pollution Discharge
    Elimination System (NPDES) permits and Section 401 water quality certifications.





































Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 5 - 64                              March 1997








                                POLICY 15 - EXOTIC SPECIES

               IT IS THE POLICY OF THE STATE OF OHIO TO PREVENT INTRODUCTION
           OF AND CONTROL EXOTIC SPECIES TO PRESERVE THE BALANCE AND
           DIVERSITY OF NATURAL ECOSYSTEMS OF OHIO'S LAKE ERIE REGION BY:

           A.  REGULATING THE SALE AND PROPAGATION OF PURPLE LOOSESTRIFE
               (O.R.C. . 927.682):

           B.  REGULATING THE IMPORTATION. SALE AND POSSESSION FOR PUR-
               POSES OF INTRODUCTION INTO WATERWAYS OF EXOTIC SPECIES OF
               FISH OR HYBRIDS THEREOF (O.A.C. 1501:31-19-01):

           C.  ESTABLISHING AND IMPLEMENTING CONTROL MEASURES FOR NON-
               NATIVE FLORA AS PART OF MANAGEMENT PLANS FOR ODNR-MANAGED
               PRESERVES AND WILDLIFE AREAS;

           D.  INFORMING THE PUBLIC REGARDING PROPER PROCEDURES TO PRE-
               VENT FURTHER SPREAD OF ZEBRA MUSSELS;

           E.  CONDUCTING AND SUPPORTING SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH TO ASSIST IN
               UNDERSTANDING THE EFFECTS OF ZEBRA MUSSELS AND CARP UPON
               THE LAKE'S ECOLOGY AND TO ASSESS A VARIETY OF MEANS TO
0
                CONTROL THE SPECIES; AND

           F.   PARTICIPATING ON THE GREAT LAKES PANEL ON AQUATIC NUISANCE
                SPECIES AND CONDUCTING OTHER ACTIVITIES TO SUPPORT AND
               MAINTAIN CONSISTENCY WITH THE PURPOSES OF THE
               NONINDIGENOUS AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES PREVENTION AND
                CONTROL ACT OF 1990.

       A.  The Director of the Department of Agriculture (DOA) prohibits the sale and propagation of
           purple loosestrife pursuant to O.R.C. ï¿½ 927.682. No person or governmental entity may sell,
           offer for sale or plant Lythrum salicaria without a permit issued by the director. The director
           may issue a permit only for controlled experiments and may exempt from the permit
           requirement any variety demonstrated not to be a threat to the environment (O.R.C. ï¿½ 927.682).

       B.  The State of Ohio's fishing regulations provide that exotic species of fish or hybrids thereof may
           not be imported, sold or possessed for the purposes of introduction into any body of water that
           is connected to or drains into a flowing stream or other body of water that would allow egress
           of fish into public waters in the state. In addition, the possession and importation of grass carp
           capable of reproducing is prohibited. Importers and sellers of grass carp are required to certify
           that all grass carp handled are of the sterile triploid variety and must have prior written

i
        Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 5 - 65               March 1997








    authorization from the Chief of the Division of Wildlife (DOW) to import and sell this variety
    (O.A.C. 1501:31-19-01).

C.  Each preserve and wildlife area managed by ODNR, DOW and DNAP, is governed by a
    management plan specific to that area. Each plan incorporates a statement of policy regarding
    treatment of nonnative plant species identified as problems within the preserve or wildlife area.
    In the coastal area, plants identified include purple loosestrife, garlic mustard, European
    buckthorn, bush honeysuckle and Hungarian brome. Although Phragmites is a native species,
    there is the belief in the scientific community that a more aggressive European form exists.
    This European form of Phragmites is considered to be very invasive, and its ability to out-
    compete less-invasive native wetland species in recent years has caused this plant to be a
    problem species for coastal resource managers. Generally speaking, guidelines call for manual
    removal, burning and treatment with herbicides. Management plans include provision for
    monitoring and assessment to determine the extent of growth and nature of the disturbance, if
    any. Management plans are tailored to the specific preserve or wildlife area and prescribe the
    treatment appropriate for each species depending upon the habitat type, extent of invasion and
    management goals for the area.

D.  Spread of the zebra mussel cannot be prevented entirely, but it can be slowed. Because anglers
    and recreational boaters inadvertently contribute to transport and spread of the mussel, ODNR
    informs them of proper procedures for inspecting, draining, washing and drying equipment.
    Information regarding storage techniques and the use of antifoulants and coatings is also
    provided.

E.  ODNR, DOW is conducting and supporting numerous scientific studies of zebra mussels and
    carp and their effects on water clarity, pollutant uptake, predator/prey relationships, and other
    interactions of organisms at various trophic levels. Several methods of control are being
    investigated, including artificially inducing spawning at inappropriate times. Monitoring for
    the presence of ruffe and adult and larval sea lamprey has been conducted and will continue.
    Ruffe has not yet been found in Lake Erie, and sea lamprey have been controlled in the past and
    are confined to upper reaches of two coldwater streams in the eastern Ohio coastal area. Carp
    are controlled on DOW-managed areas by drawing down in early summer and placing screens
    on pump inlets and culverts in diked marshes. Rotenone is used in deep channels to eliminate
    remaining carp.

F.  ODNR, through DOW, participates on the Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species,
    which was established to identify Great Lakes priorities and make recommendations to the
    Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force. The Task Force was established as a result of the
    Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act (NANPCA) of 1990. The goals
    of that act are to prevent unintentional introductions; coordinate research; disseminate
    information; develop and implement environmentally sound control methods; minimize
    economic and ecological impacts; and establish a research and technology program to benefit
    state governments. The Great Lakes Panel has been instrumental in establishment of new Coast


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 5 - 66                           March 1997








    Guard regulations to stop imports and is assisting in development of research protocol,
    educational strategies, and management and research priorities. The State of Ohio also is
    represented on the panel by the Ohio Sea Grant Program.

    Ohio has developed a State Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan as called for by
    NANPCA. The plan is patterned after the Model Comprehensive State Management Plan for
    the Prevention and Control of Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Species developed through a
    May 1995 Great Lakes regional workshop funded under Section 308 of the CZMA. The
    steering committee that developed the plan includes ODNR staff from the Divisions of Wildlife
    and Natural Areas and Preserves, OCMP staff from REALM and staff from Ohio EPA, Sea
    Grant, the Lake Erie Office and The Ohio State University. The management plan and first
    annual work plan were submitted to the National Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force in late
    1996.




































Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part 11 5 - 67                          March 1997








                       PORTS AND SHORE AREA DEVELOPMENT

Uses Subiect to Management

    ï¿½    Activities involving the development of submerged lands of Lake Erie.

    ï¿½    Activities involving the dredging and disposal of dredged materials.

    *    Activities affecting the development of the shore and nearshore waters.

    ï¿½    Activities involving port development, maintenance and expansion.

Dredging

    Large vessels traveling the Great Lakes require harbor depths of 28 feet below low water datum.
Keeping Ohio's commercial and recreational harbors open to these vessels requires annual dredging
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Dredging involves large quantities of materials that are very
costly to remove and may pose environmental problems. Polluted materials must be disposed at
approved upland sites or in confined disposal facilities. These facilities are expensive and occupy
valuable nearshore habitat. Improved dredging techniques and new methodology for the disposal
of dredge materials is vital to the shipping industry.

Residential Development

    Lakeshore access, expansive views and other aesthetic considerations make the shore area a
desirable place to live. Residential development, primarily single family housing, occupies nearly
45 percent of the 262 miles of Lake Erie shore in Ohio. In some areas near Cleveland, high-rise
apartment buildings have been built on the bluffs overlooking the Lake. Neighboring communities
face pressure from developers to rezone their lakeshores to allow for more condominiums and high-
rise apartments. High-density housing drastically changes the shore's character, limits the options
for its future use, and may create unforeseen environmental problems. Local decisions to redevelop
the shore to provide high density housing must be considered carefully. Proper plans should be
developed and implemented by local governments to reduce the effects of continued residential
development on the Lake Erie shore.

Industrial and Commercial Development

    A sound, viable and progressive economy is an essential element of the Lake Erie region. The
commercial and industrial advantages provided by the lake's economic resources are important to
the region and the state. A lakeshore location satisfies two basic industrial location criteria:
economic shipping distance for major raw materials including iron ore, coal and limestone; and
availability of a large-volume water supply for processing needs.



Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 5 - 68                            March 1997








         Approximately IO percent of the shore is developed by industrial or commercial interests. Many
Sof the take's tributaries are also heavily developed. However, their harbors, which in the past have
    been almost exclusively areas of commercial and industrial development, are now undergoing urban
    waterfront development.

         Some developments along, the lakeshore are lake-dependent and require actual lakefront access
    to operate. These include commercial fishing, port facilities, certain mineral extraction industries,
     large boatworks, shipyards, and marinas. Other developments along Lake Erie require water, but
     not necessarily lakefront land, as an integral part of their operation. Electrical generating facilities
     and steel plants are examples of this second goup of developments.

     Ports

         The availability of an inexpensive water-based transportation system has greatly influenced
     development of cities and industry along the Lake. Commercial ports along Ohio's Lake Erie shore
    provide a vital link in the state's transportation system and are vital to the local, regional and state
    economy. The major commercial ports are Ashtabula, Cleveland, Conneaut, Fair-port Harbor, Huron,
     Lorain, Sandusky and Toledo. Major commodities are coal, iron ore, grain, fertilizers, limestone,
     sand, gravel, salt and stone. A declining industrial base has hurt the ports, yet they have kept pace
    by diversifying their cargos and seeking new business. Innovative thinking and continued port
     development should maintain the flow of goods in the coastal area.



























     Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final ETS  Part I 5 -69                                March 1997








                         POLICY 16 - PUBLIC TRUST LANDS

         IT IS THE POLICY OF THE STATE OF OHIO TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC
    TRUST HELD WATERS AND LANDS UNDERLYING THE WATERS OF LAKE
    ERIE, PROTECT PUBLIC USES OF LAKE ERIE AND MINIMIZE THE OCCUPA-
    TION OF PUBLIC TRUST LANDS FOR PRIVATE BENEFIT BY:

    A. REGULATING OFFSHORE DEVELOPMENT AND IMPROVEMENT
         PROJECTS BY REOUIRING A LEASE FOR THE USE OF SUBMERGED
         LANDS (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.10 AND 1506.11 AND O.A.C. 1501-6-01 THROUGH 1501-6-
         06):

    B. REGULATING RECOVERY OF SUBMERGED ABANDONED PROPERTY
         THROUGH PERMITS (O.R.C. 8 1506.32): AND

    C. ESTABLISHING AND ENFORCING LAKE ERIE SUBMERGED LANDS PRE-
         SERVES (O.R.C. ï¿½1506.31).

Authorities and Administration

    The waters of Lake Erie and lands underlying them belong to the state as proprietor in trust for
the people of the state for the public uses to which they may be adapted, subject to the powers of the
United States government, to the public rights of navigation, water commerce and fishery, and to the
property rights of littoral owners, including the right to make reasonable use of the waters in front
of or flowing past their lands (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.10). Ohio's "public trust doctrine" was originally
established in 1803 when Section 14, Article III, of the "Northwest Ordinance" gave the new state
authority to regulate activities occurring in navigable waters within state boundaries.

    The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Illinois Central Railroad Companv v. Illinois 146 US 387
(1892) that the state may not abdicate its control of public trust properties and leave them under
private control. Subsequent court decisions have looked with disfavor upon governmental actions
that reallocated public uses to those of a select, private party. Several Ohio cases have clarified that
the "public use" is to be construed broadly and extended beyond the traditional concepts of
commerce, navigation and fishery. Specifically, State ex rel Brown v. Newport Concrete Co. (1975)
44 Ohio App. 2d 121 clarified that public use includes recreation, while State ex rel Sauire v.
Cleveland (1948) 150 OS 303 asserted that law regarding public use should provide a broad con-
struction of "navigation" and be flexible enough to allow for future, as yet unanticipated, beneficial
uses.

A. A lease from the State of Ohio, acting through the Director of ODNR, is required before any
    improvements may be made on the waters and the land underlying the waters of Lake Erie
    (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.11, O.A.C. 1501-6-01 through 1501-6-06). Although the current shoreline
    serves as the general baseline for determining which areas require a lease for development, state


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS    Part II 5 - 70                                March 1997








    law also requires a lease of Lake Erie submerged land for filled land that was originally
    occupied by the lake's waters. Landowners with such improvements made prior to October 13,
    1955 are automatically granted a lease if the developments do not constitute an unlawful
    encroachment on navigation and water commerce interests. Any additions or improvements
    upon the existing fill or structures may require a new lease.

    ODNR, REALM reviews proposed projects in accordance with the following criteria,
    established in O.A.C. 1501-06-03, to determine the potential impacts upon Lake Erie and the
    public's use of Lake Erie:

    1.   Water Dependency - Generally, an application will not be approved for a nonwater-
          dependent development or activity.

    2.   Protection of Environmental Quality - The Director of ODNR  may require an
          Environmental Impact Assessment to determine probable impacts of the activity upon the
          natural and human environment.

    3.   Public Recreation - Potential impacts upon the public right of recreation, including
         present or prospective recreational uses, will be evaluated. Provision for public access
          may be required as a lease or permit condition depending upon historic use patterns and
          suitability of the lease site for existing or prospective recreational uses.

    4.   Relationship to port development, commercial navigation and waterfront development
         plans - Consideration will be given to compatibility with such plans, sensitivity to
         preservation and restoration of other coastal features, and importance to the local and
          regional economy, interstate commerce and other national, state or regional interests.

    In addition, as provided in O.A.C. 1501-6-03, consideration will be given to the following:

    1.   Whether the proposed project will prejudice the littoral rights of any owner of land
          fronting on Lake Erie.

    2.   Whether the proposed project conforms to the permitted uses as regulated by the local
          government, where applicable.

    3.   Whether any of the public uses (navigation, water commerce and fishery) of the original
          area would be destroyed or greatly impaired.

    4.   Whether the diminution of the area of original use would be small compared to the use
          of the entire area.

    5.   Whether the area has a history of use including, but not limited to, services rendered to
          the general public.


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 5 - 71                             March 1997








    In reviewing an application in terms of a project's potential impairment of public rights, ODNR
    solicits comments and uses, to the maximum extent practicable, the findings of the COE Section
    10/404 permit process, and the Section 401 Water Quality Certification by Ohio EPA. This
    policy allows other state agencies to comment on potential environmental impacts before
    ODNR issues a submerged lands lease. (Erosion control measures also require a permit
    pursuant to O.R.C. ï¿½ 1507.04 [see Policy 2]. If proposed in conjunction with erection, construc-
    tion or redevelopment of a permanent structure within the Lake' Erie coastal erosion area,
    O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.07 will apply as well.)

    All lease agreements contain a reservation to the State of Ohio of all mineral rights and a
    provision that the removal of any mineral shall be conducted in a manner that does not damage
    any improvements placed by the littoral owner, lessee or permit holder on the lands. Also, no
    lease or permit expresses or implies any control of fisheries or wildlife.

    Rental payments received from leases entered into on or after March 15, 1989, accrue to the
    Lake Erie Submerged Lands Fund (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.11). From the fund, 50 percent of each rental
    is paid to ODNR for administration of submerged lands and for the Coastal Management
    Assistance Grant Program. The other 50 percent of the rental is paid to the municipal
    corporation, county or port authority with jurisdiction over the area for which the lease was
    executed. For leases existing prior to March 15, 1989, the total lease rentals are paid directly
    to the local government until the renewal clauses becomes effective.

    Rules for leasing of Lake Erie submerged lands are included in Appendix L.

B.  The State of Ohio holds ownership and title to submerged abandoned property in Lake Erie and
    ODNR administers a permit system for recovery of such property (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.33 and
    1506.32). See Policy 26 for additional details.

C.  In order to provide special protection for significant abandoned property and features in Lake
    Erie, the Director of ODNR with approval of the Director of OHS may adopt rules to establish
    Lake Erie submerged lands preserves (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.31). See Policy 26 for additional details.
















Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 5 - 72                              March 1997








         POLICY 17 - DREDGING AND DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL

       IT IS THE POLICY OF THE STATE OF OHIO TO PROVIDE FOR THE
   DREDGING OF HARBORS, RIVER CHANNELS AND OTHER WATERWAYS AND
   TO PROTECT THE WATER QUALITY, PUBLIC RIGHT TO NAVIGATION,
   RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES ASSOCIATED WITH THESE
   WATERS IN THE DISPOSAL OF THE DREDGED MATERIAL BY:

   A. REGULATING. THROUGH THE OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
       AGENCY WATER OUALITY CERTIFICATION. THE DISCHARGE OR DIS-
       POSAL OF DREDGED MATERIAL (O.R.C. ~ 6111.03(P) AND O.A.C. 3745-1):

   B.   REOUIRING A LEASE FOR STATE-ADMINISTERED SUBMERGED LANDS
       THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES BEFORE INI-
       TIATING THE CONFINED DISPOSAL OF DREDGED MATERIAL IN THE
       WATERS OR ON LANDS UNDERLYING THE WATERS OF LAKE ERIE
        (O.R.C. ~ 1506.11):

   C. REGULATING COMMERCIAL DREDGING OF MINERAL RESOURCES
        (O.R.C. ~ 1505.07 AND O.R.C. ~ 1505.99): AND

   D.  COORDINATING INTERDISCIPLINARY REVIEWS OF DREDGING PRO-
       JECTS AT OHIO'S LAKE ERIE PORTS AND PROVIDING TECHNICAL AND
       FUNDING ASSISTANCE TO HELP SELECT AND IMPLEMENT ENVI-
        RONMENTALLY SOUND DREDGING AND DREDGED SEDIMENT MANAGE-
       MENT PRACTICES.

Authorities and Administration

A.  The Ohio EPA regulates discharges of dredged materials into Ohio waters through the authority
   of the Director, Ohio EPA, to certify or deny certification to an applicant for a federal license
   or permit that the discharge will comply with the CWA (O.R.C. ï¿½ 6111.03(P)). Before any
   agency or individual disposes of dredged material into Ohio waters, a state water quality cer-
   tification must be obtained. Water quality certifications are issued, denied or conditioned
   pursuant to Ohio EPA's review of a COE Section 10/404 permit application or application made
   directly to Ohio EPA. (See Policy 12 for a more complete description of the 401 water quality
   certification authority.)

B.  Before any improvements are undertaken to develop an in-water confined disposal facility
   (CDF), the project sponsor must obtain a lease from the ODNR for use of the waters and under-
   lying submerged lands of Lake Erie (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.11). The application process and
   lease/permit criteria are explained in Policy 16.



Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 5 - 73                 March 1997








C.  The Director, ODNR, with the approval of the Director, Ohio EPA, the Attorney General, and
    the Governor, requires a permit or lease for removal of sand and gravel and other mineral
    resources from the bed of Lake Erie. Permits are issued for terms of not less than one year nor
    more than 10 years or until the economic extraction of the mineral has been completed.
    Dredging of sand and gravel must be within certain fixed boundaries that do not conflict with
    the rights of littoral owners. Pursuant to O.R.C. ï¿½ 1505.07, no person shall remove sand,
    gravel, stone or other minerals from or from under the bed of Lake Erie without first having
    obtained a permit or lease therefor from the Director, ODNR. Whoever violates this law shall
    be fined not less than $100 and not more than $500 (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1505.99).

D.  ODNR cooperates with Ohio EPA, U.S. EPA, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Army
    Corps of Engineers (COE), and the local agency or individual in determining the appropriate
    method and location for disposal of dredged materials. ODNR uses an interdisciplinary
    resource management approach to the evaluation of dredging and disposal projects. The
    uniqueness of dredge disposal projects and the variability of environmental conditions in Lake
    Erie and the coastal area necessitate this approach. The OCMP encourages the development
    of long-term sediment management plans for harbors and navigation channels where continuing
    dredging will be necessary to maintain navigation and beneficial and economic uses of these
    coastal areas.

    The U.S. EPA has developed Section 404(b)(1) guidelines for determining the suitability of in-
    water disposal of dredged or fill material. In developing management mechanisms in the Ohio
    Nonpoint Source Management Program, ODNR and Ohio EPA recognized that determining the
    presence and relative concentration of contaminants in dredged material is only one important
    factor. Predicting the fate of those contaminants in each disposal option and assessing the
    environmental impacts of each dredged material disposal alternative is even more important.
    Decisionmaking regarding the management of dredged sediments from harbor areas and
    navigation channels where major tributaries deliver large quantities of sediments must be made
    on the basis of which alternatives provide reasonable protection for water quality and aquatic
    life uses and meet Ohio's objectives for sustaining beneficial human uses of the coastal area.

    Management must be flexible. Lake Erie has tremendous variability in substrate conditions,
    currents, ambient water quality and natural sediment resuspension from location to location.
    Also, as the levels of pollutants in sediments decline with increased controls of point sources
    and nonpoint sources, open lake disposal options and methods need to be carefully examined
    to ensure that natural resources and beneficial uses of Lake Erie are adequately protected. The
    OCMP will use integrated management to fully explore upland and in-lake sediment reuse
    options. Traditional in-water confined disposal facilities (CDFs) for dredged sediments
    eliminate large areas of open water and submerged lands and underwater resources. This results
    in a major commitment of natural resources and habitat for fish and wildlife to a sediment
    disposal use.




Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 5 - 74                           March 1997








    The OCMP  has developed general priorities for the location of dredge disposal sites.
    Evaluation of all projects depends upon the specific characteristics of the situation and the site.
    Areas for the disposal of dredged materials determined not suitable for open-lake disposal, in
    order of their relative priority are: (1) upland sites and (2) nearshore confined sites.

    Except for sand and gravel, the OCMP does not advocate an order of preference among site
    alternatives for the disposal or use of materials determined suitable for open-lake disposal. Site
    selection must be examined on a case-by-case basis considering ambient environmental
    conditions, dredged sediment characteristics and the characteristics of alternative open-lake
    sites.

    The sand- and gravel-sized sediments should be returned to the littoral system downdrift of the
    point of dredging. All sand and gravel dredged from nearshore areas and from stream mouths,
    marina facilities and entrance channels during construction or maintenance should be returned
    to the nearshore zone downdrift of the channel.

    Through the Ohio Department of Transportation's (ODOT) port assistance program, technical
    and financial assistance, including financial assistance for planning and feasibility studies, is
    available to assist port authorities and municipalities in determining proper methods and sites
    for the disposal of dredged materials. Policy 19 contains information on the port assistance
    program.




























Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part 11 5 - 75                              March 1997








                POLICY I18- LOCAL LAKESHORE DEVELOPMENT I

        IT IS THE POLICY OF THE STATE OF OHIO TO ENCOURAGE LOCAL
   GOVERNMENTS TO PLAN FOR AND CONTROL SHORE DEVELOPMENT TO
   PROVIDE FOR TILE WISE USE OF THE SHORE AND COASTAL RESOURCES BY:

   A. PROVIDING PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE FOR THE
        DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPREHENSIVE SHORE
        MASTER PLANS;

   B. COLLECTING, ANALYZING AND PUBLISHING RESOURCE DATA
        THROUGH THE OHIO DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, OHIO
        CAPABILITY ANALYSIS PROGRAM, FOR USE BY LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
        IN THEIR PLANNING AND DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES; AND

   C. ASSISTING LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO PREPARE ORDINANCES AND
        RESOLUTIONS NECESSARY TO EFFECTIVELY ADMINISTER THESE
        PLANS.

Authorities and Administration

A. In Ohio, local governments have been constitutionally (Article XVII, Section 3 of the Ohio
   Constitution) or legislatively (O.R.C. Chapters 303 and 519) granted the authority and
   responsibility to plan for and control the development of specific land uses within their
   respective jurisdictions. The state encourages local governments to exercise this responsibility
   and authority in the development and implementation of comprehensive lakeshore master plans
   to provide for the wise use of these important land and water resources. Ideally, local lakeshore
   plans should:

    1.   Give high priority to public access, port and other coastal dependent uses over other types
        of development.

   2.   Discourage unprotected development and redevelopment in coastal erosion and flood
        prone areas.

   3.   Promote improved air and water quality.

   4.   Guide new development in or adjacent to areas of similar or compatible use.

    5.   Preserve fish and wildlife habitat and other significant natural areas or features.

    6.   Maintain prime and specialty agricultural (nursery and viticulture) areas.



Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS   Part B  5 - 76                               March 1997








    7.   Preserve historic and archaeological sites and other areas of cultural significance.

    8.   Use land capability analyses in the planning process.

    9.   Minimize filling of Lake Erie, especially for nonwater-dependent uses.

B.  ODNR conducts investigations and collects data on the natural resources of the coastal area to
    assure their wise use and development. These efforts include information about soils, ground
    water, geology, forests, wetlands, floodplains, sediments and other resources and coastal
    processes. Much of this information is available through the Ohio Capability Analysis Program
    (OCAP), managed in the Division of Real Estate and Land Management. OCAP is a computer
    information system containing natural and physical data needed to analyze and present
    information on the land's ability to support or sustain various land uses. Additional information
    on coastal erosion and sedimentation, including Coastal Erosion Area maps, is available from
    the Lake Erie Geology Group of the Division of Geological Survey and the department's Lake
    Erie Geographic Information System. These data and analyses, available for all lakeshore com-
    munities, are valuable tools for local decisions on land use and development.

C.  ODNR has developed guidelines for local land-use management, and model ordinances have
    been developed for different types of critical resources and hazard areas, including flood haz-
    ards, geological hazards, mineral resources, river corridors and natural areas. In addition, model
    ordinances for Lake Erie coastal erosion area permitting will be made available to communities.
    (See Policy 1.) The ODNR Division of Water provides assistance in the development and
    review of flood hazard area regulations. (See Policy 3.)

    Owners of agricultural land meeting the requirements of O.R.C. ï¿½ 929.02 may apply for
    designation by the county auditor of their land as an agricultural district. Agricultural districts
    are exempt from certain special assessments and have limited protection from land
    condemnation (O.R.C. ï¿½ 929.03, 929.04, 929.05). The benefits provided by designation of
    agricultural districts may help keep some land as agricultural land that otherwise may be
    converted to some other use.
















Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 5 - 77                            March 1997








                          POLICY 19 - LAKE ERIE PORTS

        IT IS THE POLICY OF THE STATE OF OHIO TO PROMOTE AND PROVIDE
   FOR MARITIME COMMERCE AND RELATED ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
   ALONG THE LAKE ERIE SHORE BY:

   A. PROVIDING ASSISTANCE TO, AND ASSISTING IN THE PROCUREMENT OF
        FEDERAL FUNDS FOR PORT DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES FOR, LOCAL
        GOVERNMENTS AND PORT AUTHORITIES THAT HAVE THE POWERS TO
        PLAN, IMPROVE, ACQUIRE, ENLARGE, OPERATE, MAINTAIN AND
        FINANCE PORT ACTIVITIES AND PROJECTS; AND

   B. ENCOURAGING THE DEVELOPMENT OF COMPREHENSIVE PORT FACIL-
        ITY AND EXPANSION MASTER PLANS AND IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
        THROUGH FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FROM THE OHIO DEPARTMENT OF
        TRANSPORTATION.

Authorities and Administration

    In Ohio, any municipality, township, county or combination of such, may create a port authority
(O.R.C. ï¿½ 4582.22). A municipality shall act by ordinance; a township shall act by resolution of the
township trustees, and a county shall act by resolution of the county commission in authorizing the
creation of a port authority. Port authorities shall be governed by a board of directors (O.R.C. ï¿½
4582.27). The jurisdiction of a port authority shall include all of the territory of the political
subdivision or subdivisions creating it, provided that the same area is not included in more than one
port authority.

A.  The State of Ohio has developed a port assistance program for Ohi o's Lake Erie ports. Grants
    are available through the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT), Division of
    Transportation Assistance, to assist port authorities in port planning, feasibility studies and
    improvement projects. These planning and feasibility studies should be coordinated with the
    affected local communities and should reflect local comprehensive planning and zoning
    regulations, where applicable. ODOT also provides technical assistance to port authorities in
    obtaining financial assistance for port development and expansion from other state and federal
    agencies.

B. Ports are encouraged to undertake planning studies that provide public access points or
    recreation areas within the harbors as well as studies on the compatibility of recreational
    development and commercial facilities and traffic. This consideration increases public
    awareness and support for the ports and the important role they play in the local, regional and
    state economy.





Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS     Part 11 5 - 78                                  March 1997








                     POLICY 20 - TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES

         IT IS THE POLICY OF THE STATE OF OHIO TO INCORPORATE COASTAL
    CONCERNS AND RESOURCE PROTECTION INTO COASTAL TRANSPORTATION
    PLANNING THROUGH COORDINATION WITH THE OHIO DEPARTMENT OF
    TRANSPORTATION, REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AGENCIES AND LOCAL
    MUNICIPALITIES.

Authorities and Administration

    The state reviews federally financed projects through the state intergovernmental review
process. The following internal guidelines are used in reviewing transportation projects and related
facilities:

    I1. The development of new commercial water transportation facilities should be encouraged
         to locate in areas in or adjacent to already developed commercial and industrial areas in
         existing ports and harbors.

    2.   The development and maintenance of land transportation and improvement of highway
         and railroad access to Lake Erie ports and other major Lake Erie facilities is encouraged.
         However, development of new, major land transportation that impedes physical access to
         the Lake and the immediate shore; damages or destroys wetlands, wildlife habitat or other
         natural areas; or is in Lake Eric or its bays, is discouraged.

    3.   The development and maintenance of new air transportation facilities, including airports
         that serve Lake Erie ports, islands or other major Lake Erie facilities is encouraged.
         However, development of new air transportation facilities, including airports, that impede
         access to the lake and the immediate shore; damage wetlands without mitigation; cause
         unacceptable damage to wildlife habitat and other natural areas; interfere with shore
         erosion protection, or commercial or recreational boating and fishing; or create unaccept-
         able noise or safety hazards to the abutting or surrounding area, is discouraged.

    4.   The use of lakeshore property for parking lots is discouraged, except for those parking
         facilities that provide public access or serve lake-dependent facilities.

    Projects may require water quality certification or other permits or approval from the Ohio EPA
    or the COE (see Policy 12).









Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS   Part II 5 - 79                               March 1997








                       RECREATION AND CULTURAL RESOURCES                              I

Uses Subiect to Management

    ï¿½ Activities associated with the development of public park and recreation areas including
         marinas and boat-launching facilities.

    ï¿½   Activities associated with the development of public hunting and fishing areas.

    ï¿½ Activities affecting archaeological or historic sites.

Recreational Facilities

    Over 3,200 square miles of Lake Erie are held in trust as a state resource for the people of Ohio.
The Lake offers an almost endless variety of recreational opportunities on a year-round basis.
However, user conflicts arise because the coastal area must provide for the recreational needs of
Ohioans, while also maintaining nonrecreational and nonwater-dependent opportunities. Some
existing recreational facilities are overburdened, and new facilities and expansion of existing
facilities are needed in some areas.

    Despite a wide variety of state, local and federally managed recreational areas, there remains
a shortage of access and facilities necessary to promote the full recreational enjoyment of Lake Erie,
according to the 1993 Ohio Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP). The
demand for current facilities is increasing more rapidly than new ones can be provided. The high
cost of land and the loss of potential recreational areas to other uses make it increasingly difficult
to offer new services. The lakeshore is one of the more intensively developed areas of the state, and
decreasing acreage has been available for recreational development, especially parcels both large and
suitable enough for extensive recreation.

    Many local officials indicate that the high cost of maintenance is a significant deterrent to new
recreational development. Communities have limited resources and rely increasingly on federal
funding for general municipal operations. As other costs of city government increase, park
maintenance is often given a lower priority. In some cases, parks were built without provision for
continuing park maintenance. Many local governments previously neglected the maintenance of
shore area parks because poor water quality, high lake levels and erosion have lessened their value
as public recreational areas. Improved environmental quality and increased awareness of Lake Erie's
opportunities have created a growing demand for lake-based recreation that must be matched by
government commitment to providing appropriate facilities.








Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 5 - 80                             March 1997








Beaches

    Swimming and other beach activities have always been popular along the Lake Erie lakeshore.
During the 1970s, poor water quality significantly reduced the use of Lake Erie beaches. Today, only
a few beaches near larger cities and municipal/industrial facilities experience beach advisories for
swimming during the summer months because of water pollution. Eventually, all beaches must be
cleaned up for recreational use.

    Erosion also has damaged beaches. Recent high lake levels have increased erosion, significantly
reducing beach areas in many locations and completely eliminating others. In some areas, damage
has extended to beach houses and shelters. Erosion is costly, not only in terms of the loss of valuable
beach resource, but also in terms of construction and maintenance costs for erosion control
structures.

Boating

    Lake Erie is the primary area of use of a substantial number of Ohio's recreational boaters. The
high degree of demand creates several pressures on the Lake's resources.

    Harbors of refuge are an important need of recreational boaters. Recreational boats are typically
small and are often threatened by storm waves that develop quickly due to Lake Erie's shallow depth.
Harbors of refuge provide safety when storm conditions develop. Most of the accessible and
geographically suitable natural locations for harbors of refuge have been developed, although the
capacity and accessibility of these existing harbors varies.

    Construction, maintenance and improvement of boating facilities can conflict with environ-
mental concerns. Marinas and small boat harbors often have been located at the mouths of streams
or in wetland areas. The development of marina facilities and the review of such projects must
consider the environmental impacts and the public interest.

Fishina and Huntin2

    Lake Erie provides a greater variety of fish species than any of the other Great Lakes. While
fish populations fluctuate on an annual basis, the Lake supports a thriving sport fishing economy.
The one-half million anglers who fish there spend an estimated $100 million annually in pursuit of
their sport. Principal species are walleye, yellow perch, white bass and smallmouth bass.

    Mallards, black ducks, wood ducks and blue-winged teal comprise approximately 70 percent
of Ohio's annual harvest of more than 100,000 ducks. Mallards and black ducks are late migrants
into Ohio and make up over half of the waterfowl reported on the hunter bag checks in the Lake Erie
marsh region. Trapping for sport and harvest is particularly important in the Lake Erie marshes.
Ohio's consistent second place rating in muskrat production is due principally to trapping along Lake
Erie.


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 5 - 81                             March 1997








Cultural Resources

    Cultural resources include the historic, architectural and archaeological resources important in
the history and pre-history of the State of Ohio. The State of Ohio has acknowledged the importance
of historic sites for over a century. In 1885, the state granted a charter to the Ohio Historical Society
(OHS), a private, nonprofit organization, to serve as curator for the material remains of Ohio's past.
Federal-level consideration for the protection of cultural resources is provided under the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966. In accordance with the provisions of the act, Ohio has designated
the Chief of the Historic Preservation Division of OHS to serve as the State Historic Preservation
Officer.










































Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part 11 5 - 82                               March 1997








           POLICY 21 - LAKESHORE RECREATION AND ACCESS

      IT IS THE POLICY OF THE STATE OF OHIO TO PROVIDE LAKESHORE
   RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES AND PUBLIC ACCESS AND ENCOURAGE
   TOURISM ALONG LAKE ERIE BY:

   A. PROVIDING FOR PUBLIC ACCESS TO COASTAL AREAS WITHIN THE
      STATE NATURE PRESERVE SYSTEM THROUGH ARTICLES OF DEDICA-
      TION WHEREVER POSSIBLE AND CONSISTENT WITH PRESERVATION
      AND PROTECTION OF THE LAND (O.R.C. ~ 1517.05).

   B. PROTECTING PUBLIC ACCESS RIGHTS TO LAKE ERIE WATERS AND
      SHORELINE AREAS WHERE COMPATIBLE WITH EXISTING AND PLANNED
      USES OF WATERFRONT AREAS THROUGH THE LAKE ERIE SUBMERGED
      LANDS LEASING PROGRAM (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.11 AND O.A.C. 1506-6-01
      THROUGH 1501-6-06);

   C. DEVELOPING AND MAINTAINING SHOREFRONT STATE PARKS (O.R.C.
      CHAPTER 1541);

   D. PROVIDING FOR COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT OF RECREATIONAL
      NEEDS AND PLANNING FOR FACILITIES TO MEET THOSE NEEDS
      THROUGH THE STATEWIDE COMPREHENSIVE OUTDOOR RECREATION
      PLAN (SCORP) AND LAKE ERIE ACCESS PROGRAM (LEAP);

   E. ASSISTING LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO DEVELOP LAKESHORE AND
      URBAN WATERFRONT RECREATIONAL AREAS BY PROVIDING FINAN-
      CIAL AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE;

   F. PROVIDING FOR RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES SUCH AS HIKING,
      BIRD WATCHING AND INTERPRETIVE SERVICES AT STATE PARKS,
      WILDLIFE AREAS AND NATURE PRESERVES AND ENCOURAGING LOCAL
      GOVERNMENTS AND OTHER AGENCIES TO PROVIDE GREATER ACCESS
      TO THE SHORE OF LAKE ERIE; AND

   G. ENCOURAGING THE INCORPORATION OF PUBLIC ACCESS AND APPLI-
      CABLE RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES INTO THE PLANNING OF
      PRIVATE DEVELOPMENTS AND PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS LOCATING
      ALONG THE SHORE OR RIVERS IN THE COASTAL AREA.







Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 5 - 83  March 1997








Authorities and Administration

A.  ODNR is charged with the responsibility of acquiring a system of nature preserves for scientific
    research, teaching of natural history, ecology, conservation and similar fields, as habitats for
    plant and animal species and communities, as reservoirs of natural materials, as places of
    natural interest and beauty, and other purposes and uses. Articles of dedication shall be
    executed by the owner of the land in the same manner and with the same effect as a conveyance
    of an interest in land and shall be irrevocable (except as provided in O.R.C. ï¿½ 1517.05). The
    nature preserve law expresses the intent of the Ohio General Assembly and ODNR "wherever
    possible and consistent with such preservation and protection of the land, the articles shall
    provide for public access in order that the maximum benefit be obtained for the uses and
    purposes stated. .." (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1517.05).

B.  ODNR's authority to control Lake Erie's submerged lands through the lease application process
    has been effective in retaining public access where it has been a traditional and beneficial use
    of the waterfront. Rules that guide the lease process provide that "public access may be
    required as a condition of a lease or permit depending upon historic use patterns and suitability
    of the lease site for existing or prospective recreational uses" (O.A.C. 1501-06-03(1)(3). Where
    no public access had existed previously, ODNR and the lessee have often identified
    opportunities for provision of various forms of public access (shoreline fishing, pedestrian
    access to shorelands, transient boat dockage and other uses and improvements). Often,
    developers have taken the initiative to provide for access, in light of potential benefits to their
    coastal-dependent enterprises. (See Policy 16 for additional detail on the lease program.
    Submerged lands leasing rules are contained in Appendix L.)

C.  ODNR's Division of Parks and Recreation (DPR) is charged with the development, operation
    and maintenance of a system of state parks in Ohio for the recreational use of the citizens of
    Ohio (O.R.C. Chapter 1541). State park development is financed primarily through ODNR's
    capital improvement budget. The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) and the
    NatureWorks program are supplemental sources of funding for state parks, and ODNR
    continues to develop new facilities and expand existing facilities along Lake Erie.

D.  The Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) is the State of Ohio's official
    policy document for outdoor recreation. The SCORP identifies statewide issues and problems
    impeding the provision of recreation opportunities and also identifies recreation resources,
    participation and activity trends, and social indicators that will influence the provision of these
    opportunities in the future. ODNR, REALM is the lead agency responsible for developing the
    SCORP. The SCORP also serves as a guide for allocations from the LWCF and local
    NatureWorks funding.

    Ohio SCORPs have recognized the importance of Lake Erie in providing outdoor recreation
    opportunities for Ohio and its visitors. The need to provide additional access to Lake Erie was
    recognized in the 1980-85 Ohio SCORP that recommended the implementation of a


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 5 - 84                             March 1997








    comprehensive study of the access needs for boating and fishing. The Lake Erie Access Study
    was initiated in 1983 and included a comprehensive inventory of existing and potential access
    sites along the 262-mile shoreline. User surveys of boaters and anglers were also conducted to
    develop a data base for assessing access needs. The Lake Erie Access Study identified regional
    boating and fishing access needs to assist decision makers in developing rational acquisition and
    development strategies for providing access to Ohio's single most important water resource.

    Upon completion of the Lake Erie Access Study, a public assistance program, the Lake Erie
    Access Program (LEAP), was established and has been administered by ODNR's Division of
    Watercraft. The program is authorized to provide up to 75 percent matching funds to local
    governmental agencies along the Lake Erie coast for boating and fishing improvements.

    Assistance provided by the LEAP and continued demand for recreational access has
    necessitated a need to update the Lake Erie Access Study. Scheduled periodic updating will
    help decision makers in prioritizing sites for acquisition and recreational development.

    The LWCF program provides up to 50 percent reimbursement grants to the state and its political
    subdivisions for acquisition and/or development of public outdoor recreation areas, consistent
    with SCORP. Other federal funding programs may, in certain instances, be matched with the
    LWCF money. However, ODNR requires that a minimum of 20 percent of the project costs be
    local funds to assure a local commitment to the proper operation and maintenance of the project.
    In allocating LWCF monies, a high priority has been placed on local projects.

    The NatureWorks program was established in 1994 with permanent funding through $200
    million in state bonds. Of the first $200 million in bonds, a minimum of $40 million will be
    set aside for a local grants program. Since no more than $50 million can be issued in any year,
    approximately $10 million will be available for local NatureWorks grants during each funding
    year. The remainder is to be used for state park improvements, protecting unique natural areas
    and wildlife habitats, and accomplishing other environmentally critical updating at other ODNR
    facilities. As the bonds are retired, the funds become available for continued improvements.

    The General Assembly specified that NatureWorks funds are to be available on a modified
    county per capita basis. Government agencies within each county are to apply to ODNR and
    compete for funds available to the county. Approximately one-fourth of the total county
    allocation will be available each funding year. The local grants program is an up-to 75 percent
    reimbursement program, so the project sponsor must have the 25 percent matching funds as well
    as cash flow capability to complete the project. "In-kind" costs are not eligible as match.

    ODNR, in its review of applications for grants from the NatureWorks and LWCF programs,
    gives high priority to projects that:

    1. Meet an immediate and serious need within the area to be served.



Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 5 - 85                           March 1997








    2.  Preserve open space on the periphery or within proximity of expanding urban centers.

    3.  Provide exceptional quality, flexibility and intensity of basic recreation.

    4.  Are, in their entirety, beyond the financial capabilities of the political subdivision. (The
         political subdivision must be able to document the availability of its local matching funds.)

    5.  Balance existing and probable future recreation developments by private, state and other
         political subdivisions within the area to be served.

E.  ODNR encourages local governments to develop lakeshore recreational areas through technical
    and financial assistance for the acquisition and development of community park and recreation
    areas. The goals of ODNR's assistance are to: (1) qualify the state to receive federal funds from
    both the LWCF and the National Recreational Trails Fund (NRTF) component of the
    Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), (2) administer the NatureWorks
    and LWCF programs and the NRTF component of ISTEA in Ohio so that political subdivisions
    receive the maximum benefits, and (3) provide other essential assistance to communities to
    provide quality recreation throughout the state.

    Technical assistance is provided to communities by REALM. Typical assistance includes
    identification of funding sources; site inspection and evaluation; plan reviews and
    recommendations; inventory information; and guidance in application preparation, federal
    regulation compliance and project procedures.

    ODNR encourages local communities to revitalize valuable urban water resources by providing
    technical and financial assistance to fully use the recreational potential of urban waterfronts.
    Technical assistance through REALM is primarily oriented toward providing information and
    expertise to local governments in such areas as plan review, applicable state and local programs,
    and sources of financial aid. Projects have been funded primarily through the LWCF program
    and the Waterways Safety Fund.

    Projects that propose to provide new or improved boating, fishing or recreational opportunities
    to Lake Erie for the general use of the public are eligible to receive assistance through the
    LEAP. The lake access to be developed must be in the form of launching lanes or ramps, and/or
    shore-based fishing facilities such as piers, platforms, walls or breakwalls. In addition to actual
    access facilities, support accommodations such as parking, rest rooms, lighting, breakwalls,
    landscaping and lakefront park development may be eligible for financial assistance. In 1994,
    funding from the NatureWorks program in the amount of $1.75 million for the 1996/97
    biennium was made available specifically for LEAP.

F.  ODNR provides recreational opportunities at its state parks, nature preserves and wildlife areas
    in the coastal area. Interpretive facilities and programs continue to be developed at ODNR-
    managed properties on the Lake. Financial assistance through NatureWorks, LWCF or the


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 5 - 86                             March 1997








    NRTF can be provided to local and regional governmental agencies to develop recreational
    opportunities, including trails. Technical assistance is available from ODNR for interest groups,
    local communities and park districts interested in developing trails in Ohio. ODNR, (REALM)
    is the designated state agency responsible for the administration of the National Recreational
    Trails Fund (NRTF) program. The NRTF was established with the passage of the Intermodal
    Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 (PL 102-240). NRTF funds can be
    used to assist governmental agencies and trail groups in the rehabilitation, development,
    maintenance and acquisition of recreational trails and related facilities. NRTF funds also can
    be used by states for environmental protection and safety education programs. Trails funded
    with NRTF monies may be motorized, nonmotorized or multiple-use trails.

G.  ODNR, through Section 10 and 404 permits and technical assistance, encourages the
    incorporation of public access and recreational opportunities into the planning of major
    developments and public institutions that locate at the shoreline or along rivers in the coastal
    area. Project developers and planners are encouraged to recognize multiple-use advantages of
    providing access areas in their plans where feasible.
































Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 5 - 87                              March 1997








             POLICY 22 - LAKE ERIE BEACHES AND PUBLIC BATHING

       IT IS THE POLICY OF THE STATE OF OHIO TO PROVIDE PUBLIC BEACH
   ACCESS AND SAFE PUBLIC BATHING AREAS ALONG LAKE ERIE BY:

   A. DEVELOPING AND MAINTAINING BEACHES AND BATHING AREAS ON
       STATE-OWNED LAND;

   B. PARTICIPATING JOINTLY WITH THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS,
       SHORELINE PROPERTY OWNERS AND LOCAL LAKESHORE
       GOVERNMENTS IN BEACH AND LITTORAL NOURISHMENT PROJECTS;

    C. PROVIDING FOR CONTINUING STUDY OF BATHING BEACH WATER
        QUALITY ALONG THE LAKE ERIE SHORE AND ADVISING APPROPRIATE
       AUTHORITIES OF WATER TEST RESULTS WITHIN THEIR RESPECTIVE
       JURISDICTIONS; AND

    D. ENCOURAGING LOCAL AUTHORITIES TO ESTABLISH BEACH SAMPLING
        AND SANITATION PROGRAMS.

Authorities and Administration

A.  ODNR, through the Division of Parks and Recreation (DPR), develops and maintains Lake Erie
    public beach access areas. DPR is charged with the development, operation and maintenance
    of new and existing bathing facilities within the state park system. DPR also has the authority
    to govern all state beaches and swimming activities on lands and waters that are part of the state
    park system (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1541.03).

B.   ODNR  strongly urges the COE  and requires other public and private entities to provide
    littoral/beach nourishment by returning dredged material composed primarily of sands or
    gravels derived from Lake Erie beach or nearshore zones to the shallow (less than 10 feet deep)
    nearshore waters or on the beach downdrift of the worksite. This is consistent with ODNR's
    position that all sand and gravel of littoral origin be returned to the downdrift littoral zone when
    dredged from marinas and channels by private interests and/or public agencies. ODNR works
    with the COE and other intrastate agencies on littoral/beach nourishment projects.

    The COE, through several federal laws, including Section 145 of the Water Resources
    Development of 1986, Section 111 of the 1968 Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 103 of the
    1962 Rivers and Harbors Act, is authorized to coordinate with the state on littoral/beach
    nourishment projects. The state also comments through the Section 404, Environmental
    Assessment and Evaluation, Public Notice, and Finding Of No Significant Impact (FONSI)
    review process, to achieve an environmentally acceptable alternative for the disposal of dredged
    material.


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS     Part II 5 - 88                                 March 1997








C.  The Ohio Department of Health (ODH) samples and analyzes water from (1) selected beaches
    to determine the need for water quality improvements and pollution abatement, (2) all state park
    beaches along the lake to determine water quality and to monitor changes in the various state
    park watersheds, and (3) various community and privately owned beaches within local health
    districts to provide water quality data and assist in developing local bathing beach sampling and
    sanitation programs. All ODH samples along the Lake Erie shore are taken routinely once a
    week throughout the bathing beach season. Additional samples are taken in response to unusual
    conditions or to evaluate water quality problems when identified.

    If fecal coliform counts exceed standards, ODH recommends to DPR or the local health
    department that a beach swimming advisory be posted. Such a posting does not prohibit
    swimming; it merely informs the public that for a particular time period, high-risk groups may
    increase their chances of becoming ill as a result of increased fecal coliform levels. Subsequent
    testings determine whether or not the beach advisory remains posted.

D.  ODH encourages local health departments to establish permitting systems for operation of
    public bathing beaches and to develop regulations regarding water quality and other health and
    safety concerns. ODH provides local health departments with guidelines for developing
    regulations and strongly recommends adoption of regulations through their program surveys and
    reviews of local procedures. Ottawa, Lucas, Erie and Ashtabula counties administer their own
    permitting and regulatory programs.



























Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 5 - 89                             March 1997








                     POLICY 23 - RECREATIONAL BOATING

       IT IS TILE POLICY OF THE STATE OF OHIO TO SATISFY AND SERVE THE
   PUBLIC INTEREST FOR RECREATIONAL BOATING OPPORTUNITIES AND
   WATERCRAFT SAFETY IN THE COASTAL AREA BY:

   A. REGULATING SAFETY OF WATERCRAFT BY ENFORCING WATERCRAFT
       LAWS (O.R.C. CHAPTER 1547):

   B. CONDUCTING A WATERCRAFT SAFETY AND EDUCATION PROGRAM
       (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1547.52 AND 1547.521);

   C. DEVELOPING AND OPERATING BOAT FACILITIES AT STATE-OWNED
       AREAS ALONG LAKE ERIE;

   D. ASSISTING IN THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT OF LOCAL GOV-
       ERNMENT OPERATED MARINAS AND BOAT LAUNCHING AREAS UNDER
       OHIO DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES' COMMUNITY WATER-
       CRAFT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM AND THE LAKE ERIE ACCESS PROGRAM;
       AND

   E. PARTICIPATING JOINTLY WITH THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
       AND LOCAL COASTAL AREA GOVERNMENTS IN COMPLETING THE OHIO
       LAKE ERIE REFUGE HARBOR SYSTEM (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1547.71).

Authorities and Administration

A.  The Division of Watercraft in ODNR is responsible for the enforcement of the state watercraft
   laws and pursuant regulations (O.R.C. Chapter 1547). Watercraft laws and regulations pertain
   to vessel registration and operation, safety equipment and procedures, littering and abandon-
   ment of vessels. The division has two district offices along Lake Erie for patrol and education
   purposes. Enforcement and patrol activities are coordinated with municipal marine patrol
   officers and the U.S. Coast Guard.

B.   State watercraft officers conduct safety classes, both in the classroom and on the water, for
    interested groups along Lake Erie as part of the division's Watercraft Safety and Education
   Program (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1547.52 and 1547.52 1).

C.   ODNR, through the Divisions of Watercraft, Parks and Recreation, and Wildlife, develops and
    operates boating facilities on state properties along Lake Erie. The Division of Watercraft can
    assist financially in the development of such facilities at state parks. As a part of the Fish Ohio
    Program, the Division of Wildlife acquires properties for fishing access to Lake Erie and
    develops boat launching facilities on these properties and other public shoreline areas. Land


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS    Part 11 5 - 90                                March 1997








            and Water Conservation Fund grants can also be used for public recreation boating facilities
            (see Policy 21).

       D.  ODNR provides financial assistance to local communities for the planning and development of
            boating facilities. The Division of Watercraft provides assistance to local communities for
            launching and marina facilities from the Waterways Safety Fund (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1547.72) with the
            consent and approval of the Director of ODNR. The Waterways Safety Fund is financed from
            boat registration and title fees and one-half of 1 percent of the motor fuel tax. The Division of
            Watercraft allocates funds statewide as determined by need, the number of boats to be benefited,
            the cost of the projects in relation to the amount of funds available, priority relative to other
            projects and the willingness of public agencies and political subdivisions to participate in a
            cooperative project. Only political subdivisions, park districts, conservancy districts and
            agencies of state government are eligible for assistance from the Waterways Safety Fund in
            developing recreational boating facilities. Projects that receive major attention are those that
            provide for the construction of ramps or hoists, parking areas and better access, essential
            sanitary facilities, or the expansion of existing facilities.

            Projects that propose to provide new or improved boating or fishing opportunities to Lake Erie
            for the general use of the public are coordinated through the Lake Erie Access Program (LEAP).
            The LEAP encourages increased boating and fishing access to the lake. These projects are eligi-
            ble for cooperative funding by ODNR to local park districts and political subdivisions through
            the above-mentioned funding sources and various other sources.

.      E.  Pursuant to O.R.C. ï¿½ 1547.71, the Division of Watercraft acts as the refuge and small boat
            harbor agency for Ohio for the purpose of cooperating with ODNR and the Corps of Engineers
            in acquiring, constructing, and maintaining refuge and small boat harbors. The refuge harbor
            program in Ohio is carried out jointly with the Corps of Engineers under Congressional autho-
            rization for federal financial and technical assistance. Participation by the Division of
            Watercraft in a refuge harbor project is determined by the need, the number of boaters to be
            benefited, the cost of the project in relation to the amount of funds available, priority relative
            to other projects and the willingness of public agencies to participate in such cooperative
            projects. Recreational harbors are low priority for the federal government.















       Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 5 - 91                          March 1997








                      POLICY 24- FISHING AND HUNTING

       IT IS THE POLICY OF THE STATE OF OHIO TO PROVIDE EXPANDED
   SPORT FISHING AND SAFE HUNTING OPPORTUNITIES IN THE COASTAL AREA
   BY:

   A. REOUIRING LICENSURE FOR HUNTING. TRAPPING AND FISHING (O.R.C.
       ~ 1533.10. 1533.111 AND 1533.32):

   B. REOUIRING COMPLETION OF THE OHIO DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL
       RESOURCES HUNTER SAFETY AND TRAPPER EDUCATION COURSES FOR
       FIRST-TIME LICENSE BUYERS BEFORE ISSUING A HUNTING LICENSE OR
       TRAPPING PERMIT (O.R.C. ~ 1533.10 AND 1533.111):

   C. ACQUIRING AND DEVELOPING AND ASSISTING LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
       IN DEVELOPING FISHING ACCESS AREAS;

   D. ESTABLISHING AND MAINTAINING WILDLIFE AREAS AND WETLANDS,
       AND EXPANDING THE USE OF OTHER STATE-OWNED LANDS FOR THE
       REGULATED TAKING OF WILDLIFE; AND

   E. ENCOURAGING PRIVATE LANDOWNERS TO ALLOW FISHING AND
       HUNTING ON THEIR LAND UNDER THE OHIO WILDLIFE COOPERATIVE
       FISHING AND HUNTING PROGRAM.

Authorities and Administration

A.  See Policies 27 and 29.

B.  All first-time hunting license buyers in the State of Ohio are required to complete a hunter
   safety and conservation course and pass an examination as prescribed by the Chief of the
   Division of Wildlife (DOW) before a hunting license can be issued (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1533.10). The
   course consists of subjects including, but not limited to, hunter safety and health, use of hunting
   implements, hunting tradition and ethics, the role of hunting in conservation, and hunting rules
   and regulations.

C.  DOW has the authority to acquire and develop areas for fishing access along Lake Erie, (O.R.C.
    ï¿½ 1531.06). This activity is part of the Division's Fish Ohio Program to increase fishing
   opportunities in Ohio through cleaner waters, stocking and fishing access to Ohio's waters. The
   division has developed a prioritization system for fishing access projects of the LEAP, which
   considers fishing access needs, shoreline analysis for potential sites and number of existing
   accesses and cooperation of landowners.



Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 5 - 92                              March 1997








    ODNR provides financial and technical assistance for fishing access to local governments along
    the Lake Erie shoreline. Development of shoreline fishing access has resulted from shoreline
    recreational projects funded through the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF).
    Technical assistance is available from the above divisions and programs for fishing access.

D.  See Policies 27 and 29.

E.  Through the Ohio Wildlife Cooperative Hunting and Fishing Program, additional hunting and
    fishing opportunities are created for Ohio hunters and anglers by encouraging private
    landowners to permit public hunting, fishing and trapping. Effective control of public use is
    available to participating landowners. Under the hunting phase of the program, the landowner
    permits hunting on a first-arrival basis. Permits outlining certain conditions to be followed
    while hunting on the premises must be signed by each hunter and the landowner. The
    landowner still retains the authority to regulate the number of hunters on his or her land at any
    one time and to refuse hunting privileges to any intoxicated, disrespectful or abusive individu-
    als. A landowner must control a single farm unit of 50 acres or more. In return, the DOW
    agrees to furnish certain materials to landowners that will help them control hunters on their
    property. Hunting with permission, parking and safety zone signs are provided by the DOW
    as well as the permit forms. To increase game on the property, participants in the program may
    obtain food and cover planting stock from the DOW. State wildlife officers patrol these areas
    during the hunting season as a routine part of their duties. Through the hunting permit, the
    landowner is released from liability in case the sportsperson is injured or suffers personal
    property damage while on the landowner's property (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1533.18 and 1533.181).

























Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 5 - 93                           March 1997








                     POLICY 25 - SURPLUS PUBLIC PROPERTY

        IT IS THE POLICY OF THE STATE OF OHIO TO, WHEREVER APPROPRI-
    ATE, RETAIN SURPLUS STATE LAKESHORE PROPERTY IN PUBLIC OWNER-
    SHIP AND TO OBTAIN FEDERAL LAKESHORE PROPERTY TO USE OR
    REDEVELOP SUCH AREAS FOR OTHER PUBLIC SHORELINE ACCESS AND
    PUBLIC PURPOSES.

Authorities and Administration

    All departments within the State of Ohio provide notice to other agencies regarding availability
of surplus property within the state. The Ohio Department of Administrative Services reviews
notices of federal and state surplus properties in the state and coordinates with other agencies to
evaluate the suitability of such property for state management. In the case of the Ohio Department
of Transportation (ODOT), the agency notifies ODNR directly. The OCMP will review such notices
for properties within the coastal area and for properties where activities may significantly affect the
coastal area. OCMP will assess and actively pursue opportunities for retention by the current agency
or transfer to ODNR for provision of public access and use.
































Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final ETS        Part II 5 - 94                                   March 1997








             POLICY 26 - PRESERVATION OF CULTURAL RESOURCES

        IT IS THE POLICY OF THE STATE OF OHIO TO PROVIDE FOR THE
    PRESERVATION OF CULTURAL RESOURCES TO ENSURE THAT THE KNOW-
    LEDGE OF OHIO'S HISTORY AND PRE-HISTORY IS MADE AVAILABLE TO THE
    PUBLIC AND IS NOT WILLFULLY OR UNNECESSARILY DESTROYED OR LOST,
    BY:

    A. PROTECTION OF CULTURAL RESOURCES ON OR ELIGIBLE FOR STATE
        AND NATIONAL REGISTERS OF HISTORIC PLACES (O.R.C. ~ 149.51
        THROUGH 149.55):

    B: REGULATING RECOVERY OF SUBMERGED ABANDONED PROPERTY
        THROUGH PERMITS (O.R.C. . 1506.32): AND

    C. ESTABLISHING AND ENFORCING LAKE ERIE SUBMERGED LANDS PRE-
        SERVES (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.31).

Authorities and Administration

A. The State of Ohio, to protect its cultural resources, identifies, evaluates, designates and
    preserves significant resources and provides for consideration of cultural resources endangered
    by public and private development. The state accomplishes these goals through the following
    activities.

    National Register of Historic Places - In accordance with the provisions of the National Historic
    Preservation Act of 1966, the Ohio Historic Preservation Office (OHPO) within the Ohio
    Historical Society (OHS) reviews nominations for placement of properties on the National
    Register. The 17-member Ohio Historic Site Preservation Advisory Board (OHSPAB) advises
    the OHPO as to whether National Register criteria are met. If the nominated site meets the
    criteria, the nomination is forwarded to the National Register, where the final decision is made.

    State Registries of Archaeological and Historic Landmarks - The OHS has the authority to
    develop and maintain a State Registry of Archaeological Landmarks pursuant to O.R.C. ï¿½
    149.51 and a Registry of Historic Landmarks pursuant to O.R.C. ï¿½ 149.55. OHS places land
    on these registries only after obtaining a written agreement with the landowner that subjects the
    property to the provisions of the Revised Code. Within any land placed on either registry, no
    person or governmental entity may alter or disturb the cultural resources located there without
    first notifying the Director of OHS, allowing inspection by his or her representatives and
    providing information on findings of archaeological or historical significance. In addition, sale
    and possession of objects removed from such sites without privilege to do so is prohibited
    (O.R.C. ï¿½ 149.51 and 149.55). The owner may not engage in or authorize any archaeological



Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS      Part II 5 - 95                                 March 1997








    survey or salvage work within lands registered as Archaeological Landmarks without a permit
    issued under O.R.C. ï¿½ 149.54.

    Archaeological Preserves - OHS may accept articles dedicating as preserves real property upon
    which significant archaeological sites are located, if funds and services are available for their
    preservation and protection. Whenever possible and consistent with such purposes, the articles
    are to provide for public access (O.R.C. ï¿½ 149.52).

    State Memorials - OHS is authorized to create, supervise, operate, protect, maintain and
    promote for public use a system of state memorials in Ohio (O.R.C. ï¿½ 149.30(A)).

    Agency Coordination - All departments, agencies and political subdivisions of the State of Ohio
    must cooperate with the OHS and OHSPAB in the preservation of historic sites and in the
    recovery of the scientific information from such sites (O.R.C. ï¿½ 149.53). In compliance with
    the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the federal government requires that "un-
    dertakings" it funds or licenses in Ohio be reviewed by the OHPO to determine what effects,
    if any, they will have upon historic, architectural or archaeological resources. "Undertakings"
    include a broad range of federal activities, including construction, rehabilitation and repair
    projects, demolition, licenses, permits, loans, loan guarantees, grants, federal property transfers
    and many other types of federal involvement. The OHPO reviews more than 9,000 federally
    assisted undertakings each year to see that alternatives are considered in any action that would
    damage or destroy properties listed on, or eligible for, the National Register. If after
    consultation with the state, there is no prudent and feasible alternative, the state and the federal
    Advisory Council on Historic Preservation may agree to the loss of a significant property if
    steps adequate to reduce the impact of its destruction are taken.

    The following are nonenforceable enhancement activities that contribute to carrying out the
above-mentioned enforceable protections.

    Certified Local Governments - Communities can participate more actively in the state historic
    preservation program by becoming Certified Local Governments, as provided for by the
    National Historic Preservation Amendments Act of 1980 (16 U.S.C. 470). To become certified,
    a unit of local government must have an approved program for recognizing and protecting its
    historic, architectural and archaeological resources. The OHPO helps local governments estab-
    lish certifiable preservation programs, offering advice on identifying historic, architectural and
    archaeological resources; developing a preservation plan; nominating eligible properties to the
    National Register of Historic Places; and protecting local resources. Certified Local Govern-
    ments can apply for matching grants awarded by the OHPO to help fund projects like these and
    others.

    Ohio Historic Inventory and Ohio Archaeological Inventory - The Ohio Historic Inventory
    (OHI) records places of historic or architectural merit. The Ohio Archaeological Inventory



Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 5 - 96                              March 1997








    (OAI) records prehistoric and historic archaeological sites. Records describing more than
    70,000 properties in all parts of the state are kept at the Ohio Historical Center in Columbus.

    Rehabilitation Investment Tax Credits - Owners who rehabilitate income-producing properties
    listed on the National Register of Historic Places are eligible to apply for federal investment tax
    credits on qualified expenses. Work must be certified as conforming to the Secretary of the
    Interior's "Standards for Rehabilitation." OHPO counsels owners about how to apply for
    certification and conducts preliminary meetings, site visits and project assessments as needed
    to help them qualify for the tax credit.

    Ohio Historic Preservation Plan - OHPO has, with public input, prepared a comprehensive
    statewide historic preservation plan. The plan organized existing information about the state's
    historic, architectural and archaeological resources so that it can be used to set future priorities
    for the identification, evaluation and protection of Ohio's historic resources. The goal of the
    plan is to identify and publicize the critical, pressing issues that face preservation of Ohio's
    historic architectural and archaeological properties. The plan is composed of broad-based goals
    and objectives that will provide guidance and direction for state and local organizations to take
    in preserving Ohio's historic properties over the next five years.

    Technical Advice and Educational Programs - Technical advice is available from OHPO staff,
    and periodic workshops and other educational programs help inform Ohioans about historic
    preservation. Services include a preservation research library, Building Doctor clinics, an
    annual preservation conference, an awards program and publications.

    Grants - When federal funds are available, the OHPO can make direct matching grants-in-aid
    to individuals, organizations and agencies for projects that help OHPO carry out the survey and
    planning responsibilities as defined by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, 26
    U.S.C. 470 et seq. The OHPO also administers historic preservation matching development
    grants, also when available, for properties listed in the National Register of Historic Places.
    Matching grants of up to 50 percent of the cost of stabilization, preservation, restoration and
    rehabilitation of properties listed in the National Register of Historic Places are available to both
    owners and tenants of National Register-listed properties through OHPO. (Such funds are not
    available currently).

B.  The State of Ohio has ownership and title to submerged abandoned property in Lake Erie in
    trust for the benefit of the people of the state. Any person who wishes to recover, alter, salvage
    or destroy any abandoned property located on, in or in the immediate vicinity of and associated
    with a submerged watercraft or aircraft in Lake Erie must obtain a permit from the Director of
    ODNR (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.32). Permits are issued only with the approval of the Director of OHS.
    If the Director of OHS determines that the property has historical significance, the permit may
    be conditioned or denied (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.32(D)). If the Director of ODNR determines that the
    property has substantial recreational, ecological, environmental, scenic or scientific value, the
    director may deny or condition the permit (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.32(E)). No permit shall be approved


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS   Part II 5 - 97                               March 1997








    within any submerged land preserve unless the operation is for historical or scientific purposes
    or will not adversely affect the historical, cultural, recreational or ecological integrity of the
    preserve as a whole (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.32(I)). O.R.C. Chapter 1506 is contained in Appendix C.

C.  To provide special protection for abandoned property and features and formations in Lake Erie
    having historical, archaeological, recreational, ecological, geological, environmental,
    educational, scenic or scientific value, the Director of ODNR with approval of the Director of
    OHS may adopt rules to establish Lake Erie submerged lands preserves (C.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.3 1).

    A preserve may be established for any area of submerged lands that contains a single watercraft
    or aircraft of historical value, two or more watercraft or aircraft constituting abandoned
    property, or other features of archaeological, historical, recreational, ecological, environmental,
    educational, scenic, scientific, or geological value other than sand, gravel, stone, and other
    minerals and substances authorized to be taken and removed in accordance with C.R.C. ï¿½
     1505.07. Each preserve established shall include the designated area and extend upward to
    include the water surface. When establishing preserves, the directors must consider:

     I1. Whether it is necessary to protect either abandoned property or significant underwater
         features possessing historical, archaeological, recreational, geological, ecological, environ-
         mental, educational, scenic or scientific value;

    2.  The extent of local public and private support for creation of the preserve;

    3.  If the purpose of the preserve is to be recreational, the extent to which preserve support
         facilities have been developed in or are planned for the coastal area nearest the proposed
         preserve;

    4.  Whether creating the preserve will conflict with existing or potential authorized removals
         of sand, gravel, stone or other minerals or substances.

     The directors may establish rules regarding access to and use of such preserves. Access shall
    be limited or prohibited if the site is biologically or ecologically sensitive or is hazardous, or
     if historically valuable property is fragile or suffering extensive deterioration due to unregulated
     access (C.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.3 1(C)). C.R.C. Chapter 1506 is contained in Appendix C.












Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS   Part II 5 - 98                               March 1997








                           FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

Uses Subiect to Management

    *   Activities involving the taking of fish and wildlife.

    *   Activities affecting the fish and wildlife habitat areas.

    ï¿½   Activities that affect the management of fish and wildlife.

Fish and Habitat Management

    The history of Lake Erie fisheries has included human-induced changes in both the extent and
variety of lake habitats. Generally, the populations and diversity of sport and commercial fish
species have declined in conjunction with loss of habitat loss and degradation. Those habitats most
greatly reduced in size include deep, oxygenated cold water areas, vegetated areas, clean bottom sand
and gravel areas, estuaries, and wetlands used for spawning, feeding, migration, and refuge.

    Increased sedimentation from past and present land use, higher nutrient levels in Lake Erie from
point and nonpoint pollution sources, dredging and filling activities, and chemical and thermal pollu-
tion all have had their impacts.

    Lake Erie's varied aquatic ecosystems, including nearshore waters, bays and estuaries, offshore
shoal areas, and deep water, all provide important fish habitat. Specifically, there are five habitat
areas of critical concern: Maumee Bay, the Toussaint-Locust Point reef complex, the Islands area,
the Ruggles reef complex, and Sandusky Bay (including Muddy Creek Bay). Protection of these
habitat areas is an important objective of the OCMP. A few remaining coastal coldwater streams
east of Cleveland offer important seasonal habitat for salmonids because they are the closest suitable
habitat near summer feeding areas of Lake Erie. These species are adapted to the colder water
temperatures provided by such streams, and thus it is important that such habitat is not degraded or
warmed.

    International committees and work groups of the Great Lakes Fisheries Commission, the Lake
Erie Committee, the Walleye Task Group, the Yellow Perch Task Group, the Forage Task Group and
the Standing Technical Committee have reached a consensus regarding necessary scientific needs
and a management approach for Lake Erie. Funds available through the Federal Aid in Sport Fish
Restoration Program 16 U.S.C. 777 have been used primarily for research, development of access
sites, fish hatchery renovations and land acquisition. Through the Council of Great Lakes
Governors, the four Lake Erie states and Ontario are continuing efforts to develop a coordinated fish
advisory for Lake Erie. Such improved coordination and unified management practices will continue
to improve these valuable fisheries.




Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 5 - 99                            March 1997








Wildlife and Habitat Manaaernent

    Human activities in the Lake Eric basin have dramatically reduced wildlife habitat in the coastal
area. This habitat loss is the major reason for an overall reduction in Ohio's coastal wildlife
population. Most of the original Lake Erie wetlands and swamp forests have been drained, filled,
cut or paved over for various purposes. High water and erosion have caused an additional loss of
shoreline wetlands.

    Wildlife habitat areas that remain relatively undisturbed still face an array of threats including
air and water pollution, soil erosion and siltation. Poor water quality is a particularly serious
problem that helps explain why aquatic animals make up a large portion of Ohio's endangered
species. Loss of habitat and degraded environmental quality have harmed migratory waterfowl, for
whom the Great Lakes serve as an important link between Canada and southern destinations. In
particular, marshes of the western Lake Erie basin are known as significant migration resting areas
as well as sites of excellent waterfowl hunting. These marshlands extend from Sandusky to Toledo
and contain approximately 22,700 acres of waterfowl habitat, a large portion of which is actual
wetlands. Most of this habitat is owned by the state or federal government and private hunting clubs.
The Ottawa National Wildlife Refuge alone encompasses roughly 8,300 acres of waterfowl habitat.
ODNR, Division of Wildlife, maintains approximately 4,500 acres of western basin wetlands located
within seven western Lake Erie wildlife areas. Private hunting clubs manage an additional 8,000
acres of habitat.




























Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part UI 5 - 100                             March 1997








                     POLICY 27 - FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

       IT IS THE POLICY OF THE STATE OF OHIO TO ASSURE THE CONTINUAL
   ENJOYMENT OF THE BENEFITS RECEIVED FROM THE FISHERIES OF LAKE
   ERIE AND TO MAINTAIN AND IMPROVE THESE FISHERIES BY:

   A. REGULATING THE TAKING OF FISH (O.R.C. ~ 1531.08 AND O.A.C. 1501:31):

   B. PROSECUTING PERSONS RESPONSIBLE FOR STREAM LITTER AND FOR
       WATER POLLUTION RESULTING IN FISH KILLS (O.R.C. ~ 1531.29 AND
       1531.02);

   C. PROTECTING FISH HABITAT THROUGH OHIO EPA'S SECTION 401 WATER
       OUALITY CERTIFICATION AUTHORITY (O.R.C. 6 6111.03(0) AND 6111.03(P)
       AND O.A.C. 3745-1 AND 3745-32):

   D. CONSIDERING THE PROTECTION OF FISH HABITAT THROUGH THE
       REVIEW OF STATE AND FEDERAL PERMIT APPLICATIONS;

   E. ESTABLISHING STATE WILDLIFE AREAS FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE
       HABITAT (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1531.06);

   F. SURVEYING FISH POPULATIONS AND TRENDS AND CONDUCTING OTHER
       FISHERY RESEARCH STUDIES;

   G. PROVIDING ACCESS TO THE FISHERY; AND

   H. PROVIDING TECHNICAL AND GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE
       LAKE ERIE FISHERIES.

Authorities and Administration

A.  The state holds title to and is mandated to protect all the fish in Ohio for the benefit of the
   public (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1531.02). The Chief of the Division of Wildlife (DOW), ODNR, has authority
   and control in all matters pertaining to the protection, preservation, propagation, possession and
   management of the state's fisheries. Pursuant to O.R.C. ï¿½ 1531.08, the chief may regulate the
   taking, possession, transportation, buying, selling, offering for sale and exposing for sale fish
   or any part thereof.

   All orders of the DOW relating to establishment of seasons, limits, size, species, method of
   taking and possession shall be adopted only upon approval of the Wildlife Council (O.R.C. ï¿½
    1531.03). The Wildlife Council is an eight-member appointed body whose functions are to
   advise on policies and programs of the division. O.R.C. Chapter 1533 specifies the laws


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 5 - 101                        March 1997








    concerning the taking of fish from Lake Erie. O.A.C. 1501:31 specifies the rules promulgated
    by the Chief of DOW regarding the taking of fish.

    Any persons 16 years of age or older, including nonresidents, taking or catching fish by angling
    in any waters in the state are required to have a fishing license from DOW (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1533.32).
    All money derived from fishing license fees is appropriated exclusively for the use of ODNR,
    DOW (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1533.33) and is used primarily for public fishing waters acquisition, stock fish
    management, education, research and waterbody improvements.

B.  DOW investigates incidents of stream pollution that result in the killing of fish and other
    wildlife. Under O.R.C. ï¿½ 1531.02 and 1531.201, persons responsible for the pollution that
    causes the death of fish or other wildlife are civilly and criminally liable for the taking of the
    fish or wildlife (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1531.99).

    Persons dumping trash in or along Ohio waters and industries discharging or spilling oily wastes
    into Ohio waters without a valid National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
    permit issued by the Ohio EPA may be charged by the DOW with a violation of the Stream Lit-
    ter Act (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1531.29); enforcement of other water quality laws rests with Ohio EPA (see
    Policy 6). Individual violators may be fined up to $500 or sentenced to 60 days in jail, or both,
    for a first offense. Corporations may be fined up to $3,000 for the first offense and $5,000 for
    subsequent offenses (O.R.C. ï¿½ 2929.31). No kills of fish need to be involved in a case of stream
    litter. The Stream Litter Act applies to the banks and bluffs along Lake Erie as well as other
    waterways in the state.

C.  The State of Ohio helps protect habitat for fish and aquatic life through Ohio EPA's authority
    to issue or deny Section 401 water quality certifications for activities that discharge dredged or
    fill material to waters of the state or create any obstruction or attraction in waters of the state.
    (See Policy 12 for details on this authority.) Biological criteria are considered in water quality
    standards, and the antidegradation policy is used to protect state resource waters from
    degradation. Therefore, a Section 401 certification may be denied for sufficient grounds to
    protect important aquatic life uses of Lake Erie and coastal area waters. Special conditions of
    Section 401 certifications may be imposed on activities (O.A.C. 3745-32-05(C)). Such terms
     and conditions may affect the design of a project to protect or enhance fish habitat; may provide
    for increased water circulation or other factors important to maintaining quality habitat; or may
    restrict when dredging might occur in order to avoid adverse impacts to spawning areas.

D.  ODNR protects fish habitat through several means. ODNR reviews Section 10 and Section 404
    permits through the COE, using prime fish habitat as an aspect of the review criteria.
     Preservation of fish habitat is considered in mineral extraction and energy facility-siting
     decisions (see section on "Energy and Mineral Resources"); in approving permits for offshore
     development, dredging and dredged material disposal (see "Ports and Shore Area Develop-
     ment"); in the water quality regulations and nonpoint pollution policies (see "Water Quality");
     in the protection and acquisition of wetlands and natural areas (see "Ecologically Sensitive


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 5 - 102                             March 1997








    Resources"); and through the submerged lands leasing program (see "Ports and Shore Area
    Development").

E.  The Chief of DOW, with the approval of the Director of ODNR, may acquire or lease lands or
    surface rights upon lands and water for wild animals, fish and wildlife management,
    preservation, propagation, and protection, outdoor and nature activities, public hunting and
    hunting grounds, and flora and fauna preservation. The lease or purchase of all such lands and
    waters may be paid from hunting and fishing license fees (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1531.06).

F.   DOW conducts continuing surveys with trawls and gill nets to provide an index of population
    numbers through monitoring of incoming year class strengths, relative numbers of adult age
    groups, seasonal abundance, growth rates, and maturity for sport and commercial species. Age,
    sex and size composition of these same species captured commercially are also monitored.
    Correlations between seasonal sport catches and reports from charter boat operators are used
    for future estimates of total sport fishing harvest.

G.  DOW  provides fishing facilities (parking, boat launching, piers, shoreline access, etc.) to
    improve access to the fishery resource (see Policy 21).

H.  DOW  provides technical and general information to sport and commercial fishermen.
    Information leaflets and reports cover a wide range of subjects including sport and commercial
    fishing laws, fish identification, bait fish, Lake Erie fishing services and facilities, when and
    where to fish, and the life history of many species in Lake Erie.

























Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part 11 5 - 103                            March 1997








       POLICY 28 - FISHERIES RESEARCH AND INTERSTATE COOPERATION                                        i

        IT IS THE POLICY OF THE STATE OF OHIO TO COOPERATE IN GREAT
    LAKES BASINWIDE FISHERIES MANAGEMENT EFFORTS AND TO CONTINU-
    ALLY RESEARCH BETTER FISHERIES USE AND MANAGEMENT.

Authorities and Administration

    ODNR, Division of Wildlife, coordinates closely with Canada, Michigan, Pennsylvania and
New York by working in conjunction with the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, the IJC, the Great
Lakes Commission, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and other groups concerned with Lake Erie
fishery management and rehabilitation. The commissions coordinate their efforts for the better
development of fishery rehabilitation programs and management practices, including a process for
consolidating and resolving issues.

    The division also conducts extensive research on Lake Erie fisheries. Annual indices of fish
population trends and sport and commercial fisheries harvests are developed by the division and are
used to develop recommendations to allow a desirable fish community to reach its potential within
existing environmental conditions. Such indices are prerequisites for determining the present status
and future outlook of certain fish stocks. This comprehensive stock assessment program assists in
determining research priorities and provides a means of evaluating the success of management
strategies. The application of findings from these assessment surveys provides biologically sound
harvest regulations for the sport and commercial fisheries.

    The Great Lakes Toxic Substances Control Agreement calls for the issuance of uniform
lakewide fish consumption advisories. This initiative has improved cooperation among state
agencies involved with the issues of toxic pollutants in the environment and public health. The
Directors of ODNR, Ohio EPA, Ohio Department of Health (ODH) and Ohio Department of
Agriculture (ODA) agreed to identify additional surveillance, laboratory and related programs
needed to effectively address these issues. An ad hoc committee from those departments was formed
to recommend the types of fish tissue contaminant monitoring programs that are needed.
















Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part 11 5 - 104                              March 1997








                       POLICY 29 - WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

        IT IS THE POLICY OF THE STATE OF OHIO TO PROVIDE FOR THE
    MANAGEMENT OF WILDLIFE IN THE COASTAL AREA TO ASSURE THE
    CONTINUED ENJOYMENT OF BENEFITS RECEIVED FROM WILDLIFE BY:

    A. PROTECTING ALL WILDLIFE INCLUDING NONGAME AND ENDANGERED
        SPECIES (O.R.C. ~ 1531.02. 1531.08 AND 1531.25):

    B. REGULATING THE TAKING OF WILDLIFE (O.R.C. CHAPTER 1533 AND
        O.A.C. 1501:31):

    C. ESTABLISHING STATE WILDLIFE AREAS AND PROVIDING RECREATION
        OPPORTUNITIES;

    D. PROVIDING FOOD, COVER AND HABITAT FOR WILDLIFE, AND

    E. PROVIDING NONGAME WILDLIFE RESEARCH AND EDUCATION FUNDING.

Authorities and Administration

A.  The state holds title to all wild animals in Ohio for the public (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1531.02). The Chief
    of the Division of Wildlife, ODNR, has authority and control in all matters pertaining to the
    protection preservation, propagation and management of wild animals (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1531.08). The
    chief may regulate the taking, possession, transportation, buying, selling, offering for sale or
    exposing for sale any wild animal or part thereof. DOW also protects fish and wildlife species
    threatened with statewide extinction (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1531.25). See Policy 14.

B.   O.R.C. Chapter 1533 specifies the laws concerning the taking of wild animals. O.A.C. 1501:31
    specifies the rules promulgated by the chief on taking wild animals. All orders of the DOW
    relating to establishment of seasons, limits, size, species, method of taking and possession shall
    be adopted only upon approval of the Wildlife Council (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1531.03).

    Persons hunting any wild bird or wild quadruped are required to have a hunting license or a
    trapping permit if trapping furbearers (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1533.10 and 1533.111). Special permits are
    required for deer and turkey hunting (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1533.11). A property owner may hunt on his or
    her own property without a hunting license. First-time hunters are required to complete a hunter
    safety and conservation course before a license will be issued. First-time trappers must
    complete a trapper education course. Persons owning or controlling land or water within a 10-
    mile radius of a state or federal waterfowl management area shall annually obtain a permit from
    the Chief of DOW prior to allowing the hunting or taking of waterfowl on said land or water
    (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1533.81). This permit is designated as a "waterfowl hunting area permit." Fees from



Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS     Part II 5 - 105                                 March 1997








    the sale of hunting and trapping licenses are to be used by the DOW for the following purposes
    (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1533.15):

    I1. Education of hunters and trappers;

    2. Purchase, management, preservation, propagation, protection, and stocking of wild birds
         and wild quadrupeds; and

    3. Establishing and purchasing or otherwise acquiring title to lands for wildlife preservation,
         propagation, and protection, and for public hunting.

C.  The Chief of DOW, with the approval of the Director of ODNR, may acquire or lease lands or
    surface rights upon lands and water for wild animals, fish and wildlife management,
    preservation, propagation, and protection, outdoor and nature activities, public fishing and
    hunting grounds, and flora and fauna preservation. The lease or purchase of all such lands and
    waters may be paid for from hunting and fishing license fees (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1531.06). Under this
    effort, four state wildlife areas have been established in the coastal area. These areas are
    managed by wildlife biologists and devoted primarily to the management of migratory birds,
    fish habitat, and marsh-dependent wildlife. The areas are generally open to the public except
    during hunting season, when their use may be restricted.

D.  The DOW offers a variety of programs and services to rural landowners who wish to make their
    property more attractive to wildlife or to control excessive hunting pressure. A qualified
    biologist from the DOW will review a landowner's current wildlife habitat and evaluate the
    potential for developing additional habitat. A complete wildlife management plan will be
    designed for the current and future pattern of crop and land use on the property.

    Annually, the division offers to landowners free packets of food plot seed mixture that provide
    a winter food supply for wildlife. Each packet will plant up to one-quarter acre. Wood duck
    nesting boxes are made available without charge in suitable habitats, and free informational
    materials are provided regarding nesting structures for other species.

E.  An Endangered Species and Diversity Program has been established in the Division of Wildlife,
    with responsibilities encompassing more than 1,000 species of wild animals. In less than 200
    years, 10 of these species have become extinct and 78 have been extirpated from the state. One
    hundred-sixteen species are protected as endangered, and more are being reviewed for
    endangered status. O.R.C. ï¿½ 1531.25 provides for the adoption of rules by the chief restricting
    the taking or possession of native wildlife, or any eggs or offspring thereof, that the chief finds
    to be threatened with statewide extinction. Current program objectives are to provide
    population status reports, develop habitat management guidelines and procedures, develop
    species-specific management programs for endangered animals and develop restoration
    programs for selected nongamne wildlife species extirpated from Ohio.



Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 5 - 106                             March 1997








    The State of Ohio administers the Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Tax Checkoff Program
    to help fund nongame management. Money from this source has contributed to activities such
    as the restoration of Ohio's Bald Eagle population; a wildlife education program called "Project
    Wild;" a bluebird restoration project; and the reintroduction of the River Otter into four
    watersheds in the eastern portion of the state, including the Grand River watershed in the coastal
    region.














































Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part 11 5 - 107                             March 1997








                               ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Uses Subiect to Manaaement

     ï¿½    Activities involving any process, system or practice that may be a source of air pollution.

     *    Activities involving the storage, handling, disposal, and transportation of toxic
           substances and hazardous wastes.

        * Activities involving the cleanup of unregulated hazardous waste disposal sites.

     0    Activities involving the handling and disposal of marine sanitary wastes.

        * Activities affecting the visual and aesthetic quality of the shoreline, including unsanitary
           dumping and unsightly littering in Lake Erie and its tributaries or along its banks, and in
           embayments, tributaries, and back waters.

Air

     Ohio's lakeshore counties contain many of the state's largest industrial complexes, including
coal-fired electric generating facilities with 17 percent of the statewide coal-fired generating
capacity. In the past 10 years, emissions from the numerous air pollution facilities have decreased
substantially. However, unacceptable air quality conditions remain in the industrialized regions of
Lucas, Lake, Lorain, and Cuyahoga Counties, and to a lesser degree, in Ashtabula County (see Table
3 below).

     Because of poor air quality nationwide, Congress passed the Clean Air Act (CAA) in 1967,
strengthening it considerably in 1970, 1977 and 1990. These amendments broadened the federal role
in setting standards for air quality, directing state efforts to meet the standards and providing for
enforcement of plans when a state fails to do so.

     The U.S. EPA has established primary National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
sufficient to protect public health and secondary NAAQS to protect against damages to property,
vegetation, crops and animals. The CAA required states to develop State Implementation Plans
(SIPs) that would result in attainment of the standards for six primary air pollutants. Current SIPs
focus primarily upon the pollutant standards with which certain areas in Ohio have not achieved
compliance. Additional work is also necessary in Cuyahoga County to address the 1987 revision to
the particulate standard to emphasize particulate matter of 10 microns or less (PM,,); the Cuyahoga
County particulate SIP is being revised accordingly. Table 3 indicates the nonattainment status for
the pollutants for which several coastal counties in Ohio have not achieved compliance.






Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 5 - 108                             March 1997








                                          TABLE 3

                         Ohio Counties of the Lake Erie Coastal Area
                                  Designated Nonattainment
                        for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards

                             PM10                 OZONE                SULFUR DIOXIDE
                                                                         primary


LUCAS                                                                             X

WOOD*

OTTAWA*

SANDUSKY*

ERIE*

LORAIN                                                                            X

CUYAHOGA                        X                                                 X

LAKE                                                                              X

ASHTABULA*









Source: Ohio EPA (March 1997)

NOTE:   Although this table reflects the entire county as designated nonattainment, the actual
          nonattainment designations refer to specific areas within each county. Actual boundaries
          can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations (40 C.F.R. ï¿½ 81.336).

* Attainment for all criteria pollutants.



Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS   Part II 5 - 109                              March 1997








    These matters are of concern to Ohio's Coastal Management Program primarily because they
have major impacts upon the health and property of coastal residents. Also, directly and indirectly,
air pollutants adversely affect water quality and the aquatic biota and wildlife of the region.
Atmospheric deposition of toxics is currently being studied to determined the extent to which it
poses a threat to the environmental well-being of the Great Lakes region.

Solid. Hazardous and Infectious Waste

    Ohioans generate approximately I ton of solid waste per person, per year. Much of that solid
waste includes substances that can be harmful if improperly released into the environment. The
majority of these household solid wastes are disposed of in the nearly 90 sanitary landfills operating;
in Ohio.

    Of the more than 1,400 large-quantity generators of hazardous waste in Ohio, 532 are located
in the coastal counties, according, to Ohio EPA records based on Generator Annual Reports filed for
1993. There are more than I10,000 small quantity generators in Ohio. There are approximately I100
hazardous waste storage, treatment and disposal facilities operating within Ohio, 30 in coastal
counties.

    Of the top 10 counties for hazardous waste shipments listed in Annual Reports, four are coastal
counties. These counties and their statewide rank are: Ashtabula (1), Cuyahoga (2), Lorain (6) and
Lucas (7). The coastal counties with significant treatment, storage or disposal activity are Ashtabula
(1), Sandusky (6) and Cuyahoga (7).

    Improper management of hazardous waste in the past has created many environmental and
public health problems in Ohio. There are approximately 30 abandoned waste sites in Ohio today
that are on the National Priority List for action under the federal Comprehensive Environmental
Response Compensation Liability Act "Superfund" (CERCLA) program. In the coastal area, five
Superfund sites are in Ashtabula County and one is in Lorain County. There are nearly 900
additional sites that, although not of sufficient importance or hazard to be placed on the National
Priority List, do pose environmental threats.

    As the nation's landfills have begun to fill up and more stringent waste-disposal laws have been
enacted, hospitals, labs and clinics are looking more carefully at how they dispose of the infectious
wastes they produce. Many choose to incinerate a portion of these materials at the site where they
are produced. Others decide to transport their infectious wastes to commercial incinerators.
Therefore, the need has arisen to address infectious waste as a separate category of waste and to
regulate its transport and treatment.








Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 5 - I110                         March 1997








. ~~Marina Facilities

            Water quality improvements and the Lake Eric fishery caused a dramatic upswing in the use of
       Lake Erie by recreational boaters during the 1980s. The number of marinas in the Lake Erie basin
       has increased by 30 percent since 1986. Recreational boaters, the general public and the
       environment must be protected from unsafe drinking water, pollution hazards from improperly
       disposed wastes, accident hazards and other unsanitary conditions that potentially can result from
       marina construction and use.










































       Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 5 - III                          March 1997








                              POLICY 30 - AIR OUALITY

        IT IS THE POLICY OF THE STATE OF OHIO TO ATTAIN AND MAINTAIN
    AIR OUALITY LEVELS THAT PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH AND PREVENT
    INJURY TO PLANT AND ANIMAL LIFE AND PROPERTY BY SURVEYING
    AND MONITORING AIR OUALITY: ENFORCING NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR
    OUALITY STANDARDS THROUGH PERMITS AND VARIANCES: AND
    RESTRICTING OPEN BURNING. (O.R.C. CHAPTERS 3745. 3706 AND 5709).

Authorities and Administration

    The Ohio EPA, Division of Air Pollution Control, operates several programs that have far-
reaching effects on the air quality of the state and Lake Erie. Such programs range from those
developed and implemented since the inception of the agency, to new initiatives that limit the
exposure of the population to air toxics.

    Ohio's State Implementation Plan (SIP), approved by U.S. EPA, is developed, revised,
implemented, and enforced by the Ohio EPA, local air pollution control agencies, and areawide
planning agencies designated by the Governor. The principal provisions of the SIP are state
emission limitations designed to meet federal primary and secondary ambient air quality standards
(O.A.C. 3745-17, 3745-18, 3745-21, 3745-23 and 3745-71). Implementation and enforcement of
these regulations are achieved through the issuance of air permits by the Director, Ohio EPA (O.A.C.
3745-31 and 3745-35).

    SIPs are in effect statewide, with specific provisions for sources in nonattainment areas.
Pursuant to the 1990 Clean Air Act (CAA) amendments, Cuyahoga, Lake, Lorain, Lucas and Wood
counties are undergoing SIP revisions to reduce point and mobile sources contributing to the
moderate ozone nonattainment. Automobile inspection and maintenance are required in these areas.

    Ohio's SIP also incorporates the following:

    1.  Emergency episode standards requiring the reduction of air contaminants during air
        pollution alerts, air pollution warnings and air pollution emergencies (O.A.C. 3745-25);

    2.  Restrictions on certain types of open burning within the boundaries of municipal
        corporations and buffer areas, and total prohibition of open burning of garbage (O.A.C.
        3745-19);

    3.  Transportation control plans prepared by NOACA and TMACOG in the coastal area and
        geared toward encouraging and providing facilities for alternative means of transportation
        such as buses, rapid transit, bicycling and car pooling, as mandated by Section 174 of the
        CAA and enforced by Ohio EPA pursuant to its directive to adopt and maintain a program



Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS   Part II 5 - 112                              March 1997








                  for the prevention, control and abatement of air pollution that is consistent with the federal
Is CAA (O.R.C. ï¿½ 3704.02(2));

              4.  Extensive procedural means for citizen and industry involvement in agency actions; and

              5.  Provisions for daily Pollutant Standards Index readings in each major metropolitan area.

              Operators of new sources of air contaminants must obtain a Permit to Install (O.A.C. 3745-31)
         and must meet criteria for the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) in attainment areas or
         emission offset regulations in nonattainment areas. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS),
         National Emission Standards for Hazardous Pollutants (NESHAPs), Best Available Technology
         (BAT) criteria, and source impact determinations must all be met before issuance of a Permit to
         Install. Risk assessment modeling studies may be conducted.

              Additionally, permits to operate are issued to pollution sources that are in full compliance with
         regulations. Sources unable to attain compliance can be issued variances that include a schedule
         outlining the control program that the source will follow to achieve full compliance (O.A.C.
         3745-35). Once full compliance is attained, a Permit to Operate may be granted.

              Ohio EPA conducts field surveillance and source inspection to ensure that sources remain in
         compliance and that noncompliant sources make timely progress toward compliance. The Director
         of Ohio EPA may revoke or suspend any Permit to Operate upon finding that any conditions,
.,       standards or regulations have been or will be violated.

              The Division of Air Pollution Control conducts an enforcement program. Compliance is
          monitored in the field, and noncomplying sources are referred to the Central Office, where
         enforcement cases are developed. Industry can be issued findings and orders to comply, or the case
         may be referred to the Ohio Attorney General for prosecution.

              The Ohio General Assembly enacted legislation and subsequently revised O.R.C. ï¿½ 5709.20 to
          5709.27 in 1963 and in 1973 to provide incentives for the purchase, installation and use of air
         pollutant emission control equipment. The incentives were in the form of exemptions from Ohio's
         real and personal property, franchise use and sales taxes. The legislature empowered the Tax
         Commissioner of Ohio to issue Air Pollution Control Certificates granting such exemptions after a
         determination that the equipment qualifies for such tax benefits.

              The Division of Air Pollution Control assists with the development of a procedure for risk
          assessment, management, and communication, and will participate in cooperative efforts with other
          Ohio EPA divisions and Great Lakes states concerning multiple pathway pollution sources. These
          pathways of contamination to the Great Lakes should be monitored and controlled. New initiatives
          will begin to assess the impacts of toxics.




          Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 5 - 113                          March 1997








    The air permit program (O.A.C. 3745-31) provides a means to control emission of criteria
pollutants such as sulfur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen and particulate matter from stationary sources
through the application of best available technology for new sources. Mobile sources of pollution
are being addressed in major urban areas such as Cleveland, where an automobile inspection and
maintenance program is being implemented to control ozone precursors. A program will be imple-
mented in the Toledo urban area as well.














































Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 5 - 114                           March 1997








   POLICY 31 - HAZARDOUS. SOLID AND INFECTIOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT

       IT IS THE POLICY OF THE STATE OF OHIO TO ENSURE THAT THE
   GENERATION OF SOLID, INFECTIOUS AND HAZARDOUS WASTES IS
   REDUCED AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE BY:

   A. ADMINISTERING A PERMIT PROGRAM FOR THE SITING OF NEW FACIL-
       ITIES AND THE MODIFICATION. REVISION AND OPERATION OF EXISTING
       FACILITIES (O.R.C. CHAPTER 3734):

   B.  COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT OF REOUIREMENTS OF
       O.R.C. CHAPTER 3734. DEVELOPED PURSUANT TO AND IN ACCORDANCE
       WITH PROVISIONS OF THE FEDERAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND
       RECOVERY ACT (RCRA) AND THE FEDERAL COMPREHENSIVE
       ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE. COMPENSATION AND LIABILITY ACT
       (CERCLA) (O.A.C. 3745-50 THROUGH 58 AND 3745-65 THROUGH 69):

   C. ESTABLISHING LONG-RANGE SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTE MAN-
       AGEMENT PLANS (O.R.C. ~ 3734): AND

   D. ENCOURAGING THE ADOPTION OF POLLUTION PREVENTION PRACTICES
       THAT EMPHASIZE A PREFERENCE FOR SOURCE REDUCTION AND
       ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND RECYCLING OVER TREATMENT AND
       DISPOSAL.

Authorities And Administration

A. through C.

Hazardous Waste Management

   "Hazardous waste" means any waste or combination of wastes in solid, liquid, semisolid or
contained gaseous form that in the determination of the Director, Ohio EPA, because of its quantity,
concentration or physical or chemical characteristics, may:

   (1) Cause or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious
       irreversible or incapacitating reversible illness; or

   (2) Pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or safety or to the
       environment when improperly stored, treated, transported, disposed of or otherwise
       managed.




Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 5 - 115           March 1997








    "Hazardous waste" includes any substance identified by regulation as hazardous waste under
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) 42 U.S.C.A. 6921 as amended, and
does not include any substance that is subject to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 42 U.S.C.A. 2011
(O.R.C. ï¿½ 3734.01(J)).

    Ohio EPA regulates the generation, transportation, treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous
waste under authority of O.R.C. Chapter 3734, in part as a means of enforcing RCRA. Specific
criteria for management of hazardous waste are specified in O.A.C. 3745-50 through 3745-58,
3745-63, and 3745-65 through 3745-69. These rules are implemented and enforced by Ohio EPA's
Division of Hazardous Waste Management with headquarters personnel in Columbus and field staff
located in five district offices.

    Generators of hazardous waste must provide for the proper transportation, treatment and
disposal of the wastes. "Generator" means any person, by site, whose act or process produces
hazardous waste identified or listed in O.A.C. 3745-51 or whose act first causes a hazardous waste
to become subject to the hazardous waste rules (O.A.C. 3745-50-10). The "cradle-to-grave" tracking
of the movement and disposition of hazardous wastes is documented by a paperwork system that
requires a manifest to accompany each waste load leaving a generator facility and requires entries
at each point in the process leading up to final disposal of the waste. Generators are required to
maintain these manifests, and the regulatory agencies can cross-reference manifest records to verify
proper handling of the wastes (O.R.C. ï¿½ 3734.12 et seq.). Standards for generation of hazardous
wastes are contained in O.A.C. 3745-52.

    Each hazardous waste storage, treatment and disposal facility must operate in conformance with
regulations that include specifications for day-to-day operations, financial responsibility, and the
eventual closure of the facility and post-closure care. Storage, treatment, disposal or transport to
nonpermitted facilities is prohibited. Final siting decisions for new hazardous waste treatment,
storage and disposal facilities or modification to such facilities are made by the Ohio Hazardous
Waste Facility Board (HWFB). The terms "storage," "treatment," "disposal" and "facility" are
defined in O.R.C. ï¿½ 3734.01. Rules governing facilities are specified in O.A.C. 3745-54-01 through
O.A.C. 3745-59-50.

Remedial Response to Previously Improperly Disposed Hazardous Wastes

    Ohio EPA has completed preliminary assessments at each abandoned hazardous waste site and
is in the process of establishing priorities for corrective action. Corrective action at these sites
involves a thorough study to characterize the nature of the problem and to evaluate alternatives for
remedial action. After a remedial action plan is selected, Ohio EPA works with responsible parties
to ensure that a proper cleanup is completed and that continuing environmental monitoring and
maintenance of the site is secure. Requirements governing the investigation, cleanup and acquisition
of abandoned hazardous waste sites are specified in O.R.C. ï¿½ 3734.19 through 3734.24; funding
mechanisms are provided by O.R.C. ï¿½ 3734.25 through 3734.28. These provisions are implemented
by Ohio EPA's Division of Emergency and Remedial Response (DERR).


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part 11 5 - 116                           March 1997








Solid and Infectious Waste Management

    "Solid wastes" means such unwanted residual solid or semisolid material as results from
industrial, commercial, agricultural, and community operations, excluding earth or material from
construction, mining, or demolition operations, or other waste materials of the type that would
normally be included in demolition debris, nontoxic fly ash, spent nontoxic foundry sand, and slag
and other substances that are not harmful or inimical to public health, and includes, but is not limited
to, garbage, tires, combustible and noncombustible material, street dirt, and debris. "Solid wastes"
does not include any material that is an infectious waste or a hazardous waste (O.R.C. ï¿½ 3734.01 (E)).
(Construction and demolition wastes are defined and regulated separately under O.A.C. 3714.)

    "Infectious wastes" includes cultures and stocks of infectious agents and associated biologicals;
laboratory wastes that have or may have been in contact with such agents; pathological wastes; waste
materials from rooms of humans or enclosures of animals that have been isolated due to
communicable disease; blood specimens and products; contaminated carcasses, body parts, and
bedding of animals intentionally exposed to infectious agents; sharp wastes used in treatment,
diagnosis, or inoculation of humans or animals exposed to infectious agents (O.R.C. ï¿½ 3734.01(R)).

    Existing solid waste landfills must operate in accordance with established rules that include
requirements for daily cover of materials, minimization of nuisance conditions and other
requirements to ensure that the facility does not cause an environmental problem (O.A.C. 3745-27).
In addition, residual solid waste landfills must operate in accordance with O.A.C. 3745-30.

    Ohio EPA's Division of Solid and Infectious Waste Management (DSIWM) regulates the
disposal of solid waste and transport and treatment of infectious waste through permitting,
registrations, licensing, monitoring, oversight of construction operations and closure and post-closure
care pursuant to regulations specified in O.A.C. 3745-27, 3745-31 and 3745-37. Licensing systems
for solid and infectious waste disposal facilities may be administered by the Board of Health of the
health district in which the facility is located if Ohio EPA has determined that the board substantially
complies with O.R.C. Chapter 3734. Decisions regarding siting of new solid and infectious waste
facilities are the responsibility of Ohio EPA's Division of Solid and Infectious Waste Management
with support from the Division of Drinking and Ground Waters.

Long-Range and Pollution Prevention Planning

    Ohio EPA has adopted a State Solid Waste Management Plan in conjunction with the Solid
Waste Advisory Council (O.R.C. ï¿½ 3734.50). The primary goals of this plan, completed in 1989,
are to reduce the state's reliance upon landfills and to establish objectives for solid waste reuse,
reduction, recycling and minimization. Boards of County Commissioners must establish single or
joint county solid waste management districts (O.R.C. ï¿½ 3734.52). District committees must prepare,
adopt and submit a solid waste management plan to Ohio EPA in compliance with agency standards
(O.R.C. ï¿½ 3734.54 and 3734.55).



Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 5 - 117                           March 1997








    Hazardous waste generators and permitted facilities are required to certify that waste
minimization programs and reports are in process (O.A.C. 3745-52-20, 3745-54-73 and 3745-54-75).
Annual waste minimization reports are required, and waste minimization requirements are included
in hazardous waste permit terms and conditions (O.R.C. Chapter 3734).

    Underground injection facilities' owners and operators are required to prepare waste minimiza-
tion plans for industrial wastes disposed at their facilities. Each owner or operator of a class I
injection well facility, as defined in O.A.C. 3745-34-04, must prepare and adopt a waste
minimization and treatment plan to identify specific technically and economically feasible measures
that will be taken to prevent or reduce releases into the environment of the industrial waste and other
wastes generated at the facility. For an injection well facility located on the premises of the
industrial facility generating the wastes disposed of at the injection facility, the plan must also
address the industrial waste and other wastes generated at that industrial facility. The plan must
cover a three-year planning period (O.R.C. Chapter 6111.045).

D.  Ohio EPA incorporates pollution prevention requirements into enforcement cases to achieve
    environmental improvements rather than solely imposing penalties. Settlement offers may
    include reduced monetary penalties in exchange for development of waste minimization or
    pollution prevention plans or the installation of source reduction processes.

    Ohio EPA has received federal funding to develop projects to identify pollution prevention
    opportunities for Ohio businesses in the Lake Erie Basin. Projects include Hazardous Waste
    Generation and Management; Hazardous Waste Minimization and Pollution Prevention; Great
    Lakes Pollution Prevention Program Survey; Pollution Prevention Case Study Development;
    and Waste Management Alternative plans.

    Other efforts to encourage achievement of waste minimization and pollution prevention include
    participation in the Great Lakes Pollution Prevention Challenge; low interest capital
    improvement loans through Ohio EPA and Ohio Department of Development's jointly
    administered Pollution Prevention Loan Program; pollution prevention grants offered by the
    Ohio Environmental Education Fund; and recognition of outstanding efforts to reduce waste
    through Annual Governor's Awards for Outstanding Achievement in Pollution Prevention.















Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 5 - 118                         March 1997








                           POLICY 32 - MARINA FACILITIES

        IT IS THE POLICY OF THE STATE OF OHIO TO REGULATE MARINA
    CONSTRUCTION THROUGH THE OHIO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
    LOCAL HEALTH DEPARTMENTS IN ORDER TO ASSURE THAT MARINAS
    WILL PROVIDE ADEOUATE SANITARY FACILITIES FOR THE
    WATERCRAFT USING THE MARINA. AND THAT SUCH MARINAS WILL BE
    CONSTRUCTED. LOCATED. MAINTAINED. AND OPERATED IN A SANITARY
    MANNER SO AS NOT TO CREATE A NUISANCE OR CAUSE A HEALTH
    HAZARD (O.R.C. ~ 3733.21 THROUGH 3733.30 AND O.A.C. 3701-35).

Authorities and Administration

    The Public Health Council has adopted statewide regulations, pursuant to O.R.C. ï¿½ 3733.22,
governing marinas and the inspections and issuance of licenses for all marinas (O.A.C. 3701-35).
The intent of the marina law is to ensure that Ohioans using recreational watercraft, as well as
surrounding areas, will be protected from unsafe drinking water, pollution hazards from improperly
disposed wastes, accident hazards, and other unsanitary conditions. This is accomplished by
establishing uniform, minimum health and safety requirements for marinas throughout the state.
Such marinas will provide adequate sanitary facilities for the watercraft using them, and will be
constructed, located, maintained, and operated in a sanitary manner so as not to create a nuisance or
cause a health hazard.

    No person shall construct a marina, alter the sanitary facilities of a marina, or substantially
increase the size or number of watercraft using the marina, unless the Director of ODH has approved
plans for the improvement, alteration or increase. Plans must be submitted for review to and
approved by the Director of ODH at least 60 days before any construction, alteration or increase
begins. During the month of March, a license to operate an existing marina for that year must be
obtained from the Board of Health of the health district in which the marina is located (O.R.C. ï¿½
3733.24). If a new marina is to be constructed, application must be made for a license from the
Board of Health district in which the marina is to be located at the same time as submission of the
plans to the Director of ODH. Before a license is initially issued, and annually thereafter, the Board
of Health inspects each marina, compiles a record of each inspection, and requires each marina to
satisfactorily comply with O.R.C. ï¿½ 3733.21 et seq. and the regulations adopted thereunder. The
following are the criteria for licensing: approved plan, minimum sanitary facilities, waste disposal
facilities, minimum safety equipment, vector control and nuisance prevention (O.A.C. 3701-35-01
to 3701-35-09). Marinas that provide dockage for watercraft with installed sewage holding tanks
must provide sewage pump-out facilities (O.A.C. 3701-35-05).








Ohio Coastal Management Program& Final EIS    Part II 5 - 119                               March 1997








                  POLICY 33 - VISUAL AND AESTHETIC OUALITY

        IT IS THE POLICY OF THE STATE OF OHIO TO PROTECT THIE VISUAL AND
    AESTHETIC AMENITIES OF LAKE ERIE AND ITS SHORELINE TO ENHANCE
    THE RECREATIONAL, ECONOMIC, CULTURAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL
    VALUES INHERENTLY ASSOCIATED WITH THE COASTAL AREA BY:

    A. PROHIBITING THE DUMPING OF LITTER AND REFUSE INTO OR ALONG
        THE WATERS OF LAKE ERIE AND ITS TRIBUTARIES. AND MAINTAINING
        LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES TO APPREHEND VIOLATORS (O.R.C.
        1531.29 AND 3767.32):

    B. ENFORCING STATE WATER OUALITY STANDARDS (O.R.C. CHAPTER 6111.
        O.A.C. 3745-1-04): AND

    C. PRESERVING AESTHETIC RESOURCE AREAS OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFI-
        CANCE THROUGH THE NATURE PRESERVE, WILDLIFE AREA, PARK
        DEVELOPMENT AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAMS.

Authorities and Administration

A.   Pursuant to O.R.C. ï¿½ 3767.32, no person shall deposit litter or cause litter to be deposited on
    any public property, on private property not owned by that individual, or in or on waters of the
    state. "Litter" means garbage, trash, waste, rubbish, ashes, cans, bottles, wire, paper, cartons,
    boxes, automobile parts, furniture, glass, or anything else of an unsightly or unsanitary nature.

    In addition, O.R.C. ï¿½ 1531.29 prohibits the disposal of any litter into watercourses of the state
    or onto banks thereof, or where it is liable to be washed into the water either by ordinary flow
    or floods.

    O.R.C. Chapter 1502 also has created a grant assistance program administered by the Division
    of Recycling and Litter Prevention within ODNR. Financial assistance is available to state
    agencies and local governments for implementing a variety of litter prevention and recycling
    activities, including collection, education, and litter law enforcement.

B.   Visual and aesthetic qualities of the state's waters are further protected under the state's Water
    Quality Standards (O.A.C. 3745-1-04). These narrative standards, commonly called the "five
    free froms," provide the Director of Ohio EPA with authority to regulate pollution sources that
    create floating debris, oil, scum, color, odor or other annoyances. Violation of these standards
    are subject to criminal and civil penalties (O.R.C. ï¿½ 6111.07).

C. The State of Ohio plays a direct role in protecting the visual quality of the coastal area and
    providing visual access to shoreline resources through acquisition and development of public


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS       Part lI 5 - 120                                  March 1997








    access areas, state parks, state nature preserves, wildlife areas and historic areas. Municipalities,
    townships and counties are encouraged to protect visual qualities of and to provide visual access
    to the Lake Erie shoreline through their planning processes and local actions. These concerns
    can be addressed through site plan review, architectural boards of review, special protection
    districts, development standards (such as requiring landscaping, screening, and setback and
    height limitations), and additional subdivision requirements.













































Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part 11 5 - 121                              March 1997








                           ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES

Uses Subiect to Management

    *   Activities involving the siting of major energy facilities and transmission lines.

    ï¿½   Activities involving the storage and transshipment of energy resources.

    ï¿½   Activities involving the onshore or offshore drilling of oil and gas resources.

    *   Activities involving the mining and extraction of onshore and offshore mineral resources.

Energy

    The shore of Lake Erie is one of Ohio's major energy facility siting areas. Several major coal-
fired and two nuclear-generating facilities are located in the coastal area.

    Three principal factors for the siting of those facilities in the coastal area are proximity to large
coastal urban areas, competitive shipping advantages of Lake Erie and the abundant supply of water
for cooling. Some of these facilities are inherently lake-dependent, in that their successful func-
tioning requires that they be sited on the coast. For others, inland locations may be possible but may
entail increased costs to industry and consumers.

    The siting of energy production facilities and related energy problems are concerns addressed
by the OCMP. Coastal energy facility siting is useful for maintaining the economy and standard of
living in the coastal and inland region. However, it raises many questions regarding effects on fish
and wildlife, loss of valuable shorefront access and potential dangers.

    Growth in energy demand is a dominant factor in determining the number of facilities to be
constructed. Energy conservation may reduce the need to construct additional facilities. Methods
by which energy can be conserved and used more efficiently include the establishment of lighting
and heating standards, use of energy-conserving building and insulating materials, establishment of
energy-sensitive building codes, implementation of rate structures that encourage energy conserva-
tion, and the promotion of statewide energy conservation measures.

    In developing its energy policies, the OCMP has recognized that siting of energy facilities is of
state and sometimes national concern. OCMP policies have been designed to maintain adequate
electrical service to Ohio customers. In summation, Ohio recognizes the need for a rational
allocation of coastal land for the accommodation of energy needs in a manner that minimizes
impacts on the environment and is economically feasible.






Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 5 - 122                            March 1997








.     ~Mineral Resources

            Com-mercially available mineral resources of Ohio's coastal area provide numerous benefits to
       Ohio's citizens. These mineral resources are sand and gravel, limestone, dolomite, gypsum,
       sandstone, salt, shale and land reserves of oil and gas.

            Mineral deposits are nonrenewable resources. Keen competition for land containing these
       reserves threatens their future availability. Unwise extraction of these minerals can impair use of
       the area's other resources. Proper planning and management are necessary to ensure adequate future
       supply and to avoid irreversible loss or damage to other valuable coastal resources. The OCMP
       therefore supports actions directed toward preservation of lands for future mineral recovery,
       environmentally sound exploitation, stricter enforcement of permits and monitoring, and ultimate
       rehabilitation of the land for future appropriate uses.






































       Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 5 - 123                             March 1997








                      POLICY 34 - ENERGY FACILITY SITING

       IT IS THE POLICY OF THE STATE OF OHIO TO PROVIDE FOR
   ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND SITING OF MAJOR ELECTRIC ENERGY GENER-
   ATING AND TRANSMISSION FACILITIES IN THE COASTAL AREA, AND TO
   REGULATE THE SITING OF THESE FACILITIES TO PROTECT THE HEALTH,
   SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF OHIO'S CITIZENS AND THE NATURAL RE-
   SOURCES OF THE STATE BY:

   A. REOUIRING CERTIFICATION OF ANY MAJOR UTILITY FACILITY
        THROUGH THE OHIO POWER SITING BOARD IN A PROCESS WHICH
        ENSURES PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (O.R.C. CHAPTER 4906 AND O.A.C. 4906)
       AND

   B. REOUIRING 10-YEAR DEMAND. RESOURCE AND SITE INVENTORY
        FORECASTS FOR ALL ENERGY GENERATION AND TRANSMISSION
        ACTIVITY IN THE STATE (O.R.C. . 4935.04).

Authorities and Administration

A.  O.R.C. Chapter 4906 establishes the Ohio Power Siting Board (PSB), within the Public Utilities
    Commission (PUCO), as the lead agency to implement a "one-stop" process for all permits
    involving the construction, operation and maintenance of a major utility facility. The PSB is
    composed of the Directors of Ohio Department of Health (ODH), ODNR, the Department of
    Development, Ohio EPA, Department of Agriculture (ODA) and PUCO; a public member; and
    four legislators (nonvoting) (O.R.C. ï¿½ 4906.02). PSB decisions and actions relate to any "major
    utility facility" including:

    1.   An electric generating plant and associated facilities designed for, or capable of, operation
        at a capacity of 50 megawatts or more;

    2.  An electric transmission line and associated facilities of a design capacity of 125 kilowatts
        or more; and

    3.  A gas or natural gas transmission line and associated facilities designed for, or capable of,
        transporting gas or natural gas at pressures in excess of 125 pounds per square inch.

    The PSB shall not issue a certificate unless it finds and determines that "the facility represents
    the minimum adverse environmental impact, considering the state of available technology and
    the nature and economics of the various alternatives, and other pertinent considerations"
    (O.R.C. ï¿½ 4906.10(A)(3)). Under this authority, the PSB conditions all permits upon
    compliance with all applicable state and federal permits.



Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS    Part II 5 - 124                              March 1997








    Other coastal-related concerns considered by the PSB include degree of coastal dependency,
    impact on environmentally sensitive areas and Special Management Areas (SMAs),
    compatibility with adjacent uses and activities, coastal access, visual impact upon adjacent areas
    (mainly in regard to alignment of transmission lines), and degree of erosion and flood hazard
    involved (O.A.C. 4906).

B.  All owners and operators of major utility facilities within the state are required to annually
    provide PUCO with a long-term forecast report pursuant to O.R.C. ï¿½ 4935.04. These annual
    reports, which must provide a 10-year year-by-year forecast, are reviewed by PUCO and made
    available to the public. Criteria for evaluating these long-term forecasts are contained in O.A.C.
    4901:5-1, 5-3, 5-5, and 5-7. Complete details regarding Ohio's energy facility planning process
    are provided in Chapter 10.






































Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 5 - 125                             March 1997








         POLICY 35 - ENERGY RESOURCE STORAGE AND TRANSSHIPMENT

        IT IS THE POLICY OF THE STATE OF OHIO TO REGULATE THE STORAGE
    OF ENERGY RELATED RESOURCES (COAL. OIL AND GAS) IN THE COASTAL
    AREA THROUGH PLANNING ASSISTANCE AND PERMIT REVIEW TO ASSURE
    THE SAFE AND EFFICIENT USE OF THESE RESOURCES: AND TO ENSURE
    THAT AIR. WATER AND OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS ARE MET
    (O.R.C. ~ 4906.06 AND O.A.C. 4906-13-02).

Authorities and Administration

        The location and layout of all storage areas for proposed major utility facilities (O.R.C. ï¿½
4906.01 (B)) is reviewed by the Ohio Power Siting Board (PSB) as a part of the certification process
described in Policy 34. O.R.C. ï¿½ 4906.06 and O.A.C. 4906-13 require a description of the location
of the storage facility and the major utility facility to be built thereon, as well as a summary of any
studies made regarding potential environmental impacts of the facility. O.A.C. 4906-13-02 requires
an applicant for a PSB certificate to supply a map of the generating plant site showing the fuel
storage facilities, fuel processing facilities, and other pertinent installations of the proposed and
existing facilities and their associated facilities. O.A.C. 4906-13-04 requires an applicant to provide
detailed and specific environmental data for all phases of the activity, i.e., preconstruction,
construction and operation to be used by the PSB to assess environmental effects of the proposed
facility. O.A.C. 4906-13-05 requires submission of costs and benefits of direct and indirect effects
of alternative siting decisions to allow for assessment of potential social and ecological impacts of
the proposed facility.

    Authorities related to the storage and transshipment of coal, oil and gas in locations unrelated
to major utility facilities are discussed in Chapter 10.

    In addition to other guidelines used in the project review process, projects that locate storage
and transshipment facilities adjacent to major energy facilities, in port areas already used for
industrial purposes, or removed from the immediate shoreline, will be encouraged.

    Complete details regarding Ohio's energy facility planning process are provided in Chapter 10.














Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS     Part 11 5 - 126                                March 1997








                   POLICY 36 - OIL AND NATURAL GAS DRILLING

        IT IS THE POLICY OF THE STATE OF OHIO TO PROTECT PUBLIC SAFETY
    AND WELFARE AND THE ENVIRONMENT AND TO ASSURE WISE
    MANAGEMENT BY:

    A: REGULATING OIL AND GAS DRILLING ONSHORE BY REOUIRING A
        PERMIT TO DRILL FROM ODNR (O.R.C. ~ 1509.05): AND

    B. DISCOURAGING OFFSHORE OIL AND NATURAL GAS DRILLING IN
        OHIO WATERS OF LAKE ERIE.

Authorities and Administration

A.  ODNR, Division of Oil and Gas, requires a permit for any person planning to drill a new well,
    drill an existing well deeper, reopen a well, convert a well to any use other than its original
    purpose, plug a well to a source of supply different from the existing pool, or plug and abandon
    a well (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1509.05 and ï¿½ 1509.13). When any well is to be abandoned, it shall be
    plugged in accordance with a method of plugging adopted by rule by the Chief of the Division
    of Oil and Gas, except those wells located in coal-bearing townships, which shall be plugged
    in accordance with rules adopted by the Chief of the Division of Mines and Reclamation. The
    Chief, Division of Oil and Gas, also administers a permit program for subsurface injection
    solution (salt) mining and brine disposal activities pursuant to O.R.C. ï¿½ 1509.22.

    Drilling and operation rules cover the criteria for permit issuance, disposal of brine and other
    oil field wastes, secondary recovery operations, solution mining of minerals, safety practices
    for drilling and operations of wells, pipeline installation, and plugging of wells (O.A.C. 1501:9-
    1, 1501:9-3, 1501:9-5, 1501:9-7, 1501:9-9, 1501:9-10, and 1501:9-11). Permit regulations
    provide criteria for a surety bond, spacing of wells, location of wells with reference to inhabited
    dwellings and public rights of way, and prevention of contamination and pollution.

B.  The Governor of Ohio and the other Great Lakes states governors agreed to "A Statement of
    Principle Against Oil Drilling in the Great Lakes" that opposed drilling for oil in the waters of
    the Great Lakes and the connecting channels. The statement declares the states' shared
    stewardship of and intent to protect Great Lakes water quality and its dependent fishery, wildlife
    resources, drinking water, and recreational, transportation, business, and agricultural uses.

    The drilling permit (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1509.05), the mineral lease (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1505.07) and the
    submerged lands lease (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.11) are existing tools to implement this policy. By
    opposing drilling "in the waters of the Great Lakes," the statement would not affect directional
    drilling; no such drilling currently is occurring in Ohio's portion of the Lake Erie basin. Ohio's
    statutes and rules governing these permits and leases do not, however, specifically contain
    conditions or criteria in this regard and therefore would. allow such drilling.


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS    Part II 5 - 127                              March 1997








                   POLICY 37 - OFFSHORE MINERAL EXTRACTION

        IT IS THE POLICY OF THE STATE OF OHIO TO PROVIDE FOR AND
    REGULATE THE EXTRACTION OF MINERALS AND OTHER SUBSTANCES
    FROM AND FROM UNDER THE BED OF LAKE ERIE. THROUGH THE ISSUANCE
    OF OHIO DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES MINERAL LEASES AND
    PERMITS. TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC SAFETY AND WELFARE. AND TO MINI-
    MIZE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (O.R.C. 4 1505.07).

Authorities and Administration

    Pursuant to O.R.C. ï¿½ 1505.07, no person shall remove sand, gravel, stone or other minerals or
other substances from or from under the bed of Lake Erie without obtaining a lease or permit from
the Director of ODNR. Issuance of any lease by the Director of ODNR requires the additional
approval of the Director of Ohio EPA, the Attorney General and the Governor. The issuance of an
offshore extraction lease is granted on either a rental or royalty basis, whichever is deemed best for
the state. All monies derived from the granting of these leases are deposited into a special revenue
account administered by ODNR for the protection of Lake Erie shores and waters; investigation and
prevention of erosion; the planning, development, and construction of facilities for recreational use
of Lake Erie; preparation of the state shore erosion plan under O.R.C. ï¿½ 1507.10; and state
administration of Lake Erie coastal erosion areas under O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.06 and 1506.07 (O.R.C. ï¿½
1507.05). All data pertaining to the origin, distribution, extent, use and valuation of offshore
minerals, and other offshore substances or resources are collected, analyzed, and interpreted by the
Division of Geological Survey (O.R.C. ï¿½1505.01). The director may, in accordance with O.R.C.
Chapter 119, promulgate rules for the implementation of the aforementioned lease activities (O.R.C.
ï¿½ 1505.07).

    Offshore sand and gravel extraction is currently limited to three designated areas: Vermilion-
Lorain Inner, Vermilion-Lorain Outer, and Fairport. Extraction areas are designated based upon
sufficient distance from the shoreline to avert erosion damage. ODNR continues explorations for
sand and gravel areas that may be economically viable now and in the future. Dredge operators must
comply with all state and federal water quality regulations during the extraction process.

    The extraction of oil and natural gas from under Lake Erie is also included under this lease
requirement. See Policy 36 for discussion of this extraction activity.

    The construction or maintenance of channels, jetties, docks, boating facilities, or other projects
along Lake Erie and its bays often requires removal of sand and gravel resources from the littoral
zone. It is ODNR's policy that sand and gravel be returned to the littoral zone downdrift of a project
to reduce erosion by nourishing and restoring beaches downdrift of the project site. This require-
ment is applied to both public and private projects and is enforced through special conditions
developed in submerged lands leases (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.11) and through the Section 401 Water Quality
Certification process.


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS   Part II 5 - 128                              March 1997








                           POLICY 38 - SURFACE MINING

        IT IS THE POLICY OF THE STATE OF OHIO TO REGULATE SURFACE
    MINING ACTIVITIES TO MINIMIZE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.
    PREVENT DAMAGE TO AD.IOINING PROPERTY. AND ENSURE RECLAMATION
    OF ALL AFFECTED AREAS THROUGH THE ISSUANCE OF OHIO DEPARTMENT
    OF NATURAL RESOURCES PERMITS (O.R.C. ~ 1514.02 AND O.R.C. 4 1514.021.

Authorities and Administration

    ODNR, Division of Mines and Reclamation, requires a permit prior to the initiation of any
surface mining activity (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1514.02(A)). When applying for a permit, the applicant must
include, among other submissions, a mining and reclamation plan. The Chief of Mines and
Reclamation shall issue an order granting or denying an operating permit or amendment to an
operating permit within 90 days after the filing of an application (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1514.02(F)).

    An application for a surface mining permit (for materials other than coal) shall contain the
information set forth in O.R.C. ï¿½ 1514.02 and shall be submitted to the Chief of the Division of
Mines and Reclamation. The chief has promulgated rules and regulations for surface mining in
O.A.C. 1501:14-1 through 1501:14-4. These rules cover the general permit provisions and mining
and reclamation performance standards.

    The Chief of the Division of Mines and Reclamation shall issue an order granting a permit upon
his approval of an application as required and filing of a performance bond and filing fee. Such
funds are to be used by the chief if the applicant fails to perform reclamation of the area according
to O.R.C. Chapter 1514. If the applicant performs the required reclamation, the performance bond
shall be released to the applicant by the chief.





















Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS    Part II 5 - 129                               March 1997








                                    WATER QUANTITY

Uses Subiect to Management

    *   Activities involving the diversion of waters out of or into the Lake Erie Basin.

    * Activities related to Lake Erie water levels.

    * Activities involving water supply planning.

    Lake Erie is an interstate and international resource that Ohio shares with Michigan,
Pennsylvania, New York and the Canadian Province of Ontario. Lake Erie water supports an array
of activities, including commercial navigation, power generation, recreation, and industrial and
public water supply. It also provides extensive wildlife and aquatic habitat. Changes in Lake Erie
levels can affect these various activities, especially those that rely on in-lake water uses. Fluctuating
lake levels and the potential for large-scale transfers of water by out-of-basin interests make it
judicious for water managers in the Lake Erie Basin to develop and maintain a comprehensive water
use and management plan.

Diversions

    New and increased water diversion out of the Great Lakes basin has been advocated by some
as a means to address high lake levels and replenish water supplies in the arid Great Plains and
Southwestern states. The Council of Great Lakes Governors, concerned about the economic and
environmental consequences of large-scale diversions of Great Lakes water, adopted a 1983 resolu-
tion on such diversions. This resolution encouraged the Great Lakes States and provinces to
implement actions to regulate and mitigate potential impacts from large-scale diversions out of the
Great Lakes basin. In 1985, the eight governors and two premiers of the-region signed the Great
Lakes Charter, establishing guidelines and principles for the management of Great Lakes water
resources. The states agreed to give prior notice and consultation on future diversions and
consumptive uses, and to develop a common data and information exchange system to document
management of the Great Lakes water resources. In 1986, Congress passed the Water Resources
Development Act, which prohibits the diversion of water out of the Great Lakes Basin without the
approval of the governors of all the Great Lakes states.

Fluctuating Lake Levels

    The Great Lakes are a vast natural freshwater system over which man exerts little control. Lake
Erie water levels vary naturally over time in cyclical fluctuations, ranging from the record historical
average monthly low of 568.08 feet (IGLD 1985) in February 1936 to the record high of 574.31 feet
in June 1986. Long-term average level of Lake Erie is 571.16 (IGLD 1985) feet. Lake level is con-
trolled naturally through precipitation and evaporation in the basin, inflow from the upper Great
Lakes via the Detroit River and outflow into the Niagara River. Although four man-made diversions


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 5 - 130                         March 1997








and two regulatory structures have some effect on Great Lakes water levels in general, no water level
control structures exist specifically on Lake Erie. Outflow is naturally constricted at the Niagara
River, limiting the rate at which water leaves the lake. Relatively small amounts of water are diverted
through the Welland Canal, New York State Barge Canal and Black Rock Lock in the Niagara River.

Water Supply

    Lake Erie water is an abundant resource for public water systems and is routinely transported
inland to serve ground water-poor areas in the basin. Approximately 75 percent of the water used
in the basin comes from Lake Erie. Because of the lake's shallowness and nearshore water quality
problems, water supply withdrawers are required to locate intake structures at least 1,500 feet into
the lake.

    Industry and public utilities, found primarily around larger cities in the harbor areas, are major
users of Lake Erie water. About 89 percent of Lake Erie withdrawals are used for industrial
processing and electrical generation. Electrical generation alone accounts for 74 percent of the
withdrawals. Along the Ohio Lake Erie shoreline, there are eight coal-fired plants and two nuclear
power plants (Davis Besse in Ottawa County and Perry in Lake County).






























Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 5 - 131                             March 1997








                          POLICY 39 - WATER DIVERSION

        IT IS THE POLICY OF THE STATE OF OHIO TO MANAGE DIVERSION OF
    LAKE ERIE AND TRIBUTARY WATERS BY:

   A. REGULATING WATER DIVERSIONS OF LAKE ERIE BASIN WATERS
        THROUGH THE OHIO DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES PERMIT
        PROCESS (O.R.C. ~ 1501.30 THROUGH 1501.32):

    B. OBTAINING THE PERMISSION OF THE GREAT LAKES STATES'
        GOVERNORS PRIOR TO APPROVING PERMITS FOR DIVERSIONS OF LAKE
        ERIE WATERS (O.R.C. ~ 1501.32): AND

    C. REVIEWING ALL NEW DIVERSIONS OUT OF THE GREAT LAKES BASIN
        AND ANY PROPOSED FEDERAL STUDIES THAT WOULD INVOLVE
        DIVERSIONS OUT OF THE GREAT LAKES BASIN.

Authorities and Administration

A.  ODNR regulates diversions in excess of 100,000 gallons per day out of and into the Lake Erie
    Basin (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1501.32 and O.A.C. 1501-2-01 through 1501-2-10). A diversion is any
    withdrawal of waters from one drainage basin and the transfer of these waters to another basin
    without return. (Diversion does not include evaporative loss within the basin.) Any diversion
    in excess of 100,000 gallons per day must receive a permit issued by the Director of ODNR.
    A permit will not be issued if it is found that: (1) some or all of the water will be needed for
    use within the basin, (2) the public health, safety or welfare would be endangered, (3) the
    proposed diversion is not demonstrated to be a reasonable and beneficial use, (4) reasonable ef-
    forts to develop and conserve water resources have not been made in the importing basin, (5)
    the proposed diversion, alone or in conjunction with other diversions or losses, will have
    significant adverse impact on in-stream uses or on economic or ecological aspects of water
    levels, or (6) the proposed diversion is inconsistent with regional or state water resources plans
    (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1501.32(B). Any person who receives notice of a denial or modification under
    O.R.C. ï¿½ 1501.32 is entitled to a hearing under O.R.C. Chapter 119 upon written request
    (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1501.32(E)(2)).

    The director shall revoke any permit issued under O.R.C. ï¿½ 1501.32 without a prior hearing if
    it is determined that the quantity of water being diverted exceeds the amount allowed by the
    permit. A permit may be suspended if the director determines that continued diversions will
    endanger public health, safety or welfare. Within five days after the suspension, the director
    shall provide the permittee an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence that the continued
    diversion of water will not endanger the public health, safety or welfare (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1501.32(F)).




Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS     Part II 5 - 132                                 March 1997








B.  Through the Council of Great Lakes Governors, Ohio signed the Great Lakes Charter in which
    it agreed to seek to implement a strategy to protect the Great Lakes waters. The Great Lakes
    Charter calls on the states to regulate and manage diversions out of the Great Lakes basin of
    more than 2 million gallons per day.

    Whenever the Director of ODNR receives an application for a diversion of more than 100,000
    gallons per day, the director shall consult and seek consensus with the governors and premiers
    of the Great Lakes states and provinces (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1501.32). The director shall not approve a
    diversion to which Section 1109 of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1986,
    42 U.S.C. 1962d-20 pertains, i.e., any use of Great Lakes basin waters outside the basin, until
    all governors of the Great Lakes states have approved the diversion (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1501.32). Fur-
    ther, pursuant to the Great Lakes Charter and Section 1109 of the WRDA, the Director of
    ODNR shall review and approve or disapprove any proposed projects and federal studies for
    water diversion out of the Great Lakes basin in any Great Lakes state.

C.  The Council of Great Lakes Governors developed a process for prior notice and consultation
    on proposed projects (Managing the Waters of the Great Lakes Basin, February 1987). It is the
    responsibility of the state or province in which the project is proposed to notify the other states
    and provinces and seek consensus and approval. States and provinces have 45 days from notifi-
    cation to provide comments or request a consultation meeting. Once all the states and provinces
    have replied, the lead state or province will notify the others of its decision on the project.



























Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 5 - 133                           March 1997








                      POLICY 40 - LAKE ERIE WATER LEVELS

        IT IS THE POLICY OF THE STATE OF OHIO TO PROMOTE THE DEVEL-
    OPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A LAKE LEVELS MANAGEMENT PLAN
    AGREEABLE TO THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA CONCERNING THE
    WATER LEVELS OF LAKE ERIE AND THE GREAT LAKES.

Authorities and Administration

    ODNR is the lead state agency in coordinating with the International Joint Commission (IJC)
on lake level issues. ODNR will work with the UC to mitigate high lake levels and implement
measures that reduce shore damage from high waters without accelerating shore erosion or harming
biological resources, recreational and residential interests, commercial navigation, and hydroelectric
power facilities. ODNR will also advocate that UC recommendations address the issues of low, high
and fluctuating lake levels in a balanced perspective.



































Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS      Part II 5 - 134                                 March 1997








                       POLICY 41 - WATER MANAGEMENT

       IT IS THE POLICY OF THE STATE OF OHIO TO COLLECT AND ANALYZE
   WATER RESOURCES INFORMATION TO PROMOTE WATER RESOURCES
   PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT BY:

   A. REOUIRING LARGE WATER WITHDRAWAL FACILITIES TO REGISTER
       THEIR CAPACITY AND SUBMIT ANNUAL WITHDRAWAL REPORTS (O.R.C.
       ï¿½ 1521.16);

   B. PREPARING WATER SUPPLY PLANS;

   C. PREPARING A LONG-TERM WATER RESOURCES PLAN FOR THE LAKE
       ERIE DRAINAGE BASIN;

   D. REQUIRING THE FILING OF WELL LOGS AND WELL-SEALING REPORTS
       (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1521.05);

   E. PREPARING TECHNICAL STUDIES AND MAPPING, DESIGNATING GROUND
       WATER STRESS AREAS, AND ASSISTING IN CONFLICT RESOLUTION
       (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1521.03(E) AND 1521.16(B)); AND

   F. PARTICIPATING WITH THE OTHER GREAT LAKES STATES AND PROV-
       INCES IN COOPERATIVE PROGRAMS AND MANAGEMENT OF GREAT
       LAKES BASIN WATER RESOURCES.

Authorities and Administration

A.  ODNR's Division of Water administers a water withdrawal facility registration program for
   water withdrawal facilities with a capacity of more than 100,000 gallons per day, O.R.C. ï¿½
    1521.16. Facilities must be registered within three months of completion and shall file an
   annual report with the Division of Water listing the amount of water withdrawn and other data.
   The registration and reporting of these water uses allows the state to identify the sources of
   water withdrawal, the types of uses, and the distribution of withdrawals and uses statewide.
   This information is critical for the proper development and management of water supplies and
   to assist in the investigation and resolution of water use conflicts.

B.  ODNR's Division of Water, under authority of O.R.C. ï¿½ 1521.03(B), collects and analyzes data
   and develops water supply plans for communities, upon request. The division, in cooperation
   with Ohio EPA's Division of Drinking and Ground Waters, assesses the state's water supply
   situation on a regional or site-specific basis and formulates immediate and long-term recom-
   mendations  for community  water supply source development.   In formulating these
   recommendations, the use of Lake Erie water is considered an alternative to the development


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 5 - 135                              March 1997








    of inland sources and is recommended when it is the least-cost solution for users within the
    Lake Erie drainage basin.

C.  ODNR's Division of Water is required to develop a long-term water resources plan for the Lake
    Erie drainage basin by September 1, 1998 (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1521.15). The plan is to include an
    inventory of surface and groundwater resources; an assessment of existing uses and future
    demand for withdrawals, diversions and consumptive uses; guidelines to minimize consumptive
    use; and guidelines and procedures to coordinate, conserve, develop, protect, use and manage
    the water resources of the Lake Erie drainage basin. The plan will serve, in part, as the basis
    for decisions on permit applications for water diversions.

D.  Any person who constructs or seals a well as defined in O.R.C. ï¿½ 1521.01(B) is required to keep
    a careful and accurate log of the construction or sealing and to file a well log or well-sealing
    report with the Division of Water, ODNR, for each well (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1521.05).

E.  Using the information on the well logs, the division produces county ground water resource
    maps that generally describe the expected ground water yields throughout the county. The
    division has the authority to assist in resolving ground water conflicts by conducting
    investigations, issuing a report of findings and recommendations, and holding public meetings
    or hearings (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1521.03(E)). The division responds to requests for ground water
    information and provides technical assistance to the public and to local, state, and federal
    agencies. The chief of the division also has the authority to designate a Ground Water Stress
    Area (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1521.16(B)), which will provide more detailed information on uses of ground
    water.

F.  As a part of the Great Lakes Charter, the Great Lakes states and provinces made a commitment
    to develop a basin water resource management program to "guide future development,
    management and conservation of the water resources of the Great Lakes basin." The framework
    for this basin water resource management program is similar to that of the long-term water
    resources plan in O.R.C. ï¿½ 1521.15. ODNR's Division of Water, in conjunction with its work
    on the Lake Erie basin plan, will coordinate with the Great Lakes states and provinces on the
    basin water resources management program. As with Ohio's Lake Erie basin plan, the basin
    water resource management plan is to serve as the basis for decisions on applications for water
    diversions.

    The Great Lakes states and provinces have developed the Great Lakes Regional Water Use Data
    Base. The Great Lakes Commission is the repository for the data. Each year states and
    provinces are to submit data on prescribed forms. A technical committee has been established
    to maintain and refine the protocol for reporting and compiling data.







Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 5 - 136                         March 1997








                                         CHAPTER 6

                             SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREAS

    The Ohio Coastal Management Program is a long-range and comprehensive approach to the
improved resolution of coastal problems. Yet there are many coastal areas with special conditions
that warrant immediate attention. These areas are distinguished by either their unique coastal-related
qualities or the intense competition for use of their resources. In many cases, these conditions occur
simultaneously, often forcing the most fragile and desirable regions to contend with the fiercest
developmental threats. As a result, inherent coastal values are placed in jeopardy, and the potential
uses of such areas are diminished. General planning and policies cannot adequately address such
critical situations; specific and direct action is needed. Establishment of Special Management Areas
(SMAs) in intended to address this need for heightened attention.

    SMA designation provides the basis for prioritizing local, state and federal government actions
concerning the special needs of certain areas. In most cases, sufficient authorities and regulations
are already in place; the problem is primarily that management may lack clarity and cohesion.
Therefore, the solution is not to create additional agencies or regulations, but rather to focus and
coalesce existing management efforts. The creation of SMAs will accomplish this by prioritizing
the allocation of funds to promote interagency cooperation, provide technical assistance, and support
research and local planning. This is particularly appropriate for those areas where the degree of state
or local commitment has been minimal or vague. SMA status will thus serve as an important tool
for those state agencies and local governments grappling with complex and pressing coastal issues.

    The OCMP differentiates between two SMA categories. The first, Areas of Particular Concern
(APC), are areas for which the OCMP provides for the establishment of use priorities for a broad
range of similar, or generic, areas. (Specific sites may also be designated as APCs, but all initial
OCMP designated APCs are generic.) The Area for Preservation and Restoration (APR) category
is used for specific sites requiring aggressive management to preserve or restore their conservation,
historical, recreational, ecological or aesthetic values. Federal funds available pursuant to the
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) may be used for construction, restoration or acquisition
purposes for designated APRs.

Past Desivnation Process

    The first stages of the SMA designation process actually began with the coastal program's
inception in 1974 (see Chapter 2). Various agencies conducted analyses and inventories of areas
with unique and significant natural, historical or cultural values; areas of high natural productivity
or those providing critical fish and wildlife habitat; areas with great recreation potential; areas
essential for coastal-dependent developments and facilities; areas with hydrological or geological
attributes necessary for industry, commerce and dredge spoil disposal; urban areas with competitive
shoreline and water uses; erosion and flood hazard areas; and areas needed to protect, maintain and
replenish coastal resources. Several reports resulted from these studies.


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS   Part II 6 - 1                                March 1997








    The public was given the opportunity to officially nominate areas for SMA status in 1977.
Nomination forms and accompanying explanations were disseminated through local newspapers and
a newsletter. Returned forms showed that public concern revolved mainly around critical erosion
areas, public access and recreational opportunities, islands, historic sites, and wetlands.

    Since 1979, a plethora of studies conducted by various groups and agencies has provided the
OCMP with additional information. The results of a survey conducted by the Lake Erie Shore Area
Redevelopment Task Force in 1988 were particularly useful. Respondents nominated sites for
special consideration and expressed their views that the most pressing issues were related to natural
areas and recreational use.

Generic APCs

    Public input enabled OCMP staff to compile a list (Appendix M) of approximately 100 sites
and areas for nomination. Such a large list, however, would have proven unwieldy for management
purposes. Additionally, the intent was not to create and use a list of specific sites to which explicit
standards could be applied, but rather to delineate broad groups of coastal areas facing similar prob-
lems for which general use priorities could be devised. Using this approach, all sites with similar
attributes could be managed in a relatively equal and consistent fashion. Therefore, the list of
specific sites has been condensed into eight "generic" Areas of Particular Concern (APCs). This
method is advantageous because it channels management efforts toward areas of need, while still
providing flexibility in the prioritization and allocation of funds for APCs. (Note that while these
initial designations are of the generic type, federal regulations allow for site-specific APCs [15
C.F.R. ï¿½ 923.21]. The OCMP may therefore designate specific sites in the future if such sites are
not already included as generic APCs.)

    The following designations include a brief description of the generic APCs' problems and
guidelines for use priorities. Priority guidelines are especially important because they provide the
basis for special management approaches, serve as a common reference point for resolving conflicts
and define activities of lowest priority. For every APC, water-dependent uses are determined to have
top priority. Among such uses, those that are most compatible with the needs and values of the
particular APC will have highest priority. Lowest consideration is given to those activities that
adversely affect the area.

    Critical Fish Habitat - (See Policy 27.) Many portions of Lake Erie and its bays are considered
Critical Fish Habitat used by various fish species for spawning, nurturing, feeding, migration and
wintering, or refuge. ODNR's Division of Wildlife (DOW) has conducted research on the following
parameters to determine that parts of Lake Erie are most critical for the survival of the fisheries
population:

     1. Biological - benthos, phytoplankton, zooplankton, fish populations;




Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 6 - 2                              March 1997








    2. Physio-chemical - water bathymetry and morphometry, water quality (temperature,
         dissolved oxygen, etc.), lake bottom conditions; and

    3.  Fishing Mortality - sport and commercial harvests.

    Information was used to devise maps of the Critical Fisheries Habitat and to provide the
background for proper management decisionmaking. This habitat includes areas that are located
both near and offshore; those of vegetated and nonvegetated conditions; and those with different
bottom sediment types. Such habitat faces a wide array of threats, ranging from toxic chemicals to
sedimentation and turbidity to physical alteration of the actual habitat area. Uses that maintain or
improve the integrity of such habitat and support a sound fisheries population will receive top
priority. Low priority will be given to activities that harm the natural integrity of this habitat.

    Generic APC status is recommended for these critical fish habitat areas, and their preservation
is of highest priority. Local, state and federal governments may assist in the OCMP's APC
protection efforts through acquisition-protection measures or through the control of activities on
contiguous land areas to minimize nonpoint source pollution.

    The following authorities are used to protect the fish habitats of the Ohio portion of Lake Erie:

    * The State has overall authority as proprietor in trust of Lake Erie resources for the people
         of the state. ODNR is responsible for the leasing of submerged lands (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.02
         and 1506.11).

    * The ownership of and the title to all wild animals, including fish, is entrusted in the state
         of Ohio for the benefit of all its citizens (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1531.02).

    * The Director, Ohio EPA has the authority to issue or deny a Section 401 Water Quality
         Certification to any applicant for a federal permit or license for any activity that may result
         in any discharge into the waters of the state (O.R.C. ï¿½ 6111.03(0) and 6111.03(P)).

    ODNR staff reviews U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) Section 10/404 permit applications
and Ohio EPA uses the Section 401 Water Quality Certification process to prevent adverse impacts
from dredging or filling in prime fish habitat areas. Ohio EPA also helps maintain high quality fish
habitat by enforcing compliance with water quality standards set forth in O.A.C. Chapter 3745-1.

    Ports and Harbors - (See policies in "Ports and Shore Area Development" section, Chapter 5.)
Ohio's Lake Erie communities have flourished primarily because of their location at naturally
protected river harbors along the Lake. Several of the ports that developed at these harbors have
grown to possess immense commercial significance for Ohio's statewide economy. They continue
to be one of the greatest factors in maintaining the economic well-being of the urban coastal areas.
In addition, the smaller coastal river mouths have promoted the development of heavily used small
boat harbors. Larger ports also support, to a varying extent, recreational boating facilities. Both


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 6 - 3                               March 1997








small boat harbors and large-port complexes are increasingly subject to intense pressures for
commercial-industrial uses and for public access.

    Generic APC designation is recommended for Ohio's Lake Erie ports and harbors because of
their vital importance to Ohio's economy and to the recreational enjoyment of its people. High
priority will be given to those uses that improve the capabilities of Ohio's ports and harbors to
accommodate water-dependent transportation, recreation and public access activities. Any uses that
infringe upon a port or harbor's chief functions will be of low priority.

    Proper planning is necessary to assure that port related needs and other coastal uses, such as
recreation and public access, are considered. Port authorities have the responsibility to carry out
such planning efforts. Local zoning regulations can be used to ensure compatible land uses in the
harbor areas, especially to provide for necessary expansion of harbor-dependent development and
storage.

    The Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT), helps promote the appropriate use and
commercial development of ports and harbors (O.R.C. ï¿½ 5501.04).

    ODNR is responsible for the inventory, evaluation and promotion of public access to the Lake
Erie shoreline (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.05).

    The removal of minerals, sand, gravel, stone or other substances is regulated by ODNR pursuant
to O.R.C. ï¿½ 1505.07. A lease or permit from ODNR is required before any improvements or
developments may be made on the water or lands underlying the waters of Lake Erie (O.R.C. ï¿½
1506.11).

    Dredging activities are managed by Ohio EPA, consistent with the state's water quality standards
(O.R.C. ï¿½ 6111.03(0) and 6111.03(P)). Before any dredge material disposal into waters of the state
may be allowed, Ohio EPA must first issue a Section 401 Water Quality certification.

     State Nature Preserves and Wildlife Areas - (See Policies 13 and 14 and policies under "Fish
and Wildlife Management," Chapter 5.) Ohio's Lake Erie region possesses a diverse system of
natural areas and wildlife habitats. The viability of numerous plant communities, wildlife
populations and endangered species depends upon their proper management. Scientific research and
public education is greatly enhanced through interpretive uses of these areas. Wildlife areas also
provide the state's greatest recreational opportunities for fishing and hunting. However, the number
of areas capable of fulfilling nature preserve and wildlife habitat functions diminishes each year, and
those areas that do remain in a natural state are faced with numerous threats to their environmental
integrity. Lowest priority uses will be determined in accordance with each area's management plan.

     SMA designation for state nature preserves and wildlife areas places a high priority on
maintaining the natural qualities of these refuges. Uses of high priority are those that promote,
respectively, preservation or wildlife management, undeveloped recreation, restoration, scientific


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 6 - 4                              March 1997








research and public education. Low priority activities are those that would adversely affect the
primary values for which such areas were acquired and are dedicated.

    ODNR's Division of Natural Areas and Preserves (DNAP) is authorized by O.R.C. Chapter
1517 to acquire and accept the dedication of public and privately owned lands as nature preserves.
Also, under O.R.C. ï¿½ 1501.01, the Director, ODNR may accept bequests of lands and acquire
property by purchase or lease, with the authority to appropriate property. The Division has authority
to manage and protect such lands for educational and scientific use, visitation and protection of
natural features, including endangered species. DNAP is authorized to inventory, plan, study and
regulate the use of such areas. Currently dedicated nature preserves in the coastal area are Mentor
Marsh, Headlands Dunes, Old Woman Creek National Estuarine Research Reserve (OWC-NERR),
Sheldon Marsh, Dupont Marsh and Lakeside Daisy. State nature preserves are identified as APRs
on the coastal boundary maps (Appendix B).

    ODNR's DOW is authorized to acquire land and water areas as wildlife areas and to manage
them using sound wildlife management techniques (O.R.C. Chapter 1531).

    ODNR also cooperates extensively with conservation and preservation groups such as The
Nature Conservancy, The National Audubon Society and the Ohio Historical Society to acquire and
manage such lands.

    Coastal Erosion and Flood Hazard Areas - (See policies under "Coastal Erosion and Flooding"
Chapter 5.) The serious damages that result from flooding and erosion dictate the need for joint
efforts by state agencies and local communities regarding coastal erosion and flood hazard area
management. Portions of Ohio's Lake Erie shore have been identified as coastal erosion areas (see
Policy 1), while the entire shoreline is subject to wave attack and erosion forces. Flood prone areas
have been identified along the entire shore, but potential flood damage is particularly severe at
stream mouths and in low relief areas of the western basin.

    Both flooding and erosion are the results of natural and sometimes unpredictable forces, and the
resultant damages are often the result of unwise development practices. The promotion of passive
land use in areas most subject to such forces is the most efficient method for reducing damages.
Therefore, high priority uses are open space, natural area preservation and undeveloped recreation
(on public land). Uses that do not conform with flood insurance program regulations or those not
in accordance with rules governing development within coastal erosion areas are not permitted.

    O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.04 requires that communities with coastal flood hazard areas either participate
in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) or enact regulations that meet or exceed the
standards required for such participation. O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.06 authorizes the Director of ODNR to
designate coastal erosion areas. Technical information for these coastal erosion areas has been
compiled by the Division of Geological Survey under rules promulgated in June 1996, and maps
defining coastal erosion areas have been prepared. The construction, erection or redevelopment of
any permanent structures within a coastal erosion area requires a permit from either the director or


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 6 - 5                            March 1997








the local government of a county or municipality that is enforcing a Lake Erie Coastal Erosion Area
resolution or ordinance approved by the director (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.07). No person shall build or
construct a beach or erect groins or other shore protection structures to arrest erosion along the Ohio
shore of Lake Erie without first receiving a permit from ODNR's Division of Engineering (O.R.C.
ï¿½ 1507.04).

    Specifically included in this generic APC designation would be all areas identified by ODNR
as coastal erosion areas pursuant to O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.06, all coastal flood hazard areas designated under
the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-234) and all Ohio units of the federal Coastal
Barrier Resources System.

    Public Parks and Access Areas - (See Policies 21, 22 and 23.) Of all shore uses, recreational
areas have the widest constituency of users. Providing adequate access is the only way to make the
recreational opportunities of Lake Erie available to the public. Public lakeshore parks are, however,
experiencing increasing problems. Budget constraints impede proper planning and maintenance of
local parks. Additionally, many parks are developed to satisfy smaller local demands rather than
those of the region as a whole. These factors lead to park deterioration or destruction due to overuse
or lack of supervision.

    The OCMP recognizes both the need for additional recreational opportunities and the mediation
of user conflicts that may arise. Therefore, generic APC designation is proposed for all waterfront
parks and public boating and fishing access sites within the coastal area. High-priority uses are those
that provide public access and promote public recreation in such areas. Uses of low priority are
those that inhibit the recreational potential of an area.

    ODNR's Division of Parks and Recreation (DPR) is authorized to create, supervise, operate,
protect and maintain a system of state parks and promote their use by the public (O.R.C. Chapter
1541).

    Park districts (county, township and municipal) have been established for the purposes of
acquiring, planning, developing, protecting and maintaining or improving lands for parks (O.R.C.
ï¿½ 1545.11).

    The Division of Watercraft, whenever it deems it to be in the best interest of the state, may
construct, maintain, and repair refuge harbors and other projects providing for marine recreational
activities (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1547.72).

    The Chief of the Division of Wildlife, with the approval of the Director of ODNR, may acquire
by gift, lease, purchase or otherwise, sites that provide fishing and hunting access (O.R.C. ï¿½
1531.06).






Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 6 - 6                               March 1997








          Pursuant to O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.05, the Director of ODNR has prepared an inventory and evaluation
      of public access facilities, and makes policy recommendations for enhancing public access to Lake
     Erie.

          Wetlands - (See Policy 12.) Approximately 33,000 acres of wetlands along the Ohio shore form
      one of the most valuable portions of the entire Lake Erie ecosystem. This valuable state resource
     provides extremely important habitat for fish, game and waterfowl. Tremendous economic benefits
     result from the hunting and fishing of this wildlife. Wetlands also lessen the damaging effects of
      flooding by holding back floodwaters, and along lakeshores by absorbing wave energy. Their water
      filtering and purification abilities improve overall water quality.

          Ohio's coastal wetlands have been severely depleted due to extreme development pressures.
     The generic APC categorization of wetlands provides for the recognition that all wetlands are worthy
      of protection or mitigative measures prior to any change in their current use. High priority uses for
     wetlands are those that preserve and restore natural attributes and serve natural preservation, wildlife
     habitat, hunting, floodwater retention, goundwater recharge, scientific research and environmental
     education functions. Any other uses are of lower priority.

          The state has authority to acquire and manage wetlands through the DNAP for state nature
      preserves (O.R.C. Chapter 1517) and through the DOW for state wildlife areas (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1531.06).
      ODNR staff will actively seek additional matching funds for wetland protection efforts and will
      continue to inventory and survey wetland areas. Additionally, Ohio's Capital Improvements budget
:O    for fiscal years 1989 and 1990 created the Ohio Wetlands Fund and targeted $400,000 specifically
      for the purchase of wetlands.

          Ohio EPA protects the water quality of Lake Erie wetlands through the exercise of its Section
      401 Water Quality Certification authority in accordance with O.A.C. Chapter 3745-32.

          Ohio EPA and ODNR are working on several wetlands initiatives, cooperatively and
      independently. Ohio EPA, under a State Wetlands Program Development grant from U.S. EPA,
      coordinated the development of a State Comprehensive Wetlands Strategy in close coordination with
      ODNR, other state agencies, county, local, and regional governments, and with significant input
      from the private sector and agencies such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Department
      of Agriculture. ODNR, DOW, has inventoried coastal wetlands, working in cooperation with the
      Division of Real Estate and Land Management and U.S. Soil Conservation Service. Wetland
      inventory maps will be available at county Soil and Water Conservation District offices.

          Protection and restoration of wetlands important to waterfowl is being addressed under the
      North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP). Lake Erie coastal marshes are within a
      high-priority focus area of the plan. DOW is cooperating with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
      private landowners and independent organizations such as Ducks Unlimited to acquire, protect and
      restore critical wetland habitat.



      Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part 11 6 - 7                             March 1997








    Local units of government will be encouraged to use land-use controls to protect valuable
wetlands. Local authorities may also preserve wetlands by acquisition and maintenance as natural
areas and wildlife refuges. ODNR can provide technical assistance and management guidelines for
such efforts through provision of the inventory maps and the critical areas program as well as
financial assistance through the Land and Water Conservation Program.

    Historic and Archaeological Sites - (See Policy 26.) Historic and archaeological sites are
districts, sites, buildings, structures and objects significant to Lake Erie's cultural and historic
heritage. Such areas provide Ohioans with a strong sense of their past and Lake Erie's importance
in the development of the Great Lakes region. Historic and archaeological sites provide a valuable
record for scientists in studying the history and culture of the region. They are also important tourist
attractions.

    The OCMP recognizes the great importance of these historic, cultural and archaeological
resources to the coastal area. SMA designation is proposed to assure that coastal activities and
developments occur without harm to such reminders of our heritage. High-priority uses are those
that preserve, restore and protect the historical or archaeological nature of sites. Activities that
destroy or inhibit restoration are of lowest priority.

    The Ohio Historical Society (OHS) will update coastal historical archaeological site records and
issue permits pursuant to O.R.C. ï¿½ 149.54 to control archaeological survey or salvage work requiring
compliance with the historic landmarks preservation notification procedures in O.R.C. ï¿½ 149.55.
OHS may also designate, acquire and manage sites that it feels are worthy of National Historic
Register protection (O.R.C. ï¿½ 149.30). Local governments may also acquire such sites or use zoning
laws and landmark preservation ordinances to assure that development does not detract from a site's
historic or cultural significance. Areas that are of state interest are purchased through appropriations
from the General Assembly.

    Areas of Concern - (See Policy 10.) The lower Cuyahoga, Maumee, Black and Ashtabula
Rivers have been designated as Areas of Concern (AOC) by the Water Quality Board of the
International Joint Commission (IJC); these AOCs lie partially within Ohio's coastal area. The UJC
designation was based on the severe water quality problems and the degree of use impairment within
each of the four areas. (AOC designation should not be confused with the APC category used by the
OCMP).

     To guide and assess cleanup efforts, the Great Lakes states and Ontario have committed to the
development of Remedial Action Plans (RAPs) for each AOC under the oversight of the IJC. RAPs
embody an ecosystem or multimedia approach and are systematic plans designed to improve de-
graded conditions and restore beneficial uses. Ohio EPA, as the state's lead agency for water quality
issues, is responsible for the development and implementation of the RAPs. The public, industry
and all levels of government must actually implement such plans. RAPs represent a marked
departure from past trends in pollution control because they address more than just individual point
sources of pollution. Rather, a RAP considers the full array of inputs, as well as the authorities


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 6 - 8                              March 1997








responsible for such inputs. Furthermore, all pertinent stakeholders in the AOCs' future, including
industry, government and the public, are included in the RAP planning process.

    Information on the progress of RAPs for Ohio's four AOCs is included in Appendix N. Figure
5 shows the relative locations of the AOCs on Lake Erie and their corresponding watershed areas.

    The critical nature of AOCs and the inherent difficulty in using such a comprehensive approach
make it appropriate to establish a generic APC category for such areas. APC designation for those
portions of these AOCs that lie within the OCMP coastal area may provide the additional support
needed to achieve the desired goal of improved water quality for Ohio's AOCs. High priority uses
are those that contribute to remedial actions and do not promote further degradation of the AOC.
Low priority is given to uses that negatively affect water quality or compound the existing problems.

    AOC remedial programs must be incorporated into Ohio's existing water management
framework. Although the state lacks AOC specific authority, several of its agencies are responsible
for programs that, directly or indirectly, affect Ohio's AOCs. Pertinent agency responsibilities are
those related primarily to water quality, the degradation of which is the fundamental problem
underlying every AOC.

Specific APRs

    Areas for Preservation and Restoration (APRs) are specific sites for which an additional level
of protection, beyond that afforded through generic APC designation, has been deemed necessary.
These are designated sites where the preservation and restoration of conservation, recreational,
ecological, historical or aesthetic values are the dominant public policies. In APRs, any activities
that are inconsistent with such policies shall be excluded. Further, water-dependent uses generally
are higher priority than those that are not dependent upon water. Although funds may also be used
to acquire sites that meet APR designation criteria, Ohio remains sensitive to the potential impacts
on local economies that might result from public land acquisition. APRs are generally local, state
or federally owned lands that receive maximum protection via the application of strict regulations
governing their use.

    Two fundamental conditions must be met for a site to receive APR designation. First, it must
have current value, or potential value when restored, as either a recreational, natural or historic area.
Secondly, the special values of such a site must be available, or potentially available, for public use,
recognizing that restrictions on this use may be necessary to protect the site's character. Private lands
without public access cannot be considered APRs.









Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 6 - 9                               March 1997









                                              FIGURE 5
                          Relative Locations of Areas of Concern (AOCs)







      20    0    20   401  60       0 
       _......  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I
               KILOMETERS


42.5







                                                 ~Et1%~ ~~bASH TABUL 4




    Toledo           Ce

                                              wCeland











                                          LlLake e0Erie































Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS        Part II 6 - 10                                   March 1997








          The following list briefly describes the seven site-specific APRs located within Ohio's coastal
     area:
          1.  DuPont Marsh State Nature Preserve is a 113-acre example of the once-prevalent Lake
              Erie estuarine marsh community. It includes freshwater marsh, old field, and mixed
              emergent riverine vegetation types, and is home to rare plants such as the leafy blue flag
              iris and hairy-fruited sedge, and is visited by bald eagles. Additional acquisition is needed
              to more fully protect the site.

          2.  Headland Dunes State Nature Preserve is one of the best sand dune-vegetation
              communities of its kind in Ohio. This isolated 16 acre tract provides valuable habitat for
               a rare assemblage of plants and animals characteristic of the sand beach and dune
              communities that were once common along the shores of Lake Erie.

          3.  Lorain Lighthouse is listed in the National Historic Register. Constructed in 1917 at
              Lorain, Ohio, this lighthouse is preserved and managed by the Lorain Historical Society.
              It is in need of structural work to prevent further deterioration of the base.

          4.  Mentor Marsh State Nature Preserve is a 666-acre marsh that includes approximately
               50 species of deciduous trees and extensive coverings of Phragmites. As one of the first
              National Natural Landmark areas designated by the U.S. Department of the Interior in
               1966, it provides habitat for animal species such as red-headed woodpeckers, long-billed
              marsh wrens, mink, red fox, and weasel.

--0       5.  Old Woman Creek State Nature Preserve and National Estuarine Research Reserve
               (OWC-NERR) is one of Ohio's best remaining examples of a Great Lakes-type estuary.
               The 572-acre reserve encompasses a variety of habitats including freshwater marshes,
               swamp forests, a barrier sand beach, upland forests, estuarine waters and near-shore Lake
               Erie. As a natural transition zone between land and water, the OWC-NERR provides
               valuable habitat .for a wide array of plant and animal life from microscopic algae, aquatic
               vascular plants, numerous fish, reptile and amphibian species; to hundreds of species of
              birds, including the American bald eagle. The wetlands ecosystem of the reserve performs
               valuable natural functions such as filtration of stream sediments, nutrients, and pollutants,
               and affords protection from coastal erosion and flooding.

          6.  Sheldon Marsh State Nature Preserve is a 463-acre preserve containing some of the last
               remaining undeveloped stretches of lakeshore in the Sandusky Bay region. Preserved are
               habitat relicts of the original lake-marsh-forest ecosystem such as old field, hardwood
               forest, woodland swamp, cattail marsh, barrier sand beach and open water. Nearly 300 bird
               species and many wildflowers, including the spectacular cardinal flower, are known to the
               area. Sheldon Marsh is well known for its valuable habitat for fledgling American bald
               eagles, migratory waterfowl, shore birds and wood warblers. Additional acquisition will
               be needed for increased site protection.



     Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 6 - 11                             March 1997








    7. Lakeside Daisy - Colleen "Casey" Taylor and Ruth E. Fiscus - State Nature Preserve
         is a 19-acre preserve in Ottawa County that protects a portion of the population of
        Hymenoxys herbacea (E.L. Greene) Cusick, Lakeside Daisy, a federally protected
         threatened and state-protected endangered plant. Additional land acquisition is needed.

Future Designation Process

    Despite the aforementioned generic APCs and specific APRs, Ohio realizes that SMA
nomination and designation was not merely a one-time exercise. Changing conditions may dictate
the need for additional APCs and APRs. SMA nominations for APCs (either generic or site-specific)
or site-specific APRs may be submitted by any interested party. The proposal must include the
following information:

    1.  General area description showing that the area is within the OCMP boundary.

    2.  Explanation of why current management of the area is inadequate and why the area's
         problems are not covered under existing OCMP policies or SMA categories.

    3.  Suggested management policies that will resolve the area's problems.

    4.  Agencies capable of implementing policy directives.

    The nominations are to be submitted to ODNR, which solicits review comments from:

    i.  Appropriate federal, state and local agencies;

    2. Coastal Resources Advisory Council; and

    3.  Members of the public with an expressed interest in coastal issues.

    A new APC category or site or specific APR site will be authorized if ODNR determines both
that the primary values of the area in question are being degraded and that the existing institutional
frameworks are insufficient to remedy the situation. If creation of a new category is necessary,
ODNR shall prepare a statement that justifies designation of the new SMA. The statement shall
include an explanation of how improved management strategies will alleviate the principal concerns.
The new SMA would then be submitted to the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
(OCRM) for inclusion in the OCMP, then announced in OCMP materials, made part of the public
record, and formally added to the list of Ohio SMAs, if approved by OCRM.








Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part 11 6 - 12                             March 1997








    Coastal Resources of National Sianificance

         Section 306(d)(13) of the CZMA provides that a state coastal management program must
    provi'de for "(A) the inventory and designation of areas that contain one or more coastal resources
    of national significance; and (B) specific and enforceable standards to protect such resources."

         As indicated in the bibliography below, the State of Ohio has inventoried and mapped the
    following coastal resources of national significance: coastal wetlands, reefs, beaches and dunes,
    barrier islands, and fish and wildlife habitat. Lake Erie's estuarine systems have been described in
    a NOAA publication, Lake Erie Estuarine Systems: Issues, Resources, Status, and Management
    (1989). Wetlands and critical fish habitat areas have been designated as generic APCs. State nature
    preserves and wildlife areas, several of which contain significant fish and wildlife habitat as well as
    barrier sand beaches and dunes, are designated as generic APCs. Six stretches of undeveloped
    coastal barriers have been designated units in the Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS), which
    prohibits federal flood insurance and financial assistance for development. Ohio has added five
    additional areas to the CBRS, including several low-lying seasonal dunes, (at Sheldon Marsh, Old
    Woman Creek, Kelleys Island North Pond, Mentor Marsh/Headland Dunes and Arcola Creek) for
    inclusion as otherwise-protected areas in the CBRS. These areas are owned and managed as nature
    preserves or state parks by the State of Ohio and The Nature Conservancy (Arcola Creek).

         Enforceable standards regarding these resources are detailed in Policies 1, 2, 12, 13, 14, 16, 27
    and 29. As described earlier in this chapter, the SMA nomination and designation process is an
O   ongoing, one intended to provide additional protection and special management as new areas and/or
    concerns regarding these resources become apparent.

    Wetlands

    *   National Wetlands Inventory. U.S. Department of the Interior.

    ï¿½   State of Ohio Wetlands Inventory.  Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of
         Wildlife.

         The wetlands inventory is conducted using satellite imagery. Additional information, such as
    topographic maps, soil surveys and field surveys are used to assist in the location, description and
    classification of wetlands. This is an ongoing inventory. Ohio has completed the inventory of
    probable wetland sites and is in the process of printing hard-copy maps for public distribution. Maps
    for the nine coastal area counties are available in final form.

    Coastal Erosion and Flood Hazard Areas

       * Lake Erie Shore Erosion and Flooding, Reports of Investigation (Lucas, Lake, Eric and
         Sandusky counties). 1976, 1978 and 1980. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division



    Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 6 - 13                           March 1997








    of Geological Survey. These studies are a series of county-wide investigations that quantify
    historic erosion and recession.

Beaches and Dunes

*   Resources of the Lake Erie Island Region. 1977. Center for Lake Erie Area Research.
    (Included shore type, length and percent beach).

ï¿½ Coastal Hazards:  Recession, Erosion and Flooding.  1977. Ohio Department of Natural
    Resources, Coastal Zone Management Section.

ï¿½   Beach Inventory.  1980. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological
    Survey. (Excluded islands and Sandusky Bay.)

ï¿½ Coastal Hazard Management: Shore Erosion. 1982. Ohio Department of Natural Resources,
    Coastal Zone Management Section.

ï¿½   Inventory of Shoretype, Subaqueous Nearshore Composition and Bluff Lithology. 1987. U.S.
    Army Corps of Engineers, Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological
    Survey.

ï¿½ Inventory of Critical Erosion Areas. 1987. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division
    of Geological Survey. Data incorporated into U.S. Army Corps of Engineers database.

ï¿½   Beaches and Dunes of Ohio's Lake Erie Shore. 1993. Ohio Department of Natural Resources,
    Division of Geological Survey. Using aerial photos verified by field studies, the division has
    compiled file data and maps (unpublished) documenting the location and size of beaches and
    dunes along the entire Ohio Lake Erie shore.

*   Lake Erie Shore Erosion and Flooding, Reports of Investigations (Lucas County 1978, Lake
    County 1976, Erie and Sandusky counties 1980, and Ashtabula County 1983). Ohio
    Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey. These studies are a series
    of county-wide investigations that quantify historic erosion and recession.

Barrier Islands

    Only one barrier island exists along Ohio's Lake Erie shore. That island, at Cedar Point, was
previously the northwestern end of a long sand spit offshore, northeast of Sandusky. An island was
created when a breach occur-red near Point Retreat in the fall of 1972.







Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 6 - 14                        March 1997








. ~Fish and Wildlife Areas

         * The Fishing Potential, Special Management Areas, and their Interaction with Dredge Spoil Sites
           in Lake Erie. 1977. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Center for Lake Erie Area
           Research. Includes inventories and maps of critical habitat and substrate types for Lake Eric
           fish species.

         * Status and Trend Highlights: Ohio's Lake Erie Fish and Fisheries. Annual Reports. Ohio
           Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife.

         * Natural Heritage Database, Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Natural Areas
            and Preserves. The database is an ongoing process involving constant update and refinement
           of information, locating the elements of the natural world which, if preserved, will preserve
           diversity. Habitats of vulnerable plant and animal species, representative examples of
           ecological communities and unique or outstanding natural features are located. The Heritage
           Data Base results in a more comprehensive identification of Ohio's biological resources than
           was possible with previous inventories. This is accomplished through its element-based
            approach that focuses first on the components of natural diversity.

         *Ohio Breeding Bird Atlas. 199 1. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Natural
            Areas and Preserves.

 .     6  ~~Fish and wildlife resources of the Great Lakes coastal wetlands within the United States,
            Volume 1: Overview, Volume 3: Lake Erie. 1981. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
            Washington, D.C., FWS/8 1/02-vl1,v3.

         * Nesting and migration areas of birds of the U.S. Great Lakes (30 April to 23 August, 1976).
            1979. W.C. Scharf, et al.

       Estuaries

         * Lake Erie Estuarine Systems:  Issues, Resources, Status, and Management.  1989. U.S.
            Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

       R eefs

         * Physical characteristics of the reef area of western Lake Erie.  1972. Ohio Department of
            Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey Report of Investigation.








       Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 6 -15                           March 1997








                                         CHAPTER 7
                                 FEDERAL CONSISTENCY

    The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) requires that federal actions reasonably likely to
affect any land or water use or natural resource of the coastal zone, regardless of location, be
consistent with approved state coastal management programs. Federal actions include:

    * Federal agency activities and development projects;
    * Private applicant activities that require federal licenses, permits or other forms of approval;
         and

    * State and local government activities conducted with federal assistance.

    A complete list of these federal activities is provided at the end of this chapter. Any change to
the list of federal activities will be made using the program modification process described in
Appendix O.

    The OCMP is a comprehensive program. Besides using the policies and authorities embodied
in the state coastal management law (O.R.C. Chapter 1506), the OCMP integrates other state rules,
regulations and policies to protect uses and resources of the coastal area. These are the enforceable
policies to be addressed by federal agencies and federal permit applicants in their consistency
determinations and certifications. These authorities are described in Chapter 5 of this program
document.

    The consistency review process will be conducted and coordinated by ODNR, REALM.
Consistency review findings will be developed with consideration of relevant comments and
information supplied by other state agencies, areawide clearinghouses and local jurisdictions.
Agencies needing guidance on policies or procedures regarding consistency review should contact
the Coastal Management Administrator, REALM.

    Administrative procedures for implementing federal consistency requirements are described
below for each category. Terms used herein are as defined in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce, federal regulations, 15 C.F.R. Part 930, which
are incorporated by reference herein.

1.  Consistencv for Federal Activities and Development Proiects

    The CZMA 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 shall be carried out in a manner
which is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of approved
state management programs" (16 U.S.C. ï¿½ 1456(c)(1)). Federal agency activities are any functions
performed by or on behalf of a federal agency in the exercise of its statutory responsibilities, but does
not include the granting of a federal license or permit. A federal development project is a federal


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 7 - 1                               March 1997








activity involving the planning, construction, modification, or removal of public works, facilities,
or other structures; and the acquisition, utilization, or disposal of land or water resources. (15 C.F.R.
ï¿½ 930.31).

    Federal agencies must review proposed actions, whether within or outside the coastal area,
affecting any land or water use or natural resource of the coastal area, to determine that they are
consistent with the OCMP. The determination provides Ohio with the opportunity to ensure that
proposed activities are consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the OCMP. The
consistency process also helps to maintain the necessary communication and coordination between
all levels of government to ensure the wise management of coastal resources.

    Consistency Determinations by Federal Agencies

    It is the responsibility of all federal agencies, pursuant to 15 C.F.R. ï¿½ 930.37(a), to determine
whether their activities affect Ohio's coastal area and are subject to consistency requirements. The
OCMP and NOAA regulations consider all federal agency development projects within Ohio's
coastal area as defined in O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.01(A) to be activities affecting the coastal area as defined
in O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.01(A). Each federal agency is responsible for reviewing all of its activities within
Ohio's coastal area as well as all of its activities that are outside the coastal area but within the Lake
Erie watershed in Ohio to determine whether they affect the coastal area. 15 C.F.R. ï¿½ 930.33. (The
Lake Erie watershed in Ohio is shown in Figure 6 and encompasses the following U.S. Geological
Survey hydrologic cataloging units in Ohio: Raisin L092, Ottawa-Stony L093, Maumee L094,
Cedar-Portage L095, Sandusky L096, Huron-Vermilion L097, Black-Rocky L098, Cuyahoga L099,
Grand L101, Ashtabula-Chagrin L102, Chautauqua-Conneaut L103.) The list of federal activities
that are subject to consistency review is included at the end of this chapter. 15 C.F.R. ï¿½ 930.35(a).
Other federal activities not listed at the end of this chapter will be monitored with the assistance of
and consultation with state and local agencies participating in its intergovernmental review process.
15 C.F.R. ï¿½ 930.35(b).

    Federal agencies shall submit to the Director of ODNR consistency determinations for all
federal activities affecting the coastal area. The Coastal Management Section, REALM, will then
initiate a formal public notice and comment process and conduct the state's consistency review of
the proposal. Consistency reviews will incorporate ODNR's interdisciplinary environmental review
and consultation with other agencies with responsibilities in the coastal area. The Coastal
Management Section, REALM, will solicit comments from appropriate agencies and incorporate
appropriate comments and recommendations into findings that will support the director's agreement
or disagreement with the federal agency's consistency determination. Consistency determinations
shall be submitted to ODNR at the earliest practicable time in the planning of the activity, but before
the federal agency has reached a significant point of decision making in its review process. A
consistency determination must be submitted to ODNR at least 90 days before federal approval of
the activity, unless ODNR and the agency agree to extend the notification period beyond 90 days.




Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 7 - 2                              March 1997








0



                     Ohio's Lake Erie Watershed








        0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



















                                 Figure 6

     Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 7 - 3  March 1997








15 C.F.R. ï¿½ 930.34. Procedures for requesting and agreeing upon an extension shall be in
memoranda of understanding between ODNR and the respective federal agencies.

    The consistency determination for a federal activity affecting the Ohio coastal area shall,
pursuant to 15 C.F.R. ï¿½ 930.39, include:

    * A brief statement indicating whether the proposed activity will be undertaken in a manner
         consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the OCMP;

    * A detailed description of the proposed activity and associated facilities; and

    * Comprehensive data and information to support the federal agency's consistency statement.

    If a federal agency determines that a proposed activity would affect the coastal area and be
inconsistent with the OCMP, but compliance would otherwise be prohibited based upon
requirements of federal law applicable to the agency's operations, the agency shall notify ODNR of
its determination. Notification should be made through direct correspondence from the federal
agency to the Director of ODNR when that determination is made. Pursuant to 15 C.F.R. ï¿½ 930.32,
the notification must clearly describe the proposed activity and cite and describe the applicable
federal laws or authorities that limit the agency's compliance with the OCMP.

    If more than one federal agency is involved in an activity or related activities in or affecting
Ohio's coastal area, a single consistency determination should be submitted for all the agencies. In
such cases, the federal agencies shall determine which agency shall prepare and submit the
consistency determination. The consistency determination shall be transmitted to ODNR at least 90
days before final decisions are made by any of the participating agencies. The determination must
indicate whether each of the proposed activities is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with
the OCMP, and must include information on each proposed activity sufficient to support the
consistency determination. 15 C.F.R. ï¿½ 930.40.

    If a federal agency decides that a consistency determination is not required, the agency shall
notify ODNR of its decision as soon as possible, but at least 90 days before final approval of the
activity, unless the federal agency and ODNR agree to an alternate schedule. The notification shall
briefly set forth the reasons for the negative determination. 15 C.F.R. ï¿½ 930.35(d).

    Consistency determinations will be required for ongoing federal activities affecting the coastal
area, other than development projects initiated prior to approval of the OCMP, which are governed
by the statutory authority under which the federal agency retains discretion to reassess and modify
the activity. Federal agencies shall provide consistency determinations to ODNR no later than 120
days after management program approval for ongoing activities listed or identified through
monitoring as subject to consistency with the OCMP. 15 C.F.R. ï¿½ 930.38(a).




Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS   Part II 7 - 4                               March 1997








    A consistency determination will be required for major, phased federal development project
decisions made following program approval for development projects initiated prior to program
approval. The federal agency responsible for the project shall consider coastal area effects not fully
evaluated at the outset of the project. This provision shall not apply to phased federal decisions that
were specifically described, considered and approved prior to program approval. 15 C.F.R. ï¿½
930.38(b).

    The State of Ohio reserves the right to request a consistency determination from a federal
agency for a proposed federal activity that, in the opinion of ODNR, may affect the coastal area. The
OCMP will monitor federal activities not listed herein and will immediately notify the federal
agencies of unlisted federal activities affecting the coastal area that require a review. If the OCMP
receives notice of the proposed activity and does not provide notification within 45 days of the
issuance of the notice, the program waives its right to review the unlisted activity. 15 C.F.R. ï¿½
930.54.

    In cases where a federal agency will be performing a repeated activity, other than a development
project, the agency may develop a general consistency determination. This general consistency
determination may only be used in situations where the incremental actions are repetitive or periodic,
substantially similar in nature, and do not affect the coastal area when performed separately. If a
general consistency determination is issued, the federal agency must consult with ODNR on a
periodic basis to discuss the action. 15 C.F.R. ï¿½ 930.37(b).

    If the federal agency has sufficient information to determine the consistency of a federal
development project from planning to construction, only one consistency determination will be
required. However, if decisions on a major development project will be made in phases based upon
developing information, then a consistency determination will be required for each major decision.
15 C.F.R. ï¿½ 930.37(c).

    State Response

    On behalf of the State of Ohio, ODNR shall inform the federal agency of its agreement or
disagreement with the consistency determination within 45 days from receipt of the determination
and necessary information, unless ODNR notifies the federal agency within that time that the state's
final response will be delayed and provides the reasons for the delay. Federal agencies shall approve
one request for an extension period of 15 days or less. Other extensions shall be negotiated between
the parties, but are at the discretion of the federal agency. If no response or request for extension of
time is received from ODNR within 45 days, agreement by the state shall be presumed. 15 C.F.R.
ï¿½ 930.41.

    If the state disagrees with the federal agency's consistency determination, ODNR shall so notify
the federal agency in a formal response, according to the schedule described above, and send a copy
of the response to the Director, OCRM. The notice of disagreement shall include the rationale for
the disagreement; describe specific points of inconsistency between the proposed activity and


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 7 - 5                               March 1997








enforceable policies of the OCMP; and describe alternative measures that, if implemented, would
make the proposed activity consistent with the OCMP.  If ODNR  disagrees with the consistency            M
determination based on a lack of necessary information from the federal agency, the response will
describe the type of information needed to determine the consistency of the federal activity and
contain an explanation supporting the need for this information. 15 C.F.R. ï¿½ 930.42.

    ODNR, in cooperation with each federal agency, will monitor federal activities to assure they
are undertaken in a manner consistent, to the maximum extent practicable, with the approved
program. If ODNR finds that an activity that was previously determined to be consistent with the
approved program, or was previously determined not to be a federal activity affecting the coastal area
but now appears to be inconsistent with the approved program, ODNR will promptly notify the
appropriate federal agency. ODNR will include supporting information and a proposal
recommending remedial action that will make the activity consistent with the approved program.
If, after a reasonable time following a request for remedial action, ODNR maintains that
disagreement exists, either party may request the secretarial mediation services provided for in 15
C.F.R. Part 930, Subpart G.

    Mediation of Conflicts

    If a serious disagreement between a federal agency and Ohio regarding whether a proposed
activity affects the coastal area or regarding the consistency of a proposed activity affecting the
coastal area remains unresolved after discussions between the agency and the state, either party may
seek mediation by the Secretary of Commerce as provided for in 15 C.F.R. Part 930, Subpart G, or
informal negotiations through OCRM.

2. Consistency for Activities Reauiring a Federal License or Permit

    Federally licensed or permitted activities include any authorization, certification, approval or
other form of permission that any federal agency is empowered to issue to an applicant. 15 C.F.R.
ï¿½ 930.51. Federally licensed or permitted activities include renewals of and major amendments to
federal license and permit activities either not previously reviewed by ODNR, or previously
reviewed by ODNR but which are filed after and are subject to management program amendments
not in existence at the time of the original ODNR review, or previously reviewed by ODNR but
causing coastal effects different from those originally reviewed (15 C.F.R. ï¿½ 930.51). Federal license
and permit activities subject to consistency review for the OCMP are listed at the end of this chapter.
The list includes those federal licenses or permits that are likely to affect any land or water use or
natural resource of the Ohio coastal area. ODNR may also review federal license and permit
activities outside the coastal area but which affect the coastal area. The area outside the coastal area
within which ODNR will review license and permit activities is defined as the Lake Erie watershed
in Ohio (see Figure 6). Only activities that reasonably can be expected to affect the Ohio coastal area
would be reviewed. The list may be revised by the state following consultation with the federal
agency and approval by OCRM if federal law creates additional licenses or permits, or if the state



Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 7 - 6                               March 1997








determines that other activities requiring a federal license or permit affect land and water uses of the
coastal area. 15 C.F.R. ï¿½ 930.53.

    ODNR will monitor certain federal license and permit activities not on the list, and shall, within
30 days of receipt of the notice of application, notify the respective agencies, applicants, and the
Director, OCRM, of such activities determined to affect the coastal area and that require state agency
review. Otherwise, the state waives its right to review the unlisted activity.

    The federal agency and applicant shall have 15 days from the receipt of ODNR's notice to
provide comments to the Director, OCRM. The director shall issue a decision with supporting
comments within 30 days of ODNR's notice. If the notice is disapproved by OCRM, the federal
agency may approve the permit or license. If the notice is approved, the applicant shall amend the
federal application by including a consistency certification and supporting information. ODNR's
concurrence on the consistency certification will be conclusively presumed if ODNR does not object
within six months of the original federal notice or within three months of the receipt of the
applicant's certification and supporting information, whichever terminates last. 15 C.F.R. ï¿½ 930.54.

    Consistency Certifications

    The applicant shall furnish to both the federal permitting agency and to ODNR a certification
statement specifying that the proposed activity complies with and will be conducted in a manner
consistent with the OCMP. To avoid additional paperwork burdens on federal permitting agencies
and the public, the completed federal application will contain the coastal management consistency
certification. The statement shall include the following: "The proposed activity complies with
Ohio's approved coastal management program and will be conducted in a manner consistent with
such program" (15 C.F.R. ï¿½ 930.57). In the majority of cases, information required by the federal
permitting agency and provided to ODNR by public notice and routine correspondence will be
sufficient for consistency review purposes. A complete and satisfactory application will usually
serve the requirement to furnish the certification and supporting information to ODNR (see
Information Requirements for Permit Application below).

    It is the responsibility of both the applicant and the permitting agency to be familiar with the
OCMP. To facilitate the process, ODNR will provide a coastal management consistency form for
inclusion in federal permit applications (e.g., Department of the Army, Section 10/404 permits) and
distribute state coastal management policy information to applicants for federal permits or licenses.
15 C.F.R. ï¿½ 930.56. Applicants and federal agencies should not presume project consistency based
upon a state permit or license that may have been issued, but should examine the relevant policies
of the OCMP.

    Information Requirements for Permit Applications

    If a federal license or permit application form provides sufficient information pursuant to the
requirements of 15 C.F.R. ï¿½ 930.58 for ODNR and the federal agency to ascertain whether the


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 7 - 7                                March 1997








proposed activity is consistent with the OCMP, the completed application in addition to the
consistency certification may suffice to initiate formal review by ODNR, once received. If the fed-
eral application does not require information meeting the requirements of 15 C.F.R. ï¿½ 930.58, the
applicant shall provide the following to ODNR:

    * A detailed description of the proposed activity and its associated facilities, which is
         adequate to permit the assessment of possible coastal area impacts;

    * A copy of the federal application and all supporting information supplied to the federal
         agency;

    * A brief assessment relating the probable coastal area effects of the proposal and associated
         facilities to the enforceable policies of the OCMP;

    * A brief set of findings indicating that the proposed activity, associated facilities and effects
         are all consistent with the OCMP. 15 C.F.R. ï¿½ 930.58. Upon receipt by the applicant,
         ODNR shall provide assistance in formulating the required consistency assessment and
         finding.

    Public notices of applications for federal permits or licenses, including the applicant's
consistency statement, are also coordinated through an intergovernmental review process. Interested
persons provide comments to the federal agency and may additionally forward comments to ODNR
regarding the applicant's consistency statement. Copies of all comments received will be forwarded
to ODNR for use in determining consistency with the approved program. 15 C.F.R. ï¿½ 930.61. Thus,
the existing public notice and comment procedures will be used to ensure public participation in the
OCMP consistency certification review. The OCMP will ensure that additional public participation
is provided for, if necessary, including public hearings.

    ODNR will begin the formal consistency review process once ODNR receives a copy of the
certification and necessary supporting information. ODNR will complete reviews within reasonable
time periods afforded by routine public notices whenever possible. This should be the case for most
permit actions. However, ODNR may take up to six months to respond to a certification. 15 C.F.R.
ï¿½ 930.63. Further, the improved coordination among ODNR and other agencies should improve the
overall review time for more complex projects that may require several federal and state permits and
authorizations. A request by ODNR for additional information or data beyond that required in 15
C.F.R. ï¿½ 930.58 will not extend the commencement date of ODNR's review.

     With respect to the Department of the Army's regulatory program, in addition to individual
permits that require public notice, existing coordination procedures between the Buffalo District,
COE and ODNR provide for alternate forms of authorizing activities having relatively minor impacts
to coastal resources. These include Letters of Permission and general permits. ODNR recognizes
the value of these abbreviated forms of coordination and will adhere to procedures involving shorter
review and comment periods whenever possible. Additional notification procedures will be


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 7 - 8                                March 1997








developed if necessary between the COE and ODNR to ensure that ODNR has knowledge of actions
authorized by the COE that may also be subject to regulations or enforceable authorities of the state.

    Within six months of the receipt of the applicant's consistency certification, ODNR shall notify
the applicant and the federal agency whether it concurs with or objects to the consistency
certification. If no decision has been made within three months, ODNR shall notify the applicant
and the federal agency of the status of the review and the reasons for the delay. If ODNR does not
respond within six months, concurrence by the state shall be conclusively presumed. The federal
agency may not approve the license or permit following receipt of the ODNR objection to the
certification unless ODNR issues a concurrence or is conclusively presumed to concur, or if on
appeal by the applicant, the Secretary of Commerce finds that the proposed activity is consistent with
the objectives or purposes of the CZMA or is necessary in the interest of national security. 15 C.F.R.
ï¿½ 930.65.

    If ODNR objects to the applicant's consistency certification within six months, the objection by
ODNR shall describe:

    a.  How the proposed activity is inconsistent with specific enforceable policies of the OCMP;
         and

    b.  Alternative measures (if they exist), which, if adopted by the applicant, would permit the
         proposed activity to be conducted in a manner consistent with the OCMP.

ODNR shall notify the applicant, federal agency and OCRM of its objection. The objection will
include a statement informing the applicant of a right of appeal to the Secretary of Commerce,
pursuant to the procedures described in 15 C.F.R. ï¿½ 930, Subpart H. 15 C.F.R. ï¿½ 930.63 and ï¿½
930.64.

    Where possible, applicants shall consolidate related federal license and permit activities
affecting the coastal area for ODNR review. ODNR will review these consolidated applications as
a group to minimize duplication of effort and avoid unnecessary delays. An ODNR objection to one
or more of the license or permit activities submitted for consolidated review shall not prevent the
applicant from receiving those licenses or permits for activities found to be consistent with the
approved program. 15 C.F.R. ï¿½ 930.59.

    Mediation of Conflicts

    If a disagreement between a federal agency and the state regarding whether a listed or unlisted
federal license or permit activity is subject to consistency review remains unresolved after
discussions between the agency and the state, either party may seek mediation by the Secretary of
Commerce as provided for in 15 C.F.R. ï¿½ 930.55, described at the end of this chapter, and the
applicant shall be notified of the mediation request. Pending final resolution of the conflict, the
federal agency may not approve a license or permit application for an activity on the OCMP list or


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 7 - 9                                March 1997








for an unlisted activity for which the Assistant Administrator, NOAA, has approved the OCMP's
review request. 15 C.F.R. ï¿½ 930.55. i

    The state shall request that the federal agency take appropriate remedial action in case of a
federally licensed or permitted activity that was:

    a.  Determined to be consistent with the OCMP but which ODNR maintains is being
        conducted in a manner different from that originally proposed, or has coastal effects
        different from those originally envisioned, and therefore is no longer consistent with the
        OCMP, or

    b. Determined not to be an activity affecting the coastal area, but which ODNR maintains is
        being conducted or has coastal effects substantially different from those originally
        envisioned, and therefore is not consistent with the OCMP. 15 C.F.R. ï¿½ 930.66

The request shall include supporting information and propose recommended action, and a copy of
the request shall'be provided to the applicant. If ODNR is still in serious disagreement with the
federal agency after a reasonable time for remedial action, either party may seek mediation by the
Secretary of Commerce, as provided for in 15 C.F.R. Part 930, Subpart G.

3. Consistency for Federal Assistance to State and Local Governments

    All applications by state and local governments or any related public entity, such as a special-
purpose district, for federal financial assistance for projects affecting Ohio's coastal area must be
reviewed for consistency with the OCMP by ODNR, pursuant to 15 C.F.R. Part 930, Subpart F.
Federal assistance programs subject to the consistency requirement are listed at the end of this
chapter. The list may be modified subject to the provisions of the Coastal Zone Management Act
(CZMA). Pursuant to 15 C.F.R. ï¿½ 930.98, ODNR may also monitor applications for federal
assistance in areas outside of the coastal area but that affect the coastal area. The area outside the
coastal area within which ODNR will monitor such applications is defined as the Lake Erie
watershed in Ohio (see Figure 6).

    Federal agencies shall notify ODNR of applications for federal financial assistance as listed.
If ODNR determines the proposed project to be inconsistent with the OCMP, the state's formal
objection will be provided within the standard 60-day review period, except for any programs
requiring a 30-day review period, in which case ODNR will respond within that time limit. The
state's objection shall describe:

    a.  How the proposed project is inconsistent with specific enforceable policies of the OCMP,
         and

    b.  Alternative measures (if they exist) that, if adopted by the applicant agency, would permit
         the proposed project to be conducted in a manner consistent with the OCMP.


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 7 - 10                             March 1997








ODNR may object based on the failure of the applicant to provide necessary information. If the state
objects on grounds of insufficient information, the objection must describe the nature of the
information requested and the necessity of having such information to determine consistency. The
objection shall include a statement informing the applicant agency of a right of appeal to the
Secretary of Commerce pursuant to 15 C.F.R. Part 930, Subpart H. ODNR shall then notify the
applicant agency, the federal agency, and the Director, OCRM, of the objection (15 C.F.R. ï¿½ 930.96).
The federal agency may not grant the financial assistance if the state determines it to be inconsistent
with the OCMP. If ODNR objects to a consistency certification, only upon appeal by the applicant
and a finding by the Secretary of Commerce that the proposed activity is consistent with the
objectives or purposes of the CZMA or is necessary in the interest of national security may the
federal agency approve the activity. 15 C.F.R. ï¿½ 930.120, 930.97.

    If ODNR determines that an application for federal assistance outside of Ohio's coastal area is
subject to the consistency requirement, ODNR shall immediately notify the applicant agency, the
federal agency, and the Director, OCRM. Any objection by ODNR to the proposed activity shall be
made according to the schedule described above. The federal agency may not grant the financial
assistance unless the state finds the project consistent with the enforceable policies of the OCMP or
except as provided in 15 C.F.R. Part 930, Subpart H.

    Mediation of Conflicts

    If a serious disagreement between a federal agency and Ohio regarding whether a federal
assistance activity is subject to consistency review remains unresolved after discussions between the
agency and the state, either party may seek mediation by the Secretary of Commerce as provided for
in 15 C.F.R. Part 930, Subpart G, described at the end of this chapter. Pending resolution of the con-
flict, the federal agency may not grant the federal assistance.

    If ODNR objects to a proposed project, the federal agency may grant the assistance only upon
appeal by the applicant agency and a finding by the Secretary of Commerce that the proposed activity
is consistent with the objectives or purposes of the CZMA or is necessary in the interest of national
security. 15 C.F.R. Part 930, Subpart H.

    ODNR shall request that the federal agency take appropriate remedial action in case of a
federally assisted activity that was:

    a.  Determined to be consistent with the OCMP  but which ODNR  maintains is being
         conducted in a manner different from that originally proposed, or has coastal effects
         different from those originally envisioned, and therefore is no longer consistent with the
         OCMP, or

    b.  Determined not to be a project affecting the coastal area, but that ODNR maintains is being
         conducted or has coastal effects substantially different from those originally envisioned,
         and therefore is not consistent with the OCMP. 15 C.F.R. ï¿½ 930.100.


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS   Part II 7 - 11                               March 1997








The request shall include supporting information and propose recommended action, and a copy of
the request shall be sent to the applicant. If ODNR is still in serious disagreement with the federal
agency after a reasonable time for remedial action, either party may seek mediation by the Secretary
of Commerce, as provided for in 15 C.F.R. Part 930, Subpart G.

Conflict Resolution

    ODNR shall attempt to resolve the dispute directly with the federal agency in case of a dispute
between a federal agency and Ohio regarding:

    *   A determination of whether a proposed activity affects the coastal area and therefore is
         subject to a consistency review; or

    ï¿½   A determination of the consistency with the OCMP of a proposed activity affecting the
         coastal area; or

    ï¿½   A determination of whether a listed or unlisted federal license or permit activity is subject
         to consistency review; or

    ï¿½ A determination that a federal assistance activity is subject to consistency review; or

    *   Actual compliance with the OCMP of an activity previously determined to be consistent,

If the dispute is not resolved at this level, either party may request informal negotiations by OCRM
or formal mediation by the Secretary of Commerce, pursuant to the provisions of 15 C.F.R. ï¿½ 930,
Subpart G.





















Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS   Part II 7 - 12                               March 1997








                         Federal Activities And Development Projects;
                            Licenses And Permits; And Assistance
                         Subject to Federal Consistency Requirements

I. Direct Federal Activities and Develop~ment Proiects

   A federal agency must provide ODNR with a consistency determination for any activity affecting
   any land or water use or natural resource of Ohio's coastal area whether or not the activity is on
   this list. The following list is provided to highlight those activities reasonably likely to affect the
   coastal area.

   Department of Defense, Army Corps of Engineers

   ï¿½ Dredging, channel improvement, breakwaters, other navigational works, erosion control
       structures, beach replenishment, dams or flood control works, ice management practices and
       activities and other projects with the potential to impact coastal lands and waters.

   * Land acquisition or disposal for spoil disposal or other purposes.

   * Selection of disposal sites for dredged material from federal harbors and navigation channels.

   Department of Defense, Air Force, Army, and Navy

   * Location, design, and acquisition of new or expanded defense installations (active or reserve
       status including associated housing, transportation or other facilities).

   * Plans, procedures and facilities for handling storage use zones.

   * Establishment of impact, compatibility or restricted use zones.

   * Disposal of Defense property.

   Department of Energy

   * Prohibition orders.

   Environmental Protection Agency

   ï¿½ Activities conducted under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976.

   ï¿½ Activities conducted under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
       Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980.




Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part 11 7 - 13                           March 1997








   General Services Administration

   ï¿½ Acquisition, location and design of proposed federal government property or buildings,
      whether leased or owned by the federal government.

   ï¿½ Disposition of federal surplus lands and structures.

   Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management

   *1 Oil and gas leasing on federal lands.

   Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service

   a Management of National Wildlife Refuges; land acquisition.

   Department of the Interior, National Park Service

   * National Park Service unit management; land acquisitions

   Department of Justice, U.S. Marshals Service

   0 Disposition of property acquired by the Marshals Service.

   Department of Transportation, Coast Guard

   * Location and design, construction or enlargement of Coast Guard stations, bases and
       lighthouses.

   *  Location, placement or removal of navigation devices that are not part of the routine
       operations under the Aids to Navigation Program (ATON).

   *  Expansion, abandounment, designation of anchorages, lighting areas or shipping lanes and ice
       management practices and activities.

   Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration

     *Location and design, construction, maintenance and demolition of federal aids to air
       navigation.

   Department of Transportation, Amtrak, Conrail

     *Expansions, curtailments, new construction, upgradings or abandonments of railroad
       facilities or services, in or affecting the state's coastal area.


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part 11 7 - 14                           March 1997








        Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration

        * Highway construction.

     II. Federal Licenses and Permits

        Department of Defense, Army Corps of Engineers

        *  Construction of dams, dikes, or ditches across navigable waters, or obstruction or alteration
            of navigable waters required under Sections 9 and 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899
            (33 U.S.C. 401, 403).

        *  Establishment of harbor lines pursuant to Section 11 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899
            (33 U.S.C. 404, 405).

        *  Occupation of seawall, bulkhead, jetty, dike, levee, wharf, pier or other work built by the
            U.S. pursuant to Section 14 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 408).

        *  Approval of plans for improvements made at private expense under USACE supervision
            pursuant to the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1902 (33 U.S.C. 565).

        *  Disposal of dredged or fill material into the waters of the U.S. pursuant to the Clean Water
-~-~ ~ Act, Section 404 (33 U.S.C. 1344).

        *  All actions for which permits are required pursuant to Section 103 of the Marine Protection,
            Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1413).

        Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

         *  Licenses, renewals or amendments to licenses for nonfederal hydroelectric projects and
            primary transmission lines under Sections 3(11), 4(e), and 15 of the Federal Power Act (16
            U.S.C. 796 (11), 797 (11), and 808).

         *  Orders for interconnection of electric transmission facilities under Section 202(b) of the
            Federal Power Act (15 U.S.C. 824 a (b)).

        *  Certificates for the construction and operation of interstate natural gas pipeline facilities,
            including both pipelines and terminal facilities under Section 7 ï¿½ of the Natural Gas Act (15
            U.S.C. 717 f (c)).

         * Permnission and approval for the abandonment of natural gas pipeline facilities under Section
            7 (b) of the Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(b)).



     Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 7 - 15                           March 1997








   ï¿½ Regulation of gas pipelines, and licensing of import and export of natural gas pursuant to the
       Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717) and the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974.

   * Exemptions from prohibition orders.

   Environmental Protection Agency

   ï¿½ NPDES permits and other permits for federal installations, sludge runoff and aquaculture
       permits and all other permits pursuant to Sections 401,402, 403,405, and 318 of the Federal
       Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1341, 1342, 1343, and 1328).

   * Permits pursuant to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976.

   ï¿½ Permits pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
       Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980.

   ï¿½ Permits pursuant to the underground injection control program under Section 1424 of the
       Safe Water Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300 h-c).

   * Permits pursuant to the Clean Air Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. 1857).

   Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service

   * Fish and wildlife coordination (17 U.S.C. 661-667).

   ï¿½ Endangered species permits pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 153 (a)).

   Interstate Commerce Commission

   ï¿½ Authority to abandon railway lines (to the extent that the abandonment involves removal of
       trackage and disposition of right-of-way); authority to construct railroads; authority to
       construct coal slurry pipelines.

   Nuclear Regulatory Commission

       Licensing and determination of the siting, construction and operation of nuclear generating
       stations, fuel storage, and processing centers pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
       Title II of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 and the National Environmental Policy Act
       of 1969.







Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part I1 7 - 16                         March 1997








            Department of Transportation, Coast Guard

            *  Construction of modification of bridges, causeways or pipelines over navigable waters
               pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 1455.

            ï¿½ Hazardous substances and materials (33 U.S.C. 419).

            *  Marine event permits (46 U.S.C. 454, 33 C.F.R. 100.15).

            Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration

            0  Permits and licenses for construction, operation or alteration of airports.

        III. Federal Assistance

            (NOTE: Numbers refer to the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Programs.)

            Department of Agriculture

               10.025 Plant and Animal Disease and Pest Control
            ï¿½ 10.405 Farm Labor Housing Loans and Grants
               10.414 Resource Conservation and Development Loans
            :  10.415 Rural Rental Housing Loans
               10.418 Water and Waste Disposal Systems for Rural Communities
            - 10.419 Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Loans
               10.420 Rural Self-Help Housing Technical Assistance
               10.422 Business and Industrial Loans
               10.423 Community Facilities Loans
               10.424 Industrial Development Grants
            1 i0.433 Rural Housing Preservation Grants
               10.854 Rural Economic Development Loan and Grant Program
            ï¿½ 10.901 Resource Conservation and Development
            ï¿½ 10.904 Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention
               10.906 River Basin Surveys and Investigations

            Department of Commerce

            ï¿½ 11.300 Economic Development - Grants and Loans for Public Works and Development
                       Facilities
            ï¿½  11.302 Economic Development - Support for Planning Organizations
            ï¿½ 11.303 Economic Development - Technical Assistance
                11.304 Economic Development - Public Works Impact Projects
            ï¿½ 11.305 Economic Development - State and Urban Area Economic Development Planning


.        Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part 11 7 - 17                      March 1997








      11.307 Special Economic Development and Adjustment Assistance, Sudden and Severe
              Economic Dislocation (SSED) and Long-Term Deterioration (LTED)
   * 11.405 Anadromous and Great Lakes Fisheries Conservation
   *  11.407 Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act of 1986
   ï¿½  11.417 Sea Grant Support
      11.419 Coastal Zone Management Program Administration
      11.420 Coastal Zone Management Estuarine Research Reserves
      11.427 Fisheries Development and Utilization Research/Development Grants/Coop
              Agreements
      11.550 Public Telecommunications Facilities - Construction and Planning

   Department of Defense

      12.101 Beach Erosion Control Projects
   ï¿½ 12.104 Flood Plain Management Services
      12.105 Protection of Essential Highways, Highway Bridge Approaches, and Public Works
      12.106 Flood Control Projects
   *  12.107 Navigation Projects
   i 12.108 Snagging and Clearing for Flood Control
   i 12.109 Protection, Clearing and Straightening Channels
   i 12.110 Planning Assistance to States
   *  12.610 Joint Military/Community Comprehensive Land Use Plans

   Department of Housing and Urban Development

   * 14.170 Congregate Housing Services Program
   a 14.174 Housing Development Grants
   a 14.218 Community Development Block Grants/Entitlement Grants
   , 14.219 Community Development Block Grants/Small Cities Grants

   Department of the Interior

   a 15.600 Anadromous Fish Conservation
   0  15.605 Sport Fish Restoration
   0  15.611 Wildlife Restoration
   *  15.612 Endangered Species Conservation
   ï¿½ 15.614 North American Wetlands Conservation
      15.616 Clean Vessel Act
   0  15.904 Historic Preservation Fund Grants-In-Aid
   *  15.910 National Natural Landmarks Program
   0  15.916 Outdoor Recreation - Acquisition, Development and Planning




Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 7 - 18                     March 1997








   Department of Transportation

   ï¿½ 20.005 Boating Safety Financial Assistance
   ï¿½ 20.106 Airport Improvement Program
   *  20.205 Highway Planning and Construction (Including Intermodal Surface Transportation
              Efficiency Act Programs)
   0  20.219 National Recreation Trails Program
   0  20.308 Local Rail Service Assistance Program
   ï¿½ 20.500 Urban Mass Transportation Capital Improvement Grants
   a 20.509 Public Transportation for Nonurbanized Areas
   *  20.801 Development and Promotion of Ports and Intermodal Transportation
   ï¿½ 20.998 Transportation Improvement Program

   General Services Administration

   *  39.002 Disposal of Federal Surplus Real Property

   National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities

   * 45.007 Promotion of the Arts - State Programs
   *  45.023 Promotion of the Arts - Local Programs

   Department of Veterans Affairs

   * 64.005 Grants to States for Construction of State Home Facilities

   Environmental Protection Agency

   a 66.001 Air Pollution Control Program Support
   *  66.419 Water Pollution Control - State and Interstate Program Support
   *  66.432 State Public Water System Supervision
   ï¿½ 66.433 State Underground Water Source Protection
   ï¿½ 66.435 Water Pollution Control - Lake Restoration Cooperative Agreements
   *  66.438 Construction Management Assistance
   0  66.454 Water Quality Management Planning
   ï¿½ 66.456 National Estuary Program
   *  66.458 Capitalization Grants for State Revolving Funds
      66.500 Environmental Protection - Consolidated Research
   a 66.501 Air Pollution Control Research
   *  66.502 Pesticides Control Research
   0  66.504 Solid Waste Disposal Research
   a 66.505 Water Pollution Control - Research, Development, and Demonstration
   ï¿½  66.506 Safe Drinking Water Research and Demonstration


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 7 - 19                      March 1997








    * 66.507 Toxic Substances Research
  * 66.600 Environmental Protection Consolidated Grants - Program Support
  * 66.700 Pesticides Enforcement Program
  *  66.701 Toxic Substances Compliance Monitoring Cooperative Agreements
  * 66.702 Asbestos Hazards Abatement (Schools) Assistance
  * 66.801 Hazardous Waste Management State Program Support
  * 66.802 Hazardous Substance Response Trust Fund
  * 66.804 State Underground Storage Tanks Program
  * 66.805 Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund
  * 66.807 Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program (SITE)
  * 66.808 Hazardous Waste; Integrated Training and Technical Assistance - Interstate

  Department of Energy

  * 81.041 State Energy Conservation
   * 81.049 Basic Energy Sciences, High Energy or Nuclear Physics, Magnetic Fusion Energy,
             Health and Environmental Research, Program Analysis and Field Operations
             Management

  Federal Emergency Management Agency

   * 83.503 Civil Defense - State and Local Emergency Management Assistance
   *  83.513 State and Local Warning and Communication Systems
   * 83.516 Disaster Assistance
























Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 7 - 20                     March 1997








                                         CHAPTER 8

                             EROSION MITIGATION PROCESS

    Shore erosion is one of the most significant problems facing owners of property fronting Lake
Erie. A planning process to provide guidelines for addressing this problem includes:

    1. Assessing the rate at which the Ohio lakeshore has receded, due to shore erosion, within
         historical time and the natural and cultural factors that have influenced those rates.

    2.  Identifying enforceable policies, legal authorities, and sources of financial and technical
         assistance to manage the effects of erosion.

Assessing Erosion

    ODNR's Division of Geological Survey studied shore erosion in the eight Ohio counties
bordering Lake Erie. Field studies and office studies examined the physical setting (e.g.,shore
stratigraphy, shore relief, shore orientation, beach width, nearshore slopes, nearshore sediment, wave
climate) and the cultural setting (e.g., land use, shore protection structures) that influence the rate
of recession, both through time and along shore. In addition, recession-line maps were prepared
using charts from 1876-1877, aerial photographs from the late 1930s and aerial photographs from
1973. These recession-line maps are perhaps the most important aspect of the shore erosion studies
because they show how the rate of shore recession changes through time and along shore. By
relating these temporal and geographic changes in recession rates to changes observed in the physical
and cultural setting, many of the temporal and geographic changes in shore recession can be
explained.

    As part of the OCMP, an updated recession line map will be used to designate Lake Erie coastal
erosion areas. This map, like its predecessor, will also be used to study how changes in the physical
and cultural setting affect recession rates. Using information from the earlier study and from the
mapping done to designate Lake Erie coastal erosion areas, the State of Ohio will continue to assess
the effects of shore erosion and to evaluate techniques for mitigating erosion and restoring areas
adversely affected by erosion.

    Additional studies of coastal erosion along the Ohio shore of Lake Erie are being conducted
under a five-year (1991-1996) cooperative agreement between ODNR's Division of Geological
Survey and the U.S. Geological Survey. A major thrust of the study will be to develop a sediment
budget for the Ohio lakeshore by tying together many aspects of the geologic framework and coastal
processes. Detailed maps of bluff stratigraphy, surficial sediment and subsurface sediment will
provide a better picture of the type of sediment introduced to the lake each year and how it is
dispersed. Detailed recession-line maps, building on mapping done to designate Lake Erie coastal
erosion areas, will be used to better determine how much sediment is annually introduced to the lake.



Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 8 - 1                              March 1997








The results of this five-year study will directly benefit the OCMP, in part by improving the
knowledge base used to determine whether and how to mitigate site-specific erosion problems.

    In addition to conducting and participating in shore erosion studies, the State of Ohio also
cooperates closely with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) on erosion control projects such
as Section 103 Small Beach Erosion Projects, Section 111 Mitigation Studies, and other specifically
authorized projects. Close cooperation and coordination between ODNR and COE will assure that
these projects are consistent with the OCMP.

Process to Manage Effects of Erosion

    Management of the effects of erosion is addressed through pertinent legal authorities and
administrative processes described in the section on "Coastal Erosion and Flooding" in Chapter 5.
These include: (1) designation of Lake Erie Coastal Erosion Areas (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.06), (2)
enforcement of a permit program for construction activities in coastal erosion areas (O.R.C. ï¿½
1506.07), (3) notification of buyers regarding coastal erosion area status of property being transferred
(O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.06) and (4) administration of a permit system for erosion control measures (O.R.C.
ï¿½ 1507.04).

Technical and Financial Assistance

    A variety of technical and financial assistance efforts are used to mitigate shore erosion
problems. The purpose of the assistance is to provide the information compiled by the state to public
and private lake shore property owners and to provide for public information, education and
technical guidance on methods of shore protection.

    The Division of Geological Survey is directed to identify Lake Erie coastal erosion areas, i.e.,
the land area anticipated to be lost by Lake Erie-related erosion within a 30-year period if no
additional approved erosion control measures are completed within that time (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.06(A)).

    The Division of Engineering, ODNR, under O.R.C. ï¿½ 1507.10, is authorized to prepare a shore
erosion plan for Lake Erie (in cooperation with the Division of Geological Survey) and a shore
erosion technical assistance program for county and local governments and for lakeshore property
owners.

    O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.07 provides that any county or municipal government may assume administration
of the permit requirement if the local government adopts sufficient regulations. To assist local
governments in developing such measures, ODNR can provide model ordinances and direct
technical assistance to communities upon request.

    In areas where erosion control structures are necessary to manage erosion impacts, ODNR will
provide technical guidance on methods of shore protection and associated costs. Other technical



Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 8 - 2                              March 1997








assistance efforts will take the form of individual consultations with property owners and local
governments on matters relating to shore protection and coastal processes.

    Limited financial assistance for erosion control is available through ODNR (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1507.06).
The funds are derived from the granting of leases and the royalties paid pursuant to O.R.C. ï¿½ 1505.07
for the removal of sand, gravel, stone, gas, salt and other minerals from and from under the bed of
Lake Erie. The state, acting through ODNR, may use these funds to construct and maintain projects
to prevent, correct and arrest erosion of public property along the Ohio shore of Lake Erie by
entering into agreements with counties, municipal corporations, townships, park boards and
conservancy districts or any other state or division. The cost shall be prorated on the basis of two-
thirds of the cost to the state and one-third of the cost to the benefiting public agency. O.R.C. ï¿½
1507.06 does not authorize the State of Ohio to deal directly with private property owners in setting
up an erosion control project.

    The State of Ohio, through ODNR, encourages and assists local governments and lakeshore
residents in establishing conservancy districts for erosion control. Communities interested in
establishing conservancy districts will be given technical assistance. Funds from the Ohio Coastal
Management Assistance Grant Program may be available to conservancy districts for the purposes
of developing erosion control plans and projects. Such studies may include, but will not be limited
to, feasibility studies for methods of control, research for overcoming economic and technical
impediments to beach nourishment, and incorporation of vegetation into control projects. State
financial assistance is available to conservancy districts for erosion control from the special account
pursuant to O.R.C. ï¿½ 1507.06 as described above.  It is the policy of ODNR to give financial
assistance for operating expenses to conservancy districts when they are first being established. Such
"seed money" could be used to organize the district and initiate the plans for controlling erosion.

    The Ohio Sea Grant Program provides technical assistance to lakeshore property owners on
controlling shore erosion. Sea Grant has four extension agents specializing in Lake Erie matters.
These agents work with contractors and lakeshore property owners to educate them about erosion
control measures and provide other technical information.

    Pursuant to Section 103 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1962, as amended, the COE may
provide financial and technical assistance to state and local governments to control beach and shore
erosion on public property. Unlike many COE projects, Section 103 projects do not need specific
authorization from Congress. However, each project must be engineeringly sound, environmentally
acceptable and economically justified. The COE designs and constructs the project, and the local
government must furnish evidence of legal authorization, financial capability and willingness to
provide all necessary local participation and cooperation. The determination of local cost is based
upon the value of the property being protected and the use of the property by the public. Federal
participation cannot exceed $2,000,000, or 50 percent of the project costs, whichever is lower.






Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 8 - 3                              March 1997








                                         CHAPTER 9

                 SHOREFRONT ACCESS AND PROTECTION PLANNING

    Ohio's Lake Erie shore and waters historically have been valued as a unique recreational
resource. Increasing numbers of Ohio's citizens and out-of-state travelers visit the area for fishing,
swimming, boating, sunbathing, nature watching, hiking, biking, camping and other activities. Most
people must rely upon the government (or, in the case of marinas, primarily private industry) for
access to areas providing these recreational opportunities. In Ohio, shoreline and water access is
provided primarily through state and local parks, natural areas and preserves, wildlife refuges and
management areas (federal and state), and fishing access and boat launching sites. Of these, most
state and local parks and some preserves encompass public beaches and are managed in part with
provision of public beach access as a priority.

    An analysis of the supply of existing facilities and properties providing access and an
assessment of trends in needs and demand is presented after the description of Ohio's shorefront
access planning processes.

    To provide special management attention to public beaches and other public coastal areas of
environmental, recreational, historic, aesthetic, ecological or cultural value, the OCMP has a
shorefront access and protection planning process that entails:

    i.  Procedures for assessing public beaches and other public areas that require access or
         protection, and a description of appropriate types of access and protection.

    2.  An identification and description of policies, authorities, programs and other techniques
         that will be used to provide such access and planning.

Procedures

Special Management Areas

    The OCMP uses the process of nominating and designating Special Management Areas (SMAs)
as a means to assess public beaches and other public areas requiring access or protection. As
described in Chapter 6, any type of public area requiring access or protection can be nominated as
an SMA. State Nature Preserves and Wildlife Areas, Public Parks and Access Areas, Wetlands, and
Historic and Archaeological sites are all designated as generic APCs, as described in Chapter 6. As
stated in Chapter 6, highest priority shall be given to uses that provide public access and promote
public recreation in areas identified as Public Parks and Access Area APCs. Providing public access
also may be a priority goal or component of the planning framework for each of the other types of
APCs mentioned above, depending upon the particular resource base and existing facilities. OCMP
policies and authorities for providing access within these areas are explained in Chapter 5, Policies
13, 21, 22, 23 and 24.


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 9 - 1                              March 1997








Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan

    The Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) is the major tool in Ohio for
assessing recreational needs for public beaches and other access sites and facilities. ODNR,
REALM, is the lead office responsible for developing the SCORP. REALM assesses state
recreational needs, translates these needs into policy statements, and develops action plans that can
be used to implement the policies. Also, SCORP provides estimates of current participation. The
estimate of current participation and the need for recreational facilities provides a basis for the
projection of future recreational participation and investment in public and private recreational
facilities and programs.

    The methodology used to assess current and future participation and facility needs involves a
comparison of the present supply of facilities with an estimate of participation. The supply of
recreational facilities is measured by a statewide recreational facilities inventory. An estimate of
demand (participation) is obtained by a citizens user survey, which samples the recreational
participation habits of both Ohioans and residents of surrounding states. Facility figures are then
computed using supply, demand and facility standards information.

    On a statewide or regional level, use of the methodology helps planners determine the relative
scarcity or abundance of recreation facilities and resources. The needs analysis cannot, however, be
used as the sole basis for informed decision making. Because of the gross levels of analysis that
characterize SCORP, local or intraregional variances may be masked by a blanket statement about
a particular region or activity. Individual local situations are not addressed in SCORP; regional
analysis should be viewed as stepping-off points for local planners and officials. Comprehensive
local recreational plans are not required from local communities as a part of SCORP; however, local
communities are encouraged to develop comprehensive plans for shoreline recreation. OCMP
Program funds can be used to develop such plans.

Lake Erie Access Program

    In 1983 the Lake Erie Access Program (LEAP) was initiated by ODNR, REALM, as a result
of needs identified in the SCORP planning process. The divisions of Watercraft and Wildlife
recommended that Lake Erie boating and fishing activities be monitored to establish a database from
which trends could be determined. The study included an inventory of all public and private access
sites along the Lake Erie shoreline. Also, a survey of sport fishing and boater interests and needs
was done to provide comparative data for analysis. The analysis of this data provided insight into
the recreation opportunities on Lake Erie.

    Once the study results were reviewed, plans began for the development of a public assistance
program that would provide up to 50 percent matching funds to local public agencies for the
renovation and development of boating and fishing facilities. The original funding source was a
combined effort provided by both of the sponsoring divisions until a permanent source could be
arranged. After 1986, LEAP was funded by general revenues from the ODNR Capital Improvements


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 9 - 2                               March 1997








budget. In 1994, with passage of State Issue #1, funding in the amount of $1.75 million was made
available through the NatureWorks funding programs.

    The Director, ODNR, through REALM, is statutorily charged with providing and maintaining
a current inventory of public access facilities on Lake Erie, including parks, cultural resources,
natural areas, wildlife refuges, harbors of refuge, launch ramps, fishing areas and beaches. Plans and
policy recommendations for enhancing access are required every five years (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.05). This
authority provided the basis for a revised Lake Erie Access Study conducted in 1991 (unpublished).

Refuge Harbors

    The Division of Watercraft in ODNR is the refuge harbor agency for the State of Ohio. The
division participates and cooperates with the Corps of Engineers (COE) in planning, acquiring,
constructing and maintaining refuge and shallow-draft vessel harbor projects in the State of Ohio.
The division will develop refuge harbors only with the cooperation of the COE. Refuge harbor
programs proposed by local communities are joint local-state-federal ventures.

    The COE has conducted several studies of the Ohio waters of Lake Erie to assess the need for
harbors of refuge. Initially, the COE examined the shores of Lake Erie for harbors of refuge for
shallow-draft vessels in July 1946. The report recommended additional facilities to serve as harbors
and natural shelters along the south shore of Lake Erie. Twenty-two sites were recommended for
more detailed study. They were: Ottawa River, Cooley Creek, Turtle Creek, Port Clinton, East
Harbor, Put-in-Bay, Hummell Pond (Kelleys Island), Sandusky, Huron, Vermilion, Lorain, Avon
Lake, Rocky River, Edgewater Lagoon, Gordon Park, White City Park, Chagrin River, Mentor,
Fairport Harbor, Arcola Creek, Ashtabula and Conneaut.

    The development of refuge harbors in Ohio has been based on the recommendations of this
1946 Corps report; and, according to the Corps, developed refuge harbors on Lake Erie are now
sufficient to accommodate the need.

Natural Areas

    Although most of Ohio's shoreline is developed, several natural areas exist that need protection
and access. The State of Ohio uses its Natural Areas Program managed by ODNR, Division of
Natural Areas and Preserves (DNAP), to determine natural area preservation needs in Ohio.

    The Natural Areas Program in the DNAP provides for protection of areas through dedication
and management of areas as state nature preserves (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1517.05, 1517.06). There are already
several areas dedicated as state nature preserves along the shoreline. The Natural Areas Program
uses the information from the Natural Heritage Database to develop a list of areas to be acquired and
to prioritize that list.




Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 9 - 3                             March 1997








    As a dedicated nature preserve, the area is held in trust for the people of Ohio subject to the
terms of the dedication. The chief of DNAP determines the types of uses that the area can support,
and therefore regulates the degree of access and protection provided in each nature preserve. For
each nature preserve, a master plan is developed that illustrates the degree of access, protection and
additional area required to complete the preserve.

    The goal of the DNAP is to establish a system of nature preserves through acquisition and
dedication of natural areas of state or national significance. The division maintains surveys and
inventories of natural areas and habitats of rare and endangered species of plants and animals through
its Natural Heritage Database. As resources permit, the division updates and refines this
information, locating the elements of the natural world that, if preserved, will preserve diversity.
Habitats of vulnerable plant and animal species, representative examples of ecological communities,
and unique or outstanding natural features are located. With this information, the Natural Areas
Program can evaluate and select the best areas for protection.

    The Natural Heritage Database results in a more comprehensive identification of Ohio's
biological resources than was possible with previous inventories. This is accomplished through its
element-based approach, which focuses first on the components of natural diversity. An element is
a natural feature of particular interest because it is exemplary, unique or endangered on a statewide
or national basis.

Boating Facilities

    The State of Ohio relies on several means to assess the needs for public boating facilities for
access to Lake Erie other than refuge harbors. ODNR, Division of Watercraft, has two district
offices along the Lake Erie coast. The watercraft officers observe the utilization and condition of
public boating facilities for access to Lake Erie. Through such field observations and contact with
the boating public, the Division of Watercraft assesses the need for additional boating access to Lake
Erie.

    Many communities along the shoreline have or would like to have developed boating facilities
for access. It is the responsibility of the local communities to maintain and improve these facilities,
and thus they determine the amount and type of access at these areas. The State of Ohio only
becomes involved with local projects as requests are received from the local communities for
financial assistance in constructing boating facilities. The division is instrumental in determining
the size of the access facility, based on budgetary and design constraints. The State of Ohio also
meets the needs for access to Lake Erie for recreational boating by constructing facilities on state-
owned lands. For state parks and wildlife areas, master plans have been developed, and needs for
access for recreational boating are taken into account. The development of boating facilities is based
on demand analysis for each site, taking into consideration other private and public facilities in the
area.





Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final ETS  Part II 9 - 4                               March 1997








.    Islands

         The State of Ohio undertook a study in 1977 of the resources of the Lake Erie islands. The
    report, Resources of the Lake Erie Island Region, includes an inventory of the islands' resources and
     an analysis of the characteristics that contribute to the islands' uniqueness. The report recommends
     actions for state and local governments to preserve the islands' qualities, to provide access, and to
    protect specific areas of the islands and several entire islands. The State of Ohio uses the
    recommendations of that study in terms of its priorities for acquisition of islands and acquisition for
     access and protection.

     Cultural Sites

         The Ohio Historical Society (OHS) is responsible for maintaining the State Registry of Historic
     Landmarks and the Registry of Archaeological Landmarks, nominating sites for the National
     Register of Historic Places, and acquiring and maintaining historic and archaeological sites as state
     memorials. Through the state registries and the Ohio Historic Inventory, the OHS surveys and as-
     sesses the historic and archaeological sites in the coastal area. Two regional offices in the coastal
     area for both historic and archaeological preservation enhance the inventorying effort. Designation
     of sites on the State Registry or National Register provides protection to the areas in terms of
     consideration in publicly funded projects and gives them a high priority for financial assistance.

         Local and county historical societies acquire and protect landmarks of local significance. Such
.    areas are eligible for preservation grants from the OHS.  The county historical societies develop
     plans for protection of the areas as a part of the acquisition and restoration functions.

     Pro grms

         Management policies governing the extent to which provision for public access and protection
     is provided for with respect to historic sites, natural areas, wetlands, wildlife areas, development on
     leased submerged lands and other areas are described in Chapter 5, Policies 12, 13,14, 16, 2 1-27 and
     29. OCMP policies directed toward direct acquisition and/or support for acquisition by other entities
     specifically for public access are detailed in Chapter 5, Policy 21. The following is a description of
     financial and technical assistance programs that assist in these efforts.

     Land and Water Conservation Fund and Nature Works

         Over the years, ODNR has directed Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) monies to
     specific priority areas, including state park development and community parks and recreation.
     NatureWorks, created in 1994, serves a similar purpose. Applications for NatureWorks and LWCF
     assistance are reviewed and projects selected for funding in ODNR, REALM, are subject to the fol-
     lowing process:




     Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS   Part II 9 -5                                 March 1997








    1.  The political subdivisions must submit applications to ODNR by July 1 each year to be
         considered. Following receipt of the application, it is immediately acknowledged by the
         department, so that the applicant is aware that processing of the application has been
         started. The staff reviews the proposal to determine the applicant's eligibility to participate
         in either the NatureWorks or the LWCF program. The application is checked for adequacy
         of form and content. If the application is found unacceptable in any area, the applicant will
         be notified, and all processing stops until the application is in a completed form. It will be
         to the applicant's advantage to exercise the greatest care in preparation of the application
         form. If the application is declared acceptable, processing will continue.

    2.  After the state has received its annual fiscal allocation, all proposals are reviewed by
         ODNR for qualification and priority rating. The local government will be notified in
         writing of the approval or disapproval of its application.

    3.  Selected LWCF project proposals are submitted to the regional National Park Service
         (NPS) office for possible federal funding. If the project is approved by NPS, a signed
         agreement is returned to the state.

    4.  Two legal contracts are signed to assure the project will receive 50 percent reimbursement
         by the federal government. The first contract is between the State of Ohio and the local
         government. After the signing of the state and local agreement, a copy of the same and a
         copy of the federal agreement and the procedural guide will be sent to the local govern-
         ment. The local government can then proceed with the project as described in the
         contracts. Under NatureWorks projects, only the state and local agreement is used.

Waterways Safety Fund

    The State of Ohio through the Division of Watercraft administers a financial and technical
assistance program to local governments in the development and construction of boat launching
areas and other boating access facilities. This program is financed from the Waterways Safety Fund.
Eligible projects are funded on a matching basis, with the local government assuming responsibility
for continuing operation and maintenance.

    The application process to obtain Waterways Safety Fund assistance for watercraft facilities and
the process for project construction follow:

    1.  A letter of application, signed by the person vested with authority to make such request,
         shall be submitted by the political subdivision desiring such cooperative project; this shall
         be accompanied by the Division of Watercraft's form, to be fully and accurately filled out.
         The deadline for submissions is July 1 each year.

    2. Upon receipt of such letter and form, the Division of Watercraft will arrange with local
         officials to inspect the site of the proposed project to ascertain its general feasibility and


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 9 - 6                               March 1997








              the public need for such project. The applicant may be requested to provide additional
              information.

         3.  If the project is accepted for funding, an agreement will be signed with the subdivision.
              The agreement will provide details relating to the construction, operation and maintenance
              of a project.

         4.  The executed agreement, accompanied by a Resolution or Act of the governing body of the
              political subdivision or agency certifying that their share of the funds necessary for the
              completion of the project as mutually agreed upon is available, will be submitted to the
              State Controlling Board with a request that the state's share be made available from the
              Waterways Safety Fund.

         5.  Plans and specifications to meet cost estimates will be negotiated with the applicant.

         6.  Final plans, specifications, cost estimates and bid forms to be used, will be approved and
              signed by the Chief Engineer and the Chief of the Division of Watercraft. Upon state
              approval, the subdivision will proceed to advertise for construction bids.

         7.  If an acceptable bid within the estimate is received, the subdivision will submit three
              copies of the bid tabulations to the Division of Engineering with a recommendation as to
              the bid to be accepted. The state will review the bidding and authorize the participating
*            ~~~~agency to award the contract.

         8.  The subdivision shall award the construction contract to the successful bidder.

         9.  The subdivision may submit an advance disbursement schedule in accordance with
              contractor's estimates. The subdivision may request reimbursement from the state in accor-
              dance with the approved disbursement schedule.

         10. All contractor payment estimates, both periodic and final, are to be submitted by the
              contractor to the supervising engineer of the cooperating agency or subdivision, who will
              approve such estimates for payment.

         11. The agency or subdivision accepts the responsibility to inspect the work on the project,
              subject to final approval of the Chief Engineer and the Director of ODNR prior to payment
              of the contractor's final estimate.

          12. The subdivision agrees to operate and maintain the project without cost to the state for the
              life of the project as stated in the agreement (item 3 above).

         The Waterways Safety Fund also provides the state share for projects providing access through
     the refuge harbor program carried out jointly with the COE.


     Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 9 - 7                               March 1997








Additional Financial and Technical Assistance Sources

    Technical assistance to other state and local agencies is available through the DNAP for the
identification of natural areas, sensitive habitats and other areas that need protection. Financial
assistance is available to local communities through NatureWorks and LWCF for natural area
acquisition.

    The Ohio Historical Society offers technical and financial assistance for the protection of
historical and archaeological areas. Grants for restoration and preservation projects and survey and
planning studies are available through the Ohio Historical Society.

    The Lake Erie Office assists local and state governments by advocating public access to Lake
Erie, coordinating with local communities on the availability of funds and programs, and assisting
in the development of applications. Financial assistance from the Coastal Management Assistance
Grant Program will be available to state and local agencies to conduct planning and feasibility
studies on access and protection. The State of Ohio intends to use federal Coastal Zone Management
Act (CZMA) funds, Sections 315(b) and 306(a), for acquisition of access to shoreline public areas
and acquisition of islands.

Existine Facilities. Trends and Needs

    Both the 1993 Ohio SCORP and the 1991 LEAP document an increasing demand for
recreational access opportunities of all types, both statewide and within the Lake Erie region. Water
quality improvements and the comeback of Ohio's waterfront during the 1980s likewise encouraged
an increase in the number of boating, fishing, camping and vacation resort facilities and charter boat
fishing services. Many sites identified by the 1983 LEAP study as having potential for shoreline
fishing or boating access now do provide access, due in part to the impetus of LEAP and the
cooperation of local agencies. The following is a list of projects that benefitted from LEAP, LWCF
and the Waterways Safety Fund since the 1983 LEAP study.

    Lake Erie Access Program

         Avon Lake, Miller Road Boat Launch
         Conneaut Boat Launch
         Sandusky Boat Launch
         Vermilion, West River Road Boat Launch
         Cleveland Lakefront State Park Docks
         Fairport Harbor Boat Launch Expansion
         Cleveland Metroparks System, Rocky River Boat Launch
         Lorain Harbor Fishing Access
         Willowick Fishing Pier
         Euclid, Sims Park Fishing Access
         Ashtabula Township, Lakeshore Park Boat Launch
         Sheldon Marsh Expansion

Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 9 - 8                             March 1997








   Land and Water Conservation Fund

        Geneva State Park
        Ashtabula, Walnut Beach
        Rocky River, Lake Edge Park
        Cleveland, Flats Park
        Cleveland Lakefront State Park
        Lake County, Lake Shore Beach
        Willowick, Community Park
        Sheffield Lake Boat Launch
        Toledo, International and Promenade Parks and Maumee Riverfront Park
        Maumee Bay State Park
        Toledo Metropolitan Park District, Maumee River
        East Harbor State Park
        Port Clinton, Lakefront Park

    Waterways Safety Fund

        Geneva-on-the-Lake Boat Ramp
        Ashtabula Township Park Boat Ramp
        Conneaut Boat Ramp
        Cleveland Lakefront State Park, Wildwood Unit Boat Ramp
        Willow Point Wildlife Area Improvements
        Sandusky Launch Ramp
        Vermilion Launch Ramp
        Chagrin River Entrance Improvements
        Avon Lake Launch Ramp
        Cullen Park and Walbridge Park Launch Ramps
        East Harbor State Park Breakwater Repairs
        South Bass Island State Park Launch Ramp
        West Harbor Refuge
        Ottawa County West Harbor Launch Ramp
        Mazurik Wildlife Access Launch Ramp and Breakwater
        East Harbor State Park Boat Ramp
        Kelley's Island State Park Launch Ramp
        Catawba Island State Park Launch Ramp
        Toussaint River Navigation Improvements

    Lake Erie Fisherman Access Program

        Cleveland Lakefront State Park, Edgewater Fishing Access
        Rocky River Fishing Access
        South Bass Island State Park Dock Repairs


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 9 - 9                       March 1997








         Lorain Boat Ramp
         Maumee Bay Fisherman's Access
         Portage River Wildlife Access
         Magee Marsh Boardwalk
         Mazurik Wildlife Access Launch Ramp

    The above acquisition and improvement projects primarily provide access within or in proximity
to urban areas. In addition, special attention has been given to providing access for urban residents
through the state parks planning and development process, as demonstrated by ongoing expansion
at the Cleveland Lakefront State Park and improvements at Maumee Bay State Park (1,845 acres),
just east of Toledo. The 1991 LEAP study identified 13 priority launching facilities and 21 priority
fishing accessing areas for acquisition or improvement.

    ODNR completed a study of existing and potential beaches along Lake Erie in Ohio in 1974.
Additionally, the Midwest Research Institute completed a Recreation Beaches Inventory for the
COE, Buffalo District, in 1979. In the ODNR study, approximately 30 sites were investigated and
evaluated at that time, of which seven were recommended for acquisition or protection. Since the
study, four of the seven recommended sites were developed for recreation use, as found in the
SCORP facilities inventory. Further study of the other three sites resulted in removal from the
"Potential" list due to unsuitable conditions, i.e., extensive erosion damage and private property
restrictions.

    More precise and up-to-date forecasting, particularly in regard to extent and accessibility of
beaches, would be clearly beneficial for determining OCMP goals for shorefront access and
protection planning.

    The following provides an assessment of existing facilities providing access to the Lake Erie
shore and to the lake waters:
                                                                Beach             Shoreline
                                     Number    Acrea4e          Length            Frnag~e

    State Parks                        7          5,653                            15 miles
    Natural Areas                       6         1,849                             2 miles
    Marinas                          270
    Managed Wildlife Areas
     (State, Federal, Private Clubs)  13        20,400                              6 miles (state)
    Fishing Access Sites              54          8,547
    Public Boat Launch Sites          27
    Hunting Access Areas               15         7,619
    Beaches                           33*                  67 miles (< 50 ft. wide)**
                                                           7 miles (50-100 ft.)
                                                           7 miles (> 100 ft.)
   *  Number of public beaches sampled by ODH (1993).
   ** 1980 Ohio Geological Survey file data of all beaches excluding the Lake Erie Islands and
      Sandusky Bay.


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part 11 9 - 10                              March 1997








Mana2ement Policies and Legal Authorities

      Specific management policies and authorities that comprise Ohio's approach to shorefront
access and protection planning are described in Chapter 5. Management policies governing the
extent to which provision for public access and protection is provided for with respect to historic
sites, natural areas, wetlands, wildlife areas, development on leased submerged lands and other areas
are described in Chapter 5, Policies 12, 13,14, 16, 21-27 and 29. OCMP policies directed toward
direct acquisition and/or support for acquisition by other entities specifically for public access are
detailed in Chapter 5, Policy 21. The enforceable components of the above-mentioned policies are
as follows: 12A, 14A, 14B, 14C, 16A, 21A, 23A, 24A, 24B, 26A, 26B, 27A, 27B, 27C, 29A and
29B.

      To assist in accomplishing direct acquisition goals, ODNR primarily uses fee-simple
acquisition through negotiation with private landowners. Acquisition in fee by gift also is used,
though less frequently. Deed restrictions and tax advantages make this a desirable option for donors.
ODNR is rarely required to resort to using eminent domain to acquire land for public use, because
willing sellers and donors are generally found.

Definition of Beach

      For the purposes of the OCMP, "beach" shall be defined as the area of unconsolidated material
that extends landward from the water's edge to the base of the bluff or to the line of permanent
vegetation. Public beaches, then, are those areas that meet this definition and are owned by the local,
state or federal government.

      Private littoral property rights extend to the point where land and water meet. The public has
no right of access across private property to the beaches of the Lake Erie shoreline in Ohio. The
public does have access to those beaches owned specifically by the State of Ohio, subdivisions of
the state and private shoreland recreational facilities open for public use. And the State of Ohio does
hold in trust for the people of the state the waters of Lake Erie and the lands underlying the waters
of Lake Erie. As stated in Policy 16, Public Trust Lands, the public uses that the State of Ohio has
been entrusted with upholding include that of recreation, as provided by common law. Any
improvements extending into public trust waters or onto the lands underlying them require a lease
from the State of Ohio. The administrative rules that govern granting of such leases provide that "the
potential impact of any development, improvement or activity upon the public right of recreation,
including present or prospective recreational uses by the public during the term of the lease will be
evaluated. Provision for public access may be required as a condition of a lease or permit depending
upon historic use patterns and suitability of the lease site for existing or prospective recreational
uses" (O.A.C. ï¿½ 1501-6-03(3)).







Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 9 - 11                             March 1997








                                         CHAPTER 10

                         ENERGY FACILITY PLANNING PROCESS

    The energy facility planning process considers energy related facilities likely to be located in
or that may significantly affect the coastal area, including, but not limited to, a process for
anticipating and managing the impacts from such. The discussion of energy facility planning
includes:

     1 . Identification of energy facilities that are likely to locate in or that may significantly affect
         the coastal area;

    2.  Procedures for assessing the suitability of sites for such facilities;

    3.  Articulation of state policies for managing energy facilities and their impacts, including a
         clear articulation of policies regarding conditions that may be imposed on site location and
         facility development;

    4.  Identification of how interested and affected public and private parties may be involved in
         the planning process, and a discussion of the means for continued consideration of the
         national interest, in planning for an siting of energy facilities that are necessary to meet
         more than local requirements;

    5. Identification of legal authorities and management techniques that will be used to
         implement state policies and procedures.

    The process encompasses any equipment or facility that will be used or expanded primarily in
exploration for; or the development, production, conversion, storage, transfer, processing, or
transportation of any energy resource; or for the manufacture, production, or assembly of equipment,
machinery, products, or devices that are involved in any activity described above. More specifically,
this includes, but is not limited to, the following types of facilities:

     I1. Electric generating plants;

    2.  Petroleum refineries and associated facilities;

    3 . Gasification plants;

    4.  Facilities used for transportation, conversion, treatment, transfer, or storage of liquefied
         gas;

     5.  Uranium enrichment or nuclear fuel processing plants, storage depots, tank farms, crew and
         supply bases, and refining complexes;


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final ELS   Part 11 10 - I                               March 1997








    6.  Facilities including deepwater ports for the transfer of petroleum;

    7.  Pipelines and transmission facilities; and

    8. Terminals that are associated with any of the foregoing.

Inventorv of Existing And Planned Enerrv Facilities in Ohio's Coastal Area

    Two factors dominate the energy facility siting picture in Ohio's coastal area: (1) the role of
Ohio's Lake Erie ports in transshipment of coal and lignite, and (2) the generation and transmission
of approximately 6,000 megawatts of electricity for a population of approximately 3 million and a
vast industrial and commercial complex. Facilities that provide and support these activities impact
Ohio's coastal region. Considerations regarding such facilities will be emphasized in the siting
process and policy articulation.

Existing

    There are three major electric utilities serving Ohio's coastal area: Toledo Edison in the west,
Ohio Edison centrally, and Cleveland Electric Illuminating (CEI) in the eastern counties. Each of
these utilities belongs to the Central Area Power Coordination Group (CAPCO), a consortium of five
utilities that participated in the joint development of power generation and transmission facilities.
Nine generation plants owned by CAPCO member utilities are completed and serve Ohio's coastal
area. Additionally, the City of Painesville owns and operates a fossil fuel generating plant within
the coastal area.

Projected

    O.R.C. ï¿½ 4935.04 requires long-term forecasting to allow for orderly development of
environmentally acceptable, reliable and economic electric service for Ohio's citizens. Any utility
directly supplying more than 25 consumers must provide the following: (1) electric power demand
forecasts, (2) forecasts for electric generation plants, and (3) forecasts for electric power transmission
lines. Such reports are filed annually and apply to the 10-year period succeeding the reporting date.
O.R.C. ï¿½ 4935.04 requires that such reports ". . . shall be made available to the public and furnished
upon request to municipal corporations and governmental agencies charged with the duty of pro-
tecting the environment or of planning land use." As a member of the Power Siting Board, the
Director of ODNR receives and reviews all Long-Term Forecasts annually.

    No new generation facilities are planned for the coastal area.

Coal Storage and TransshiDment Facilities

     Coal represented 35.2 percent of the total cargo volume through Ohio's Lake Erie ports in 1992,
accounting for the movement of slightly more than 21.2 million tons. The volume of coal is forecast


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 10 - 2                              March 1997








* ~~to decline slightly in coming years. Canadian markets play a major role in Ohio's coal transshipment.
       Canadian customers took 66 percent of Lake Erie coal shipments in 1992.

            All coal storage and handling facilities in Ohio's coastal area are located in port areas. Four
       ports handle coal on Lake Erie. In 1992, Toledo shipped 6.4 million tons, while Sandusky shipped
       5.1 million tons, Ashtabula shipped 5.6 and Conneaut shipped 4.1 million tons.

       Oil and Gas PiDelines. Refineries. and Associated Facilities

            Activity related to oil and gas in Ohio's coastal area primarily involves (1) transport of refined
       petroleum products through Lake Erie ports, (2) storage of refined petroleum products at two ports
       and (3) distribution of natural gas for local consumption. Transport of crude oil represents a very
       minimal activity at Ohio's ports. Refineries are likewise limited; generally, economics dictate that
       refining of crude oil takes place near the point of recovery or entry into the United States.

            With the exception of natural gas transmission lines, all oil and gas facilities are directly
       associated with three of Ohio's lake ports: Toledo, Lorain and Cleveland.

       Existing

            The Port of Toledo has five waterfront facilities equipped to receive and/or ship petroleum
       products. These facilities are: Sun Oil Docks, Acme Edison Plant, BP Oil Docks, Ashland Docks
. ~and Westway Docks.

            The petroleum trade at Cleveland Harbor represents a very minimal percentage of the port's
       total cargo movement. However, two facilities that are equipped to receive and/or ship petroleum
       products are LTV Steel Co. and Marathon Oil Co.

            Seven pipeline systems bring refined petroleum products into the Cleveland Harbor area, while
       six service the Toledo Harbor. Three of the latter include pipelines that bring crude oil into the
       refineries.

            Natural gas is supplied to the coastal region by two companies: Columbia Gas of Ohio in the
       west and central coastal area and the East Ohio Gas Company in the east. No new transmission
       lines, associated facilities or substantial additions to existing facilities are planned. Early notice of
       planned gas transmission lines of capacity greater than 125 pounds per square inch pressure is
       provided through the Long-Term Forecast process described earlier for electricity generation and
       transmission.

            As mentioned previously, the demand for oil refining sites on Lake Erie is minimal due to the
       desirability of refining at the point of recovery or entry into the U.S. The following three refineries
       are located in Ohio's coastal area: Gulf Oil at Rossford, BP Oil - Otter Creek on the waterfront, and
       Sun Oil - Otter Creek Inland.


       Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 10 - 3                              March 1997








Projected

    It is anticipated that energy activities related to oil and gas will remain largely unchanged.
Future development of storage and handling capacity is expected only in the form of expansion at
existing facilities. No additional oil refinery facilities are projected at present.

Gasification Plants

    There are no coal gasification plants currently in Ohio's coastal area, and no development of
such facilities is planned or projected. Current price estimates suggest that this will be contingent
upon market price of conventionally produced natural gas as well as pending federal incentives for
such facilities. Coal gasification and liquefaction facilities are not likely to be located in the Great
Lakes basin in general, with the possible exception of low-BTU gasification facilities that can be
located at or near the site of use, due to the higher cost of transporting coal relative to the cost of
transporting substitute or synthetic natural gas.

Licuefied Natural Gas Facilities

    Location of major large-volume ports for the delivery of imported liquefied natural gas (LNG)
in the coastal area of Ohio is an unlikely possibility in the near future, due in part to the dimensions
of standard ocean-going LNG tankers. The dimensions of the 125,000 cubic meter LNG ship
(standard for the industry) are:

         Length - 936 feet
         Breadth - 144 feet
         Depth - 82 feet
         Draft    -   36 feet

    The St. Marys, St. Clair-Detroit, and St. Lawrence Rivers, Lake St. Clair, and the Welland Canal
are designed to maintain 25.5-foot vessel draft. Vessels of 730 ft. x 76 ft. are currently in use in the
St. Lawrence Seaway. There is some likelihood that channels and port facilities will be enlarged in
the future, but vessels of ocean-going LNG tanker breadth and draft are unlikely to be facilitated.

     Under one scenario, small LNG tankers would be used for large-volume transport into the Great
Lakes. Should constraints on the construction of proposed ocean terminals or overland pipeline
transportation develop, the use of smaller tankers delivering directly to the Ohio market via the
Seaway may be necessary. This is not probable as long as present LNG transportation economics,
available natural gas transmission pipelines and ocean terminal developments continue.








Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS   Part 11 10 - 4                               March 1997








      Other Energyv Related Activities

      Coal Slurry Pipelines

          A 108-mile, nonoperational coal slurry pipeline with a 1.3 million-ton capacity per year now
      connects the CEI generation stations on Lake Erie with coal mines near Cadiz, Ohio. The pipeline
      operated from 1957 to 1963, when operations were suspended for economic reasons. The system
      is not completely intact at this time but could be made operational with some capital investment.
      However, until such time as high sulphur Ohio coal may be more fully utilized and/or rail
      transportation rates increase, its renewed use is doubtful.

      Procedures for Assessing Facilitv Site Suitabilitv

          As stated above, electric generation/transmission and coal handling associated with Ohio's
      major ports are the two energy-related activities with greatest impact in the coastal area. Discussion
      of site suitability assessment procedures will begin with these activities and proceed to other energy
      activities.

      Electric Generation/Transmission

      Long-Term Forecast - Assessing the suitability of energy facility sites is a continual process in
      Ohio, beginning with the Long-Term Forecast system. Through this means, each utility serving more
.i    than 20 consumers must provide to the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (O.R.C. ï¿½ 4935.04) the
      following:

           1. Electric power demand forecast;

           2. Resource forecasts and site inventories for electric generating plants; and

           3. Resource forecasts and site inventories for transmission facilities.

           The utility must use five years of historical data, the current year's actual and forecast data, and
      a 10-year forecast of loads. Also required are a description of the extent of coordination with other
      systems, consideration of prices, availability and potential development of alternate energy sources,
      and an inventory of prospective sites for generating plants subject to the certification process.
      Relative to the last item, each utility must provide a detailed site description, ecological data, a
      description of likely socio-economic impacts, and a brief discussion of alternate sites.

           The Long-Term Forecast process, by providing continual and up-to-date information on utilities'
      future plans, is an "early-warning" system leading directly into the certification process.






      Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 10 - 5                              March 1997








Certification Process - O.R.C. Chapter 4906 established the Power Siting Board (PSB) as the
agency for certification of electric generation plants and transmission facilities. The PSB is
composed of the Directors of the Departments of Health, Natural Resources, Agriculture, and
Development, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, the Public Utilities Commission; a public
member (an engineer appointed by the governor); and four legislators (nonvoting). PSB actions
relate to the following facilities:

     1.  All electric generation plants of greater than 50 megawatt capacity,

    2.  Electricity transmission lines of greater than 125 kilovolt capacity, and

    3.  Gas transmission lines and associated facilities capable of transporting gas at greater than
         125 pounds per square inch.

    In reviewing an application for certification the PSB must determine and base its decision of
approving the application on the following guidelines (O.R.C. ï¿½ 4906. 10):

     i.  The basis of the need for the facility;

    2.  The nature of the probable environmental impact;

    3.  That the facility represents the minimum adverse environmental impact, considering the
         state of available technology; the nature and economics of various alternatives; and other
         pertinent considerations;

    4.  In the case of an electric transmission line, that such facility is consistent with regional
         plans for expansion of the electric power grid of the electric systems serving this state and
         interconnected utility systems; and that such facilities will serve the interests of electric
         system economy and reliability;

     5.  That the facility will comply with O.R.C. Chapters 3704 (permits to install and operate a
         source of air emissions), 3734 (permits to dispose of solid wastes), and 611 1 (permits for
         all discharges into receiving waters (NPDES), and all regulations and standards adopted
         thereunder;

     6.  That the facility will serve the public interest, convenience and necessity;

     7.  What its impact will be on the viability as agricultural land of any land in an existing
         agricultural district established under O.R.C. Chapter 929 that is located within the site and
         alternative site of the proposed major utility facility; and






Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 10 - 6                              March 1997








    8. That the facility incorporates maximum feasible water conservation practices as determined
         by the board, considering available technology and the nature and economics of the various
         alternatives.

    Procedurally, the certification process begins with a preapplication conference at the request of
the company, to provide the utility with guidance from the PSB staff regarding possible major
environmental, social and public policy factors that could result in disapproval.

    The utility may then prepare and submit an application for certification. The rules and
regulations that govern operation of the PSB set forth data requirements that must be supplied by the
utility company. Of major importance to the resources of the coastal area are the following data
requirements:

    I1. Two sites for each generation plant and for each transmission line and associated facility.
         The two are designated preferred and alternate; both must be viable sites and be
         accompanied by fully developed information and summaries of advantages and
         disadvantages.

    2. Technical data including:

         a.  Geographic and topographic contours, surrounding land use, vegetative cover, surface
             and ground water, transportation routes and utility corridors;

         b.  Geology, soils, and seismic information;

         c.  Hydrology including water budgets, cooling water availability, flood and wind
              analysis;

         d.  Site preparation and layout, including clearing and landscaping activities; future plans
              for expansion at each site;

         e.  Emission control and safety equipment, including alternatives and their environmental
              merits and drawbacks;

         f.  Fuel use, including, environmental merits of alternative fuels; and

         g.  Procedures for coping with oil spills and fuel storage.

    3.  Environmental data for preconstruction, construction and operation including:

         a.  Data sufficient for determination of compliance with regulations regarding solid waste
              disposal, discharges into receiving waters, and installation and operation of new air
              emissions sources;


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part 11 10 - 7                              March 1997








        b. Detailed assessment of thermal and chemical effects;

        c.  Detailed information of radioactive emissions and noise;

        d.  Detailed information describing irreversible commitments of irreplaceable resources,
             including land, minerals, fuels, energy and ground water; and

        e.  Potential for erosion and plans to mitigate, using EPA's "Guidelines for Erosion and
             Sediments Control."

    4.  Social and environmental impacts:

         a.  Preconstruction surveys of vegetation, terrestrial and aquatic animal life, habitats, and
             endangered, threatened and rare species;

         b.  Estimated losses to crops, vegetation and other terrestrial biota;

         c.  Estimated losses to aquatic organisms;

         d.  Potential loss of habitat;

         e.  Survey and assessment of impacts on landmarks of historic, religious, archaeological,
             scenic, natural or other cultural significance registered with the National Register of
             Historic Places, the Historic American Building Survey, the National Register of
             Natural Landmarks, the Ohio Historical Society and the Ohio Department of Natural
             Resources.

    Review by the PSB of applications considers the merits of each individual case. Specific
standards apply in the case of review of individual state permits. The agency with the authority for
the permit reviews and makes a determination for that permit. These state permits are:

    1. Permit to install and operate new air emission sources (O.R.C. Chapter 3704);

    2.  Permit to dispose of solid wastes (O.R.C. Chapter 3734);

    3.  Permit for discharge into receiving waters (O.R.C. Chapter 6111);

    4.  Permit for shore protection structures (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1507.03); and

    5.  Lease for development and improvements in Lake Erie (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.10).






Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 10 - 8                            March 1997








           The PSB directs each applicant to the appropriate agencies for their review against standards
      and criteria established for each permit. Certification will not be allowed by the PSB if requirements
      pursuant to these permits cannot be met.

           The criteria for a permit to install and operate new sources of air pollutants, new source
      treatment works or solid waste disposal facilities are detailed in O.A.C. ï¿½ 3745-31-05.

           The Director of Ohio EPA must determine that the installation or modification and operation
      of the source does not prevent or interfere with the attainment or maintenance of applicable ambient
      water quality standards or ambient air quality standards; does not result in a violation of any
      applicable laws; does not cause significant degradation of the air or water if, at the time of
      installation or modification, either the ambient air or the receiving water meets or is better than
      applicable air or water quality standards. In deciding whether to grant a Permit to Install, the
      Director of Ohio EPA may take into consideration the impact of the installation or modification
      process itself upon environmental quality; the short- and long-term impact of the source of air
      pollutants, treatment works or solid wastes disposal facility on environmental quality; and the social
      and economic impact of granting or denying the Permit to Install. See O.A.C. ï¿½ 3745-31-05 for the
      additional criteria used in the process.

           The standards for granting a permit to operate an air contaminant source are promulgated in
      O.A.C. ï¿½ 3745-35-02. Pursuant to these rules, the applicant must demonstrate that the standards are
      met. Briefly, the source must be in compliance with applicable rules and regulations. The source
.     must operate without preventing or interfering with the attainment or maintenance of any applicable
      state or national ambient air quality standard. If required by the Director of Ohio EPA, the source
      is equipped with instrumentation and sensing devices to monitor and record emission data and other
      information about the operation of the source. If required by the director, performance tests - which
      are to be conducted after the application was made at the applicant's expense and in accordance with
      methods prescribed by Ohio EPA - must demonstrate that the source is in compliance with
      applicable emission regulations and other applicable laws.

           The Director of Ohio EPA determines whether or not to issue a permit to discharge into
      receiving waters (Ohio NPDES permit) using criteria published in O.A.C. ï¿½ 3745-33-04. Briefly,
      the authorized discharge levels specified in Section 3745-33-04(B) cannot be exceeded. Adequate
      provisions for monitoring to obtain required pollutant discharge information must be made. If
      required by Ohio EPA, performance tests must demonstrate that the discharge is in compliance with
      authorized discharge levels. Anchorage or navigation cannot be impaired thereby, as determined by
      the Secretary of the Army. The proposed discharge or source cannot conflict with an areawide waste
      treatment management plan. If the Administrator of Region V, U.S. EPA, objects in writing to the
      issuance or renewal of the permit in accordance with Section 402(d) of the Clean Water Act, the
      Director of Ohio EPA will deny the permit. The application cannot be for the discharge of any
      radiological, chemical, or biological warfare agent, or high level radioactive waste into waters of the
      state.



      Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part 11 10 - 9                             March 1997








    Beyond the specific standards to be met by these permit requirements, the Power Siting Board
(PSB) staff is responsible for the initial review of the applicant's certification report. The board staff
places strong emphasis upon considering the detailed information of the application on a case-by-
case basis, examining the two proposed sites and considering various mitigation schemes. It is
during this time that early consideration can be given to concerns of interested local, state and federal
agencies.

    As a commission member, the Director of ODNR reviews all applications to the PSB. ODNR's
comments may become part of the board's staff report of investigation in which the staff
recommends to the Board whether or not the proposed facility should be licensed and, if so, with
what conditions. The following objectives are used by ODNR in its review:

     1.  Determine the validity of the applicant's predictions of ecological and other impacts
         resulting from construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed facility.

    2.  Determine which of the proposed routes/sites will least adversely affect department
         programs or resources.

    3.  Determine what mitigation of adverse effects, beyond that described in the application, is
         necessary or prudent to reduce to a reasonable level the adverse effect of constructing,
         operating and maintaining the proposed facility on the route/site identified in (2).

    The following is the review procedure by ODNR for PSB applications.

     I.  Identify and report the applicant's major conclusions.

    2.  Indicate which conclusions are valid.

    3.  Identify conclusions that are (a) incorrect (derived improperly or with poor data), (b)
         unsubstantiated (not supported by data) or (c) irrelevant. (If none, proceed to (7).)

    4.  Present rationale for each of the contentions in (3).

    5.  Describe the ways in which the applicant's methodological and other errors leading to the
         conclusions specified in (3) should have been avoided (i.e., how studies should have been
         performed, how conclusions should have been derived or what data should have been
         used).

     6. If possible, correct deficiencies noted in (3) and discussed in (4) by supplying missing data
         or developing conclusions properly. If not possible, describe potential remedial actions,
         if any, that the applicant could take to remedy deficiencies.





Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 10 - 10                             March 1997








    7. If sufficient data are at hand, describe what departmental programs or resources managed
         by the department will be affected by the proposed project and how they will be affected.
         Specific coastal-related concerns to be addressed during ODNR review are:

         a.  Degree of coastal dependency,

         b. Impact on environmentally sensitive areas and Special Management Areas (SMAs),

         c.  Compatibility with adjacent uses and activities,

         d.  Coastal access,

         e.  Visual impact (mainly in regard to alignment of transmission lines) upon adjacent
             areas, and

         f.  Degree of erosion and flood hazard involved.

    8.  Recommend which route/site, if any, should be licensed by the Commission and what
         mitigation should be employed to reduce impacts to an acceptable level.

    Following filing of the staff report, which incorporates OCMP agency comments, public hearing
and opportunities for aggrieved parties to intervene take place. The PSB makes a decision to grant
a certificate of environmental compatibility at an open meeting, stating its reasons for taking such
action. The final decision is based on a majority vote of the board.

Coal Storage and Transshipment Facilities

    As mentioned above, coal storage and transshipment facilities are associated only with major
ports in the coastal area: Toledo, Sandusky, Ashtabula and Conneaut. Commercial transportation
uses will be considered high priority within the immediate port area, and funding and technical
assistance from ODOT will be available for proper port planning to assure consideration of all port-
related needs.

    Site suitability will be assessed through review of various state and local permits and plans.
Ohio EPA administers Clean Air Act (CAA) standards for coal dust levels; and National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. A lease from ODNR is required if developments
or improvements related to such facilities involve the waters or bed of Lake Erie (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.10).
Authority with regard to activities in wetlands resides directly with Ohio EPA and indirectly with
the OCMP.

    Local, county and municipal zoning regulations can be used to assure compatible uses in harbor
areas adjacent to port holdings as well as to provide for necessary expansion of harbor-dependent
development and storage. Toledo, a major coal handling port, has established an overlay zoning


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 10 - 11                           March 1997








district. A comprehensive plan formed the basis of the district and its regulations provide for public
hearings and review by the Toledo-Lucas County Plan Commissions for land use changes,
excavation, filling construction and new occupancies.

Oil and Gas Pipelines, Refineries and Associated Facilities

Gas Pipelines - Interstate transmission of natural gas is regulated at the federal level by the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission; authorities pertain to rate structures, construction activities, and
general safety requirements. The federal Department of Transportation (DOT) regulates some safety
matters. In the State of Ohio, the Public Utilities Commission (PUCO) acts as the enforcing agent
for DOT over such interstate lines and enforces its own safety code relative to intrastate lines
(O.R.C. Chapter 4901). Siting of intrastate gas lines and associated facilities that exceed 125 pounds
per square inch capacity and that are not regulated by federal authority are covered by the PSB
procedures detailed above.

Oil Pipelines - Major petroleum pipelines in Ohio's coastal region are interstate and, as such, are
regulated by the federal government. Environmental Impact Statements for such lines are prepared
by U.S. Department of Energy and are reviewed by state agencies. Safety standards pursuant to the
Federal Pipeline Transportation Act are enforced by the federal Department of Transportation, while
the Interstate Commerce Commission sets interstate rates. No state regulatory authorities apply to
location of interstate or intrastate petroleum pipelines in Ohio's coastal area.

Offshore Oil and Gas Drilling - As of 1985, oil and gas drilling in Ohio waters of Lake Erie is
administratively prohibited by the Council of Great Lakes Governors' "Statement of Principle
Against Oil Drilling in the Great Lakes," of which Ohio is a signatory state.

Refineries and Storage Facilities - The siting of new refineries requires permits to install and
operate a new emission source and an NPDES permit, all granted by the Ohio EPA. A permit from
the Division of State Fire Marshal, Ohio Department of Commerce, is required for any facility that
handles flammable or combustible liquids (O.R.C. ï¿½ 3737.17). Plans for such facilities must be in
conformance with standards set by the Fire Marshal in the State Fire Code (O.A.C. ï¿½ 1301:7- 7-16).
Storage facilities must develop a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan prior to
operation to comply with U.S. EPA regulations. This applies to above-ground storage facilities of
greater than 1,320-gallon capacity and underground storage facilities of greater than 42,000-gallon
capacity.

Gasification Plants, LNG and Nuclear Fuel Processing Facilities - No such facilities are expected
to locate in Ohio's coastal region.

Articulation of State Policies

    The siting of certain large-scale energy facilities in Ohio's coastal area can be expected to have
significant economic and environmental impacts on a regional level. To address these impacts, the


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 10 - 12                             March 1997








OCMP has set forth policies (in Chapter 5) regarding siting and planning for such facilities. The
basic intent of these policies is threefold: provision of reliable energy sources to the citizens of Ohio,
maintenance of a healthy economic climate in the region, and insurance of prudent use of land
resources and protection of coastal air and waters and their resources.

    As described in Chapter 5 and the three sections above in this chapter ("Electric Generation/
Transmission"; "Coal Storage and Transshipment Facilities"; and "Oil and Gas Pipelines, Refineries
and Associated Facilities"), Ohio's policies with respect to energy facility siting are as follows:

     1.  To protect the health, safety and welfare of the state's citizens and natural resources by
         minimizing adverse environmental impacts and considering (1) the degree of coastal
         dependency, (2) impacts on environmentally sensitive areas and SMAs, (3) compatibility
         with adjacent uses and activities, (4) coastal access and visual impact, and (5) coastal
         erosion and flood hazards through the certification of major energy facilities. The
         certification process applies to (1) electric generating plants and associated facilities
         designed for, or capable of, operation at a capacity of 50 megawatts or more; (2) electric
         transmission line and associated facilities of a design capacity of 125 kilowatts or more;
         and (3) gas and natural gas transmission lines and associated facilities designed for, or
         capable of, transporting gas or natural gas at pressures in excess of 125 pounds per square
         inch (O.R.C. Chapter 4906).

    2.  To protect the health, safety and welfare of the state's citizens and natural resources by
         requiring 10 year demand, resource and site inventory forecasts for all energy generation
         and transmission activity in the state (O.R.C. ï¿½ 4935.04).

    3.  To  assure safe and efficient use of energy-related resources and attainment of
         environmental standards through regulation of the storage of coal, oil and gas. Such
         storage facilities associated with the types of facilities described in item 1 above are
         addressed through the certification process described therein.

         Impacts from proposed coal storage and transshipment facilities associated with Ohio's four
         major ports are addressed through Ohio EPA's administration of NPDES permits, CAA
         coal dust level requirements, and Section 401 Water Quality Certifications, where
         applicable; submerged lands lease requirement if development of public trust lands is
         involved; and federal consistency review of Section 10 and 404 permits. New refineries
         are regulated through permits to install and operate new emission sources, NPDES permits,
         permits from the Ohio Department of Commerce for handling flammable or combustible
         liquids, and the requirement for developing a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure
         Plan. Gas and natural gas transmission lines exceeding 125 psi are regulated by the PSB
         certification process as noted above. Major oil pipelines in the coastal region are interstate
         and regulated at the federal level; no state regulatory authorities apply to location of such
         pipelines in Ohio's coastal area.



Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 10 - 13                             March 1997








    4.  To protect public safety and welfare and the environment by regulating oil and gas drilling
         onshore through a permit from ODNR and by opposing oil and gas drilling offshore as
         signatory to the 1985 Council of Great Lakes Governors' "Statement of Principle Against
         Oil Drilling in the Great Lakes." (See Policy 36, Chapter 5.)

Public Participation and Consideration of the National Interest in the Energv Facilitv Siting Process

    Although the major role regarding energy facility siting lies with the Ohio Power Siting Board
(PSB), the proper hearing of concerns of local citizens and governments and federal interests is
essential to ensure provision of reliable energy sources in an environmentally sound manner.

    Development of the OCMP thus has involved substantial input from both local and federal
entities throughout the policy development and review phases. Federal government contacts were
provided copies of all working documents for review. Comments pursuant to such reviews were
incorporated into the draft document.

Local Public Participation

    Prior to establishment of PSB review procedures, local citizens and governmental entities had
little, if any, recourse with regard to location of energy facilities since the principal local control
method (zoning ordinances) could not be exercised to regulate such facilities.  Through PSB
procedures, citizens and governments now have an orderly and open process through which their
concerns are aired, recorded and resolved.

The National Interest

    National concern is now focused primarily on developing increased energy self-sufficiency and
strengthening conservation efforts. These issues have been established as national energy priorities
by the Federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act. These factors are routinely considered and
incorporated into Ohio policies.

    Consideration of the national interest is additionally provided for through federal agency review
during permit and certification processes as in the case of local citizen and governmental
participation. Points at which such review is provided are described within the following text, and
consideration of the national interest is discussed further in Appendix Q.

The Processes

    Two major processes are provided legally to allow participation of citizens and other affected
public parties, including federal agencies, in the planning process for energy facilities. These are the
Ohio Power Siting Law, which applies to electric generation and transmission facilities and gas
transmission lines, and the notice and hearing procedures of the Ohio EPA and the Environmental
Board of Review (EBR) regarding new air emission sources and discharges into receiving waters.


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part 11 10 - 14                           March 1997








    Public participation in the power siting process for electric generation/transmission and gas
transmission is specifically provided for in the Power Siting Board's Rules and Regulations (O.A.C.
Chapter 4906). General provisions are that all meetings of the board at which any formal action is
to be considered are open to the public. No resolution, rule, regulation or formal action of any kind
shall be adopted at any executive session of the board. With the exception of internal rules and
matters unrelated to specific application, all board files are open to the public. Beyond these general
operating procedures, the board also provides for active public input at various stages of the power
siting process.

    Upon filing of an application by a utility, copies are distributed to all parties and to public
libraries. A public notice summarizing the application is required to be published in newspapers of
general circulation in the area within seven days of receipt of application.

    Formal participation rights are conferred upon all parties as defined below:

    1.  Chief executive officers of each municipal corporation and county and the head of each
         public agency (state, local or federal) charged with the duty of protecting the environment
         or planning land use in the area in which any portion of a facility is located, and

    2.  Any person or agency who, within 30 days after public notice is given, requests and is
         granted leave to intervene as a party (i.e., proves an interest in land use). Such parties may
         give written or oral testimony as well as call and examine witnesses at hearings. Any
         person may present oral or written testimony.

    The above process encompasses federal agencies and as such provides opportunity for
appraising and considering the national interest.

    Public participation procedures of the Ohio EPA, which also involve appeal procedures to the
EBR, apply to permits to install and operate new air emission sources (O.R.C. Chapter 3734) and
to permits applicable in the siting (O.R.C. Chapter 6111). These permits are applicable in the siting
of the following types of energy facilities:

     1. Electric generation and transmission and gas transmission lines (permit review by EPA
         during PSB process),

    2. Oil refineries and storage facilities, and

    3.  Coal storage and transshipment facilities.

    O.A.C. Chapter 3745 specifies the procedures to be adhered to for hearing public concerns
regarding issuance of such permits. Upon receipt of a permit application, the Director of Ohio EPA
prepares and gives public notice of the proposed action, i.e., the director's intended action with
regard to issuance, denial, renewal, modification or revocation of the permit. Within 30 days of


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part 11 10 - 15                           March 1997








notice, any person may request or petition for a public meeting for presentation of evidence,
statements or opinions. If sufficient public concern is voiced, Ohio EPA may hold such a meeting.
After the public meeting, an adjudication hearing may be requested by parties to the action or by any
person or agency who requests and is granted by the director a Leave to Intervene.

    At the close of the adjudication hearing, the director issues a Statement of Final Action. If a
party is not satisfied with the decision, an appeal is made to the Environmental Board of Review
(EBR). The board issues the final decision as to whether a request for a permit will be granted or
denied.

    Again, since federal agencies may become parties during these procedures, consideration of the
national interest is an integral part of the permit hearing and appeal process.

    The Long-Term Forecast system, whereby utilities annually report to the PUCO projections of
new facilities for the upcoming decade, requires that concerned federal, state and local agencies
receive such reports (O.R.C. ï¿½ 4935.04).

    Additional public input, particularly with regard to port-related energy storage and
transshipment facilities, is provided for through local zoning ordinances and development plans, and
local, county and regional planning commission projects.




























Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 10 - 16                             March 1997








                                       CHAPTER 11

NOTE TO READERS:  This chapter was taken verbatim from the DEIS, and is included in this
document because some commenters referred to this DEIS Chapter. Any references in this chapter
to future hearings are references to the public hearings on the DEIS, held September 30, October 1,
October 2 and October 3, 1996 in various locations in Ohio. No additional hearings will take place.

                      INTERIM RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS

    In the Spring of 1992, the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) circulated for public
review and comment, a draft policy document for the OCMP. The review, by coastal area citizens,
local governments, planning agencies and other interests, provided ODNR with essential input for
the development and refinement of coastal management policies. This has set the stage for
publication of the OCMP document and Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS).

    Four public hearings will be conducted in the coastal area to give the public the opportunity to
make comments and recommendations regarding its terms. ODNR's federal counterpart, the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource
Management (OCRM), will join ODNR in conducting at least two of these hearings to obtain
comments and concerns regarding the DEIS. When public review of the DEIS and OCMP document
is completed, ODNR and OCRM will consider the comments received and prepare a responsiveness
summary to be included with the Final EIS.

    This chapter is organized in two parts: response to public comments on the 1992 draft OCMP
document and comments responding to NOAA's notice of intent to publish the environmental impact
statement regarding federal approval of Ohio's coastal management program.

Response to Comments on 1992 Draft OCMP Document

    Many comments that were fact-specific and provided correction or updating have been
incorporated in the program document. This summary does not attempt to summarize all of the input
ODNR received during and after publication and review of the first draft OCMP document. Public
comments and concerns are addressed in the following discussion, organized by distinct issue areas,
with occasional reference to other chapters in this document.

Prospective Nature of the OCMP

    Concern was expressed that original language stating that the OCMP is prospective in nature
and not applicable to existing uses had been removed in the February 1992 document. It was never
intended that any new authorities would be retroactively applied to existing activities. It should be
noted that a future addition to an existing permanent structure (a building) may be subject to the
coastal erosion area permit rules if located in a designated coastal erosion area.



Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 11 - 1                             March 1997








Coastal Area Boundary

    Several issues arose regarding the extent of the coastal area subject to the OCMP. In some
cases, there were concerns that the boundary extended too far inland, and in others concern arose that
transitional, Lake Erie-associated wetland complexes and other aquatic areas were not sufficiently
included. Research into the wetlands issues and negotiations with local jurisdictions with respect
to the boundary in urban areas continued during the period of revising the OCMP document. Several
adjustments to the proposed boundary were made as a result.

    Specifically, the coastal area was constricted in several urban areas of Erie County (Maps 6 and
7, Appendix B) and expanded in other areas along the coast to include: (1) lowland marshes south
of Point Place near Toledo, in part known as the Manhattan Marsh area of the Buckeye Basin (Map
1), (2) an expanded area in the vicinity of the Old Woman Creek State Nature Preserve and National
Estuarine Research Reserve (Map 7), (3) Marsh and Heisley Creeks and additional wetland acreage
associated with the Mentor Marsh State Nature Preserve (Map 12), and (4) all Lake Erie coastal
erosion areas, both currently and prospectively (see Chapter 3 for an explanation). The controlling
criterion in determining the extent to which these alterations should be made was whether the uses
of these areas could have a "direct and significant impact on coastal waters" (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.01(A)
and 16 U.S.C. 1451, Sec.304).

    Additionally the two-tiered boundary approach described in the 1992 document was eliminated
as a result of input from the public and from NOAA. The entire nine-county region was viewed as
too inclusive (incorporating areas where uses do not significantly affect coastal waters) and had the
potential for causing confusion. Use of the two-tiered system has not proven useful in other states.
Reference to the two-tiered approach has been deleted in this document.

    The coastal management boundary and the process that led to defining it are discussed in
Chapter 3. Appendix A contains a complete narrative description of the boundary, and Appendix
B contains boundary maps.

OCMP Organization and Administrative Mechanisms

    There were objections that the document lacked clarity with respect to how a comprehensive
and coordinated OCMP would actually work. Chapter 4, "Program Organization," has been
significantly revised and reorganized to strengthen the description of ODNR's and other agencies'
roles and responsibilities and to clarify the mechanisms by which networking, consistency and
coordination will be achieved. In addition, the policy statements within Chapter 5, "Management
Policies," have been reconfigured, with textual descriptions letter-keyed to specific individual policy
statements and authorities cited.

     In conjunction with these revisions, much of the redundancy that was also a concern has been
eliminated as well. However, due to requirements that certain sections or chapters of the document



Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 11 - 2                            March 1997








must stand alone to fully describe planning processes, some portions of the document, particularly
Chapters 8, 9, and 10, are duplicative with respect to Chapter 5.

Allocation of Grant Funds and Priorities

    Questions arose regarding what priorities would guide the allocation of federal and state money
for coastal area administration activities and projects. Federal Coastal Zone Management Act
(CZMA) implementation funds and state matching funds will be used for ODNR's administration
and coordination of the OCMP and for other state-networked agencies' relevant coastal
administrative responsibilities. ODNR will also administer coastal management assistance grants
in accordance with O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.02(C) (see Appendix C) and will provide funding assistance for
projects in accordance with Section 306A, Resource Management Improvement Grants, of the
CZMA. Chapter 5 of the OCMP document and Draft Environmental Impact Statement, pages 5-2
and 3, now lists priority coastal management issues to serve as a guide for prioritizing funding
assistance through the OCMP. As explained in the "Program Overview," specific actions to address
these six issues or "areas of strategic emphasis" will be detailed in a separate OCMP strategic action
plan.

Clarity of OCMP Consistency Requirements

    The consistency requirements and mechanisms are now described in greater detail in Chapter
4 for state consistency and in Chapter 7 for federal consistency. Some questioned the ability of
applicants to certify the consistency of proposed activities with the OCMP.  ODNR and state
agencies networked in the coastal management program have taken steps (e.g., procedures outlined
in memoranda-of-understanding) to avoid requiring such from applicants in many instances. To
assist applicants, ODNR will publish guidance for understanding program requirements prior to
implementation of the OCMP. Policy guidance will be included with permit and financial assistance
applications and procedural guides.

Lake Erie Redevelopment

    ODNR was asked to adopt within the OCMP the assumptions of the Lake Erie Shore Area
Redevelopment Task Force, which was established by the Ohio legislature and represented a broad
range of local jurisdictions, interest groups, industry and concerned citizens. While not explicitly
stating its endorsement of the Task Force's 1989 findings and recommendations, the OCMP did, in
fact, consider and broadly incorporate the major issues into the February 1992 Public Review Draft
Document. The Task Force's assumptions, particularly as they pertain to water quality and multiple
use, are of importance to successful implementation of the OCMP. Therefore, the OCMP policy
document now explicitly adopts those assumptions in the introduction to Chapter 5, "Management
Policies." The resource protection, management and development policies contained in this
document reflect the goals of the Task Force report.




Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 11 - 3                              March 1997








Lake Erie Submerged Lands

    Policy 16, Public Trust Lands, has been revised to reflect final rules promulgated in April 1992.

Public Access

    Concern was expressed that private property rights would be compromised by allowing public
access in conjunction with submerged land leases administered pursuant to O.R.C. 1506.10 and
1506.11. As explained in Policy 16, landowners have the right to use navigable waters adjacent to
their lands, but that right is subject, in part, to the State of Ohio's property rights as proprietor in trust
of the waters of Lake Erie and the lands under them for the people of Ohio. Those public trust rights
of the state have been interpreted by several court cases to extend to public recreational uses. Under
the submerged lands leasing rules (O.A.C. ï¿½ 1501-6-01 to -06, see Appendix L), the history of public
use in the area and the potential impact of the proposed development upon public recreation must
be considered. In its review of submerged land lease applications and in accordance with the
mandate of O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.11 (G), the OCMP strives to retain access where it has been traditionally
available and to assure that present or prospective public recreational uses are not adversely affected.
However, no coastal management policy states or implies that access must be provided to obtain a
lease. Each lease application is evaluated on its individual merits. Policy 21(B) has been revised
to avoid any implication that lessees of submerged lands are unwillingly required to provide public
access on private property.

    Concern also arose that public ownership and increased public access should be a higher
priority. "Recreational opportunities" has been specifically identified (in the introduction to Chapter
5) as one of the highest priorities for OCMP implementation funding. ODNR will continue its own
efforts to acquire additional public lands and to promote public/private partnerships and cooperative
projects with local governments to improve public access and recreational opportunities. Coastal
management policies that specifically address these issues are policies 12-14, 16, 21-27 and 29.

Lake Erie Coastal Erosion Area Identification and Enforcement

    A concern was expressed that the original owner retains title where there is an "avulsive loss
of land," that there is a significant legal distinction between erosion and avulsion, and that ODNR's
rules cannot be allowed to create a legal presumption regarding land ownership. Existing rule 1501-
6-10(H), Ohio Administrative Code defines "erosion" as "the loss or displacement of land along the
lakeshore due to wave attack, ice scour, mass wasting, or other related erosion processes." ODNR
has clearly stated in presentations to local officials during 1993-1995 consultation meetings and in
informational materials prepared for public release, that all of these processes may be involved in
Lake Erie-related erosion.

     ODNR will ensure that there is a solid legal foundation for state or local enforcement of coastal
erosion areas in accordance with the state coastal management law (see Chapter 5, Policy 1).
Administrative rules adopted by ODNR in June 1996 are included in Appendix H of the draft OCMP


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 11 - 4                              March 1997








document. These rules were subject to extensive public review. In enforcing coastal erosion areas,
ODNR will evaluate each permit application on a fact-specific basis with no presumptions regarding
title or right to reclaim property.

    Concern has been raised that ODNR's methods for delineating coastal erosion areas do not
acknowledge filled-land areas, some which have sufficient construction to be classified as erosion
protection structures. This concern also arose more explicitly and from many participants in public
meetings and meetings with local officials during 1993. Please see a detailed response and
chronology of changes regarding this issue in the following "Response to Comments on Notice of
Intent" Section.

Wetlands

    There were a variety of comments regarding wetlands and proposed OCMP policies and
enforceable authority.

    One comment indicated erroneously that financial assistance is proposed for shore erosion but
not wetlands. A concern was expressed that OCMP priorities are not ecologically based. The
wetlands policy discussion has been expanded (see Chapter 5, Policy 12) to provide a clearer view
of the OCMP's enforceable authority and enhancement policies. The OCMP will continue to hold
wetlands conservation as a high priority in all areas of program implementation - protection through
regulation, planning, technical assistance and financial assistance. The OCMP is now exploring the
feasibility of increased incentives and assistance to private owners who conserve and manage coastal
area wetlands.

    The state's control of activities in wetlands through Ohio EPA's authority to issue or deny water
quality certifications is detailed in the revised draft document.

    The OCMP has been and will continue to be active in securing federal and other available
financial assistance for the acquisition-protection of wetlands, wetlands restoration and other
conservation measures.

Response to Comments on Notice of Intent

    The following addresses comments submitted in response to the November 4, 1993 Federal
Register Notice of Intent to publish the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

1.  Concerns Regarding Inland Boundary of the Coastal Area

         Two-tiered boundary - This issue is addressed in the "Response to 1992 Public Review
         Draft Document."




Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 11 - 5                             March 1997








         Geographic boundary goes beyond the statutory mandate - This is discussed in the
         "Response to 1992 Public Review Draft Document."

2. Concerns Regarding OCMP Implementation

    *   Understaffing of ODNR -- The OCMP is a networked program and as such relies upon the
         resources and expertise of numerous divisions within ODNR as well as other state agencies
         for full program implementation. Upon federal approval, the state will receive federal
         funds that will be matched by state dollars. This will assure adequate resources to
         implement and enhance the OCMP.

    *   Whether OCMP policies can be enforced against municipalities -- The state can enforce
         its coastal management laws against home rule municipalities. First, the General Assembly
         specifically included municipalities in the definition of "person" in the coastal management
         statutes (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.01(B)). Second, Ohio's coastal management laws are "general
         laws" of the state that are enforceable against municipalities even when in conflict with
         local policy, sanitary or general welfare ordinances and regulations. Therefore, the laws
         delineated in the OCMP, most of which are existing state laws of general application, are
         fully enforceable against home rule municipalities.

    * Involuntary taking -- The issue of whether or not a taking has occurred or may occur cannot
         be determined at this time. Courts have consistently ruled against facial takings challenges,
         i.e., they have said that laws, regulations and policies do not in and of themselves effect a
         taking. Takings claims are heard and determined on an "as applied" basis after a specific
         regulatory action has been rendered with respect to a specific property. It is highly unlikely
         that requiring a permit for construction would result in the total loss of economic use of a
         property. In the unlikely eventuality that such a circumstance would arise, any ODNR
         decision under O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.07 is appealable under O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.08. The availability
         of appeals processes generally allows inverse condemnation situations to be averted.

    *   The state does not have the power to zone -- The OCMP does not entail any zoning
         activities.

    *   Undue addition to the permit process in violation of tenets of the federal Coastal Zone
         Management Act -- The CZMA does not prohibit Ohio's addition of one permit
         requirement (coastal erosion area enforcement). In fact, the CZMA regulations mandate
         adequate regulation of development in coastal erosion and flood hazard areas. It is
         important to note that permit process consolidation to be provided under the OCMP will
         assure that permit processes are less burdensome than at present.







Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 11 - 6                             March 1997








3.  Concerns Regarding Coastal Erosion Area Policies

    ï¿½ The OCMP's draft rules promote structural erosion control measures -- ODNR's
         administrative rules do not encourage structural measures to the exclusion of other
         methods. In rule 1501-6-21(G), "erosion control measure" is defined to include slope
         stabilization and beach nourishment. Published technical reports on Lake Erie erosion and
         recession by ODNR's Division of Geological Survey have shown circumstances where
         combinations of structural and nonstructural measures work effectively. The OCMP will
         continue to promote nonstructural measures where appropriate.

    *   Promotion of piecemeal approach to erosion management -- The OCMP presents both
         enforceable policies and enhancement policies. Coastal erosion area management should
         not be thought of narrowly, i.e., the requirement to obtain a permit for a new permanent
         structure when located within a coastal erosion area. ODNR routinely provides technical
         assistance to property owners and developers on avoiding geologic hazards or managing
         the erosion risk when avoidance is not or cannot be undertaken. The coastal erosion
         policies have been revised substantially (see Chapter 5, Policies 1 and 2) to provide a
         clearer picture of Ohio's approach to Lake Erie coastal erosion area management.

         Property owners have joined in cooperative projects in the past and would be expected to
         continue to do so. The OCMP also encourages early coordination in project planning and
         pre-application consultation with ODNR and other agencies, both to avoid problems with
         regulatory requirements and to identify opportunities and alternatives that may be advan-
         tageous to property owners, developers and neighbors.

    *   Lack of criteria or guidance regarding effective erosion control measures -- The Lake Erie
         coastal erosion area enforcement rules provide guidance regarding effectiveness of erosion
         control measures in rule 1501-6-24(A). Discussions with engineers and others involved
         in designing and building erosion control measures has underscored the need for flexibility
         and evaluating proposed measures on a case-by-case basis. Technical information
         regarding erosion and erosion control methods may be obtained from the Lake Erie
         Geology Group, Division of Geological Survey or the Division of Engineering.

    * Coastal erosion area identification extends beyond statutory intent -- See response to that
         same issue, "Regulation of the entire lakefront," below.

    * Program may cause more erosion -- There is no evidence to support this contention.
         Criteria in rule 1501-6-24(A) state that acceleration of erosion and impacts on sand
         resources and coastal processes will be considered in the evaluation of erosion control
         measures. Refer to responses to comments on 1992 Draft OCMP document above
         regarding coastal erosion area policies. Erosion is a natural process in coastal areas. The
         coastal management program will assist greatly in reducing property damages through
         better informed decision making by state and local government, and the encouragement of


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 11 - 7                           March 1997








        strategic retreat and selective fortification to protect development vulnerable to rapid
        erosion. There will be a net benefit to property owners and local governments as losses are
        prevented or lessened.

        Concern about regulation of the entire lakefront -- This concern was heard at meetings held
        with public officials and with shoreline residents throughout 1993, as well as in response
        to NOAA's publication of its NOI to prepare a DEIS on Ohio's CMP. Following those
        meetings, it became clear that modifications to the Ohio Coastal Management Law would
        be necessary to allow ODNR to effectively address this issue and allow for greater
        consideration of substantially filled and protected areas.

        The passage of Amended Substitute Senate Bill 182 in 1994 and subsequent revisions to
        the previously adopted coastal erosion area designation rules have allowed the OCMP to
        incorporate consideration of substantially filled and protected areas into the identification
         of coastal erosion areas. The law now provides that the determination of recession rates
         "shall take into account areas where substantial filling, (or) protective measures ... ha(ve)
         significantly reduced recession." ODNR's coastal erosion area designation rules, as
         adopted in October 1995, now recognize the accuracy limits in mapping: a fixed error rate
         of 5 feet over the time period for which recession rates are calculated has been used in the
        preliminary determination of the landward extent of coastal erosion areas. As a result,
         areas eroding at less than 9 feet over a 30-year period will not be included as coastal
         erosion areas. This effectively addresses extensive protected and filled areas. In addition,
         the rules provide that the landward extent of coastal erosion areas will be calculated using
         the lakeward edge of substantial fill as the baseline rather than the landward-most recession
         line as in the previous rules. The previous method resulted in inclusion of all substantial
         fill areas lakeward of the historic bluff line. Also, coastal erosion areas as now
         preliminarily delineated by ODNR have been based upon average annual recession rates
         calculated over the period of time from 1973 through 1990, rather than 1876 through 1973,
         as previously calculated. This, in effect, mathematically increases the weight given to
         substantial fill and protection placed in more recent years.

         The OCMP believes that this approach to addressing this concern raised by the public in
         1993 is a scientifically valid and fair method of determining the extent of coastal erosion
         areas. It accurately reflects the extent to which substantial fill has served to abate erosion.
         At the same time, it allows ODNR to appropriately focus administration of the coastal
         erosion area management component of the OCMP, while still fulfilling the mandate of the
         Ohio Coastal Management Law.

         Please refer to the text below regarding public participation for discussion of the manner
         in which these changes were accomplished with the involvement of public officials,
         shoreline property owners and others.




Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 11 - 8                              March 1997








      * No meaningful public participation or consultation with local jurisdictions --

        Public participation and consultation prior to rules adoption in 1991 -- Considerable
        thought and effort went into the preparation and adoption of the rules for designating the
        Lake Erie erosion hazard area, as adopted in 199 1. (NOTE: Although ODNR now refers
        to "coastal erosion areas," the terminology "erosion hazard area" was previously used to
        be consistent with language in the law. The latter terminology is retained in the following
        text, with reference to previously adopted rules.) The rules were drafted after reviewing
        coastal programs from Great Lakes states and other coastal states. During development of
        the rules, preliminary copies were sent to Pennsylvania, New York, Michigan and the
        Province of Ontario for review. The draft rules were also reviewed by other ODNR
        divisions and by attorneys from Cleveland and Sandusky. The methodology for identifying
        the Lake Erie erosion hazard area reflected many years of experience dealing with coastal
        erosion along the Ohio shore of Lake Erie.

        While the law did not require ODNR to promulgate and adopt rules for designating the
        erosion hazard area, this was done to maximize the opportunity for public scrutiny and
        involvement. The draft rules for designating the Lake Erie erosion hazard area were
        discussed at numerous meetings, hearings, open houses, and workshops with local officials
        and the public.

        Presentations on the draft rules for "Designating the Lake Erie Erosion Hazard Area" were
        given to the Northeast District of the Ohio Association of County Recorders on October
        4, 1989, and-to the Erie County Board of Realtors on September 4, 1990. The rules were
        also presented at a Shoreline Management Workshop held in Cleveland on June 21-23,
         1990, and at a conference on "Managing Lake Erie's Coast - The 1990's and Beyond,"
        which was held in October 1990 and sponsored jointly by the Ohio Coastal Resource
        Management Project (OCRMP) and the Ohio Lake Erie Office. Details of the proposed
        designation process for the erosion hazard area were also published in the OCRMP
        newsletter.

        On November 2, 1990, the proposed rules were filed and legal notices were mailed for
        public hearings. Legal notices regarding the rules were published in the Toledo Blade on
        November 2, 1990, the Sandusky Register on November 9, 1990, the Cleveland Plain
        Dealer on November 11, 1990, and in the Port Clinton News Herald on November 12,
         1990. A news release announcing the schedule of hearings and open houses was
        distributed on November 15, 1990. Open houses were held in Huron on November 19,
         1990; Toledo on November 27, 1990; Cleveland on November 28, 1990; and in Ashtabula
        on December 11, 1990. A Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review (JCARR) hearing was
        held December 6, 1990, and another hearing was held December 17, 1990. Final rules
        were adopted, effective September 8, 1991.





Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 11 - 9            -March 1997








        Public participation and consultation after rules adoption in 1991 -- Mapping of the
        erosion hazard area based on the previously adopted rules did not begin in a concerted
        manner until federal funding for coastal program development was secured in late 1992.
        As program development proceeded and draft preliminary maps neared completion, the
        OCMP began meeting regularly again with local communities to explain the mapping
        process and draft enforcement rules. In June, 1993, ODNR conducted three meetings in
        the coastal area for local officials and planning agencies from all of the shoreline counties.
        Additional meetings were conducted as requested by local jurisdictions. ODNR conducted
        consultation meetings in each of the eight shoreline counties and in Put-in-Bay in
        November and December 1993 to review with local officials and planning agencies both
        the proposed preliminary identification of the erosion hazard area and proposed
        administrative rules for enforcement. Some members of the general public attended most
        of these meetings as well.

         "Erosion hazard area" maps were displayed and discussed at length at the Fall 1993 meet-
        ings. Maps were subsequently made available upon written request. Copies of the already-
        adopted rules for designating the hazard area and proposed rules for enforcing the hazard
        area were distributed to all local officials both in advance of all meetings as well as at those
        meetings. In addition, relevant sections of the revised draft OCMP document were shared
        at many of these meetings.

        Comments at the-above-mentioned meetings focused primarily on the broad extent of the
        erosion hazard area, the inclusion of substantially filled and protected areas, the 30-year
        effectiveness standard that was required for erosion control measures, time periods allowed
         for public review and objection to the preliminary identification of the erosion hazard area,
         and the requirement that the status of property in the hazard area be recorded with the
        property owner's deed. As additional meetings were held within the coastal area and
         negotiations continued with property owners and their representatives, it became apparent
        that modifications to the Coastal Management Law would be necessary to achieve more
         focused and reasonable administration of the coastal erosion management component of
         the OCMP. To that end, ODNR worked with local officials and their representatives
         during the Spring of 1994 to achieve mutually agreeable statutory amendments. These
         amendments, passed by the Ohio General Assembly in May:

         a.  Increased the number of public hearings to be conducted for both the Coastal
             Management Program document and the erosion hazard area identification.

         b.  Allowed for consideration of protected and filled land in the erosion hazard area
             identification process, resulting in exclusion of some shoreline reaches from the
             hazard area. (All changes of "area" to "areas" and "the Lake Erie erosion hazard area"
             to "a Lake Erie erosion hazard area" relate to this modification.)





Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part 1 11 - 10                            March 1997








        c.  Extended the time period during which property owners may object to the preliminary
             hazard area delineation. (The second review period for ODNR is slightly shortened
             so as to avoid unduly lengthening the entire process.)

         d.  Changed the requirement for deed recordation that a property is included in the hazard
             area to requirement for written notice in accordance with Ohio Disclosure Law
             (O.R.C. ï¿½ 5302.30).

        e.  Deleted the requirement that erosion protection measures required to obtain a permit
             under ï¿½ 1506.07 be effective for 30 years. (Effectiveness standards will be included
             in rules.)

         f.  Modified the hardship provision in Division (B) of ï¿½ 1506.07.

         g.  Limited the permit requirement to only those properties directly fronting Lake Erie.

         h.  Required ODNR review of local enforcement of erosion hazard area programs every
             two years rather than every year.

         i.  Clarified the requirement for state consistency by specifying in ï¿½ 1506.03 that projects
             or activities subject to consistency must directly affect the coastal area.

         Following the effective date of the amendments, October 20, 1994, ODNR worked with
         local officials to assemble an external working group to advise the department regarding
         changes, in addition to those required by the statutory revisions, to the previously adopted
         designation rules and the draft enforcement rules. A broadly representative group was
         formed, comprised of shoreline property owners, local officials, non-ODNR geologists,
         engineers and a state representative. That group met six times from December 1994
         through May 1995. ODNR used the comments and recommendations of this group to
         modify the previously adopted designation rules and draft enforcement rules prior to filing
         those rules on July 24, 1995. The group elected not to write official recommendations,
         stating that the changes ODNR was making as their worked progressed reflected their
         recommendations.

         During the period of time between enactment of the Ohio coastal law amendments and
         publication of this document, the OCMP continued to conduct numerous meetings and
         consultations with the public, local officials, state legislators and real estate professionals
         to advise them of the OCMP's progress and direction on this issue and to obtain input from
         these groups and individuals. Specifically, meetings were held in Jerusalem Township
         (Lucas County), Cleveland, Avon Lake, Erie County, Sandusky, Bay Village, Geneva,
         Rocky River, Lakewood, Willowick, Jefferson (Ashtabula County) and with the Cedar
         Point Property Owners Association. OCMP and ODNR's Division of Geological Survey
         staff met with Boards of Realtors in Sandusky and in western Cuyahoga County and with


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 11 - 11                           March 1997








        the Peninsula Chamber of Commerce (Ottawa County). Three meetings were held with
        coastal area legislators. The City of Bay Village was particularly active in working with
        OCMP staff, establishing an ad hoc committee and conducting regular meetings with
        ODNR. Five meetings were held there between March 1994 and June 1995. The OCMP
        considered advice from all of these consultations, in addition to the recommendations of
        the external working group, in its rules revisions.

        One issue, that of the terminology "erosion hazard area" arose on several occasions. An
        expressed concern was that the terminology conveyed an undue sense of alarm. This,
        coupled with the coastal law's disclosure requirement, was particularly worrisome to
        shoreline property owners. ODNR agreed with the external working group that the term
        "coastal erosion areas" conveys the intent of ODNR's intended objectives and that the
        publication of maps and recession rate tables more accurately portrays the relative risks of
        erosion along the shoreline. The Ohio General Assembly has now passed H.B. 119, an
        amendment to the state coastal management law to statutorily effect this terminology
        change. H.B. 119 became effective May 8, 1996, and is included in Appendix C of this
        document.

        Upon filing the rules on July 24, 1995, ODNR mailed legal notices for two public hearings
        to the Cleveland Plain Dealer, the Sandusky Register, the Toledo Blade, the Port Clinton
        News Herald, the Lorain Morning Journal, the Willoughby News Herald and the Ashtabula
        Star Beacon. A news release announcing the hearings schedule and open houses for more
        informal comment and discussion was distributed on August 14. Open houses and public
        hearings were conducted in Huron on August 24 and in Cleveland on August 28. The rules
        were considered at the August 29 Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review (JCARR)
        meeting. The rules were refiled, following additional coordination with local governments,
        in February 1996 and filed in final form on June 3, 1996. The designation rules became
        effective on June 14, 1996, and the enforcement rules will become effective August 1,
         1997.

        Public participation and consultation with local authorities have been and will continue to
        be essential elements of policy making in the development and implementation of the
         OCMP. Eight additional public hearings will be scheduled for public comment on the
        preliminary identification of the coastal erosion areas. And the OCMP will continue to
        consult with local officials, property owners, coastal legislators, realtors and other
         organizations during the entire process of program development.

         Cost analysis -- ODNR evaluated the potential effects of the identification and enforcement
         of coastal erosion areas upon property values and future development. Based upon
         research and consultation conducted during June through August 1993 and again in Spring
         1995, ODNR concluded that the identification and enforcement of coastal erosion areas
         will not negatively impact property values or development interests.



Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 11 - 12                            March 1997








         In part, ODNR has relied upon research conducted by the Ohio Sea Grant College
         Program. That research has concluded that the existence of erosion at given property sites
         is factored into buyers' decisions. Many buyers know that erosion can reduce the benefits
         of owning lake shore property. They perceive that erosion can cause a capital loss. It is
         reasonable to assume the buyer knows that the risk of capital loss can be reduced by
         installing erosion protection measures, which involves a capital expense. Erosion risk can
         also be reduced by choosing a property that is physically more immune to erosion damage
         (Kriesel, Lichtkoppler, Ohio Sea Grant Fact Sheet 044). ODNR prepared an economic
         impact assessment in September 1993 for inclusion with the anticipated original filing of
         coastal erosion enforcement rules. That analysis was widely distributed to local officials,
         planning agencies and other coastal area interests.

         A fiscal analysis was again conducted in Spring of 1995, using a broad literature search and
         a second round of contacts made with coastal erosion managers in Great Lakes states.
         Research was completed on the extent of losses incurred by the public and shoreline
         property owners as a result of erosion processes. The intent of the latter analysis was to
         estimate the extent of potential cost savings if new development is encouraged outside
         coastal erosion areas.

         Experience in other states continues to show that shoreline property values fluctuate with
         the extent of visible erosion, the real estate market and changing lake levels.

         Potential costs to property owners, where an entirely new erosion control measure is
         required, were estimated using cost estimates from engineers compiled by ODNR's
         Division of Engineering. Those costs would be offset to varying degrees by value added
         to a coastal property through increased erosion protection. Many property owners would
         be fiscally affected only to the extent that modifications to an existing erosion control
         structure would be required to ensure that it is effective. It would not be possible to
         determine a range of costs of hypothetical modifications that might be required on the vast
         array of types of erosion control structures of varying age.

         Failure to consider avulsion -- The relationship of avulsive events and property ownership
         rights to ODNR's mandate to regulate construction of new permanent structures within the
         Lake Erie erosion hazard area was not made clear in the comments provided in response
         to the Notice of Intent. Without clarification of the concern in this regard, response is not
         possible. However, it is hoped the response in the section on responses to the 1992 Public
         Review Draft Document will address this concern.

4. General concerns regarding the OCMP

         ODNR's decision not to issue an interim revised draft OCMP document in advance of
         publication of the DEIS -- Revisions have not been completed until just prior to publication
         of this document. Portions of the document relevant to the coastal erosion area


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 11 - 13                            March 1997








        management program have been shared and discussed with coastal interests, since that was
        the issue regarding which interest in the document was expressed.  The revised draft
        document is reflective of the continuing input and participation in policy making by the
        public and coastal area interests.

    ï¿½ No funding at state or local level for implementation -- Federal funding will be provided
        for program implementation. This funding is required to be matched by state funds in
        increasing amounts over the first four fiscal years of program administration, after which
        the federal/state contribution will be 1-to-1. Grants to local communities will be available
        through the coastal management assistance grant program in accordance with O.R.C. ï¿½
         1506.02(C).

    *   Limited input from local communities -- Please refer to comments in item 3 regarding
        participation and consultation. In addition to ODNR's efforts mentioned above, four public
        meetings, two of which were conducted as hearings, were held in the coastal area following
        publication of the Public Review Draft Document. Input from those meetings and from
        written responses from the public, local communities, and state and federal agencies has
        been considered and incorporated, as appropriate, into this revised document. All of this
        effort is in addition to the considerable public involvement component of earlier program
        development activities in the late 1970s and 1980s, as described in detail in Chapter 2.
        OCMP development has been significantly aided as well by the Coastal Resources
        Advisory Council since passage of the Coastal Management Law. All advisory council
        meetings are open to the public. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process
        and ODNR's requirement to conduct at least four public hearings will now be another
        opportunity for the public to participate and provide input regarding the complete OCMP
        document.






















Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II 11 - 14                           March 1997








                                            PART III

     REQUIREMENTS OF THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (NEPA)


    A. Purpose and Need for Action

    NOAA has prepared this final environmental impact statement (FEIS) pursuant to the National
    Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. to assess the environmental impacts
    associated with the approval and implementation of the coastal management program submitted to
    NOAA by the State of Ohio. The State of Ohio has submitted its Coastal Management Program to the
    Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM) for approval pursuant to section 306 of
    the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972 as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1451.

    The proposed action on the FEIS is approval of the Ohio Coastal Management Program (OCMP). The
    OCRM has made an initial determination that the program meets the requirements of the CZMA, as
    amended. Federal approval of the Ohio program will enable the State of Ohio to receive Federal grant
    assistance for program implementation and will require that Federal actions in or affecting the Ohio
    coastal zone be consistent with the Ohio program. The OCMP is described in Part II of this document.
    A table cross-referencing CZMA requirements with sections from this document may be found in Part
    I.

    Approval and implementation of the OCMP will enhance governance of Ohio's coastal land and water
    uses according to the coastal policies and standards contained in the existing statutes, authorities and
    rules. Federal alternatives to program approval include delaying or denying approval, if certain
    requirements of the CZMA have not been met. The state could modify parts of the program or
    withdraw its application for Federal approval if either of the above Federal alternatives results from
    circulation of this document. This final program EIS includes responses to comments received on the
    draft EIS.

    1. The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)

    In response to the intense pressures upon coastal areas of the United States, Congress passed the Coastal
    Zone Management Act (P.L. 92-583). This Act was signed into law on October 27, 1972. The Act
    authorized a Federal grant program to be administered by the Secretary of Commerce, who in turn
    delegated this responsibility to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Office
    of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM). The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972
    was substantially amended on July 26, 1976 (P.L.94-370) and again on November 5, 1990 (P.L. 101-58).
    It was reauthorized in June 1996 (P.L. 104-150) for a three-year period with minor changes. The Act
    and its amendments affirm a national interest in the effective protection and development of the coastal
    zone by providing assistance and encouragement to coastal states to develop and implement rational
    programs for managing their coastal zones.





Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part im - 1                                    March 1997








    Broad guidelines and the basic requirements of the CZMA provide the necessary direction for
    developing these state programs. These guidelines and requirements for program development and
    approval are contained in 15 CFR Part 923. as revised and published June 28, 1996 in the Federal
    Register. In summary, the requirements for program approval are that a state develop a management
    program that:

    *   Identifies and evaluates those coastal resources recognized in the Act that require management or
         protection by the state.

    *   Reexamines existing policies or develops new policies to manage these resources. These policies
         must be specific, comprehensive and enforceable, and must provide an adequate degree of
         predictability as to how coastal resources will be managed;

    *   Determines specific uses and special geographic areas that are to be subject to the management
         program, based on the nature of identified coastal concerns. The basis for managing uses, or their
         impacts, and areas, should be based on resource capability and suitability analyses, socio-economic
         considerations and public preferences;

    *   Identifies the inland and seaward areas subject to the management program;

    *   Provides for the consideration of the national interest in planning for the siting of facilities that
         meet more than local requirements; and

    *   Includes sufficient legal authorities and organizational structure to implement the program and to
         ensure conformance to it.

























Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II - 2                                        March 1997








    B.  Alternatives to the Proposed Action

    Introduction

    Given the nature of the proposed Federal action, approval, delay and denial of the Ohio Coastal
    Management Program, are all alternatives available to OCRM. In approving a coastal management
    program (the preferred alternative), the Assistant Administrator for Ocean Services and Coastal Zone
    Management must find that a state has met the federal approval requirements of the CZMA at 15 C.F.R.
    Part 923. Delay or denial of program approval could be based on failure of the Ohio Coastal
    Management Program to meet any of the requirements of the CZMA, as amended. During the
    development of the Ohio Coastal Management Program in the 1970s, a variety of alternatives to
    specific program elements, e.g. boundary, management structure, and policy content, were discussed
    by county advisory groups and coastal program staff. No substantive or fundamental organizational
    alternatives were seriously considered, however.

    In an effort to elicit public and agency comment and to assure that the Assistant Administrator's
    determination will be appropriate, this section identifies possible programmatic reasons for delaying
    or denying approval of the OCMP identified through the public review process to date.

    Federal Alternatives

    Three alternatives to the proposed action are available to the Assistant Administrator: approve, delay,
    or take no action/deny. The Assistant Administrator's approval must be based upon affirmative findings
    for all of the requirements of the CZMA.

    1. Alternative 1: The Assistant Administrator could approve the OCMP. This is the preferred
         alternative.

    Approval of the Ohio CMP would be based on an affirmative finding that the program meets all
    requirements of the CZMA and its regulations. The benefits of the OCMP implementation would
    include improved regulation and enforcement; balanced coastal community development; improved
    economic development for water dependent uses; better natural resource and hazardous areas
    management; improved intergovernmental coordination and greater public awareness. Additional
    benefits are review by Ohio of federal and federally-permitted and funded projects for consistency with
    its coastal management program and consideration of the national interest in state decision-making.

    2. Alternative 2: The Assistant Administrator could deny approval (take no action) on the OCMP.

    OCRM could deny approval if the program is found to not meet all requirements. With respect to the
    "no action" alternative, the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management considers Federal denial
    or state withdrawal from the program and "no action" as synonymous. State participation under the
    CZMA is voluntary: when a state participates in program development, it determines whether or not
    program approval and implementation is in its best interest. The impacts of "no action" are described
    below:



Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part m - 3                                      March 1997








    A.  Loss of federal funds to administer the program: Under section 306 of the CZMA, Ohio would
        receive about $800,000 annually to administer its coastal management program.

    B.  Loss of consistency review of federal actions: This will mean that federal actions would not be
        reviewed by Ohio for consistency with the OCMP as required by section 307, CZMA.

    C.  Loss of adequate consideration of the national interest in the siting of facilities which are other than
        local in nature as required by section 306(d)(8) of the CZMA. By delaying or denying program
         approval, the State of Ohio and local governments would be under no obligation under section
         306(d)(8) to give adequate consideration to coastal facilities that are of national interest. This
        could result in loss of public benefit that the use of such facilities provide.

    3. Alternative 3: The Assistant Administrator could delay approval of the OCMP.

    OCRM could delay its approval if any element of the OCMP necessary for program approval does not
    meet approval requirements and requires some modification. In the opinion of OCRM, the following
    three issues might be the most prominent in terms of reviewing the adequacy of the OCMP meeting
    specific CZMA requirements. These basic concerns, the relevant CZM requirements, and OCRM and
    state options are described below under three alternative headings:

    Alternative 3A: Delay program approval if the State does not have the organizational structure to
    implement the coastal management program.

    The OCMP is a "networked" program consisting of several Ohio natural resource protection and
    hazard management programs. Ohio's coastal management law requires that all state agency actions
    affecting the coast be consistent with the OCMP. Responsibility within ODNR for implementing the
    relevant statutes and coordinating the overall program falls to the Division of Real Estate and Land
    Management (REALM). Other state agencies such as the Ohio DOT need to act consistently with the
    OCMP. The Assistant Administrator could delay program approval if the coordination and consistency
    provisions of the OCMP including the draft interagency MOUs included in Part II, Appendix E are
    insufficient to effectively network state agencies and divisions into an overall coastal management
    program.

    Alternative 3B: Delay program approval if the State does not have the necessary authorities to protect
    wetlands under its section 401 water quality certification authority.

    Ohio relies on Ohio EPA's section 401 water quality certification authority and other aspects of Ohio
    EPA's water quality standards program to protect the State's coastal wetlands (see Part II, Chapter 5).
    The Assistant Administrator could delay approval of Ohio's program if these authorities are not strong
    enough to protect coastal wetlands. In making this determination, NOAA will examine information
    on the activities currently affecting wetlands in Ohio, the Ohio EPA's regulations and guidelines for
    decision-making for section 401 water quality certifications, as well as judicial actions interpreting Ohio
    EPA's authority.




Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II - 4                                       March 1997








    Alternative 3C: The Assistant Administrator could delay program approval if ODNR regulation for
    erosion management purposes either is not appropriate to the erosion problem in Lake Erie or do not
    contain enough specificity to allow for predictable decision-making.

    Ohio DNR has issued draft maps identifying the Lake Erie coastal erosion areas pursuant to O.R.C.
    ï¿½1506.06. These proposals reflect several years of work on the part of the ODNR to identify that
    portion of the Lake Erie shoreline that is likely to be lost to shoreline erosion over the next 30 years if
    no additional erosion control measures are implemented. More detailed information on these proposals
    is found on pages 5- 8 through 5-12 in Part II of this document. In developing these proposals ODNR
    consulted extensively with affected interests including local governments, landowners, and OCRM.

    Significant changes were made in the process used to designate coastal erosion areas in areas that
    already are filled and/or bulkheaded. The process was also changed to account for accuracy limits in
    calculating recession rates. The effect of these changes was to significantly reduce the areas that are
    preliminarily designated as coastal erosion areas.

    Another issue related to the coastal erosion component of the OCMP is the criteria that ODNR will use
    to permit permanent structures and erosion control measures. These criteria require an assessment of
    the effects of proposed erosion control measures, both structural and nonstructural, on coastal processes,
    in particular erosion along the adjacent shoreline. There is some concern regarding whether ODNR
    should require or show a preference for nonstructural measures if the site and the adjacent shoreline
    area will be better protected by such nonstructural measures, or if the nonstructural measures would be
    more effective to maintain the natural functions of beaches, dunes, bluffs and littoral zones.

    Before taking final action approving the OCMP, OCRM will review the complete record of comments
    and responses on this document.

    State Alternatives Considered During Program Development

    Throughout the early effort to develop a program in Ohio, preference was always given to using a
    networked approach based on existing authorities rather than creation of a new CZM superagency.
    Ohio's General Assembly, in unanimously passing the Coastal Management Law, made clear and
    specific choices about the manner in which Ohio's coastal management program would be developed
    and implemented, whether or not federal approval under the CZMA would be pursued. The law
    establishes a networked program, with ODNR as lead agency assuring consistency in implementation
    of existing authorities.

    An alternative approach to the inland boundary was considered during the 1990s. The delineation of
    the Ohio coastal management boundary was proposed as a two-tiered boundary, with a "management
    tier" and a more extensive nine-county planning tier. As proposed in the 1992 public review draft
    document, the first tier was to be the geographic area subject to all program authorities and the federal
    and state consistency provisions. The second tier was envisioned as a means of facilitating planning
    and administration provisions. This alternative was eliminated as a result of comment on the 1992




Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part I - 5                                      March 1997








    document indicating that such arrangements have not worked well in other states administering coastal
    management programs. i

    There have been, however, significant changes in the ODNR's proposal to implement the coastal
    erosion area management provisions of the 1988 Ohio Coastal Management Act. Considerable public
    debate has ensued on that issue, resulting in several significant changes to the Ohio Coastal
    Management Law in 1994 and regulations that identify coastal erosion areas. Changes are discussed
    in detail in Chapter I11 of Part 11 of this document, which was reproduced verbatim from the DEIS. The
    coastal erosion area management policies set forth in Chapter 5 of Part 11 of this document have been
    modified in accordance with those statutory changes. Environmental effects of the erosion area
    management policies are discussed on pages 23-24 of this section.

    Consultation and Coordination

    All local, state and federal agencies referenced in Part 11 of this document and Volume II Appendices
    were consulted during initial development of the 1992 public review draft document. ODNR consulted
    each agency again in 1993 and in 1995 in order to incorporate necessary revisions prior to publication.

































Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part III - 6                                     March 1997








        C.  Description of the Affected Environment

        Overview

        Special among the Great Lakes is Lake Erie, the only Great Lake to border Ohio. Population density
        in the Lake Erie basin is the greatest among the Great Lakes, yet Lake Erie is smaller by volume than
        the other Great Lakes, and only Lake Ontario is smaller in area.

        Lake Erie is the shallowest of the Great Lakes, and the relatively warm waters contribute to its being
        one of the most productive freshwater lakes in the world. In fact, the walleye populations of the
        western Lake Erie basin have helped Ohio earn a reputation as the "Walleye Capital of the World." In
        addition, while loss of coastal wetlands along Lake Erie has been profound, the remaining Lake Erie
        marshes have international importance for North American waterfowl and serve other important
        wetland functions.

        Ohio annually uses more than one trillion gallons of Lake Erie water for industrial processing, electrical
        generation, public consumption and domestic purposes. About 9 million tons of cargo are annually
        shipped to and from Ohio ports on Lake Erie. From May to September each year, tourism pumps some
        $200 million into the local economies of Ottawa, Erie and Lorain counties, while more than 10 million
        visitors enjoy year-long fun and outdoor recreation at Ohio's seven Lake Erie state parks. Sport harvest
        of walleye and yellow perch on Lake Erie in 1993 was 5.5 million fish. Meanwhile, the lake area's
        numerous wineries produced some 620,000 gallons of wine.

(O      Coastal Area

        State law defines Ohio's coastal area as "the waters of Lake Erie, the islands in the lake, and the lands
        under and adjacent to the lake, including transitional areas, wetlands, and beaches. The coastal area
        extends in Lake Erie to the international boundary line between the United States and Canada and
        landward only to the extent necessary to include shorelands, the uses of which have a direct and
        significant impact on coastal waters as determined by the director of natural resources" (O.R.C. ï¿½
        1506.01(A)).

        The proposed coastal area boundary includes portions of the four Areas of Concern (AOCs) designated
        by the International Joint Commission. They are the Maumee, Black, Cuyahoga and Ashtabula Rivers
        AOCs. AOCs are areas that were identified as having severe water quality problems and a high degree
        of use impairments resulting from a broad array of point and nonpoint sources.

        For purposes of organization, this chapter concerning the environment affected by Ohio's coastal
        management program is described under the broad categories of Physical Characteristics,
        Socio-Economic Characteristics, Environmental Quality, and Natural Resources.







    Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part III - 7                                    March 1997








    1. Physical Characteristics

    a. Lake Erie

    Lake Erie divides naturally into three major basins: western, central and eastern. The western basin,
    extending from Toledo to Huron, includes the Lake Erie Islands of Ohio. The most developed and
    populated islands are Kelleys Island and North, Middle and South Bass Islands. Rattlesnake and West
    Sister islands are smaller and less developed. The central basin extends from Huron to the
    Pennsylvania border where the eastern basin begins. In total, Ohio has 262 miles of Lake Erie shoreline
    and 2.25 million surface acres of water within Lake Erie's western and central basins.

    Ohio's portion of the western basin of Lake Eric includes about 450,000 surface acres of water and
    approximately 137 miles of shoreline. The area has numerous reefs and shoals, rocky islands, and
    sandy beaches. It is the most productive fish spawning and nursery grounds in the Great Lakes.
    Maximum water depth in the western basin is 46 feet, with an average depth of 24 feet. Bottom types
    range from sand and silt to hard packed clay and limestone bedrock.

    Ohio's portion of central Lake Erie includes 1,783,000 surface acres of water and approximately 125
    miles of shoreline. Maximum depth of the central basin is 80 feet, with an average depth of 56 feet.
    The bottom is made up of a gravel and shale bedrock covered in most areas by mud and sand.

    Lake Erie water levels vary naturally over time in cyclical fluctuations, ranging from the record
    historical low of 568.31 feet (IGLD 1985) in February 1936 to the record high of 574.16 feet in June
    1986. Long-term average level of Lake Erie is 571.16 feet (IGLD 1985). Lake level varies naturallyW
    through precipitation and evaporation in the basin, inflow from the upper Great Lakes via the Detroit
    River, and outflow into the Niagara River. Although four man-made diversions and two regulatory
    structures have some minor effect on Great Lakes water levels in general, no water level control
    structures exist specifically on Lake Erie. Flow is naturally constricted at the meeting point of the
    Niagara River and Lake Erie, limiting the rate at which water leaves the lake. Relatively small amounts
    of water are diverted through the Welland Canal, New York Barge Canal, and Black Rock Lock in the
    Niagara River.

    b. Erosion and Flooding

    Erosion along the Ohio shore of Lake Erie is a serious problem, especially in areas of high bluffs and
    erodible sand, clay and till. The two primary erosional processes are wave erosion and mass wasting.
    Natural factors such as beach distribution, near shore depths, storm frequency, lake level and shoreline
    orientation contribute to variations in rates of erosion over time and from place to place. Erosion
    control structures and offshore disposal of sand dredged from harbors also contribute to variations and
    have exacerbated erosion problems in some areas. Recession rates vary from nominal along dolomite
    and limestone island areas to as much as twelve feet annually in portions of Lake and Ashtabula
    counties for the period 1973 through 1990. Of the 262 mile shoreline, approximately 157 miles (60%)
    are eroding at a rate greater than 0.3 feet per year.




Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part [III - 8                                   March 1997








    Two problems associated with fluctuating lake levels and developments located in flood- and erosion-
    prone areas are damages and property loss due to flooding and Lake Erie-related erosion. Nearly 1.6
    million tons of material is eroded annually along Ohio's lakeshore, with significant and far-reaching
    implications for public safety, health and welfare. Only 20 percent of this 1.6 million tons is sand-sized
    sediment that remains along the shoreline. The remainder is fine-grained sediment that disperses in the
    lake, increasing water turbidity and sedimentation rates.

    While the areas subject to flooding are well known, the timing and occurrence of such flooding along
    the lake is highly unpredictable, often resulting from sudden storms and short-term fluctuations in
    barometric pressure. More predictable flooding along rivers and streams takes place in the spring when
    rainfall and snowmelt occur, the ground is either saturated or frozen, and runoff is high. Ice jams also
    compound the flooding problem at these times. Direct flood damages averaged $20 million to $25
    million annually in the late 1960s, but these costs have escalated to more than $100 million today and
    are expected to rise even further.

    c. Geology

    Lake Erie's geology is primarily the product of sedimentation, erosion and glacial activity. The area's
    geologic foundation consists of ancient igneous and metamorphic bedrock which was periodically
    covered by shallow seas and subsequent sediment deposits. These sediments hardened into layers of
    sandstone, shale, limestone and dolomite that were, in turn, carved into wide valleys by river systems
    and advancing glacial ice. The less resistant shales and fractured limestones were scraped out to form
    lake areas, leaving more resistant shale cliffs in the east and a chain of limestone and dolomite islands
 to the west.

    Geologic processes are continually reworking Lake Erie and its shore. While these processes generally
    act very slowly to yield almost imperceptible changes, the combination of beach and bluff erosion
    associated with above average lake levels has caused dramatic changes along the Ohio lakeshore. The
    effects of Lake Erie's fluctuating water levels can reach far into adjoining flood plains and low-lying
    areas. The 1980s saw record high lake levels over the entire Great Lakes Basin. While the other Great
    Lakes have receded to their long-term average levels since the record high levels of the 1980s, Lake
    Erie has remained about one and one-half feet above its long-term average.

    d. Physical Shoreline

    From Toledo to Huron, Ohio's shoreline consists of low-relief (less than 2 meters) barrier beaches and
    laminated clay banks, except for the Marblehead-Catawba Island area that is made up largely of
    moderate-relief (3 to 6 m) dolostone and limestone slopes and bluffs. From Huron to Conneaut, the
    shore consists of moderate-to-high relief (3 to 20 m) shale and/or till slopes and bluffs commonly
    capped by stratified drift. Shale makes up most of the shore between Cleveland and Avon Point.
    Excluding manmade structures and fill, about 47 percent of the length of shore in the wave erosion zone
    is till, 26 percent is rock, 22 percent is sand, and 5 percent is laminated clay.





Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part m - 9                                      March 1997








    A century ago, sand beaches fronted most reaches of Ohio's Lake Erie shore. Now, beaches make up
    a fragmented band that fronts about 80 miles of the shore. The beaches are commonly narrow (less than i
    15 m wide) and consist primarily of sand, although there are cobble, pocket beaches in places where
    the shore is composed of rock. Shore-protection structures, e.g., groins and seawalls adjoin many
    beaches. In general, the longest continuous beaches are found where there are the fewest groins.

    Nearshore slopes are gentle; the slopes within 600 m of the shoreline are usually less than one degree.
    The bottom is generally made up of sand and gravel less than 2 m thick near the shore. Farther
    offshore, rock, till, till lag, glaciolacustrine clay, and silt are found.

    More than 80 percent of Ohio's shoreline is developed, and approximately 2,300 permanent structures
    are located within 50 feet of the bluff line.

    The following is a description of the physical shoreline by county:

    The 22-mile shoreline of Lucas County, including the Maumee River estuary, is composed of lacustrine
    clay deposits around the Maumee River and Bay, while sand and marshes front the lake proper. Sand
    beaches are small or nonexistent along Maumee Bay, whereas discontinuous beaches front
    approximately 45 percent of the lakeshore. Maumee Bay has numerous shore protection structures, and
    riprapped dikes protect much of the wetland habitat along the lake. Approximately 7 miles of the Lucas
    County shoreline are expected to be preliminarily identified as coastal erosion areas.

    Ottawa County's 79 miles of shore, including Sandusky Bay and the islands, is characterized by
    low-relief sand slopes and marshes along the county's western shore, while the shoreline of the islands
    and lakeward portion of Marblehead Peninsula areas are composed primarily of bedrock limestone.
    Shore protection structures front much of the shore. Approximately 36 miles of the Ottawa County
    shoreline, exclusive of the islands, are expected to be preliminarily identified as coastal erosion areas.

    The south shore of Sandusky Bay in Sandusky County extends for 5 miles plus several miles along
    Muddy Creek Bay. The shore consists of low clay banks, and beaches are narrow to nonexistent. The
    western part is predominantly wetlands. Approximately 4 miles of the Sandusky County shoreline are
    expected to be preliminarily identified as coastal erosion areas.

    Erie County's shore consists of 46 mainland miles, (including Sandusky Bay), and 11 miles on Kelleys
    Island. Kelleys Island's shore is bedrock limestone. Sandusky Bay's shore is primarily low clay banks
    with narrow to nonexistent beaches. Along the open lake, the shore varies from beaches and low dunes
    at Cedar Point to low-relief till and clay banks, to higher (7-10m) till bluffs farther east. Approximately
    30 miles of the Erie County shoreline are expected to be preliminarily identified as coastal erosion
    areas.

    Lorain County has 22 miles of lakefront, where erosive 25-foot bluffs and slopes characterize part of
    the shore, with lower till bluffs in other areas. Discontinuous beaches less than 50 feet wide and groins
    and seawalls are common. Approximately 14 miles of the Lorain County shoreline are expected to be
    preliminarily identified as coastal erosion areas.



Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part mI - 10                                   March 1997








    The 29-mile shoreline in Cuyahoga County has 50- to 60-foot shale bluffs and slopes west of
    Cleveland; the Cleveland lakefront is entirely protected by structures; and 25-foot till bluffs characterize
    the eastern shore. Approximately 12 miles of the Cuyahoga County shoreline are expected to be
    preliminarily identified as coastal erosion areas.

    Lake County's 30 miles of shoreline is characterized by 30- to 40-foot shale bluffs overlain by clay,
    sand, and till, except near Ashtabula County where the bluffs are lower. Discontinuous sand beaches
    and shore-protection structures front the shore. Approximately 24 miles of the Lake County shoreline
    are expected to be preliminarily identified as coastal erosion areas.

    Ashtabula County's 28 miles of shorefront is composed largely of till banks, bluffs, and slopes which
    increase from heights of 15 feet in the west to 65 feet near Pennsylvania. Isolated sand beaches, 50 to
    100 feet wide, and shore protection structures are common. Approximately 21 miles of the Ashtabula
    County shoreline are expected to be preliminarily identified as coastal erosion areas.

    e.   Soils

    Generally, the soils on the shoreline west of Sandusky Bay are very poorly drained and formed in
    clayey, high lime sediments. Toledo has the most common soil series in this area, and it commonly
    occurs just slightly above the lake level. Northwest of Cleveland, the soils on the shoreline generally
    formed in sandy, loamy or silty sediments, or glacial till with a low content of lime. Many beaches are
    included, but the most common soil series above the bluffs is Conneaut, a poorly drained soil.

    Between Sandusky Bay and Cleveland, the soils are much more variable. Soils in the Marblehead area
    are relatively shallow to limestone bedrock. East of the Huron River, soils that are only moderately
    deep to acid shale bedrock are common. Soils that formed in medium-lime glacial till are on some of
    the bluffs. Sediments ranging from sandy to clayey textures are common along the shoreline in Erie
    County east of Sandusky.

    f.   Climate

    The overall climate of Ohio is continental in character, which is marked by large annual, daily and
    day-to-day ranges in temperature. However, the waters of Lake Erie tend to lower daily high
    temperatures in summer and raise temperatures in winter along Ohio's coastline. Summers are
    moderately warm and humid in this region of the state with average temperatures around 72 degrees
    Fahrenheit. Winters are reasonably cold and cloudy with average temperatures around 23 degrees
    Fahrenheit. Weather changes occur every few days from the passing of cold or warm fronts and their
    associated centers of high and low pressures.

    Average annual precipitation varies from 31 inches in the western lake basin to between 34 and 35
    inches east of Cleveland. Precipitation can vary widely from year to year, although it is normally
    abundant and well-distributed throughout the year with winter being the driest season.





Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part III - 11                                    March 1997








    2.  Socio-economic Characteristics

    a.  Demographics

    According to 1990 U.S. Census figures for the state of Ohio, approximately 2.75 million people, 25
    percent of Ohio's total population, inhabit the nine counties in Ohio's coastal area. This represents a
    nine percent decline in population since 1970, when the population of these nine counties was 3.02
    million. Over this time period, population in the two most urban and densely populated counties, Lucas
    and Cuyahoga, experienced a population decrease while all seven other counties increased in
    population. The smallest increase was 1.4% (Erie County) and the largest was 16% (Wood County).

    b. Commerce and Industry

    Water ports are a boon for commercial activity, and Ohio is fortunate to have nine ports along its north
    coast, from which nearly $18 billion is annually exported. These ports--located in Toledo, Marblehead,
    Sandusky, Huron, Lorain, Cleveland, Fairport Harbor, Ashtabula, and Conneaut--are as diverse as the
    cargoes they handle. Marblehead serves only the limestone industry, while Cleveland and Toledo have
    trading links worldwide.

    Cargoes of iron ore, limestone and coal make up the majority of the commerce handled by U.S.-flagged
    lake carriers, with coal being the single largest commodity. Iron ore, mostly extracted from mines in
    Minnesota, is delivered to the ports of Toledo, Lorain, Cleveland, Ashtabula and Conneaut. Limestone
    is a key commodity for the construction and steel-making industries and is handled in some form by
    every Ohio port. The ports of Toledo, Sandusky, Ashtabula and Conneaut are the export points for all
    of the Appalachian coal shipped on the lakes to domestic and international markets.

    Ohio's share of the international trade through the St. Lawrence Seaway is mostly handled by the public
    docks of the Cleveland-Cuyahoga and Toledo-Lucas County Port Authorities. The port of Cleveland
    is the first major general-cargo port west of the St. Lawrence Seaway, and its business is dominated by
    the steel-making industry. Iron ore and ferrous metal alloys are moved through the port for
    steel-making firms throughout northeast Ohio. The Cleveland Foreign Trade Zone boasts a steel
    warehousing facility that handles import and export products for area steel-making, automotive and
    electrical manufacturing businesses.

    The Port of Toledo offers the largest Foreign Trade Zone on the Great Lakes at 487 acres. This includes
    the Port of Toledo at 150 acres and the Toledo Express Airport at 337 acres. International commerce
    through this port includes steel products and a wide range of general cargo, such as newsprint, soap,
    paint and furniture products.

    Passenger vessels also are an important part of Lake Erie maritime industry. The increasing popularity
    of the Lake Erie Islands has resulted in additional services throughout the region. A new, larger vessel
    is in service from Sandusky to Pelee Island and Leamington, while additional vessels connect from the
    mainland to Kelleys Island and South Bass Island.




Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part III - 12                                  March 1997








*      'c.  Water Usage

       More than three billion gallons of water are withdrawn from Lake Erie each day, of which
       approximately 89 percent is used for industrial processing and electrical generation.  Electrical
       generation alone accounts for 74 percent of lake water withdrawals. Water withdrawal systems have
       expanded to such an extent that approximately 75 percent of the water supplied in the basin comes from
       Lake Erie. Twenty-eight community water systems, serving the coastal area's 2.8 million residents, use
       Lake Erie as the source of their raw water. Because of the lake's shallowness and near-shore water
       quality problems, water supply development regulations require that intake pipelines extend at least
        1,500 feet into the lake. In total, these systems daily produce more than 473 million gallons of treated
       and disinfected water.

       d. Industrial Mineral Extraction

       Offshore from Painesville, 2,000 feet below the surface of Lake Erie and covering an area of 1.25
       square miles, are located the salt mining operations of Morton International. Approximately 2.8 million
       tons of salt are produced from Lake Erie each year. In addition, the State of Ohio permitted
       approximately 300,000 cubic yards of sand and gravel to be extracted from the lake for industrial
       purposes in 1991 and 1992. In 1993, a total of 110,563 cubic yards of sand and gravel was extracted.

       e.  Agriculture

       Agriculture of Ohio's coastal area can be characterized as a series of contrasts. The prolonged growing
       season along the lake, combined with the highly urbanized character of the region, make it an ideal area
       for growing truck produce. A variety of fruits, vegetables is berries is grown in the region. Truck
       farming is most prevalent in the urban counties of Lucas, Erie, Lorain and Cuyahoga. The
       urban-oriented nursery and greenhouse business is the most important form of agriculture in Lake
       County. The soils and terrain of Ashtabula County are not ideally suited for growing crops, although
       dairy farming occurs because of the county's close proximity to the densely populated urban areas of
       Cleveland, Akron and Youngstown.

       Lake Erie crops contribute greatly to Ohio's agricultural economy. Of Lake Erie basin specialty crops,
       nursery stock production contributes $115 million annually to the state's economy, while fruit and
       vegetable production contributes $25 million annually.

       It is estimated that 90 percent of Ohio's grapes are grown in the Lake region, with grapes and grape
       products contributing $35 million to the economy. Over half of Ohio's commercial wineries are located
       in Lake, Ashtabula, Erie and Ottawa counties. The largest wine vineyard in the state is located on North
       Bass Island and is home to nearly 200 acres of European-type grapevines. In Ohio's coastal region,
       there are three Appellations of Origin. (Appellations of Origin identify recognized U.S. grape growing
       regions.) The Lake Erie Appellation extends along the lake shoreline from Toledo into New York
       State. There are 21 Ohio wineries within this appellation. The Isle St. George and Grand River Valley
       Appellations lie within the Lake Erie Appellation, with the former encompassing North Bass Island and
       the latter following the Grand River in Lake, Ashtabula and Geauga counties.


   Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part III - 13                                March 1997








    f. Recreation and Tourism

    Lake Erie is considered by many to be the key to tourism in Ohio. It is estimated that Erie, Ottawa and
    Lorain counties annually attract between 6 and 8 million tourists during the peak summer season,
    contributing to more than $200 million in travel revenue to the state's economy.

    The Lake Erie coastal area provides great opportunities for the outdoor recreational pursuits of Ohioans,
    visitors and tourists. Shorelands of the coastal area contain recreational areas that range from specially
    managed wildlife areas and nature preserves to developed parklands managed for multiple recreational
    uses. The State of Ohio's recreational emphasis in the coastal area is on satisfying statewide and
    regional recreation needs through the provision of facilities and services by the public and private
    sectors.

    The following table provides an assessment of existing recreational facilities that provide access to Lake
    Erie:
                                            Number         Acregye        Shoreline Frontage

    State Parks                                7            5,653          15 miles
    Natural Areas                              6             1,849         2 miles
    Marinas                                 270
    Managed Wildlife Areas
       State, Federal, Private Clubs          13            20,400         6 miles (state)

    Fishing Access Sites                      54            8,547 (eraanpivtukow n
    Public Boat Launch Sites                  27
    Hunting Access Areas                      15            7,619
    Beaches                                   33

    The Ohio Department of Natural Resources is the leading public agency in providing outdoor
    recreational services. The agency operates seven lakefront state parks and six state nature preserves and
    ten wildlife areas in the coastal area:

    State Parks                     Nature Preserves          Wildlife Areas

    Maumee Bay                      DuPont Marsh              Metzger Marsh
    Crane Creek                     Sheldon Marsh             Magee Marsh
    East Harbor                     Old Woman Creek           Little Portage
    Erie Islands                    Headlands Dunes           Toussaint
    Headlands Beach                 Mentor Marsh              Pickerel Creek
    Cleveland Lakefront             Lakeside Daisy            Pipe Creek
    Geneva                                                    Willow Point
                                                              Mallard Club
                                                              Green Island
                                                              Resthaven



Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part III - 14                                    March 1997








    g.  State Parks and Public Beaches

    Maumee Bay State Park near Toledo is a full service resort facility that includes a lodge, cabins, 18-hole
    Scottish-style golf course, camping areas, trails, beach, bicycle trail and amphitheater. A modern
    interpretative center opened in 1992, and includes a facility that offers views of wetlands and wildlife
    habitats from remote cameras.

    The most visible and popular public areas on Lake Erie are state parks. Shorefront camping is found
    at East Harbor, Kelleys Island and South Bass Island, while Catawba Island provides boating access,
    picnicking and fishing. Boating, fishing and swimming are enjoyed at Headlands Beach, Geneva and
    Cleveland Lakefront. Geneva also provides an important refuge harbor in Ohio's eastern Lake Erie
    zone.

    Unique among Ohio's state parks is the urban setting of Cleveland Lakefront. The park is being
    expanded and developed through implementation of a long range waterfront plan. Acquisition of 43
    acres of shoreland between Euclid Beach and Wildwood in 1991 allowed for development of the Villa
    Angela property, which has increased public access to the lake, expanded the swimming beach and
    provided additional trails that link parks and other lakefront recreational facilities.

    h. Wildlife Areas and Nature Preserves

    In addition to the wildlife areas listed above, the Ohio Division of Wildlife operates the Dempsey and
    Mazurik Lake Erie Access Areas and the Put-in-Bay Hatchery Aquatic Resource Education Center.
    Wetlands restoration is a primary concern in the coastal area, and the Division is participating in
    cooperative restoration projects on both public and private lands. Some 3,800 acres of coastal wetlands
    have been protected, restored or enhanced under the guidelines of the North American Waterfowl
    Management Plan.

    Nature preserves in the coastal area offer opportunities to enjoy unique environmental settings and
    coastal resources. Of the six coastal nature preserves, Old Woman Creek is exceptional.

    Old Woman Creek State Nature Preserve, near Huron, offers compatible public uses, such as hiking
    and nature observation, in a setting where important scientific research and education is being
    conducted. Old Woman Creek is also a National Estuarine Research Reserve, the only such designated
    area on the Great Lakes, under the oversight of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

    Federal facilities in the coastal area include the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's 8,300-acre coastal
    wetlands of the Ottawa National Wildlife Refuge in Lucas and Ottawa Counties, and the National Park
    Service's Perry Victory and International Peace Memorial on South Bass Island. Other federal agencies
    holding or managing parcels of land in the designated coastal area are listed in Appendix P of Part II.







Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part II - 15                                   March 1997








    i.  Hunting and Fishing

    Ten to 15 million pounds of fish are harvested annually from the Ohio waters of Lake Erie in sport and
    commercial fishing activities. Two-thirds of these fish are harvested from the Lake's western basin.
    Ohio consistently ranks among the top ten states in the number of fishing licenses sold annually. Of
    the more than 1 million fishing licenses sold in Ohio each year, an estimated 60 percent are sold to
    anglers who fish Lake Erie. Lake Erie sport fishermen generate approximately $243 million in revenue
    annually, with charter boat fishing alone boosting local economies by nearly $9 million. In 1993, Lake
    Erie sport anglers caught 8.6 million fish, including 2.7 million walleye.

    Ohio traditionally ranks among the top three states each year in trapping activity, much of which is
    conducted on the Lake Erie marshlands. Duck hunting is also popular in the coastal marshes. Mallards,
    black ducks, wood ducks and blue-winged teal comprise approximately 70 percent of Ohio's annual
    harvest of more than 100,000 ducks. Mallards and black ducks are late migrants into Ohio and make
    up more than half of the waterfowl reported on hunter bag checks in the Lake Erie marsh region.

    j.  Historical Sites and Structures

    Historically, many diverse groups of people have passed through or settled in Ohio's Lake Erie region.
    Prehistoric and historic Indians, the French, British, and Eastern Europeans left their mark upon the land
    through a variety of sites and structures. The following is a general summary of the types of historic
    resources each county has to offer:

    Many historic commercial buildings and districts can be found in Lucas County, primarily in Toledo
    and Maumee. The list includes the oldest yacht club in the area and a portion of the old Miami-Erie
    canal.

    Wood County boasts three historic districts and a fort that is now a state historical museum. The
    greatest diversity of historic sites exists in Ottawa County, where the Marblehead Lighthouse, a log
    cabin, a battle site, and a Civil War prison and fort on Johnson's Island are located.

    Millions of summer tourists are familiar with Erie County's famed Cedar Point Amusement Park, which
    is home to several structures listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Included among these
    are the Cedar Point Light, the Coliseum located on Cedar Point's midway, and Hotel Breakers. Other
    historic sites located in Erie County include a winery, train depot, an engine house, and a portion of
    Kelly's Island.

    Lorain County lists the 103rd Ohio Volunteer Infantry Barracks, the Lorain Lighthouse, and two houses
    dating back to the 1800s on its list of historic sites. Cuyahoga County has the largest number of historic
    sites registered in the coastal area. Most of the sites are located in Cleveland and include an old
    water-pumping station still in working condition.






Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part III - 16                                   March 1997








    Lake County claims the only Great Lakes lighthouse museum, while Ashtabula County has some early
    nineteenth century homes and a passenger depot presently maintained as a museum. The Ashtabula
    waterfront is on the National Register of Historic Places and is of particular importance to the OCMP.

3.  Environmental Quality

    a. Water Quality

    Historically, one of the most serious problems adversely affecting the coastal area has been the pollution
    of Lake Erie and its tributaries. Water pollution has accelerated the lake's natural eutrophication
    process. Because of its shallowness, relative warmth and the high fertility of the surrounding basin's
    soils, Lake Erie is naturally more eutrophic than the other Great Lakes. However, these natural
    conditions in combination with human activities resulted in a Lake Erie characterized by excessive plant
    nutrients, sediments, bacteria, and toxic substances.

    Several commentators declared Lake Erie "dead" in 1970 from its serious pollution problems.
    Excessive nutrient loadings caused mats of floating algae, odors, poor aesthetics, and the creation of
    oxygen-depleted areas at the lake bottom. Tributary silt loadings increased turbidity, choked biological
    communities and carried contaminants adhering to sediment particles into the lake. Bacteria from
    poorly or untreated sewage created health hazards and closed beaches. Toxic chemicals accumulated
    in fish, wildlife and sediment, leading to the issuance of fish consumption advisories.

    Lake Erie water quality has greatly improved since passage of the federal Clean Water Act. Effluent
    concentrations of phosphorus that had averaged 7 mg/I before 1972 are now averaging less than 1 mg/I.
    Conservation tillage practices have increased by nearly 200 percent in the Maumee River basin since
     1989, and throughout the Lake Erie basin, county phosphorus reduction committees have actively
    worked to meet phosphorus reduction goals established in the Ohio Phosphorus Reduction Strategy.
    The purpose of this strategy is to quantify phosphorus loadings into Lake Erie from Ohio, and to
    identify mechanisms for reducing such loading.

    Sediments, some of which are contaminated, remain a source of pollution to the lake, with river and
    shoreline erosion being a primary cause. Estimates of sediment loads for Ohio's portion of Lake Erie
    indicate roughly 2 million tons are derived annually from tributaries and 1.6 million tons from the
    shoreline. These sediments clog shipping channels, damage fish habitat, complicate water supply
    treatment, contribute to nutrient enrichment and adversely affect recreational use of the Lake. In Ohio
    alone, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers spends approximately $10 million annually to dredge an
    estimated 2 million cubic yards of sediments from the shipping channels and harbors of Lake Erie.

    Toxics are also a serious concern for Lake Erie, although contaminant levels in fish flesh are not as high
    as in some of the other Great Lakes. Currently, it is advised that Maumee Bay catfish should not be
    eaten, and consumption limitations for other species are advised. Stage 1 Remedial Action Plan (RAP)
    reports have been developed for four Lake Erie tributaries in Ohio that were identified by the
    International Joint Commission as Great Lakes "Areas of Concern" (AOCs) due to poor water quality




Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part III - 17                                 March 1997








    and environmental degradation. These impaired areas are the Maumee, Black, Cuyahoga and Ashtabula
    Rivers.

    The Maumee River AOC is impaired primarily because of nonpoint source pollution and leaching
    landfills. Contaminated sediments from past industrial activity has adversely affected the Ashtabula
    River AOC, while the Black River is targeted due to past and present industrial contamination,
    municipal wastewater treatment plants and nonpoint source pollution. The Cuyahoga River AOC is
    a highly industrial, urbanized area with both point and nonpoint source pollution problems.

    b. Aquatic Nuisance Species

    No discussion of the environmental quality of Ohio's Lake Erie region would be complete without
    considering the impact of zebra mussels and other exotic species. Zebra mussels are believed to have
    entered the lower Great Lakes Basin in 1986 through the discharge of ship ballast water but did not
    appear in the Lake Erie coastal area until 1989. The exotic freshwater mussels have managed to spread
    rapidly in a very short time throughout the Great Lakes and into major river systems, causing economic
    damage by clogging pipes in water treatment, utility and manufacturing plants. Currently at least two
    species of zebra mussels are present in Lake Erie with densities exceeding one million/square meter at
    water intakes.

    Zebra mussels have been shown to accumulate contaminants and can pass those contaminants up the
    food chain. During the summer of 1995, they were implicated as the probable cause of a large bloom
    of toxic algae in the western basin.  Study continues regarding the human and ecological health
    implications of these factors.                                                                       v

    The common carp is another problem species. Carp were apparently introduced in the Cincinnati area
    and around Fremont in the late 1800s. They are often present in great numbers and may contribute to
    turbidity, which adversely affects the germination and growth of aquatic plants and interferes with the
    spawning success of other fish species.

    While the ruffe is not yet in Ohio waters, it appears that it is only a matter of time. Judging from the
    experience in western Lake Superior, where this Eurasian percid has become established, adverse
    impacts on Ohio's Lake Erie fishery are possible.

    The round goby has proliferated in the benthic areas of the central basin adjacent to Lake and Ashtabula
    counties. This raises concern because of potential negative impacts on native organisms and possible
    bioaccumulation of contaminants.

    Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) is another exotic species causing adverse effects in the coastal
    area. This plant invades marshes and grows in profusion, creating monoculture habitat to the detriment
    of wildlife and other plants and plant communities. The plants are unsuitable as cover, food or nesting
    sites for a wide range of native wetland animals.





Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part m - 18                                     March 1997








    c.  Air Quality

    Ohio's lakeshore counties contain many of the state's largest industrial complexes, including coal-fired
    electric-generating facilities with 17 percent of the statewide coal-fired generating capacity. In the past
    10 years, emissions from the numerous air pollution facilities have decreased substantially. However,
    air quality standards are not being met in the industrialized regions of Lucas, Lake, Lorain and
    Cuyahoga counties. Atmospheric deposition contributes to the total pollutant load of certain toxics to
    Lake Erie and is currently being studied to determine its extent.

    4. Natural Resources

    a.  Fish and Habitat Management

    The history of Lake Erie fisheries has included human-induced changes in both the extent and variety
    of lake habitats. Generally, the diversity of sport and commercial fish species has declined in
    conjunction with loss of habitat. Those habitats most greatly reduced in size include deep, oxygenated
    cold water areas, vegetated areas, clean bottom sand and gravel areas, estuaries, and wetlands used for
    spawning, feeding, migration and refuge. Increased sedimentation from land-based source uses, higher
    nutrient levels in the lake from point and nonpoint pollution sources, dredging and filling activities, and
    chemical and thermal pollution have all had their impacts.

    Important fish habitat areas of Lake Erie include all nearshore waters out to a depth of 20 feet, bays and
    estuaries, and offshore shoal areas. Specifically, there are five habitat areas of critical concern: Maumee
    Bay, the Toussaint-Locust Point reef complex, the Islands area, the Ruggles reef complex, and
    Sandusky Bay (including Muddy Creek Bay).

    A few remaining coastal coldwater streams east of Cleveland offer important seasonal habitat for
    salmonids because they are the closest suitable habitat near summer feeding areas of Lake Erie. These
    species are adapted to colder water temperatures provided by such streams and thus it is important that
    such habitat is not degraded or warmed.

    These varied habitats support a world class fishery. Approximately $750 million is generated in the
    regional economy annually from recreational fishing activity. This may have declined recently as a
    result of reduced fishing effort documented since 1988. Fishing effort steadily rose beginning in 1975,
    when statistics were first kept, until peaking in 1988 when a 30% decline was recorded. Since that year,
    it has been relatively stable. The peak of commercial Lake Erie harvest, factoring in inflation, most
    likely occurred in the 1950s, and a steady decline has been observed since then. In recent years, the
    dock value of commercial fish has averaged about $2 million, with a high value of $3.6 million in 1990
    and a low of $1.4 million in 1993. Commercial value over the long term is difficult to assess because
    of the variability of the species harvested.







Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part mII - 19                                     March 1997








    i.  Lake Erie Walleye

    Walleye fishing in Lake Erie has increased steadily in popularity since the mid-1970s. The Ohio
    Division of Wildlife indicated in its Strategic Plan for 1990-95 that population abundance was expected
    to remain above the historical average (21.5 million). Walleye produced exceptional year classes in
    1990 and 1991.

    ii. Yellow Perch

    Yellow perch are the principal target species for Lake Erie anglers, especially during September and
    October. However, over-harvesting of the species by commercial fisheries has been a cause of concern
    and deliberation between the Province of Ontario and Lake Erie states, most notably Ohio. An
    agreement was initiated in March, 1993, that will by 1997 base the commercial harvest of yellow perch
    equally on historical harvest rates and percentage of surface water area owned by the state or province.
    It is hoped this strategy will result in a reduced total mortality in the fish stock compared with the past
    25 years.

    b. Wildlife and Habitat Management

    Human activity in the Lake Erie basin has dramatically reduced wildlife habitat in the coastal area. This
    habitat loss is the major reason for an overall reduction in Ohio's coastal wildlife population. Nearly
    ninety percent of the Lake Erie coastal area's original 300,000 acres of wetlands and swamp forests have
    been drained, filled, cut or paved over for various purposes. Recent high water and erosion have caused
    an additional loss of shoreline wetlands. Recently, overall losses of wetlands have been reduced to due
    to public and private wetland regulatory, acquisition, and restoration programs (see Chapter V of Part
    II). Typical endangered species that reside in such areas include king rails and blue spotted salamanders.

    Wildlife habitat areas that remain relatively undisturbed still face the threats of pollution, soil erosion
    and siltation. Loss of habitat and degraded environmental quality have harmed migratory waterfowl,
    for which the Great Lakes serve as an important link between Canada and southern destinations. In
    particular, the marshes of the western Lake Erie basin are known as significant migration resting areas.
    This area is the most concentrated migration stop in the world for black ducks. The 2,600-acre Magee
    Marsh Wildlife Area near Oak Harbor supports more than 300 species of migratory birds in the spring
    and fall.

    Common fur-bearing animals in the coastal area include foxes, white-tailed deer, muskrat, mink,
    raccoons, skunks, opossums, cottontail rabbits, woodchucks and fox squirrels.

    One of Ohio's most notable wildlife management success stories from the Lake Erie region has been
    the recovery of the state's bald eagle population. As recently as 1979, Ohio had only four breeding pairs
    of bald eagles statewide. Through a strategy involving rehabilitation, education, nest stability and
    population augmentation, state wildlife officials have managed to increase the statewide total number
    of breeding pairs to 33 in 1996. Eighteen of those nests are located in the Lake Erie marshes, which
    accounted for 18 of the 35 eaglets hatched in 1996.



Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part mI - 20                                    March 1997








    D. Environmental Consequences

    In enacting the CZMA, Congress declared that "it is national policy to preserve, protect, develop, and
    where possible, restore or enhance the resources of the Nation's coastal zone for this and succeeding
    generations." States are to achieve these potentially conflicting goals by improving governmental
    coordination, incorporating consideration of long term implications of development decisions, and
    instituting a more rational decision-making process which conforms to CZMA policies. Such actions
    have the potential to substantially affect future coastal area activity and have a significant positive
    environmental impact. The CZMA mandates giving full consideration to ecological, cultural, historic
    and aesthetic values as well as to needs for economic development when considering various
    development proposals.

    Thus many factors and diverse, often conflicting values, between resource protection and development
    must be weighed. The CZMA requires that a balance must be achieved which allows or encourages
    development, while still protecting unique and critical resources.

    It is the intent of the OCMP to carry out these legislative mandates of the CZMA. Therefore, the
    environmental, institutional and socio-economic effects are expected to be primarily beneficial. The
    OCMP will provide more coordinated decision-making with a greater focus on critical coastal issues
    such as wetland protection, hazard management and nonpoint source pollution.

    Impacts associated with approval of the OCMP are of two types: (1) impacts resulting from federal
    approval and (2) impacts resulting from implementation of Ohio's coastal protection statutes embodied
    within the program. In general, such impacts are discussed in the following sections with respect to
    direction of change (positive or beneficial, negative or neutral) and with respect to duration (long-term
    or short-term). Because the proposed action is approval of a broad ranging program, quantification of
    net effects is not possible. Impacts of denying or delaying federal approval are discussed below as well.

    1. Positive Impacts Directly Resulting from Federal Approval

    Section 306 Funding

    Federal approval will enhance the State of Ohio's financial ability to carry out its various coastal
    management efforts in accordance with OCMP policies. The state will rely to a considerable degree
    on the program funding made available in annual grants under Section 306 of the CZMA, both for
    program administration and for the coastal management assistance grants program mandated in O.R.C.
    ï¿½ 1506.02. Program administration funding will support additional staff, contracts and other resources
    to enhance implementation of core OCMP laws. Local governments as well as a broad range of other
    entities will benefit from activities funded by the OCMP assistance fund. Section 306 funding for the
    coastal management assistance grant program will be used for environmentally and socio-economically
    beneficial efforts, such as the following:

    (1) Feasibility studies and engineering reports for projects that are consistent with the policies in the
         coastal management program document;



Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part ImI - 21                                     March 1997








    (2) The protection and preservation of wetlands, beaches, fish and wildlife habitats, mineral, natural
         areas, prime agricultural land, endangered plant and animal species, or other significant natural
         coastal resources;

    (3) The management of shoreline development to prevent loss of life and property in coastal flood
         hazard areas and coastal erosion areas, to set priorities for water-dependent energy, commercial,
         industrial, agricultural, and recreational uses, or to identify environmentally acceptable sites for
         dredge spoil disposal;

    (4) Increasing public access to Lake Erie and other public places in the coastal area;

    (5) The protection and preservation of historical, cultural or aesthetic coastal resources;

    (6) Improving the predictability and efficiency or governmental decision making related to coastal area
         management;

    (7) Adopting, administering, and enforcing local zoning ordinances or resolutions relating to coastal
         flood hazard areas or coastal erosion areas;

    (8) The redevelopment of deteriorating and underutilized waterfronts and ports; and

    (9) Other purposes approved by the director. (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.02).

    Funding for such efforts is expected to have direct beneficial impacts on the natural and socio-economic
    environment of the coastal region, through protection of natural areas and other sensitive resources,
    waterfront revitalization, comprehensive planning, streamlining of permits and the monitoring of their
    effects, and conflict resolution. The integrated management approach of a coordinated cooperative
    OCMP is expected to result in direct benefits to the environment through a heightened proactive focus
    on coastal resource management. The OCMP provides the framework for a partnership among state
    and local agencies and other entities, public and private, to cooperate to preserve, protect, develop and
    restore the region's unique values.

    Federal Consistency Review

    Federal approval and implementation of the OCMP will have effects upon federal agency actions.
    Approval will activate the federal consistency review provisions of Section 307 of the CZMA. The
    OCMP federal consistency process and relevant provisions of 15 CFR Part 930 are described in Chapter
    7. Because federal consistency entails early coordination and closer cooperation in planning as well
    as review of project proposals, it is presumed that federal consistency will provide another means to
    minimize the potential for adverse environmental impacts. This is considered to be a desirable impact
    and one of the main purposes of the CZMA.

    The OCMP has been developed with the assistance and input of numerous federal agencies having
    responsibility for activities in or affecting the coastal area. Therefore, conflicts between the OCMP's



Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part m - 22                                       March 1997








    enforceable policies and federally permitted or conducted activities should be minimal.  Federal
    activities will not be excluded but rather will be required to be consistent with the OCMP's policies.


National Interest

    Appendix Q of the OCMP describes how the siting of land and water uses of regional benefit,
    coordination with federal agencies, and consideration of national interest are integrated in the program.
    As the Ohio coastal management program includes formal procedures for considering national and
    regional interests in comprehensive planning and decision making for the coastal area, the potential for
    conflicts between state, regional and National goals is reduced. In implementing the OCMP, Ohio will
    provide such avenues for considering the national interest in program decisions.

    2. Impacts (of Approval) Attributable to the OCMP

    Several new coastal management authorities established by O.R.C. Chapter 1506 add to and strengthen
    Ohio's coastal management efforts to prevent adverse impacts on coastal resources, manage coastal
    hazards, protect public trust submerged lands, and coordinate various state efforts in a consistent state
    coastal program. These additional authorities are necessary for Ohio to meet minimum requirements
    for program approval by NOAA, and Section 306 program implementation funding will enhance
    implementation of these core programs.

    The Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) is statutorily designated as the lead agency for
    development and implementation of the OCMP. The functions and authorities of ODNR with respect
    to OCMP administration, described in detail in Chapter 4, provide a cohesive framework for improved
    and integrated decision making regarding coastal issues. The Coastal Management statute additionally
    mandates that all agencies of the state cooperate with ODNR in program implementation (O.R.C. ï¿½
    1506.02). Memoranda of Understanding between ODNR and other agencies as well as state
    consistency review by ODNR further foster unified coordination. Decisions and activities of federal,
    state and local agencies as well as those within ODNR will be monitored, coordinated and mediated
    by one office within ODNR (REALM) to assure compliance with the OCMP. Greater consistency, a
    central focus and streamlining of the decision-making process is expected to improve the predictability
    of that process and bring about beneficial environmental and institutional impacts.

    Assuring state agency consistency with the coastal management program will help maintain program
    strength. As with federal consistency provisions and mechanisms, the impacts are expected to be
    positive. Improved coordination and cooperation throughout project planning and review will serve
    to minimize adverse impacts and to enhance predictability of decision making regarding state projects
    that may affect coastal resources. The OCMP's structure and the means to assure state consistency are
    described in Chapter 4.

    The Coastal Resources Advisory Council will continue as a principal means of providing public
    participation in the OCMP. The council informally serves as liaison to outside organizations and as




Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part m  - 23                                      March 1997








    advisor and "watchdog" to ODNR's coastal management activities. These functions help to assure that
    public concerns regarding the environment are emphasized in the state's decision making.

    Submerged lands

    Pursuant to O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.11, administration of submerged lands leasing was transferred to ODNR
    from the Department of Administrative Services. This change places decisions on lease applications
    and enforcement within the ODNR, the lead state agency for coastal management. The transfer of
    responsibility has resulted in the passage of rules governing the leasing of Lake Erie submerged lands
    with strong emphasis on the environmental aspect of submerged lands management. These rules have
    allowed ODNR to review and modify applications to protect the environment and to increase
    predictability in the leasing process. ODNR's administrative rules governing submerged lands leasing
    specify clear criteria for determining potential impacts of each lease project.

    The rules and background information on the state's public trust responsibilities are provided to each
    applicant in advance of the leasing process. Rules mandate water dependency of the project and an
    evaluation of impacts upon the right of public recreation. Also considered, as stipulated in the rules,
    are littoral property owners' rights, conformance with locally permitted land uses, and potential
    impairment of public uses. Review of lease applications is coordinated with the Corps of Engineers'
    404 permit process and ODNR's erosion control project permit process as well as Ohio EPA's State
    Water Quality Certification. Chapter V, Policy 16 provides a detailed description of Ohio's policies
    and authorities regarding submerged lands administration, and administrative rules that amplify this
    authority are included in Appendix L.

    Hazards

    Identification of Lake Erie coastal erosion areas and proposed implementation of rules requiring permits
    to erect permanent structures therein pursuant to O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.06 through 1506.09 will minimize new
    construction that could ultimately be damaged or destroyed by coastal erosion. Thus, coastal erosion
    area management will bring about positive socio-economic impacts through reduction of property
    damage and investment losses in new development and shore protection. Costs to the public should
    also decrease with less investment in public infrastructure in erosion prone areas. With more
    coordinated planning and permit review to ensure effectiveness of protection measures, the number of
    structures lost to erosion should decline, with a corresponding decrease in the amount of hazardous
    debris in the lake and on the shore. Pollutant levels should be reduced as well, as fewer septic tanks
    and sewer lines are washed into the lake.

    Some site-specific increases in adverse impacts on aquatic habitat and shoreline processes may occur
    as a result of landowner efforts to protect their property by installing erosion control measures in the
    littoral zone. These impacts may include localized acceleration of erosion, disruption of littoral sand
    movement, temporary siltation from construction, and minor habitat displacement. Such effects
    however will be minimized by the resource protection policies of O.R.C. Chapter 1506 and the
    environmental review criteria established in O.A.C. ï¿½ 1501-6-24 (review of permit application, rules




Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part III - 24                                   March 1997








    for enforcing coastal erosion areas). Again these are limited site-specific effects and impacts that, in
    balance, are expected to be positive as a result of heightened coordinated review.

    The potential exists that erosion management may result in decreased property values for some
    individuals who own shorefront property with extremely high erosion rates. In addition, costs of
    development that does occur will increase in the short term due to the requirements for owners to install
    effective erosion control measures or to site permanent structures further inland. Such costs are
    expected to be short term with property values generally increasing over the long term due to improved
    protection and decreased risk.

    The law establishes the authority for municipal corporations and counties to adopt coastal erosion area
    ordinances and resolutions. ODNR can provide model zoning regulations to assist local jurisdictions
    in the adoption of coastal erosion area ordinances or resolutions. Counties are authorized to enact
    coastal erosion areas standards as part of the local building code by O.R.C. ï¿½307.37. A permit from
    the Director, ODNR, "is not required within the territory of any county or municipal corporation that
    has adopted and is enforcing a Lake Erie coastal erosion area resolution or ordinance within its zoning
    or building regulations if the resolution or ordinance has been reviewed by the Director ... and meets
    or exceeds the standards established under division (B) of this section" (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.07(c)(1)). If
    local controls are approved by the Director of ODNR, then the county or municipality will be the
    permitting authority for construction projects in coastal erosion areas. The director retains the authority
    to review the local implementation and enforcement of local standards every two years. If the director
    determines that the local standards are inadequately enforced, permitting authority reverts back to
    ODNR for the territory of the affected county or municipal corporation.

    Public safety and awareness will also be facilitated by the statutory requirement that owners of property
    within the coastal erosion areas provide notice to a purchaser that the property lies in such an area.

    Counties or municipal corporations with land in designated coastal flood hazard areas are required to
    participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) or adopt resolutions or ordinances meeting
    or exceeding NFIP requirements. Because all but three affected communities were in compliance with
    this requirement when it became law, the immediate impact of this was minimal. All affected
    communities now participate. For the long term, this will assure that the minimum federal standards
    are always in effect in the Lake Erie coastal flood hazard area.

    Wetlands

    Ohio programs to protect coastal wetlands will also continue to be refined through implementation of
    various elements of the state wetland strategy, including adoption of water quality standards for
    wetlands, and enhanced reporting of wetland status, through increased use of GIS capabilities and
    project and permit tracking. These efforts should provide comprehensive assessment of coastal wetland
    status and ensure progress toward attaining a net gain in coastal wetlands from appropriate restoration
    efforts.





Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part ]'] - 25                                     March 1997








    Access

    Implementation of the OCMP will facilitate consistent updating of the Lake Erie Access Study to
    comprehensively inventory access needs and potential sites. Enhancing the existing Lake Erie Access
    Program (LEAP) through better coordination of agency programs and policies will improve public
    access to Lake Erie, consistent with the provisions of the OCMP. Technical assistance to and
    coordination with local communities will further promote the utilization of the recreational potential
    of urban waterfronts through urban river and waterfront development program. Enhanced acquisition,
    planning and development efforts for state nature preserves, state park facilities and the Statewide Trails
    System would also benefit public access to and enjoyment of Lake Erie. The aforementioned programs
    would all benefit from increased resources and funding through OCMP implementation.

    3. Impacts Resulting from Denying Federal Approval

    Several environmental, economic and social impacts could result if OCRM decided to deny approval
    of the OCMP. An obvious economic impact is the loss of federal funds to administer the program.
    Under Section 306 of the CZMA, Ohio would receive about $800,000 annually to implement its coastal
    management program. Consistency of federal actions, as required by Section 307 of the CZMA would
    be lost to Ohio. Adequate consideration of the national interest in siting facilities of national interest,
    as required by CZMA Section 306(d)(8), would be lost and could result in loss of public benefit from
    use of those facilities. Further, the environmental status quo would prevail regarding resource
    protection and use in Ohio's coastal zone, and the technical assistance available to Ohio from OCRM
    would be lost without Federal approval of the program.

    4. Impacts Resulting from Delaying Federal Approval

    The environmental, economic and social impacts listed above, that result from denial of Federal
    approval of the OCMIP, also apply to delaying approval of the Program. Further, continued delay at this
    juncture may make it impossible, due to limits in program development funding, for Ohio to enter the
    Federal program in the future.


















Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final ETS  Part III  26                                    March 1997








*      ~E.  Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Effects

        The probable effects of the Ohio Coastal Management Program implementation will, on the whole, be
        environmentally beneficial. Certain localized adverse environmental impacts may result, however, as
        the state seeks to balance the conservation of coastal resources with the recognized need for rational
        economic growth.

        With or without the program, adverse impacts associated with the siting of major facilities for purposes
        of defense, transportation, and energy requirements in which both the state and federal governments
        have interest, will continue. It is important to note, however, that under the Coastal Management
        Program and related federal laws (e.g., National Environmental Policy Act), such projects will be
        evaluated as to the impacts on the natural coastal environment. That is, investigations will be made,
        alternatives considered, etc. The Program also makes provisions for consideration of the national
        interest in the siting of these facilities.

        No new energy generation facilities are planned in Ohio's coastal area, and it is anticipated that oil and
        gas facilities will remain largely unchanged.

































   Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part III - 27                                     March 1997








    F. Relationship between Short-Term Uses of the Environment and the Maintenance and
        Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity

    While approval of the Ohio Coastal Management Program will restrict some local, short-term, uses of
    the environment, it will also provide long-term assurance that the natural resources and benefits
    provided by the Ohio Lake Erie coast will be available for future use and enjoyment, by more
    effectively administering existing resource protection laws.

    The Ohio Coastal Management Program recognizes in the short-term that some coastal-dependent
    developments have adverse environmental consequences, but that they may still have to be located in
    the coastal zone to protect the inland environment as well as help provide for orderly economic
    development, and meet national interest.

    Regarding the long-term use of the environment the OCMP recognizes the coastal zone as a delicately
    balanced ecosystem; establishes a process of balanced management of coastal resources; allows growth
    to continue while protecting key resources; and provides a framework which can protect regional, state
    and national interests by assuring the maintenance of the long-term productivity and economic vitality
    of coastal resources necessary for the well-being of the public. Beneficial changes will likely promote
    avoidance of long-term costs to the public and a diminished quality of life resulting from the misuse
    of coastal resources.






























Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part DI - 28                                     March 1997








    G.  Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources

    The only irretrievable or irreversible commitment of resources that will result directly from the approval
    of the Ohio program is the commitment of state and Federal funds and personnel for the purpose of
    achieving the goals and objectives of the program. It is presumed that irretrievable and irreversible
    commitments of economic and environmental resources will occur during the implementation of the
    Ohio program. This program is designed to balance the need for development with the need for the
    protection and enhancement of coastal environmental resources by avoiding, minimizing and mitigating
    the consequences of coastal development on resources such as wetlands and shallow water lacustrine
    habitats.

    The program ensures that any such proposed activities which commit coastal resources are subjected
    to comprehensive review as individual actions and as an action contributing to the cumulative impacts
    taking place on coastal resources. Such review will ensure that those irretrievable and irreversible
    commitments of resources which are undertaken under the Ohio Coastal Management Program are
    made with full awareness of the consequences of those commitments.



































Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part 1m - 29                                  March 1997








                                                 Part IV
                                         LIST OF PREPARERS


    Richard S. Bartz - Assistant Chief, Division of Water, Ohio Department of Natural Resources. Mr. Bartz
    received his B.A. and his Masters in Environmental Science from Miami University, Oxford, Ohio. He
    worked on Lake Erie Programs from 1974 to 1988 and was instrumental in passage of the Ohio Coastal
    Management Law. He has served on various committees and work groups addressing water management
    and planning in the Great Lakes region.

    Kenneth E. Bentfeld - Natural Resource Specialist, Division of Real Estate and Land Management, Ohio
    Department of Natural Resources (August 1995 to January 1996). Mr. Bentfeld received his B.S. degree in
    Natural Resources with a specialty in Environmental Science and Engineering from The Ohio State
    University.

    Ellen L. Brody - former Acting Regional Manager, Great Lakes Region, Coastal Programs Division, Office
    of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management. Ms. Brody received her M.S. and her B.S. in Natural Resource
    Policy and Management from the University of Michigan School of Natural Resources. Ms. Brody worked
    in the Great Lakes Region in OCRM from 1987 to 1995, including acting as the Great Lakes Regional
    Manager from 1992 to 1995.

    Michael J. Colvin - Coastal Management Administrator, Division of Real Estate and Land Management,
. Ohio Department of Natural Resources. Mr. Colvin received his M.A. degree in Public Administration with
    a Specialty in Urban Policy from The Ohio State University, School of Public Policy and Management. Mr.
    Colvin has a B.S. degree in Zoology from OSU's College of Arts and Sciences. Mr. Colvin has been working
    in the Ohio Coastal Management Program since 1991. From 1978 to 1991 Mr. Colvin administered ODNR's
    Environmental Review Program.

    Anna M. Gantt - Executive Secretary to the Chief of ODNR's Division of Real Estate and Land
    Management. Ms. Gantt has worked with ODNR since 1984 and has been involved with the OCMP since
    1992.

    Thomas J. Grever - Assistant Attorney General, State of Ohio, representing ODNR, now representing Ohio
    EPA. Mr. Grever received his J.D. from The Ohio State University and his B.A. from Northwestern
    University.

    Donald E. Guy, Jr. - Senior Geologist, Division of Geological Survey, Ohio Department of Natural
    Resources. Mr. Guy has worked on Lake Erie since 1973 when he joined the Lake Erie Geology Group of
    ODNR's Division of Geological Survey. He has a B.A. in Geology from Earlham College in Richmond,
    Indiana, and an M.S. in Geology from Bowling Green State University in Bowling Green, Ohio.

    Daniel Halterman - Environmental Planner, Ohio EPA, Division of Environmental and Financial Assistance.
    Mr. Halterman holds a B.S. in Conservation from Kent State University and an M.S. in Resource Policy and




    Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part IV - 1                                March 1997








Planning from The Ohio State University. He previously worked as a Water Resources Specialist with the
Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water.                                           M

Christine L. Kasselmann - Coastal Management Assistant Administrator, Division of Real Estate and Land
Management, Ohio Department of Natural Resources. Ms. Kasselmann received her B.S. in Natural
Resources (Resource Development) and her M.S., as a University Fellow, in Natural Resources and
Environmental Policy from The Ohio State University. She previously worked as a manager in private
industry and as a Researcher for the Ohio Department of Natural Resources.

Pamela B. Lawrence - Attorney-Advisor, Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Ocean Services,
NOAA. Ms. Lawrence received her J.D. from Harvard Law School and her B.A. from New York
University.

Julie Letterhos - Lake Erie Unit Supervisor, Division of Surface Water, Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency. The unit is responsible for development and implementation of Remedial Action Plans (RAPs) for
Ohio's Lake Erie Areas of Concern (AOCs) and the Lake Erie Lakewide Management Plan (LaMP). Ms.
Letterhos received her B.S. from Bowling Green State University with an emphasis on Aquatic Biology and
Chemistry. She worked with The Ohio State University's Center for Lake Erie Area Research for six years,
monitoring Lake Erie water quality. She has been with Ohio EPA since 1984.

Kurt Maurer - Mr. Maurer was employed by The Ohio Department of Natural Resources from 1991 through
1994 as a Legislative Liaison and Special Projects Assistant for the Director of ODNR. Mr. Maurer
previously was an aide to former Senator Paul Pfeifer and is currently a Public Affairs Counselor in l
Albuquerque, New Mexico.

William Millhouser - Regional Manager, Pacific Region, Coastal Programs Division, Office of Ocean and
Coastal Resource Management. Mr. Millhouser earned his Masters of Urban and Regional planning at
George Washington University and completed his B.S. in Psychology at the University of Illinois. Mr.
Millhouser has worked at OCRM since 1976 and has worked with state programs in the Gulf, South
Atlantic, and Pacific regions and, at the staff level, been involved in CZM program development issues in
several Gulf states. He also has considerable experience in working on NEPA issues as they relate to the
impacts of local coastal programs in Alaska on various types of development. Mr. Millhouser has served
as CPD's section 305 program development coordinator since 1993.

Diana K. Olinger - Program Specialist, Great Lakes Region, Coastal Programs Division, Office of Ocean
and Coastal Resource Management. Ms. Olinger received her B.A. in Biology from Kenyon College and
completed her Masters of Marine Policy, on academic scholarship, at the University of Delaware. She
worked as Special Assistant to the Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere, U.S. Department of
Commerce, during her year as a Dean John A. Knauss Marine Policy Fellow. She also worked for one year
,at the NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Chesapeake Bay Office, prior to joining the staff at OCRM
in April 1994.






Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part IV - 2                                March 1997








Kandie D. Parkman - Executive Secretary, Coastal Management Program, Division of Real Estate and Land
Management, Ohio Department of Natural Resources. Ms. Parkman has worked with ODNR since 1981
and has been involved with the OCMP since 1996.

Richard R. Pavey - Coordinator, Environmental and Surficial Geology Group, Division of Geological
Survey, Ohio Department of Natural Resources. Mr. Pavey received his B.S. and M.S. degrees in Geology
from Purdue University. Mr. Pavey has worked at the Ohio Geological Survey since 1984 and served as
Acting Head of the Lake Erie Geology Section (ODNR) from 1989 to 1992.

Eugene Wright - Manager and Program Administrator of the Old Woman Creek National Estuarine Research
Reserve (OWC NERR) since the Program began in 1978. He was co-author of the OWC NERR
management plan and was senior author of the Old Woman Creek Watershed Spill Response Plan. Prior to
joining the Ohio Department of Natural Resources as manager of OWC NERR, Mr. Wright was associated
with the Robertshaw Controls Co. in Columbus, Ohio as manager of the engineering design drafting
department and later as assistant sales promotion and advertising manager. He holds a B.S. degree in wildlife
management and a M.S. degree in natural resource management from The Ohio State University.


































Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part IV - 3                                  March 1997








                                                  Part V
                      LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS
                                      RECEIVING COPIES OF FEIS


      Federal Agencies

      Council on Environmental Quality
      Department of Agriculture
          Farm Service
          Forest Service
          Natural Resources Conservation Service
      Department of Commerce
          National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA
          Economic Development Administration
      Department of Defense
          Air Force
          Army Corps of Engineers
               --headquarters
               --district office
          Marine Corps
          Navy
.    Department of Energy
      Department of Health and Human Services
      Department of Housing and Urban Development
      Department of the Interior
          Fish and Wildlife Service
          U.S. Geological Survey
          National Park Service
      Department of Justice
      Department of Transportation
          Federal Aviation Administration
          Federal Highway Administration
          Maritime Administration
          U.S. Coast Guard
      Environmental Protection Agency
           Office of Federal Activities
          Assessment and Watershed Protection Division,
           Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
          Nonpoint Source Coordinator, Region V
      Federal Emergency Management Agency
      Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
      Federal Maritime Commission
      General Services Administration
is Interstate Commerce Commission


      Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part V - I                                     March 1997








National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Nuclear Regulatory Commission

State and Re~iona] Aeencies and Local Governments

Coastal county offices and planning agencies
Coastal municipalities and townships
Great Lakes Commission
Hazardous Waste Facility Board
Local public libraries in the coastal counties
Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency (NOACA)
Ohio Departments of Agriculture, Development, Health, Transportation and the Ohio
        Environmental Protection Agency
Ohio Department of Natural Resources Division Chiefs
Ohio Department of Natural Resources Integrated Management Team
Ohio Historical Society
Ohio Lake Erie Office
Ohio Office of Budget and Management
Ohio Water Development Authority
Public Utilities Commission of Ohio
State and Local Government Commission
Toledo Metropolitan Area Council of Governments (TMACOG)

[Note: In addition, the Ohio DNR has mailed copies to its congressional delegation, Ohio coastal area
legislators, individuals, groups and organizations on their mailing lists.]


National Interest Grouns

American Association of Port Authorities
American Bureau of Shipping
American Farm Bureau Federation
American Institute of Planners
American Petroleum Institute
American Planning Association
American Sport Fishing Association
Association of State Floodplain Managers
Boat U.S.
Boating Industry Association
Center for Marine Conservation
Chambers of Commerce of the U.S.
Clean Water Network
Coast Alliance
Coastal States Organization
Conservation Fund


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part V - 2                                  March 1997








.  Environmental Defense Fund, Inc.
   Environmental Law Institute
   Environmental Policy Center
   Friends of the Coast
   Friends of the Earth
   Isaak Walton League of America
   Lake Carriers Association
   Leag~ue of Women Voters of the U.S.
   National Association of Conservation Districts
   National Association of Counties
   National Association of Home Builders of the U.S.
   National Association of Realtors
   National Audubon Society
   National Fisheries Institute
   National League of Cities
   National Parks and Conservation Association
   National Recreation and Parks Association
   Natural Resources Defense Council
   National Wildlife Federation
   Shore and Beach Protection Association
   Sierra Club National Coastal Committee
   Society of Real Estate Appraisers
.Soil Conservation Society of America
   Sport Fishing Institute
   The Nature Conservancy
   U.S. Sailing Association
   World Wildlife Fund


   Individuals and other Interested Parties

   Upon request, copies were sent to all individuals and other interested parties not listed as receiving
   copies of the DEIS.
















   Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part V - 3                                       March 1997








                                             Part VI
                                     REFERENCES--FEIS


A. Sources Consulted for Preparation of the Description of the Affected Environment
    Portion of the DEIS

Bartz, Richard. 1995. Ohio Department of Natural Resources - Division of Water. Interview by Kenneth
E. Bentfeld, 18 August. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Coastal Management Program. Columbus,
Ohio.

Black, Len. 1995. Ohio Department of Natural Resources - Division of Water. Interview by Kenneth E.
Bentfeld, 16 August. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Coastal Management Program. Columbus,
Ohio.

Carter, C.H., Monroe, C.B., and Guy, D.E., Jr., Lake Erie shore erosion--the effect of beach widths and shore
protection structures: Journal of Coastal Research, v. 2, no. 1, p. 17-23.

Guy, Donald E. 1995. Ohio Department of Natural Resources - Division of Geological Survey, Lake Erie
Geology Group. Interview by Kenneth E. Bentfeld, 18 August. Ohio Department of Natural Resources,
Coastal Management Program. Columbus, Ohio.

Lake Carrier's Association. 1994. 1994 Annual Report. Cleveland, Ohio.

Liebenthal, Dale. 1995. Ohio Department of Natural Resources - Lake Erie Geology Group. Interview by
Kenneth E. Bentfeld, 18 August. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Coastal Management Program.
Columbus, Ohio.

Mackey, S.D., and Guy, D.E., Jr., 1994. Comparison of long- and short-term recession rates along Ohio's
central basin shore of Lake Erie, in Folger, D.W., ed., 2nd Annual Lake Erie Coastal Erosion Study
Workshop: U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 94-200, p. 19-27.

Market Vision Research Incorporated. 1994. 1994 Ohio Travel and Tourism Economic Impact. Cincinnati,
Ohio.

Ohio Coastal Resource Management Task Force. 1989. Who's Minding the Shore? Ohio Coastal
Management Strategy - New Directions.

Ohio Department of Agriculture. 1994. Ohio Department of Agriculture 1994 Annual Report and Statistics.
Columbus, Ohio.

Ohio Department of Development, Office of Strategic Research. 1995. Ohio County Indicators.

Ohio Department of Natural Resources. 1993. 1993 Report on Ohio Mineral Industries. Sandusky, Ohio:
Division of Geological Survey.



Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part VI - 1                                March 1997








Ohio Department of Natural Resources. 1995. 1995 Land Inventory. Columbus, Ohio.

Ohio Department of Natural Resources. 1991. Lake Erie Access Study. Columbus, Ohio.

Ohio Department of Natural Resources. 1994. Ohio's Lake Erie Fisheries 1994. Columbus, Ohio: Lake Eric
Fisheries Units - Division of Wildlife.

Ohio Department of Natural Resources. 1993. Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan.

Ohio Department of Natural Resources. 1993. Status and Trend Highlights: Ohio's Lake Erie Fish and
Fisheries. Columbus, Ohio: Lake Erie Fisheries Staff - Division of Wildlife.

Ohio Historical Society. 1994. Ohio's History is Calling You. Columbus, Ohio.

Ohio Department of Transportation. 1992-1993. Ohio's Lake Erie Ports and Ohio River Terminals.
Columbus, Ohio: Division of Water Transportation.

Ohio Lake Erie Commission. 1993. State of the Lake: 1992 Governor's Report on Lake Erie. Toledo, Ohio:
Ohio Lake Erie Office.

Ohio Lake Eric Shore Area Redevelopment Task Force. 1989. A report to the Governor and General
Assembly.

Shieldcastle, Mark. 1995. Ohio Department of Natural Resources - Division of Wildlife. Interview by
Kenneth E. Bentfeld, 22 August. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Coastal Management Program.
Columbus, Ohio.

U.S. Census Bureau. 1990. 1990 U.S. Census. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1973. Soil Survey of Ashtabula County, Ohio. Washington, D.C.: Soil
Conservation Service.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1980. Soil Survey of Cuyahoga County, Ohio. Washington, D.C.: Soil
Conservation Service.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1971. Soil Survey of Eric County, Ohio. Washington, D.C.: Soil
Conservation Service.

U. S. Department of Agriculture. 1979. Soil Survey of Lake County, Ohio. Washington, D.C.: Soil
Conservation Service.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1976. Soil Survey of Lorain County, Ohio. Washington, D.C.: Soil
Conservation Service.





Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part VI - 2                                Match 1997








.  U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1980. Soil Survey of Lucas County, Ohio. Washington, D.C.: Soil
   Conservation Service.

   U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1985. Soil Survey of Ottawa County, Ohio. Washington, D.C.: Soil
   Conservation Service.

   U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1987. Soil Survey of Ottawa County, Ohio. Washington, D.C.: Soil
   Conservation Service.

   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1992. National Water Quality Inventory.

   U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Environmental Assessment for: Proposed Additions to the Ottawa
   National Wildlife Refuge Complex. Fort Snelling, MN: Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building.

   Wager, Jerry. 1995. Ohio Department of Natural Resources--Division of Soil and Water Conservation.
   Interview by Christine L. Kasselmann, September. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Coastal
   Management Program. Columbus, Ohio.



   B. Sources Consulted for Preparation of Ohio Coastal Management Program Document

.  All agencies referenced in Volume I, Part II of this document and Volume II, Appendices were consulted
   during initial development of the 1992 public review draft document. ODNR consulted each agency again
   in 1993, 1995, and 1996 in order to incorporate necessary revisions prior to publication.

























   Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part VI - 3                                  March 1997








                                       PART VII

              COMMENTS ON DEIS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

INDEX TO WRITTEN COMMENTS

No.  Commenter                                                          Date

1    U.S. Department of Health & Human Services                         November 7, 1996
2    Mary Wood, Private Lakefront Property Owner                        October 20, 1996
3    Mr. and Mrs. H. L. Gobeille, Private Lakefront Property Owners     October 20, 1996
4    Malcolm B. Wood, P.E., Private Lakefront Property Owner            October 28, 1996
5    David S. McIlvain, Private Lakefront Property Owner                October 21, 1996
6    Shirley Heck, Private Lakefront Property Owner                     October 21, 1996
7    James W. Heck, Private Lakefront Property Owner                    October 21, 1996
8    Richard J. and Linda M. Hemmer, Private Lakefront Property Owners  November 12, 1996
9    James J. Manns, P.E., Private Lakefront Property Owner             November 13, 1996
10   Kathleen Heck                                                      undated (received
                                                                      November 15,1996)
11   Roger L. Alexander, Private Lakefront Property Owner               November 4, 1996
12   Charles J. Meyer, Private Lakefront Property Owner                 November 13, 1996
13   City of Rocky River                                                November 8, 1996
14   Edwin Pivcevich, Private Lakefront Property Owner                  November 13, 1996
15   Nuclear Regulatory Commission                                      November 4, 1996
16   Ottawa County Landfill, Browning-Ferris Industries of Ohio, Inc.   November 13, 1996
17   Ohio Home Builders Association, Inc.                               November 4, 1996
18   G. Alan Barth and Richard E. Walker
      Private Lakefront Property Owners                                 November 11, 1996
19   Alan J. Olson, Private Lakefront Property Owner                    November 14, 1996
20   Cuyahoga Soil and Water Conservation District                      November 15, 1996
21   James E. Evans, Associate Professor of Geology
      Bowling Green State University                                    November 7, 1996
22   City of Bay Village                                                November 12, 1996



Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part VII                             March 1997








INDEX TO WRITTEN COMMENTS (continued)
No.  Commenter                                                         Date
23   Ohio Coastal Resources Management Project                         November 22, 1996
24   U.S. Department of the Interior                                   November 19, 1996
25   William Charles Steuk                                             November 22, 1996
26   City of Cleveland                                                 November 21, 1996
27   Coast Alliance                                                    November 22, 1996
28   City of Lakewood                                                  November 22, 1996
29   Amy Kellogg, Attorney                                             November 19, 1996
30  Toledo Metropolitan Area Council of Governments                    November 22, 1996

INDEX TO ORAL COMMENTS

No.  Commenter                                                         Date

I Kurt Erichsen, Director of Environmental Planning
      for Toledo Metropolitan Area Council of Governments
      DEIS Public Hearing Testimony, Toledo, Ohio                      September 30, 1996

2    Bill Steuk, DEIS Public Hearing Testimony, Huron, Ohio            October 1, 1996

3    J.T. Lendrum, DEIS Public Hearing Testimony, Huron, Ohio          October 1, 1996

4    Mike Tann, City Manager of Huron, DEIS Public Hearing Testimony  October 1, 1996

5    Representative Darrell Opfer, State Representative
      DEIS Public Hearing Testimony, Huron, Ohio                       October 1, 1996

6    Gary Boyle, Chief Planner, City of Sandusky
      DEIS Public Testimony, Huron, Ohio                               October 1, 1996

7    Walt Wehenkel, Ottawa County Planning Commission
      DEIS Public Hearing Testimony, Huron, Ohio                       October 1, 1996

8    Amy Kellogg, Cities of Avon Lake and Cleveland
      DEIS Public Hearing Testimony, Cleveland, Ohio                   October 2, 1996

9    Edith Chase, Ohio Coastal Resource Management Project (OCRMP)
      DEIS Public Hearing Testimony, Cleveland, Ohio                   October 2, 1996



Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part VII                            March 1997








INDEX TO ORAL COMMENTS (continued)

No.  Commenter                                                         Date

10 Kathryn Brock, Cuyahoga Soil and Water Conservation District
      DEIS Public Hearing Testimony, Cleveland, Ohio,                 October 2, 1996

11 Brian Ulm, Northeast Ohio Sierra Club
      DEIS Public Hearing Testimony, Cleveland, Ohio                  October 2, 1996

12 J. W. Cowden, DEIS Public Hearing Testimony
      Cleveland, Ohio                                                 October 2, 1996

13 Mary Wood, Private Lakefront Property Owner
      DEIS Public Hearing Testimony, Cleveland, Ohio                  October 2, 1996

14   Malcolm Wood, DEIS Public Hearing Testimony, Cleveland, Ohio     October 2, 1996

15 Kathleen Barber, Citizen, DEIS Public Hearing Testimony
      Cleveland, Ohio                                                 October 2, 1996

16   Lee Ann Stein, DEIS Public Hearing Testimony, Ashtabula, Ohio     October 3, 1996

17   Tim Bojanowski, DEIS Public Hearing Testimony, Ashtabula, Ohio    October 3, 1996

18   Andrew Branik, DEIS Public Hearing Testimony, Ashtabula, Ohio    October 3, 1996

19   Lou Lehman, DEIS Public Hearing Testimony, Ashtabula, Ohio       October 3, 1996

20   Keith Rader, Lakefront Property Owner
      DEIS Public Hearing Testimony, Ashtabula, Ohio                  October 3, 1996

21   Leonard Eames, Ashtabula Port Authority Member and
      Lakefront Property Owner, DEIS Public Hearing Testimony
      Ashtabula, Ohio                                                  October 3, 1996












Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part VII                           March 1997








INTRODUCTION

On September 30, and October 1, 2, and 3, 1996, the Ohio Department of Natural Resources
(ODNR) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) held four joint public
hearings to hear comments on Ohio's proposed Coastal Management Program document and the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) published jointly by ODNR and NOAA. NOAA's
hearings were conducted to fulfill, in part, the requirements of the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 and the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended (CZMA). ODNR's
hearings were conducted to provide an opportunity for the public to comment and make
recommendations regarding Ohio's proposed program document, in compliance with O.R.C.
ï¿½ 1506.02(A)(1). Comments received at those public hearings and written comments submitted
during the open comment period, which ended November 22, 1996, were primarily addressed toward
ODNR's program. The following is a record of all written and oral comments and responses from
both ODNR and NOAA.




































Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part VII                              March 1997










                                                                             November 7, 1996



Joe Uravitch
Coastal Programs Division
SSMC-4, Room I 1109
1305 East-West Highway
Silver Spring, MD 20910

Dear Mr. Uravitch:

We have completed our review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Ohio
Coastal Management Program. We are responding on behalf of the U.S. Public Health Service.

We believe our interests and concerns have been addressed in this draft document. We concur
with the proposed Coastal Management Plan, which recognizes the coastal zone as a delicately
balanced ecosystem; establishes a process of balanced management of resources; allows growth to
continue while protecting resources; and provides a management framework which can protect
regional, state, and national interests. We concur that beneficial changes will likely promote
avoidance of a dimished quality of life resulting from the misuse of coastal resources.

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this DEIS. We would appreciate
receiving a copies of the Final EIS, and any future environmental impact statements which may
indicate potential public health impact and are developed under the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA).

                                            Sincerely,



                                            Kenneth W. Holt, M.S.E.H
                                            Special Programs Group (F29)
                                            National Center for Environmental Health


                                                 ~~ L~~k-: U  __,- I 



                                                           Ii?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I .,~...-:   - .








WRITTEN COMMENT #1: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES
November 7, 1996

Response to Comments:

Comment noted. No change required.
















































Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part VII                               March 1997









                                                    October 20, 1996
Acting Director,
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
U.S. Department of Commerce
1305 East-West Highway, N/ORM3
Silver Spring, Maryland 20910


RE.   The Draft Ohio Coastal Management Program & Draft EIS
      Draft Document Review (OCMP)

Dear Acting Director:

The OCMP reads as if it were a rushed production. In addition, it was released to the
public on September 10. 1996, with the first hearing on September 30, 1996 and written
comments by November 15, 1996. However, the ODNR has been working on the
OCMP document since 1992. So, why are they in such a rush?

The text has enough imprecise statements of intention which raise serious concerns as
to what the ODNR really intends to do. For example, the OCMP suggests that all
licenses and permits within the Coastal Area must be approved by the ODNR. Also,
the OCMP suggests that "shore protection will be discouraged and relocation
facilitated." In addition, the "ODNR will emphasize and encourage strategic retreat and
selective fortification."

Lastly, the OCMP suggests that the ODNR will require public access as a condition for
granting a submerged land lease or erosion control permit.

I believe that the lakefront property owners have the right to know just what the ODNR
means by these statements. In addition, does the ODNR have the statutory authority to
   implement and enforce these proposals?

I must conclude that this document was really written to get power for the ODNR, not
protect the coastal area. I recommend that the Acting Director, Office of Ocean and
Coastal Resources Management take no action on this document.

                                    Yours truly,

                             Lakefront property owner





                                                              'OCT 30  ',








WRITTEN COMMENT #2: MARY WOOD, PRIVATE LAKEFRONT PROPERTY OWNER,
October 20, 1996

Response to Comments:

1. Comment (regarding apparent speed of document production and length of public comment
period) noted. No change required.

The State of Ohio has been working on developing the OCMP for more than twenty years, with
considerable public input, as described in the program document. In 1992, ODNR circulated for
public review a draft OCMP policy document. Publication of the draft program document and DEIS
took three yeas in addition to what was originally anticipated when the 1992 public review draft was
published. ODNR embarked upon a process of reassessing methods for coastal erosion mapping in
1994. This was in direct response to issues raised by private property owners regarding coastal
erosion area rules, maps and policies. That led to amendments to Ohio's Coastal Management Law
in 1994, as negotiated with property owners, local governments and their representatives over a
period of approximately nine months. The subsequent two year -long process involved the revision
of administrative rules and mapping based upon those mutually-agreed-to changes in the law.
During that two years, extensive consultation occurred with property owners, local governments and
their representatives. This consultation included the opportunity to review relevant sections of
interim drafts of the program document and direct involvement with ruled draft revisions. The draft
document published in August 1996 was reflective of issues resolved during and after the 1992
public review. The draft document contains no major substantive changes from the public review
draft presented in 1992, other than incorporating revisions in response to public comments, updating
various agency statutory and regulatory citations, and including NOAA's draft environmental impact
statement.

The procedures for public notification are clearly prescribed in the Ohio Coastal Management Law
(O.R.C. Chapter 1506) and in the state's administrative procedures statute, O.R.C. Chapter 119. To
announce the availability of the draft OCMP document plan and DEIS, ODNR placed seven-and-
one-half-inch public notices in nine coastal area newspapers and the Columbus Dispatch on August
30, 1996. However, ODNR went beyond requirements of both state and federal law by directly
distributing the draft OCMP document and DEIS itself to nearly 200 individuals and organizations.
It was made available in public libraries and governmental offices throughout the coastal area and
in Columbus. Several hundred copies were mailed to the State of Ohio Library and directly to
coastal area libraries with a request to make it available for public inspection. The document was
also sent directly to each local community and each county and regional planning agency as well as
to all coastal area legislators. Further, ODNR sent individual copies of the document directly to
approximately fifty lakefront property owners and local officials who had actively worked with
ODNR and their local communities on the coastal erosion area management issue and policies.
News releases that referenced publication of the OCMP draft document and DEIS were also issued
regarding the preliminary coastal erosion area identification. ODNR officials additionally met with
the media in all shoreline counties to discuss the issues.



Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part VII                                  March 1997








ODNR wanted to ensure that there would be ample opportunity for review and comment by the
public, and therefore requested that the customary 45-day review period for a draft environmental
impact statement be lengthened. As noted above, public notice of the availability of the OCMP draft
program document and DEIS was given on August 30, 1996. A public review period of 77 days
after August 30 was provided. This was extended by one week to a total of 84 days. The official
NOAA Federal Register notice was published on September 6, providing a 70-day review period
(extended to 77 days). This is significantly longer than the normal review period for a draft
environmental impact statement, as provided under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
The public review period was extended beyond the usual 45-day time period in order to encompass
the notification of property owners and the public hearings regarding coastal erosion areas.

Four public hearings were held during the 84-day comment period. These were in addition to eight
public hearings conducted on the preliminary coastal erosion area identification, two public hearings
held in 1995 on the rules for designating and enforcing coastal erosion areas, and two public hearings
and two public meetings held on the 1992 public review draft. Additional. between 1993 and the
publication of the revised document, more that 40 public meetings were held with local citizens,
with well over 1,000 individuals attending. Please refer also to Part, Chapter 11, pages 11-8 through
11- 11 for further information regarding the extent of public involvement in this process.

2. Comment (regarding consistency provisions, that is approval by ODNR of licenses and permits)
noted. No change needed. The consistency review procedure is described in Part II, Chapter 4,
pages 4-27 through 4-31 of the program document. O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.03 mandates that no project or
activity directly affecting the coastal area that is "subject to the approval of any agency of the state"
shall be approved until the director of ODNR determines that it is consistent with policies stated in
the OCMP document. As Chapter 4 of the program document describes, this does not entail an
additional ODNR approval of all permits and licenses. Rather, it is a process for assuring that all
existing enforceable policies of the State of Ohio are in fact met. As stated on p. 4-29, "ODNR will
base its consistency determination upon the approvals of the state agencies enforcing the policies and
authorities in the coastal management program document." In other words ODNR will rely on the
responsible agency for granting or denying permits within its own area of statutory and regulatory
authority and will not apply its own separate judgement to second guess the decisions of that agency.
Rather, the department and other agencies with relevant regulatory authorities will, in the process
of reviewing for consistency with OCMP policies, assure that applicants are aware that issuance of
one permit does not guarantee that the project will proceed if other state agency approvals are
necessary. All other applicable permits and authorizations will be required. For example, Ohio EPA
may issue a Permit to Install for a new source of air contaminants, but if the proposed facility were
to be located within a coastal erosion area, the project may not proceed until the required permit for
new construction within coastal erosion areas is obtained. This process will both streamline and
improve the predictability of permitting processes to the benefit of both agencies and applicants by
identifying all approval requirements earlier in the process. In many cases, through execution of
procedures detailed in MOUs with participating state agencies, this will be accomplished within
those agencies.





Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part VII                                 March 1997








         3.  Comment (regarding "strategic retreat and selective fortification") noted. No change needed.
         These policies are described at Part II, Chapter 5, pages 5-8 through 5-12. The context of ODNR's
         statement reflects the reality of Ohio's Lake Erie shoreline. Where the lakefront is substantially
         developed, additional structural protection may be required to further protect existing structures. In
         many instances, building farther from the shoreline is advisable. In some circumstances, moving
         structures landward or relocating outside of erosion prone areas will be considered by a property
         owner, developer or local government. ODNR will encourage relocation but will not, and does not
         have the authority to, require it. These are not enforceable policies. As described in the
         introduction to Chapter 5 MANAGEMENT POLICIES, policies not underlined are not enforceable
         policies. However, in providing financial and technical assistance for shoreline protection under
         other statutory authorities described in Part II, Chapter 5, ODNR will not assist or promote structural
         protection where such measures would undermine natural protective features and foster additional
         development in coastal erosion areas.

         4. Comment (regarding public access requirements for submerged lands leases and ) noted. No
         change needed. Under the Ohio Administrative Code (O.A.C. 1501-06-03), and consistent with
         Ohio's public trust law (O.R.C. ï¿½1506.10 and 1506.11), ODNR must consider historic public
         recreational use of a proposed lease area. The waters of Lake Erie and the lands underlying them
         belong to the state by law as proprietor in trust for the people of the state. ODNR therefore must
         assure that the public's right to use those waters is not improperly foreclosed by the issuance of a
         lease to a private property owner. Therefore, if historic or prospective (per Sauire ex rel Brown v.
         Newport Concrete Co. [1975] 44 Ohio App. 2d 121 and State ex rel Sauire v. Cleveland [1948] 150
-.-      OS 303) public recreational use would be impaired, the department may, in exercising its public trust
         responsibility, provide for such use when public trust property is converted to other private or public
         uses.

         Public recreation generally is not an issue with respect to submerged lands leases for structures
         attached to private residential properties. However, in other locations such as ports, harbors and
         urban waterfronts, it can be a significant issue. Administrative rules for leasing Lake Erie submerged
         lands amplify the law and direct the department to consider the present or prospective recreational
         uses by the public during the term of the lease. Providing for public use or access would depend on
         historic use patterns and suitability of the lease site for existing and prospective recreational uses.

         There is no requirement for public access with regard to erosion control measure permits.

         5. Comment (regarding imprecise statements of intention) noted. No change required. NOAA has
         thoroughly reviewed the policy statements set forth in the OCMP document and concludes that
         sufficient clarity exists to achieve predictability of decision making regarding proposed activities
         within the Lake Erie coastal region. Statutory and regulatory citations and procedures are precisely
         described as required by federal regulations, and clear and thorough detail is provided with respect
         to enhancement policies.

         6. Comment (regarding ODNR having statutory authority) noted. No change required. The
         OCMP is submitted by the State of Ohio, rather than ODNR.  The statutory authorities are cited


         Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part VII                                     March 1997








clearly in Part II, Chapter 5 of the OCMP draft document with respect to each enforceable authority
for the respective agency.

7. Comment (regarding rationale for program development) noted. No change required. The state
statutory mandate for development of the OCMP contained in the Ohio Revised Code Chapter 1506
is clear. The Ohio Department of Natural Resources is charged with developing and adopting a
comprehensive program".  to preserve, protect, develop, restore or enhance the resources of the
coastal area and to ensure wise use of the land and water resources of the coastal area." This is the
purpose for which the program document was developed. Participation in the national program will
bring several benefits to the citizens of the State of Ohio, including additional funding to better
manage and protect these resources for the benefit of all.

8. Comment (recommending that OCRM take no action on the document) noted. No change
required. For the reasons stated in the DEIS, NOAA' s preferred alternative is to conclude that the
OCMP meets the requirements of the CZMA and its implementing regulations, and to approve the
program.



































Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part VII                                    March 1997









                                                         October 20, 1996
       Acting Director,  : . 
       Office oi Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
       National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
       U.S. Department of Commerce
       1305 East-West Highway, N/ORM3
       Silver Spring, Maryland 20910


       RE:   The Draft Ohio Coastal Management Program & Draft EIS
             Draft Document Review (OCMP)

       Dear Acting Director.

      The OCMP reads as if it were a rushed production. In addition, it was released to the
      public on September 10, 1996, with the first hearing on September 30, 1996 and written
      comments by November 15, 1996.  However, the ODNR has been working on the
      OCMP document since 1992. So, why are they in such a rush?

      The text has enough imprecise statements of intention which raise serious concerns as
      to what the ODNR really intends to do. For example, the OCMP suggests that all
      licenses and permits within the Coastal Area must be approved by the ODNR. Also,
      the OCMP suggests that "shore protection will be discouraged and relocation 
      facilitated.' In addition, the 'ODNR will emphasize and encourage strategic retreat and
      selective fortification.'                                     :  . 
           ï¿½                                               .'        .   .-***  .*: . .-.    .   . ..  . ..
      Lastly, the OCMP suggests that the ODNR will require public access as a condition for
      granting a submerged land lease or erosion control permit.

      1 believe that the lakefront property owners have the right to know just what the ODNR
      means by these statements. In addition, does the ODNR have the statutory authority to
         implement and enforce these proposals?                           :'  

      I must conclude that this document was really written to get power for the ODNR, not .
      protect the coastal area. I recommend that the Acting Director, Office of Ocean and
      Coastal Resources Management take no action on this document.

                                          Yours truly,

                                    Lakefront property owner


                                   At vwc-v S                  __.
                                       S3 ~ /~3~ @I    Ad
a                                                     n     








WRITTEN COMMENT #3: MR. AND MRS. H. L. GOBEILLE, PRIVATE LAKEFRONT
PROPERTY OWNERS, October 20, 1996

Response to Comments:

Comments noted. No change required. See response to comment #2 (Mary Wood, same letter).
















































Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part VII                            March 1997



      WOOD Engineering and Design
      22740 Lake Road, Rocky River, Ohio 44116-1022
     phone (216) 331-1349               fax (216) 331-1187               [email protected]




                                                           October 28, 1996
     Acting Director,
      Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
      National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
      U.S. Department of Commerce
      1305 East-West Highway. N/ORM3                                            I
     Silver Spring. Maryland 20910


     RE:   The Draft Ohio Coastal Management Program & Draft EIS
            Draft Document Review (OCMP)

     Dear Acting Director:

     I have lived on Lake Erie's shore at the above address for fifteen years, during which
     time I've constructed an erosion control structure and obtained all the relevant permits
     as well as a submerged land lease. I'm a professional engineer, registered in two
     disciplines (petroleum and environmental engineering) with an advanced degree in
     economics.

     To me. the lake is a continual source of pleasure, either from watching it and its many
     varieties of wild life, or from using it to swim or sail. Even during periods of inclement
     weather. I still find it fascinating. It is also my source of drinking water and a vital
     transportation artery. I appreciate Lake Erie and agree it needs protection. but with
     appropriate regulations, especially for the people who live by it and use it.

     However, having reviewed the above referenced document, I'm forced to conclude that
     it is not the instrument for this task. The OCMP is, in many ways, a flawed document
     that need further refinement. I'll share with you my reasons for believing so.

     The OCMP contains vague or imprecise assertions and inaccuracies - almost as if it
     were a rushed production. It seems that the process for obtaining input is being done
     in a fashion so as to minimize the public's comments. For example, the document was
     submitted to the Federal Government in July. 1996, but wasn't shipped out to the public
     until September 10, 1996, with the first hearing on September 30, 1996. A document of
     this size requires careful reading and thoughtful review. but two weeks (especially for
     those of us who do this in their after-work hours) is simply not enough time. After all.
     the ODNR has been working on the OCMP document since 1992.
     So. why the big rush now?

     There was one particular item that I found particularly disturbing. It was the
k.    misrepresentation of the Working Group that was assembled to advise ODNR on the










Coastal Erosion Area Regulations. Since I was a part of the Working Group,
representing lake front property owners, I know this first hand.

Specifically: Part II, ch.1 1 - p.11 (end of 2nd paragraph) states: "The (working) group
elected not to write official recommendations, stating that the changes the ODNR was
making as their work progressed reflected their recommendations."

That is just not true.

In fact. the Working Group was so frustrated with the ODNR's refusal to address issues
raised by the Working Group that the majority of members sent a letter containing their
recommendation (attached) to Mr. Michael Colvin. Coastal Management Administrator,
ODNR who ignored it. Subsequently. JCARR deferred approval of the draft rules as
submitted by ODNR. due in part. to opposition from Working Group members. The
Ohio Legislature (through H.B. 119) subsequently enacted many of the changes sought
by the Working Group. over the opposition of the ODNR.

This made two things clear: First. the ODNR does not want input with which it does not
agree. particularly from the regulated community; secondly. the ODNR has its own
agenda. often quite different from the will of the people and the legislature.

If for no other reason than the above, the ODNR must reissue a revised OCMP for             !
review and comment by the public.

The text of document contains fuzzy or imprecise statements of intention, some of
which raise serious concerns as to what the ODNR really intends to do. The following
are examples intended to illustrate this point, rather than being an all-inclusive list:

Part I - p.1, 3'd para:
What is meant by: "...enhanced its management capability"? In what way? What
specific management tools or techniques are being employed?

Specific managerial techniques can provide economies in use of human and financial
resources. However. the appropriate (chosen) techniques should be identified for
specific situations or organizational structures. This was not done.

Part I - p.3,
In what fashion does the ODNR speak for the OEPA? Yes. I know there is a
Memorandum of Understanding. But it is unsigned, and until it is signed, it signifies
nothing. because it represents no commitment.

Part I - p.7, item #6
Please tell me how the ODNR intends to ...lInclude sufficient legal authorities..." etc., if









the OCMP has pledged no new regulations or laws (see Part I - p. 1, 1st paragraph.
second sentence).

Part II. ch.1 - p.2:
Coastal Area Boundary - apparently this is defined by the ODNR Director. However.
there is no mention of any review or appeal process for those affected by the
designation. Is this consistent with legislative intent? If a company or individual
believes that its property was incorrectly included within the coastal area boundary.
why wasn't the procedure for appealing that decision included in the OCMP?

Part II. ch.3 - p.1; 4' para.
Some of the defined coastal areas contain land which is used for activities other than
those specified by Federal Regulations (urban areas, landfills, upland areas, etc). Yet
these lands are still included within the Coastal Area Boundary. Why?

Part II. ch.3 - p.1: 5t para.
The defined Coastal Area Boundary still include lands with no direct impact upon
coastal waters: why?

Part II, ch. 4 - p.23 (4'h para):
This states "...The MOUs describe actions that will be undertaken by each agency to
minimize duplication and delays while ensuring that activities affecting the coastal area
are adequately reviewed." Yet, in the unsigned MOU with the OEPA (Appendix E - 2,
6th para), the last sentence reads '...The OEPA will include for the applicant's signature
a statement that the applicant understands and agrees that the activity may not
proceed until a determination of consistency with the policies of the OCMP has been
made by the ODNR."

This suggests that the ODNR wants to have veto power over all regulatory OEPA -
activities in the coastal area. What happens to the regulated community? Has this
expansion in regulatory authority been approved by JCARR? What if the applicant
declines to sign that statement? (if I had an option. I certainly wouldn't). And, how will
this expedite things, to make the permitting process more predictable (as promised in
Part II. ch.4 - p.26, under Benefits to developers and project sponsors)?
Somehow, this doesn't sound like it will make things simpler or more efficient.

Part II. ch.4 - p.26 & p.27;
Consistency:
Please tell me how this process works in practice. The explanation in the OCMP just
does not make sense.

(a)   If the procedures are changed by the information generated, how can they meet
      the criterion of being consistent?











(b)   If the ODNR puts each project through a review and comment period before
       making a consistency determination. how can there be any consistency?

Coordinating (p.27 - 4h para);
How will this procedure simplify the process (of obtaining permits. seeking approvals
from the OEPA (or other agencies). when more offices are involved? Streamlining and
simplification is usually achieved by placing responsibility with a single office or
agency.
This paragraph contains many assertions (...will benefit...;  ...will be...) with no
explanation of HOW the simplification and consolidation will work. Elsewhere (see
above Part II, ch.4 - p.23), the specific details of administration suggest increased
complexity and even lengthier permitting processes.

Part II. ch.4 - p.29: (#5 - Notify ODNR)
Does this mean ANY license, permit or approval (for any activity) within the Coastal
Area must be approved by the ODNR? And does that mean that all activities require
an additional 30 days wait until cleared by the ODNR?
- even routine changes in, for example, PTI (approved) construction? Building
Permits? Any permitted construction activity?

Does the ODNR intend to become larger? This part of the OCMP suggests the ODNR
plans to review all license, permit and approval activities within the Coastal Area? Who
pays? How will this take less time?

Part II. ch.4 - p.30; (Annual Audits of State Agencies)
This alone sounds like it will eat up a significant portion of any Federal (Section 306)
grant monies available. Does the ODNR plan to charge other state agencies a fee to
perform its audit?

What happens to an Agency when it is no longer approved to make Consistency
Determinations? What happens to that agency's regulated activities within the Coastal
Area during the six month period that it takes to get its Approval status back? Does
that mean all licenses, permits and other activities in the Coastal Area must come to a
halt? If not. what's the mechanism to get all of these documents approved and issued?

Please spell out how this procedure simplifies and streamlines the permitting process.

Part II11, ch.5 - p.4; (Erosion - last para),
The reference to beach erosion is a bald statement of fact with no mention of the
causes.

Perhaps the ODNR should comment on the effect the sand dredging (permitted by the










State) which disturbed the dynamic equilibrium between the offshore sand bars and the
beaches protecting the shoreline. And now, lakefront property owners face the
consequences of those actions, left to pay the cost. both in the financial and regulatory
burdens of living in an area which is now undergoing accelerate erosion due to the loss
of beaches.

Part II. ch.5 - p.5 (4th para)

Why did the ODNR select Mentor Dunes as an example of a non-structural erosion
control measure?

Even those not schooled in the literal processes know that the beach and dunes at
Mentor Headlands owe their existence to the long groin that reaches out to the
lighthouse at the mouth of the Grand River. This structure traps the sand in the litoral
drift (west to east), thus starving the cliffs of Painesville Township (much cited by the
ODNR as a reason for regulation of erosion prone areas) of the sand needed to protect
the highly erodible glacial till cliffs. (See copy of news article - attached)

If the ODNR is serious about reducing erosion with non-structural measures. then it
should give serious consideration to eliminating the sand trap at the mouth of the
Grand River and allow the sand to be carried to the east, to give the cliffs of.Painesville
Township their beaches back. If the ODNR feels that this is impractical, then it should
cite this structure as an example of what NOT to do.  It should NOT point with pride at
the Mentor Dunes as an example of non-structural erosion control measure. It is
actually a shameful robbery of one party (Painesville Township lakefront property
owners) to enrich another (the state park at Mentor Headlands). Take away the groin,
and the sand dunes will disappear. Take away the groin, and a much cited erosion
problem will fade.

Part II, ch.5 - p.6 (3'd para)
Why is the word HAZARD in this paragraph?
The intent of the legislature (in H.B. 119) has been made perfectly clear that erosion
processes are a natural phenomenon and represent a normal risk of living on the
lakefront; not a hazard. This is an alarmist word. much used by the ODNR to describe
coastal erosion. In this context. it is a violation of legislative intent.

Part II. ch.5 - p.1 1 (3'd para)
Please give an example of enforcement on unauthorized construction activities. From
personal experience, it appears as though the ODNR does not enforce the existing
regulations. Even when egregious examples of unauthorized filling of Lake Erie are
brought to the ODNR's attention, they do not enforce the requirement for a submerged
land lease or removal of unauthorized fill. If they have too much on their plate. perhaps
they need fewer regulations to monitor.










Part II, ch.5 - p.12 (3"d para)
Define process for determining areas where: "...it would be more effective to maintain
natural functions of beaches and dunes.... or where construction would measurably
increase erosion elsewhere, construction and related shore protection will be
discouraged and relocation facilitated." Is the ODNR referring to the groin at the mouth
of the Grand River, or is the ODNR referring to lakefront owned by home owners?
This paragraph concludes: ODNR will emphasize and encourage strategic retreat and
selective fortification.

Now this sounds like a strategy dreamed up by someone who DOES NOT LIVE ON
THE LAKEFRONT! If you live on the lakefront (and your home is the most significant
item of your net worth), the above statement is alarming.

What specific areas has the ODNR targeted to encourage strategic retreat? What
areas will be emphasized for selective fortification? I believe that the lakefront property
owners have the right to know which areas the ODNR has selected under this policy.

Please explain the basis of this strategy. the process of determination of selected areas
for strategic retreat, including the rights of the affected property owners and their
avenues of appeal. In addition, please explain what type of compensation will be paid
to those participating in this "strategic retreat." Lastly, please cite the statutory
authority that mandates such a strategy.

If for no other reason than the above, the ODNR must reissue a revised OCMP for
review and comment by the public.

Policy 2 - Shore Erosion Control

Part II. ch.5 - p.13 (1't para)
Have the administrative rules required by O.R.C. 1507.04 and 1507.10 been developed
and adopted? Surely if the legislature saw fit to change the O.R.C. to require permits,
should not the ODNR have done so already?

Part II, ch.5 - p.55 (last para)
Describe the ODNR's actions under O.R.C. 1501.01. What mechanism exists for
valuation and appeal from such an eminent domain action?

Part II. ch.5 - p.71 (2nd para. Item 3)
If the state requires public access as a condition for granting a lease or permit, will the
state compensate. indemnify and protect the leaseholder from any action by a member
of the public using said leased lands? After all. the state requires those who lease
submerged lands from the state to prove that they have adequate insurance to protect










the state.


Part II, ch.6 - p.5 (5th para)
This section is titled: "Coastal Erosion and Flood Hazard Areas."
This implies that Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas. The legislature has made its intent
clear in this area, that Coastal Erosion Areas shall not be designated as Hazards.

Part II, ch.6 - p.5 (last para)
Last line of this paragraph refers to "erosion hazard area.' See above.

Part II. ch.6 - p.13 (last para)
This section is titled: "Coastal Erosion and Flood Hazard Areas."
This implies that Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas. The legislature has made its intent
clear in this area, that Coastal Erosion Areas shall not be designated as Hazards.

If for no other reason than the above, the ODNR must reissue a revised OCMP for
review and comment by the public.

Part II, ch.1 1 - p.6;
Under staffing of the ODNR.

The ODNR seems to spend significant amount of resources trying to get rules issued
but has a great reluctance to get involved with current problems and enforcing current
rules & regulations. At public hearings, working groups. etc., I have noted that the
ODNR is able to muster more than enough personnel to have a group that sit at these
events and not even taking notes. Somehow, I get the impression that they are, in fact,
overstaffed.

If not, why do they have so many staffers at the public hearings and working groups?
For example, at the public hearing on October 3, 1996. in the Cleveland Metro parks
Auditorium, there were six members of the ODNR present. That represented a
significant fraction of the total participants (about twenty).
And if they're not understaffed. why no action on problems that the lakefront property
owners face?

Part II, ch. 11 - p.13 (1's para)
The section on the economic impact assessment - either redo this (and answer earlier
objections) or get rid off it. That analysis, as has been previously demonstrated (in
earlier letters to the Director - attached), is seriously flawed. So, why still included it?

Part II. ch.11 - p. 13 (2nd para)
Same as the previous comment. Your interpretation of the data would not garner









serious support from a person trained in economics or finance.

Part III, (B) p.3;

There has been no cost-benefit analysis run to justify the adoption of this program. The
preceding part of the Draft QOMP has been long on generalities and short on specifics,
 except for the need to get $800,000 per year from the Federal Govt. to administer the
Program. Funding has been mentioned on numerous occasions (about a dozen times
Jin this draft of the OCMP). However, specific benefits have~ all been couched in
hypothetical, conditional or parenthetical terms.

Therefore, I must conclude that this document was really written to get funding, not
provide protection to the coastal area. I recommend that the Acting Direct~or, Office of
Ocean and Coastal Resources Management take no action on this document, other
than require the ODNR attend to its false statements, policy positions that have no
statutory authority and statements that violate legislative intent, and resubmit it (with a
reasonable review period).

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.

                                      Yours truly,




                                Malcolm B. Wood, P.E.

enc:









                                                   LA"W OFFICES OF
                                           ROTH 8 ROLF Co., L. P.A.
                                              600 BOND COURT BUILDING
                                               1300 EAST NINTrH STREET
        IRA . COFFMAN-                         CLEVELAND. OHIO 44114                           OF COUNSEL
       AMY E KELLOCC-'                                                                     CAL M SCHAFFER
        DAVID P MUHEK                               (216) 621-2321
       CARO..L ROLF                                  TELICOPItE                         'ALO A.D)I.4T';D1 IN FLOIDA
        DENNIS A ROTH                                t21,5) 11-1439                      -ALSO A'MITTED IN 1lNIANA
        ERIC M SIMON
       JON A TRIMBOLI
        KELLY M WEfE5LL                           July 6, 1995
       SETH M WOLF


     Mr. Michael Colvin
     Coastal Management Administrator
    Ohio Department of Natural Resources
    Fountain Square
     Columbus, Ohio 43224-1387

            Re:    Erosion Hazard Area Working GrouD

    Dear Mike:

            The undersigned have reviewed your communication of June 12, 1995. We believe there are some
Wadditional issues that were raised during our final meeting which were not addressed. We believe these
    issues can be addressed without convening the Working Group again, as you have made it clear that you
    do not wish to have any further meetings.

            We submit the following matters for your attention:

            Passage of H.B. 119 - We believe it is imperative that H.B. 119 be adopted. Coastal property
    owners must be assured that the state is not going to use the mere designation of a coastal erosion area
    against them in an eminent domain proceeding.

            1501-6-23(A) - The matter was discussed at the last meeting as to the application form. Again, we
    ask that ODNR identify what information will be in the application form specified by the Director. It is the
    Working Group's intent that the form be very simple and not include the information that was deleted from
    the original draft of this Rule.

            1501-6-23(B)(5)(6) - It was proposed by Wayne Warren that subparagraphs (5) and (6) be deleted,
    and we were in favor of that. However, after review of the rules, we realize that these subsections remain.
    We would like to point out that situations can arise where neither subparagraphs (5) or (6) are applicable.
    For example, an erosion control measure may have been constructed that did not need authorization under
    R.C. 1507.04. Another example would be that the existing erosion control devise is not owned by the
    applicant. Thus, requiring "either of the following" is not accurate. We were also concerned that the
An  tpplicant is responsible for verifying that an application has been filed with the Department of Engineering.
Wn hat does verification mean? Since Engineering is part of ODNR, doesn't ODNR know, or have easy
    access to determine, that the application has been submitted?







 ROTH 8 ROLF CO.. L.P.A.


Mr. Michael Colvin
July 6, 1995
Page 2


       Also in subparagraph (6), while the terminology has been changed, the requirements of the original
"evaluative report" still remain. We understand that information on an existing erosion control measure
may be required in order for DNR to effectively evaluate a permit application. However, the cost to the
applicant of providing the information should not prove burdensome in relation to the cost of developing
property within a coastal erosion area.

       1501-6-23(D) and (E) - The first two sentences of this paragraph appear to conflict. On one hand,
it says the 30 day review period begins upon receipt of the completed application. A contrary
interpretation is received in the second sentence where the 30 day review period begins pursuant to a
specific notification from the Department.

       We believe it is imperative that these issues be addressed before the rules are filed with JCARR.
We are more than willing to provide additional input in regard to these matters.

                                            Very truly yours,


                                            Wm. Charles Steuk                                             0












                                            Charles E. Herdendorf


                                            Wade Mertz


                                            Malcolm B. Wood

cc: Jim Morris
   Donald C. Anderson
   Wayne Warren







                               22740 Lake Road
                       Rocky River, Ohio  44116 -1022
                               (216) 331-1349



                                                   February 5, 1994



      Frances S. Buchholzer, Director
     Ohio Department of Natural Resources
     Fountain Square C-4,
     Columbus, Ohio 43224


     Dear Director Buchholzer:

          Thank you for your January 18, 1994 letter with your answers
     to my comments of December 7, 1993. It is a good sign that the
     State of Ohio's administration is concerned and responsive to
     voter worries. However, I believe that you have not recognized
     what real concern these issues stir in the lake front property
     owners. Specifically:

     Minimum Pronosed Recession Rate:

          The reasons used to justify the minimum regulatory recession
. ~rate of one foot per year to calculate the extent of the erosion
     hazard area worry me. The logic upon which the reasons are based
     seem to make ALL lake front property owners bear the brunt of two
     phenomena.

     First, the geology of the Lake Erie shoreline varies area by area
     which causes significantly different erosion rates. The fact
     that some lake front areas are protected by substantial erosion
     control structures is dismissed by you (in your letter) "...,mere
     presence of an erosion control measure indicates the risk of
     erosion is high."' (Note: there is erosion on all shores except
     those which are accreting.) Do erosion control measures count
     for naught? Remember, there are substantial portions of Lake
     Erie shoreline which have erosion rates FAR LESS than the minimum
     recession rate proposed by regulation.

     The second phenomenon is the unusually high water levels
     experienced in Lake Erie during the period cited in your letter
     (1973 to 1990). While I'm not a statistician (I'm an engineer
     and economist), it is obvious even to me that it is plain bad
     science to use outlier data (i.e., exceptional values in the data
     set) to predict future phenomena.

     Please, get rid of the minimum recession rate of one foot per
     year for the regulatory determination of the Erosion Hazard Area.
* ~It is just plain WRONG!




Proposed Lake Erie Erosion Hazard Area Regs.                      2



Permittinc:

     I'm quite familiar with the current permitting process for
erosion control structures in Lake Erie. The proposed process
sounds more involved (as written in the copy of the draft
regulations provided by Mike Colvin) and subject to more
regulatory review. In addition, the requirement that the erosion
control measure must meet a 30 year design life criteria,
including proposed maintenance, is not trivial.

First, the science of coastal engineering is replete with caveats
as the unpredictable nature of failure modes. Secondly, is there
anyone in Ohio State Government who has the-training and
experience (30 years) in coastal engineering to realistically
judge the adequacy of the design of the proposed erosion control
measures? If there are specific design standards adopted by the
State of Ohio to be used with these proposed regulations (for
reviewing submitted designs for compliance), I'd certainly like
to see them. Lastly, my comment about design criteria for the
erosion control measure exceeding that of the structure that it
will protect simply meant: Houses do not have to be built to a
30 year life design criteria including proposed maintenance, and
be certified by a registered professional engineer.

Economics:

     The Economic Impact Statement prepared by the ODNR
(September 1993) did not refer to an infusion of hundreds of
millions of dollars in subsequent private and public investment,
as you stated in your letter.  If there is a revised Economic
Impact Statement, I'd appreciate receiving a copy.

I stand by my assertion that there will be no specific economic
benefit or monetary value to lake front property owners resulting
from the proposed regulation. On the contrary, the regulations
will impose a penalty. Let me illustrate my point.

If property owners along Ohio's Lake Erie shore are required to
install erosion control measures that meet the 30 year design
life criteria, the cost will be staggering. Specifically; assume
that 25% of the shoreline already has or does not need erosion
control measures, that would leave about 150 miles of lake front
requiring protection. At a cost of $200 to $1,000 per lineal
foot for erosion control structure installation, plus engineering
fees (30 year design life criteria) from $500 to $5,000 per
individual installation (such as a private home with 100 feet
frontage), this imposes an economic cost of at least $160 million
to as much as $830 million on the estimated eight thousand
individual lake front property owners.

Put another way, that works out that each property owner will
have to pay from $20,000 to $100,000 for these proposed
regulations!




Proposed Lake Erie Erosion Hazard Area Regs.                     3



All of this so the ODNR can get federal grants of $700,000 to $i
million annually (plus matching state funds)?

Can you now see why I do not buy into the concept that the
proposed regulations are a benefit? These regulations will be
economically onerous and discriminatory against lake front
property owners.

     Since you cited Lake County as an example of "devastating"
property losses, that's worth some discussion. As you know,
Mentor Headlands State Park continues to accrete sand and build a
larger beach. The sand comes from the west-to-east littoral
drift which is blocked by the light house pier at Grand River.
Any elementary text on shoreline processes will tell you that a
beach starved for sand, caused either from lower input by streams
or reduced sand transport in the littoral drift, will erode.
This is exactly what is happening to the shoreline in Lake County
to the east of the Mentor Headlands State Park. The beach at
Mentor Headlands State Park gets bigger, accumulating more and
more sand, while the beaches to the east are starved for sand and
thus erode. It's no wonder there were devastating erosion losses
in Lake County. Do you honestly believe this justifies pushing
the proposed regulations onto all lake front property owners?

     Lastly, I will repeat my contention that the Ohio Bankers'
Association was mislead by the question put to them. Ask them
the real question, "Will you finance a 30 year mortgage on a
property that is within a designated 30 year erosion hazard
area?" I'll bet their answer to this question will be quite
different from the one you received earlier. If lake front
properties cannot be sold due to lack of financing, those home
values will plummet. Can you understand why we home owners are
concerned about the value of our property?

     I hope that you now have a better understanding why these
proposed regulations are arousing me from political apathy.
Believe me, if these regulations are promulgated without the-
above concerns being addressed, I will pursue political remedies.

                          Yours truly

                     Malcolm B. Wood, P.E.

MBW:


cc: The Honorable George V. Voinovich, Governor
     The Honorable Anthony Sinagra, Ohio State Senator
    The Honorable Gary Suhadolnik, Ohio State Senator
     Michael Colvin, ODNR
    Scudder D. Mackey, Ph.D. ODNR - Sandusky






















                       r~~~~~~~~~~4















 ,'ew erosion cracics anoeanrtg axoNq the Lake Ene snorenne in Painesvtiie 7ownsnxo may mnean two mrcrnaened houses ;eetening of the
 edge of the c iff wvid have to ce torn down.


      Ho'us S*es dcestin.ed for a fall


        Bu~dzermay beat lake  to te punch~
 By STEPHEN KOFF                                                             U-1ooK aoout I a.-m.Wednesaay, _;g-  nlaons-vneu~  ac
                   PAJI~~CEE~~EPO~T~I  ~ ~ ,  ,*,, ~~*       ,~            -laling~ that Lhesr f'ront yara  7a hen- if the oreo~ertv owners
                                      'We  will begin   OO.flookea~ing *a:Tof. The orotliezs couid  tOa oay fhe taxes. :.le accnuI
                 'AeE~ LLE ToverH     this week  at steps to                not be reacneal yesteroay.             natciy oc given to tric stat.
      hfer  hir yards  me                                                                                          sawcol asci  the      -uc"
 biuff. twvo La.Ke Rd. homeowners  get both houses                             Seesidthe                                       prwneniy wocid   State coLda;ctecnYt
 W'er e ll  !ast weeic with danger-  demoallisey                                       seec 2scourt oroer renuir-  -
orusly ;)osiuone-d houses, too ctose                    dmlse.nmg t-he nomneowners to telr down    .
to Lie edge.                                              - Frrau 5ye-ge-L  the riou~ses. f the norneowrners co     The sabandoned cmr at :,nc oi~
                                      Panifesvilben rownsnio aurintsitriiol   riot comoiy. the township wlil de  oottorn oresent.3 a Lougner :;rrr-
  The nouses may De mnex  to go. if                                         -noiish the nouses out will taCx tile  ecm.  svegel nasa siree  Lhe  Z
          not from the gnawing ~~LaeLi the shoreiine. The apoanotoned blue  coat onto the homeowners' tax otil.  Ary  oao            itner or
erosion  !,hcn  mrm   a  buildozer.  Car we   over wsit the crescent-  tie said,                                  vice on now to remove ;t- aria
 Painesvtnlle Townsnip wants to ue-        O     f     erl  ML sfecorps oific~al in Cleveiarno saicd ne
        riolishi~ ~   ~            thae tw malhoses beore earth. Mt  iste     l of wnzih coulid raise another   plannea Lo cma  Clown Lo ocx 
          itiolin thetwo sall huses  elorebiggest crinic that I've ever Seen  .ssue.  -Seing reaustic. ;.aid Sve-  the Car soon
they mneet the same  late as an  go oif.- ;aid Donaid Fox. a P'3ines-  ;el -are they going to payv f                 u  a  orsrginl  edd-
abandonect blue -.mr that landedtatCM   eiinl Xcu
upside dowvn O~eneUI tne Cliff' la      le ~11 ownanoShcs csodine oforh  onamoer-ty thIat's 400d foir noto-  .ecs in Buffalo. tile oiiic-ai wvor
Wednct   v                            wn   wson  fte oe..g otner thann to put UP a little vic-  ta  h  a  ssntVtetiOC'
                                       3oth smnall homes ame naw un       nic taflle?~                          -wner   resoonsioiiitv  The  anc
   "We %-il begin tOaKing this wee    Cula ~       has            :no ie   iin n t ri'ti  'at  -eeiL  the  Heknson   'where the -ar lanoeet  =aarentu'.
at steps to get both noise's demor    hue o lv yers.  n  uses itfrhomne  was assessed for .ax Dur-  belongs to Fox  ai1thouz.1  ox :,-'c
1ashed_ Wte would like to get rid of  storage ne said yrrstm-cfav. i-fe tried  poses  at i1=0O  an    onr   antigtoc    int   amnuin
them fo     iakety    . saelbfr  te    eling it.e said but to no avaiL.    Yeary tax Vill of S 98.            toodie!   "ee
  fal   to .he  ak.   ownshio aco-
ministrator rranK Svegel said yes-  "he townshnips pians for demeli-  :'eoty Lsiui County Auit~or Mike              The corns coca; not zet :nvr4V-t-
terday.                               tn.teai.recnstn    th                   vneLtst. Because of its prec-an-   n Deacneo venicics unl:Css :,eV
                                    his own.      :'m gi-ng to tear tIe  'T   Dositlon.  -towev"r.  Ronaio   n the wntcr - it wnu icnt
  Both  ntuuses. vith  ;-ront '.nrus                                        H enson oaia oniy:SZ.000 for :t. The  aS nroovavoaun'  i 
                                 -   notat cown. ;. riot going -a leta :trooVa  oa~n~q:   
pornve   -Hung the t-s onnene hwls   0over thenill.-                         ox  taroperty -wAs  worth  S14.:00  ..raj Ccan -.V-atei c.   0-id .-irc
      aOoe   av Ke. -.vri conctrno :Ic                                              a a23 6IZ nnual tax 0111. But  slooxesman.-oim   Xri'sic
by  aice CaUnity wr.C!slcaa st Aeek     The 'ither  Iname  a ow~nedl :iv  the auditors otfice will lower -.IC        '%no."s `ie adc. '~e ~U 
as unSaic alter Uheir "ront yarns  Ronaid  -{enson. mro  withi -:s  assicssm-ents oecause~ of ast weex             k   hL
dropped .s'cc the -,ig   and onto  tiroLher C~.arvc- :led ailcrthe "arttol  witoc sl iden  ;fthe nouses fail aif(








WRITTEN COMMENT #4: MALCOLM B. WOOD, P.E., PRIVATE LAKEFRONT PROPERTY
OWNER, October 28, 1996

Response to comments:

1.  Comment (regarding apparent speed of document production and length of public comment
period) noted. No change required. See response to item #1 of written comment #2 (Mary Wood).

2. Comment (regarding the coastal erosion area working group recommendations) noted. No
change required. (For a discussion of the coastal erosion area working group, please see Part II, page
11-11 of the draft program document and DEIS.)

ODNR asked the group whether it would submit written recommendations and received the response
that it would not. After the first few meetings of the external working group the subject of whether
or not the group would write a report providing its recommendations to ODNR was put forth to the
group to decide. The group determined that because the discussions were frank and open, that
ODNR was listening with great care and consideration, and that the group's recommendations were
being reflected in rules revision drafts, they were comfortable with the manner in which the revisions
were proceeding and would not need to submit to ODNR a separate written report. The group
clearly stated during the course of latter meetings that ODNR's revisions were accurately and
appropriately incorporating the group's comments and their discussion of issues.

Five drafts of the revised coastal erosion area rules incorporating the group's recommendations were
distributed over time to the group, starting on March 20, 1995. The working group provided no
response indicating dissatisfaction with the re-drafted rules during that time. At the conclusion of
the meetings, it was the consensus of the group that the rules were reflective of the group's
recommendations.

On April 26, 1995, just prior to the last scheduled meeting, ODNR sent the third draft of the rules,
summarizing the group's recommendations and responding to concerns raised at the previous
meeting. It was stated that the rules would be filed as revised in late May. Shortly thereafter (on
May 1 1), one public official who served on the working group wrote, "at the request of the Lake Erie
Erosion Hazard Area Working Group," to the chair of the Ohio House Agriculture and Natural
Resources Committee in support of the provisions of H.B. 119. The letter stated that "the working
group has a great deal of respect for the efforts of DNR staff in revising the erosion area designation
rules and procedures." Further, it stated "we would like to express our appreciation to Mr. Colvin
and the many other DNR staff who have assisted in revising the coastal erosion area designation and
enforcement rules. Through this cooperative effort great progress has been made in developing
coastal erosion area rules which reflect the goals of the Coastal Management Program while
respecting the rights of owners of property abutting Lake Erie."   Consistent with the
recommendations of the working group in support of H.B. 119, ODNR testified before the legislature
in support of the bill.




Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part VII                                   March 1997








There was additional one-on-one discussion between ODNR and working group members until the
rules filing in July, 1995. On July 18, several days prior to the stated filing date, ODNR received    M
the commenter's enclosed letter dated July 6. The letter raised the following issues: the need for
passage of H.B. 119, which ODNR firmly and actively supported; simplicity of the application form,
to which ODNR also is committed; two criteria which, by clerical error, had not been deleted as
agreed but which (prior to the July 6 letter) had already been deleted from the rules to be filed;
requirements of the "evaluative report" which had in fact changed substantially, despite assertions
otherwise in the July 6 letter; and an apparent contradiction regarding the 30-day review period,
which also had already been clarified in the rules prior to the July 6 letter. None of these issues
entailed substantive changes to the rules.

House Bill 119 did not enact any additional changes to the coastal erosion area designation or
enforcement rules, as the commenter seems to imply. With regard to the rules, only the terminology
was changed from "erosion hazard areas" to "coastal erosion areas." This change would have been
incorporated into the rules whether H.B. 1 19 passed the legislature prior to or after filing of the rules.
Working group members, as stated in the July 6 letter, did support passage of H.B. 119. ODNR also
strongly supported that bill. ODNR did strongly oppose some proposed amendments that clearly
would have imperiled adoption of a coastal management program. The legislative process
considered both sides of those arguments, and those amendments were not adopted.

3. Comment (regarding enhanced management capability, Part I, p. 1, 3rd para.) noted. No change
needed. Passage of S.B. 70 enhanced the state's management authority by requiring development
of a comprehensive management program through cooperation of all relevant agencies and local
governments, through clear delegation of authority to ODNR to do so, and by requiring all agencies
to be consistent in their actions with policies of the state program. It also created the coastal erosion
area designation process and transferred administration of submerged lands leasing to ODNR.

4. Comment (regarding ODNR speaking for Ohio EPA, Part I, p.3) noted. No change required.
ODNR does not speak for the Ohio EPA. However, the OCMP is submitted to OCRM not just by
ODNR but by the State of Ohio and will be implemented by the State of Ohio. Further, by law
(O.R.C. ï¿½1506.01), the coastal management program document must list state agencies involved in
program implementation and describe "their applicable policies and programs" and cite "the statutes
and rules under which they may adopt and implement those policies and programs." O.R.C.
ï¿½ 1506.02 requires that "every agency of the state, upon request of the director, shall cooperate with
the department of natural resources in the implementation of the coastal management program."
Ohio EPA personnel wrote and, over time, revised the program document language relevant to their
authorities. The page to which the commenter refers is NOAA's summarization of Ohio EPA's
authorities. The MOU by which Ohio EPA and ODNR agree to cooperate to carry out the mandates
of O.R.C. Chapter 1506 has been signed and is published in the FEIS. The purpose of including the
unsigned MOU in the DEIS was to provide continued opportunity for comment on that document.

5. Comment (Part I, p.7) noted. No change needed. The comment is not clear. The referenced
wording is a statement by NOAA of the program approval requirements. On page iii of the DEIS,
NOAA stated that its purpose in publishing the DEIS was for public review of the agency's


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part VII                                   March 1997








preliminary determination that the proposed program, AS DESCRIBED BASED ON EXISTING
AUTHORITIES, meets the program approval requirements, including "whether Ohio management
policies and authorities are adequate to implement the program." As stated, no new authorities are
proposed.

6. Comment (regarding the inclusion of sufficient legal authorities, Part II, Ch. 1., p. 2) noted. No
change required. The "coastal area" is defined in statute, as cited (O.R.C. ï¿½1506.01(A)). The
original bill that contained this language passed both houses unanimously in 1988. The bill has been
amended in the legislature four times in very open processes that involved discussion with coastal
area interests. Revising the coastal management boundary language was never suggested.

Considerable public involvement has taken place with respect to how the proposed coastal
management boundary was developed. The original coastal management boundary proposal was
developed from the efforts of local county advisory groups and was available for public review in
the 1992 Public Review Draft Document. ODNR consulted local interests on management boundary
issues and concerns following that 1992 public review and made corresponding revisions to the
proposed inland boundary. The process by which the extent of the coastal management boundary,
as proposed in the draft document, was developed is described thoroughly in Chapter 3 of the
program document and DEIS. Following publication of the document, 84 additional days were
provided for review and comment on the proposed management boundary. During that time, anyone
wishing to make a specific recommendation to modify the extent of the area, as proposed in the
DEIS, had the opportunity to do so. One change is being made to the boundary in response to a
specific recommendation.

Once the OCMP is adopted by the Director of ODNR and the program is approved by NOAA,
boundary modifications will need to be submitted to NOAA as program changes. However, other
than the change made in response to a recommendation, the State of Ohio is not contemplating
additional changes to the coastal management boundary in the near future.

7. Comment (regarding uses contained within the coastal management boundary, Part II, Ch.3, p.1,
4th para.) noted. No change required. Whether or not a land area is currently used for activities that
affect coastal resources is not the criterion for defining a coastal management boundary. Rather, it
is land areas, the uses of which can affect such resources.

8. Comment (regarding lands contained within the coastal management boundary, Part II, Ch. 3,
p. 1, 5th para.) No change required. The coastal area includes lands that, because of their proximity
to or other connection with coastal resources, could support uses that would have direct and
significant impacts on those resources.

9. Comment (regarding ODNR processing for consistency review, Part II, Ch. 4, p. 23) noted. No
change required. The statement that an applicant agrees to comply with all existing authorities and
permit requirements before conducting a project affecting coastal resources in no way implies an
ODNR veto power over Ohio EPA. No expansion of ODNR's regulatory authority is involved. That
has never been intended, nor would Ohio EPA consider agreeing to such an arrangement.


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part VII                                 March 1997








As stated on p. 4-29, "ODNR will base its consistency determination upon the approvals of the state
agencies enforcing the policies and authorities in the coastal management program document." In
other words ODNR will rely on the responsible agency for granting or denying permits within its
own area of statutory and regulatory authority and will not apply its own separate judgement to
second guess the decisions of that agency. Rather, the department and other agencies with relevant
regulatory authorities will, in the process of reviewing for consistency with OCMP policies, assure
that applicants are aware that issuance of one permit does not guarantee that the project will proceed
if other state agency approvals are necessary. All other applicable permits and authorizations will
be required. For example, Ohio EPA may issue a Permit to Install for a new source of air
contaminants, but if the proposed facility were to be located within a coastal erosion area, the project
may not proceed until the required permit for new construction within coastal erosion areas is
obtained. By identifying for applicants all approval requirements early in the process, this process
will both streamline and improve the predictability of permitting processes to the benefit of both
agencies and applicants.

This requirement for consistency with OCMP policies is statutorily mandated (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.03).
See also response to written comment #2 (Mary Wood), item #2 regarding consistency.

10. Comment (Part II, Ch. 4, pp. 26 & 27) noted. No change required. "Consistency" in the
discussion cited by this commenter refers to the legal requirement that "no project or activity directly
affecting the coastal area that is proposed by or subject to the approval of any agency of the state
shall be implemented or approved until the director of natural resources has determined that it is
consistent with the policies in the coastal management document" (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.03). The
information generated by agencies and, in appropriate cases, from public comment will assist ODNR
in determining if a proposed project is consistent with the policies.

For further discussion regarding consistency, see response to written comment #2 (Mary Wood),
item #2 regarding consistency, and item #9 in this response, above. Generally, for federal approval
the OCMP must include a description of how state actions will be consistent with OCMP policies.
Chapter 4 provides an adequate description of how the state will meet this requirement.

11. Comment (regarding consistency review, Part II, Ch. 4, p. 27) noted. No change required. As
noted above in #9, the process will be simplified as a result of up-front notification of and agreement
to comply with all relevant requirements in one step. Currently one permit is applied for and later,
the applicant learns that another requirement must be met and so forth, leading to sometimes lengthy
delays and re-negotiation of additional project specification changes. Avoiding those delays will
clearly shorten and streamline the process.

12. Comment (regarding consistency review, Part II, Ch. 4, p. 29) noted. No change required. As
stated in the cited text, the notification of ODNR is to take place at least 30 days in advance of
expected final action, thus not adding additional time. As described in the text cited, many
consistency reviews will be accomplished by other state agencies.





Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part VII                                     March 1997








For further discussion regarding consistency review procedures, see response to written comment
#2 (Mary Wood), item #2, and item #9 in this response, above.

13. Comment (regarding annual audits of state agencies, Part II, Ch.4, p. 30) noted. No change
required. No, ODNR will not charge a fee for its annual review of consistency performance for those
state agencies that adopt statements of coastal management policies. If the agency is no longer
approved to make the consistency determinations, the procedures described in Chapter 4 apply, as
for any agency that has not adopted a statement of coastal management policies. Neither permits nor
other types of approval from that agency would be halted. Regarding simplification and ODNR's
reviewing all permit activities, see response to written comment #2 (Mary Wood), item#2 and items
#9 and 11 in this response, above.

14. Comment (regarding the effect of sand dredging, Part II, Ch. 5, p. 4) noted. No change required.
Data from the five year cooperative study of Lake Erie erosion with the U. S. Geological Survey
show that significant reductions in beach width have occurred over the last 50 years. This process
has accelerated since the early 1970s and is due to significant reduction in sediment supply and
higher lake level elevations. Reductions in sediment supply are the result of extensive armoring of
the coastline, which reduces the volume of coarse-grained sediment available for beach creation.
(Ninety percent of coarse-grained beach sediments are derived from direct erosion of the bluffs.)

Three major areas are currently permitted for extraction of sand from the lakebed. These areas are
located 6 to 8 miles offshore from Lorain and Fairport. These areas are isolated and not connected
to the littoral system. Extraction of sand from these areas does not affect nearshore sand resources
in the littoral zone.

15. Comment (regarding Mentor Dunes, Part II, Ch. 5, p. 5) noted. No change required. The
Mentor Marsh/Headland Dunes Coastal Barrier Resources unit extends several miles to the west of
the federal harbor jetty at Fairport. Only a small portion of the unit is located adjacent fo this
structure. In the area of Mentor Lagoons, a natural sand barrier provides nonstructural protection
for the natural wetlands and a man-made marina complex immediately landward of the barrier.

Prudent coastal management requires that a balance be struck between resource use and resource
protection. Removal of the federal harbor jetty at Fairport (as suggested by the commenter) would
have a severe and detrimental impact on Fairport Harbor and associated commercial and economic
interests in Lake County.

16. Comment (regarding the use of the word "hazard," Part II, Ch. 5, p. 6) noted. No change
required. The word "hazard" remains a universally recognized word used in the context of
describing natural erosion and flooding processes and resulting risks to life and property. House
Bill 119 changed the terminology regarding areas officially designated by ODNR as anticipated to
be lost to erosion over the next 30 years. Many entities, including the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, NOAA, nearly all coastal states, and private insurance companies continue
to recognize and refer to coastal erosion, flooding and storm events as "coastal hazards."



Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part VII                                   March 1997








17. Comment (regarding enforcement of unauthorized construction activities, Part II, Ch.5, p. 11)
noted. No change required. No example of enforcement regarding unauthorized construction
activities within coastal erosion areas can be given because, as is clear from the much publicized
ongoing review process regarding the preliminary identification of coastal erosion areas, the
requirement is not yet in effect. As made clear in Chapter 5 and in the insert distributed with the
draft document, enforcement of this provision will not occur until after the entire objection process
takes place and ODNR makes a final identification of coastal erosion areas. ODNR provides
enforcement of its existing programs.

18. Comment (regarding strategic retreat and selective fortification, Part II, Ch. 5, p. 12) noted. No
change required. As stated in the document, ODNR will "emphasize and encourage" such action,
not require or coerce it. Clearly, when ODNR is asked by property owners or local governments for
technical assistance regarding how best to deal with erosion that threatens homes, public properties,
or businesses, ODNR may suggest relocation farther landward if that is an advantageous solution.
ODNR is not "selecting areas" for strategic retreat, but rather is encouraging that property owners
consider this approach. There is no need for appeal or compensation when there is no state action.

There is NO STATUTORY AUTHORITY for this enhancement policy. As stated on page 5-3 of
the draft program document, nonunderlined policy statements such as 5.D. are not enforceable
policies, i.e. they are not statutorily enforceable. ODNR does not intend to require or coerce these
actions, but rather encourage them on a case-by-case basis.

See also the response to comment #2 (Mary Wood) for further discussion regarding encouragement
of selective fortification and strategic retreat.

19 Comment (regarding rules under O.R.C. Chapter 1507, Part II, Ch. 5, p. 13) noted. No change
needed. Administrative rules to assist implementation of O.R.C. Chapter 1507 have been drafted
and are currently being reviewed by ODNR.

20. Comment (regarding eminent domain action, Part II, Ch. 5, p. 55) noted. No change required.
All eminent domain actions by the State of Ohio are governed under O.R.C. ï¿½163.59.

21. Comment (regarding indemnification of property owners, Part II, Ch. 5, p. 71) noted. No
changed needed. The state may not compensate or indemnify private property owners in situations
where it is protecting historical or prospective rights to public access in public trust waters and lands.
Several Ohio Constitutional provisions would prohibit or prevent the state from indemnifying or
compensating a private entity. Refer also to response to written comment #2 (Mary Wood) for
discussion of public access requirements for submerged lands leasing.

22. Comment (regarding the use of the word "hazard," Part II, Ch. 6, p. 5) noted. No change
needed. The language properly refers to coastal erosion areas and flood hazard areas, with the word
"areas" being modified by the words "coastal erosion" and "flood hazard" respectively. The word
"hazard" is acceptable when used in the general context, not in reference to O.R.C. Chapter 1506




Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part VII                                   March 1997








and thus not governed by H.B. 119. Throughout the document, the term "coastal erosion areas" is
used when reference is made to O.R.C. Chapter 1506.

23. Comment (regarding use of the word "hazard," Part II, Ch. 6, p. 5, last paragraph) noted. The
text has been corrected to "coastal erosion areas" and to reflect the correct date of final rule filing.

24. Comment (regarding use of the word "hazard," Part II, Ch. 6, p. 13) noted. No change required.
See response to comment #21.

The word "hazard" would be acceptable in this context as it is used in the general context, not in
reference to O.R.C. Chapter 1506 and thus not governed by H.B. 119.

25 Comment (regarding understaffing of ODNR, Part II, Ch. 11, p. 6) noted. No change required.
The public hearings on the OCMP draft document and DEIS were an important opportunity for staff
with various areas of responsibility, expertise and interest to hear public comments regarding the
proposed program. Regarding the comment that there is "no action" on problems affecting property
owners, considerable time, effort, energy, and expertise have been spent meeting with property
owners, listening to and addressing their concerns, and providing on-site consultations. Over the five
years since release of the draft public review document, a high proportion of available resources has
been spent on private property owners' interests, relative to the many important coastal management
issues in the OCMP.

26. Comment (regarding the "economic impact assessment," Part II, Ch. 11, p. 13) noted. No
change required. ODNR consulted 41 sources to attempt to gain an impartial assessment of overall
economic impacts that might result from enforcement of the provisions mandated by O.R.C.
ï¿½ 1506.07. This included a thorough literature search through the Natural Hazards Research and
Applications Information Center. The 1995 economic assessment was based upon these sources.
Very little scientific study of the effects of such rules had (or has) been done, and the studies cited
were all subject to various limitations, as acknowledged in the assessment. However, all relevant
information that came to light was considered and used. The fact remains that, despite the broad
search, absolutely none of the information available indicated possible negative impacts on property
values.

The results of those studies have not been refuted. We have carefully considered comments and
assertions that property values will be negatively affected. Without data or citation of sources, we
cannot conclude that such comments demonstrate that these sources were wrong.

The 1994 letter enclosed by the commenter provided comment on the fiscal analysis that ODNR
prepared in 1993. In addition to being based on a 30-year erosion control measure design life criteria
that was deleted from the rules, the calculations and conclusions of the commenter were based on
an incorrect assumption that every foot of shoreline now unprotected would require protection. In
fact, erosion protection would be required only if an owner intended to build a new permanent
structure within an identified coastal erosion area on the property.



Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part VII                                  March 1997








27. Comment (regarding cost-benefit analysis, Part III, p. 3) noted. No change required. It is
unclear to what the commenter refers. The section of Part Ell referenced is the presentation of
alternatives as required by NEPA and discusses the impacts of each of the alternatives. While NEPA
requires an environmental impact statement that includes, among other things, an examination of the
relationship between local short-term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and
enhancement of long-term productivity, NEPA does not require a cost/benefit analysis. Further, the
CZMA does not require a cost/benefit analysis.

28. Comment (regarding rationale for program development) noted. No change required. Please
see response to written comment #2 (Mary Wood), item #7.

29. Comment (regarding fuzzy and imprecise statements of policy) noted. Please see response to
written comment #4 (Mary Wood), item #5.

30. Comment (regarding recommendation that OCRM take no action on the document) noted. No
change required. For the reasons stated in the DEIS, NOAA's preferred alternative is to conclude
that the OCMP meets the requirements of the CZMA and its implementing regulations, and to
approve the program. See response to written comment #2 (Mary Wood).
































Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part VII                                     March 1997









                                                    October 21, 1996
Acting Director,
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
U.S. Department of Commerce
1305 East-West Highway, NIORM3
Silver Spring, Maryland 20910

RE: The Ohio Coastal Management Program Draft Document

Dear Acting Director:

Having reviewed the Ohio Coastal Management Program and EIS Draft Document
(OCMP). I feel compelled to offer the following comments:

This gives me the feeling that it was written by ODNR office of Real Estate and Lend
Management for the benefit of the ODNR office of Real Estate and Land Management.

This document makes numerous references to the $800,000 per year the ODNR will
get when the OCMP is approved. This single-minded focus on money makes me
believe that funding is the main driving force. The rest of the document Is unfocused,
with vague (some of the proposed management techniques are pathetic) and dated
information (the Cuyahoga River burned over twenty-five years ago).

The section on CONSISTENCY requires other agencies (OEPA, DOT, etc.) to force
businesses and homeowners to sign away their rights to get a permit. Specifically Part
II, chapter 4, page 23 (4t' para), which reads as follows (direct quote):
'...The QEPA will include for the applicant's signature a statement that the applicant
understands and agrees that the activity may not proceed until a determination of
consistency with the policies of the OCMP has been made by the ODNR.'
Now that does sound like a power grab

The rest of the CONSISTENCY section sounds like a prescription for administrative
gridlock.

Until this document is revised to address thie above items, it should not be approved.

                                    Your struly,

                              Lakefrdnt property owner








WRITTEN COMMENT #5: DAVID S. MCILVAIN, PRIVATE LAKEFRONT PROPERTY
OWNER, October 21, 1996

Response to Comments:

1. Comment (regarding rationale for program development) noted. No change required. The state
statutory mandate for development of the OCMP contained in the Ohio Revised Code Chapter 1506
is clear. The Ohio Department of Natural Resources is charged with developing and adopting a
comprehensive program " ... to preserve, protect, develop, restore or enhance the resources of the
coastal area and to ensure wise use of the land and water resources of the coastal area." This is the
purpose for which the program document was developed. Participation in the national program will
bring several benefits to the citizens of the State of Ohio, one of which is additional funding to better
manage and protect these resources for the benefit of all. Please see response to written comment
#2 (Mary Wood), item #7.

2.   Comment (regarding consistency) noted.  No change required.  It is not clear how the
connection is made between the statutorily mandated consistency provision and signing away of
rights. Determination of consistency is based, as stated in Chapter 4, upon compliance with all
existing licensing and permits requirements currently affecting proposed projects, as described in
Chapter 5.

3. Comment (regarding vague, unfocused document and pathetic management techniques) noted.
No change needed. See response to written comment #2 (Mary Wood), item #5.

4. Comment (regarding currency of information) noted. References to the burning of the
Cuyahoga River have been deleted in the FEIS. Other than information provided to present an
historical picture, all information in the document is the most recent available.

5. Comment (regarding approval of document) noted. No change required. For the reasons stated
in the DEIS, NOAA's preferred alternative is to conclude that the OCMP meets the requirements
of the CZMA and its implementing regulations, and to approve the program. See response to written
comment #2 (Mary Wood), item #8.
















Ohio Coastal Management Program &'Final EIS  Part VII                                  March 1997







                                                            October 21, 16 :
       Acting Director,                                                 .  ::. x
       Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
      ï¿½ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
       U.S. Department of Commerce
       1305 East-West Highway, N/ORM3.  
       Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 

       RE:  The Ohio Coastal Management Program Draft Docment                  :

       Dear Acting Director.              .                      :

       Having reviewed the Ohio Coastal Management Program and EIS Draft Document. :.
       (OCMP), I feel compelled to offer the following comments:.    . '      . .    :
                                                                          *.'.'. -. : ". . ": -. .
       This gives me the feeling that it was written by ODNR office of Real.Estat'e and Land
       Management for the benefit of the ODNR office of Real Estate and Land Management. 

       This document makes numerous references to the $800,000 per year the !ODNR will
    . get when the OCMP is approved. This single-minded focus on money makes me
       believe that funding is the main driving force. The rest of the docum'ent is unfocused,'
       with vague (some of the proposed management techniques are pathetic) and dated 
       information (the Cuyahoga River burned over twenty-five years ago).  ::

       The section 'on CONSISTENCY requires other agencies (OEPA, DOT,;etc ) to force'-
       businesses and homeowners to sign away their rights to get a permit  Specfically Part.
       11, chapter i,'page 23 (4' para), which reads as follows (direct quote): .: : :  : :  '
       ....The OEPA will'include for the applicant's signature a statement that :i-e'applicant :
       understands and agrees that the activity may not proceed until a determination ofï¿½:
       consistency with the policies of the OCMP has been made by the.ODNR:. .      .: 
       Now that does sound like a power grab                         .:. 

      The rest of the CONSISTENCY section sounds like a prescription for administrative
      gridlock.

       Until this document is revised to address the above items, it should not be approved.

                                            Yours truly,

                                     Lakefront property owner 

                                                             hag2x~ï¿½ rUC c I.r"' f. .r ':  q' '' : . 0'.




*Ar, ro  v &        d   f            & A;  2. prors S tot ;s  an dO
          .          , _ '   ,     .                                              . . ..
                                 t~~~~~~~l-~~~~7
                                                                  /aL' U.7








WRITTEN COMMENT #6: SHIRLEY HECK, PRIVATE LAKEFRONT PROPERTY OWNER,
October 21, 1996

Response to Comments:

Comments noted. No change needed. See response to written comment #5 (David McIlvain), same
letter.

Comment (handwritten, regarding bureaucracy) noted. No change required. See responses to written
comment #2 (Mary Wood), item #2, and written comment #4 (Malcolm Wood). items #9 and 11.










































Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part VII                               March 1997











                                                         October 21,     '       '. "
      Acting Director,.
      Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
      National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
      U.S. Department of Commerce
      1305 East-West Highway, N/ORM3
      Silver Spring, Maryland 20910  

      RE:   The Ohio Coastal Management Program Draft Document-: . ':

      Dear Acting Director;.                                              : 

      Having reviewed the Ohio Coastal Management Program and ElS. DraftDocument
      (OCMP), I feel compelled to offer the following comments:            .

      This gives me the feeling that it was WMitten by ODNR office of Reai Estate and. Land
      Managemrent for the benefit of the ODNR office of Real Estate and Land Managemert.

     ï¿½This document makes numerous references to the $800,000 per year the ODNR will
*--    get when the OCMP is approved. This single-minded focus on money makes me'..'
---- believe that funding is the main driving force. The rest of the document i.s unfocused,.
      with vague (some of the proposed management techniques are pathetic) end dated
      information (the Cuyahoga River burned over twenty-five years ago).  I,      :

      The section'on CONSISTENCY requires other agencies (OEPA, DOT, etc.) to force 
      businesses and homeowners to sign away their rights to get a perrait. Secifically Part
      11, chapter 4, page 23 (41 para), which reads as follows (direct quote):: 
     '..The OEPA will include for the applicant's signature a statement that the applicant
     understands'and agrees that the activity may not proceed until a deterniriation of: -
     consistency with the policies of the OCMP has been made by the ODNR.' .
     Now that does sound like a power grab          -

     The rest of the CONSISTENCY section sounds like a prescription for administrative .
     gridlock.

     Until this document is revised to address the above items, it should not be approved.. 

                                         Yours truly,

                                   Lakefront property owner

           *b Go b~~~~~~~~~J ' .  .'








WRITTEN COMMENT #7: JAMES W. HECK, PRIVATE LAKEFRONT PROPERTY OWNER,
October 21, 1996

Response to Comments:

Comments noted. No change required. See response to written comment #5 (David McEllvain), same
letter.













































Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS   Part VII                                     March 1997










                              November 12, 1996




Acting Director
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
U.S. Department of Commerce
1305 East-West Highway, N/ORM3
Silver Spring, Maryland 20910



Dear Acting Director:

After reading the Ohio Coastal Management Program and the ElS
Document, I am starting to wonder what country we live in.

Many things are obvious but one in particular is the reason for
this whole process - money, plain and simple. The $800,000 the
ODNR will receive once this concept is approved has blinded
common sense.

The call for public access for submerged land lease or erosion
control permit is totally unreasonable.

The swiftness in which the ODNR has proceeded gives owners of
their waterfront property very little time to address these
outlandish issues. The public is informed on September 10, 1996,
hold their first hearing on September 30, 1996, and then give
home owners until November 15, 1996 to send you their comments.
I think the correct word here is "'Blitz Kreig"; do it, and do
it quickly.

This has nothing to do with our best interests; this is about
ODNR power and the Ohio Department of Natural Resources' efforts
to add $800,000 to their budget. This is wrong and I urge the
Acting Director to take no action on this Document.

                              Yours truly,



                                aot Property  Owne~s


                              RICHARD J. HEMMER
                              LINDA M. HEMMER
                              32160 Lake Road
                              Avon Lake, Ohio 44012








WRITTEN COMMENT #8: RICHARD J. AND LINDA M. HEMMER, PRIVATE LAKEFRONT
PROPERTY OWNERS, November 12, 1996

Response to Comments:

1. Comment (regarding rationale for program development) noted. No change required. See
responses to written comment #2 (Mary Wood), item #7, and written comment #5 (David S.
Mcllvain), item #1.

2. Comment (regarding submerged land leasing and erosion control permits) noted. No change
required. See response to item #4 of written comment #2 (Mary Wood), regarding submerged lands
leasing. There is no such provision for public access with regard to erosion control measure permits.

3. Comment (regarding "swiftness" of ODNR's action in developing the OCMP) noted. No
change required. See response to item #1 of written comment #2 (Mary Wood). As noted in that
response, the State of Ohio has been working on developing the OCMP for more than twenty years,
with considerable public input, as described in the program document.

4. Comment (suggesting no action on document) noted. No change required. For the reasons
stated in the DEIS, NOAA's preferred alternative is to conclude that the OCMP meets the
requirements of the CZMA and its implementing regulations, and to approve the program. See
response to written comment #2 (Mary Wood), item #8.



























Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part VDl                                    March 1997











                                                                                  November 13, 1996
Acting Director,
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
US Department of Commerce
1305 East-West Highway, N/ORM3
Silver Spring, Maryland 20910

Re: The Ohio Coastal Management Program Draft Document

Dear Acting Director:

Having reviewed the Ohio Coastal Management Program and EIS Draft Document (OCMP), I would like
to offer the following comments:

The OCMP reads as if it were a rushed production, put together with the primary focus being to get
$ 800,000 per year when the OCMP is approved. The document is unfocused, with vague and dated
information. The text has numerous imprecise statements of intention that raise serious concerns as to
what the ODNR really intends to do.

The ODNR has established the "Coastal Area Boundary" without any public input and is significantly
greater than the "Coastal Erosion Area" that the ODNR tried to force on lakefront property owners about a
year ago. In that case it took the Ohio legislature enacting H.B. 119 to force ODNR to revise their
regulations into a more acceptable form.

The ODNR suggests that all licenses and permits within the Coastal Area must be approved by the ODNR.
The OCMP suggest that "shore protection will be discouraged and relocation facilitated."
The OCMP also suggest that the ODNR will require public access as a condition for granting a submerged
land lease or erosion control permit.

To summarize the above items; we have an area of privately owned property along the lake that the ODNR
has arbitrarily established that they have control over. They will control what is built and by whom. The
ODNR could force an owner to allow pubic access through his property or see the value of his property
decrease because he could not obtain a permit for an erosion control system.

Many unanswered questions are obvious. What is ODNR's statutory authority for imposing these
conditions? What kind of rights does a lakefront property owner have? Is there any way for a property
owner to appeal against any of the above items? Will the ODNR pay fair market value for any property
seized under their policy?

Until these and other questions can be addressed and answered, I recommend that the Acting Director,
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resources Management take no action on this document.



Yours Truly



James J. Manns -- PE
Lakefront property owner
 05            .  ,Le lct d O
SaA X \i~Ttaa ,o OWJ ILJ3O








        WRITTEN COMMENT #9: JAMES J. MANNS, P.E., PRIVATE LAKEFRONT PROPERTY
        OWNER,  November 13, 1996

        Response to Comments:

        1. Comment (regarding the primary focus of the OCMP) noted. No change required. See response
        to written comment #2 (Mary Wood), item #7, and written comment #5 (David S. Mcdlvain), item
        #1.

        2. Comment (regarding coastal management boundary) noted. No change required. No specific
        recommendation is made regarding a boundary change. The comment mixes reference to the coastal
        management boundary and the extent of coastal erosion areas. H.B. 119 had no effect on ODNR's
        revisions to administrative code regulations regarding coastal erosion areas. See response to item
        #6 of written comment #4 (Malcolm Wood) regarding the public review process with respect to the
        proposed coastal management boundary.

        3. Comment (regarding review of licenses and permits) noted. No change required. See response
        to item #2 of written comment #2 (Mary Wood) and item #9 of written comment #4 (Malcolm
        Wood).

        4. Comment (regarding discouragement of shore protection) noted. No change required. It is not
        clear what the comment is suggesting, but the quote seems out of context if the intent is to suggest
        that property owners will not be able to protect their shore.

        5. Comment (regarding submerged lands lease requirements) noted. No change required. See
        response to item #4 of written comment #2 (Mary Wood).

        6. Comment (regarding statutory authority) noted. No change required. The statutory authorities
        are cited clearly in Chapter 5 of the OCMP draft document with respect to each enforceable
        authority. Appendices C and D contain O.R.C. Chapters 1506 and 1507 in their entirety, and
        Appendices G, H and L contain the Ohio Administrative Code rules with respect to designating and
        enforcing coastal erosion areas and submerged lands leasing respectively. All of these rules
        underwent considerable public review. The O.R.C. contains provisions for appealing final actions
        of the Director of ODNR. See response to item #6 of written comment #2 (Mary Wood) and item
        #20 of written comment #4 (Malcolm Wood) regarding "seizure" of property and authority
        governing eminent domain in the State of Ohio.

        7. Comment (regarding vague, unfocused document and imprecise statements of intention) noted.
        No change required. See response to written comment #2 (Mary Wood), item #5.

        8. Comment (suggesting no action on document) noted. No change required. For the reasons
        stated in the DEIS, NOAA's preferred alternative is to conclude that the OCMP meets the
        requirements of the CZMA and its implementing regulations, and to approve the program. See
.s    response to written comment #2 (Mary Wood), item #8.


        Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part VII                                  March 1997












    FK ~3L-)- '7/3    Yj






               62r~~   615c.&LI                    2vi



                        6/        4.~~~or

        Oak,( 0CJ


671"O    ovv~






decided to publicize this new benefit for the public (a certain type of politician
would find this irresistible). Combine that with the power of eminent domain... I
think you get the picture. Also, note that the state requires the landowner to
obtain insurance to protect the state when it leases submerged lands. Do you
think the state will indemnify the lakefront property owner from any'action by
members of the public using the "access." Note that the ODNR is particularly
reluctant to anything for lakefront property owners.

5.    There are other provisions in the OCMP which are porticularty odious,
      especially for those lakefront property owners that have to deal with the
      OEPA. For example, one proposed policy states: "... the OEPA.wilt Include
      for the applicant's signature a statement that the appflcanf understands
      and agrees the activity may not proceed until a determination of:
      consistency with the policies of the OCMP has been made by the ODNR."
                                                           ,: ï¿½  .    -.    .
This suggests that the ODNR is seeking to gain power that has not been given-
them by the legislature. What happens if an applicant refuses to sign such an
agreement (and slip a bigger noose around his neck)?

It should also be noted that the Coastal Area Boundary Is significantly greater
than the Coastal Erosion Area (see the Appendices of OCMP) which the O'DNR:
fried tolam down the lakefront property owners throats only a year or so ago.
However, this boundary was established by the ODNR without any public input
and includes land which Is used for activities other than those specified by
Federal Regulations. I think you can guess why.








WRITTEN COMMENT #10: KATHLEEN HECK, undated (received November 15, 1996)

1. Comment (regarding expansion of regulations) noted. No change needed. See response to item
#5 of written comment #4 (Malcolm Wood).

2. Comment (regarding power of eminent domain) noted. No change needed.

3. Comment (regarding strategic retreat and relocation) noted. No change required. See response
to item #3 of written comment #2 (Mary Wood) and item #18 of written comment #4 (Malcolm
Wood).

4. Comment (regarding public access requirements) noted. No change required. See response to
item #4 of written comment #2 (Mary Wood).

5. Comment (regarding consistency review procedure) noted. No change required. See response
to item #9 of written comment #4 (Malcolm Wood).

6. Comment (regarding coastal management boundary) noted. No change needed. See response
to item #6 of written comment #4 (Malcolm Wood) and item #2 of written comment #9 ((James J.
Manns).

7. Comment (regarding rationale for program development) noted. No change required. See
response to written comment #2 (Mary Wood), item #7, and written comment #5 (David Mcllvain),
item #1.

























Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part VII                                   March 1997





 C                                           1-ï¿½f 79ï¿½zsy-z          -.


*                                               e72x< 4


  6Svaiï¿½z-ï¿½ Yï¿½y-tc flt
  J4zc- jzzx u/c 
  /3cc &cY- 2/it -24/ 'c" '*
                   -






          t-'7-&.r gz--i tciï¿½> C- wK-ï¿½' 2-ï¿½1ï¿½1jï¿½- 7-ca 9zwA 7t
               _____           /                     '-'  <-Alit
                                                                    C-

*                                                    f jyJC S

                                    ft                     xrr-cx
     cc' <ruc a-1& > L4Y 4 JyJC 
  4flnZ-CZ          2            " t.47YL-& -t2>
                         1              /
                          /                                            P
                                    ,>, 64-c4> ï¿½?   * 61...-r5 -

                                    F-L-C--   /                 -
                           /   7        -,   ',  A/$-    cQ-1 
            Lit1  4t2j' 'ttï¿½-L/ -/2. 62  -.  -       - -        -
  A /
                         cL..-6   - - -C>   -                   I
               - -c   a---at  C-'- - /                     ï¿½2
     It>          /
                                        -   6C7C257( <t4:
                         2 iV-L'.ï¿½
     etC L- -$7 La-
               x   ,        >4        xt6-/l j y.cï¿½C>
             A,
               7  '5/4(tt%' >-ci       C2Z st-' 7ï¿½      LC-     6-- a
    L.-C>L--t             L&
  jt/ZC -<b-c-ti- c-z' < -rick--' /2 &C-
           //       7*
  6?--  s-S ;,






                                                 7(7-2
      7~~~7'InL _l







              ~~~~~~~~~~~~~2 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~224 K-i2~ "~2I   








     ~~~~~cj.~~~~~~~~,- ;/












                                2~~~~~~e~/


                           /~~~~~t       L                   a--

                   2,1 ~ ~ -,

.-_9 i LIZ-- "L6L2~  ~r2Le~  e

                       12~










































w~~~- L










                       /1              C.         /7
                     -                    L
                             -   '-
                             /       -7. z-z---. 6$C.i6  tiï¿½-7-t. 



                                                    I

                   /
                                                  Z



       'I                                              ix
    7 i-,
     -7LLT -        -  71t 6Z- 2;;z








                            j$Y?4-'
                          .7

                           I

                        /1
                                                           .1




                                     -L-G




         LXï¿½                                   Z-2


                      U/ /L7
    ,17



 7 .7





                                             /




                              -      (-    -.  -,  -2 z.





           2.Y

           9-








WRITTEN COMMENT #11: ROGER L. ALEXANDER, PRIVATE LAKEFRONT PROPERTY
OWNER, November 4, 1996

Response to Comment:

1. Comment (regarding strategic retreat) noted. No change required. See response to item #3 of
written comment #2 (Mary Wood) and item #18 of written comment #4 (Malcolm Wood).

2. Comment (regarding submerged lands leasing) noted. No change needed. See response to item
#4 of written comment #2 (Mary Wood). Protecting the public's ability to continue to use Lake Erie
public trust waters does not constitute an eminent domain action.

3. Comment (regarding public input) noted. No change required. See response to item #1 of
written comment #2 (Mary Wood).

4. Comment (regarding use of Section 306 funding for erosion control measure construction)
noted. No change required. Federal law and regulations specifically prohibit use of federal funds
allocated under the Coastal Zone Management Act for construction purposes or to benefit individual
private interests (15 C.F.R. 923.93).

5. Comment (regarding vague and unfocused document) noted. No change required. See response
to written comment #2 (Mary Wood), item #5.

6.  Comment (regarding rationale for program development) noted.  No change required.  See
response to written comment #2 (Mary Wood), item #7, and written comment #5 (David Mcllvain),
item #1.

7. Comment (regarding currency of information) noted. References to the burning of the
Cuyahoga River have been deleted in the FEIS. Other than information provided to present an
historical picture, all information in the document is the most recent available.

8. Comment (suggesting no action on document) noted. No change required. For the reasons
stated in the DEIS, NOAA's preferred alternative is to conclude that the OCMP meets the
requirements of the CZMA and its implementing regulations, and to approve the program. See
response to written comment #2 (Mary Wood), item #8.












Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part VII                                     March 1997




























                                -                                    e~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~l

                                                                                           7z-~~    -c--


               c:~~ ..-~-  r


2s--2                                   ~        '7~c   226 


          c?~a~~  Cc   '~'~f    ~                                '~    ~ -~ c I-e







                 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C _  :;









                  t 2'              '  - <'

 ï¿½4

  -        . -.,--

            C-




-c'
 'c -          ï¿½ï¿½C                    7





                      4            /- -



            2' %?   '  :ï¿½e sZï¿½    5K








WRITTEN COMMENT #12: CHARLES J. MEYER, PRIVATE LAKEFRONT PROPERTY
OWNER, November 13, 1996

Response to Comment:

1.  Comment (regarding objection to funding) noted. No change required. See response to item
#1 of written comment #5 (David S. Mcnlvain).

2.  Comment (regarding strategic retreat) noted. No change needed. See response to item #3 of
written comment #2 (Mary Wood) and item #18 of written comment #4 (Malcolm Wood).

3. Comment (regarding public access) noted. No change required. See response to written
comment #2 (Mary Wood), item #4 and item #18 of written comment #4 (Malcolm Wood).

4. Comment (regarding placing risk on landowner) noted. No change required. The purpose of
the federal Coastal Zone Management Act, as declared by Congress, is "to preserve, protect,
develop, and where possible, to restore or enhance, the resources of the nation's coastal zone for this
and succeeding generations." Ohio's Coastal Management Law states a similar comprehensive
resource management purpose for the benefit of all Ohio citizens. The recommended alternative
approach would be insufficient to address complex resource management challenges.

5. Comment (regarding effect on real estate transactions) noted. No change needed. The process
for involvement is well documented in the program document and in response to written comment
#2 (Mary Wood), item #1. For additional discussion of possible effects on real estate transactions,
see response to written comment #28 (City of Lakewood), item #2.

6. Comment (recommending OCRM take no action) noted. No change required. For the reasons
stated in the DEIS, NOAA's preferred alternative is to conclude that the OCMP meets the
requirements of the CZMA and its implementing regulations, and to approve the program. See
response to written comment #2 (Mary Wood), item #8. For discussion of the extensive public
participation, see response to written comment #2 (Mary Wood), item #1.

















Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part VII                                   March 1997







                CITY OF ROCKY RIVER







             21012 HILLIARD BLVD.        ROCKY RIVER, OHIO 44116
OFFICE of the MAYOR
DON UMERLEY, MAYOR                                        OCRM REC'D 11 19/96
     November 8, 1996
                                                      ACTON:  URAVITCH/01 TN(,FR
                                                          C  ENOIT/LAWLESS



     Acting Director
     Office of Ocean & Coastal Resource Management
     National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
     U.S. Department of Commerce
     1305 East-West Highway
     Silver Spring, MD 20910

     RE: Ohio Coastal Management Program Draft Document

     Dear Sir:

     This is in response to your request for comments on the OCMP Draft
     Document. I strongly urge that you provide for additional study
     and input, particularly from lake front communities like Rocky
     River and those lake front property owners most affected by the
     document.

     I ask that particular emphasis be given to the issue of strategic
     retreat and to the issue of public access. Both of these issues
     need to be further clarified. Clearly, Coastal Management is
     vital. Lake Erie is a treasure and Coastal Management a vital
     part of maintaining and preserving this valuable resource.

     I support your efforts to do this, and I am convinced that it can
     be accomplished without unduly burdening lake front property
     owners.

     Very truly yours

     THE ITY OF ROCKY RIVER

              Iey.
     Mayor

     DU/mcc

     cc: Mayor Madeline Caine
          Mayor Tom Jelepis
          Mayor Mike White
          Malcolm Wood








WRITTEN COMMENT #13: CITY OF ROCKY RIVER November 8, 1996

Response to Comment:

1. Comment (regarding additional public input) noted. No change required. For discussion of the
extensive public participation, see response to written comment #2 (Mary Wood), item #1.

2. Comment (regarding strategic retreat) noted. No change required. For further clarification of
this issue, see response to item #4 of written comment #2 (Mary Wood) and item #18 of written
comment #4 (Malcolm Wood).

3. Comment (regarding public access) noted. No changed needed. Clarification of coastal
management policies in response to some property owners' concerns that ODNR plans to take
property for public access against property owners' wishes has been provided in previous responses
to comments on the DEIS (written comments #2, 4, 8, 9, and 11).




































Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS   Part VII                                      March 1997





                                                                      OCRM REC'.D 11/20/9b


                             November 13, 1996




Acting Director
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
U.S. Department of Commerce
1305 East-West Highway, N/ORM3
Silver Spring, Maryland 20910

Dear Acting Director:

       What utter and blatant nonsense we find your current EIS coastal erosion policies
and procedures. From our experience with the Army Chemical Corps from 1951-53 we
can only suspect empire builders within the ranks of government, career people and/or
influential parties who stand to gain from this worthless and unbeneficial potential
government boondoggle.

       We have been owners of Lake Erie shore property for 55 years over two
generations. We have constructed a pier and access to it from a bluff 30 feet above the
lake. We have also subdivided and sold some of the original property and constructed a
new home in 1989 where an old cottage once existed. At all times, the marketplace, our
own knowledge and the knowledge of the professionals we employed guided the events,
to the satisfaction of ourselves, our local governments and the Army Corps of engineers.
The last, as perpetrators of the channelization of streams nationwide and parties to the
destruction of many coastal lowlands and estuaries, have not gained our respect and/or
admiration but, as your department, have been an evil borne of the good they could have
accomplished but failed to execute in the manner envisioned. Enclosed is an item we hid
written aflter we first learned of the subject program.

       As one whose military duties for a year and a half consisted of writing justifications
for additional monies and personn-el for divisional empire builders lest funding be
withdrawn or reduced in subsequent years, we see that nothing has changed. We have
never objected to paying our taxes, but it is a bitter pill indeed to see the monies wasted
rather than spent holding our fragmenting society together. End this nonsense and
eliminate this program.

                                    Unhappily,



                                    Edwin Pivcevich
                                    31874 Lake Road
                                    Avon Lake, OH 44012

EP/rf
Encl.








WRITTEN COMMENT #14: EDWIN PIVCEVICH, PRIVATE LAKEFRONT PROPERTY
OWNER, November 13, 1996

Response to Comment:

Comment (suggesting elimination of the program) noted. No change required. For the reasons
stated in the FEIS, OCRM has concluded that the OCMP meets the requirements of the CZMA and
its implementing regulations, and will approve the program. See response to written comment #2
(Mary Wood), item #8. The state statutory mandate for development of the OCMP contained in the
Ohio Revised Code Chapter 1506 is clear. The Ohio Department of Natural Resources is charged
with developing and adopting a comprehensive program"... to preserve, protect, develop, restore
or enhance the resources of the coastal area and to ensure wise use of the land and water resources
of the coastal area."






































Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part VII                                   March 1997



 ;,Ft G

                                  UNITED STATES
', ,-~-.-.>u  o       NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
                              WASHINGTON. D.C. 2055_5-01

                                      November4, 1996



Mr. Joe Uravitch
Coastal Programs Division
SSMC-4, Room 11109
1305 East-West Highway
Silver Spring, MD 20910

Dear Mr. Uravitch,

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received a copy of the draft
Environmental Impact Statement for the Ohio Coastal Management Program (OCMP).
The NRC reviewed the document and determined the OCMP boundary includes two
nuclear power plant facilities. We contacted the Perry nuclear power plant
and the Davis Besse nuclear power plant and the licensees confirmed that the
plants are located within the coastal management boundary. The responsible
personnel at the utility were made aware of the OCMP. The licensees
understand actions inside or outside the coastal boundary that will affect any
land or water use or natural resource of the coastal zone will be coordinated
with the NRC (if the action requires NRC approval), the State, and NOAA in
accordance with the OCMP federal consistency requirements. Thank you for the
opportunity to comment on your document.

                                   Sincerely,



                                   David B. Matthews, Chief
                                   Generic Issues and Environmental
                                      Projects Branch
                                   Division of Reactdr Program Management
                                   Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

cc: Ms. Donna Wieting, Acting Director
     Ecology and Conservation Office
     U.S. Department of Commerce
     Room 5805
     Washington, D.C. 20230







                                                                 7,:~~~~~~,








WRITTEN COMMENT #15: NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION November 4,1996

Response to Comment:

Comment (regarding beneficial effects of the program) noted. No change required.
















































Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part VII                                    March 1997



                     I7'~~~~~~~~~  Wciste ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Recycled paMe
         Waste 
         Systems-
BROWNING-FERRIS INDUSTRIES
. Ortawa County Lanolinl
                                                        13 November, 1996
   Acting Director,
   Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management                       OCR  RECD 11/14/96
   National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
   US Department of Commerce
   1305 East-West Highway, N/ORM3
   Silver Spring, Maryland 20910

   RE:   The Ohio Coastal Management Program Document

   Dear Acting Director:

   Ottawa County Landfill, owned and operated by Browning-Ferris Industries of Ohio,
   Inc., takes pride in being fully compliant with all applicable regulations, following both
   Company policy and a heartfelt desire to be a responsible member of the community.
   Normally, new regulations are reviewed and commented upon by our Columbus State
   Government representative, however the Ohio Coastal Management Program and EIS
   Draft Document (OCMP) was not sent to that person.

   Ottawa County Landfill will be the only landfill falling within the proposed Coastal
   Boundary. As such, will have to bear the burden of complying with a set of policies that
   other landfills do not have to follow, which in itself, is reason enough to ask for
   exclusion from the Coastal Boundary.

   In addition, there are specific sections of the OCMP which are troublesome, particularly
   to a member of the regulated community that faces price competition. Some of the
   provisions threaten to put Ottawa County Landfill at a disadvantage, vis a vis other Ohio
   landfills.

   The section on CONSISTENCY and the requirement that other agencies (OEPA, DOT,
   etc.) require a businesses to sign away its rights to get a permit is troublesome. For
   example, in Part II, chapter 4, page 23 (4::' para), it reads as follows:
   "...The OEPA will include for the applicant's signature a statement that the applicant
   understands and agrees that the activity may not proceed until a determination of
   consistency with the policies of the OCMP has been made by the ODNR."

   Ottawa County Landfill enjoys an open and cordial relationship with the Northwest
   District of the Ohio EPA. There are excellent lines of communication which means that
   permitting activities proceed in a smooth fashion. Even so, preparing and submitting
   permit applications can still be a timely process. The requirement state in the above
   paragraph would impose an additional review period (from thirty to ninety days), as well
   as having to agree to policies that h-ave not gone through the normal channels of
   regulatory review, which other landfills do not have to face. In some ways, it appears
   as though Ottawa County Landfill will not get benefit of equal protection of the law, even




         530 NORTH CAMP ROAD * PORT CLINTON. OHIO 43452 * (419) 635-2367 * FAX: (419) 635-2815










thought it operates a fully compliant facility.

The section on the COORDINATING procedure for getting permits suggest that it will
simplify the process. However, if more agencies are involved, how does this work?
Usually, streamrlining and simplification of permitting means placing responsibility within
a single source or agency. The promises of simplification and consolidation are not
explained as to how they will work. The explanation suggests that there may even be'
an increase in complexity, which would normally lead to an even lengthier permitting
processes. The cost Ottawa County Landfill of complying with the regulations and
keeping all permits current, is significant. To have an even greater burden placed upon
Ottawa County Landfill, which other landfills are not required to bear, would certainly
put a tilt to the playing field.

The fact that Ottawa County Landfill has been included within the Coastal Boundary,
does not seem to be consistent with Part II, ch. 3 - p. 1 (4th para), which cites the CZMA
(1 5 CFR - 923.31). Particularly, since there are significant controls already in place for
surface water runoff, as well as the uses of interior portions do not cause direct and
significant impact. In addition, Ottawa County Landfill is located well over 1,000 meters
from the coast and certainly has no impact upon coastal waters.

For the above reasons, Ottawa County Landfill respectfully requests that the Office of
Ocean and Coastal Resources Management require the Ohio Department of Natural
Resources revise the Ohio Coastal Management Document, and seek public comment
from the regulated community prior to issuing a revised document.

                                      Yours truly,



                                    Michael Burke,
                                   Landfill Manager,
                                Ottawa County Landfill
                        Browning-Ferris Industries of Ohio, Inc.

cc:    David Vossmer, District Vice-President
      Steve White, Vice-President, Government Affairs








WRITTEN COMMENT #16: OTTAWA COUNTY LANDFILL, BROWNING-FERRIS
INDUSTRIES OF OHIO, INC., November 13, 1996

Response to Comment:

1. Comment (regarding consistency) noted. No change required. See response to item #2 of
written comment #2 (Mary Wood) and items #4, 9, 11, and 12 of written comment #4 (Malcolm
Wood).

2. Comment (regarding coastal management boundary) noted. No change required. Ohio's coastal
area encompasses bays, embayments and tributaries to incorporate lake-influenced transitional zones
and includes the extensive wetlands of the western basin. The boundary includes coastal flood
hazard areas and areas along certain tributary stream reaches where potential exists for direct and
significant impacts to coastal waters. The Ottawa County landfill is located in such an area and is
appropriately included within the coastal area boundary under the criteria by which the inland
boundary is established.

The commenter stated that the Ottawa County landfill will be the only landfill falling within the
coastal area boundary. This is not so. Several landfills occur along waterways within the coastal
area boundary. Some landfills, now inactive, are a continuing source of leachate and contamination
that creates polluted sediments, water quality degradation, and adverse impacts to fish and aquatic
life. There is the potential for the development and operation of landfills to directly and significantly
affect coastal waters when they occur on adjacent lands.

The coastal area boundary where the Ottawa County landfill is located was developed through the
work of a county advisory group that included local government officials and county planning
commission staff. In the public review of the 1992 draft coastal management program document,
and in subsequent consultation with Ottawa County officials, local support for the proposed coastal
area boundary was re-affirmed.



















Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part VII                                    March 1997









November 4, 1996                 HOME     ASSOCIATION, INC.




Mr. Joe Uravitch
Coastal Programs Division
SSMC-4 Room  11109
1305 East - West Highway
Silver Spring, MD 20910

       Re:   Comments Ohio Coasta! Management
              Program/Environmental Impact Statement

Dear Mr. Uravitch:

       This correspondence is submitted in response to the request we received to
submit its response to the Impact Statement referenced above.

       The report reflects a potential for creation of new levels of bureaucracy. The
federal government has directed the State of Ohio to develop a coastal nonpoint
pollution control program. Ohio, several years ago, developed the Nonpoint Source
Management Program. We believe that the scope of that program need not be
broadened inasmuch as current law could accurately manage both coastal and non-
coastal nonpoint source pollution. Any additional layer of bureaucracy may further
impede the ability of builders and developers to obtain the requisite permits that already
govern control of pollution of this nature. The permitting system as it exists today is, in
many instances, burdensome and time consuming. For that reason, we believe that
any additional regulations are unnecessary.

       Similarly, the report reflects that there is an intention to create a State
Coordinating Committee on Ground Water. The intention behind the creation of this
new committee is reported to be to coordinate agencies' activities and information. Our
concerns are that it is unclear whether this would be a statewide program and that this
increase in personnel input from various agencies will result in more delays and
unnecessary additional regulations to a system that already is the subject of
considerable debate concerning its ability to issue the requisite permits in a timely
fashion.

       Perhaps one example of our concern is found in the portion of the report on the
various memoranda of understanding between certain agencies concerning the
implementation of aspects of the report and a desire for 'consistency." The report




17 SOL'l' IiIctl STRETr - 7th I1:.O)R ï¿½ COI.L'MI'S. (1tl( 43215 - *)14i 22S-6647 ï¿½ FAX: (614) 22S-5 14,)








Page Two



specifies that the Ohio EPA will notify the Ohio DNR with information concerning the
requests that it receives for permitting in coastal areas. ODNR is given the authority to
notify the OEPA should it believe that the permit request will result in some
'inconsistent' activity. While we recognize that there is a mediation process in the
report, this again illustrates the grave potential to slow down the permitting process in
system that is routinely criticized for its response time.

       The report further specifies that, as a general policy, developers should be
encouraged to develop in areas of 'compatible' uses. The term "compatible' does not
appear to be defined at any point in the report. That leads to confusion and ambiguity,
at the very least, for developers. Moreover, it fails to recognize that development is a
response to a pattern of identifiable growth in a particular region.

       The Ohio Department of Natural Resources and the federal government should
be commended for its efforts in the compilation of the report. However, OHBA submits
that these concerns should be addressed in a practical and meaningful fashion in
implementation of this program.

      Thank you for allowing us to participate. Please feel free to contact me should
you have any further questions or comments.

                                        Sincerely,



                                        Randy K. Strauss
                                        OHBA 1996 President


RKS:psa 
cc: Donna Wieting








WRITTEN COMMENT #17: OHIO HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION, INC., November 4,
1996

Response to Comment:

1. Comment (regarding Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program) noted. No change needed.
Refer to ODNR Director Donald C. Anderson's July 16, 1996 letter to the Office of Ocean and
Coastal Resource Management's Director Jeffrey R. Benoit contained in Appendix J of Volume II
of the draft program document and DEIS. As stated in that letter, "the State of Ohio believes that
its existing comprehensive Nonpoint Source Management Program contains the authorities,
assessment and implementation activities that provide the basis for an approvable coastal nonpoint
pollution control program."

2. Comment (regarding the State Coordinating Committee on Ground Water) noted. No change
required. The SCCGW, a statewide committee, already exists and meets on a regular basis, as stated
in Chapter 5, Policy 11. Additional delays and regulations are therefore not anticipated.

3. Comment (regarding consistency requirements) noted. No change required. See response to
items #9, 10, 11 and 12 of written comment #4 (Malcolm Wood).

4. Comment (regarding compatibility of uses) noted. No change required. The language refers
to local governments' development and implementation of comprehensive management plans, and
compatibility of uses would therefore be determined at the local level.


























Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part VII                                   March 1997







                                                                    30960 Lake Road
                                                                    Bay Villaae. Ohio 44140
                                                                    November 11. 1996
.Mr. Joe UraNitch. Acting Director
Coastal Programs Division
SSMIC-4, Room 11109
1305 East-West Highway
Silver Sprin. NfD 20910

Dear Mr. Uravitch:

Thank you for the opportunity to reiewv and comment on the Ohio Coastal Management
Program Document'Draft Environmental Impact Statement (P DEIS). I have asked my neighbor.
Allen Barth residing at 31010 Lake Road. Bay Village to work with me in formulating this review.
MLr. Barth chairs the Bay Village Mayor's Ad Hoc Committee on Shoreline Erosion.  This
committee ,was appointed two Xyears ago at the time that ODN'R notified all Bay Village lakefront
proper-. owners their properties fell into what thev then called an "Erosion Hazard Area" (EHA).

As vou vill see in our attached comments. our main concern is not with the historic erosion which
in our community is well understood. Our concern is with ODNR's inaccurate methods of
measuring which lead to an overstatement of annual property recession rates over time.
To complicate the problem. there is uncertainty about the costs and useful life of shoreline
protection devices and just how ODNR intends to exercise its regulatorv authoritry. Contrary to
ODNR's claim that there is no negative affect of their action on lakefront property values, we have
seen major discounting of property values and buyer iwithdrawal from the market alread., directlh
based upon this overstatement of forecast erosion rates produced by ODNR.

This overstatement of erosion along the five miles of Bay Village shoreline destrovs the real estate
market for these properties. It vill soon reduce properrt  tax valuations, resulting in reduced
revenues necessarn to operate our local schools and government.

Our state government appears insensitive to the local damage it is inflicting in attempting to gain
regulator3.' control by overstating property losses. We need-accurate measurements of actual
erosion to lakefront properties over time. According to the letter dated September 30, 1996
addressed to shoreline propertY owners from Donald C. Anderson. Director of ODNR.   "ODNR
 will reziew and rule on all objections. and notify' those who have filed". It is inappropriate for
this body to act as both judge and jury when dealing with objections to the coastal erosion area
designations.

SinS:cr'' -y ,. .f/ '


Richard E. \'alker                           G. Allen Barth                           -

cc: Donna Wieting. Acting I)ircctor. l'colonv and Con.r alibWfO- tice
    Mlayor Thomas Jelepis. City of l3a .illage. ()hio  I , '      :              -
                                                       i-1 .                 ,
                                                       }- <            's2












The major concern which we nish to address is found in Part II-Chapter 5 - Policy 1 - Lake Erie
Coastal Erosion Area Management and Policy 2 - Shore Erosion Control.

1. Coastal Erosion Area Delineation

       "Policy I - Lake Erie Coastal Erosion Area Mlana2ement
       It is the policy of the State of Ohio to minimize threats to human safety and property
       due to Lake Erie-related erosion while protecting the functions of natural shore
       features by:
              A. Delineatino the boundaries of Lake Erie Coastal Erosion Areas
                  (O.R.C. 1506.06 and O.A.C. 1501:6-10 throumh 1501:6-13) "

              Page Part II 5-9 states "... The delineation of coastal erosion areas is based
              upon scientific analysis of shore recession conducted by ODN'R's Diision
              of Geolo-ical Sunrey. The methodolov' was developed based upon many
              years of experience dealing with coastal erosion along Lake Erie and consulta-
              tion with the public, local authorities and the coastal programs of other
              Great Lakes states."

       The initial notice we received dated May 27. 1994 designated our properties as having
       an "Erosion Hazard Area Distance" of 93 feet. This was more than 20 times the annual
       recession rate of 0.1 5 we had experienced during our fort.y years of residence. We
       became an active part of the consultation process referred to above. On September 30,
       1996 a second certified letter ,was received from the Director of the Ohio Department
       of Natural Resources: "RE: Preliminary Identification of Lake Erie Coastal Erosion Areas".
       His purpose was to notify us that "....at least a portion of your property lies within a
       coastal erosion area as preliminar' identified ".

       The measure of the two transects that enclose our properties remains two to four times
       greater than our experience and direct knowledge of landmarks and property losses. It
       was necessanr to travel to City Hall to learn that the new measure was 12.9 feet and
       16.5 feet as the "Anticipated Distance (defined as) Recession (feet) anticipated during
       the next thirt' vears".

       As  lakefront property owners tlhroughout Bay Village begin to marshall their evidence
       for appeal. it is consistently revealing from surveys and photographs that the ODN'R
       "scientific analysis" and "methodology" produce incorrect measures. lThis error overstates
       thirty year recession losses at double. triple and quadruple actual historic facts.

       Effect on_ Prpert' Values
      " Cost analhsis --Ol)NR evaluated the potential effects on the identification and
       enforcement of coastal erosion areas on property values and future development.







                                                                            Comments
                                                                            pg. 2

Based upon research and consultation conducted during June through August 1993 and
again in Spring 1995, ODNR concluded that the identification and enforcement of coastal
erosion areas will not negatively impact property values or development interests."
(Part II 11-12)

The existing real estate market traditionally understands and includes the facts of Lake Erie
erosion in evaluating real estate transactions. If the ODNR measure were correct, we
would expect the above assumption to hold But by exaggerating predicted property losses
by several times, ODNR is creating a real estate crisis.

Example:
In his letter of October 15, 1996 to lakefront property owners, Mayor Thomas Jelepis
of the City of Bay Village used the following example:

       An important measure of the impact on value is established by the frequency
       and prices realized in selling a home. During the past y'ear, the Lake Erie
       Erosion Ad Hoc Committee has closely monitored the effect of this Coast
       Erosion Area designation on the sale of the property at 359 Lake Park Drive.
       Early in 1995, a buyer expressed serious interest in purchasing this home.
       When he inquired about erosion, he was referred to ODNR. He was told
       that the erosion area was significant and anticipated considerable property
       loss over thirty years if no remedial actions were taken. Inquiring into the
       cost of a protection device, the rule of thumb he found out was S1,000 per
       front foot ,with a useful life often years. Based upon this information, the
       buyer withdrew from negotiation.

       In November 1995, Scudder Mackey of ODNR attended a meeting of the
       Erosion Committee. Following this meeting the seller and Mr. Mackey
       xisited the site where the seller was able to produce convincing evidence that
       the ODNR figures were seriously overstated.

       Subsequently, OD-NR declared that this site fell into the category of "No
       Erosion" and with this assurance, the buyer and seller completed the sale.


Real Estate Economics

The economics of property valuation are straightforwvard. If the property is being
depleted by falling into the lake, it has a certain useful life. If the rate of recession
is increased, then the useful life is decreased causing the property value to diminish.

The recession rate can be greatly diminished and erosion nearly eliminated by investing
in some form of protective device.  Tlhis introduces an additional investment a buyer








                                                                            Comments
                                                                            pg. 3

must make and discount from the seller's price. The protection device also has a
useful life and must be replaced or repaired at the end of that time. Further, it wvill
probably be built on the lake bottom adjacent to the shore. In addition to this set of
permits and reviews, a fifty year lease commitment to the State of Ohio is rcquired.

By overstating the thirty year prediction of property loss, the necessity for a protective
device is advanced. Whether it will be required or not, it must be considered in the
buyer's purchase offer. This alone wilN drive down property values.

But there are further factors that need to be considered. The CMP also has the right
to withhold issuing a permit to a buyer or property owner. Or it can make demands
upon the owner that are inconsistent with the owner's purpose in exchange for the
right to protect this property. The level of uncertainty introduced by a changing
management agenda that effects regulatory rules is a major detractor to property
ownership and desirability.

Compound Effect

When we consider the real example and the economics that are involved and appbl
them to the more than two hundred lakefront residences in the City of Bay Village
falling within the CEMP coastal area northeast of Lake Road, we find that these
properties are already slow to sell.

Should we property opwners and the city administrators convince the CM? that these
measurements must be revised, there vill likehl be little negative effect upon the
real estate market. Correctly predicted, 80 to 90 per cent of Bay Village lakefront
properties will have less than nine feet of CEA thirty year loss.

But should CMRP management persist in mandating these overstated measurements,
in a very few years these same homes will significantly lose value. Since Cuyahoga
County, designates this same Coastal Area as their real estate taxing neighborhood
Number One, appraisal values whill also drop significantly since they are based upon
actual sales transactions.

The subsequent loss of revenue will directly reduce the income of the school district
and municipality. This in turn vill affect the value of all real estate in the community
and lead to further reduction until the downward spiral stabilizes at some greatly
reduced income level.







                                                                                     Comments
                                                                                     pg. 4


        Remedies

        Because of the importance of employing accurate measurements of the rate of
        erosion. and the fact that CIfP administrators mandate overstated measures as
        CEA designations. we propose:

        A. Peer Rexiew of Scientific Analysis
        An independent professionally qualified peer rexiew board be established to rexiew
        the "scientific anah.sis" and "methodology" here employed.
        In addition to the "...using the best available scientific records. data. and analysis
        of shoreline recession....", (ORC 1506.06) the reiew should include statistical
        qualitative evaluation of the methodology.

        Currentlh the nine foot No Erosion Desimnation is related to an assumption that the
        results of this methodolov' are accurate to within plus or minus 2.55 feet which
        represents the error in measuring erosion loss shown on the two aerial photograph
        enlargements from 1973 and 1990. The colored Nwax pencil lines used to draw the
       outlines of a projected map onto the base map most likely has this much error alone.*
        Should the errors resulting at each of the 22 steps in the method now employed be
        considered. this cumulative error will probably be far geater than plus or minus 2.55 feet.

       B. Basic Statistical Distribution
        A second disturbing statistical observation pointed up by several professionals
       we have contacted is that in an' recurring process. like tossing a coin or plotting
       transect measurements. the pattern of results should result in as many heads as
        tails occurring from a large sample. The measures of these statistics have all been
       heads and no tails. This fact alone demands that the "scientific anah-sis" be rexiewed. **


2. Impartial Jury

       In his letter of September 30. 1996 to Lake Erie lakeshore property owners, Director
       Anderson quotes ' "...any affected municipal corporation. county. township or private.
       landowner may file with the Director (of O)I)N-R) a written objection to the preliminary
       identification within one hundred twenty days...' " (O.R.C. 1506.06). Then under
       "Modification and Final Identification: OlNR SI ill rexiew and rule on all objections. and
       notif' those who have filed."

       It seems totall' incongruent to expect a fair hearing wv'hen the creators of this "scientific
       analysis" and "methodoloa'" become judge and jury to those who challenge their
       accuracy.  Where contradictions exist. an impartial evaluation of the e.idence is
       reqluired.







                                                                                  Comments
                                                                                   pg. 5

3. Technical Assistance
       "Policy 2 - Shore Erosion Control

       It is the policy of the State of Ohio to promote sound decisions regarding control of
       shore erosion by:

               B. Providing technical assistance to the public on shoreline erosion
               control structures. (O.R.C. 1507.10)
               C. Developing a plan for the control of shore erosion and making the
               plan available to the public. (O.R.C. 1507.10)"

       "Policy 5 - Shore Erosion and Flood Hazard Mitigation Assistance

       It is the policy of the State of Ohio to assist Lake Erie coastal communities experiencing
       flooding and shore erosion problems to minimize future damages by:


               B. Providing technical information and assistance for addressing erosion and
               flood hazard concerns. (O.R.C. 1507.10)"

       "The Chief Engineer is required to establish a technical assistance program on shore
       erosion protection for local governments and property oNwners (O.R.C.1507.10). The
       Division of Engineering provides technical information on the design of shore erosion
       control structures ...."
               (Part 11 5 - 23)

As a suburban residential community we have repeatedly asked that ODNR establish specific
guidelines and recommend preferred structures for the recurring types of protection devices
appropriate to our five mile coastline. To date they have refused to do so.

Believing that the purpose of the CMlP is to "minimize threats to human safety and oropertv to
Lake Erie-related erosion ..." (Policy 1) applied to a fully developed suburban coastline, we
hoped that we might begin to explore preliminary designs that would both provide erosion control
and create a new amenity within our municipal boundaries. Nhen we asked ODNR how we
might become the first "No Erosion" designated city, we were told that ODNR did not want us
to become a "No Erosion" City and that ongoing erosion is necessary to create sand. Our
community has been given no encouragement whatsoever by CMP administrators to explore
a city'-wide plan and solution.







                                                                                     Comment
                                                                                     pg. 6

4. Eliminate Uncertaintv of CMP Regulatorv Power

       The greatest factor for concern is that the CX[P *will si nificant1v reduce cxisting market
       values of lakefront property by its administration of regulatory powers.

       This can be caused by l)overstating the historic erosion rates. 2) implying or mandating
       that erosion protection devices must be built by the property owvners. or 3) conversely
       denying permission to construct such a dexice or lease the requisite undervater land to
       an owner. Equally important is 4) unreasonable delay of a regulatorn rulin2 since it
       prohibits the action of property owners in exercising their rights to protect their property.

       These uncertainties can be removed if CLIP administrators are required to purchase the
       lakeshore property affected at a fair market value. This value should be based upon the
       higher of either 1996 pre-regulation market values or the appraised market value at the
       time of a future permit application. This will establish an alternative purchase option that
       ,,ill stabilize the regulatory effects.

       This is similar to the state's use of its Right of Eminent Domain which now responsibly
       and fairly remunerates properrt owners whose land is taken for purposes of state
       policies. If the CXIP is held accountable for the disruption created within our lakefront
       real estate market values and corresponding tax valuations. then the rights of all
       stakeholders will be protected.

       However, should the CLIP fail to be held accountable for economic losses caused. it will
       result in unfavorable publicity. extensive legal battles. and eventually the elimination of
       O.R.C. Chapter 1506 "Coastal Management" and 1507 "Shore Erosion" bv the Ohio State
       Legislature.

       Now is the time to remove regulatory uncertainties and make CX[P ,iable by holding it
       economically accountable for its actions and responsible to all of the residents of the
       State of Ohio.


5. Conclusion

       It seems clear that the intention of the law. in stating (1506.06) - "(A) the Director
       of Natural Resources. using the best available scientific records. data. and analyses
       of shoreline recession. shall make a preliminary identification of the Lake Eric erosion
       hazard areas..." is to generate accurate and reliable information. Underestimating the
       extent of the actual errors generated by the current methodology employed is creating
       an enormous problem for the City of B3ay Village and its lakeshore residents.














                                       Appendix



* Footnote 1. The computation deiixing the nine foot "No Erosion" designation is the recognized
              measuring error of plus or minus 2.55 feet described above. This figure is
              divided by 17 years to produce the recession rate as feet per year between
               1973 and 1990, or an annual error of plus or minus 0.15 feet. This figure
              is then multiplied by 30 years to produce an error of plus or minus 4.5 feet,
              or a sum of 9 feet of error over the 30 year prediction period.


** Footnote 2. The impact of error determination.
              1. The assumption of error in the methodology is based upon the 17 year
              distance being accurate within a range of plus or minus 2.55 feet. Using
              these limits, ODNR concludes that of the 282 transects measured in Bay Village
              (exhibit #1) 108 are classified as No CEA.  Of these, the recession rate is
               0 for 64 transects and between zero and 9 feet for 44 transects. Most of
              these transects represent the presence of some form of protective device.
              No CEA currently comprises 38% of the Bay Village coastal area.

              2. Recognizing that all of the statistical measures fall in only one direction
              as overstatement, and none in understatement of local evidence, we must
              conclude that the error range is at least twice that which is acknowledged.
              If we increase this range to plus or minus 5.1 feet, 79% of the Bay coastal
              area falls into the No CEA designation.

              3. Further, historical records indicate that the recess rate in use is three or
              four times that which can be verified. When the error range is increased to
              plus or minus 7.65 feet, 96%9 of the Bay "Village coastal area falls into the
              No CEA designation. And at plus or minus 10.2 feet, four times the ODNNR
              recess rate, 98.20%/ of these transects qualify as NoCEA while five transects
              exceed this limit and can be readily reviewed on site








            LAKE ERIE COASTAL EROSION AREA
            OHIO COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM


           OHIO DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
               DIVISION OF GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
                 LAKE ERIE GEOLOGY GROUP
                          1996




                   COASTAL EROSION AREA
                     TABULATED DATA
         ,7-,A G,..= =                 +  .,s- -~.~~
                   City of Bay Village

               _PYX 8E   b- L           oq -Z74-

") N;{ 9.Rc./---~ ~vL~t l 9Z2C

 M.IssiNC4 FLR 2 ,            -   o      O -_


        Uzw 5-           z_! .    b-   o        ï¿½[
          ']3                      W I    Z 1  5

        L'L' 22- bt                      )    36




                LIZfYt           o 0-3

                          L6o /3





                              LO~~Co








                            CUYAHOGA COUNTY

  FRAME: CUY419
  NO. OF PROFILES:    27

                             MEAS      RECESS  ANTICIPATED
   FRAME        TRANS       DIST        RATE       DIST       STATUS
  CUY419       419- 1          .2          .0       11.2         CEA
  CUY419       419- 2         3.2          .2        7.8      NO CEA
  CUY419       419- 3         8.2          .5        9.5         CEA
  CUY419       419- 4         3.0          .2       12.3         CEA
  CUY419       419- 5        10.2          .6       17.0         CEA
  CUY419        419- 6       16.9        1.0        21.7         CEA
  CUY419       419- 7         6.6          .4       24.1         CEA
  CUY419       419- 8        21.6        1.3        32.2         CEA
  CUY419       419- 9        18.4        1.1        42.7         CEA
  CUY419       419-10        37.3        2.2        56.0         CEA
 CUY419       419-11        39.2        2.3        60.0         CEA
  CUY419       419-12        31.4        1.8        52.1         CEA
  CUY419       419-13        21.6        1.3        35.6         CEA
 CUY419       419-14         7.1          .4       17.9         CEA
  CUY419       419-15          .0          .0        6.3      NO CEA
 CUY419       419-16          .0          .0        3.2      NO CEA
 CUY419       419-17         3.8          .2        4.8      NO CEA
 CUY419       419-18         5.2          .3        5.7      NO CEA
 CUY419       419-19          .7          .0        5.3      NO CEA
 CUY419       419-20         2.2          .1        6.9      NO CEA
 CUY419       419-21         9.4          .6       10.0         CEA
 CUY419       419-22         4.6          .3       10.1         CEA
 CUY419       419-23         5.6          .3        9.4         CEA
 CUY419       419-24         3.8          .2       12.6         CEA
 CUY419       419-25         6.0          .4       23.9         CEA
 CUY419       419-26        34.2        2.0        38.7         CEA
 CUY419       419-27        26.3        1.5        38.0         CEA

 DATE: 8/19/1996





                            6, Ct-      5













FRAME:             Fra-me number of aerial photograph
TRANS:             Transect number
MEAS DIST:         Recession distance (feet) between 1973 and 1990
RECESS RATE:       Recession rate (feet per year) between 1973 and 1990
ANTICIPATED DIST:   Recession (feet) anticipated during next 30 years
STATUS:            Indicates presence or absence of Coastal Erosion Area (CEA)
DATE:              Production date for table

                                    33-







                                   CUYAEOGA COUNTY

        FRAME: CUY420
        NO. OF PROFILES:   27

                                   MEAS      RECESS  ANTICIPATED
         FRAME        TRANS       DIST        RATE       DIST      STATUS
        CUY420       420- 1        26.3        1.5       38.0          CEA
        CUY420       420- 2        13.4         .8       24.4          CEA
        CUY420       420- 3          .0         .0       11.9          CEA
        CUY420       420- 4          .0         .0       12.7          CEA
        CUY420       420- 5        21.3        1.3       23.5          CEA
        CUY420       420- 6        16.5        1.0       27.9          CEA
-~C~    CUY420        420- 7       17.0         1.0       27.0          CEA
  iJL    CUY420       420- 8        8.0          .5       23.1          CEA
        CUY420       420- 9        19.3        1.1       21.7          CEA
        CUY420       420-10         5.0         .3       16.5          CEA
        CUY420       420-11         7.4         .4       14.1          CEA
        CUY420       420-12         8.6         .5       12.3          CEA
        CUY420       420-13         6.6         .4         9.0         CEA
        CUY420       420-14          .0         .0         5.5      NO CEA
        CUY420       420-15          .0         .0         7.6      NO CEA
        CUY420       420-16        12.2         .7        16.2         CEA
        CUY420       420-17        12.8         .8       25.0          CEA
        ,CUY420      420-18        20.2        1.2        32.7         CEA
 * :VCUY420          420-19        22.8        1.3        36.2         CEA
        4U  CUY420   420-20        20.8        1.2       36.2          CEA
        CUY420       420-21        16.8        1.0       32.5          CEA
        CUY420       420-22        23.4        1.4       26.4          CEA
        CUY420       420-23          .0          .0       15.1         CEA
        CUY420       420-24         6.2          .4       10.5         CEA
        CUY420       420-25         5.8          .3        9.3         CEA
        CUY420       420-26         5.2          .3        8.9      NO CEA
        CUY420       420-27         5.2          .3        7.1      NO CEA

        DATE: 8/19/1996

                            he riarfy hR (                                 LL(

                                C-EIQ -:, L-=               E;C-

                               74- -  z                     o

                             7+ _     -7 -?   f
                                                2-+   = 9   6-  34

                                      '217






      FRAME:            Frame number of aerial photograph
      TRANS:            Transect number
      1EAS DIST:         Recession distance (feet) between 1973 and 1990
      RECESS RATE:      Recession rate (feet per year) between 1973 and 1990
      ANTICIPATED DIST:   Recession (feet} anticipated during next 30 years
      STATUS:            Indicates presence or absence of Coastal Erosion Area (CEA)
      DATE:              Production date for table

                                           34









                            CUYAHOGA COUNTY

  FRAME: CUY421
  NO. OF PROFILES:    23

                             MEAS      RECESS  ANTICIPATED
   FRAME        TRANS        DIST       RATE        DIST       STATUS
  CUY421       421- 1         5.2          .3         7.1      NO CEA
  CUY421       421- 2           .0         .0         4.8      NO CEA
  CUY421       421- 3         4.9          .3         4.7      NO CEA
  CUY421       421- 4           .0         .0         4.0      NO CEA
  CUY421       421- 5         5.0          .3         4.1      NO CEA
  CUY421       421- 6           .0         .0    -  2.5        NO CEA
  CUY421       421- 7           .0         .0         2.7      NO CEA
  CUY421       421- 8         3.7          .2         5.1      NO CEA
  CUY421       421- 9         3.5          .2         7.8      NO CEA
  CUY421       421-10         8.8          .5         9.3         CEA
  CUY421       421-11         2.0          .1         7.6      NO CEA
  CUY421       421-12         4.2          .2         7.2      NO CEA
 CUY421       421-13         3.7          .2         8.3      NO CEA
 CUY421       421-14         6.4          .4        10.8         CEA
 CUY421       421-15         9.0          .5       12.2          CEA
 CUY421       421-16         5.2          .3       11.2          CEA
 CUY421       421-17         6.1          .4       10.2          CEA
 CUY421       421-18         4.5          .3       10.1          CEA
 CUY421       421-19         6.3          .4       11.1          CEA
 CUY421       421-20         9.2          .5   -   10.8          CEA
 CUY421       421-21         3.4          .2         7.7      NO CEA
 CUY421       421-22           .0         .0         6.2      NO CEA
 CUY421       421-23         6.2          .4         8.9      NO CEA

 DATE: 8/19/1996





                      >lj Ct ' te -( - t4


                      t- 2'7'  -- o



                                   zI3  _    -









FRAME:             Frame number of aerial photograph
TRANS:             Transect number
MEAS DIST:         Recession distance (feet) between 1973 and 1990
RECESS RATE:       Recession rate (feet per year) between 1973 and 1990
ANTICIPATED DIST:   Recession (feet) anticipated during next 30 years
STATUS:            Indicates presence or absence of Coastal Erosion Area (CEA)
DATE:              Production date for table

                                    35








                            CUYAHOGA COUNTY

  FRAME: CUY423
  NO. OF PROFILES:   30

                            MEAS      RECESS  ANTICIPATED
   FRAME        TRANS       DIST        RATE       DIST      STATUS
  CUY423       423- 1         6.2          .4        8.9      NO CEA
  CUY423       423- 2         7.8         .5       12.1          CEA
  CUY423       423- 3         7.7         .5       14.2          CEA
  CUY423       423- 4         8.6         .5       15.7          CEA
  CUY423       423- 5        10.8         .6       16.8          CEA
  CUY423       423- 6         9.5         .6       16.5          CEA
  CUY423       423- 7         8.0         .5       15.7          CEA
  CUY423       423- 8         9.1         .5       15.2          CEA
  CUY423       423- 9         8.6         .5       13.3          CEA
  CUY423       423-10         6.6         .4       11.1          CEA
  CUY423       423-11          .0         .0       10.5          CEA
  CUY423       423-12        13.3         .8       15.1          CEA
 CUY423       423-13         8.6         .5       18.3          CEA
 CUY423       423-14        12.3         .7       21.1          CEA
 CUY423       423-15        15.0         .9       21.5          CEA
 CUY423       423-16         9.6         .6       19.5          CEA
 CUY423       423-17         9.5         .6       18.2          CEA
 CUY423       423-18        10.4          .6      18.0          CEA
 CUY423       423-19        12.0         .7       18.2          CEA
 CUY423       423-20         6.4         .4       17.8          CEA
 CUY423       423-21        13.8         .8       19.6          CEA
 CUY423.      423-22        11.2         .7       19.6          CEA
 CUY423       423-23        10.4          .6      18.8          CEA
 CUY423       423-24         9.4          .6      17.8          CEA
 CUY423       423-25        10.6          .6      18.0          CEA
 CUY423       423-26        10.2          .6      17.5          CEA
 CUY423       423-27        10.3         .6       16.7          CEA
 CUY423       423-28         6.2         .4       16.3          CEA
 CUY423       423-29        11.6          .7      18.1          CEA
 CUY423       423-30        13.3          .8      18.8          CEA

 DATE: 8/19/1996



                           Nv QCï¿½t        -    -I  - O
                            q'- .I'  z I




                                         ?o3   -  - - 




FRAME:             Frame number of aerial photograph
TRANS:            Transect number
HEAS DIST:         Recession distance (feet) between 1973 and 1990
RECESS RATE:      Recession rate (feet per year) between 1973 and 1990
ANTICIPATED DIST:   Recession (feet) anticipated during next 30 years
STATUS:            Indicates presence or absence of Coastal Erosion Area (CEA)
DATE:              Production date for table

                                    36








                            CUYAHOGA COUNTY

  FRAME: CUY424
  NO. OF PROFILES:    32

                             MEAS      RECESS  ANTICIPATED
   FRAME        TRANS        DIST       RATE        DIST      STATUS
  CUY424       424- 1        13.3          .8       18.8         CEA
  CUY424       424- 2         6.4          .4       16.8         CEA
  CUY424       424- 3        11.3          .7       15.7         CEA
  CUY424       424- 4         6.3          .4       13.9         CEA
  CUY424       424- 5         7.7          .5       13.1         CEA
  CUY424        424- 6        7.3          .4       12.1         CEA
  CUY424       424- 7         5.8          .3    - 11.1          CEA
  CUY424       424- 8         6.0          .4       10.4         CEA
  CUY424       424- 9         5.6          .3        9.5         CEA
  CUY424       424-10         5.3          .3        8.9      NO CEA
  CUY424       424-11         2.7          .2        8.6      NO CEA
  CUY424       424-12         7.8          .5        9.7         CEA
 CUY424       424-13         4.4          .3        9.7         CEA
 CUY424       424-14         5.8          .3        9.2         CEA
 CUY424       424-15         6.0          .4        8.2      NO CEA
 CUY424       424-16           .0         .0        7.6      NO CEA
 CUY424       424-17         8.8          .5        9.6         CEA
 CUY424       424-18         5.8          .3       11.0         CEA
 CUY424       424-19         2.9          .2       14.1         CEA
 CUY424       424-20        17.1         1.0-      20.1         CEA
 CUY424       424-21        11.7          .7       21.3         CEA
 CUY424       424-22        13.0          .8       20.5         CEA
 CUY424       424-23         5.1          .3       19.2         CEA
 CUY424       424-24        18.9         1.1       20.7         CEA
 CUY424       424-25         8.6          .5       16.2         CEA
 CUY424       424-26         3.8          .2       10.4         CEA
 CUY424       424-27         3.1          .2        7.6      NO CEA
 CUY424       424-28         3.6          .2        9.2         CEA
 CUY424       424-29         9.4          .6       13.4         CEA
 CUY424       424-30         8.8          .5       16.3         CEA
 CUY424       424-31        11.6          .7       17.3         CEA
 CUY424       424-32         9.8          .6       14.8         CEA

 DATE: 8/19/1996


                          No CEI7  - =




                            7''t -=  O

                                        z37



FRAME:             Frame number of aerial photograph
TRANS:             Transect number
HEAS DIST:         Recession distance (feet) between 1973 and 1990
RECESS PATE:       Recession rate (feet per year) between 1973 and 1990
ANTICIPATED DIST:   Recession (feet) anticipated during next 30 years
STATUS:            Indicates presence or absence of Coastal Erosion Area (CEA)
DATE:              Production date for table

                                    37







                            CUYAHOGA COUNTY

  FRAME: CUY425
  NO. OF PROFILES:    31

                             MEAS      RECESS  ANTICIPATED
   FRAME        TRANS        DIST       RATE        DIST      STATUS
  CUY425       425- 1         9.8          .6       14.8          CEA
  CUY425       425- 2         4.5          .3       10.2          CEA
  CUY425       425- 3         3.0          .2        6.9      NO CEA
  CUY425       425- 4         2.6          .2        6.3      NO CEA
  CUY425       425- 5         4.6          .3        7.8      NO CEA
  CUY425       425- 6         5.8          .3        9.3          CEA
  CUY425/      425- 7         5.8          .3       10.4          CEA
  CUY425       425- 8         5.5          .3       11.8          CEA
  CUY425       425- 9         8.7          .5       14.7          CEA
  CUY425       425-10        10.2          .6       17.4          CEA
  CUY425       425-11        11.2          .7       19.2          CEA
  CUY425       425-12        11.6          .7       20.3          CEA
 CUY425       425-13        11.3          .7       21.4          CEA
 CUY425       425-14        13.9          .8       22.3          CEA
 CUY425       425-15        13.8          .8       21.2          CEA
 CUY425       425-16         8.3          .5       18.6          CEA
 CUY425       425-17         9.4          .6       17.6          CEA
 CUY425       425-18        12.2          .7       17.3          CEA
 CUY425       425-19         7.4          .4       14.8          CEA
 CUY425       425-20         7.4          .4       11.9          CEA
 CUY425       425-21         3.4          .2       10.1          CEA
 CUY425       425-22         5.8          .3       11.1          CEA
 CUY425       425-23        10.0          .6       11.8          CEA
 CUY425       425-24         4.9          .3        9.0          CEA
 CUY425       425-25         1.2          .1        6.2      NO CEA
 CUY425       425-26         2.6          .2        6.4      NO CEA
 CUY425       425-27         7.2          .4        8.6      NO CEA
 CUY425       425-28         4.2          .2        8.4      NO CEA
 CUY425       425-29         5.3          .3        6.4      NO CEA
 CUY425       425-30           .2         .0        2.9      NO CEA
 CUY425       425-31           .0         .0          .8     NO CEA

 DATE: 8/19/1996




                           OCd  -z          lV









                   7Frame nmber of aerial photograph
TRANS:             Transect n=uber
MEAS DIST:         Recession distance (feet) between 1973 and 1990
RECESS RATE:      Recession rate (feet per year) between 1973 and 1990
ANTICIPATED DIST:   Recession (feet) anticipated during next 30 years
STATUS:            Indicates presence or absence of Coastal Erosion Area (CEA)
DATE:              Production date for table

                                    38








                            CUYAHOGA COUNTY

  FRAME: CUY426
 NO. OF PROFILES:    31

                            MEAS      RECESS  ANTICIPATED
   FRAME        TRANS        DIST       RATE        DIST      STATUS
 CUY426       426- 1          .0          .0         .8      NO CEA
 CUY426       426- 2          .0          .0         .4      NO CEA
 CUY426       426- 3          .0          .0        1.0      NO CEA
 CUY426       426- 4         2.5          .1        1.7      NO CEA
 CUY426       426- 5          .0          .0        1.6      NO CEA
 CUY426       426- 6          .0          .0   -    3.2      NO CEA
 CUY426       426- 7         4.6          .3        7.9      NO CEA
 CUY426       426- 8         7.4          .4       12.9          CEA
 CUY426       426- 9        12.6          .7       16.7          CEA
 CUY426       426-10         6.5          .4       18.2          CEA
 CUY426       426-11        13.5          .8       20.8          CEA
 CUY426       426-12        16.3        1.0        20.4          CEA
 CUY426       426-13         4.9          .3       15.1          CEA
 CUY426       426-14         7.3          .4       10.9          CEA
 CUY426       426-15         2.8          .2        8.2      NO CEA
 CUY426       426-16         4.3          .3        8.7      NO CEA
 CUY426       426-17         6.8          .4       10.4          CEA
 CUY426       426-18         6.3          .4       11.3          CEA
 CUY426       426-19         8.2          .5       10.1          CEA
 CUY426       426-20         2.6          .2        8.0      NO CEA
 CUY426       426-21          .0          .0        9.2          CEA
 CUY426       426-22        14.8          .9       15.2          CEA
 CUY426       426-23         7.6          .4       17.7          CEA
 CUY426       426-24        12.2          .7       20.2          CEA
 CUY426       426-25        11.3          .7       20.7          CEA
 CUY426       426-26        16.1          .-9      20.4          CEA
 CUY426       426-27         3.6          .2       18.3          CEA
 CUY426       426-28        12.4          .7       23.2          CEA
 CUY426       426-29        19.4        1.1        31.6          CEA
 CUY426       426-30        23.6        1.4        37.0          CEA
 CUY426       426-31        24.0        1.4        35.5          CEA

 DATE: 8/19/1996





                            t'- i?   =   9'



                                          3r 




FRAME:             Frame number of aerial photograph
TRANS:             Transect number
HEAS DIST:         Recession distance (feet) between 1973 and 1990
RECESS RATE:       Recession rate (feet per year) between 1973 and 1990
ANTICIPATED DIST:   Recession (feet) anticipated during next 30 years
STATUS:            Indicates presence or absence of Coastal Erosion Area (CEA)
DATE:              Production date for table
                                    39






                            CUYAHOGA COUNTY

  FRAME: CUY427
  NO. OF PROFILES:   28

                            MEAS      RECESS  ANTICIPATED
   FRAME        TRANS       DIST        RATE       DIST       STATUS
  CUY427       427- 1        24.0        1.4        35.5         CEA
  CUY427       427- 2        11.8         .7       29.3          CEA
  CUY427       427- 3        15.8         .9       26.3          CEA
  CUY427       427- 4        14.0         .8       23.5          CEA
  CUY427       427- 5        13.1         .8       21.1          CEA
  CUY427       427- 6         4.8         .3       18.9          CEA
  CUY427       427- 7        17.6        1.0       20.9          CEA
  CUY427       427- 8         9.0         .5       19.6          CEA
  CUY427       427- 9        11.2         .7       17.3          CEA
  CUY427       427-10         7.8         .5       12.7          CEA
  CUY427       427-11         3.6         .2         8.1      NO CEA
  CUY427       427-12         1.0         .1         5.7      NO CEA
  CUY427       427-13         4.2         .2         7.1      NO CEA
  CUY427       427-14         5.5          .3        9.3         CEA
 CUY427       427-15         8.2          .5       10.8         CEA
 CUY427       427-16         2.8          .2       10.4         CEA
 CUY427       427-17         9.0          .5       12.0         CEA
 CUY427       427-18         5.2          .3       12.8         CEA
 CUY427       427-19        10.8          .6       13.8         CEA
 CUY427       427-20         5.8          .3       12.2         CEA
 CUY427       427-21         5.8          .3       11.7         CEA
 CUY427       427-22         5.5          .3       13.1         CEA
 CUY427.      427-23        12.2          .7       17.5         CEA
 CUY427       427-24         9.0          .5      21.0          CEA
 CUY427       427-25        18.9        1;1       24.3          CEA
 CUY427       427-26        10.8          .6      22.0          CEA
 CUY427       427-27        13.2          .8       17.8         CEA
 CUY427       427-28         2.6          .2       11.8         CEA

 DATE: 8/19/1996









                               (_{-24  = tL

                                         Z2?





FRAME:            Frame number of aerial photograph
TRANS:            Transect number
MEAS DIST:         Recession distance (feet) between 1973 and 1990
RECESS RATE:      Recession rate (feet per year) between 1973 and 1990
ANTICIPATED DIST:   Recession (feet) anticipated during next 30 years
STATUS:           Indicates presence or absence of Coastal Erosion Area (CEA)
DATE:              Production date for table

                                    40







                             CUYAHOGA COUNTY

  FRAME: CUY428
  NO. OF PROFILES:    20

                             MEAS      RECESS  ANTICIPATED
   FRAME         TRANS        DIST       RATE        DIST       STATUS
  CUY428        428- 1         2.6          .2        11.8          CEA
  CUY428        428- 2         6.0          .4        11.3          CEA
  CUY428        428- 3         5.7          .3        12.8          CEA
  CUY428        428- 4        15.2          .9        13.4          CEA
  CUY428        428- 5           .0         .0         7.0      NO CEA
  CUY428        428- 6           .0         .0         2.1      NO CEA
  CUY428        428- 7           .0         .0          .0      NO CEA
  CUY428        428- 8           .0         .0          .0      NO CEA
  CUY428        428- 9           .0         .0          .0      NO CEA
  CUY428        428-10           .0         .0          .0      NO CEA
  CUY428        428-11           .0         .0          .0      NO CEA
  CUY428        428-12           .0         .0          .0      NO CEA
  CUY428        428-13           .0         .0          .0      NO CEA
  CUY428        428-14           .0         .0          .0      NO CEA
  CUY428        428-15           .0         .0          .0      NO CEA
  CUY428        428-16           .0         .0          .0      NO CEA
 CUY428        428-17           .0         .0         1.4      NO CEA
 CUY428        428-18           .0         .0         5.6      NO CEA
 CUY428        428-19        10.4          .6        12.1          CEA
 CUY428        428-20        10.1          .6        15.0          CEA

 DATE: 8/19/1996







                         Iqo C6A = fq


                        l ?-2%' = o
                       I7t        =- 

                                     Zo











FRAME:             Frame number of aerial photograph
TRANS:             Transect number
1MAS DIST:         Recession distance (feet) between 1973 and 1990
RECESS RATE:       Recession rate (feet per year) between 1973 and 1990
ANTICIPATED DIST:   Recession (feet) anticipated during next 30 years
STATUS:            Indicates presence or absence of Coastal Erosion Area (CEA)
DATE:               Production date for table

                                     41





                             CUYAHOGA COUNTY

  FRAME: CUY429
  NO. OF PROFILES:    25

                             MEAS      RECESS  ANTICIPATED
   FRAME        TRANS        DIST       RATE        DIST      STATUS
- CUY429       429- 1        10.1          .6       15.0          CEA
  CUY429        429- 2        6.8          .4        13.9         CEA
  CUY429        429- 3        8.2          .5        11.4         CEA
  CUY429        429- 4        2.8          .2         9.6         CEA
  CUY429        429- 5        3.6          .2        11.7         CEA
  CUY429        429- 6       14.4          .8        15.0         CEA
  CUY429        429- 7        8.4          .5        12.0         CEA
  CUY429        429- 8          .0         .0         6.0     NO CEA
  CUY429        429- 9          .0         .0         3.7     NO CEA
  CUY429        429-10        4.6          .3         5.4     NO CEA
  CUY429        429-11        5.3          .3         6.0     NO CEA
  CUY429        429-12        1.2          .1         3.6     NO CEA
  CUY429        429-13          .0         .0         1.2    :NO CEA
  CUY429        429-14          .0         .0          .2     NO CEA
  CUY429        429-15          .0         .0          .0      NO CEA
  CUY429        429-16          .0         .0          .7      NO CEA
  CUY429        429-17          .0         .0         2.8      NO CEA
  CUY429        429-18        4.9          .3         6.3      NO CEA
  CUY429        429-19        5.9          .3         7.6      NO CEA
 CUY429        429-20        3.9          .2         5.7      NO CEA
 CUY429        429-21          .0         .0         2.9      NO CEA
 CUY429        429-22          .0         .0         3.0      NO CEA
 CUY429        429-23        4.2          .2         5.2      NO CEA
 CUY429        429-24        5.7          .3         5.6      NO CEA
 CUY429        429-25          .0         .0         4.2      NO CEA

 DATE: 8/19/1996






                            Nc  CCP.   (S
                              e ;C.
                               r= ''-- 7 -': -.











FRAME:             Frame number of aerial photograph
TRANS:             Transect number
M.HAS DIST:        Recession distance (feet) between 1973 and 1990
RECESS RATE:       Recession rate (feet per year) between 1973 and 1990
ANTICIPATED DIST:   Recession (feet) anticipated during next 30 years
STATUS:            Indicates presence or absence of Coastal Erosion Area (CEA)
DATE:              Production date for table

                                    42








                            CU`YAHOGA COUNTY

  FRAME: -CUY430
  NO. OF PROFILES:   37

                            MEAS      RECESS  ANTICIPATED
   FRAME        TRANS       DIST       RATE        DIST      STATUS
  CUY430       430- 1          .0         .0        4.2      NO CEA
  CUY430       430- 2          .0         .0        5.8      NO CZA
  CUY430       430- 3         9.3         .5       11.1         CEA
  CUY430       430- 4         9.0         .5       13.1         CEA
  CUY430       430- 5         i.8         .5       10.2         CEA
  CUY430       430- 6          .0         .0        4.4      NO CEA
  CUY430       430- 7          .0         .0        1.1      NO CEA
  CUY430       430- 8          .0         .0         .0      NO CEA
  CUY430       430- 9          .0         .0         .0      NO CFA
  CUY430       430-10          .0         .0         .0      NO CEA
  CUY430       430-11          .0         .0         .0      NO CFA
 CUY430       430-12          .0         .0         .2      NO CEA
 CUY430       430-13          .0         .0        1.9      NO CEA
 CUY430       430-14         1.2         .1        5.4      NO CEA
 CUY430       430-15        10.5         .6        8.4      NO CEA
 CUY430       430-16         1.8         .1        5.7      NO CEA
 CUY430       430-17          .0         .0        2.2      NO CF.A
 CUY430       430-18          .0         .0         .3      NO CEA
 CUY430       430-19          .0         .0         .0      NO CEA
 CUY430       430-20          .0         .0         .0      NO CEA
 CUY430       430-21          .0         .0        1.3      NO CEA
 CUY430       430-22          .0         .0        5.0      NO CE.A
 CUY430       430-23         9.3         .5       10.8         CEA
 CUY430       430-24         8.7         .5       14.6         CEA
 CUY430       430-25         7.4         .4       16.5         CEA
 CUY430       430-26        14.0         .8       18.3         CEA
 CUY430       430-27         7.2         .4       16.5         CEA
 CUY430       430-28        11.9         .7       12.9         CEA
 CUY430       430-29          .0         .0        6.5      NO CEA
 CUY430       430-30          .0         .0        4.8      NO CEA
 CUY430       430-31         4.9         .3        6.8      NO CEA
 CUY430       430-32         8.6         .5        7.8      NO CEA
 CUY430      .430-33          .0         .0        4.2      NO CEA
 CUY430       430-34          .0         .0        2.6      NO CEA
 CUY430       430-35          .0         .0        5.4      NO CEA
 CUY430       430-36        10.3         .6       11.3         CFA
 CUY430       430-37         8.8         .5       12.6         CEA

 DATE: 8/19/1996



                                         1? Ic
                                           -'C


F~RAI~E:          Frar.e number of aerial photograph
TRANS:            Transect number
1-AS DIST:        Recessicn distance (feet) between 1973 and 1990
R-CESS RATE:      Recessicn rate (feet per year) between 1973 and 1990
P"NTICIPAT'D DIST:   Recession (feet) anticipated during next 30 years
STATUS:            Indicates presence or absence of Coastal Erosion Area (CEA)
DATE:              Producticn date for table

                                    43








WRITTEN COMMENT #18: G. ALAN BARTH AND RICHARD E. WALKER, PRIVATE
LAKEFRONT PROPERTY OWNERS,  November  11, 1996

Response to Comment:

1. Comment (regarding "coastal erosion area delineation) noted. No change required. In large
part, the comment constitutes an objection to the preliminary designation of coastal erosion areas.
These objections are being handled in the manner prescribed by O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.06. In fairness to all
affected property owners, ODNR will continue to handle the objections of Mr. Barth and Mr. Walker
through that statutorily defined process. That process was described in Chapter 5 of the draft
document and DEIS and in literature distributed to every affected property owner.

Regarding effects on property values, see response to item #27 of written comment #4 (Malcolm
Wood) and to item #2 of written comment #28 (City of Lakewood). The information cited by the
commenter regarding recent real estate transactions is anecdotal and not based on research that
controlled for additional variables that contribute to sales and prices. Statements that revenue losses
will occur and further affect property values are speculation and clearly not in line with the
substantial long-term experience in other states where similar regulations have been in place for as
long as 20 years. The assertion underlying the discussion of compound effects is that ODNR has
overstated the erosion rates; again, this objection to ODNR's calculations and any resolution of it
must be addressed through the official process for objecting to the preliminary identification of
coastal erosion areas.

Regarding the "example" distributed by the City of Bay Village to lakefront property owners, the
"example" does not accurately reflect what occurred with regard to the property in question. In fact,
the erosion mapping was revised immediately after ODNR geologists reviewed additional
documentation provided by the property owner and made additional physical measurements, and not
as a result of actions taken by the ad hoc erosion committee. Although ODNR revised the map, thus
lessening the coastal erosion area distance, it did not declare the site a "no erosion area" as stated
incorrectly in the "example." The property in question did, and still does, in fact, lie in part within
a coastal erosion area, as now preliminarily identified by ODNR. The sale did take place despite this
fact.

The peer review process suggested has, in effect, been conducted twice already. Establishment of
yet another review board was proposed before the Ohio Senate Energy and Natural Resources
Committee in November 1995 and unanimously defeated. This was in light of the fact that ODNR
had conducted considerable research, consulting with non-ODNR geologists and other states'
geological surveys and coastal management programs, while drafting the rules promulgated in 1992.
The work of the independent working group that met from December 1994 through May 1995 to
redraft those rules was also an important factor in the state legislature's rejection of yet another
process to provide additional outside review of its methodologies. In addition, the rules underwent
public review for the second time when they were filed in July 1995 and refiled in February 1996.
During the public hearings, no substantive comments recommended specific changes to limit the
extent of coastal erosion areas as defined in the rules.


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part VII                                   March 1997








2. Comment (regarding "impartial jury") noted. No change required. ODNR has, over the past
four years, demonstrated that it will provide fair and objective consideration of data and information
provided by property owners. ODNR has worked closely with residents and the City of Bay Village
to ensure that the identification of coastal erosion areas is as accurate as possible. As with other
reaches of the Lake Erie shore, revisions to the preliminary mapping were made prior to formal
release of the preliminary CEA maps in response to Bay Village concerns. Additional revisions will
be made after all formal objections by coastal property owners have been reviewed (as required by
O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.06). ODNR has demonstrated a level of responsiveness to property owner concerns,
including a separate ongoing comprehensive review of preliminary mapping, that far exceeds that
required by statute or rule. Please also see above response regarding the suggestion of additional
peer review.

3. Comment (regarding "technical assistance") noted. No change required. ODNR has been
actively involved in meeting directly with the citizens of Bay Village and its coastal erosion working
group. During one meeting, representatives of Bay Village were told:

    a.  Erosion is, and will continue to be, a problem along the Lake Erie coastline and therefore
         a "no erosion" designation is difficult to achieve.

    b.  The impacts of erosion can be mitigated by the use of erosion control measures but (along
         certain reaches of coastline) there is a price to pay in terms of shutting off the sand supply
         to beaches.

    c.  Guidelines for erosion control measures are under development by ODNR's Division of
         Engineering.

    d.  ODNR is mandated to develop a comprehensive erosion control plan for the Lake Erie
         coastline.

    e.  ODNR  encourages  a community-based  approach to erosion control and erosion
         management.

At the meeting, ODNR offered to provide technical support and assistance to the City of Bay Village
and Bay Village residents, including site evaluations and other technical data on erosion related
issues. To date, the City of Bay Village has not submitted a specific request for development of a
comprehensive coastal erosion management plan.

4. Comment ("eliminate uncertainty of CMP regulatory power") noted. No change required. It
is possible that the protracted negotiations and review of this issue over the past four years have
contributed to an atmosphere of uncertainty in some locales. The process for reviewing and
objecting to ODNR's preliminary designation is now ongoing, and the level of uncertainty should
decrease as this process draws to its statutorily defined resolution. ODNR's action of carrying out
its statutory mandate of identifying coastal erosion areas does not constitute a taking of private
property.


Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part VII                                  March 1997









                                         Alan J. Olson                                     OCREM REC"D 11/15/96
                                      24624 Lake Road
                                  Bay Village, OH 44140

November 14. 1996

Actino Director
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource .MaI:agement
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
U.S. Dept. of Commerce
1305 East-W'est Highwav. N;'OR.3
Silver Spring. IMD 20910

Re:      The Draft OHIO Coastal Management Program
         and
         Draft Environmental Impact Statement Draft Document Review (OCMNIP)

Dear Acting Director.

I am commenting on the Draft OCM.P document as a homeowner on the Lake Erie shoreline. and as a
registered professional engineer. I have been involved with reviewing the Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources
regulations and calculations for establishing shoreline erosion on Lake Erie.

I believe that there should be appropriate regulation of the Lake Erie shoreline. I am concerned that the
OCMP draft document and draft EIS will lead to regulations that are inappropriate and that are enforced by
those who do not have the expertise to do so. The result is growth of government bureaucracy at the
expense of the taxpayer. without benefit to the homeowner, the public or the environment.

.My experiences with the Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources over the past two years includes technical
challenges to ODNR's methods for estimating future shoreline erosion.  ODNR's first projections for
shoreline erosion in Bay Village were overestimated by a factor of at least 8 to more than 10 times
reasonable expectations.  ODNR  refused publication of the critique of the Working Group %shich was
assembled to examine the first set of estimates.  ODNR did heed the input of members of the Working
Group and input from many homeowners. and revised the draft regulations and the projections. However.
the projections still appear to be consistently high by a factor of about 4 for Bay Village. Ohio law requires
ODNR to use the best scientifically available methods to project the actual erosion rate. The law does not
imply that a conservative figure or that a safety factor be included in the projection.  I make note of this
because although geologists at ODNR may be working diligently on this project. these same geologists
admit that this is not their area of expertise. ODNR has lobbied successfully against formal peer review of
this process.

This is the exact opposite of my experiences with the USEPA and the NSF International. when I developed
protocols and equations now in use to test every type of pipe. fitting and joining material used to conse
drinking vsater in tile U.S. It is also the opposite of Ohio law and regulations concerning professional
engineering. which prohibit \working beyond an area of expertise. On the other hand. I hase had good
experiences wsith NIST. the Consumer Product Satety Commission and the FDA on a number of matters
in olving the public health. satflty and  ecltfare.

Many  parts of the OCNIP smack of lack of expertise.   For instance. beach and cliff erosion  rest of
Cl'seland pIshere BL;a  Village is located) can be traced to the drcdging of sandbars. as opposed to ODNR's
theories.   ODNR  does not hase staff' "sho are expert in the area of erosion control. either natural or
nmannlade.  tD)\NR has dictated that the Coastal Mlanaemnent Area extends to the road or hi vhv~;l. which in
;m  ca.lS  is a;bout o() t.et f'rom the - ater. T'he thought of ODNR potentially requiring a permit and res ist









Page 2
Acting Director
NOAA Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Manaigement


for any activity within this Area is ridiculous.  Current ODNR  regulations require ODNR  to approve
permits for erection of erosion control devices. which has proven to be an impossible task for some
residents of Bay Village because of bureaucratic bungling. Because of ODNR's lack of expertise. I do not
put much faith in any ODNR approval of a permit. Further. the lack of expertise may make erosion rates
worse because the reviewer may at best have a superficial knowledge of erosion control devices.

If the general thrust of the OCNFMP and EIS is to secure federal grant money. the chances of that grant money
ending up as more regulations and bureaucracy is high. And as I hae v-itnessed. part of that bureaucracy
~ill continue to lobby state legislators to oppose peer review or o.ersight.  Untortunatcly. the chance of
harming the environment, the homeowner and the general public is also high.  As a further example.
strategic fortnification may reduce erosion rates. but ruin aesthetics. Or. if ODNR approaches erosion
control devices on a case by case basis. the result is likelv a hodgepodge of regulations and inconsistent
breakwalls.

WVhen new environmental or food and drug regulations are proposed. there is a great deal of scrutiny by
many  parties.   In the instant case. the draft proposals do  not impinge  upon  large industries or
disenfranchised sectors of the public. Ho;wever. these proposals do impinge on taxpayers and on the
communities in Which thev live and pay real estate taxes. Because of the rush to publish these documents.
there are errors. omissions and misstatements. My strong recommendation is to extend the comment period.
require a more thorough description of the documents by ODNR to the affected public. and most
importantly. subject the documents to peer review. This is no less than the scrutiny that federal regulations
undergo. and since we are dealing with geological processes. there are ample reasons to take our time to
ensure that what we promulgate is technically and environmentally correct.

Please feel free to call me at 216-930-3068 if you have any questions or comments. Perhaps NOAA should
hold public hearings in Ohio on this matter.

Sincerelv. 




Alan J. Olson. P.E.

24624 Lake Road
Bay Village. OH 44140

cc:      U.S. Senator Mike DeWinc
        U.S. Rep. John Kasic
        O01 Senator Gart Suhaldolnik
        Oil Rep. Edwsard Kasputis








WRITTEN COMMENT #19: ALAN J. OLSON, PRIVATE LAKEFRONT PROPERTY OWNER,
November 14, 1996

Response to Comment:

1. Comment (regarding expertise and procedure for defining coastal erosion areas) noted. No
change required. The comment regards insufficient expertise within ODNR regarding erosion
control and the lack of peer review of ODNR's methods in determining the extent of anticipated
erosion to define coastal erosion areas. See response to item #1 of written comment #18 (G. Allen
Barth and Richard E. Walker) regarding the latter.

The rules and methodology have not changed since rules were filed and adopted. Those rules, as
filed, were thoroughly reviewed by ODNR's external working group and many others including the
commenter. It seems that the commenter's concern is not with the methodologies per se but rather
with the calculations and/or historic data used in arriving at specific coastal erosion area distances
within the Bay Village area. As with written comment #18, this constitutes an objection to the
preliminary identification of coastal erosion areas, which as stated in the response to that comment
must be handled through the statutorily defined process.

ODNR's expertise with respect to coastal erosion is well documented. The department's Division
of Geological Survey is highly regarded and has on location in Sandusky, Ohio professionals with
a combined total of 77 years experience in rigorous study of coastal processes on Lake Erie. The
Lake Erie Geology Group is nationally recognized and has just completed a five year Cooperative
Study of Lake Erie Coastal Erosion with the U.S. Geological Survey.

2. Comment (regarding additional public) noted. No change required. For description of the
extensive comment period, please see response to written comment #2 (Mary Wood), item #1.






















Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part VII                                     March 1997







   Cuyahoga Soil and Water Conservation District

  6100 West Canal Road - Valley View. Ohio 44125-3330 ï¿½ Phone: 2161524-6580 ï¿½ FAX: 216/524-6584

November 15, 1996

Mr. Joseph A. Uravitch, AICP
Acting Director
Coastal Programs Division
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration
SSMC - 4, Room 11109
1305 East - West Highway
Silver Springs, MD 20910
Fax: 301-713-4012

Re:    Comments on the Ohio Coastal Management Program and Draft Environmental Impact
       Statement

Dear Mr. Uravitch:

       The following comments are to augment my testimony given on behalf of the Cuyahoga
Soil and Water Conservation District on October 2, 1996, at the Public Hearing in Cleveland,
Ohio, on the Ohio Coastal Management Program and Draft Environmental Impact Statement for
Lake Erie.

       In general, I believe the Ohio Coastal Management Program and Draft Environmental
Impact Statement prepared by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources are a good beginning,
but I would like to see an increase in the number of enforceable nolicies in the program. Much
of the program is suggestion, which could easily be ignored without the clout of enforce/nent.

      I would liked to have seen the Coastal Erosion Area document in place and submitted in
final form with the Ohio Coastal Management Program. However, since the Coastal Erosion Area
Rules have not been finalized, I would like to see them strengthened. For example, the formula
for determining the landward extent of any identified coastal erosion area should be 100 times the
average annill rate of recession measured from the edge of the bluff. The proposed 30 years is
not long enough, because the average home lasts 80 to 100 years. A one foot per year minimum
erosion rate should be used in the calculation to figure the erosion area.

       Structural erosion control measures that may reduce erosion must be vigilantly maintained,
generally at considerable expense. There is also the problem that one property owner's erosion
control structure may actually increase erosion on the property down current. Nonsitruciral
erosion control measures should be encouraged.

      There should be final nublic review and comment of the final revised draft of the Coastal
Erosion Areas Rules after property owners appeal.




Ohio Coastal Management Program


       Public access to the lke Erie shore needs to be increased. since less than 20 percent is
publicly held, and public access is generally denied to privately owned beach front property.
Perhaps Ohio could try enacting policies used in other states to allow greater access to the
shoreline.

       A better definition of wetlands is needed, because with over 90 percent of Ohio's wetlands
already lost, a;I remaining wetlands are imoortant and should be protected. Wetlands restoration
should be encouraged, and conservation easements should definitely be encouraged in
environmentally sensitive coastal areas.

       Nonpoint source pollution is a significant source of pollution in both agricultural and urban
areas. More attention should be paid to air pollution and its effect on surface water qualitv. Air
pollution is the second largest source of pollution to Lake Erie, second only to water entering
through the Detroit River.

       The environmental impacts of energy plants should be closely scrutinized. In particular,
any change in use of nuclear nower riants should be orohibited. Enclosed is an article that
appeared on the front page of the Cleveland daily paper, The Plain Dealer, on Saturday, June 29,
1996. It relates that Centerior Energy, the financially troubled parent company of the Davis Besse
and Perry nuclear power plants, offered to sell the Perry nuclear power plant 'to the Department
of Energy to make the H-bomb component tritium." This is a potentially grave source of pollution
to Lake Erie, source of drinking water for millions of people.

       I am concerned about coordination of agencies which will participate in the administration
and enforcement of the Ohio Coastal Areas Program. Perhaps there is need for a coordinating
body. There is also a need for consistency between state agencies.

       Thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments.

Regards,

    % "   P.

Kathryn P. Brock
Board Supervisor

Enclosure

Copy to:      Donna Wieting, NOAA
              Michael Colvin, ODNR








11/15/96
K. Brock                                                                                    2







Perry wants to use bomb-grade fuel
                                                                                                       operats 1/2,,6, _rs
Centerior also offers              operates Perry, also has told fed-  a range of options being contem-   placed occasionally in remaining
                                 eral officials it would consider  plated, if the price were right.  warheads because it decomposes
to sell the Lake County   selling the plant to the Depart-   The Perry plant's poor operating  over time and the governmen' ai-
nuclear plant to DOE               ,nient of Energy to make the H- . record, along with other prob-  cilities that once made it were
            A c  +    bombcomponent-tritium.                          lems, has left Centerior fighting   deemed too unsafe to operate.
            *>.l'  NICO 1ï¿½~'d   ,    enterior expressed interest in  for survival.                         The  scenarios  have  nuclear
        I  By JIM NICHOLS T       both possibilities in recent letters    The use of bomb material to  non-proliferation activists  wor-
        ldAIN HDï¿½EAR REPRTU ER    responding to DOE queries. Cen-  fuel civilian reactors is an option   ried about the security of bomb-
  The Perry nuclear power plant  terior also told the DOE  that  the DOE is considering as a way   grade nuclear materials. Some
in Lake County and 40 other civil-  Perry could be hired as a contrac-  to destroy warheads being de-  environmental groups are wor-
ian nuclear reactors are inter-  tor to renerate tritium along with   commissioned  under  post-Cold   ried as well about possible acci-
ested in using plutonium from   electricity. if the  government  War disarmament treaties. The   dental releases of intensely radio-
dismantled  nuclFear--oib' war-  didn't buy the plant outright.        government also is weighing the  activeandtoxicDiutoniumpuring
headsas reactor fuel.                The financially troubled utility  use of civilian reactors to make   delivery, use or strgeW--
  Centerior Energy Corp., which   told DOE it would consider anyof   tritium- which needs to be re-                          SEE PLANTI II-A


                                                                  rods with metal tubes filled with a  it out of the hands of terrorists. In
        Lke. P[la,.  bee 1 Jer-  PLANT   FROM i-A  g, 9'TULx f   lithium isotope and bombarding  March, it polled utilities about the
                                   "To i ncorporat e allegedc- them with neutrons during nor-  possibility of using it as reactor
                                   "To incorporate allegedly civil-  mal electricity-generating opera-  fuel, as France and other coun-
                                 Ian facilities into the military  tions.                               tries now do.
                                 complex raises serious questions    Tritium a toxic gas, is one of    To do so, the agency would
                                 about theft or diversion of the ma-  tFfi` qbrms of hydrogen that  have to build a new plant to pro-
                                 terial from the reactors and dur-  give the hydrogen bomb its name.   cess plutnium  nd dilute it with
                                 ing  transport,"  activist group    Assumintritium in dismantled  uIranjL         iuunlike reactor-fuel
                                 Greenpeace told the DOE. "The  warheads -tl1ff s  to be re-  uranium - the usual fuel - the
                                 public will be quite hesitant to  cycled, the DOE estimates it will  diluted ilutoniumLcould still be
                                 embrace the idea that their local  need a new supply by 2011.          easily returned to a weapons-
                                 reactor has become a storage site  In December,  Energy Secre-  usable state, said Marvin Miller.
                                 for nuclear weapons material."   tary Hazel O'Leary. announced  a nuclear physicist at the Massa-
                                   uenterior spokeswoman Irene  the department may buy or hire  chusetts Institute of Technology.
                                 Prezelj said yesterday the utiihty  one or more commercial reactors    Some environmental groups ar-
                                ioMldmig company only meant to  to make tritium.while the DOE   gue thatplutoniumis too toxic for
                                 indicate to DOE that Centerior  researches --te- feasibility  of  commercial use and disposing of
                                 would be amenable to discussing  building a new multibillion-dollar  irradiated plutoniunr  and mater-
                                 the issues further.                 plant to make tritium. Centerior  ial exposed to it would create new
                                   "We are not saying that We def-  was one of 14". .1t1ties and a  problems.
                                 initely are going to do this," she  Canadian reactor owner who ex-    Mary Olson, a spokeswoman for
                                 said. "All we're saying is that we  pressed interest in selling their  the anti-nuclear group Nuclear
                                 want more information ... We   plants.                                 Information and Resource Serv-
                                 would certainly take a closer look    "Never in the history of the nu-  'ce, said the DOEhould focus on
                                 at it if the economics were there."   clear age has there been such a  encasing the plutonium in exist-
                                   Either option would require ap-  blatant, unabashed link between  ing highly radioactive material to
                                 proval from the -Public Utilities  nuclear weapons and commercial  deter theft, then store it safely.
                                 Commission of Ohio and the Nu-  nuclear power," said local anti-    "The idea that the plutonium
                                 clear  Regulatory  Commission.  nuclear  activist Connie  Kline.  should be rendered uniusable'ior
                                 PUCO spokesman Dick Kimmons   "Atoms for peace and war are  bombs is one we support," she
                                 said the commission has heard  now one and the same."                  said. "But it can be done without
                                 nothing about the options.           The DOE must dispose of 42  the complications at a commer-
                                   The Perry plant could produce  tons of plutonium from disman-  cial reactor that come with put-
                                 tritium by replacing some fuel  tied warheads in a way that keeps  tingRtlutonium in it."








WRITTEN COMMENT #20: CUYAHOGA SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT,
November 15, 1996

Response to Comment:

1. Comment (regarding additional enforceable policies) noted. No change required. No specific
recommendation is made regarding an identified policy that ought to be supported by statutory
underpinnings. An increase in the number of enforceable policies is not warranted.

2. Comment (regarding coastal erosion area definition) noted. No change needed. Since coastal
erosion area rules have, in fact, been finalized, rules revisions are not being considered at this time.

3. Comment (regarding encouragement of nonstructural erosion control measures) noted. No
change required. Nonstructural erosion control has limited applicability in the Lake Erie
environment. However, assessment of potential impacts of structural measures and the consideration
of opportunities for using nonstructural measures is always included in ODNR's review of permit
applications and in technical assistance provided by ODNR.

4. Comment (regarding additional public input on coastal erosion areas) noted. No change
required. The procedure regarding public review of changes ODNR makes in the process of making
a final coastal erosion area identification is very clearly and definitively prescribed in the Ohio
Coastal Management Law (O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.06). That law requires that ODNR allow property owners
affected by ODNR's preliminary identification and by modification to it to object. ODNR must rule
on objections based upon verifiable evidence or documentation submitted by the objecting party.
All information related to this process, including the preliminary identification and maps are public
records. O.R.C. Chapter 1506 does not provide for additional public review and comment such as
that recommended by the commenter.

5. Comment (regarding public access) noted. No change required. ODNR agrees regarding the
need for public access. This is a priority issue that will be pursued during program implementation.
However, unlike other states, Ohio's shoreline is substantially developed, and limited opportunities
exist for increased public access. The State of Ohio will pursue property acquisition only with
willing sellers. The focus must be on exploring and facilitating innovative solutions that enhance
access opportunities within existing publicly owned areas. ODNR will assist local governments in
local public and private initiatives to increase and enhance access in the coastal area.

6. Comment (regarding definition of wetlands) noted. No change required. The definition of
wetlands is governed by current federal wetlands delineation manuals and not by the OCMP.
Wetlands restoration is encouraged, as described within the draft document and DEIS.

7. Comment (regarding air pollution) noted. No change required. The OCMP will address the
issue of effects of air pollution on Lake Erie water quality.





Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part VII                                    March 1997








8. Comment (regarding nuclear power plants) noted. No change required. Any change in use of
a nuclear power plant that would have the potential to affect coastal resources would be subject to
the federal consistency provisions described in Chapter 7 of the draft program document and DEIS.
However, as required by the CZMA and described in Part 11, Chapter 10, the OCMP must provide
for adequate consideration of the national interest in planning for the coastal area, including the
siting of energy facilities which are of greater than local significance.

9. Comment (regarding coordination of agencies) noted. No change needed. Coastal management
will be coordinated using the Integrated Management Team within ODNR, the Policies and
Programs Coordinating Committee comprised of all relevant state agencies' staff, and the Lake Erie
Commission, as described in Chapter 4 of the draft program document and DEIS. There is not a
perceived need for an additional coordinating body. Consistency among state agencies is governed
by the procedures for state consistency described in Chapter 4 of the draft program document and
DEIS.






































Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part VII                                    March 1997






         Bowling Green State University                       Ino Geol

                                                              Telephone: 1419 372-2886
                                                                 Fax: (419) 372-7205



 November 7, 1996

 Mr. Joe Uravitch                                            - -
 Coastal Programs Division
 SSMC-4, Room 11109
 1305 East-West Highway                                       8
 Silver Spring, MD 20910



 Dear Mr. Uravitch:

      Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment upon the
 Ohio Coastal Management Program and Draft Environmental Impact
 Statement (P/DEIS) of 1996. I commend you and the responsible
 parties for your work. I also request that I receive my own copy of
 the P/DEIS and the final product.

      I wish to voice one concern. I believe that the P/DEIS retains
 a piecemeal approach to integrated sediment management. This theme
 persists throughout the document. Integrated sediment management is
 responsible for: (1) soil erosion and loss of agricultural
 productivity, (2) impairment of fisheries and recreation, because of
 siltation, turbidity, and changing stream temperatures, (3) reduction
 of water quality, because of the translocation of agricultural
 chemicals via suspended sediments, (4) loss of reservoir capacity and
 reduction of the effectiveness of flood control structures on rivers
 within the drainage basin due to siltation, (5) problems with
 contaminated sediments including recycling of micro-contaminants due
 to biological or physical disturbance of sediments, (6) dredging
 burdens, (7) disruption of nearshore sediment budgets within Lake
 Erie, (8) changes in longshore transport rates, and (9) resulting
 coastal erosion problems.

      To chose one example, the Ballville reservoir (Sandusky River at
 Fremont, Ohio) is at approximately 20% capacity due to sediment
 infilling over the 85 year history of the reservoir. Reservoir
 drawdown and sediment release could imperil one of the best remaining
 walleye fisheries in the Lake Erie basin. In addition, some of the
 sediments may contain micro-contaminants. Failure to do anything has
 its own concerns. For example, the IVEX Corp. reservoir (Chagrin
 River at Chagrin Falls, Ohio) was a smaller reservoir, at capacity,
 that failed catastrophically in 1994 following heavy rains. I am
 involved in cooperative studies with ODNR on both of these examples.

      I suggest that a new section needs to be added to the P/DEIS
 that introduces the concept of integrated sediment management as a
 goal to be endorsed by the involved agencies. Priorities actions
.toward this goal should include basic research, application of new








technologies (including geological remote sensing, sediment transport
mechanics, and use of Geographical Information Systems), development
of best management practices, and interagency cooperation.

     I once served on a National Academy of Sciences panel concerning
contaminated sediment management. Our study showed that sediments
represent the key player in understanding the dynamics of the Lake
Erie (and other) environmental systems. Unfortunately, our study
also documented that there is a lack of statutory authority and focus
on this key player. I respectfully suggest that this P/DEIS is the
appropriate place to make a new start.

     Best wishes in your endeavors.

                                   Sincerely,



                                   James E. Evans
                                   Associate Professor of Geology



Telephone: 419-372-2414
FAX: 419-372-7205
e-mail: [email protected]



cc: Ms. Donna Wieting
   Acting Director, Ecology & Conservation Office








WRITTEN COMMENT #21: JAMES E. EVANS, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF GEOLOGY,
BOWLING GREEN STATE UNIVERSITY, November 7, 1996

Response to Comment:

Comment noted. No change required.

NOAA and ODNR agree regarding the importance of integrated sediment management, and ODNR
is committed to pursuing focused efforts to address the issues raised. As the commenter mentioned,
several of the cited problems are currently being addressed through cooperative projects with ODNR.
In addition, ODNR and Ohio EPA are committed to mutually developing integrated sediment
management strategies within their update of the Ohio Nonpoint Source Management Program that
will be done in close coordination with the OCMP.






































Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part VII                                    March 1997






                                                          350 Dover Center Road
      (.[tu Of ISULI 'zi[[age                          BAY VILLAGE, OHIO 44140

          THOMAS L. JELEPIS                                    216/899-3415
                MAYOR                                         Fax 216/871-5751

                                                                     QCRI{. EC' Dt 11/20/96
November 12, 1996

Acting Director
Office of Ocean & Coastal Resource Management
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
U.S. Department of Commerce
1305 East-West Highway
Silver Springs, MD 20910

RE:   Ohio Coastal Management Program Draft Document

Dear Sir:

This correspondence is to officially inform you that we are protesting a number of issues
regarding your Coastal Management Policy.

We will send you a detailed explanation within a week, however, we wanted it on record that
we disagree with your methodology, conclusions and findings regarding this very important
issue, and wanted you to be aware of our position.

I support your efforts in the area of coastal management, however, I believe it can be
accomplished without unduly burdening lake front property owners.

Very truly yours,



Thomas L. Jelepis
Mayor, City of Bay Village

TLJ:jev

cc:    Mayor Madeline Cain, City of Lakewood
      Mayor Michael White, City of Cleveland
      Mayor Don Umerley, City of Rocky River
      Bay Village Lake Erie Erosion Control Ad Hoe Committee








WRITTEN COMMENT #22: CITY OF BAY VILLAGE, November 12, 1996

Response to Comment:

Comment (disagreeing with methodology, conclusions and findings on unspecified issues) noted.
No change needed. NOAA received no additional information.















































Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part VII                                   March 1997





                                                                   C~o 'oj,,           v
                                                                       cfo~~~~c





*OHIO COASTAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROJECT

      OCRMP
      P.O. Box 3160
      Kent, OH 44240
      33o/673-1193


                                                                     November 20, 1996

      Joe Uravitch
      Coastal Programs Division
     SSMC-4, Room 11109
     1305 East-West Highway
     Silver Spring, MD 20910

      Dear Mr. Uravitchs

     At the OCRMP annual meeting on November 20, 1996, the board voted unanimously to
     support Ohio's Coastal Management Program and Draft Environmental Impact Statement,
     as published in August 1996, and to urge its approval by the National Oceanic and
     Atmospheric Administration and other federal agencies. This letter is in addition
     to our statement at the October 2, 1996 hearing in Cleveland.

     Sincerely yours,



     Edith Chase
     President








. ~WRITTEN COMMENT #23: OHIO COASTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PROJECT,
      November 22, 1996

      Response to Comment:

      Comment (supporting approval of the program) noted. No change required.

















































      Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Padt VII                              March 1997







           United States Department of the Interior

                      OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
                          Washington. D.C. 20240

In Reply Refer To:
ER-96/594

                                      NOV 19 1998

Mr. Joe Uravitch
Coastal Programs Division
NOAA-U.S. Department of Commerce
SSMC-4, Room 11109
1305 East-West Highway
Silver Spring, Maryland 20910

Dear Mr. Uravitch:

The Department of the Interior (Department) has reviewed the
Combined Coastal Management Program and Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) for the State of Ohio (Volumes I and II),
dated August 1996. The documents adequately describe the fish
and wildlife resources of the coastal zone and the potential
impacts of the proposed action and reasonable alternatives upon
these resources. With the exception of our concerns regarding
consideration of federally listed threatened and endangered
species, as discussed below, we find the proposed action
acceptable.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the Ohio Department of
Natural Resources, Division of Real Estate and Land Management
(ODNR-REALM), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) have been working together for a number of
months to complete a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) outlining
the roles and responsibilities of each of the three agencies for
consideration of federally threatened and endangered species
under Ohio's Coastal Management Program. By letters dated March
8, 1996, and July 1, 1996, the FWS indicated that it could not
provide programumatic endangered species concurrence regarding
Ohio's proposed Coastal Management Program until the MOU is
finalized and signed. In a July 1, 1996, phone call between the
NOAA, the FWS, and the ODNR-REALM, the agencies agreed that a
final, signed version of the MOU would be included in the Final
EIS.

We request that NOAA not publish a final EIS and not make a final
decision on approval of Ohio's Coastal Management Program until
the MOU is finalized and signed by each participating agency, or
a mutually agreeable alternative is developed to ensure adequate
consideration of federally threatened and endangered species in
implementation of the program.  Provided the MOU is finalized,
included in the final EIS, and implemented, Ohio's Coastal
Management Program will be in programmatic compliance with









Mr. Joe Uravitch                                                   2


the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. With the
incorporation of the finalized MOU, or other mutually agreeable
alternative, the Department would support NOAA's approval of
Ohio's Coastal Management Program.

The FWS's Reynoldsburg, Ohio, Field Office will continue to be
the primary point of contact for further coordination regarding
the MOU and other fish and wildlife resource issues relating to
Ohio's Coastal Management Program. Under separate cover, the
FWS will be providing to the NOAA and the ODNR-REALM additional
comments and recommendations concerning the draft version of the
MOU presently under review.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments. If you
have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Ken
Havran in the Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance at
(202) 208-7116.

                              Sincerely,





                              Willie R. Taylor
                              Director
                              Office of Environmental Policy
                                And Compliance




cc: Mr. Clement Lewsey, Chief
     Coastal Programs Division
     Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
     U.S. Department of Commerce
     Silver Spring, Maryland 20910

    Ms. Donna Wieting, Acting Director
     Ecology and Conservation Office
     Room 5805, PSP
    U.S. Department of Commerce
    Washington, D.C. 20230

    Mr. Mike Colvin
    Coastal Management Office, 4th Floor
    ODNR-Div. Real Estate and Land Mgmt.
    Fountain Square
    Columbus, Ohio 43224








is WRITTEN COMMENT #24: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, November 19, 1996

        Response to Comment:

        Comment noted. The referenced MOU has been signed by ODNR and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
        Service. It is included in a Appendix Q. It was mutually agreed in December 1996 that it was
        unnecessary for NOAA to be a signatory to that MOU.













































         Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part VII                               March 1997










                                      FLYNN, PY & KRusE
                                         A LEGAL PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
     OTTAWA COUNTY OFFICE.                   155 EAST WASMINGTON VOW                  JAMES F FLYNN 4iSC7-19631
     11IS WEST Pr-MY STE-                                                              JOPW a PY 119,08.1969t
     PORT CL.INTON OHIO 43482               SANOUSKY, Omio 44870                       RIKRO0 KAPSE .-o
     TELEPHONE (4191 734-aI74 T  L    P H N             a650L                          k1AYMONO N, WATTS 09'rMC
     TELMCOWIEP 14151 734 3175
                                               TELECOM en 1:4191 1925-9oT               EL07J STA&JFFER
                                                                                       WK4 CHARLES iSTEUXI
                                                                                       CHAUI.ES W WATrftIELD
                                                                                       .=MN 0 II
                                                    November 22, 1996                 JOHN A. -PLR
                                                                                       JOHN it mOSIND
                                                                                       ,.AME5 W MACY-
                                                                                       mAIRY JAME S HILL
        Mr. Joe Uravitch                                                              CHRISTOP14EP &L MARINKO
        Acting Director                                                               MANOOL.PF' C. DIGGES. Ill
        Office of Ocean and Coastal                                                   I4~OLICE6CNIW IN TEXAS
          Resource Management
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric
          Administration
        1305 East-'West Highway, N-ORM3
*      ~~Silver Spring, MD 20910

                RE:  -he Draft State of Ohio Coasta Management Program and Draft Environmnenta
                       Invact Statement

        Dear Sir:

                The procem leading to the Ohio Coastal, Management Program (Program) while long- in the
        legislative and statutory evolution has provided only a limited opportunity for public comment. The
        Ohio Revised Code specifically provides in Section 1506.02 that the Director of The Ohio
        Department of Natural Resources was to adopt the Program no later than December 31, 1994.
        That statutory mandate has expired.

                It is further provided in the statute that the Program shall. be adsninistered in accordance
        with the Ohio Coastal Management Program Document (Document).  Therefore, without the 
        approval of the Document the Program as defined by statute is not subect to administration or
        enforcement.

                The critical aspect of the Program is proper notification to the public and the opportunity
        to respond. It is unfortunate dhat the official responses; to the public comments relating to the
        hearings held in the spring of 1992 were not published until the present draft Document was made
        available in September of this year. There has been no procedure to provide for an adequate
        response to public comments pertaining to this Draft Management Program Document.: The
        Program will not be an efficient tool unless sufficient opportunity is given to consider all elements
        of public comment.

               As an example of the timing concern, it should be noted that the last scheduled public
        hearing pertaining to the preliminary identification of Lake Mre Coastal Erosion Areas was held on
        Thursday, November 21st in Cleveland. It is somewhat hard to imagine that the very next day is
        the final day in which comments can be nude pertaining to the Document when one of the essential
        elements is still under public review the day before comments are due. 'the ~ossral erosion area








aspect of the Program contained in Ohio Rcvised Code Sections 1506.06 and 1506.07 is a matter
of specific concern to a majority of property owners on the south shore of Lake Eric. Surely it
would seem that an adequate time frame should be allowed for that aspect of the Program to be
resolved before the final Program Document is approved. This is even without concern 'to the
legislative directive that the Document was already to be adopted no later tha December 31, 1994.

       While the citizens of Ohio are still going through the process of examining and evenitually
identifying Lake Erie Coastal Erosion Areas, the first maps that were available for the identification
of the coastal area for the purpose of the Program were not generally available until Septemzber of
this year. The importance of the Program is based not only upon adequate rules and regulations
but upon public notification and the opportunity for education prior to enforcement.

       The essential element of the Document is composed of the forty-one policy statements. The
policies are classified as enforceable and enhancement policies. An enhancement policy is defined
to provide 'gudance or preferences regarding certain activities, but is not legally binding. !lt may
be a formal state policy or recommendations, or statute with discretionary authority.' (Fart II 5-3)
I will leave it to your speculation as to how the public is to interpret what is mneanr by an
enihancemnent policy. A firther consideration is what does an enhancement policy mean to local
government agencies.

       The Ohio Coastal Management Law was enacted by the adoption of Senate Bill 70,"Which
was effective on March 15, 1989. Section 1506.02 originally required that the Document W.as to
be adopted no later than twenty-four (24) months after the effective date. The statute was, then
amended to change the adoption to no later than December 31, 1994. It has taken from 1989 to
September of 1996 to prepare the Draft Program Document for public review. There now should
be a sufficient period of time, not just a matter of months, to provide full information tcl those
within the coastal area and to property owners direcdly affected by being loctatd on the shoreline
of Lake Eric.

                                           Sincerely,





            W~~~~~~~~~~~~CharlsmS


cc: State Representative Darrell Opfer
       State Senator Elect Bob WUtr
       Gary Boyle, Chief Planner City of Smndusky
       Alex McNichol, Eric County Regional Planner
       Darcy Schee, Director of Greater Eric Marketing
       Donna Weiting










                                                                                        TOTA~L P.03








WRITTEN COMMENT #25: WILLIAM CHARLES STEUK, November 22, 1996

Response to Comment:

1. Comment (regarding statutory mandate to develop the OCMP) noted. No change required. The
Ohio Department of Natural Resources interprets the language, nature, context and object of O.R.C.
Chapter 1506 to be such that the time frame provided in O.R.C. ï¿½ 1506.06 is directory rather than
mandatory. Therefore, noncompliance with the December 31, 1994 date does not undo the
effectiveness of the statute. Noncompliance does not give rise to the invalidation of the underlying
charge by the General Assembly to develop and adopt the OCMP document.

2. Comment (regarding public review) noted. No change required. See response to item #1 of
written comment #2 (Mary Wood). The comment period did remain open for 53 days following the
certified mail notice to private lakefront property owners. ODNR provided extensive public review
and involvement during development of and in conjunction with the filing of the administrative rules
for designating coastal erosion areas. Neither the CZMA nor the Ohio Coastal Management Law
specifies that the comment period must remain open beyond the dates of public hearings on the
preliminary coastal erosion area designation.

It should be clearly noted that, especially with respect to comments regarding coastal erosion areas
and the events described in the last paragraph, that intensive and extensive public review by private
property owners has been provided throughout that entire time period. This has included the
opportunity to review relevant sections of interim drafts of the program document and direct
involvement with rules draft revisions. The commenter raised a concern that official responses to
comments relating to the 1992 draft program document were not published until the present draft
document. ODNR initiated a consultation process immediately following the 1992 review and
worked directly with constituents who raised specific issues. The draft document published in
August of 1996 was reflective of issues resolved during and after the 1992 public review.

3. Comment (regarding enhancement policies) noted. No change required.


















Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Part VII                                   March 1997




                                                                        Rewlejuel l122e(&


            CITY OF CLEVELAND)

         m i h  v R .  w..il e.    I I t


                                               November 21. 1996


            Mr. Joseph A.Uravitch
             Associate Director
            Office of Ocean & Coastal R~esource Management
            National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
             U.S. Department of Commi-erce
             R~oomn  I1S37, N-ORM
             I1305 East-West Highwvav
            Silver Spring, Maryland 20910

                    RE:   Ohio Coastal Management Program Draft Document

             Dear Director Uravitch:

                    [ am writing in regard to your request: For comments regarding the Ohio
            Coastal Managemenc Program (OC"CMP) Draft Document. I appreciate you giving
             me an opportunity to respond to the 0CIMP Draft Document. There a~re two main
            concerns I would like to with share vou.

                    First, f strongly object to references made within the OCMP Draft
             Document regarding "the burning of the Cuyahoga River"(Part 11, sections 2-4, 5-
             24). As you are aware since that time, the Cuyahoga River has undergone a
            significant renaissance and now serves a% it focal point for both economic
             development and recreational activity not oniy for Cleveland residents but for the
             millions of tourists that visit the "Flats" area throughout the year. While I realize
             chat this sad incident did occur in ClevelIand's past, I believe the referencing of this
             incident serves no relevant purpose as it pertains, to the content of the OCMP Draft
             Document. I respectfully requost that these references be removed.

                   Second, I am concerned chat the public ha.- not had the proper amnount of
             time to review the OCMP Draft Document before subm-itting their comments,. For
             example, the 0CMP Draft Documnerc was available only two weeks prior before
             the first public hearing. A document this extensive takes time to review properly
             and therefore the public needs to be given suffidcint time to examine the 0CMP
             Draft Document in order to provide -comprehensive input.

CJ j*IAuWLuiity



            ( .vi-Lu~ii' thei new Ninerican c.-itvI












November 21, 1996
Page Two

       Again, thank you for giving me an opportunity to present theses concerns.

                                      Sincerely,





                                      Michael R. W'hije
                                      Mavor
MI RW:dcf


cc.    The Honorable Don Umerley, Mayor. City of Rocky River
       Hunrer Murrison, Dirmctor. City Planning
       Michael Konicek, Director, Department of Publicurdiliies
       Amy Kdllrgg








. ~WRITTEN COMMENT #26: CITY OF CLEVELAND, November 21, 1996

       Response to Comment:

       1.  Comment (regarding the Cuyahoga River) noted. The references have been deleted in the ElS.

       2. Comment (regarding public comment period) noted. No change needed. See response to item
       #1 of written comment #2 (Mary Wood). In addition, the attorney for the City of Cleveland has been
       actively involved in reviewing and commenting on rules revisions and other draft elements of the
       program document over the past four years. The city submitted lengthy comments on the 1992 draft
       public review document. ODNR carefully considered those comments and incorporated them into
       the draft program document and DEIS. The latter document has not changed materially since that
       time other than to update agency policy language, incorporate public comments, and revise statutory
       language and rules changes that the City of Cleveland actively participated in negotiating.

       ODNR wanted to ensure that there would be ample opportunity for review and comment by the
       public, and therefore requested that the customary 45-day review period for a draft environmental
       impact statement be lengthened to 70 days from the date of the Federal Register notice of September
       6, 1996. This period was later extended by one week to allow for a total of 77 days from date of
       publication of the Federal Register notice. Also, the document was mailed directly to many
       constituents as well as provided to public libraries and many other accessible locations.






























       Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS  Parit VII                                 March 1997








                                     S~~~~


                         215 PennsyolvaiaAvenue, S.E., Washingon, D.C. 20003  Tel: 2021546-9554  Fax: 202/546-9609





                                MW. koe, UrVild                                  November 22, 1996


BOARD OF DIRECTOR~WSSM , Ioo  I1109
        Nat Armingeon           1305 Eulk-Wgat Highwy
 LamPntcataiiTn  Bsi ouidn      SilvuSpiingAD 209 10
Done Bosch
DMr Bennett
 Amrnsican Uttoral Societ      'k Fac~mil said RMi Cass MaR
Scot Bumns
 Wodld Widilfe Fund
Derb Cart ew                          k LmM
  Souther Envimnmgnal Law Canerer    ?fUavt:
Sarah Cheasi
  Natural Resources Delense Council    Ecoo  laefn  i  omnso  h  ut  fOi   osa
David Conrad                           Eco    ~        idorcmet  nteSw    fOi  bs
 National Wildife Federation
Cifton Cum$                    MwxagewiwW n andrw  Wd~~ Emin~rmaneal Impact Statement
        Eleanor Dorsa y         Vob&WewI. Th  coammnts are submitted on behalf of the Coast Afliance
 Conservation Law Foundation   and twelve Ohi citizen groups W   indivduals. (For the names and
Tim Elcm brg
 Center for Maine Conserveitona uu of 0Adoram, M  attache.)
Kafth Fletchar
  People for Puget Sound
            Mulsa y     ~      ~~~~~We recoguzhe that the State of Ohio has been tiying for many years
Men~~a Clb MMV Sfi.-           to ddvelop a plan that is acceptable to both the National Ocean and
 Conmmile to Preserve Assateagus Island   Atmospheric Administration and its citizens. It is understood that many
 Orgn Ntua Resreroxd            aspects of this plan have been met in the past, with much opposition from

    NaurlReorcsDfes     Counil  develper and land owners. However, it is of opinion that this Program's
         United Aut Woricarsmain goa Whulxm be to protec Lake Euiies shoreline Wn its resources.
Arnold    Leon '~~WAt this mind the foloing comments, are focused on those areas that we
DGMMrin  weel     of the aftg  importanc in defnting goals and enforcement
 American Oceans CanTagft
David M~tle            MaP""i   for the ONiO cm"ta m~anement~u Progra.
 National AuJ~bo Society

  Vivi~Cast Nedeatin                  It is our hoe tha tAe Ohio Department of Naftural Resources and
DaidE.rmau                     the Nafmical Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminisration examine these
Dr.-f d  te Earth N~W         coonifsu ad address our coca=s and recommendations. Without
         Duke I.W~relty ,      additon to the dmft Ohio plan, it is our fear that the Ohio Coastal
Anne W. SknnM n MtPor    ilnthv h nocaiim on  h            ustnet
Si*erra cu                     maintain  dF protct the coadtfrom overdevelopment and pollution.
Boyce ThornsMMet
  Chf dO                               We vAM like to acknwledge the hard work done by the State of

 Clean Ocea Actin

 listed lor Identification pupase only                       icael



                                                            sueVe.
                                cc: ML. DOPM Modal








                          xjjes mind Addresses or Endorsers


Sue Veres,                                           steve Sedam
Coast Alliamc                                         Grea Lakes Regional Vice President
I2I5 Pennsylvania, Ave., SE                          Great Lake ROgional office,
washingon, DC 20003                                  National Audubon Society
                                                    692 N. High St., Suite 208
                                                    Columnbus OH 4321 5


GleimLanders                                         Scott Sanders
Great. Lakes Specialist                              Co-Executive Director
             Stara Club, Grea  Labs Pn~rm            Earth Day Co~alition
2460 Fairmount #307          3 0                rdeAe
Cleveland Heights, OH 44106                          Cleveland, OH 44028

Raymond C. Zebler                                    Carol Avril
Executive DirectorPrsdn
Izaak Walton League                                  Audubon SocietY Of Ohio
900 MormanRd.                                        3398 W. Goibraith Rd.
Hamilton, OH 45013-4358                              Cincnnti OH 45239

 Meldi Daiwar                                         Brian Ulm
 President                                            Endangered Species Chair
 OhNO E~W&ronnwna CowwIl                              Northeast Ohio Steara Club
 1207 Grwanviaw Mve., Ste. 201                        353 Ha≤ Dr.
 Columbus, OH 43212                                   EuclKd  OR 44132

 Ray Bing                                             Pate Matthem s
 Leagu of Ohio spmtiunCo RnigBasotr
 25459 Sprague Rd.                                    4603 Moreland Ave.
 Columbia. Station. OH 44028                          Willoughby, OH 44094

              Amy Simpson                            ~~~~~~~~Dorothy Fike
 Dmyrector                                            20271 Delaware Rd.
 OhiorPIG                                             EUClid OH 44117
 2460 Fairmount #307
 Cleveand Heigts OH 44106

    Katlee LBarbar
  2 BrtnahlM Place, 7-D
  Cleveand OH 44108







              COMMENTS ON:

             STATE OF OHIO
COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
                    AND
 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
               STATEMENT
                VOLUME I


                 Submitted by:
                 Coast Alliance
                      amd
             Audubon Society of Ohio
             Cool Running Bassmasters
               Earth Day Coalition
 Great Lakes Regional Office, National Audubon Society
               Izaak Walton League
             League of Ohio Sportsmen
            Northeast Ohio Sierra Club
            Ohio Environmental Council
         Ohio Public Interest Research Group
          Sierra Club, Great Lakes Program
              _   bt sm dao     u  p)We


                  Prepared by:
                    Sue VAere
                  coto Mlimc








                                    INTRODUCTION

       The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) was signed into law by President Nixon in
 1972 in response to growing national concern over coastal and ocean pollution. The message
behind the CZMA is clear. Increaing and competing demands caused by population growth and
economic development are destoying sensitive, irreplaceable coastal resources, and it is in the
nation's interest to do something about it.

       A state and federal partnership is established through the CZMA. States develop
comprehensive coastal management program meeting federal standards in exchange for federal
funding and  say over federal actions affecting their coastal zones.

       The Department of Conmmerce's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) administers the CZMA program. To qualify for federal funding, states must include in
their programs protection of natura resources including wetlands, estuaries, beaches, dunes and
barrier isads. Coas    devopmnt i to be managed, especially that in flood- and erosion-prone
aress. And the public is to be provide access to the coasts for recreation.

       Along with federal fndig, the CMA also gives states a tool to ensure that activities that
ffct a tate's  ast ae coasistent with the state's own plans for its coast. The consistency
provision requires the federal government, and private parties using federal licenses or permits, to
abide by state laws, relaton md polcies that are part of a state's coastal management
program. The consistency provision ens inpuit over dredging and dumping activities, offshore
oil and gu development, and other activities that affect the lands and waters of a coastal state.

       Th  fllowing    es hve federally approved coastal zone management plans: Alabama,
AlA, American Samo, Caifornia, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Guam, Hawaii, Louisiana,
Maine, Marylan d,                Michign, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New
York, North Carolina, Nortn Marianas, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island;
South Carolin, Virginia, Vi'in   and, Wahington,     d Wiconsin.

       We realize that Ohio is amxious to join the aforementioned states in having a federally
approved Coastal M -           Progrm. While we commend the state agencies and the
Goveror for their efforts, we have seio  concerns with the management policies as set forth in
this progm, as is disued in the f  owing section.

       Our cownmu  wre praed on behalfofthe Cot Alliance and twelve other
orPg Zt          and citizes. The conats track the topics covered in the dra  Ohio Coastal
Mangement ProMra.









                    L COASIAL EROSION AND FLOODING

       There are many concerns pertaiing to the coastal erosion and flooding policies in the
Ohio Coastal Maagern  Program (OCMP).

1. Lack of Setback Reu MehmA

       The issue of grntt concern i that the Program lacks setback requirements. It is
       understood that proposed setback requirements were deleted from the draft Program a
       few yeam ago, but it is very important that they will be incorporated in the OCMP in the
       fature.

       Many resources ae exhted helping to protect structures in the coastal erosion and
       flood-prone ar,  wich could be used for other policy implementation. OCMP should
       design and implement setback   delines, and prohibit further development within these
       are. OCMP should also manage those houses and buildings currently situated in flood
       hazard areas. Any fiurther development or additions to the buildings should require a
       permit. These permits should require that any and all construction be built landward from
       the home or buiWdin

       Upon setting guidines,  OCMp should look at North Carolina's post-storm policy on the
       relace t/reconuc     of structures. Any structure which suffers over 50 percent
       damage in North Caolina must comply with the current required setback and construction
       madeinoa


2.  _truch Erosion Con   IDrou Am E 

       Another major concern with the Ohio Coastal Management Program is that of structural
       erosion control measies which appear to be encouraged in the Program. When seeking
       authorization and permits to construct any home or building within the delineated erosion
       area, OCMP states that it is necesMy to have erosion control measures in place. The
       Program indicates that these control measures will be evaluated by determining if any
       adverse fects will transpie, but it does not explain what the state of Ohio's definition of
       adverse efct include.

      Culative impacts do not appear to be a criteria when evaluating the potential of erosion
      control measures to accerate erosion along the shoreline. The OCMP should take into
      account the fact tht certain devices, such  as ewlls, have been proven to increase the
      eraion  ,rae aong aoe shorens.

      The CrUUlative mpts of  astal erosion control measures may be further accelerated by
      a lack ofa satwide cotal erosion area program  Curently, the OCMP does not
      mention any plans to develop a regional management program. Ohio may want to model a
      proram ater that ofth state of Wisconsin. In an attempt to reduce the cumulative


                                                                             Page 1









       effects of varying coast  erosion eas' ordinances, the state has developed, under the
       Wisconan Coastal Man  ement Program (WCMP), a department within the WCMP that
       will provide hawda analysis and manageent suggestions to local governments. This
       department also acts as a coordinator between local governments and state agencies. By
       listing the local goveaments, Wisconsin hopes to move toward a state-wide
       comprehe      hazards mnagement program.


3. Use of Non-Structural Erosion Control Devices Needs More SuDOort

       Along with a state-wide erosion control structure ordinance, OCMP needs to include
       incentives for the utilization of non-structural techniques for erosion control. The
       Program indicates that dthe state encourages this utilization, yet it provides no catalysts to
       encourage non-tructur  over structural means. If a permanent erosion control device
       costs more than the building it is meant to protect, it is a certain indication that the
       building should not be phlaced there to begin with. OCMP should formulate regulations
       prohibiting the construction ofstctural erosion control devices if their cost to construct
       is greater than the value of the building they are designed to protect. OCMP also needs to
       include such incentives a tax breaks or tax credits for the use of non-structural erosion
       control measures.

       Another option would be to follow the lead of North Caruolina. North Carolina does not
       permit the use of p'rnmt erosion control devices such as seawalls, wooden bulkheads,
       or concrete breakwals. The preferd measures for dealing with long-term erosion are
       either relocation of the threateed building or soft approaches. At the very least the
       OCMP should cleary ponounce that it will not enter into agreement nor financially assist
       the construction or minteance of hard erosion control devices. It would be best for
       coastal resources if OCM eventually banned structural erosion control devices.

       If at this time, the state does not feel that banning structural erosion control devices is
       feasible, the state should enact a plan similar to that of Michigan. The Michigan Great
       Lakes Submergd ads Act authorizes the state's Department of Natural Resources to
       regulate the consmction and pbacement of erosion control devices along the shoreline.
       Approval of a poject is not rated unless it is detennined that the adverse effects to the
       enironmest, public trust and riparian interests of adjacent owners are minimal and will be
       nmitigated to the etent poible, and that there is no feasibe or prudent alternative to the
       applicant's proposed activity. To avoid the use ofhard erosion control devices, the
       Mlchigan Coastal Manageent Program (MCMP) offers grants for the re-establishment
       and stabilization of fbruema, dune grass planting dune fencing and the establishment of
       native vegetable cover on steep slopes. Ohio could take this another step and offer grants
       for wetland presrvation and restoration






                                                                                 Page 2











       Another concern regrding the coastl erosion aea is that of current buildings situated
       within the delineated erosion zone. OCMP hu again neglected to specifically state
       whether or not a current property owner is affected by the policies set forth in this
       document. The Progunm asserts that any construction within the delineated erosion zone
       must be approved, and a permit received by the Director of the ODNR, but it does not
       indicate if this includes those ares where construction has already taken place.

       The Program also clirm that issuance of these permits must meet certain criteria unless
       the applicant will suffr an extrme hardship without the permit. OCMP should define
       which ituaions will be  asified uas hardship cases. Ohio could model a rebuttal against
       economic hardship aftr a Michigan statute that is specifically designated to protect dunes.
       Ohio could expand this legidation, applying it to all construction permits. The Michigan
       Suand Dunes Protection and Manageme Act requires alternative construction methods in
       order to minimize the impct on dunes. Referring to hardship cases, the Act analyzes the
       cost of compliance with the construction requirements in an attempt to refute claims of
       economic hardship. Ohio needs to establish a solid, well-defined method in which to
       refite fil  hardship caes. This needs to be done to ensure that developers do not use
       hardhip claims as a loophole to get around the permit guidelines set forth in the OCMP.

       The state  hould utiize gt  and loca and state shared costs, to encourage compliance
       with the erosion gals and poliies. Without incentives, it is possible that individuals may
       follow the easit and leat epesive methods to meet regulations, thus negating all of the
       etnhncement policies set forth in the OCMP. It is recomnended that the state offer
       incentives to restore natuI   buffea, such u wetlands, or legislate regulations prohibiting
       additional dveiopmet within the costal erosion area The Ohio Coastal Management
       Program must take into account that 25 percent of the state's population lives within the
       coastal ar   and it is expected to increas to 9,006 people per square mile by the year
       2010.' Additional residents will incase the pressure to develop within the coastal
       erosion area Now is the time for the state to take precautionary measures to prevent
       overdeveopmet and protct the erosion-prone ueas along Lake Erie's coatline.

5. C.    oaon Are DdMgn Not Included in OCIhe

       It is undMtood th  the rules for designating the Lake Erie coastal erosion area and the
       rulet for  forcin the Lake Erie coastal erosion area are found in the OCMP Appendices
       G and H respectively, but th OCMP still lacks the coastal erosion maps. This lack of
       information makes it difficult to put the erosion mnuagement policies proposed by OCMP
       into context. Because the coastal erosion delineation was written as separate document
       than the OCMP it was diffw   fr ornizations to conduct an in-depth review of both
       documents.




                                                                                Page 3








6.  ~l~a1Public Should Have the Ommortunitv to Comment on the Coastal Erosion Area


    It is imperative that the public be able to vocalize their concern ovea the Incusioft or
    exclusion of land in the coastal erosion arma According to OCMP, only the propwcey
    owners and jurisdictions delineated will be notified of their identification within the coastal
    erosion area. It is also indicatd in the OCM? that the property owners will be the sale
    individuals who have the opportunity to obect to the delineation, thereby excluding the
    general public fRom the commnurt period. Every citizen who has concerns regarding the
    delineation of the coastal erosion aue should have the opportunity to testify at the public
    hearng and have, their comments heard.

    If the general publi is excluded from Whs procems the comments received will be biased in
    ophinio. It is probdvle that the property owners would prefer that their homes not be
    included in -the delinestioe, as it will be finceasingly diffcult for those individuals to sell
    their honme or obtain private, insurac. 0CNP nmust hear from those individuals who
    would not only like to see, their coast protected, but are not directly impacted by the
    designafion of the coastal erosion area. It is requested-that a final public review and
    comnunt period be granted to the general public, foliowing the property owner's appeal of
    the coastal erosion area delineatin




























                                                                               Page 4









             IL MANAGEMENT AND ENFORCEMENT OF POLICIES

       There are many conoer  pertaining to the management and enforcement of the policies
set forth in the Ohio Co astal Mn  Program.

1. Lack ofEnfor       itv

       The issue ofgravest concern is the lack of enforceability of these policies. Less than half
       of the policies proposed in the Program, 43 percent to be exact, are enforceable, legally
       bding polices.

       A fundamental example of the lack of enforceability of this Program is located in the
       Recreation and Cultural Resources section. This section consists of Policies 21 through
       26. There are twenty-five "subpolicies" within these six principal policies; of these
       twenty-five "sub-policies", only six are enforceable. This example represents a 24 percent
       enforceability quotient which is less than oneuarter of the proposed policies.

      Due to the fict that the state lacks legislative authority to curb development, urban sprawl
      is a primary concern. OCMP must re-evalute these policies to determine the plausibility
      that developers and private land owners will forfeit profits for the sake of the environment
      without legally binding policies. There are little or no incentives for these parties to follow
      the guidelines rpecdd in the enancement policies. OCMP makes no mention of
      inmentive, such as tax reuctions or credits, which can be used to entice land owners to
      comply with the poliie wich are not enforcable by law.

      Ohio may want to model a program after states that use legislation concerning issues such
      as reuicting hazardous development along the coasts. New York developed a Regional
      Coastal M      me   Pronm  (RCMP). This program analyzes development trends
      along the shoreline. The progrm directs new growth to areas which are already
      developed. The OCMP should se adsting regulations or formulate additional regulations
      that prohibit unwise ativities i the coastal aret Additional regulations may be needed to
      modify the proposed ehmcemnt policies into legally binding enforceable policies.

      Another emple ofthe lack ofenforceability of the OCMP may be found at Part II 5-1:
      The OCMP encourgs local overnent to exercise their responsibilities and may also
      provide f    mdi  astance for the development of port and waterfront master plans...".
      This type of pokcy catr  ncertainty about the stipulations set upon the local
      govements; it is unclear whetr local govaements are required to develop port and
      wateront master plsu iffinanial usistance is not offered by the state. OCMP could
      require local govammWs  to do so, regardless ofthe state's involvement. Clear
      regulatios would asist local govermnents in determining in which areas development will
      be pernitted, and in which areas dvelopment will be prohibited. These determinations
      would failitate local Sovernment efforts in developing zoning regulations and alleviate
      local presu   they   y feel fiom developers. The state should lead in the protection of
      the cot, as it is a roesom   of   n izens'h livin   Ohio.


                                                                               Page 5









The OCMP needs to identify the fact that the coast is a valuable resource for the entire
state, not just developers and coastal property owners. ODNR states that the Program
was written with the asamptions that "Multiple use of the resource as a whole is
inherently in the public interest" (Part 11 5-2). The enactment of this policy is directly
affected by the state's definition of 'the public", which is not clearly defined in the OCMP.
It is not apparent if the public encompasses developers, private land owners, comwrcial
fishern, en                  conservationists and/or future generations. OCMP needs to
take into account that various members of the public have differing opinions of what is in
their bet interest and what activities should account for "multiple use."

It is also an amupion of the OCMP that the enforcement of this Program may require
th examination of user f   and public/private initiatives. When examining the plausibility
of user fes, OCMP needs to involve those individuals whose financial situation would
prohibit their ability to use public facilities should a user fee be enacted. Perhaps low-
income individuals could obtain "fiee monthly passes" to public parks, beache, etc. in a
dirct effort not to exclude those individuals who would otherwise be unable to use public
resources.

Another concern regarding the differental among income status is the guidelines, set forth
in the OCMP, fr local health departments. While OCMP encourages local health
departments to establish pemnitting systems fbr operation of public beaches and to develop
reguhtions regarding water quality, it does not indicate that the state will provide any
afnding to do so. In addition, in order to gain some enforcement capabilities, it would be
pratical for OCMP to provide guidelines for local health departments. The state should
provide fiding for those local government who do not have adequate fimds to test the
water frequently. If the state does not grant these communities the necessary capital,
some mui cip         it auff  from low standards and less frequent testing, which could
rsult in an inueas ofhealth problems.

Although the OC     states cearly that it will manage many important activities and
projects in the coastal area, uch as the water quality of the resources, and the manner in
which resources me used, it dos not provide enforceable policies regarding the loss of
available oal resorces. The enforceable policies set forth in the OCMP that pertain to
water quantity, Policies 39 though 41, deal only with the permitting and registration of
water withdrawal Thesre policies do not give the OCMP any authority to maintain the
Lak's current water quantity. This exclusion needs to be corrected, after a11, the
reduidon and  veniural Ibo  of coastal resources would negate the necessity of the
established managmIt practices. These management policies should include clear
langu ag     e aolicies fbr the maintenance and restoration of the current resource
base.

Aother concern rgarding the management approach incorporated in the OCMP is that it
fbcuses only on the impact of activities not the activities themselves, that affect Lake Erie.
The state should concentrate on the land use activities that cause the pollution rather than


                                                                           Page 6









       using rewource, which  e both valuable and scarce, to clean up the pollution after it has
       contaninat  the coastal rea If land use practices were the focus of regulations it would
       lead to a reduction in the amount of funds and efforts needed to protect the coastal area.

2. Adfjoia Initiatives Which Need to be IncorDorated Into the OCMP

       * It is understood that under the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments,
           Section 6217, Ohio is required to address land use practices that cause degradation of
           the coastal wate, such as wbhn runoff and agricultural runoff Upon approval, it will
           be extremely important for the OCMP to incorporate Ohio's Coastal Nonpoint
          Pollution Control Program (Section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization
           Amendments) into both the Ohio Coastal Management Program and its Clean Water
          Act. Upon i      orration, the OCMP should maintain its concentration on addressing
          those ld use practices that not only caue coastal water degradation, but also those
          activities that dimini  habitat and public   ess to the coastline.

       * Another, separate plan which needs to be incorporated into the OCMP is the wetland
          water quality standards. It is imperative that those standards be incorporated into the
          OCMP and that their enforment be directed by the OCMP.

          A study conductd by the National Audubon Society, Great Lake Regional Office, has
          found that Ohio is expiencing a net loss of wetlands. This net loss is found when
          looking scly at the permits which were given to developers, it does not take into
          account the amount ofwetlands lost due to failed mitigation efforts. Therefore it is
          X mely important fir the OCMP to strictly monitor mitigation projects when
          rcin the wetland wate quality standards. The OCMP should ensure that
          mitigation proje   do not take place outside of the immediate watershed in
         which a wetland was lost. It is desired that OCMP ultimately coordinate "all [state
         agencies] to institute a 'minuium on-the-ground, excluding enhancement and
         peserI vation, tigation ratio of [2-1] fr all projects in order to replace already
         destroyed wetlands, both in acrage and in fiunction, and to offset the possibility of
         mi'tition tlm.  The OCMP should establish mitigation criteria that preserve all
         types ofw and systems. The p       reservation of existing wetlands should not be
         recognized as a fm fmitilption" 2

          W      iorporating the water quality standards, it is consequential that OCMP
          i f stii  d cand cleMy d ne who the general public is. This definition needs to be
          mined when considering the public's long-term benefits regarding financial
          usistance givn to private landowners for restoration, enhancement and management
          of idsting wetlands. Ohio has already lost 88-90 percent of its presettlement
         w and  mking it secod only to Cafnia in percent of original wetlands
         conveted.3 It is hoped tha OCMP will eventually prohibit any further destruction of
         welands in the coustl are, and use incentives to restore wetlands.




                                                                               Page 7









   * Sensitive areas other than wetlands also need enforceable policies within the OCMP.
       It is understood that, although the Director of ODNR creates, supervises, operates,
       protects and maintains wild, scenic and recreational rivers, he/she does not restrict
       land use of a property owner within the area surrounding the designated river. If the
       state cannot or will not regulate activities within area surrounding the designated
       rivers, OCMP should utilize incentives to encourage land owners to properly care for
       the aras.

   * There are a number of other separate policies that need to be incorporated into the
       OCMP. Without them there is little to no enforcement capabilities for the proposed
       poped should be.
           * The lake-wide management plan (LaMP) that is being developed should be
              incorported into the OCMP as soon as it is finished. The LaMP will address
              many ofthe same concerns as the OCMP-such as the impacts of exotic
              ipspo and loss of habitat- and should therefore be an integral part of an
              updated fiue volume of the OCMP..
           * Another plan that is curently not available but should be coordinated with the
              OCMP is the State Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan. This plan
              will give the state the enforcment capabilities it needs to combat such
              pr     atic species u the zeba mussel.
           * OCMP should also incorporate the long-term water resources plan, when
              complte, which should be utilized to administer the state's water management

           *  In 19I8, there was a state law that mandated the creation of a water
              conmraion law, this law ha not been implemented. The OCMP should
              encurage that this law be followed and a water conservation law be created;
              once ooled this law should be incorporated into the OCMP.
           *  A Ib -tam sediment nmagement plan for harbor and navigation channels
              need to be incorporated into the OCMP as well. Without a coordinated effort
              with the Army Corp of Enginers, the state has little enforceable regulations
              over the dredging projects within Lake Erie's ports. Without the legal
              requirments ofthese additional plans, the OCMP is left with little enforcement



3.   gm      Ohio PC    M      ce__       rr

   As new local, state and fedend regulations develop, it is suggested that the OCMP be
   updated on a regular basuirs, peraps every 3-5 years. The public should be provided the
   opportunity to participate in a periodic review that would allow for an analysis of the
   ustrths and weaknesses of the OCMP. It will also allow ODNR to update the Program
   in acordance with nm  envirmntal probems.





                                                                             Page 8









                          III. PUBLIC ACCESS

Currently, Ohio's coastal ame has a population of 2,736,00, or 8,892 people per square
mile. This is 25,percut of the stae's total population. In 1988, 8,892 people per mile
livedalo~ng Oho's coast. The number isoexecedto increaseto 9,006bythe year201O."
Alog with the in&mxof populaton will come an increase in the pressure to develop along
the Lake Mre shore. Whil OCMP mentions that plans should be designed to reduce the
effacts of contiWnue rsdential development along the coast, it has not developed the
coordwtilsing pld.

It shiould be a Soal offiture, revised "ditons of the OCMP to design and coordinate plans
that would limit fiather deavelopment of the state's coastal area. Development along the
coast impedes public access to the L4ke and, its resources. Ohio may wants to develop a
program modeled afte mmte that use legislation as a means to restrict development that
blocla public accea  lalo* the shoreline.

New York, an, eamn4e of such a state, developed a Regional, Coastal Management
Program (RCMP). This program analyzes development trends and then directs new
development to areas that are already developed. Ohio could create incentives-for
instace tax abatenwits for business and industry to redevelop shoreline brownfields.

Another state tha is taking a legislative approach to counterac overdevelopment of the
shoreline is Wiscoaski The state has developed a department within the Wisconsin
coastal MaaeetProprm (WCMP) that will provide hazards analysis and
  mmnagemIt 21ggsaionis to local governments, and wigl act as a coordinator between local
   govern mens n  the state agencies. By assisting the local governments, Wisconsin hopes
to move towards a statewide comprehiensive hazards management program. Ohio could
adopt this strateg and apply it to a statewide zoning regulation. Because activities
takng place in one coastal namicipality affect adjacent municipalities, statewide and
regional planning is of great necessity when attmpting to protect public access. It is
imperatve that the OCMP utiiz this metho  of planning in future endeavors.

While the primary VWa of the state should be to mainitain or create public access to the
shore for recraioalm and public uses it should not provide any financial assistance for
thoue activities which nay potentially cause damage to the Lake resources. When creating
publi acees poifts fir recrational use. the OCMP should maintain and restore all
availabl green Rumea  Activtie which shiould not be finded by the stae include paving
arms nea fth lA~aehr for parking and constrticting additional public waccs points for
persnal watercrmfta such as JetSkis. JetSkis should be strictly limited because of nonroad
sources, the EPA has determined that gasoline marine engines ame one of the largest
             aveageconribtor ofhyrocrbo exaus emssinsto the atmosphere and to water
             poiltionS Iiprovdwrgnesaetobphaadinfoin1998 to 2007 but until then, the
state should limit the unownt of public points fbr such watercrafls.




                                                                         Page 9








Mme OCM? PAsol  apply a coordinated approach ofmreulations and incentives in order to
protet the arma aloiM the Lake that are still accessible to the public. The state shouldW
protwc and add to the natural areas through multiple financing opportunities. For
example, the OCMP could provide fuinding to buy private land before the real estate rates
increas fiwtter due to the increase of population along the coast. The state could also
utilize a priat and state initiative flmding method to protect natural areas that are
available for publi uwe. Tax incetives could be given for public access point maintenance
or creatio. Lake Edie is a resource and treasure which should be available to all citizens
of the sate.







































                                                                         Page 10








                             IV. EDUCATION

 Reprding the education of state and local officials, an oversight appears to have been
 made in the Ohio Coatal Managemnt Program. It is very important that all of the state
 agencies become educated about the Ohio Coastal Management Program. Increased
 knowledge ofthe importance of the coast and of its fragile existence is imperative to help
 resolve of inter-agency conflicts. It is very important that the staff administering OCMP
work closely with such agencies as the Ohio EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers.
Without the expertise and support of other key state agencies, the OCMP staff will have
to use precious  rces, including time, to mediate inter-agency misunderstandings.

A formal body should eventually be developed and incorporated into the OCMP to ensure
cooperation among the varying ideas and interests of the state agencies. The Lake Erie
Conmmission could be used to fllfil this position. Currently, the Commission has no
power, but ifgin suficient authority it could act as the coordinating body among the
agenes.

Along with state employees, local officials, including the planning commissions, should be
educated about the requirements and objectives of the OCMP. This is of great importance
given the fact tht, within OCMP, such important factors as zoning regulations are left up
to local govsomnmt. These decision-makers need to be informed of the hazards that
accompany the conrruction of new development. They also need to made aware of other
key issues, such    the enviromnetal benefits of using non-structural erosion control
meanues within the coastal zone. Because OCMP has left the ultimate decisions to the
local offcials, these 'ndividuals must be educated about the goals, strengths and
weaknesses of this program. OCMP should mandate education for all city, municipal and
county ofici  witin thi  oaoutl zone.

These idividuals should then do outreach to the public to inform citizen groups and other
entities of the envir enta hazards associated with development along the shore, as well
as the beneftr of hving a healthy coas in relation to human health and the economy.

OCMP needs to work with other decision-makers to disseminate information that it
collects to guarantee thst    many individuals a possible become educated about the
importance of protecting and preserving the Lake.

It is viy importa that state, local and federal officials work together to coordinate the
OCMP planning proes. Agencies should include interest groups, experts and
universities wmhn pianig and initiating the various policies of the Program to ensure that
the agenda is MOfiWd.

With education comm compyason. Knowledge will encourage more individuals to
participate in the decision maklng proces, and hopeflly begin to take a more active role
in prctng   d comerving the Lake Erie coast. The more individuals who know about
the Hi  ecosystemn of Lake Erie, the more lily they are to feel personal responsibility


                                                                        Page 11








ad  'itificdsot  with he Lake. This new insight could help stir individuals to protect the
reources and not exploit them. OCMP needs to develop its role as an educator for the
Lake and its ecoryam.













































                                                                      Page 12













'COW ARLnW, StaM  offhe COW  A StA2 -by Staoe Analylg of the Vita Link Between Healthy Coagst ad a
HeaIolyEcosamvy. Comt AlUum: Wasinguz D.C. June 1995. ppel43.
& JW uliN M, TWet.ad "Wt       ti'tbom Rquircments In Ohio", Great Lakes Wetlands. Volume 7, NuwbC 3.
tip atl, Mitt Waterbshd Coirl: Cowrny, MI. OetoIer 1996,. pag  .
ï¿½ Sibbling. JuIe ii, UWea  Mi~tigation Requirements in Ohio,' Great Lakes Weldands. Volume 7, Number 3.
Tip of the MN  Watmhed CoomW: Conwy, NE  October 1996. pae 4.
4Coa Wt Ai"aMee StE of die Coast: A Stat by Stat Analyss of the Vital ink Between Healthy Coasts and a
HeakhylEco~,omry. Cost All~am: Wuhingtoa  D.C. June 1995. pge 143.
 'EPA ismies air niles ~r Bo i     perr smatl wuertcraftL, Great LAkes Commission Advisor. Great Lake
Ciurmnio.d~: ~   Ad b, M,       S    K          1996. pop 9.