[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
STATE OF OHIO COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRA FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT VOLUMEI t'. @d J0 -5- A 6@ -W 'g, j @"T OF CO @41 OH D < V of Naturaj Reso=eq U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management and Ohio Department of Natural Resources Property of CSC Library 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, N/ORM3 Silver Spring, Maryland 209 10 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. I I *i I I I I I I 40 1 I I I I I I 0 Printed on recycled paper An equal opportunity employer-M / F / H I ov m 0 -1 Part I or OVERVIEW 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. � 1506.06-.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 terined "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 H 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 adirlinister 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 Organization 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 11. 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 11 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 III of this Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS PaA I - I March 1997 document. Maps delineating Lake Erie coakal 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 Quala 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 Ecologically 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; 0hio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Part 1- 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 Development The ODNR has broad authority to protect the public trust in Lake Erie waters and underlying lands Z:1 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 Quality 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. Energy 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 energ facilities. Key authorities: ff 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 Quaa!Lty 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 11, 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 Pan I - 4 March 1997 3. GeogrWhic 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 IEL 4. Other Special Planning Requirements 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 IEL Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Pan 1- 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. � 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 H of the document describes the procedures that RE-ALM 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 H 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 EEI of this document. Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Part 1- 6 March 1997 Part 111. 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 Il 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 � Ohio EPA Policy for Purchase of High Quality Wetlands as Partial Mitigation for Wetlands Destruction � Ohio EPA Standard Wetland Mitigation Conditions � Executive Order 90-68 � Ohio Department of Natural Resources Policy Statement pn Wetlands 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 tn 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 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 Management for approval pursuant to section 306 of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 as amended (CZMA), 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 program 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: [email protected] 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 1. OVERVIEW A. Summary of the Ohio Coastal Management Program 1 B. Changes the Program Will Make 6 C. The Federal Coastal Zone Management Act 7 D. Cross Reference to Program Requirements 9 Part 11. 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 5-69 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 Pem-iit 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 vi 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 145 1). 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. 10 1 -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 C2MA 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: I . 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 Pan 1- 7 March 1997 1 6. Includes sufficient lecal authorities and organizational structure to implement the t) program and to ensure conformance to it. In arriving at these substantive aspects of the management program, states are obligated to follow 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 C2MA 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. 40 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 C2MA. 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 deten-nination regarding its compliance with section 6217. Ghio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Part I - 8 March 1997 D. Cross Reference to Program Requirements How the Ohio Coastal Management Program Meets the Requirements of the Coastal Zone Management 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 Il (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 10 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)(1 1) 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 �6217 ............ 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 Part 11 IV DESCRIPTION OF THE >. OHIO COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM r IME 00" 0 STATE OF OHIO 1" 01:0 OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR GEORGE V. VOINOVICH COLUMBUS 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. Washin-ton, 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, G e o rg Voinovich Governor j*G G@eorgl GVV:ao, TABLES Table Page National Flood Insurance Participation Status 5-17 2 Tributary Designations 5-29 3 Air Quality Standards Nonattainment Status 5-109 FIGURES Figure 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 Lae 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 UC International Joint Commission IMT Integrated Management Team, ODNR Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Part 11 - 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 Pan 11 - 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 II - 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. 10 I Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Part II - vii March 1997 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ML 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; 0 Consolidation and streamlining of various governmental coastal permit procedures to facilitate the application process for residential, commercial and industrial developments; 9 Enhanced protection of coastal natural areas, wetlands and fish and wildlife habitats; Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Part 1E[ 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 Boundga 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. � 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 Partll 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 manacement policies. First, by state law (O.R.C. � 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. 1n 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 o f 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][[ 1 - 3 March 1997 Detailed explanations of these issues and policies are provided in Chapter 5. Special Management 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 (APQ 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 & Final EIS Part H 1 - 4 March 1997 CHAPTER 2 SETTING: PAST AND PRESENT Ah- kill," CHAPTER 2 SETTING: PAST AND PRESENT Natural Histo1y and Geography 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 11 2-1 March 1997 0 n 0 Lake Michigan Lake Ontario Niagara River BUFFALO St. Clair River loo, Lake DETROIT St. Clair Detroit River L ERIE PENKSY LVA41A MICHIGAN MICHIGAN rand H10 IdANA TOLE VkIjet %A. E LAN 'Ile C/) au L 0, 0 a cc FlIgure I Lake Erie Region Four major stages of continental glaciation affected the Great Lakes area during the past I to z:1 r> 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 Eric basin. The elevation of this lake chan-ed as retreat of the ice margin exposed lower outlets or its re-advance blocked outlets. About 4,0'0'0 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 o 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, t 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 Pan 11 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 Z:) Z) 0 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 (UC) was established in 1912. The Commission became responsible for investigating and makino, 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 1.910-1912 by the U.S. Public Health Service. The Great Lakes Fishery Comrnissio.n 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 lininology, 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 1[[ 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 1[[ 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 198. l.. 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. Compoi.-ients of the law Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Part 19 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 fon-ned 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 Lake.s. 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 reaffinning 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 199 1, 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 11 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 Commission 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 I I 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 11 2 - 8 March 1997 CHAPTER 3 EXTENT OF THE COASTAL AREA RE, - -1 @M 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. � 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 I inch equals I 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 Boundary 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. � 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. 1n 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 11 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 C@ detennination 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. � 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 cominittees. 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 1[[ 3 - 2 March 1997 M M M M MbM M M M M M 0 Boundary of Ohio's Coastal Area R: 0 n 0 ........ . g, Ashtabula Lucas ....... Lake top. t 0 0 t a /* Wood Sandusky Erie Cuyahoga Lorain N 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 mcetings 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. 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 pro grams. SummaU Description of the Coastal Area Bogadaly 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. � 923.3 1 (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). Obio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Part 1[[ 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 I 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. � 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 H 3-5 March 1997 opr CHAPTER 4 PROGRAM ORGANIZATION "oe CHAPTER 4 PROGRAM ORGANIZATION This chapter contains four sections. Section I 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 im lementation of the program at the state and local level. p C, 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. � 1506.01 et seq. SECTION 1. ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE TO IMPLEMENT THE OHIO COASTAL MANAGEMENTPROGRAM 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 Govern o*r 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 11 4 - I March 1997 Major State Agencies Major state agencies that regulate, fund and/or generate activities that occur within or could affect coastal areas include: Depart ment 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: 0 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 t@e 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 s 'I resources; conducts land planning courses for local officials; and obtains and ol t:1 analyzes aerial photographs and satellite imagery for a variety of land use applications. 0 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 Geolog Group conducts tly 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. 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. 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 1El 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 darns; 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. � 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 S heldon 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 Elie Islands and Maumee Bay. � 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. � 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 11 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. 0 The Division of Recycling and Litter Prevention administers a statewide litter control and recycling program and makes grants to local governments for specific local litter control projects. 0 The Division of Civilian Conservation Corps conducts conservation work projects from several centers throughout the state. 0 The Division of Forestry protects and manages Ohio's state forests and provides technical assistance to landowners on sound forest management. 0 The Division of Mnes 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: 0 The Division of Air Pollution Control ensures that clean air standards set by USEPA 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. 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 1[ 4 - 5 March 1997 0 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. 0 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. 0 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. 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 pem-iit 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 11 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 ]1 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 Corrunission 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 comr-nission 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, Vern-lilion, 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, pen-nits 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 comi-nission 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 1[[ 4 - 9 March 1997 Local Agencies 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 permits, 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 XVHI, 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 (NFIP) 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-member 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][[ 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 Planning Agencies 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 i's 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. � 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 11 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. � 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 FlogdinZ � Delineate 30-year Coastal Erosion Areas (O.R.C. � 1506.06, O.A.C. � 1501-6- 10 to 150 1 - 6-13) � Enforce rules regulating new structures in Coastal Erosion Areas (O.R.C. � 1506.07, O.A.C. � 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. � 1506.06) � Allow local authorities to adopt regulations in compliance with O.R.C. � 1506.07 (O.R.C. � 307.37 and O.A.C. 1501-6-27) Administer a permit process for construction of erosion control structures (O.R.C. � 1507.04) � Provide financial assistance for erosion and flood control projects (O.R.C. � 1507.06) � Provide technical assistance for erosion control projects (O.R.C. � 1507. 10) Cooperate with the Secretary of the Army, acting tbrough 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. � 1507.02) � Enforce compliance by local governments with the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) (O.R.C. � 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 11 4 - 12 March 1997 complies with the NFIP before granting a permit, license or authorization (O.R.C. � 1521.14) Prohibit financial disaster assistance within noncompliant counties and municipalities (O.R.C. � 1521.14) 0 Require that all state agencies and political subdivisions consult with ODNR, Division of C Water, regarding avoidance of uneconomic, hazardous or unnecessary use of floodplains for public facilities (O.R.C. � 1521.14) 0 Regulate design and construction of dams, dikes and levees (O.R.C. � 1521.06 et seq., O.A.C. 1501:21) Water Oualit � 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. � 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. � 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. � 6111.03, O.A.C. Chapter 3745-32) 0 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. � 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. � 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. � 6111.03 and 6121.03) � Provide financial support for research and pollution abatement projects (O.R.C. � 1506.23) Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Part 11 4 - 13 March 1997 � Coordinate policies and programs pertaining to Lake Erie water quality through the Lake Erie Commission (O.R.C. � 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. � 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. � 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. � 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. � 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. � 1509.22) Ecologically 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. � 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 H 4 - 14 March 1997 Acquire, protect and restore coastal wetlands (O.R.C. � 1501.01, O.R.C. Chapters 1517, 1531 and 1541) Acquire, protect and manage state nature preserves (O.R.C. � 1517.05 and 1517.06. O.A.C. 1501:17 Protect habitat of rare and endangered species (O.R.C. � 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. � 1531.25 and 1531.99, O.A.C. 1501:3 1) � Restrict the taking, removal, transportation and sale of endangered or threatened native plant species (O.R.C. � 1518.02, O.A.C. 1501:18) � Regulate the sale of purple loosestrife (O.R.C. � 927.682) Regulate the importation, sale and possession of exotic species of fish (O.A.C. 1501:31-19- 01) Ports and Shoreline Development Protect the public trust in Lake Erie waters and underlying lands through submerged lands leasing program (O.R.C. � 1506. 10 and 1506.11 and O.A.C. � 1501-6-01 through 1501-6- 06), submerged lands preserves (O.R.C. � 1506.3 1) and permits for salvage and alteration of submerged abandoned property (O.R.C. � 1506.32) 0 Regulate the discharge and disposal of dredged material (O.R.C. � 6111.03(P) and O.A.C. 3745-1) 0 Regulate commercial dredging of mineral resources (O.R.C. � 1505.07) Recreational and Cultural Resources 0 Protect public access rights through submerged lands leasing program (O.R.C. � 1506.11 and O.A.C. � 1501-6-01 through 1501-6-06) 0 Provide for public access within the state nature preserve system and state parks system (O.R.C. � 1517.05 and O.R.C. Chapter 1541, O.A.C. 1501:17 and 1501:41) 0 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. � 1506.05) Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Part H 4 - 15 March 1997 � Provide grants for public access improvements (O.R.C. � 1506.02 and 1506.05) � Protect historically and archaeologically significant resources and abandoned submerged property (O.R.C. � 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. � 1533.10, 1533.111 and 1533.32, O.A.C. 1501:3 1) Conduct a watercraft safety and education program (O.R.C. � 1547.52 and 1547.521) Z@ I Administer the refuge harbor program jointly with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (O.R.C. � 1547.71) Fish and Wildlife Management Require hunter safety and trapper education courses (O.R.C. � 1533. 10 and 1533.111, O.A.C. 1501:3 1) Regulate the taking of fish (O.R.C. � 153 1.08 and O.A.C. 1501:3 1) and wildlife (O.R.C. Chapter 1533 and O.A.C. 1501:3 1) Protect all wildlife, including nongame and endangered species (O.R.C. � 1531.02, 1531.08 and 1531.25, O.A.C. 1501:3 1) � Establish state wildlife areas (O.R.C. Chapter 1531.06, O.A.C. 1501:31) � Investigate water pollution, fish kills and stream litter (O.R.C. � 1531.29 and 1531.02) Protect fish habitat (O.R.C. � 1531.29 and 6111.03, O.A.C. 3745-27-01 and 3745-1) Acquire and develop fishing access areas (O.R.C. 1531.06) Environmental Quality Attain and maintain National Ambient Air Quality Standards (O.R.C. Chapters 3745, 3706, and 5709 and O.A.C. 3745) Regulate hazardous, solid and infectious waste facilities (O.R.C. Chapter 3734, O.A.C. 3745) Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Part 11 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. � 3733.22 and 3733.24, O.A.C. 3701-35) Prohibit dumping of litter (O.R.C. � 3767.32) Energy 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. � 4935.04, O.A.C. 4901:5) Regulate storage of energy related resources (coal, oil and gas) (O.R.C. � 4906.06, O.A.C. 4906) Regulate oil and gas extraction (O.R.C. � 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. � 1505.07) Regulate surface mining activities (O.R.C. Chapter 1514 and O.A.C. 1501:14-1 through 1501:14-4) Water Quan!Lty - Regulate water diversions from Lake Erie (O.R.C. � 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. � 1503.32) - Require large facilities to register capacity and submit annual withdrawal reports (O.R.C. � 1521.16) 0 Develop and implement a long- range water resources plan for the Lae Erie Basin (O.R.C. � 1521.15) Develop regional water management plans (O.R.C. � 1521.03) io Ohio Coastal Management Program &_ Final ISIS Part 1[[ 4 - 17 March 1997 1 0 Require the filing of well logs (O.R.C. � 1521.05) 0 Assist in oround water conflict resolution (O.R.C. � 1521.03(E)) and designate ground 2n water stress areas (O.R.C � 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, a&ninistration of the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund and state NatureWorks local park grant program, land capability analysis In 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 Pan 1[ 4 - 18 March 1997 m mm m m m m sm m = m = m m m o OHIO DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 2: 0 on TABLE OF ORGANIZATION March 1996 GOVERNOR CD DIRECTOR ASST. DIRECTOR M DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPUTY DIRECTOR LEGISLATI EMPLOYEE PUBLIC CHIEF COUNSEL SERVICES NFORMATION L F, PARKS & WILDLIFE FORESTRY MINES & RECREATION BUDGET& COMPUTERS & RECLAMATION FINANCE COMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERING OIL & GAS III MARKETING WATER OIL & WATER QUALITY SERVICES CONSERVATION REAL ESTATE & LAND RECYCLING & WATERCRAFT OGICAL MANAGEMENT LITTER PREVENTION RVEY GEOL SU CIVILIAN NATURAL AREAS & CONSERVATION PRESERVES REAL ESTATE & LAND MANAGEMENT 0 =7 FEBRUARY 1997 0 co C F HIE COASTAL LAND RESOURCE FACILITIES ADMINISTRATION MANAGEMENT MANAGEMENT REAL ESTATE ANALYSIS MANAGEMENT ITI ICEE Coastal Management Grants Acquisition In ormallon Facilities Administration Services Services Environmental State Lands Canall-ands Analytical Services Facilities Planning Maintenance Submerged Comprehensive Property Data Conversion Lands Planning Management Services Grounds Reclamation 1A F LMA N A G 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). Conductinc, 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 Il 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. � 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. � 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 pro gram 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 11 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 (MOU's) 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 Programs 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 El 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 betwe&n 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 Comniission 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 Adviso 'ry Council an important linkage for policy development and public outreach. The Council, created pursuant to O.R.C. � 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. � 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 11 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 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. � 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: I . State agency projects and activities; Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Pan Il 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. � 1506.0 1 (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 11 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. � 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 Projects 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. 0 1 io Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final Els Part 11 4 - 27 March 1997 4. Submit to ODNR (Coastal Management Section, REALM), at least 90 days before final decisions are rhade 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 detem-iination within 30 days of receipt of the revised proposal. Consistency in Activities Requiring a State License, Permit or Other AP12roval 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 4 Final EIS Part 11 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 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 11 4 - 29 March 1997 Mechanisms to Ensure State Consistency Statements of Coastal Management Policies The Ohio Coastal Management law, in O.R.C. � 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 deterrriined 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 11 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. � 1506.02). This provision, and the provision requiring state consistency (O.R.C. � 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 11 4 - 3 1 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 Commission 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 Projects 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 Approvals 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 Pail 11 4 - 33 March 1997 Ohio Department of Health Marina construction and improvement plan approvals. Private water supply system permits. Ohio Department of Na tural Resources Submerged land leases. Coastal erosion area permits. Erosion control structure permits. Offshore mineral removal from Lake Erie, permits and leases. Water diversion permits. Leases and licenses for use of state lands. Underwater salvage permits. Permits for dams, 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 Il 4 - 34 March 1997 fD CHAPTER 5 MANAGEMENT POLICIES 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. Manned 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 plang. 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 g Z:) 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. 40 � 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. � Coastal land use and development. � Coastal habitat, wetlands and natural areas. Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Part If 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 ChgIlter 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 descri bed. 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 pgILcy 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 11 5 - 3 March 1997 COASTAL EROSION AND FLOODING Uses Subject to Management � Construction or redevelopment of permanent structures in Lake Erie coastal erosion areas. � Construction of erosion control structures. � Development in coastal and river ine 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 alone, 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 hig,li-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 11 5 - 4 March 1997 The shore of Lake Ene 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, 198 1; 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, annoring 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 11 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 40 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 pem-iit 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 11 5 - 7 March 1997 POLICY I - 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. 4 1506.06 AND O.A.C. 1501:6-10 THROUGH 1501:6-131- 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 THROLJGH 1501:6-Z$), C. REQUIRING 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. � 1506.06 and 1506.07, ODNR will administer a permit system for construction, erection and redevelopment of permanent structures within Lake Erie coastal erosion aTeas. 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. � 1506.06) and (2) administration of the permit program within those areas (O.R.C. � 1506.07). Policies LA. and I.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 11 5 - 8 March 1997 ODNR completed its preliminga 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 LA. below.) Once the final identification has been made, owners of property within coastal erosion areas must notify buyers of that status (see Policy I.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. � 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. � 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. � 4501.01, or any addition to such a structure if it Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Part 111 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-farnily dwelling. Recreational vehicles as defined in O.R.C. � 450 1.01 are not included (O.A.C. 1501-6-2 1). 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 1[ 5 - 10 March 1997 Erosion control measures typically require a permit from the State of Ohio under O.R.C. � 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. � 6111.03(0) and � 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. � 1506.11 and O.A.C. � 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. � 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. � 1506.07. Unauthorized construction activities are subject to a civil penalty (O.R.C. � 1506.09) or a fine (O.R.C. � 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. � 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. � 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 pem-iitting 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, pennitting 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 pen-nit from the Corps of Engineers and ODNR for the construction of Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Part 11 5 - 11 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 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. � 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. � 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 encourag ,e strategic retreat and selective fortification. Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Part H 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. -4 1507.04): B. PROVIDING TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO THE PUBLIC ON SHORELINE EROSION CONTROL STRUCTURES (O.R.C. � 1507.10); AND C. DEVELOPING A PLAN FOR THE CONTROL OF SHORE EROSION AND MAKING THE PLAN AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC (O.R.C. � 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. � 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. � 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 Il 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 Encineer of ODNR, in cooperation with the Division of Geological Survey, is authorized by O.R.C. � 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 Ma nagement Program & Final EIS Part H 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. REQUIRING 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. 4 1506.04 AND O.A.C. 1501:22-1-01 THROUGH 1501:22-1-08)-. B. REQUIRING THAT ANY STATE FUNDED OR FINANCED DEVELOPMENT LOCAJ:ED WITHIN THE 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN COMPLY WITH THE FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT CRITERIA OF THE NA31ONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM. - ANY STATE AGENCY HAVING REGULATORY JURISDICTION THAT PREEMPTS THE AUTHORITY OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS TO REGULATE DEVELOPMENT IN FLOO-DPLAINS SHALL ENSURE THAT -BEFORE GRANTING A LICENSE, PERMIT, OR OTHER AUTHQRIZATION, THE DEVELOPMENT COMPLIES WITH THE NATIONAL FLOO12 INSURANCE PROGRAM CRITERIA (O.R.C. -4 1521.14); C. REQUIRING 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 FLOO-DELAIN MANAGEMENT CRITERIA OF THE NATIONAL FLOOD IN- SURANCE PROGRAM (O.R.C. -4 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. � 1521.14). Authorities and Administration A. O.R.C. � 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. � 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 Pan 11 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. � 1506.04. Table 1 lists all communities in the coastal area with such identified floodplain areas and indicates their participation in the NFIR 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. � 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 NFT-P standards (O.R.C. � 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. � 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. � 1521.14). C. O.R.C. � 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 IEI 5 - 16 March 1997 TABLE 1 National Flood Insurance Pro-ram Participation Status of Shoreline Co"mmunities (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 LAKE COUNTY 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 CUYAHOGACOUNTY (no unincorporated coastal areas) Bay Village R 12-01-77 Bratenahl. R 06-15-81 Cleveland R 09-01-79 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 PaA lE1 5 - 17 March 1997 Table I 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 LUCASCOUNTY 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, CONEWENTS: 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 11 5 - 18 March 1997 D. As provided in O.R.C. � 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 11 5 - 19 March 1997 POLICY 4 - FLOOD PROTECTION AND MITIGATION IT IS THE POLICY OF THE STATE OF OHIO TO PROMOTE EFFECTIVE FLOOD PROTECTION BY: A. REGULATING THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION QF DAMS, DIKES AND LEVEES, AND INSPECTING THEIR USE AND OPERATION (O.R.C. 4 1521.06 et seg.); 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. � 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. � 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. � 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. � 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. � 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. � 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 H 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 H 5 - 21 March 1997 POLICY 5 - SHORE EROSION AND FLOOD HAZARD MITIGATION ASSISTANCE 41 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. ADM[INISTERING FUNDS FOR PROTECTION OF LAKE ERIE SHORES AND WATERS (O.R.C. � 1507.05); AND B. PROVIDING TECHNICAL INFORMATION AND ASSISTANCE FOR ADDRESSING EROSION AND FLOOD HAZARD CONCERNS (O.R.C. � 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. � 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. � 1507.04 (O.R.C. � 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. � 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. � 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. � 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 11 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. � 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 11 5 - 23 March 1997 WATER QUALITY Uses SubJect to Management Activities involving public water supplies, to ensure that a sufficient and safe public water supply is available for the population along Lake Erie. 0 Activities involving any process, system, or practice that may be a source of water quality degradation. 0 Activities causing nonpoint or diffuse source of water pollution. 0 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. 0 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 (UC). 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 H 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 chernical, 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 Il 5 - 25 March 1997 ecosystem objectives, compilation of contaminant sources and loadincs 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 EIS Part 11 5 - 26 March 1997 POLICY 6 - WATER QUALITY 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: 1. ASSURING ATTAINMENT OF STATE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND OTHER WATER QUALITY RELATED REQUIREMENTS (O.A.C. 3745-1) THROUGH: A. CONTROLLING DISCHARGES INTO WATERS OF THE STATE BY REQUIRING PERMITS TO CONSTRUCT FACILITIES AND BY ES3:ABLISHING AND ENFORCING EFFLUENT LIMTATIONS UNDER THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES, SECTION 402 CWA, O.R.C. 4 6111.03L B. ADMINISTERING A PERMIT SYSTEM TO CONTROL INJECTION WELL DRILLING IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE "SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT" AND THE CWA (O.R.C. 4 6111.043 AND 6111.044); C. REQULATING DISCHARGE OF DREDGE OR FILL MATERIAL INTO SURFACE WATERS INCLUDING WETLANDS IN ACCORDANCE WIJH SECTION 401 ULF THE (:LEAN WATER ACT (O.R.C. 4 6111.03); D. ESI:ABLISHING 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 PHQSPHORUS-CONTAINING HOUSEHOLD LAUNDRY DETER- GE-NTS IN THE LAKE ERIE BASIN (O.R.C. -4 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. � 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. � 6111.03 AND 6121.03). Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Part 1E1 5 - 27 March 1997 11. 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. � 1506.21). 111. 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 IMTROVE THE SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE ON WHICH LAKE ERIE AQUATIC RESOURCE PROTECTION POLICIES ARE BASED (O.R.C. � 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 @r TABLE 2 - TRIBUTARY DESIGNATIONS 0 r) 0 Aguatic LiLe Habitat Water Supply Recreation State Resource Warm Exceptional Seasonal Primary CD Stream Segment* Water Water Warmwater Salmonid Agricultural Industrial Contact Maumee River P_ - from Perrysburg bridge to mouth X X X X - remaining segment within coastal areaX 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 Vermilion River X X X X X (.A Black River X X X X X Rocky River X X X X X X @0 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. � 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. � 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. � 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 611 L 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. � 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. � 6111.03 1). 10.0 Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Part H 5 - 30 March 1997 B. Injection Well Drilling Regulation Ohio EPA administers a program established under O.R.C. � 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. � 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. � 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. � 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. �s 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. � 3734.02). See Policy 31 for further details. E. Regulation of Phosphorus-containinc, 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. � 6111. 10). F. State Water Quality Management Planning Ohio EPA prepares a State Water Quality Management Plan under provisions of the CWA, Sections 2050), 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 Il 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. � 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. � 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. OVVDA 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. � 6121.03 and 6121.04). 11. 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 11 5 - 32 March 1997 111. 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 manacring 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 3 1, respectively.) Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Part 11 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. REQUIRIN OWNERS OF FACILITIES SUBJECT TO O.R.C. CHAPTER 3750 G 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. � 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. 11001 (O.R.C. � 3750.02) and 42 U.S.C.A. 11023 (O.R.C. � 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. � 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. � 3750.06). Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Part 11 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. � 3750.07). 4. Owners must complete a Facility Identification form, Chemical Inventory form and Facility map (O.R.C. � 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. � 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. � 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. � 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 Comi-nission 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 Pairt If 5 - 35 March 1997 Ohio EPA has drafted rules and standards governing the storage and disposal of PCBs at commercial facilities (O.R.C. � 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 11 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 IWROVE 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 3 19 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 Pan 11 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 H 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. 4 6109.07); AND C. REGULATING PRIVATE WATER SYSTEMS (O.R.C. 4 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: 1 . 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 11 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. � 3701.344, O.A.C. 3701-28). 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 DEVELOPMEENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF REMEEDIAL 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 198 1, 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 UC 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 11 5 - 41 March 1997 POLICY I I - 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. 4 3701.04, O.R.C. � 6111.03, O.R.C. -4 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. 4 3737.87, 3737.88, 3737.881, 3737.882 AND O.A.!C. 1301:7-9 AND 3745-54L C. REGULATING OIL, GAS, COAL AND MINERAL OPERATIONS (O.R.C. CHAPTER 1509,1513 AND 1514, O.R.C. 4 1509.22): D. REGULATING SUBSURFACE INJECTION OF BRINE AND OTHER WASTES ASSOCIATED WITH OIL AND GAS OPERATIONS (O.R.C. 4 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. � 3701.344. Ohio EPA has general supervisory power over public water supplies pursuant to O.R.C. � 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. � 6109.07 and O.A.C. 3745-9 1). 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 11 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. � 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. � 3737.87 and O.A.C. 1301-7-9), in accordance with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA, 40 C.F.R. � 280). O.A.C. 1301-7-9 establishes performance standards, desicn 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, adm inisters a permit program for subsurface injection and other brine management activities that specifically prohibits contamination of surface and underground waters (O.R.C. � 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 H 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 linifted state resources to priority needs and emphasizes proper development and protection and management of the ground water resources. The ground water strategy contains six 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 EIS Part 11 5 - 44 March 1997 ECOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE RESOURCES Uses Subject to Management 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. � 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 11 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 H 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 Conservana 133 770 Hunting Clubs 4..300 U000 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 thousan ,d 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 H 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 Endangered 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. 41- Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Part 11 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 wedand 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 1800s. 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 in anagement 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 PaA IEI 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 QUALITY 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. -4 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 9 0-68); 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 TIM 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 11 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 @Iny federal license or pern-iit to conduct any activity that may result in gay discharge into the waters of the state (O.R.C. � 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 Il 5 - 51 March 1997 I 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 41 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 Id 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 pem-iitted 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) I 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 I 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][I 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. tn 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. � 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 11 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 g.@Lly in planning and decision making processes. ODNR's wetlands policy provides an example of state agency decision making consistent with E.0 '. 90-69. 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. � 1501.01). The Division of Natural Areas and Preserves (DNAP) administers the State Nature Preserve Program (O.R.C. � 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 11 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. � 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. � 1541.02). Similarly, Ohio's park district agencies may acquire lands for the conservation of the natural resources of the state (O.R.C. � 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 Ell, 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 31 1-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 11 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 pigg -back funding for the WRP targeted at riparian CY 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 11 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 OCM[P 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 11 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. � 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. � 1517.14 THROUGH � 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. � 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. � 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. � 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. � 1517.06). 10 Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Part 11 5 - 59 March 1997 Potential sites are evaluated for designation by DNAP based on the following internal criteria: 1 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 i dentifying 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: I . 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 prote@t 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. 1461, to provide financial assistance awards on a 50-50 matching basis to coastal states (including Great Lakes) for acquisition, development Ohio CoastaI Management Program & FinaI EIS Part 1[ 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)fU.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. � 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. � 1517.17). 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. � 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. � 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 11 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 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 11 5 - 62 March 1997 POLICY 14 - RARE AND-ENDANGERED SPECIES 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. -4 1531.25 AND O.R.C. -4 1531.99); B. REGULATING THE TAEING. 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(Q. Authorities and Administration A. ODNR, Division of Wildlife (DOW) protects fish and wildlife species threatened with statewide extinction under O.R.C. � 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. � 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. � 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. � 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. � 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. � 1519.03. Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Part 11 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. 3745m-l), 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. 4f Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Pan 11 5 - 64 March 1997 POLICY 15 - EXOTIC SPECIES IT IS THE POLICY OF THE STATE OF 01110 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. 4 927.682); 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 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. � 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. � 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. hnporters 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 Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Part H 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 investi ated, including artificially inducing spawning at inappropriate times. Monitoring for 9 t@ 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 11 5 - 66 March 1997 Guard regulations to stop imports and is assisting in development of research protocol, In 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 SubJect to Management � Activities involving the development of submerged lands of Lake Erie. � Activities involving the dredging and disposal of dredged materials. � Activities affecting the development of the shore and nearshore waters. � Activities involving port development, maintenance and expansio n. 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 11 5 - 68 March 1997 Approximately 10 percent of the shore is developed by industrial or commercial interests. Many of the lake'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 4:- 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 tn and steel plants are examples of this second group 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, Fairport 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 EIS Part 11 5 - 69 March 1997 I POLICY 16 - PUBLIC TRUST LANDS 41 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 REQUIRING A LEASE FOR THE USE OF SUBMERGED LANDS (O.R.C. -4 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. -4 1506.32); AND C. ESTABLISHING AND ENFORCING LAKE ERIE SUBMERGED LANDS PRE- SERVES (O.R.C. �1506.31). 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. � 1506.10). Ohio's "public trust doctrine" was originally established in 1803 when Section 14, Article III, of the "Northwest Ordinance" iave the new state authority to regulate activities occurring in navigable waters within state boundaries. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Illinois Central Railroad Co=any 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. NemTort Concrete Co. (1975) 44 Ohio App. 2d 121 clarified that public use includes recreation, while State ex rel Squire 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. � 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 PaA 11 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 detem-iine 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: I . Whether the proposed project will prejudice the littoral rights of any owner of land fronting an 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 PartII 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. � 1507.04 [see Policy 2]. If proposed in conjunction with erection, construc- tion or redevelopment of a pen-nanent structure within the Lake'Erie coastal erosion area, O.R.C. � 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. � 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. � 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. � 1506.3 1). See Policy 26 for additional details. Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Part U 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. RE(iULATING.- THROUGH THE OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTLECTION AGENCY WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION, THE DISCHARGE OR DIS- POSAL OF DREDGED MATERIAL (O.R.C. -4 6111.03(P) AND O.A.C. 3745-1): B. REQUIRING A LEASE FOR STATE-ADMINISTERED SUBMERGED LANDS THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES BEFORE INI- TIATING THE CONFINED DISPOSAL OF DREDCzED MATERIAL IN THE WATERS OR ON LANDS UNDERLYING THE WATERS OF LAKE ERIE (O.R.C. 4 1506.11): C. REGULATING COMMERCIAL DREDGING OF MINERAL RESOURCES (O.R.C. 4 1505.07 AND O.R.C. 4 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. � 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. � 1506.11). The application process and lease/permit criteria are explained in Policy 16. Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Part 11 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. � 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. � 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 111 5 - 74 March 1997 The OCMP has developed general priorities for the location of dredge disposal sites. Evaluation of 0 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 H 5 - 75 March 1997 POLICY 18 - LOCAL LAKESHORE DEVELOPMENT IT IS THE POLICY OF THE STATE OF OHIO TO ENCOURAGE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO PLAN FOR AND CONTROL SHORE DEVELOPMENT TO PROVIDE FOR THE 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 XVIII, 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 11 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 inforination 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. � 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. � 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 11 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. � 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. � 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 Ohio'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: 1 . 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 Erie 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 11 5 - 79 March 1997 RECREATION AND CULTURAL RESOURCES Uses SubJect to Management Activities associated with the development of public park and recreation areas including marinas and boat-launching facilities. 0 Activities associated with the development of public hunting and fishing areas. 0 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 existinc, 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 federal-ly 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 rn *ake 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. Irnproved 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 11 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. Fishing and Hun"n 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 11 5 - 81 March 1997 Cultural Resources Cultural resources include the historic, architectural and archaeoloodcal 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 It 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. 4 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. � 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 Paft 11 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 OR.C. � 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. � 15,17.05). 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(l)(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. C, I 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 recr*eation 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 1[ 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 11 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 11 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 H 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. � 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 1[ 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 Ill 5 - 89 March 1997 POLICY 23 - RECREATIONAL BOATING IT IS THE 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. � 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. � 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 @vater, for interested groups along Lake Erie as part of the division's Watercraft Safety and Education Program (O.R.C. � 1547.52 and 1547.521). 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 Il .5-90 March 1997 Oi I and Water Conservation Fund grants can also be used for public recreation boating facilities (see Policy 2 1). 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. � 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 2:1 the above-mentioned funding sources and various other sources. E. Pursuant to O.R.C. � 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 Pan H 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. REQUIRING LICENSURE FOR HUNTING, TRAPPING AND FISHING (O.R.C. -4 1533.10,1533.111 AND 1533.32), B. REQUIRING 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. 4 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. 4M 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. � 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. � 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 11 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 forrns. To increase ganie 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. � 1533.18 and 1533.181). Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Part 11 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 EIS Part 11 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. -4 149.51 THROUGH 149.551- B: REGULATING RECOVERY OF SUBMERGED ABANDONED -PROPERTY THROUGH PERMITS (O.R.C. 4 1506.32); AND C. ESTABLISHING AND ENFORCING LAKE ERIE SUBMERGED LANDS PRE- SERVES (O.R.C. � 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. � 149.51 and a Registry of Historic Landmarks pursuant to O.R.C. � 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. � 149.51 and 149.55). The owner may not engage in or authorize any archaeological Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Pan 11 5 - 95 March 1997 survey or salvage work within lands registered as Archaeological Landmarks without a pernuit issued under O.R.C. � 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. � 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. � 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. � 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 11 5 - 96 Much 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. � 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. � 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. � 1506.32(E)). No pen-nit shall be approved Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Part 1[ 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 Z) preserve as a whole (O.R.C. � 1506.32(1)). 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 (O.R.C. � 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 O.R.C. � 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: 1 . Whether it is necessary to protect either abandoned property or significant underwater L-L features possessing historical, archaeological, recreational, geological, ecological, environ- mental, educational, scenic or scientific value; 1 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 (O.R.C. � 1506.3 1 (Q). O.R.C. Chapter 1506 is contained in Appendix C. Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Part Il 5 - 98 March 1997 FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT Uses SubJect to Management 0 Activities involving the taking of fish and wildlife. 0 Activities affecting the fish and wildlife habitat areas. e Activities that affect the management of fish and wildlife. Z5 Fish and Habitat Mana2ement 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 11 5 - 99 March 1997 Wildlife and Habitat Management Human activities in the Lake Erie 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 pav@d 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 Il 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. 4 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 QUALITY CERTIFICATION AUTHORITY (O.R.C. 4 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. � 1531.06); F. SURVEYING FISH POPULATIONS AND TRENDS AND CONDUCTING OTHER FISHERY RESEARCH STUDIES; G. PROVIDING ACCESS TO THEYISHERY; 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. � 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. � 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. � 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 19 Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Part 11 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. � 1533.32). All money derived from fishing license fees is appropriated exclusively for the use of ODNR, DOW (O.R.C. � 1533.33) and is used primarily for public fishing waters acquisition, stock fish manacrememt, 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. � 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 takinor of the fish or wildlife (O.R.C. � 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. � 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. � 2929.3 1). 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. 01 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 1[ 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. � 1531.06). F. DOW conducts continui ng 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 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 In New York by working in conjunction with the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, the UC, the Great Lakes Commission, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and other groups concerned with Lake Erie fishery management and rehabilitation. The cominissions 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 ETS 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 INCLUDINCz NONGAME AND ENDANGERED SPECIES (O.R.C. -4 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. � 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. � 153 1.08). 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. � 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. � 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. � 1533. 10 and 1533.111). Special permits are required for deer and turkey hunting (O.R.C. � 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. � 1533.8 1). This permit is designated as a "waterfowl hunting area permit." Fees from Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Part 11 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. � 1533.15): 1 . 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. � 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 tomake 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. � 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 nongame wildlife species extirpated from Ohio. Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Part 19 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 H 5 - 107 March 1997 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Uses Sub ject to Management 0 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. 0 Activities involving the cleanup of unregulated hazardous waste disposal sites. Activities involving the handling and disposal of marine sanitary wastes. 0 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 It 5 - 108 March 1997 TABLE3 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. � 81.336). Attainment for all criteria pollutants. Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Part 11 5 - 109 March 1997 I 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 1 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 10,000 small quantity generators in Ohio. There are approximately 100 @77 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 11 5 - 110 March 1997 Marina Facilities Water quality improvements and the Lake Erie 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 H 5 - 111 March 1997 POLICY 30 - AIR QUALITY IT IS THE POLICY OF THF, STATE OF 01HO TO ATTAIN AND MAINTAIN AIR QUALITY LEVELS THAT PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH AND PREVENT INJURY TO PL NT AND ANIMAL LIFE AND PROPERTY BY SURVEYING AND MONITORING AIR QUALITY, ENFORCING NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS THROU!GH 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: I . 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 11 5 - 112 March 1997 for the prevention, control and abatement of air pollution that is consistent with the federal CAA (O.R.C. � 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. 3745-3 1) 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. � 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 11 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 Pan 11 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 REQUIREMENTS 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. 4 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 11 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. � 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. � 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. � 3734.01. Rules governing facilities are specified in O.A.C. 3745-54-01 through O.A.C. 3745-59-50. , I 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. � 3734.19 through 3734.24; funding mechanisms are provided by O.R.C. � 3734.25 through 3734.28. These provisions are implemented by Ohio EPA's Division of Emergency and Remedial Response (DERR). 41- 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 indus"trial, 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. � 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. � 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. � 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. � 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. � 3734.54 and 3734.55). Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Part 11 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 Id 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 ADEQUATE 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. 4 3733.21 THROUGH 3733.30 AND O.A.C. 3701-35). Authorities and Ad-ministration The Public Health Council has adopted statewide regulations, pursuant to O.R.C. � 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. � 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. � 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 11 5 - 119 March 1997 POLICY 33 - VISUAL AND AESTHETIC QUALITY IT IS THE POLICY OF THE STATE OF 01110 TO PROTECT THE 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. -4 1531.29 AND 3767.32): B. ENFORCING STATE WATER QUALITY 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. � 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. � 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. � 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 1E1 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 H 5 - 121 March 1997 ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES 40 Uses SubJect to Management � Activities involving the siting of major energy facilities and transmission lines. � Activities involving the storage and transshipment of energy resources. � 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. 4-P Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Part 11 5 - 122 March 1997 Mineral Resources Commercially 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 H 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. REQUIRING 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. REQUIRING 10-YEAR DEMAND, RESOURCE AND SITE INVENTORY FORECASTS FOR ALL ENERGY GENERATION AND TRANSMISSION ACTIVITY IN THE STATE (O.R.C. 4 4935.041. 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. � 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. � 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 11 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. � 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 1[[ 5 - 125 March 1997 POLICY 35 - ENERGY RESOURCE STORAGE AND TRANSSHIPMENT IT IS THE POLICY OF THE STATE OF QMQ 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. 4 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. � 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. � 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 MANAGEMENTBY: A: REGULATING OIL AND GAS DRILLING ONSHORE BY REQUIRING A PERMIT TO DRILL FROM ODNR (O.R.C. 4 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. � 1509.05 and � 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. � 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. � 1509.05), the mineral lease (O.R.C. � 1505.07) and the submerged lands lease (O.R.C. � 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 H 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 PERNUTS, 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. � 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. � 1507.10; and state administration of Lake Erie coastal erosion areas under O.R.C. � 1506.06 and 1506.07 (O.R.C. � 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. � 1505.0 1). The director may, in accordance with O.R.C. Chapter 119, promulgate rules for the implementation of the aforementioned lease activities (O.R.C. � 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. � 1506.11) and through the Section 401 Water Quality Certification process. Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Part 11 5 - 128 March 1997 01 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 ADJOINING PROPERTY, AND ENSURE RECLAMATION OF ALL AFFECTED AREAS THROUGH THE ISSUANCE OF OHIO DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES PERMITS (O.R.C. 4 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. � 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. � 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. � 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 pern-lit 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 1E1 5 - 129 March 1997 WATER QUANTITY Uses SubJect 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 and 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 (1GLD 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 H 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 H 5 - 131 N4arch 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. 4 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. 4 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. � 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. � 1501.32(B). Any person who receives notice of a denial or modification under O.R.C. � 1501.32 is entitled to a hearing under O.R.C. Chapter 119 upon written request (O.R.C. � 1501.32(E)(2)). The director shall revoke any permit issued under O.R.C. � 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. � 1501.32(F)). Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Part 11 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. � 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. � 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 IEI 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 (UC) 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. 44 Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Part 11 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. REQUIRING LARGE WATER WITHDRAWAL FACILITIES TO REGISTER THEIR CAPACITY AND SUBMIT ANNUAL WITHDRAWAL REPORTS (O.R.C. -41521.16); 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. � 1521.05); E. PREPARING TECHNICAL STUDIES AND MAPPING, DESIGNATING GROUND WATER STRESS AREAS, AND ASSISTING IN CONFLICT RESOLUTION (O.R.C. � 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. � 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. � 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 11 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. � 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. � 152 1.01 (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. � 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. � 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. � 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. � 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 H 5 - 136 March 1997 CHAPTER 6 SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREAS CHAPTER 6 SPECLAL 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 ses 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 U (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 ininimal 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 Designation 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 11 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 AP`Cs [15 C.F.R. � 923.2 11. 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 deten-nine 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 111 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 includesareas 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 C@ 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. � 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. � 1531.02). 0 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. � 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 IEl 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-deoendent 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. � 5501.04). ODNR is responsible for the inventory, evaluation and promotion of public access to the Lake Erie shoreline (O.R.C. � 1506.05). The removal of minerals, sand, gravel, stone or other substances is regulated by ODNR pursuant to O.R.C. � 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. � 1506.11). Dredging activities are managed by Ohio EPA, consistent with the state's water quality standards (O.R.C. � 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 IJ 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 OR.C. � 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 153 1). 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. � 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. � 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 pen-nit from either the director or Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Part 11 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. � 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. � 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. � 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. � 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. � 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. � 1531.06). Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Part IJ 6 - 6 March 1997 Pursuant to O.R.C. � 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, groundwater 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. � 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 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 b eing 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 It 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. � 149.54 to control archaeological survey or salvage work requiring compliance with the historic landmarks preservation notification procedures in O.R.C. � 149.55. OHS may also designate, acquire and manage sites that it feels are worthy of National Historic Register protection (O.R.C. � 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 (UC); these AOCs lie partially within Ohio's coastal area. The UC 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 UC. 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 Pait 11 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 categ ry for such areas. APC designation for those "o 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 11 6 - 9 March 1997 FIGURE 5 Relative Locations of Areas of Concern (AOCs) 20 20 40 60 so L KILOMETERS 42.5. 42-0 ASHTABUL 4 To/ 41.5 lev land Lo .1 ISO Lake Eris' @Tol Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Part 11 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-veoetation 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 C, 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. 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 11 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: 1. 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 H 6 - 12 March 1997 Coastal Resources of National Significance Section 306(d)(13) of the CZMA provides that a state coastal management program must C@ provide for "(A) the inventory and designation of areas that contain one or more coastal resources Z:1 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 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. 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, Erie and Sandusky counties). 1976, 1978 and 1980. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Part 11 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). � Coastal Hazards: Recession, Erosion and Flooding. 1977. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Coastal Zone Management Section. � Beach Inventory. 1980. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey. (Excluded islands and Sandusky Bay.) � Coastal Hazard Management: Shore Erosion. 1982. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Coastal Zone Management Section. Inventory of Shoretype, Subaqueous Nearshore Composition and Bluff Litholog . 1987. U.S. tly Army Corps of Engineers, Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey. � 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. � 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 occurred near Point Retreat in the fall of 1972. Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Part 11 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 Erie fish species. Status and Trend Highlights: Ohio's Lake Erie Fish and Fisheries. Annual Reports. Ohio t' 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. 1991. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Natural Areas and Preserves. 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/81/02-vl,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 e efs 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 11 6 - 15 March 1997 CHAPTER 7 FEDERAL CONSISTENCY 12% 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 0 the list of federal activities will be made using the program modification process described in Appendix 0. 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. Consistency for Federal Activities and Development Pro-jects 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. � 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 Pro&arn & Final EIS Part 11 7 - 1 March 1997 10 I activity involving the planning, construction, modification, or removal of public works, facilities, C or other structures; and the acquisition, utilization, or disposal of land or water resources. (15 C.F.R. � 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 Detenninations by Federal Agencies It is the responsibility of all federal agencies, pursuant to 15 C.F.R. � 930.37(a), to deterinine 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. � 1506.01(A) to be activities affecting the coastal area as defined in O.R.C. � 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. � 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 L10l,'Ashtabula-Chagrin L102, Chautauqua-Conneaut L103.) The list of federal activities that are sub ect to consistency review is included at the end of this chapter. 15 C.F.R. � 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. � 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 IJ 7 - 2 March 1997 Ohiots Lake Erie Watershed . . .......... ......... . . . .... Figure 6 Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Paft IJ 7 - 3 March 1997 15 C.F.R. � 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 deten-nination for a federal activity affecting the Ohio coastal area shall, pursuant to 15 C.F.R. � 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. � 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. g 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. � 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. � 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 re assess 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. � 930.38(a). Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Part 11 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. � 930.38(b). The State of Ohio reserves the right to request a consistency detern-iination 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. � 930.54. In cases where a federal agency will be perforniing 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. � 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. � 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. � 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 11 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 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. � 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. 40 2. Consistency for Activities Requiring a Federal License or Permit Federally licensed or pern-iitted 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. � 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. � 930.5 1). 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 pen-nits, or if the state Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Part 11 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. � 930.53. ODNR will monitor certain federal license and pen-nit 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. � 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 Lollowing: "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. � 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. � 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. Infonnation Requirementsfor Pennit Applications If a federal license or permit application form provides sufficient information pursuant to the requirements of 15 C.F.R. � 930.58 for ODNR and the federal agency to ascertain whether the Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Part 11 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. � 930.58, the applicant shall provide the following to ODNR: 0 A detailed description of the proposed activity and its associated facilities, which is adequate to pen-nit the assessment of possible coastal area impacts; 0 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. � 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. � 930.6 1. Thus, 40 the existing public notice and comment procedures will be used to ensure public participation in the OCNIP 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. � 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. � 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 Il 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 consiste'nt with the objectives or purposes of the CZMA or is necessary in the interest of national security. 15 C.F.R. � 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. � 930, Subpart H. 15 C.F.R. � 930.63 and � 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. � 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. � 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 U 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. � 930.55. 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 effecm substantially different from those originally envisioned, and therefore is not consistent with the OCMP. 15 C.F.R. � 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 OCUT 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. � 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 deten-nines 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 11 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 infom-iing 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. � 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. � 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. � 930. 100. Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Part H 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 � A determination of the consistency with the OCMP of a proposed activity affecting the coastal area; or � A determination of whether a listed or unlisted federal license or permit activity is subject to consistency review; or � A determination that a federal assistance activity is subject to consistency review; or 0 Actual compliance with the OCMP of an activity previously determined to be consistent, If the dispute is not resol ved 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. � 930, Subpart G. Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Part H 7 - 12 March 1997 Federal Activities And Development Projects; Licenses And Permits; And Assistance Subject to Federal Consistency Requirements I. Direct Federal Activities and Development Projects A federal agency must provide ODNR with a consistency determination for my activity affecting C) 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 0 Dredging, channel improvement, breakwaters, other navigational works, erosion control Z, structures, beach replenishment, darns 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. 0 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. 0 Disposal of Defense property. Department of Energy Prohibition orders. Environmental Protection Agency 9 Activities conducted under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976. - Activities conducted under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980. Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Part B 7 - 13 March 1997 General Services Administration � Acquisition, location and design of proposed federal government property or buildings, whether leased or owned by the federal government. � Disposition of federal surplus lands and structures. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management Oil and gas leasing on federal lands. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service 0 Management of National Wildlife Refuges; land acquisition. Department of the Interior, National Park Service 0 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 0 Location and design, construction or enlargement of Coast Guard stations, bases and lighthouses. 0 Location, placement or removal of navigation devices that are not part of the routine operations under the Aids to Navigation Program (ATON). 9 Expansion, abandonment, 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. If. 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. 924 a (b)). Certificates for the construction and operation of interstate natural gas pipeline facilities, including both pipelines and terminal facilities under Section 7 0 of the Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f (c)). Pen-nission 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 11 7 - 15 March 1997 � Regulation of gas pipelines, and licensing of import and export of natural ga s 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 � NPDES permits and other permits for federal installations, sludge runoff and aquaculture permits and all other pern-iits 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. � Permits pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980. � 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). � Endangered species permits pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 153 (a)). Interstate Commerce Commission 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 III of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Ohio Coastal Management Program I& Final ETS Part 1[ 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. 0 Hazardous substances and materials (33 U.S.C. 419). 0 Marine event permits (46 U. S.C. 454, 33 C.F.R. 100. 15). Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration 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 ofAgriculture 10.025 Plant and Animal Disease and Pest Control 10.405 Farm Labor Housing Loans and Grants 10.414 Resource Conservation and Development Loans 10.415 Rural Rental Housing Loans 10.419 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 10.433 Rural Housing Preservation Grants 10.954 Rural Economic Development Loan and Grant Program 10.901 Resource Conservation and Development 10.904 Watershed Protection and Fl6od Prevention 10.906 River Basin Surveys and Investigations Department of Commerce 11.300 Economic Development - Grants and Loans for Public Works and Development Facilities 11.302 Economic Development - Support for Planning Organizations 11.303 Economic Development - Technical Assistance 11.304 Economic Development - Public Works Impact Projects 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 Dete rioration (LTED) 0 11.405 Anadiomous and Great Lakes Fisheries Conservation 0 11.407 Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act of 1986 0 .11.417 Sea Grant Support 11.419 Coastal Zone Management Proggram. Administration 0 11.420 Coastal Zone Management Estuarine Research Reserves 0 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 0 12.104 Flood Plain Management Services 0 12.105 Protection of Essential Highways, Highway Bridge Approaches, and Public Works 0 12.106 Flood Control Projects 0 12.107 Navigation Projects 0 12.108 Snagging and Clearing for Flood Control 0 12.109 Protection, Clearing and Straightening Channels 0 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 & 14.174 Housing Development Grants 0 14.218 Community Development Block Grants/Entitlement Grants 0 14.219 Community Development Block Grants/Small Cities Grants Department of the Interior 0 15.600 Anadromous Fish Conservation 0 15.605 Sport Fish Restoration 0 15.611 Wildlife Restoration 0 15.612 Endangered Species Conservation 0 15.614 North American Wetlands Conservation - 15.616 Clean Vessel Act 0 15.904 Historic Preservation Fund Grants-In-Aid 0 15.910 National Natural Landmarks Program 0 15.916 Outdoor Recreation - Acquisition, Development and Planning Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Part 11 7 - 18 March 1997 Department of Transportation 20.005 Boating Safety Financial Assistance 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 - 20.308 Local Rail Service Assistance Program a 20.500 Urban Mass Transportation Capital Improvement Grants 0 20.509 Public Transportation for Nonurbanized Areas 9 20.801 Development and Promotion of Ports and Intermodal Transportation 0 20.998 Transportation Improvement Program General Services Administration 0 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 - 66.001 Air Pollution Control Program Support 0 66.419 Water Pollution Control - State and Interstate Program Support 66.432 State Public Water System Supervision 0 66.433 State Underground Water Source Protection 0 66.435 Water Pollution Control - Lake Restoration Cooperative Agreements 66.438 Construction Management Assistance 9 66.454 Water Quality Management Planning 66.456 National Estuary Program 66.458 Capitalization Grants for State Revolving Funds 66.500 Environmental Protection - Consolidated Research 66.501 Air Pollution Control Research 66.502 Pesticides Control Research 66.504 Solid Waste Disposal Research 66.505 Water Pollution Control - Research, Development, and Demonstration 66.506 Safe Drinking Water Research and Demonstration Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Part H 7 - 19 March 1997 0 66.507 Toxic Substances Research 0 66.600 Environmental Protection Consolidated Grants - Program Support 0 66.700 Pesticides Enforcement Program * 66.701 Toxic Substances Compliance Monitoring Cooperative Agreements * 66.702 Asbestos Hazards Abatement (Schools) Assistance 0 66.801 Hazardous Waste Management State Program Support 0 66.802 Hazardous Substance Response Trust Fund 0 66.804 State Underground Storage Tanks Program 0 66.805 Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund 0 66.807 Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program (SITE) * 66.808 Hazardous Waste; Integrated Training and Technical Assistance - Interstate Department of Energy 0 81.041 State Energy Conservation 9 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 0 83.503 Civil Defense - State and Local Emergency Management Assistance 0 83.513 State and Local Warning and Communication Systems 0 83.516 Disaster Assistance Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Part Il 7 - 20 March 1997 CHAPTER 8 EROSION MITIGATION PROCESS , @TW :t@, --,@:-rZ '31, - wi: Mr w 00 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 H 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. � 1506.06), (2) enforcement of a permit program for construction activities in coastal erosion areas (O.R.C. � 1506.07), (3) notification of buyers regarding coastal erosion area status of property being transferred (O.R.C. � 1506.06) and (4) administration of a permit system for erosion control measures (O.R.C. � 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. � 1506.06(A)). The Division of Engineering, ODNR, under O.R.C. � 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. � 1506.07 provides that any county or municipal government may assume administration of the permit requirement if the local govemment adopts sufficient regulations. To assist local governments in developing such measures, ODNR can provide model ordinances and direct technical assistance to cominunities 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 11 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. Lintited financial assistance for erosion control is available through ODNR (O.R.C. � 1507.06). The funds are derived from the granting of leases and the royalties paid pursuant to O.R.C. � 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. � 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. � 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. Rio Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Part 11 8 - 3 March 1997 CD "I 14@ op"', CHAPTER 9 SHOREFRONT ACCESS AND PROTECTION PLANNING ;kes, 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, sli nbathing, 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: 1 . 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, 211 22, 23 and 24. Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Part 11 9 - 1 March 1997 Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan jor tool in Ohio for The Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) is the ma 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 11 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. � 1506.05). This authority provided the basis for a revised Lake Erie Access Study c onducted 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, acquirin `g' 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, Hurnmell 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. � 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 11 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 beendeveloped, '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 EIS Part U 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. Programs 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 2 1. The following is a description of financial and technical assistance programs that assist in these efforts. Land and Water Conservation Fund and NatureWorks 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 11 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 11 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 H 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. Existing 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 11 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 Por t 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 ETS Part Il 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 Z> 4:1 1 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. . I 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 Acreage Length Fronta2e 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 U 9 - 10 March 1997 Management 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. � 1501-6-03(3)).. Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Part][[ 9- 11 March 1997 CHAPTER 10 ENERGY FACILITY PLANNING PROCESS jqgjjj=lli@@ CHAPTER 10 ENERGY FACILITY PLANNING PROCESS The enerc, facility planning process considers energy related facilities likely to be located Ely 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 facili ties; 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: 1. 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 EIS Part 11 10 - 1 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. InventoKy of Existing And Planned Energy 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. � 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. � 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 Ian 'd 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 Transshipment 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 11 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. .011 and Gas Pipelines. 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 11 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. Liquefied 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 Energy 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 Facili1y Site Suitabili!y 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 enerc, tly 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 C) than 20 consumers must provide to the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (O.R.C. � 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 111 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: I . 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 zn I 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. � 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 6111 (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 H 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: 1 . 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 1[[ 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, c' 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. So cial 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. Pem-iit for shore protection structures (O.R.C. � 1507.03); and 5. Lease for development and improvements in Lake Efie (O.R.C. � 1506. 10). Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS' Part 11 10 - 8 March 1997 The PSB directs each applicant to the appropriate agencies for their review against standards and criteria established for each pen-nit. Certification will not be allowed by the PSB if requirements 10 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. � 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 attaim-nent 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 Pen-nit to Install. See O.A.C. � 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. � 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. � 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 deten-nined 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 perniit in accordance with Section 402(d) of the Clean Water Act, the Director of Ohio EPA will deny the pem-iit. 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. 1 . 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 H 10 - 10 March 1997 7. If sufficient data are at hand, describe what departmental programs or r esources 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. � 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 H 10 - 11 Much 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 Cominissions for land use changes, t:1 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 Conunission; 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 490 1). 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. � 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. � 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 FaciRties - 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 11 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: Z:I I . 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 stke (O.R.C. � 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 11 10 - 13 March 1997 4. To protect public safety and welfare and the environment by regulating oil and gas drilling C) C) onshore through a permit from ODNR and by opposing oil and gas drilling offshore as Z) 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 Energy Facility 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 In 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 If 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'sRules 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 pennits 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 pen-nits. 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 H 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. � 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 Put 11 10 - 16 March 1997 CHAPTER 11 INTERIM RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS 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 Qocument 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 H I I - I 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. � 1506.01 (A) and 16 U.S.C. 1451, Sec.304). Additionally the two-tiered boundary approach described in the 1992 document was e ' liminated. 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 11 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. � 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 0CMP 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 prograrn 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 1El I I - 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. � 1501-6-01 to -06, see Appendix Q, 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. � 1506.1 l(G), the OCNIP 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 landalong 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 11 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. C, 1. Conc erns 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 If 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. � 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 detem-lined 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. � 1506.07 is appealable under O.R.C. � 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 11 11 - 6 March 1997 3. Concerns Regarding Coastal Erosion Area Policies 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 IJ I I - 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 deten-nining 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 H 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 9, 199 1. Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Part 11 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. ODNRconducted 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 H 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. � 5302.30). e. Deleted the requirement that erosion protection measures required to obtain a permit under � 1506.07 be effective for 30 years. (Effectiveness standards will be included in rules.) f. Modified the hardship provision in Division (B) of � 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 � 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 H 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 meetinos 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 11coastal 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 tern-iinology 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][[ I I - 12 Marcb 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 11 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. 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 I -to- 1. Grants to local communities will be available through the coastal management assistance grant program in accordance'With O.R.C. � 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 11 11 - 14 March 1997 Part III REQUIREMENTS OF THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (NEPA) @kk, It 11 PART III REQUIREMIENTS OF THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMIENTAL 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. 145 1. 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 H 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. 101-59). 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 1H - 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 III - 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 t) C Z_@ 4..@ 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 federay-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 o" r 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 III - 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 H, 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 11, 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 IH - 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 @he Lake Erie coastal erosion areas pursuant to O.R.C. � 1506.06. 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. t@l Zn 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 pern-iit 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 Pan III - 5 March 1997 document indicating that such arrangements have not worked well in other states administering coastal management programs. 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 I I of Part II of this document, which was reproduced verbatim from the DEIS. The coastal erosion area management policies set forth in Chapter 5 of Part II 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 II of this document and Volume H 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 arriong 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. 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. � 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 M - 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 Erie 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 naturally 40 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 M - 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 marimade 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 III - 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 15 in 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 in of the shoreline are usually less than one degree. The bottom is generally made up of sand and gravel less than 2 in 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 wedand 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 bby ds low-relief sand slopes and marshes along the county's western shore, while the shoreline of the islan s 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 n'onexistent 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 M - 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 Ell - 12 March 1997 c. Water Usage More than three billion -allons 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 Acreage 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 (federal and private unknown) 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 Prestrves 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 E[[ - 14 Marcb 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 modem 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 Eric 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 3,900 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 H. Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Part III - 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 I 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 Mianii-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 Ell - 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/l before 1972 are now averaging less than I mg/l. 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 Strateg 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 I Remedial Action Plan (RAP) reports have been developed for four Lake Erie tributaries in Ohio that were identified by the International Joint Corrunission as Great Lakes "Areas of Concern" (AOCs) due to poor water quality Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Part IH - 17 March 1997 and environmental degradation. These impaired areas are the Maumee, Black, Cuyahog a 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 Rive r 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. 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 E[[ - 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 theri nal 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 surnmer 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 III - 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 Stratecic 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 11). 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 IH - 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 environinental 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 ust be weighed. The CZMA requires that a balance must be achieved which allows or encourages development, while still protecting unique and critical resources. in 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 OCN4P 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. � 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 III - 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. � 1506.02). Funding for such efforts is expected to have 'direct beneficial impacts on the natural and s ocio-economic environment of the coastal region, through protection of natural areas and other sensitive resources, wate&ont 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 EE[ - 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. 10 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. � 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 III - 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. � 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 pem-lit 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. � 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. � 1501-6-24 (review of permit application, rules Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Put 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 co'sts 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. �307.37. 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. �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 III - 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 C2MA 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 OCMP, 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 EIS Part 1H - 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 EJ - 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 M - 28 March 1997 G. Irreversible and Irretrievable Coniniftments of Resources The only irretrievable or irreversible commitment of resources that will result directly from the approval of the Ohio program is the comr-nitment 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, mininlizing and mitigating the consequences of coastal development on resources such as wetlands and shallow water lacustnine 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 IR - 29 March 1997 Part IV LIST OF PREPARERS @k, IV -.!i 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 Earlharn College in Richmond, Indiana, and an M.S. in Geology from Bowling Green State University in Bowling Green, Ohio. Daniel Halten-nan - 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. 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 - Attomey-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 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 IV ;p. e@ o Part V fr LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS RECEIVING COPIES OF FEIS Part V LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS RECEIVING COPIES OF FEIS Federal Agencies Council on Environmental Quality Department of Agri culture 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 Energ cly 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 Interstate Commerce Commission Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Part V - 1 March 1997 National Aeronautics and Space Administration Nuclear Regulatory Commission State and Regional Agencies 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 40 legislators, individuals, groups and organizations on their mailing lists.] National Interest Groups 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 Put 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 League 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 IV 0-i REFERENCES--FEIS @11 r 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 Z@l 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 Pan 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 Erie 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 Tem-linals. 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 Erie 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 Erie 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 March 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 z:1 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 L Part H 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 OV COMMENTS ON DEIS < 0* AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS @11 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. McEvain, 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 COMMIENTS (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 COMMIENTS No. . Commenter Date 1 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) October 2, 1996 DEIS Public Hearing Testimony, Cleveland, Ohio 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 Pan 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. �1506.02(A)(1). Comments received at those public hearings and written cormnents 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 WRITTEN COMMENT #1: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVI CES 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 pro plerty owner 01"T 3 0 CCL.", 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 adrninistrative 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 V111 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 H, Chapter 4, pages 4-27 through 4-31 of the program document. O.R.C. � 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 pem-iits 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 V111 March 1997 3. Cominent (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 11, Chapter 5, ODNR will not assist or promote structural protection where such measures would unden-nine 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. �1506.10 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 Squire ex. rel Brown v. Newport Concrete Co. [1975] 44 Ohio App. 2d 121 and State ex rel Squire v. develand [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 proper-ties. 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 11, 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 of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management National Oceanic and Atmospherica 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 lecenses and permits within the Coastal Area must be approved by the ODNR. Also, the OCMP suggests that "shore protectoin will be discouraged and reloation facilitated." In addition, the "ODNR will emphasize and encourage strategic retreat and selective fortification." Lastly, the OCMP suggests that the ODNR will require 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 statement. In addition, does the ODNR have the statutory authority to implement and enforce these proposals?l I must conclude that this document was really written to get power for teh ODNR, not protect the coastal area. I recommend that the Acting Director, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resources Management take no aciton on this document. Yours truly, Lakefront property owner Mr. & Mrs. HL Go--lle 23117 Ro----- ---- Bay Village, -- 44140 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 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 misrepresentation of the Working Group that was assembled to advise ODNR on the 2 Coastal Erosion Area Regulations. Since I was a part of the Working Group, representihg lake front property owners, I know this first hand. Specifically- Part 11, ch. 11 - p. 11 (end of 2" 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, 3r, 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" ... Include sufficient legal authorities..." etc., if 3 the OCMP has i2ledged no new regulations or laws (see Part I - p. 1, 1 st paragraph, second sentence). Part 11, 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 11, ch.3 - p. 1 - 4hpara. 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 11. ch.3 - p.1 - 5hpara. The defined Coastal Area Boundary still include lands with no direct impact upon coastal waters: why? Part 11, ch. 4 - p.23 (4@hpara)- 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 11, 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 11, ch.4 - p.26 & p.27-1 Consisteng@L 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? 4 (b) If the 0DNR 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 0 EPA (or other agencies), when more off Ices are involved? Streamliningand 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 11, ch.4 - p.23), the specific details of administration suggest increased complexity and even lengthier permitting processes. Part 11. 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 OCIVIP 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 IL ch.4 - p.30-1 (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 11, 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 pTotecting 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 11. ch.5 - p.5 (4"h para) Why did the ODNR select Mentor Dunes as an example of a non-structural erosion control measure? Even those not schooled in the litoral 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 11, ch.5 - p.6 (3" 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 11, ch. 5 - p. 11 (3" 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. 6 Part 11, ch.5 - p.12 (3" para) Define proces@ 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 enco urage strategic retreat and selective fortification. Now this sounds like a strategy dreamed up by someone who DOES NOT LIVE ON THE LAKEFRONTI 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 11, ch. 5 - p. 13 (1 s' para) Have the administrative rules required by O.R.C. 1507.04 and 1507.10 been developed andadopted? Surely if the legislature saw fit to change the O.R.C. to require permits, should not the ODNR have done so already? Part 11, 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 11. ch.5 - p.71 (2 nd 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 7 the state. Part 11, ch.6 - p.5 (5h 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 11, ch.6 - p.5 (last para) Last line of this paragraph refers to "erosion hazard area.' See above. Part 11. 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 11, ch. 11 - p.6-1 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 11, 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 11. ch.11 -p.13 (2 nd 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 There has been no cost-benefit analysis run to justify the adoption of this program. The preceding part of the Draft OCMP 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 lDrogram. Funding has been mentioned on numerous occasions (about a dozen times 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 Director, 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, 40 Malcolm B. Wood, P.E. enc: LAW OFFICES OF ROTH & ROLF CO., L.P.A. 600 BOND COURT BUILDING 1300 EAST NINTH STREET CLEVELAND, OHIO 44114 (216) 621-2321 TELECOPIER (216) 621-1439 IRA S. COFFMAN AMY E. KELLOGG DAVID P MUHEX CAROL ROLF DENNIS A ROTH ERIC M SIMON JOH A TRIMBOLI KELLY M WESSELL SETH M WOLF OF COUNSEL GAIL M SCHAFFER ASLO ADMITTED IN FLORIDA ALSO ADMITTED IN INDIANA July 6, 1995 Mr. Michael Colvin Coastal Management Administrator Ohio Department of Natural Resources Fountain Square Columbus, Ohio 43224-1387 Re: Erosion Hazard Area Working Group Dear Mike: The undersigned have reviewed your communication of June 12, 1995. We believe there are some additional 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 simply 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 devise is not owned by the applicant. Thus, requiring "either of the following" is not accurate. We are also concerned that the applicant is responsible for verifying that an application has been filed with the Department of Engineering. What 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 & ROLF., 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, is says the 30 day review period begins upon receipts 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 Amy E. Kellogg Michael E. Murman Samual M Savin Charles E. Herdenfdorf 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 Proposed 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 ineasure 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 TATRONG! Proposed Lake Erie Erosion Hazard Area Regs. 2 Permitting: 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 unpredictablenature 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. Economic5: 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 hone 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 $1 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 L ake 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 pi-er 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, all or ---r W V M lcolm 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 wooo@ ~0 ~4 ~@~2qR~_ ~8q@~_~0q7~1~2q7~q5 ~qM~ ~:~i~x J~qS~4 ~Z~: -~Q~. ~_~2 ~W~_ ~-4 ~7~. New erosion cr~a~cxs a~qmeann~qg along t~h~e L~axe E~ne sno~qm~ine in Pa~ine~s~v~ide 7~owns~qm~o may mean ~two ~q=~n~ce~qmne~a houses ~,ee~te~nn~qg ~ct ~-~he edge ot the ~q=ff ~qm~il have to ~ce torn down. ~~q7 ~2qW I t~2qi~4q* n ~~...~.ouse~8qs des ed for a fall BuIldozer may beat lake to the punch he b~lu~IT or ~a~re cer~no~t~is~n~e~u. ~*~.~!~*~,~c ~;essments can ~De ~i~ow~e~r~e~a to ~nor~n. By STEPHEN KOFF ~s~hooK a~oou~t I a~-~-~rL Wednesday. ~;~g- na~i amounts. ~E~va~n~gc~ns~t~a s~a~ir- ~~A~N ~CE~ALE~A ~AE~P~O~R~qM~I 'We wi~qd begin looking ~q7a~l~i~n~g -hat their ~.~*~ron~t yard ~IA~qW -ben. if the ~Pr~oDer~tv owners : ~z. PAINESVILLE TOWNSHIP ~a~r~eaK~In~g off. ~7he brothers c~ou~id ~.~a ~cay t-~he taxes. ~t~he ~:a.-.~a can ~u~;~L After :.heir ~-~r~q=s ~i'~ell over the this ~qwe~e~j~q@ at steps to not be r~e~acn~L~a ~y~e~z~u~er~c~ay. ~-na~tc~l~y ~o~c given to ~E~n~c ~s~=~:~c~. 7~@~:- ~R~qA ~"~ou~l~d ~~uf~~. ~:~,~-~a La~.~q@e ~. homeowners get both houses ~Sve~ge~i ~s~a~ld the township wou~id ~q5t~ate ~L ~asK the ~-~-~-~.~o~-unt~y ~*~.~a ~-~e -were !e~l~l !ast ~-~x~ve~x with. danger- ~pro~c~a~o~ly ~s~e~e~x a court order ~re~ou~t~r- nave t~he p~r~op~e~rr~y ~:~.~-~O~rn ~:~z~s ~1~z~; ously positioned houses. too c:os~e demolished.' ~:n~g the nome~own~er~s to tear aow~n rolls. to ~~e edge. - F~ra~qm 5v~e~qe~L the no~use~s. If the ~nome~owners co ~1he ~a~t~iandonea ~c~zr at ~-~.~:~-~.~c ~o~i~c~i~f~' P~a~ine~s~"~i~le rown~s~h~i~o a~am~in~u~ira~tor not com~D~t~y. the ~to~-r~i~shi~o w~i~l~L ~de- Oott~om ~z~r~e~s~e~n~m a tougher ~z~r~r~c~- The houses m~av ~oe next, to go~.~:~f ~r~n~o~i~L~s~n ~L~ie nou~ses ~out will ~Lacx t~l~ie ~:C~n~L S~Ve~Re~f ~1~2~.~S ~3~SK~L~U ~@~nC not ~,~.~-~a~m ~!~r~te gnawing ~L~a~ke ~F-~i~n~e the ~shor~e~une. The ~a~o~and~oned blue ~@~o~s~t onto the homeowners~' tax ~o~LiL -Army ~C~O~r~a~s of ~F_~i~c~inc~c~r~s :or erosion ~?hcn ~' ~r~om a ~ou~ild~oz~er. car went over with the crescent- ~t~ie said. vice an ~n~ow ~to remove :t. ~an~d ~d ~~in~e~sv~i ~l~i~e Towns~n~i~o wants to ~ue~- ~s~n~a~qm~o mass of earth. '~q7~1his is ~t~he corps ~o~i~r~la~a~l ~i~n ~C~:~e~v~e~la~no said ~n~e mo~~s~h t~h~e two small houses before All of wr~i~tc~h could ~r2~L~qw "other planned to c~l~i~c~h~o ~a~a~wn to ~:oo~K ~z~: they meet the same fate as an biggest c~nunx that I've ever seen ~@s~sue. -Song ~qma~dst~ic.- ~5~2~q"~d S~v~1~- the car soon. go Mr~.- ~q=d Donald Fox~a ~P~a~ine~s- ~Z~6. -are they going to pay ~t~x~qws But at c~or~os ~m~e~tona~t ~n~c~a~c~a~u~q=~. ab~r~~don~e~u blue car that ~, n~o~qM ~T u~~~~e ~a~m~v~n D~en~e~a~L~h t~h~e ci ~l~o~w~n~t~in~t~o ~S~ch~o~o~ns cusux~u~an ~@Or ~Pr~o~oe~r~t~V that~'s 4ood for ~no~t~n- ~'~.er~s in Buffalo. the ~ot~fi~c~-~a~i ~w~or~a !~a~st no owns one of ~Lhe nome~s. ~n~q o~t~r~i~er t~n~a~n to put u~p a Little ~o~ic- ~. 'Wednesday. ~r~l2~t~t~he ~c~2~r is s~tr~i~q=~v ~t~ne ~sr~o~o~e~r~t, 3o~Lh small homes are now u. able? ~Y~w~n~er~s e~s~oon~s~ic~i~lity 7~he ~i~nc We will begin ~qMK~in~g ~Lh~is w~e~e~K ~- ~. ~o~c~- n~ic ~c~u~o~le~a~. ~:= has not lived in ~n~t~s ~U~nul ~@~q= ~me~e~r- the Henson where the ~-~ar ~l~an~t~ac~c ~a~o~Dar~e~-~IL~'~. at steps to ~-~(ct both ~n~ou~s~e~s ~cer~no~- house ~I ~.or five ~Y~e r~s. and uses it for home was assessed for tax our- belongs to Fox. ~w~t~h~o~u~z~n ~F~ox ~n_~x We would like to ~g~e~t rid of ~;~t~o~r~z~ge~.~ne said y~3~es~t~q"~C~z~t~y. ~He~qm~e~d poses at an~d c~a~r~n~e~r- ~3 nothing ~to ~mo with ~.~*s ~a~n~u~:~n~z t~e~m~n~ior ~F~a~lety s ~sa~xe before ~t~h~e~v selling it. said. bu~t~to no av~-a~iL ~v~e~ar~ty tax ~c~ill o~f ~5 198. accord in ~c to fall ! to the ~i~ake. ~* ~l~ow~n~sh~i~o ~a~c- ~n~nts~tr~a~t~o~r F~r~an~i~t ~Sv~e~gei said ~-~e~e~s- The t~ow~nsn~i~o~'s plans for ~aemo~u- Deputy ~L~a~xe County Auditor ~M~uke 'he c~o~r~o~s does n~e~g e~t :n~v~(~,~i~v~c- terd3~qy~q. t~qion. ~qne said. are consistent ~qn~qtl~qi ~q7va~qnR~qLt~q:~qs~8q= ~q3~qc~8q=us~qe of i~qts p~qr~qec~q-~q-n~q. ~q@n ~qD~qea~qc~qn~qe~qo ven~qic~qics u~qm~qe~qss~q'~qn~qe~qy ~qz~qr~qt ~qous ~qoos~qit~qion. ~q.~qO~q%~qb~qeV~qer~q. ~qR~qOn~q3~qld n th~qe %%-Ater - ~qi~qt~q,~q.~qwn~q:~qc~qn ~qn~qt~qs Own. ~q:~q'~q.~qn ~qco~qin~qg to tear t~qn~qe Both ~qn~qous~qe~qs. --nth ;~qr~qon~qt ~q"~qt~qr~qu~qs ~q:~q-~qT~qe~qn~qson ~qo~qa~qla on~qj y ~q-~q1~q2.000 for ~qiL 7he ~q@~qS ~qn~qr~qO~qb~qat~q)IV ~q3 V101~q3~qVO~qn ~q;~q!~q[ ~q"~qIC ~qiou~qs~qc u~qo~qw~qn. I ~qn not going ~q'~q.~qa ~ql~qet A ~q@~q,~q* ~p~c~r~c~r~qi~qe~qc ~qi~qi~qon~qg the ~q@o~qi~qt-~qso~qi~qi ~qh~qiu~qirs Fox ~qn~qr~qo~qo~qer~qtv ~q-~q@~q,as ~qvor~qt~qI~qt ~qS~q14.~q1~q00 ~q@~qm~qi ~qC~q'~qe~qan ~qW3~qt~qe~qr Act. ~q;~qZ~q:~qc ~n~o~o~v~e L~qa~qx~qe ~q!:~q:~qn~qc~q. ~q%~qv~qe~qr~qe ~qcon~qacmn~qe~qc ~q4~q0 Over t~qh~qe~qn~ql~qi~ql~q.- and ~q!a~qd a ~2q= annual Lax ~q0111. But ~q;po~qic~qe~qsm~qan J~qonn ~2qa~q-~q-~qr~qo,~q-~qS~qn~q1~qr~qc by Lake ~qC~qaun~qty ~qw~qr~qic~qi~qa~qi~qs ~qi~qa~qs~qt ~q-~qA~qr~qe~qx -~qh~qe ~qnh~qer ~qn~qome ~q:s ~q7~qwned ~q3~qy ~q:~qhe auditors o~qt~qf~ql~qi~qc~qe will ~q@ower !-I ~qc ~ql~qe as un~qs~qa~qt~qe ~qj~qi~qt~qer ~qt~qh~qe~q:~qr front ~qv~qar~qc~qs ~qR~qon~qa~qid ~q4~qens~qon. ~qmno ~qv~qi~qL~qn ~qi:s ~qa~qss~qe~qssm~qen~qu ~qo~qec~qau~qs~q& ~qo~qf~q;ast ~q1~q4~q'~qe~qe~ql~ql -~q' ~q:~qikc ~2q=~qL- dropp~2qM over ~q*~q.~q.~qt~qe ~q1~q1~qa~qg~qc and onto ~q*~q)~6qmL~qh~qer ~qC~q.~q=~qr~qx~qs :~q1~qc~qU ~qa~qt~qt~qer ~q.~qn~qe~qi~q-3~qr~q,~q_~qn ;oil ~qsn~qa~qe, and ~q;~qf ~qt~qhe ~qn~qo~qu~qs~qe~qs fail ~qj~q: f 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 H, 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 11), 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 Comi-nittee in support of the provisions of H.B. 119. The letter stated that "the working g 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 V111 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 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. 119 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. � 1506.0 1), 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. � 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 1, 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 C) 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 10 proposed. 6. Comment (regarding the inclusion of sufficient legal authorities, Part 11, Ch. L, p. 2) noted. No change required. The "coastal area" is defined in statute, as cited (O.R.C. �1506.01 (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, 4thpara.)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 11, 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 111, 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 Pan 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. � 1506.03). See also response to written comment #2 (Mary Wood), item #2 regarding consistency. 10. Comment (Part 11, 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. � 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), I 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 111, 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 11, 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 IEI, ChA, 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 penrlits 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 11, 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 U, 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 to 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 11, 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 officiaUy 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 VIII March 1997 17. Comment (regarding enforcement of unauthorized construction activities, Part 111, 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. 1 18. Comment (regarding strategic retreat and selective fortification, Part 111, 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. 40 19 Comment (regarding rules under O.R.C. Chapter 1507, Part II, Ch. 5, p. 13) noted. No change Z) I 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 11, Ch. 5, p. 55) noted. No change required. All eminent domain actions by the State of Ohio are governed under O.R.C. � 163.59. 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 IEI, 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 V111 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 111, 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 H, Ch. 6, p. 13) noted. No change required. See response to comment #2 1. 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 H, 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. � 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 VI[ 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 III 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 VU March 1997 Acting Director, October 21, 1996 Office of Ocean'and Coastal Resource Management National Oceainic a hd 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 EIS Draft Document (OCMP). I feel compelled t%^ offer the following comments: This gives me. the feeling that it was written by ODNR office of Real Estate 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 OCIVIP 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 11, chapter 4, page 23 (4"' 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 determination of consistency with the policies of the OCMP has been made by the ODNR.0 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. Yols truly, Lakefr6nt 1, =ro;@Iy'oymler 14&@ WRITTEN COMMENT #5: DAVID S. MCILVAIN, PRIVATE LAKEFRONT PROPERTY OWNER, October 2.1, 1996 10 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. 10 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, N/ORM3 Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 RE: The Ohio Coastal Management Program Draft Document Dear Acting Director: Having reviewed the Ohio Coatal Management Program and EIS Draft Document (OCMP), I feel compelled to offer the following comments: This give me the feeling that it was written by ODNR office of Real Estate 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 document is unfocused, wit 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 (4th 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 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 sould 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 Shirly Heck 23416 Lake Rd, Bay Vill, -- 44140 As a taxpayer, this appears to be the creation of ------- ---------- to drain the ----- -- Gov't. Approved of Ohio Coastal Mgmt. Program will open the door for a multitude of Law Suits and the lawyers once again will become the winners. WRITTEN COMMENT #6: SHIRLEY HECK, PRIVATE LAKEFRONT PROPERTY OWNER, October 21, 1996 Response to Comments: Comments noted. No chanae 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 V11 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, 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 feel compelled to offer the following comments: This give me the feeling that it was written by ODNR office of Real Estate 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 document is unfocused, wit 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 (4th 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 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 sould 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 Shirly Heck 23416 Lake Rd, Bay Vill, -- 44140 As a taxpayer, this appears to be the creation of ------- ---------- to drain the ----- -- Gov't. Approved of Ohio Coastal Mgmt. Program will open the door for a multitude of Law Suits and the lawyers once again will become the winners. This gives me the feeling that it was written by ODNR office of Real Estate and Land Management for the benefit of the ODNR office of R WRITTEN COMMENT #7: JA MES W. BECK, PRIVATE LAKEFRONT PROPERTY OWNER, October 21, 1996 Response to Comments: Comments noted. No change required. See response to written comment #5 (David McIlvain), same letter. Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Put 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 EIS 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 heari'ng 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, /hakefropt 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 com:ment #2 (Mary Wood), item #7, and written comment #5 (David S. McEvain), 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. lie Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS part VII 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: Havina 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 th e primary focus being to get S 800,000 per year when the OCMP is approved. The document is unfocused, with vague and dated I 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 arbitranily 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 9JaZs A=JManniPE Lakefront property owner 1'@VJIO C4 LOiq C) 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. McIlvain), 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. Cornment (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 Pan VE March 1997 ceo(-L FK "3 oi- 7/3 -@/O) Oj Y)l /7YI, CA wk- bu r,-@ dol O's- - &,&;4<A Ohio Coastal Management Program (OCMP) Environmental Impact Statement Draft Document This document, written by the ODNR as Ohio's response to the Federal Coastal Zone Management act (CZMA) is being done so that the ODNR can obtain funding of $800,000 per year. The OCMP is a flawed document that can be best described as a power grab. It contains provisions which are harmful to the lakefront property owner's interest. Specifically: 1. The ODNR is seeking to expand its regulations to enforce the policies and and provisions of the OCMP (see Part I - p 7), even after pledging that it would not seek new regulations or laws (Part ( - p. 1). As many people know, the ODNR has sought to jam some pretty unsavory regulations down the throat of lakefront property owners. This appears to be another attempt. 2. It should be noted that the ODNR has the power of eminent domain, i.e., they can take lakefront property and pay "fair market value," (Ohio Revised Code 1501.01). This in itself is no surprise and should not be viewed as alarming. However, some of the policies buried deep within the OCMP are alarming, and when viewed in light of the legal powers of the ODNR, could even be called frightening. Specifically: 3. The ODNR is advocating a policty of strategic retreat and relocation. In Part II, Ch. 5- p.12 (3rd para), this paragraph concludes"...ODNR will emphasize and encourage strategic retreat and selective fortification." Nowhere in the OCMP do they state what areas have been targeted for this policy, nor do they mention anything about the rights of property owners or any channels of appeal. And lastly, they do not cite any statutory authority which mandates this strategy. 4. If that were not enough, In Part II, Ch. 5-27. (2nd para, item 3), the ODNR says that it may require public access (to private property) as a condition of granting a (submerged lands) lease or an (erosion control structure) permit. If one were to read between the lines, this sounds as though the ODNR wants to get private property by any means they can. Just imagine what would happen to property values if the state obtained "access" for the public, especially if they 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 that landowners to obtain insurance to protect the state hen 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 particularly odious, especially for those lakefront property owners that have to deal with the OEPA. For example, one proposed policy states,"...the OEPA will include for the applicant's signature a statement that the applicant 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." 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 ODNR tried to jam 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 ZD 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). 1. 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 McIlvain), item #1. Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Part VII March 1997 -'Tl 2,1 2,7'11 /_7 -)@2@ /---"A 7 -1 -Z,2 -7 ;2-7-4-2--Z 7X4z - /-7N ZL-- xt, e-T--, /C5- ell 'Zi 7 L xj@ /Z e -14- ee4 2 2- -7 TA -7 C.2 -.2 L--z7 9 @2 2 2' 2-2- -7- 2;;;` _7" 2-2 7212 77'@@ r7 7V- -2 e--v, r-I 4 6- 7 e7 22 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 McIlvain), 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 VI[ March 1997 eY C, C:i@ C-- 4t--- goo." -ze '00.00 el '000-@ 1005 .00, el -14 10- @5@>@ 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 C) #1 of written comment #5 (David S. McIlvain). 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 j@1-0600 331-1 04 Ell %,F@ 21012 HILLIARD BLVD. ROCKY RIVER, OHIO 44116 OFFICE of the MAYOR DON UMERLEY, MAYOR OCRM RECT 11@19/96 November 8, 1996 ACTION: URAVITQHZQLLUGE2_- MTENOIT/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 yo urs WE ITY OF ROCKY RIVER Mayor on Umerl-ey @'p 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 REG'-D 11/20/96 November 13, 1996 10 Acting Director Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration U.S. Department of Commerce 1305 East-West Ifighway, N/ORbU 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 twd 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 governanents 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 after we first learned of the subject program. As one whose military duties for a year and a half consisted of writing justifications for additional monues and peLrsonnel 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 Pan VII March 1997 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON. D.C. 20555--0001 -;over-,ber4, 1995 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, 7 David B. Matthews, Chief Generic Issues and Environmental Projects Branch Division of Reactur 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 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 Waste Recycled paper Systems- BROWNING-FERRIS INDUSTRIES Oliawa County Lancifin 13 November, 1996 Acting Director, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management OCRM REC'D 11/14/96 National Oce@nic and Atmospheric Administration US Department of Commerce 1305 East-West Highway, N/ORM3 Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 RE: The Ohio Coastal Man agement 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 Manage ment 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 11, chapter 4, page 23 (4` para), it reads as foliows- "...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 have 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, streamlining 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 11, ch. 3 - p. 1 (4th para), which cites the CZMA (15 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 SH OHIO HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION, INC. November 4, 1996 Mr. Joe Uravitch Coastal Programs Division SSMC-4 Room 11109 1305 East - West Highway Silver Spring, MD 20910 Re: Comments Ohio %Coasta! Managerrient 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. Similady, 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 riiAt 17 SOUTI I I I IG I I STR ITT - 7th FLOOR - COLUMBUS. 011104321-@ - (ol-4) -12S-t)o47 - FAX: (61-4) 22S-il-49 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 V111 March 1997 30960 Lake Road Bay Village, Ohio 44140 November 11, 1996 Mr. Joe Uravitch, Acting Director Coastal Programs Division SSMC-4, Room 11109 1305 East-West Highway Silver Spring, MD 20910 Dear Mr. Uravitch: Thank you for the opportunity to review 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 fomulating this review. Mr. Barth chairs the Bay Village Mayor's Ad Hoc Committee on Shoreline Erosion. This committee was appointed two years ago at the time that ODNR notified all Bay Village lakefront property owners their properties fell into what they then called an "Erosion Hazard Area"(EHA). As you will see in our attached comments, our main concern is not with the historic erosion which in our community is well understood. Our concern is wit ODNR's inaccurate methods of measuring which lead to an overstatement of annual property recession rates over time. To complicate the problem, there is uncertaintly about the costs and useful life of shoreline protection devices and just how ODNR intends to exercise its regulatory authority. 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 withdrawal from the market already, directly based upon this overstatement of forecase erosion rates producted by ODNR> This overstatement of erosion along the five miles of Bay Village shoreline destroys the real estate market for these properties. It will soon reduce property tax valuations, resulting in reduced revenues necessary to operate our local schools and government. Our state government appears insensitive to the local damage it is inflicting in attempting to gain regulatory control by overstating property losses. We need accurate measurements of actual erosion to lakefront properties over time. According to the letter dates September 30, 1996 addressed to shoreline property owners from Donald C. Anderson, Director of ODNR. "Odnr will review 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. Sincerely, Richard E. Walker G. Allen Barth cc: Donna Wieting, Acting Director, Ecology and Conservation Office Mayor Thomas Jelepis, City of Bay Village, Ohio C ON L\ IE \-r S The major concem which we wish to address is found in Part II-Chapter 5 - Policy I - Lake Erie Coastal Erosion Area Manaaement and Policv 2 - Shore Erosion Control. 1. Coastal Erosion Area Del ineation Toficv I - Lake Erie Coastal Erosion Area %lanaaement It is the policy of the State of Ohio to minimize threats to human safety and propern due to Lake Erie-related erosion while protecting the functions of natural shore features b-,-: A. Delineatin the boundaries of Lake Eric Coastal Erosion Areas (O.R.C. 1506.06 and O.A.C. 1501:6-10 through 1501:6-13) Paae Part 115-9 states "... The delineation of coastal erosion areas is based upon scientific analysis of shore recession conducted by ODN-R's Division of Geological Survev. The methodology 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 Mav 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. 15 we had experienced during our fom- 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: Preliminarv Identification of Lake Erie Coastal Erosion Areas". His purpose was to notif@- us that "....at least a portion of your property lies within a coastal erosion area as pr'eliminarv 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 propem. losses. It was necessarv to travel to City Hall to learn that the new measure was 12.9 feet and 16.5 feet as the .1 Anticipated Distance (defined as) Recession (feet) anticipated during the next thirtv vears". As lakefront property owners throu-6out Bay Villaoe begin to marshafl their evidence revealing from surveys and photographs that the ODNM for appeal, it is consistentli 1 -1 - - scientific analvsis" and "methodology" produce incorrect measures. -Mis error overstates thirtv vear recession losses at double. triple and quadruple actual historic facts. Effect on Proveriv Values Cost analysis --ODNR evaluated the potential effects on the identification and enforcement of coastal erosion areas on property values and future development. Comments p gy. 2 Based upon research and consultation conducted during June through August 1993 and or again in Spring 1995, OD"-\'R concluded that the identification and enforcement of coastal erosion areas vNiH not negatively impact property values or development interests." (Part R I 1- 12) The existing real estate market traditionally understands and includes the facts of Lake Erie erosion in e 'luating real estate transactions. If the OD\,,R measure were correct, we va would expect the above assumption to hold But by ex-aggaerating predicted property losses by several times, 0D'NR is creating a real estate crisis. Example: In his letter of October 15, 1996 to lak-efront property owners, Mayor Thomas Jelepis of the City of Bay Village used the foUowing example: An important measure of the impact on value is established by the frequency and prices realized in seffing a home. During the past year, the Lake Erie Erosion Ad Hoc Committee has closely monitored the effect of this Coast Erosion Area designation on the sale of the propen), at 359 Lake Park, Drive. Early in 1995, a buyer expressed serious interest in purchasing Us home. When he inquired about erosion, he was referred to 0D\1TR. He was told that the erosion area was significant and anticipated considerable proper-ty- 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 of ten years. Based upon this information, the buyer withdrew from negotiation. In November 1995, Scudder Mackey of OD\LR attended a meeting of the Erosion Committee. Follo@idng this meeting, the seDer and Mr. Mackey visited the site where the seUer was able to produce convincing evidence that the ODNR figures were seriously overstated. Subsequently, OD'NR declared that this site fell into the catego of "No ., ry Erosion" and with this assurance, the buyer and seUer completed the sale. Real Estate Economics The economics of properly valuation are straightforward. If the property is being 0 depleted by falling into the lake, it has a certain useful fife. 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. This introduces an additional investment a buyer Comments pg- 3 must make and- discount from the sellers price. The protection device also has a useful life and must be replaced or repaired at the end of that time. Further, it will probably be built on the lake bottom adjacent to the shore. In addition to this set of permits and reviews, a fifty year leas,@ 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 i.yill be required or not, it must be considered in the buyer's purchase offer. This alone @Nill drive dov.-n proper-ty values. But there are further factor-s that need to be considered. The CXIP 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 regulator@y rules is a major detractor to property ownenhip and desirability. Compound Effect When we consider the real example and the economics that are involved and appl@, them to the more than two hundred lakefront residences in the City of Bay Village falling within the CNEP coastal area northeast of Lake Road, we find that these IM properties are already slow to sell. Should we property owners and the city administrators convince the Ci,@-IP that these measurements must be revised, therewill lik-eh- 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 CNIP management persist in mandating these overstated measurements, in a very few years these same homes %NiU sigifficantly lose value. Since Cuyahoga Count), designates this same Coastal Area as their real estate taxing neighborhood Number One, appraisal valuesvNill also drop significantly since they are based upon actual sales transactions. The subsequent loss of revenue MU directly reduce the income of the school district and municipality. This in tum %Nill affect the value of all real estate in the communitv and lead to further reduction until the downward spiral st,3bilizes at some greath@ reduced income level. Comments pg. 4 Remedies Because of the importance of employing accurate measurements of the rate of erosion, and the fact that CMP administrators mandate overstated measures as CEA degignations, we propose: A. Peer Review of Scientific Analysis An independent professionally qualified peer review boad be established to review the "scientif analysis" and "methodology" here employed. In addtion to the "...using the best available scientific records, data and analysis of shoreline recession....", (ORC 1506.06) the review should include statistical qualitative evaluation of the methodology. Currently the nine foot No Erosion Designation is related to an assumption that the results of this methodology are accurate to within plus or minus 2.55 feeet which represents the error in measuring erosion loss shown on the two aerial photograph enlargements from 1973 and 1990. The colored wax pencil line used to draw the outlines of a projected map onto the bas 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 greater 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 any recurring process, like tossing a coin or plotting transect mearsurements, the pattern of results should result in any 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 analysis" be reviewed. 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 ODNR) a written objection to the preliminary identification within one hundred twenty days..."(ODNR). Then under "Modification and Final Identification: ODNR will review and rule on all objections, and notify those who have filed. It seems totally incongruent to expect a fair hearing when the creators of this "scientific analysis" and "methodology" become judge and jury to those who challenge their accuracy. Where contradictions exits an impartial evaluation of the evidence is required. 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) " .I "Pohcv 5 - Shore Erosion and Flood Hazard Mitigation Assistance It is the policy of the State of Ohio to assist Lake Eric coastal communities experiencing, floodina and shore erosion problems to minin-tize future damages by: B. Providing technical information and assistance for addressing erosion and flood hazard concern- s. (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 owners (0. R. C. 1507. 10). The Division of Engineering pro-,ides 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 the), have refused to do so. Belie%ing that the purpose of the CIMP is to "minimize threats to human safety and property 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 amen@ity %,dthin our municipal boundaries. W'hen we asked ODN7R how we might become the first "No Erosion" designated city, we were told that ODNIZ did not want us to become a "No Erosion" Citv and that ongoing erosion is necessarv to create sand. Our community has been given no-encourag gement whatsoever b% CINIP administrators to explore a cit-,.--%Nide plan and solution. Comment pg. 6 4. Eliminate Uncertainty of CMP Regulatory Power The greatest factor for concern is that the CMP will significantly reduce existing market values of lakefront property by its administration of regulatory powers. This can be caused by 1) overstating the historic erosion reates, 2) implying or mandating that erosion protection devices must be built by the property owners, or 3) conversely denying permission to construct such a device or lease the requisite underwater land to an owner. Equally important is 4) unreasonable delay of a regulatory ruling since it prohibits the action of property owners in exercising their rights to protect their property. These undertainties can be removed if CMP administators 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 will stabilize the regulatory effects. This is similar to the state's use of its Right of Eminent Domain which now responsibly and fairly remunerates property owners whose land is taken for purposes of state policies. If the CMP 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 CMP 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" by the Ohio State Legislature. Now is the time to remove regulatory uncertainties and make CMP viable 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 recessoin, shall make a preliminary identification of the Lake Erie 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 Bay Village and its lakeshore residents. Appendix Footnote The computation deii@,ing the nine foot "No Erosion!' designation is the recogriized 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 behveen 1973 and 1990, or an annual er-ror 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 er-ror in the methodology is based upon the 17 year distance beina accuratewithin a range of plus or niinus 2.55 feet. Using these limits, ODNIR concludes that of the 282 transects measured in Bay Village (exhibit IrrI) 108 are classified asT\To 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 curTently 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 e-vidence, 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. X1,7hen the error range is increased to plus or minus 7.65 feet, 96% of the Bay Village coastal area falls into the No CEA designation. And at plus or minus 10.2 feet, four times the 0DNNR recess rate, 98.20/0' of these transects qualif)- 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@ City of Bay Village N-ao 9 - 7 2 7 + -TOT-9 L- qoc-e4 C? 1-3 2Q. LY-Lo Lf Zf 2-( 1 'Z-2- i tr,4 _F24"t 8q 2- 7 0. L-173 cl; 1-3 0 25@ 2-L/ z- -2 @, C3 Le 2-(, C7 t LIZ? 4(2 fr L@30 2- t 6 (013 z1a Lo L7'@2 Z. 6 7---; TIC, 7 C7,z, C? 16 @a;r 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 CEA '7 L7I C7 Y? -271 Frame number of aerial photograph TRANS: Transect number kMAS 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 (CF-A) DATE: Production date for table 33- CUYAEOGA COUNTY FRAME: CUY420 NO. OF PROFILES: 27 MEA.S 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 CUY420 420- 7 17.0 1.0 27.0 CZA 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 S.S 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 N12PCUY420 420-19 22.8 1.3 36.2 CEA 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 CZA 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 L L4 2- 6 MAHE: Frame number of aerial photograph TRANS: Transect number HZAS 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 (CF-A) DATE: Production date for table 34 CUYAEOGA 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 CF.A 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 CFA CUY421 421- 7 .0 .0 2.7 NO CEA CUY421 421- 8 3.7 .2 5.1 NO CF-A CUY421 421- 9 3.5 .2 7.8 NO CZA 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 CZA 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 CZA 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 1!57 - Z E?JU-IE: Frame number of aerial photograph TRANS: Tran3ect 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 (CF-A) DATE: Production date for table 35 CUYAHOGA COUNTY FRAME: CUY423 NO. OF PROFILES: 30 HFAS 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 CZA CUY423 423- 7 8.0 .5 15.7 CEA CUY423 423- 8 9.1 .5 15.2 CZA CUY423 423- 9 8.6 .5 13.3 CF-A 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.@ CF-A 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 Frame number of aerial photograph TRANS: Transect number 10 HrAS 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 (CF-A) DATE: Production date for table 36 FRAME: CUY424 CUYAEOGA COUNTY NO. OF PROFILES: 32 MEA.S 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 CZA 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 CKA CUY424 424-26 3.8 .2 10.4 CZA 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 C-E Iq Lr? Z r7' Maj-0: 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) ta DATE: Production date for 37 ble CUYAHOGA COUNTY FRAME: CUY425 NO. OF PROFILES: 31 I-JEAS 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 CZA CUY425 425- 6 5.8 .3 9.3 CEA 5.8 .3 10.4 CEA CUY425,; 425- 7 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 CKA 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 tUY425 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 fi 0 C-En z I V 9- 1 -11?1 M ! @5- -I =- / 19 '- 'Z? ' 2-'71 Frame number of aerial photograph TRANS: Transect number WAS 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 KEA) DATE: Production date for table 38 CUYABOGA COUNTY FRAME: CUY426 NO. OF PROFILES: 31 RECESS ANTICIPATED FRAME TRANS DIST RATE DIST STATUS CUY426 426- 1 .0 -0 .6 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 CF.A CUY426 426- 6 .0 .0 - 3.2 NO C EA CUY426 426- 7 4.6 .3 7.9 NO CZA CUY426 426- 8 7.4 .4 12.9 CZA 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 CZA 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 CZA CUY426 426-16 4.3 .3 8.7 NO CEA@ CUY426 426-17 6.8 .4 10.4 CZA CUY426 426-18 6.3 .4 11.3 CEA CUY426 426-19. 8.2 .5 10.1 CZA 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 CZA CUY426 426-23 7.6 .4 1-7.7 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 1.7 23.2 CEA CUY426 426-29 19.4 1* 1 31.6 CZA CUY426 426-30 23.6 1.4 37.0 CEA CUY426 426-31 24.0 1.4 35.5 CEA DATE: 8/19/1996 N,, cea - 10 =c7 C7'- I 5f ' Z. 1 0 '2-?' Frame number of aerial photograph TRANS. Transect number HEA,S 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 E7LAk-1E: CUY427 NO. OF PROFILES: 28 HEAS 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 15.6 .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 CZA 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 CZA 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 9,1 *5 21,0 CEA CUY427 427-25 18.9 1.7 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 KC, ILI Z7 'Z r? 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 (CF-A) DATE: Production date for table 40 CUYAHOGA COUNTY FRAME: CUY428 NO. OF PROFILES: 20 MEAS RECESS ANTICIPATED FRAt-M 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 CKA 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 L -2- f7 -t- c7- 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 41 ClUYAEOGA COUNTY FRAME: CUY429 NO. OF PROFILES: 25 MEAS RECESS ANTICIPATED FlUU-S 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 A 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 C F-A CUY429 429-21 .0 .0 2.9 NO CEA CUY429 429-22 .0 .0 3.0 NO CF-A 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 CEO c', ' i ? - = r-7 1<32- v?, + C/ E?WvM: Frame number of aerial photograph TRANS: Transect number WAS 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 CUYAHOGA COUNTY FRAME: CUY430 -NO- OF PROFILES: 37 HEAS RECESS ANTICIPATED FRAI-IE TRANS DIST RATE DIST STATUS CUY430 430- 1 .0 .0 4.2 NO CEA CUY430 430- 2 .0 .0 5.8 NO CEA CUY430 430- 3 9.3 .5 11.1 CFA CUY430 430- 4 9.0 .5 13.1 CEA CUY430 430- 5 7.8 .5 10.2 CEA CUY430 430- 6 .0 .0 4.4 NO CZA CUY430 430- 7 .0 .0 1.1 NO CEA CUY430 430- 8 .0 .0 .0 NO CEA CUY430 430- 9 .0 .0 .0 NO CZA CUY430 430-10 .0 .0 .0 NO CEA CUY430 430-11 .0 .0 .0 NO CZA CUY430 430-12 .0 .0 .2 NO CZA C(JY430. 430-13 .0 .0 1.9 NO C F.A CUY430 430-14 1.2 .1 5.4 NO CEA CUY430 430-15 10.5 .6 8.4 NO CZA CUY430 430-16 1.8 .1 5.7 NO CEA CUY430 430-17 .0 .0 2.2 NO CZA CUY430 430-18 .0 .0 .3 NO CEA CUY430 430-19 .0 .0 .0 NO CEA CUY430 430-20 .0 .0 .0 NO CZA CUY43 0 430-21 .0 .0 1.3 NO CEA CUY430 430-22 .0 .0 5.0 NO CEA 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 C tA 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 CEA CUY430 430-37 8.8 .5 12.6 CEA DATE: 8/19/1996 14 C, C LAI Z57 C7' - 1 <3-1 ZrT FRAME: Frame nu;mber of aerial photograph TRANS: Transect n=ber 1,1='J@,S DIST- Recession distance (feet) between 1973 and 1990 RECESS RATE: Recess;cn rate (feet per year) between 1973 and 1990 ANTICIPA7M DIST: Recess-ion (feet) anticipated during next 30 years STATUS: Indicates presence or absence of Coastal Erosion Area (CEA) DATE: Production 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. � 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 Conuriittee 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 V11 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. � 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 VIE[ March 1997 OCRM REC'D 11/15/96 Alan J. Olson 24624 Lake Road Bay Village, OH 44140 November 14, 1996 Acting Director Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration U.S. Dept. of Commerce 1305 East-West Highway, NORMS3 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Re: The Draft OHIO Coastal Management Program and Draft Environmental Impact Statement Draft Document Review (OCMP) Dear Acting Director, I am commenting on the Draft OCMP 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 governemtn bureaucracy at the expense of the taxpayer, without benefit to the homeowever, 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 erosoin 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 which 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 geologist at ODNR may be working diligentl on this project, these same geologists admit that this is not their area of expertise. ODNR has lobbied successfully against formal peer review of theis 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 tpe of pipe, fitting and joining materials used to convey drinking water in the U.S. It is also the opposite of Ohio law and regulations concerning professional experiences wit NIST, the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the FDA on a number of matters involving the public health safety and welfare. Many parts of the OCMP smack of laack of expertise. For instance, beach and cliff erosion west of Cleveland (where Bay Village is located) can be tracted to the dredging of snadbars, as opposed to ODNR"s theories. ODNR does not have staff who are expert in the area of erosion control, either natural of manmade. ODNR has dictated that the Coastal Management Area extends to the road or highway, which in my case, is about 600 feet from the water. The thought of ODNR potentially requiring a permit and review Page 2 Acting Director NOAA Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management 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 bacause 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 OCMP 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 have witnessed, part of that bureaucracy will continue to lobby state legistlators to oppose peer review or oversight. Unfortunately, the chance of harming the environment, the homeowner and the general public is also high. As a further example, strategic fortification may reduce erosion rates, but ruin aesthetics. Or, if ODNR aproaches erosion control devices on a case by case basis, the result is likely a hodgepodge of regulations and inconsistent breakwalls. When 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 disentranchised sectors of the public. However, these proposals do impinge on taxpayers and on the communities in which they live and pay real estate taxes. Because of the rus to publish these documents, there are erros, omissions and misstatements. My strong recommendations is to extend the comment period, require a more thorough desciption 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 wit geological processes, there are amply 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. Sincerely, Alan J. Olson, P.E. 24624 Bay Village, OH 44140 cc: U.S. Senator Mike DeWine U.S. Rep. John Kasic OH Senator Gary Suhaldoinik OH Rep. Edward Kasputis WRITTEN COMMENT #19: ALAN J. OLSON, PRIVATE LAKEFRO NT 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 #19 (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 corrimenter. 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 9 Valley View, Ohio 44125-3330 Phone: 216 524-6580 FAX: 216 524-6584 November 15, 1996 Mr. Joseph A. Uravitch, AICP Acting Director Coastal Programs Division . .0 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 120ligio in the program. Much of the program is suggestion, which could easily be ignored without the clout of enforcefnent. 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 idenfified coastal erosion area should be 100 times th average annual rate of - - . 2sured fMm the edge of the blu 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. Nonstructural erosion control measures should be encouraged- There should be final public review and comment of the final revised d of the Coastal Erosion Areas Rules after property owners appeal. Ohio Coastal Management Program Public access to the Lake Eria shore needs to be increascLL 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, all remajj@ng wetlands are impQrtant and should be protected. Wetlands restoration should be @.-ncouraged, - 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 V!Qllution and its cffect on surface water quality. 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 ch - . of nucl= Imwer plants should be -Prohibited. Enclosed is an article that appeared on the front page of the Cleveland daily paper, Yhe 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 a=cies 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, Kathryn P. Brock Board Supervisor Enclosure Copy to: Donna Wieting, NOAA Michael Colvin, ODNR 11115196 K. Brock 2 ~0 -grad~q@ f~qu e wants to use bomb ~6qY~4q@ ~4qR = ~q12~,~2q6_~2q9 Cente'~qrior also offers operates Perry, also has told fed- a range of options being contem- placed occasionally in r ty eral officials it would consider plated, If the price were right. warheads because it dec to sell the Lake Coun selling t~qhe plant to the Depart- The Perry plant's poor operating over time and t~qhe govern nuclear plant.to DOE ment of Energy to make the H- record, along with other prob- ~_~_~c~@~i l~0qit~ies ~4qf~4qf~4qiat once made bomb com~q2onen~qt~.~q1~qr~qifit~im. lems. has left Centerior righting deemed too unsafe to ope Center~ior expressed ~qin~qte~"~qrest in for survival. The scenarios have By JIM NICHO~qI~6qS ~qP both possibilities in recent letters The use of bomb material to non-proliferation activi PLAIN ~D~IA~LE~R~R~EPO~R~T~F~1~1 responding to DOE queries. Cen- fuel civi~l~qlan reactors is all opt on ried about tile security The Perry nuclear power plant terior also told the DOE that the DOE Is considering as a way grade nuclear materia in Lake County and 40 other civil- Perry could be hired as a contrac- to destroy warheads being de- environmental groups ian nuclear. reactors are inter- tor ~'o gener~6q%~qg ~qt~q[itiu~4qM along with commissioned under post-Cold ried as well about possi ested ~qIn usin~e ~o~qlutonium from electricity ~, if ~q-~8qU-~ie government War disarmament treaties. The dental releases of intens dismantled nu~cl~qi~-e-a~-~F~2qT~-~6-i~qf~qi~qb 'war- didn't b~uy the plant outright. government also is weighing the heads as reactor fuel. The financially troubled utility use of civilian reactors to make delivery, use or ~St~o~l age. Centerior Energy Corp., which told DOE it would consider any of tritium, which needs to be re- SEE ~4qP ~.~6qx etal tubes filled with a it out of the hands of ter ~0q@~. rods with ~i~n T~qke- ~8qP~qla~'~,~,~% ~6qb~qe-~o~2qder PLANT FROM ~qI-A ~6q7_~8q2~' lithium isotope and bombarding March, it polled utilities t~qhem with neutrons during nor- possibility of using it "To incorporate allegedly civil- mal electricity-generating opera- fuel, as France and ot ian facilities into the military tions. tries now do. complex raises serious questions ~'Tritium a toxic gas, is one of To do so, the agen about theft or diversion of the ma- ~4qM~0qN~4q@~6qWrms of hydrogen that have to build a new p~4qla terial from the reactors and dur- give the hydrogen bomb its name. cess vlutonium and dil Ing transport," activist group Assum~qm~qR~t~r~it~i~u~qm in dismantled uM~6q= ~. I ~qT~8quunlike re G~qureenveace told the DOE. "The ~qwa heads ~8qt~2qt~qf~qfff~8qM to b e~ re- uraniu~8qW- the usual pu~qbl~q-~qk~q-w~-~qf~ql~0qFbe quite hesitant to cy r cled, the DOE estimates it will ~q_d~8qZu~q-te~q-~4qT ~q6~qlutonium, cou embrace t~qhe idea that their local need a new supply by 2011. easi returned ~q1~q6 a I~qfe state, said ar reactor has become a storage site ~- In December, Energy Secre- usab ~4qM for nuclear weapons material." tary Hazel OLeary, announced a nuclear physic] ~6qR~6qtat t ~quen~terior spo~qReswoma~n Irene th~qe department i~8qf~8qf~8qla~q-y buy or hire chusetts Institute of Te Preze~ql~qj said yesterday t~qhe utilitv one or more commercial reactors Some environmental ~qj~q!~q!~4qj~qM~qs to ~-~4qFoT~qd~4qF~ng company only meant to to m~ak~qe~4qi~qx~q1~qj~qi~qu~4qm~. while the DOE gue that pluto~niu indicate to DOE that Centerior rese~arc~qh~-e~q-s~-~2qI~8qf~8qfe~q- feasibility of commer~6qE~qNT -use and di would be amenable to discussing building a new multibill~qion-do~qll~ar irradiated plutoniu~q!~4qY a the issues further. plant to make tritium. Centerior i~s[ expose~6qf~6qfTo-~-~i~6qrw~q-ould "We are not saying that we def- was one of 14 U.S. u~ql~qli es and a problems. initely are going to do this," she Canadian reactor owner who ex- Mar~8qy~0qp~qison ,.a spokes said. "All we're saying is that we pressed interest in selling their ~qt~qf~qi~q-e~a~nti-~nuc~qlear grou want more information ... We plants. Information and Reso would certainly take a closer look "Never in the history of the nu- ~-T~c~q-e, said the DO~0qE~q's~-hou at it if the economics were there." clear age has there been such a encasing the p~qlutoniu Either option would require ap- blatant, unabashed link between Ing highly ra~qfl-~i~oa~6qf~6qf~6ql~c~q-ive-~8ql proval from t~qhe -Public Utilities nuclear weapons and commercial deter theft, then store it Commission of Ohio and the Nu- nuclear power," said local anti- "T~qhe idea that the clear Regulatory Commission. nuclear activist Connie Kline. should be rendered u~6qf~6qi PUCO spokesman Dick Kimmons "Atoms for peace and war a~8qFe bombs is one we sup said the commission as heard now one and the same." said. "But it can be do nothing about ~qt~qhe options. The DOE must dispose of 42 the complications at T~qhe Perry plant could produce tons_~@~0qoflutonium from disman- cia~ql reactor that come tritium y replacing some fuel t~qiedwar ea sin away thatkeeps ting-~qplutonium n 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. � 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 ot 'her 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 Pan V11 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 V111 March 1997 C; Bowlincr Green State University L@partrnent of Geology 30-A linL Green. Ohio 43403-0218 lot Telephone: W9) 372-2886 Fax: (419) 372-7205 Nove-mber 7-, 1.996 Mr. Joe Uravitch Coastal Programs Division SSMC-4, Room 11109 1305 East-West Highway 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. 1 commend you and the responsible parties for your work. I also request that I receive my own copy of the P/6EIS 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 OCM[P. Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Part VII Match 1997 350 Dover Center Road Tittj of Nau 'pillage BAY VILLAGE, OHIO 44140 THOMAS L. JELEPIS 216/899-3415 MAYOR Fax 216/871-5751 .OCgM...P,E 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 TU: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 Hoc Committee. WRITTEN COMMENT #22: CITY OF BAY VILLAGE, November 12,1996 Response to Comnient: 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 V11 March 1997 OHIO COASTAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROJECT OCRMP P.O. BOX 3150 KENT, OH 44240 330/673-1193 November 20, 1996 Joe Uravitch Coastal Programs Division SSMC-4, Room 11109 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Dear Mr. Uravitch: 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 Atmospherica 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 WRrFTEN 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 Part VII March 1997 -T 0, United States Department of the Interior OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY CH 3 Washineton. D.C. 20240 In Reply Refer To: ER-96/594 NOV 19 1996 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 programmatic endangered species concur'rence 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 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 V111 March 1997 FLYNN, PLY & KRUSE A LEGAL PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION 165 EAST WASHINGTON --- SANDUSKY, OHIO 44870 TELEPHONE 419-625-6324 TELECOPIER --- - 625-9007 OTTAWA COUNTY OFFICE 115 WEST PERRY STREET PORT CLINTON, OHIO 43452 TELEPHONE 419-734---74 TELECOPIER --- -734-3175 JAMES F FLYNN ------ JOHN R PY -------- RICHARD R KRUSE RETIRED RAYMOND NO WATTS RETIRED MELVYN J STAUFFER WM CHARLES STEUK CHARELES W WATERFIELD JOHN D PY JOHN A COPPELER JOHN E ROSIND JAMES S HART- MARY JANE S HILL CHIRSTOPHER M MARINKO RANDOLPH C DIGGER III ALSO ------ IN TEXAS NOVEMBER 22, 1996 Mr. Joe Uravitch Acting Director Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 1305 East-West Highway, N-ORM3 Silver Spring, MD 20910 RE: The Draft State of Ohio Coastal Management Program and Draft Environmental Impact Statement Dear Sir:l The process leading to the Ohio Coastal Management Program (Program) while long in the legislative and statutory evolution has provided only a limied 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. The statutory mandate has expired. It is further provdided in the statute that the Program shall be administered 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 subject to administration or enforcement. The critical aspect of the Program is proper notification to the public and the opportunity to respond. It is unfortunate that 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 oportunity is given to consider all elements of public comment. As an example of the timing concer, it should be noted that the last scheduled public hearing pertaining to the preliminary identification of Lake Erie Coastal Erosoin 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 made pertaining to the Document when one of the essential elements is still under public review the day before comments are due. The coastal erosion area aspect of the Program contained in Ohio Revised Code Sections 1506.06 and 1506.07 is a @nattcr 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 Documenrwas already to be adopted no later than December 31; 1994. While the citizens of Ohio are still going through the process of examining and eventually 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 Septeniber 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 clement of the Document is composed of the forty-one policy statements. The policies are classified as enforceable and enhancement policie& An enhancement policy is ed to provide 'guidance or preferences regarding certain activitics, but is not legally binding. !lt may be a formal state policy or recommendations, or statute with discretionary authority." (Pat, 15-3) 1 will leave it to your speculation as to how the public is to interpret what is meant by an enhancement policy. A further consideration is what does an enhancement policy mean to local government agencies. T'he Ohio ComW 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 Was to be adopted n* later than twenty-four (24) months after the effective date. The statute wa6 then amended to change the adoption to no later than December 31, 1994. It has taken from 1089 to September of 1996 to prepare the Draft Program Document for public review. There now @hould be a sufficient period of time, not just a matter of month@, to provide full information t4 those within the coastal area and to property owners &ectly affected by being located on the sh6reline of Lake Erie. Sincerely, @rm Charles Steuk WCSIdsm cc: State Representative Darrell Opfer State Senator Elect Bob Latta Gary Boyle, Chief Pknner City of Sandusky Alex Mcl-Tichot Erie County Regional Planner Darcy Schee, Director of Greater Eric Marketing Donna Wciting TOTAL 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. � 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 desicnating 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 V11 March 1997 CITY OF CLEVELAND Michael R. White, Mayor ------- ------- ------- ------- November 21, 1996 Mr. Joseph A. Uravitch Associate Director Office of Ocean & Coastal Resource Management National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration U.S. Department of Commberce Room 11537, N-ORM 1305 East-West Highway Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 RE: Ohio Coastal Management Program Draft Document Dear Director Uravitch: I am writing in regard to your request for comments regarding the Ohio Coastal Management Program (OCMP) Draft Document. I appreciate you giving me an opportunity to respond to the OCMP Draft Document. There are two main concerns I would like to share with yo;u. First, I strongly object to references made with the OCMP Draft Document regarding "the burning of the Cuyahoga River"(Part II, sections 2-4,5 24). As you are aware since that time, the Cuyahoga River has undergone a significant renaissance and now serves as a focal point for both economic development and recreational activitiy not only for Cleveland residents but for the millions of tourists that visit the "Flats" area throughout the year. While I realize that this sad incident did occur in Cleveland's past, I believe the referencing of this incident serves no relevant purpose as it pertians to the content of the OCMP Draft Document. I respectfully request that these references be removed. Second, I am concerned that the public has not had the proper amount of time to review the OCMP Draft Document before submitting their comments. For example, the OCMP Draft Document 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 sufficient time to examine the OCMP Draft Documbent in order to provide comprehensive input. Cleveland: the new American city November 21, 1996 Page Two Again, thank you for giving me an opportunity ot present these concerns. Sincerely, Michael R. White MRWcdcf cc: The Honorable Don Umerley, Mayor, City of Rocky River Hunter Morrison, Director, City Planning Michael Konicek, Director, Department of Public Utilties Amy Kellogg ---------------- 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 FEIS. 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 Part V11 March 1997 COAST ALLIANCE 215 Pennsylvania Avenue, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003 Tel: 202/546-9554 Fax: 202/546-9609 November 22, 1996 Mr. Joe Uravitch Coastal Programs Divisions SSMC-4, Room 11109 1305 East-West Highway Silver Spring, MD 20910 Via Fac------- and First Class Mail Dear Mr. Uravitch: Enclosed please fine our comments on the State of Ohio Coastal Management Program and Draft Environmental Impact Statement Volume I. The comments are submitted on behalf of the Coast Alliance and twelve Ohio citizen groups and individuals. (For the names and addresses of endorsers, see attached.) We recognize that the State of Ohio has been trying for many years to develop a plan that is acceptable to both the Nationial Ocean and Atmospherica Administration and its citizens. It is understood that many aspects of this plan have been met, in the past, with much opposition from developers and land owners. However, it is of opinion that this Programs' main goal should be to protect Lake Erie's shoreline and its resources. With thi mind, the following comments ae focused on those areas that we feel are of the utmost importance in defining goals and enforcement capabilities for the Ohio Coastal Management Program. It is our hope that the Ohio Department of Natural Resource and the National Oceanic and Atmospherica Administration examine these comments and address our concerns and recommendations. Without additions to the draft Ohio plan, it is our fear that the Ohio Coastal Management Program will not have the enforceability nor the substance to maintain and protect the coast from overdevelopment and pollution. We would like to acknowledge the hard work done by the State of Ohio, and we hope that it continues its efforts to protect the Lake Erie shores. Sincerely, Sue Veres cc: Ms. Donna Weiting ----------------------------------------------------------- Names and Addresses of Endorsers Sue Veres Coast Alliance 215 Pennsylvania Ave., SE Washington, DC 20003 Glenn Landers Great Lakes Specialist Sierra Club Great Lakes Program 2460 Fairmont #307 Cleveland Heights, OH 44106 Raymond C. Zehler Executive Director Izaak Walton League 900 Morman Rd. Hamilton, OH 45013-4358 Vicki Deisner President Ohio Environmental Council 1207 Grandview Ave., Ste. 201 Columbus, OH 43212 Ray Hunt League of Ohio Sportsmen 25459 Sprague Rd. Columbia Station, OH 44028 Amy Simpson Director Ohio PIRG 2460 Fairmont #307 Cleveland Heights, OH 44106 Kathleen L. Barber 2 Bratenahl Place, 7-D Cleveland, OH 44108 Steve Sedam Great Lakes Regional Vice President National Lake Regional Office 692 N. High St., Suite 208 Columbus, OH 43215 Scott Sanders Co-Executive Director Earth Day Coalition 3606 Bridge Ave. Cleveland, OH 44028 Carol Avril President Aububon Society of Ohio 3398 W. Galbraith Rd. Cincinnati, OH 45239 Brian Ulm Ednangered Species Chair Northeast Ohio Sierrra Club 353 Halle Dr. Euclid, OH 44132 Pete Matthews Cool Running Bassmasters 4603 Moreland Ave. Willoughby, OH 44094 Dorothy Fike 20271 Delaware Rd. Euclid, OH 44117 COMMENTS ON: STATE OF OHIO COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT VOLUME I Submitted by: Coast Alliance and Aububon 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 (These comments do not ----------- -------- submitted by individual groups) Prepared by: Sue Veres Coast Alliance INTRODUCTION The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMAk) 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. Increasing and competing demands caused by polulation growth and economic development are destroying 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 programs meeting federal standards in exchange for federal funding and a say over federal actions affecting their coastal zones. The Department of Commerce's National Oceanic and Atmospherica Administration (NOAA) administers the CZMA program. To qualify for federal funding,states must include in their programs protection of natural resources including wetlands, estuaries, beaches, dunes and barrier islands. Coastal development is to be managed, especially that in flood-and erosion-prone areas. And the public is to be provided access to the coasts for recreation. Along with federal funding, the CZMP also gives states a tool to ensure that activites that affect a state's coast are consistent 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, regulations and policies that are part of a state's coastal management program. The consistency provision ensures input over dredging and dumping activities, offshore oil and gas development, and other activities that affect the lands and waters of a coastal state. The following states have federally approved coastal zone management plans: Alabama, Alaska, American Samoa, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Guam, Hawaii, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Northern Marianas, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Caroline, Virginia, Virgin Islands, Washington, and Wisconsin. We realize that Ohio is anxious to join the aforementioned states in having a federally approved Coastal Management Program. While we commend that state agencies and the Governor for their efforts, we have serious concerns with the management policies as set forth in this program, as is discussed in the following section. Our comments are presented on behalf of the Coast Alliance and twelve other organizations and citizens. The comments track the topics covered in the draft Ohio Coastal Management Program. I. COASTAL EROSION AND FLOODING There are many concerns pertaining to the coastal erosion and floodig policies in the Ohio Coastal Management Program (OCMP). 1. Lack of Setback Requirements The issue of greatest concern is that the Program lacks setback requirements. It is understood that proposed setback requirements were deleted from the draft Program a few years ago, but it is very important that they will be incorporated in the OCMP in the future. Many resources are exhausted helping to protect structures in the coastal erosion and flood-prone areas, which could be used for other policy implementation. OCMP should design and implement setback guidelines, and prohibit further development within these areas. OCMP should also manage those houses and buildings currently situated in flood hazard areas. Any further 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 building. Upon setting guidelines, OCMP should look at North Carolina's post-storm policy on the replacement/reconstruction of structures. Any structure whick suffers over 50 percent damage in North Carolina must comply with the current required setback and construction guidelines. 2. Structural Erosion Control Devices Are Encouraged Another major concern with the Ohio Coastal Management Program is that of structural erosion control measures 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 necessary to have erosion control measures in place. The Program indicates that these control measures will be evaluated by determining if any adverse effects will traspire, but it does not explain what the state of Ohio's definition of adverse effects include. Cumulative impaacts do not appear to be a criteria when evaluating the potential erosion control measures to accelerate erosion along the shoreline. The OCMP should take into account the fact that certain devices, such as seawalls, have been proven to increase the erosion rate along adjacent shorelines. The cumulative impacts of coastal erosion control measures may be further accelerated by a lack of a state-wide coastal erosion area program. Currently, the OCMP does not mention any plans to develop a regional management program. Ohio may want to model a program after that of the state of Wisconsin. In an attempts to reduce the cumulative Page 1 effects of varying coastal erosion areas' ordinances, the state has developed, under the Wisconsic Coastal Management Program(WCMP), a department within the WCMP that will provide hazards analysis and management suggestions to local governments. This department also acts as a coordinator between local governments and state agencies. By assisting the local governemnt, Wisconsin hopes tomove toward a state-wide comprehensive hazards management program. 3. Use of Non-Structural Erosion Control Devices Needs More Support 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 the state encourages this utilization, yet it provides no catalysts to encourage non-structural means. If a permanent erosion control device costs more than the building it is meant to protect, it is a cetain indication that the building should not be placed there to begin with. OCMP should formulate regulations prohibiting the construction of structural erosion control devices if their cost to construct is greater than the value of the building they are degisnged to protect. OCMP also needs to include such incentives as tax breaks or tax credits for the use of non-structural erosion control measure. Another option would be to follow the lead of North Carolina. North Carolina does not permit the use of permanent erosion control devices such as seawalls, wooden bulkheads, or concrete breakwalls. The preferred measures for dealing with long-term erosion are eigther relocation of the threatened building or soft approaches. At the very least the OCMP should clearly pronounce that it will not enter into agreement nor financially assist the construction or maintenance of hard erosion control devices. It would be best for coastal resources if OCMP 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 Submerged Lands Act authorizes the state's Department of Natural Resources to regulate the construction and placement of erosion control devices along the shoreline. Approval of a project is not granted unless it is determined that the adverse effects to the environment, public trust and riparian intersts of adjacent owners are minimal and will be mitigated to the extent possible, and that there is no feasible or purdent alternative to the aplicant's proposed activity. To avoid the use of hard erosion control devices, the Michigan Coastal Management Program (MCMP) offers grants for the re-establishment and stabilization of foredunes, dune grass planting, due fencing, and the establishement of native begetable cover on steep slopes. Ohio could take this another step and offer grants for wetland preservation and restoration. Page 2 4. Permits for Erosion Control Devices Unclear Another concern regarding the coastal erosion area is that of current buildings situated within the delineated erosion zone. OCMP has again neglected to specifically state whether or not a current property owner is affected by the policies set forth in this document. The Program asserts that any construction within teh 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 areas where construction has already taken place. The Program aslo claims that issuance of these permits must meet certain criteria unless the applicant will suffer an extreme hardship without the permit. OCMP should define which situations will be classified as hardship cases. Ohio could model a rebuttal against economic hardship aftr a Michigan statute that is specifically designated to protect dunes. Ohio could expand tis legistlation, applying it to all construction permits. The Michigan Sand Dunes Protection and Management Act requires alternative construction methods in order to minimize the impact on dunes. Referrring to hardship cases, the Act analyzes the cost of comliance with the construction requirements in an attempts to refute claims of economic hardhship. Ohio needs to establish a solid, well-defined method in which to refute false hardship cases. This needs to be done to ensure that developers do not use hardship claims as a loophole to get around the permit guidelines set forth in the OCMP. The state should utilize grants, and local state shared costs, to encourage compliance with the erosion goals and policies. Without incentives, it is possible that individuals may follow the easiest and least expensive methods to meet regulations, thus negating all of the enhancement policies set forth in the OCMP. It is recommended that the state offer incentives to restore natural buffers, such as wetlands, or legislate regulations prohibiting additional development witin the coastal erosion area. The Ohio Coastal Management Program must take into account that 25 percent of the state's population lives within the coastal area, and it is expected to increase to 9,006 people per square mile by the year 2010. Additional residents will increase the pressure to develop within the coastal erosion area. Now is the time for the state to take precautionary measures to prevent overdevelopment and protect the erosion-prone areas along Lake Erie's coastline. 5. Coast Erosion Area Delineation Not Included in OCMP It is understood that the rules for designating the Lake Erie coastal erosion area and the rules for enforcing the Lake Erie coastal erosion area are found in the OCMP Appendices G and H respectively, but the OCMP still lacks the coastal erosion maps. This lack of information makes it difficult to put the erosion management policies proposed by OCMP into context. Because the coastal erosion delineatoin was written as separate document than the OCMP it was difficult for organizations to conduct an in-depth review of both document. Page 3 6. General Public Should Have the Opportunity to Comment on the Coastal Erosoin Area Delineation It is imperative that the public be able to vocalize their concern over the inclusion or exclusion of land in the coastal erosion area. According to OCMP, only the property owners and jurisdictoins delineated will be notified of thier identification within the coastal erosion area. It is also indicated in teh OCMP that the property owners will be the sole individuals who have the opportunity to object to the delineation, thereby excluding the general public from the comment period. Every citizen who has concerns regarding the delineation of the coastal erosion area should have the opportunity to testify at the public hearings and have their comments heard. If the genral public is excluded from this process, the comments received will be biased in opinion. It is probable that the property owners would prefer that their homes not be included in teh delineation, as it will be increasingly difficult for those individuals to see their homes or obtain private insurance. OCMP must hear from those individuals who would not only like to see their coast protected, but are not directly impacted by the designation of the coastal erosion area. It is requested that a final public review and comment period be granted to the general public following the property owner's appear of the coastal erosion area delineation. Page 4 II. MANAGEMENT AND ENFORCEMENT OF POLICIES There are many concerns pertaining to the management and enforcement of the policies set forth in the Ohio Coastal Management Progam. 1. Lack of Enforceability The issue of gravest concern is the lack of enforceability of these policies. Less tha half of the policies proposed in the Program, 43 percent to be exact, are enforceable, legally binding policies. 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 "sub-policies" within the 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 one-quarter of the proposed policies. Due to the fact that the state lacks legislative aughority to curb development, urban sprawl is a primary concern. OCMP must re-evaluate these policies to determine the plausibility that developers and private land owners will forefeit profits for the sake of the environment without legally binding policies. There are little or no incentives for these parties to follow the guidelines specified in the enhancement policies. OCMP makes no mention of incentives, such as tax reductions or credits, which can be used to entice land owners to comply with the policies which are not enforceable by law. Ohio may want to model a program after states that use legislatoin concerning issues such as restricting hazardous development along the coasts. New York developed a Regional Coastal Management Programs(RCMP). This program znalyzes development trends along the shoreline. The program directs new growth to areas which are already developed. The OCMP should use existing regulations or formulate additional regulations that prohibit unwise activities in the coastal area. Additional regulations may be needed to modify the proposed enhancement policies into legally binding, enforceable policies. Another example of the lack of enforceability of the OCMP may be found at Part II 5-1: "The OCMP encourages local government to exercise their responsibility and may also provide funding assistance for the development of port and waterfront master plans...". This type of policy creates uncertainty about the stipulations set upon the local governments; it is unclear whether local governments are required to develop port and waterfront master plans if financial assistance is not offered by the state. OCMP could require local governments to do so, regardless of the state's involvement. Clear resolutions would assist local governments in determining in which areas development will be permitted, and in which areas development will be prohibited. These determinations would facilitate local government efforts in developing zoning regulations and alleviate local pressures they may feel from developers. The state should lead in the protection of the coast, as it is a resource of all citizens living in 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 assumptions that "Multiple use of the resource as a whole is inherently in the public interst" (Part II 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, commercial fishermen, environemtnalists, conservationists and/or future generations. OCMP needs to take into account that various members of the public have differing opinioins of what is in their best interste and what activities should accound for "multiple use." It is also an assumption of the OCMP that the enforcement of this Program may require the examination of user fees and public/private initiatives. When examining the plausibility of user fees, OCMP needs to involved 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 "free monthly passes" to public parks, beaches, etc. ina direct effort not to exclude those individuals who would otherwise be unable to use public resources. Another conern regarding the differential among income status is the guidelines, set forth in the OCMP, for local health departments. While OCMP encourages local health departments to establish permitting systems for operation of public beaches and to develop regulations regarding water quality, it does not indicate that the state will provide any funding to do so. In addition, in order to gain some enforcement capabilities, it would be practical for OCMP to provide guidelines for local health departments. The state should provide funding for those local governemtns who do not have adequate funds to test the water frequently. If the state does not grant these communities the necessary capital, some municipalities might suffer from low standards and less frequent testing, which would result in an increase of health problems. Although the OCMP states clearly that it will manage many important activities and projects in the coastal area, such as the water quality of the resources, and the manner in which resources are used, it does not provide enforceable policies regarding the loss of available coastal resources. The enforceable policies set forth in the OCMP that pertain to water quantity, Policies 39 through 41, deal only with the permitting and registration of water withdrawal. These policies do not give the OCMP any authority to maintian the Lake's current water quantity. This exclusion needs to be corrected, after all, the reduction and eventual loss of coastal resources would negate the necessity of the established management practices. These management policies should include clear language establishing policies for the maintenance and restoration of the current resource base. Another concern regarding the management approach incorporated in the OCMP is that is focuses 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 resources, which are both valuable and scarce, to clean up the pollution after it has contaminated the coastal area. 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. Additional Initiatives Which Need to be Incorporated Into the OCMP It is understood that under the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendements, Section 6217, Ohio is required to address land use practices that cause degradation of the coastal waters, such as urban 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 incorporation, the OCMP should maintain its concentration on addressing those land use practices that not only cause coastal water degradation, but also those activities that diminish habitat and public access 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 enforcement be directed by the OCMP. A study conducted by the National Audubon Soceity, Great Lake Regional Office, has found that Ohio is experiencing a net loss of wetlands. This net loss is found when looking strictly at the permits which were given to developers, it does not take into account the amount of wetlands lost due to failed mitigation efforts. Therefore it is extremely important for the OCMP to strictly monitor mitigation projects when enforcing the wetland water quality standards. The OCMP should ensure that mitigation projects do not take place outside of the immediate watershed in which a wetland wasl ost. It is desired that OCMP ultimately coordinate "all [state agencies] to institute a minimum on-the-ground , excluding enhancement and preservation, mitigation ratio of [2-1] for all projects in order to replace already destroyed wetlands, both in acreage and in function, and to offset the possibility of mitigation failures. [The OCMP should establish mitigation criteria that perserve all types of wetland systems]. The preservation of existing wetlands should not be recognized as a form of mitigation." When incorporating the water quality standards, it is consequential that OCMP identify and clearly define who the general public is. This definition needs to be examined when considering the public's long-term benefits regarding financial assistance given to private landowners for restoration, enhancement and management of existing wetlands. Ohio has already lost 88-90 percent of its presettlement setlands, making it second only to California in percent of original wetlands converted. It is hoped that OCMP will eventually prohibit any further destruction of wetlands in the coastal area, and use incentives to restore wetlands. Sensitive area other than wetlands also need enforcable 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 riera, OCMP should utilize incentives to encourage land owners to properly care for the areas. 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 policies. - The lake-wide management plan (LaMP) that is being developed should be incorporated into the OCMP as soon as it is finished. The LaMP will address many of the same concerns as teh OCMP - such as the impacts of exotic species and loss of habitat - and should therefore be an integral part of an undated, future volume of the OCMP. - Another plan that is currently not available but should be coordinated with the OCMP is the State Aquatic Nusiance Species Management Plan. This plan will give the state the enforcement capabilities it needs to combat such problematic species as the zebra mussel. - OCMP should also incorporate the long-term water resources plan, when complete, which should be utilized to administer the state's water management policies. - In 1988, there was a state law that mandated the creation of a water conservation law, this law has not been implemented. The OCMP should encourage that this law be followed and a water conservation law be created; once completed this law should be incorporated into the OCMP. - A long-term sediment management plan for harbor and navigation channels need to be incorporated into the OCMP as well. Without a coordinated effort with the Army Corps of Engineers, the state has little enforceable regulations over the dredging projects within Lake Erie's ports. Without the legal requirements of these additional plans, the OCMP is left with little enforcement capabilities. 3. Updating the Ohio Coastal Management Program As new local, state and federal regulations develop, it is suggested that the OCMP be updated on a regular basis, perhaps 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 strengths and weaknesses of the OCMP. It will also allow ODNR to update the Program in accordance with new environmental problems. Page 8 III. PUBLIC ACCESS Currently, Ohio's coastal area has a population of 2,736,00 or 8,892 people per square mile. This is 25 percent of the state's total population. In 1988, 8,892 people per mile lived along Ohio's coast. The number is expected to increase to 9,006 by the year 2010.4 Along with the influx of population will come an increase in the pressure to develop along the Lake Erie shore. While OCMP mentions that plans should be designed to reduce the effects of continued residential development along the coast, it has not developed the coordinating policies. It should be a goal of future, revised editions of the OCMP to design and coordinate plans that would limit further development of that state's coastal area. Development along the coast impedes public access to the Lake and its resources. Ohio may want to develop a program modeled after states that use ligislationas a means to restrict development that blocks public access along the shoreline. New Yor, an example 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 instance, tax ab---ments for business and industry to redevelop shoreline brownfields. Another state that is taking a legislative approach to counteract overdevelopment of the shoreline is Wisconsin. The state has developed a department within the Wisconsin Coastal Management Program (WCMP) that will provide hazards analysis and management suggestions to local governments, and will act as a coodinator between local governments and that state agencies. By assisting the local governments, Wisconsin hopes to more towards a state-wide comprehensive hazards management program. Ohio could adopt this strategy and apply it to a state-wide zoning regulation. Because activities taking place in one coastal municipality afect adjacent municipalities, state-wide and regional planning is of grat necessity when attempting to protect public access. It is imperative that the OCMP utilize this method of planning in future endeavors. While the primary goal of the state should be to mainain or create public access to the shore for recreational and public uses, it should not provide any financial assistance for those activities which may potentially cause damage to the Lake resources. When creating available green spaces. Activities which should not be funded by the state include paving areas near the lakeshore for parking and constructing additional public access points for personal watercrafts such as JetSkis. JetSkis should be strictly limited because of nonroad sources, the EPA has determined that gasoline marine engines are one of the largest average contributors of hydrocarbon exhaust emisions to the atmosphere and to water pollution.5 Improved engines are to be phased in from 1998 to 2007 but until then, the state shold limit the amount of public points for such watercrafts. Page 9 The OCMP should apply a coordinated approach of regulations and incenties in order to protect the areas along the Lake that are still accessible to the public. The state should protect and add to the natural areas through multiple financing opportunities. For example, the OCMP could provide funding to buy private land before the real estate rates increase further due to the increase of population along the coast. The state could also utilize a private and state initiative funding method to protect natural areas that are available for public use. Tax incentives could be given for public access point maintenance or creation. Lake Erie is a resource and treasure which should be available to all citizens of the state. Page 10 IV. EDUCATION Regarding the education of state and local officials, an oversight appears to have been made in the Ohio Coastal Management Program. It is very important that all of the state agencies become educated about the Ohio Coastal Management Program. Increased knowledge of the importance of the coast and of its gragile 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 resources, 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 Commission could be used to fulfill this position. Currently, the Commission has no power,l but if given sufficient authority it could act as the coordinating body among the agencies. 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 that, within OCMP, such important factors as zoning regulations are left up to local governments. These decision-makers need to be informed of the hazards that accompany the construciton of new development. They also need to made aware of other key issues, such as the environmental benefits of using non-structural erosion control measures within the coastal zone. Because OCMP has left the ultimate decisions to the local officials, these individuals must be educated about the goals, strengths and weaknesses of this program. OCMP should mandate education for all city, municipal and county officials within the coastal zone. These individuals should then do outreach to the public to inform citizen groups and other entities of the environmental hazards associated with development along the shore, as well as the benefits of having a healthy coast in relation to human health and the economy. OCMP needs to work with other decision-makers to disseminate information that it collects to guarantee that as many individuals as possible become educated about the importance of protecting and preserving the Lake. It is very important that state, local and federal officials work together to coordinate the OCMP planning process. Agencies should include interest groups, experts and universities when planning and initiating the various policies of the Program to ensure that the agenda is fulfilled. With education come compassion. Knowledge will encourage more individuals to participate in the decision making process, and hopefully begin to take a more active role in protecting and conserving the Lake Erie coast. The more individuals who know about the gragile ecosystem of Lake Eire, the more likely they are to feel personal responsibility. Page 11 and identification with the Lake. This new insight could help stir individuals to protect the resources and not exploit them. OCMP needs to develop its role as an educator for the Lake and its ecosystem. Page 12 Endnotes 1 Coast Alliance, State of the Coast: A State-by Sate Analysis of teh Vital Link Between Healthy Coasts and a Healthy Economy. Coast Alliance: Washington, D.C. June 1995, page 143. 2 Sibbling, Julie M., "Wetland Mitigation Requirements in Ohio", Great Lakes Wetlands, Volume 7, Number 3. Tip of the MItt Watershed Council: Conway, MI. October 1996, page 5 3 Sibbling, Julie M., "Wetland Mitigation Requirements in Ohio", Great Lakes Welands, Volume 7, Number 3. Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council: Conway, MI. October 1996. page 4. 4 Coast Alliance, State of the Coast: A State by State Analysis of the Vital Link Between Healthy Coasts and a Healthy Economy. Coast Alliance: Washington, D.C. June 1995, page 143. 5. "EPA issues air rules for outboards, personal watercraft", Great Lakes Commission Advisor, Great Lakes Commission: Ann Arbor, MI. September/October 1996, page 9. WRITTEN COMMENT #27: COAST ALLIANCE, November 22,1996 Response to Comment: 1. 1. Comment noted. No change needed. This would require amendment to O.R.C. Chapter 1506. O.R.C. Chapter 1506 was passed (as Senate Bill 70) unanimously by the Ohio General Assembly and has since been amended on four occasions. Throughout the history of development of the OCMP in accordance with that law and during those amendment processes, there has not been any apparent support for changes to that law to prohibit, rather than require a permit for, development within coastal erosion areas. Further, CZMA program approval requirements do not mandate that states impose setback requirements. 1. 2. Comment noted. No change needed. The requirement for providing erosion control measures in conjunction with a permit for new construction within coastal erosion areas is also statutorily mandated by O.R.C. 1506 and as such would require an amendment to the law. Cumulative impacts are, in fact, addressed in the evaluative criteria established by O.A.C. 1501-6-24, as cited in Chapter 5, Policy 1 of the draft program document. ODNR's Strategic Action Plan for Coastal Management has identified development of a comprehensive Lake Erie coastal erosion management plan as a high priority action step. The department will accomplish this through integration of technical data and expertise with coastal management objectives, assisting local government to develop plans consistent with the state's, and developing demonstration projects. 1. 3. Comment noted. No change needed. The State of Ohio must recognize the realities of Ohio's Lake Erie shoreline and tailor its policies to that environment. While policies employed by other states may be relevant as guides in principle, they must be adapted on a case-by-case basis in addressing Ohio's erosion challenges. The fact remains that Ohio's Lake Erie shoreline is dramatically different from that in Michigan and North Carolina. Among other things, it lacks extensive undeveloped and unarmored stretches and is severely sand-starved and not subject to significant seasonal fluctuations in sand movement. ODNR has made it clear that in providing technical and financial assistance, it will focus its efforts on encouragement of selective fortification and strategic retreat. Investing public money to provide financial incentives for nonstructural protection in areas where it is not appropriate and has a clear potential for allowing increased losses would be fiscally unwise. ODNR will continue to assess these opportunities on a case-by-case and reach-by-reach basis while keeping in mind the basic principles of proper maintenance of natural coastal processes and functions. 1. 4. Comment noted. No change required. O.A.C. 1501-6-22 clearly states that a permit is not required for erection, construction or redevelopment of a permanent structure for which another permit was issued or plan was approved prior to the final identification of coastal erosion areas, the effective date of the enforcement rules, or the director's adoption of the OCMP document. The draft program document also clearly refers to "construction," "erection" and "redevelopment," language which cannot be construed to pertain to preexisting development. Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Part VII March 1997 ODNR will review hardship claims on a case-by-case basis and establish parameters through a clear and well-documented administrative record. The state does intend to administer its grants program in a manner that fulfills and fosters coastal management policies and goals. 1. 5. Comment noted. No change required. ODNR has carefully followed the public notice requirements of O.R.C. � 1506.06, including making all maps available for public inspection at all coastal county, municipality and township offices. O.R.C. � 1506.06 clearly states that any affected locality or landowner may object regarding the preliminary designation of coastal erosion areas. ODNR, while not required to, did promulgate rules defining the methodology for erosion area designation, and organizations were provided the opportunity to review and comment at that time. Z@ 1. 6. Comment noted. No change required. See response to item #5 above and to item #4 of written comment #20 (Cuyahoga Soil and Water Conservation District). Again, this would require an amendment to Ohio's coastal management law. 111. 1. Comment noted. Insufficient number of enforceable policies - NOAA has determined that Ohio meets the CZMA program approval requirements with respect to its enforceable policies. Not only would "additional regulations" be required to accomplish the results suggested by this comment, ambitious new statutes would be required as well. Sufficient support for enacting additional aggressive state envirom-nental and land use statutes does not appear to exist currently. The comment is made that the OCMP makes no mention of incentives to entice landowners to comply with nonenforceable policies. The State of Ohio is highly successful in using incentives and disincentives to achieve protection of its natural resources. Nonpoint source management is one example of a highly successful program in which measurable progress is being made in protecting and restoring water quality and aquatic resources. The OCMP will build upon this success. Definition of "the public" - The OCMP has, in fact, made clear the value of our coast for the entire state. It is clearly stated in the Program Overview that the focus of the OCMP is upon managing coastal resources, controlling activities that affect them, and fostering sustainable use "for the benefit of all citizens of this state." Further, the overview acknowledges that benefits derive beyond the geographic and cultural borders of the state by stating that the document describes "the OCMP for Ohio citizens and for all who benefit from Lake Erie's resources." ODNR will clearly use that underlying assumption when assessing the need for development of user fees, incentives and additional funding with respect to the issues cited. Insufficient regulation of water quantity - The Division of Water requires the registration of all facilities that have the capacity to withdraw 100,000 gallons per day or greater. These facilities must report their annual withdrawal as part of the Water Withdrawal Facility Registration Program. This data is used by Ohio and other Great Lakes states to facilitate the proper development and management of water resources that are shared within and between the states. Water rights are governed by common law in Ohio. To date there has not been a demonstrated need to pursue a permitting program for the withdrawal of water in Ohio. Water rights laws in Ohio are similar to Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Part VIE[ March 1997 those in other Great Lakes states. Further, Ohio does have a pem-iit requirement (see Policy 39) that does regulate diversions of water out of the Great Lakes basin. This statute was established to protect the resource base. Focus on impacts of activities - The fact that the OCMP focuses upon impacts of activities is not meant to imply that the state will wait to see what will happen as a result of a given activity and then subsequently expend resources to fix it. Rather, the potential for impacts of given activities has been the impetus for development of the statutes and regulations that form the basis of the OCMP. The OCMP does not intend to apply enforceable or enhancement policies to activities that do not cause impacts that affect coastal resources. H. 2. Comment noted. CZARA Section 6217 - See letter from Donald C. Anderson to Jeffrey R. Benoit in Appendix regarding Ohio's stated intent to submit its updated nonpoint source management program to NOAA within 30 months of program approval. This will become part of the OCMP. Wetlands water quality standards - These are incorporated in the OCMP, as administered by the Ohio EPA. Wild, scenic and recreational rivers - The OCMP will work in cooperation with local governments and landowners and use incentives to promote enhanced stewardship in all watersheds. One stated objective of ODNR's Strategic Action Plan is to "focus greater attention and resources on the rehabilitation of urban waterways." Three specific action steps identified are to: (1) "work with coastal planning agencies to encourage retention of open space and promote environmentally compatible land uses along streams," (2) promote the protection or acquisition of riparian corridors and flood plain areas for open space, park land, and recreational areas," and (3) "initiate an urban streams program ... to maximize local volunteer support and partnerships in stream restoration. . - ." LaMP, ANS Plan, water resources plan, water conservation law, and long-term sediment management plan - Both the LaMP and ANS plans have been and are being developed through cooperation with the OCMP, and both will be incorporated into it. So also will the long-term water resources plan, as stated in Policy 41. It is not clear to what the comment regarding a water conservation law is referring. ODNR and Ohio EPA are also participating in development of a long- term sediment.plan. 11.3. The final program document and FEIS has been published in a format that allows for regular updating. ODNR will also facilitate public involvement on a regular basis with respect to specific policy issues and special areas management. 1H. Comment noted. No change required. ODNR does not disagree 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 Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Part VIE[ March 1997 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. For further discussion regarding existing, requirements for public access in submerged lands leases, please see Z:1 response to written comment #2 (Mary Wood). IV. Comment (regarding education and coordination) noted. No change required. Regarding education of state, local and federal officials, both ODNR and NOAA agree that enhanced outreach and information dissemination are essential to improved management of our coastal resources. Both ODNR's strategic plan for coastal management and the OCMP implementation plan call for a strong emphasis on education and coordination among local communities, organizations, and the State of Ohio and its OCMP implementing agencies. This will include but not be limited to providing an active liaison service; conducting workshops, forums and seminars for local governments, planning agencies and organizations; developing a coast watch program; and preparing educational and informational materials. 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 formal 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. With respect to federal agencies and consistency of their actions with the OCMP, guidance materials will be prepared and consultations conducted on a regular basis to assure understanding and cooperation Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Part V111 March 1997 Received Dec 2, 1996 LAKEWOOD OHIO 12550 DETROIT AVENUE 44107 218-529-6600 FAX 216/521-1379 MADELINE A. CAIN MAYOR November 22, 1996 Ms. Diana Oliger Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management NOAA - U.S. Department of Commerce 1305 East-West Highway, N/ORM3 Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 Re: Ohio Coastal Management Programs Draft Document Dear Ms. Oliger: This is in response to your request for comment on the OCMF Draft Document. First, I support your efforts to control the erosion of Lake Erie's shoreline. Coastal Management is a vital part of main- taining and preserving one of our city'smost valuable resources. Secondly, I have concerns as to how tis document will affect lakefront property owners. Namely, what is the projected impact on property values? Also, the issue of public access needs both further study and clarification. Finally, I need assurance that ODNR has provided adequate public notice to all lakefront residents. As much public comment as possible should be solicited on this important document. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, THE CITY OF LAKEWOOD, Madeline A. Cain MAC: DPD: seg Received 2 1996 WRITTEN COMMENT #28: CITY OF LAKEWOOD, November 22,1996 Comment noted. No change required. 1. Comment (regarding support for erosion control efforts) noted. No change required. ODNR appreciates Mayor Cain's support for its efforts to control Lake Erie erosion. 2. Comment (regarding potential impact on property values) noted. No change required. It is very difficult to determine what property value impacts may result from ODNR's actions to identify coastal erosion areas and administer a permit system for new construction. However, the Coastal Management Program staff has researched this issue and has found evidence to support the conclusion that property values would at worst be unaffected. Some of what little information exists on this subject indicates that property values may increase. Four Great Lakes states (Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and New York) administer programs similar to the provisions established by Ohio's Coastal Management Law. Generally speaking, however, these states completely prohibit development in eroding areas and have used a much less objective system for identifying such areas. ODNR consulted with its counterparts in all of these states, and found a distinct correlation between erosion itself and property values, but no indication that property values have been negatively affected by their programs. Aside from the contacts with other states, a literature search was performed, and contacts made with fourteen other individuals with experience or expertise in coastal erosion and economics of natural hazards. Forty-one non-ODNR sources were consulted. The Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center in Boulder, Colorado was also consulted. None of the individuals or other sources gave any indication of potential lowering of property values as a result of programs that discourage or prohibit development in erosion-prone areas. Two sources do point to potential increases in property values. An Ohio Sea Grant College Program analysis (summarized in Fact Sheet 044 by Kriesel and Lichtkoppler) did find a positive correlation between property values and the distance between the home and the bluff (and/or the added lifetime of the home derived by effective erosion control measures). This seems to indicate that the provisions of O.R.C. Chapter 1506, which encourage locating structures farther from the bluff or providing control measures, would over time enhance property values. Another study found a positive correlation between floodplain regulations and property values (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1981, Evaluation of the Economic, Social and Environmental Effects of Floodplain Regulations). Damage costs have been extraordinarily large and will continue to be if development continues unabated in coastal erosion areas. The Potential Damages Task Group report to the International Joint Commission estimated Ottawa County could suffer $110 million over the next 50 years, and the Lake County Planning Commission foresees nearly $11 million within the next 30 years just for reconstruction of public facilities. Certainly, locating structures away from the hazard or protecting Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Part V111 March 1997 them with control measures should lessen these costs to both public and private entities. Over time, reduced damage to infrastructure could lower taxes as a result. Some of Ohio's lakefront property owners firmly believe that ODNR's actions will lower property values. They point to a slowing of lakefront property sales during certain periods over the past three to four years, associating this with this program. There is no way to determine what factors or combinations of factors may be affecting lakefront property sales. For instance, tax assessments have increased dramatically in some locations. As this program is implemented, more certainty should result, and Ohio's experience could be expected to be much like that of other states. Please refer to Part 11, Chapter 11, pages 1 l- 12 and 11 - 13 for further information on the assessment of cost and property value impacts. 3. Comment (regarding clarification of public access) noted. No change required. The comment is assumed to be related to the State of Ohio's submerged lands leasing authorities and requirements for preserving public rights of access to Lake Erie waters, since it is expressed in the context of effects on lakefront property owners. See response to written comment #2 (Mary Wood), item #4. 4. Comment (regarding adequacy of public notice) noted. No change required. See response to written comment #2 (Mary Wood), item #1. As noted in this response, ODNR placed seven-and- one- half-inch public notices in nine coastal area newspapers and the Columbus Dispatch regarding the publication of the OCMP draft document and DEIS on August 30, 1996. Notice also appeared in the Federal Register on September 6. In addition, several hundred copies of the document 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. 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. 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. Four public hearings were held. during the 77-day comment period beginning with publication of the Federal Register notice, which exceeded the normal 45-day comment period length for environmental impact statements. 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. Additionally, between 1993 and the publication of the revised document, more than 40 public meetings were held with local citizens, with well over 1,000 individuals attending. Please refer also to Part II, Chapter 11, page 11-8 through 11 - 11 for further information regarding the extent of public involvement in this process. Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Part V111 March 1997 r vzace% as ac. 3329 W. 144th Street Cleveland, Ohio 44111 November 19, 1996 Acting Director Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 1305 East-West Highw"ay, N-ORM3 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Re: The Draft State of Ohio Coastal Management Program and Draft Environmental Mmpact Statement Dear Sir: I have been following the development of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources Coastal Management Program for six years, and it has been An extremely frustrating journey. All that the communities and property owners have been.requesting from ODNR during this period has been some cooperation and common sense. Sadly, the communities and property owners have gotten neither. while it is true that ODNR has had several meetings with the public concerning this Program, those meetings are irrelevant if one does not listen to what is being said. I have taken my free time to read ODNR's Coastal Management Program and, frankly, I am disappointed. The overal2 goal of protecting our lakefront is a laudable one, but this Program is a bureaucratic nightmare... This document, while long on platitudes, is short on substance. There is no meaningful analysis of the costs involved in this Program and what little analysis can be found is severely flawed. why do I know this? I took the time to review and analyze the information upon which ODNR relied when it was preparing its analysio, and I prepared a written analysis which I provided to both ODNR and Ohio's Joint Cornmittee.on Agency Rule Review. The citizens of the State of Ohio deserve better- -a better cost?@>enef it analysis and a better program. I was also a member of the working committee that made recommendations regarding the coaqtal erosion and which OD99 mentions several times in its narrative. In Part II, page 11-11, ODNR states that "The group elected not to write official recommendations, stating that the changes ODNR was making as their work progressed reflected their recommendations." This statement is utterly untrue. The truth is that the working group wrote two letters to ODNR objecting to ODNR's changes. Such blatant misrepresentation makes one wonder about the veracity of the other statements containe8 in this Coastal Management Program. Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management Novembe,r 19, 1996 Page -2- - After six years it has become very clear that ODNR'S sole motivation in this process is to get the federal money no matter what the cost or the potential damage is to the local communities or to the lakefront property owners- That is sad because if done properly, this Program coul-d be a positive benefit to the State of Ohio. During this six-year journey, ODNR has shown that it has neither the expertise nor the skills necessary to make this Program work. . ! would hope that NOAA would expect more from a stace4s Program before it would grant its approval. if you would like to discuss this in more detail, I would be more than willing 'to talk with you. During the day I can be reached at (219) 861-7982. I appreciate your serious consideration of these C@mments. I am sure my letter will not be the only one that you receive expressing these same concerns. In addition to the letters that you receive, I urge you to review the comments made at the various public hearings held in late September and early October (my comments can be found in the transcript for the October 2, 1996 public hearing held in Cleveland) where lakefront property owners, community representatives and other interested parties, such as the Sierra Club, voiced their concerns about this Program. Very truly yours, Am lo A Y ARK170D zz 10796:96001-.AZK. IS. LTR WRITTEN COMMENT #29: AMY KELLOGG, ATTORNEY, November 19,1996 Response to Comments: More than 40 meetings have been held with property owners and local communities. Those meetinas have resulted in significant substantive change over a four year period. The Coastal Management Law has been amended twice in that time pursuant to changes recommended by these groups. The rules for designating and enforcing coastal erosion areas have been substantially revised as a result of the numerous meetings held with local communities and property owners. The record clearly demonstrates that ODNR has listened and responded to these citizens' concerns. It is not clear from these general comments what additional changes are being sought at this time. ODNR's written cost analysis to which the commenter refers was done with respect to enforcement of the permit authority for coastal erosion areas only, not for implementation of the OCMP. The written analysis to which the commenter refers as her own more accurate fiscal analysis is not on record, either with ODNR or the Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review (JCARR). The commenter also states that "the truth is that the working group wrote two letters to ODNR objecting to ODNR's changes." Because such letters were not on file, they were requested from the commenter. In response to that request, NOAA received the July 6, 1995 letter, which contained recommendations for several minor rules modifications that had already been incorporated (see response to item #2 of written comment #4 [Malcolm Wood)) and a letter to Senator Gary C. Suhadolnik, Chair of the Senate Environment, Natural Resources and Energy Committee regarding recommended amendments to H.B. 119. This latter letter was entirely unrelated to the administrative rules. Neither the commenter nor the erosion area working group recommended changes to the rules at either of two ODNR public hearings or at the JCARR hearing at which the rules were considered. Please refer to oral comments from the October 1 DEIS public hearing at Huron, Ohio from other members of the coastal erosion working group as well as oral comment #7 (Amy Kellogg, DEIS public hearing, Cleveland, Ohio, October 2, 1996). Those comments pertain to both the rules revision process and the revisions made through the process. Regarding comments that the proposed program lacks substance, please refer to response to written comment #4 (Mary Wood), item #5. Regarding the comment that ODNR's motivation is to get federal funding, no change is required. See response to written comment #2 (Mary Wood), item #7, and written comment #5 (David S. McUvain), item #1. Regarding the comment that NOAA should expect more before granting program approval, 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. 10 Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Part VII March 1997 TMACOG LEADING REGIONAL PROGRES TOLEDO MET-------- AREA COUNCIL OF ---------- Postmarked November 22, 1996 Joe Uravitch Coastal Programs Division SSMC-4, Room 11109 1305 East-West Highway Silver Spring, MD 20910 Dear Mr. Urvitch: Enclosed please find TMACOG Resolution No 1996-27, supporting Ohio Department of Natural Resources' Coastal Zone Management Program. This resolution, which originated in the Maurine River Remedial Action Plan Implementation Committee, (MRIC) supports this program. It does request the ODNR to consider minor alterations to the plan. These requests include that the program be managed from a Lake Erie county and that they increase the coastal boundary area to include the seiche area of Swam Creek. TMACOG and the Maurine RAP Implementation Committee look forward to working with the Ohio Department of Natural Resources and other agencies to implement this program. If you or your staff have any questions or would like further information, please feel free to contact Kut Erichsen, Director of Environmental Planning at TMACOG at 419-241-9155 extension 126. Sincerely, Williams L. Knight, AICP Executive Director JC: pf Enclosure cc Edwin Hammett, Chief, OEPA NWDO w/enclosure ---------------- 5210 TMACOG Resolution No. 1996-2 Page 1 of 1 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOLEDO METROPOLITAN AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS SUPPORTING THE OHIO COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM WHEREAS, the Toledo Metropolitan Area Council of Governemnts (TMACOG) is degisnated as an Areawide Water Quality Management Planning Agency by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) under the provision of Section 205 (j) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (USC 446 et seq) and by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA); and WHEREAS, the Ohio Department of Natural Resources has completed its Draft Environmental Impacts Statement for the Ohio Coastal Zone Management Program, and requests input and support from local jurisdictions; and WHEREAS, this resolution was approved by the Maumee River Remedial Action Plan Implementation Committee on October 10, 1996; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TELEDO METROPOLITAN AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS THAT: Section 1: TMACOG supports the policies and principles stated in the Ohio Coastal Zone Management Program for the protection and enhancement of Lake Erie coastal resources and makes the following recommendations: A. The Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) should coordinate its Coastal Zone Management Program from a location within the Lake Erie counties, so that it may be effectively coordinated with local governments, the Remedial Action Plans, and other River Basin Councils, B. ODNR should design its implementation program to have close working relationships with local governments and agencies, the Remedial Action Plans and other River Basin Councils, and the Area wide Planning Agencies of the Lake Erie coastal area in order to reduce duplication and offer better service to local government, and C. The seiche area of Swan Creek, the area from the mouth to River Mile 5.0 at Detroit Avenue affected by pleriodic backwater flows from Lake Erie (See the attached map), should be included as part of the Coastal Boundary Area, and therefore included in the Management Program; and Section 2 The Executive Director be and is hereby authorized to provide copies of this resolution and related documentation to the appropriate federal, state, and local officials. Adopted by the Board of Trustees November 20, 1996. Yea 29 Nay 0 Abstain 0 Mark Pietrykowski, Chair Williams L. Knight, Executive Director Support of the Ohio Coastal Management Program ------------------------------ CERTIFICATION I, William L. Knight, Executive Director of the Toledo Metropolitan Area Council of Governments (TMACOG), hereby certify as follows: TMACOG, pursuant to the authority set forth in Resolution No. 1996-27, has prepared the Areawide Water Quality Management Plan and the Maumee River Remedial Action Plan; and The Areawide Water Quality Management Plan was recommended by the Areawide Water Quality Planning Council (AWQPC), a committee of TMACOG on September 25, 1980, updated and reaffirmed on November 29,1990; adopted by the Executive Committee of TMACOG on November 19, 1980, and reaffirmed on February 20, 1991; and The Maumee River Remedial Action Plan Implementatoin Committee (MRIC) is a committee of TMACOG which reports to the Board of Trustees; and Three of the eight Ohio coastal counties are part of the TMACOG Planning Area, comprising a vital regional resource for recreation, natural habitat, and quality of life; and The Maumee River Remedial Action Plan (RAP), urging waterwasy be restored to fishable and swimmable conditions by elimination of pollutants and restoration of wetlands and natural habitat areas, was approved by the Board of Trustees on August 15, 1990, and reaffirmed with boundaries including the Toussaint River, Packer Creek, and Turtle Creek watersheds on March 18, 1992; and The policies stated in the Ohio Coastal Zone Management Program are consistent with the Maumee River Basin Area of Concern Remedial Action Plan, Recommendations Report (RAP) goals stated in chapter 2 of the RAP Report, "Recommendations for Water Quality and Habitat," in particular $2,3,2 "Comprehensive Wildlife Habitat Management PLan, "$2.3.3 "Acquisition of Fish and Wildlife Habitats,"$2.3.4 "Wetlands and Open Space Preservation," and Financial and technical assistance from the Coastal Zone Management Program will be available to help in the planning, design, and implementation of the recommendations of the Maumee RAP;and The Maumee River Implementation Committee (MRIC) recommended the adoption of Resolution No. 1996-27 for the reasons set forth in the attached Staff Report. I further certify that the resolution attached to this certificate is a true copy of the original thereof on file and of record in my office. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I sign this attestation this 21 st day of November 1996 Williams L. Knight, Executive Director Toledo Metropolitan Area Council of Governments Staff Report TOLEDO METROPOLITAN AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS BOARD OF TRUSTEES AGENDA November 20, 1996-3:30 p.m. Subject: The Ohio Coastal Zone Management Program The TMACOG staf has reviewed the above noted document. It was prepared by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, and is currently available for public comment. ODNR has asked for the supoort of TMACOG. Three of the eight Ohio coastal counties are part of the TMACOG Planning Area, comprising a vital regional resource for recreation, natural habitat, and quality of life. The Maumee River Remedial Action Plan (RAP), urging waterways be restored to fishable and swimmable conditions by elimination of pollutants and restoration of wetlands and natural habitat areas, was approved by the Board of Trustees on August 15, 1990, and reaffirmed with boundaries including the Toussaint River, Packer Creek, and Turtle Creek watersheds on March 18, 1992. The policies stated in the Ohio Coastal Zone Management Program are consistent with the Maumee River Basin Area of Concern Remedial Action Plan, Recommendations Report (RAP) goals stated in chapter 2 of the RAP Report, "Recommendations for Water Quality and Habitat," in particular $2.3.2 "Comprehensive Wildlife Habitat Management," $2.3.3 "Acquisition of Fish and Wildlife Habitats," $2.3.4 "Wetlands and Open Space Preservation" Financial and technical assistance from the Coastal Zone Management Program will be available to help in the planning, design, and implementation of the recommendations of the Maumee RAP. For more information, a summary is attached. ----------------------------------- WRITTEN COMMENT #30: TOLEDO METROPOLITAN AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS, November 22,1996 Response to Comments: 1. Comment (in the Resolution, regarding coordination of program from a Lake Erie county) noted. No change required. ODNR is in agreement with this comment. In concert with both the OCMP implementation plan and ODNR's Strategic Action Plan for Coastal Management, several important functions of the OCMP will be administered directly from the coastal area. Key among those is a local coordination function designed specifically to work effectively with local governments, RAPs and other local and regional entities. 2. Comment (in the Resolution, regarding implementation program) noted. No change required. Agreed. It is a stated goal of ODNR's Strategic Action Plan for Coastal Management to establish a consolidated and coordinated presence in the Lake Erie coastal region. As part of this effort, departmental service providers located in the coastal area will provide quality services and readily accessible technical support reflecting local needs. 3. Comment (in the Resolution, regarding inclusion of the seiche area of Swan Creek) noted. The following change will be made. ODNR has considered and agrees to modifying the coastal management boundary to include the seiche effect reach of Swan Creek to mile 5 at Detroit Avenue. As noted in the comment, periodic backwater flows from Lake Erie extend to this area, and thus lake resources and this reach are integrally related. Activities in this area could directly affect coastal resources and the quality of coastal waters. Expanding the boundary along this reach of Swan Creek is consistent with the findings of the Maumee River Remedial Action Plan. The Narrative Boundary Description (Appendix A) and Map 1 in Appendix B have been revised accordingly. Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Paft VII March 1997 ORAL COMMENT #1: KURT ERICHSEN, DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING FOR TOLEDO METROPOLITAN AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS, DEIS PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY, TOLEDO, OHIO, -September 30,1996 Summary of Testimony: TMACOG supports the goals of the OCMP, in particular to protect coastal natural areas and enhance public recreation. Local coastal governments will appreciate greatly the additional resources for protecting natural areas and access. We request that ODNR consider extending the coastal management area to include the seiche area of Swan Creek. Response to Comment: Comment noted. See response to written comment #30. Ohio Coastal Management Program Final EIS Part V111 March 1997 ORAL COMMENT #2: BILL STEUK, DEIS PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY, HURON, OHIO, October 1, 1996 Summary of Testimony: We went through this process in the spring of 1992, and it has been almost four years until there was V In a formal response. What will the next time period be before the final document? I have not had sufficient time to review the document, so I will have to file a written response. In Volume 1, Part 1, page 7, it summarizes the grants that have been made available so far. In addition, a grant of $800,000 will be made upon approval. On Part 1, page 1, it says with the exception of implementation of new coastal erosion program and amendments, the plan and document proposed no new state programs. The coastal erosion program has not been fully implemented yet. Of the $373,000 spent so far, will any of this money be made available to local authorities? Of the $800,000, will some of that be earmarked for local authorities? In Part 11, p. 5-9, the preliminary estimate of 148 miles would be roughly 56% of the coastline. What is the time frame of the next step? When will the letters be sent? When will the hearings be held? How many letters were sent? (Later) I want to compliment ODNR for what has happened the past year and a half. The working group was set up (and four members aie here, Ed Herdendorf, Wade Mertz, Darrell Opfer and myself). Mr. Opfer did a service to constituents in his district and beyond. The group met for a year and the process of taking time and giving as many people as possible a chance to intervene and discuss, it does work but it takes time. Looking back over what we did with the advisory group, it worked. The public has to know and there must be time to get involved. I am concerned about the time frame now. The copy came out in February 1992, and it is a tight process. I am concerned about what might be a constrained time requirement right now. (Later) I didn't hear the specific dates for the erosion hearings. What is the date of the last hearing? Three are after the comment date of the document. Response to Comments: Comment (question regarding the time period before the final document) noted. No change required. NOAA responded that it would be several months between publication of the draft document and the final document, which will include all comments and responses to them, and a 30-day comment period will be provided. ODNR responded that money from the implementation grant, but not the program development grant, will be available to local communities. Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Part VII March 1997 ODNR responded that approximately 3,800 letters were sent September 30 and that the hearings would be the second and third weeks of November. NOAA responded that they would extend the comment period to coincide with the conclusion of the last coastal erosion area public hearing. Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Part VIII March 1997 ORAL COMMENT #3: J.T. LENDRUM, DEIS PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY, HURON, OHIO, October 1, 1996 Summary of Testimony: I own property on Lake Erie and my fear is that NOAA and ODNR are developing a means to completely control private property on the lakefront. H.B. 119 took away the rights of property owners and defines what they can build on certain property. ODNR had the arrogance to put a picture of my property on the front cover of this macrazine without asking my permission. I have In lived on the lake since the 30s and haven't seen any terrific erosion; there is none on my property. ODNR took a picture after a storm when some of the beach was eroded. Natural forces filled the beach in. Hitler called his Mein Kampf and I think ODNR has a different name for theirs here. Whose property are they planning to take over at Sheldon Marsh? Their film says we should have more access to the beach and the only way to get it is to take away someone's property rights. Response to Comments: Comment noted. No change required. H.B. 119 did only the following: (1) change terminology from "erosion hazard areas" to "coastal erosion areas," as requested by private property owners, (2) increased representation by private property owners and developers on the Coastal Resources Advisory Council, (3) provided that rules enacted under authority of O.R.C. Chapter 1506 sunset after six years, and (4) incorporated language assuring that designation of a property as being within a coastal erosion area will not be used as the basis for any eminent domain action and will not be used to deny a permit or other requirement under O.R.C. Chapter 1506. ODNR does not intend to take any private property from unwilling owners. ODNR carefully follows the policies established in O.R.C. Chapter 163,. which in part provide for negotiation with willing sellers, protection of property rights and consistent treatment of property owners. Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Part V11 March 1997 ORAL COMMENT #4: MIKE TANN, CITY MANAGER OF HURON, DEIS PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY, October 1, 1996 Summary of Testimony: Where are we (the city) in this equation? I thought someone said this is not a mandatory program. But if this becomes law in Ohio, will it be passed down to the city to enforce, and, if so who will pay our costs? If the city were to develop its own erosion policy, would we exist on our own policy, based on your evaluation, if we complied with what you want? Response to Comments: Comment noted. No change required. ODNR responded that enforcement of coastal erosion area permits at the local level is voluntary. The OCMP will not require enforcement at the local level. The coastal erosion area management provisions are already law in Ohio and it is ODNR's responsibility to implement and enforce them. The law provides that local communities may administer them if they choose, and the department will work with them to assume the program should they elect to. If the city wanted to control development of new permanent structures within local zoning regulations, and was accomplishing what is called for in Ohio's law, the director would approve the program and review and evaluate it every two years. Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Part V11 March 1997 ORAL COMMENT #5: REPRESENTATIVE DARRELL OPFER, STATE REPRESENTATIVE, DEIS PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY, HURON, OHIO, October 1, 1996 Summary of Testimony: It should be noted that H.B. 119 was an amendment to the original bill, and as Mr. Steuk mentioned, because of a working group and public comments and responses to public hearings held in 1992, a number of changes were made in the original proposals. The primary one reduced the amount of shoreline in coastal erosion areas. The rules sunset. There is certainly adequate opportunity for input after the program is established. ODNR has listened to results of hearings previously and has listened to the working group. The law has been changed, the rules modified and we have a much better product, and I appreciate ODNR's willingness to listen. Response to Comment: Comment noted. No change required. Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Part V111 March 1997 ORAL COMMENT #6: GARY BOYLE, CHIEF PLANNER, CITY OF SANDUSKY, DEIS PUBLIC TESTIMONY, HURON, OHIO, October 1, 1996 Summary of Testimony: I agree with Representative Opfer and Bill Steuk that ODNR has been responsive to a large degree to some of the concerns that we have had with the program and its implementation. We anticipate we will be inundated with some calls. We haven't received the mapping yet. I understand the logistics, but it would have been easier if we could have had it in advance. I suggest that in the future this be done so that we can answer concerns. Do I understand correctly that property owners could have been notified even though they may not be in the area? Erring on the side of caution does seem best. It is important to make it known what the ramifications are, how they can challenge it, what is the time period, and getting the information to the public and giving them the opportunity to have input. We will be preparing written comments and we appreciate the fact that we have another five or six weeks to do that. Until we see the maps, we reserve the right to comment. Response to Comments: Comment noted. No change required. Representative Opfer stated that the maps had reached him a week previously and had reached Ottawa County that day. The letters sent were very informative in telling people where maps are located. Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Part V11 March 1997 ORAL COMMENT #7: WALT WEHENKEL, OTTAWA COUNTY PLANNING CONMSSION, DEIS PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY, HURON, OHIO, October 1, 1996 Summary of Testimony: The packet we received was very well put together. It has the maps, the aerials, the introduction letter. It has some supporting material and question and answer brochures. I think you have done a great job putting together a good packet of information to assist us in doing our job. Response to Comments: Comment noted. Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Part V111 March 1997 ORAL COMMENT #8: AMY KELLOGG, CITIES OF AVON LAKE AND CLEVELAND, DEIS PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY, CLEVELAND, OHIO, October 2,1996 10 Summary of Testimony: We put in comments in November 1993 to a draft EIS. Those comments haven't been responded to, so is that going to be part of this response at this time or what happened to those? We have not had sufficient time to review and properly respond, so we will provide written comments by November 22. It has always been one of our concerns that the public is getting such a short time to respond. We realize the Coastal Resources Advisory Council is your watchdog, but in 1992 it was local communities and property owners that brought this to the attention of ODNR. We are also concerned about the money that is supposedly coming our way. It sounds from the document as if most will go to ODNR. We would appreciate it if some percentage would go to local communities or to people living on the lake. I was told this program was being streamlined, but now we are at two volumes. I am pleased with ODNR that they have been willing to work with us. I was a member of the working group, and ODNR was very cooperative. I think we have made some substantial changes in this program that have made it better. It says throughout the document that except for coastal erosion areas, the program is part of Ohio law already. Our concern is why haven't we been enforcing it to this date? ODNR has received $373,000 to create a document from existing things. ODNR continues to tell us what they will do after they implement the program. Consolidated permits and model ordinances are still in the to-do stage. I noticed that part of the OCMP is that ODNR is instructed to review the power siting board applications based on whether conclusions are incorrect, unsubstantiated or irrelevant. I thought it might be interesting to hold those same standards to this program. The map of Lorain County is incorrect; Route 83 is still marked as Route 76. The cost benefit analysis is not really accurate. There are unsubstantiated comments and feel-good language about beneficial environmental, institutional and socio-econornic effects. The City of Cleveland is very sensitive to reminders that the Cuyahoga River burned, and Mayor White would like references to that event removed. I am grateful that the comment period will be extended to November 22. Hopefully, we will get the maps soon. In Chapter 11, the statement that the working group stated that ODNR's changes were reflecting their recommendations is untrue. I would like that stricken. I continue to offer my support to ODNR and continue to work with them on this process to get this program adopted. Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Part V11 March 1997 Response to Comments: ODNR appreciates the commenter's support for program adoption and for the coastal erosion area rules revision process and the substantial program improvements made through that process. Refer to responses made previously to written comments o n the DEIS regarding (1) the time frame for review of the program document and DEIS, (2) funding for local communities and property owners, (3) the cost benefit analysis regarding coastal erosion area rules, (4) reference to the burning of the Cuyahoga River, and (5) the Chapter 11 statement regarding ODNR's response to the coastal erosion area working group's recommendations. NOAA responded during the Cleveland public hearing that there was no previous DEIS, but there was an earlier notice in the Federal Register and an earlier Ohio public review document. ODNR and NOAA considered all comments regarding both of those actions and made many changes to the program document as a result. Those comments and ODNR's responses are described in detail in Chapter 11 of the program document and DEIS. The increase in the size of the OCMP document has resulted not from further complexity of the proposed program, but rather from inclusion of the following: (1) a summary of all responses to all. public comments on the 1992 public review draft document, (2) inclusion of all relevant law and rules in a separate volume, and (3) the federal DEIS portion as required by the National Environmental Policy Act. While the laws and rules (other than coastal erosion areas management) were previously existing, the proposed comprehensive program that coordinates their enforcement and additional enhancement policies was not. The entire process of program development took longer than expected due to the need to negotiate changes to the Coastal Management Law and to revise administrative rules through a lengthy process that involved considerable public input. (Please see response to oral comment #13 [Mary Wood] regarding added time necessary for program development.) The coastal boundary map for eastern Lorain County has been corrected. The coastal erosion area mapg were sent to the cities of Avon Lake and Cleveland by certified mail on September 30, 1996. They were received (certified mail receipt signed) by a representative of the City of Cleveland on October 1 and by a representative of the City of Avon Lake on October 2. Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Part VII March 1997 ORAL COMMENT #9: EDITH CHASE, OHIO COASTAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROJECT (OCRMP), DEIS PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY, CLEVELAND, OHIO, October 2,1996 Summary of Testimony: We are looking forward to the final adoption of Ohio's program as soon as possible. As the shoreline has developed over time, the ecosystem has become degraded and competition for limited resources continues to increase. The proposed program is a framework for action of the state and political subdivisions and local government to work cooperatively to preserve, protect, develop, restore or enhance these resources. The goal must be sustainable use and attention to natural, cultural, historic and aesthetic values and the national and regional issues. Decision making authority is fragmented and uncoordinated. No voice can speak for the shoreline, and no arbiter exists to resolve conflicts. One of the most important functions of this program should be to provide opportunities for cooperative decision making efforts for public and private resource managers. Meaningful ways must be found to inform and involve the public, and so we hope the process of community involvement will continue. Lake Erie is an economic asset, and marinas and ports contribute significantly to Ohio's economy. Each harbor needs a plan to address the accelerating pattern of waterfront development and mixed uses and so that safety, efficiency and viability are maintained. Public access and air and water quality protection are critically important. Individual citizens are dependent upon clean water, as are the travel and tourism industries. Protecting the environment and the economy are inextricably linked. OCRMP task force urges a comprehensive, long-range ecosystem approach, elimination of beach advisories, and implementation of the four RAPs and the Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative. The OCMP document is a valuable reference work and a means to identify needs for strengthened laws. The no-net-loss for wetlands is not being met in Ohio. The continued loss of headwaters wetlands is a serious concern. The proposed wetland water quality standards, while setting higher mitigation ratios, will allow enhancement and preservation of existing wetlands, leading to further wetlands loss. A unique element of this program is submerged lands management, and this should have additional attention and staff. Constant vioilance will be needed to see that Ohio's program remains consistent with the national policies and objectives. As a networked program, it will depend on coordination, communication, and cooperation, recognizing the interdependence of the economy, the environment, ethics and esthetics. Response to Comments: Comment noted. No change required. NOAA appreciates the support for moving forward expeditiously with federal approval, as proposed in the DEIS. Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Part V11 March 1997 ORAL COMMENT #10: KATHRYN BROCK, CUYAHOGA SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT, DEIS PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY, CLEVELAND, OHIO, October 2, 1996 Summary of Comments: I'm happy to see the publication of the OCMP document and DEIS. Although it's a compilation of what exists, it's put together as a plan and that's a beginning. I think there's a lot of room for improvement. Public access is one of the most serious problems in Ohio's portion of Lake Erie. Eighty-three percent of the coast is in private hands. In other coastal states, more of an effort is made to make the coast available to the public. I would like to see boardwalks and other things done in other states. Regarding air quality, the second largest source of pollution in Lake Erie is air deposition. I would like to see enforcement clarification and identification of accountable decision makers with respect to coastal erosion, better coordination, limits to impermeable surfaces of coastal area developments, technical assitance on nonstructural erosion control methods, encouragement of conservation easements, wetland restoration. I also believe the OCMP should include a provision that any drastic change in the use of an energy facility would be scrutinized to determine if it is in the best interest of the public. Response to Comments: Comment noted. No change needed. Response was made in response to written comment #20 (Cuyahoga Soil and Water District) regarding public access, air quality, the need for additional coordinating bodies, nonstructural erosion control, wetland restoration and changes in use of energy facilities. Consideration of impermeable surfaces will be addressed as ODNR pursues one of its priority coastal management strategic initiatives: development of an urban stream management program in the coastal area. As with property acquisition, conservation easements will be explored with willing property owners. Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Part VII March 1997 ORAL COMMENT #11: BRIAN ULM, NORTHEAST OHIO SIERRA CLUB, DEIS PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY, CLEVELAND, OHIO, October 2,1996 Summary of Comments: We would like to see all wetlands preserved, since only 10 percent are left. I'm not aware that created wetlands are proven technology, and if something other than protecting wetlands is done, we would like to see proven technology used. Interagency conflicts exist. A lot of this depends upon local government because they have the enforcement authority, so we would like to see mandatory education of zoning commissioners. The document addresses public education and we agree with that. We thought the document was weak on nonpoint source pollution and would like to see binding language. We would like to see more legally binding language generally, with more of the enhancement policies made enforceable regulations. There's a bit of lack of collection of up-to-date information. We would like to see more emphasis on public access, encouragement of nonstructural erosion control, recreational development of natural areas. We would like additional public review and comment period after review of property owners' appeals and establishment of final coastal erosion areas. We would like an up-to-date inventory of endangered wildlife, flora and fauna, a prohibition of oil and gas development, and a consistency review of changes in use of power plants. Response to Comments: ODNR supports use of proven technologies with regard to wetland creation projects. As experience has increased over time with such projects, better data is being made available regarding what works best and what does not succeed as well. The OCMP, through the Ohio EPA and ODNR, will use the best information available to guide such efforts and will support and contribute to ongoing and additional assesssments that increase the quality of the data available and improve decision making. ODNR will not mandate education of local zoning officials, but will encourage and facilitate it. The issues of developing nonpoint source control programs and additional enforceable authorities generally were addressed in response to written comment #27 (Coast Alliance). Public access, nonstructural erosion control, and consistency review for energy facility use changes were also addressed in previous responses. Additional development of recreational opportunities within natural areas must be based upon appropriateness for each preserve on a case-by-case basis. ODNR is required by law to manage the state nature preserve system primarily in order to protect and manage outstanding examples of Ohio's natural heritage. ODNR develops a mangement plan for each preserve, and provides for recreation within it to the extent that it is consistent with furthering that charge. Development of an up-to-date inventory is a priority initiative within ODNR's Strategic Action Plan for Coastal Management. Oil and natural gas development in the coastal area is not currently prohibited under Ohio law, but adequate authority exists to regulate this activity. NOAA responded at the hearing that an additional 30 days would be provided for public review and comment on the FEIS. Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Part V11 March 1997 ORAL COMMENT #12: J. W. COWDEN, DEIS PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY, CLEVELAND, OHIO, October 2,1996 Summary of Testimony: I agree with Edith Chase's testimony in its entirety. The document is an excellent and comprehensive background paper. I'm hesitant to be critical because I'm concerned that it-has already been delayed too often by scare tactics. I have a lot of concern about coordination among various agencies. ODNR has not participated actively enough in the RAP (Remedial Action Plans for designated Areas of Concern) process. And I'm concerned about the lack of public involvement in this plan. There are various kinds of public participation. I hope that provision will be made for public involvement, along with coordination with the various agencies. Water quality aspects concern me, because protection from pollutants is left up to individual knowledge. Resolution of interagency conflict is a problem, more with the state agencies than with state/federal. Also, with regard to the resource inventory recommended by ODNR's strategic plan, if we don't already know what's wrong in the coastal area, the, agency ought to get with the environmental organizations who can provide a list. Response to Comments: Comment noted. No change required. Extensive public comment has been conducted throughout the twenty year process for developing the OCMP, as described in detail in Chapters 2, 3, 4 and 11 of the draft document and DEIS. OCRMP has been involved directly, and has had a member represented on the Coastal Resources Advisory Council (CRAC) for many years. ODNR fully intends to further cooperate and coordinate with the Remedial Action Plan development and implementation process following program development. Extensive water quality regulations consistent with the federal Clean Water Act are administered by the State of Ohio. The development of a detailed state consistency process and establishment of coordinating entities is intended to improve coordination among agencies. The CRAC will be used more actively as OCMP moves into implementation, and ad hoc advisory groups will be formed and used pertaining to various issues as they have been for addressing coastal erosion area management. ODNR's development of coastal resources inventories will incorporate existing information from local communities and environmental organizations, as necessary and appropriate. Geographically referenced inventories will be developed, but must begin with an assessment of what inventories exist already. Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Part VII March 1997 ORAL COMMENT #13: MARY WOOD, PRIVATE LAKEFRONT PROPERTY OWNER, DEIS PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY, CLEVELAND, OHIO, October 2,1996 Summary of Comments: I want to reiterate the concern that committees who draft these programs take years to come up with them and then we, the landowners, are given a few months to respond. There should be a different method, other than using legal notices in the newspaper, for notifying the public about hearings. tn Response to Comments: Comment noted. No change required. Developing Ohio's coastal erosion management policies, including erosion mapping and regulating new development in identified erosion areas, has been an understandably complex and lengthy undertaking. This is addressed in detail within Chapter 11 of the program document. It is true that publication of the draft program document and DEIS has taken three years in addition to what was originally anticipated when the 1992 draft was published. ODNR embarked upon a process of reassessing methods for coastal erosion mapping in 1993. 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, as described in previous responses to comments on he DEIS, There have been no major substantive changes compared to 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. However, ODNR went beyond the 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 also made available in public libraries and governmental offices throughout the coastal area and in Columbus. Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Part V111 March 1997 ORAL COMMENT #14: MALCOLM WOOD, DEIS PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY, CLEVELAND, OHIO, October 2,1996 Summary of testimony: There was not enough time to review and comment on the document. I hold ODNR directly responsible for exacerbating erosion on Lake Erie. Chapter 5, page 5, the fourth and last paragraphs prove this (as described in written comment #4). In Chapter 11, page 11, ODNR makes the statement that the erosion working group consented to what ODNR was writing in the way of rules revisions. This is false. At least two letters were sent objecting to the conclusions. Perhaps someone else should do this because ODNR cannot be depended upon to get its facts straight. t> Will ODNR promise to use Section 306 funds for low-cost construction? If not, why not? Some of the defined coastal areas contain land used for other activities than that specified by federal regulations. Why? Regarding Chapter 4, page 26, it needs to be detailed a great deal more. If the procedures are changed by information generated, how can they meet the criterion of being consistent? If ODNR puts each project through a review and comment period, how can there be consistency? If you are clearly thinking, you do something the same way each time and not say we'll decide when we take a look at it. How will the coordination procedure (page 27) simplify the process for obtaining a permit when more offices are involved? And on page 29, does this mean any license, permit or approval must be approved by ODNR and require an additional 30 days wait? In Chapter 11, page 6 ODNR addresses the understaffing issue, and it seems to me they spend so much time trying to get rules issued, the departmed has been reluctant to get involved with current issues. And they invest more than enough personnel in going to public hearings. They have six staff in attendance at this hearing. In addition, there has been no cost benefit analysis to justify adoption of this program. The only specific has been the need to receive $800,000 from the federal government. Other benefits have been couched in potential, conditional or parenthetical terms. Response to Comments: All of the commenter's questions and statements were addressed previously in response to his written comments (written comment #4). Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Part VII March 1997 ORAL COMMENT #15: KATHLEEN BARBER, CITIZEN, DEIS PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY, CLEVELAND, OHIO, October 2,1996 Summary of Comments: I have worked for many years to achieve a Coastal Management Program and think it is an important exercise. The proposed plan contains many important provisions to enhance protection of Ohio's coastal areas, but important issues remain. Briefly, there are five. First, enforcement mechanisms are not clear. Who is responsible for what? One specific example is in the final identification of coastal erosion areas. It should be specified that any changes made by ODNR should be open for public review by the general public and not subject only to private negotiations. Second, the wetlands protection provisions need to be significantly strengthened. Wetlands need to be defined in this plan. Mitigation is proving to be inadequate, and full restoration should be required. All diked wetlands should be re-integrated with the lake. Third, solid, infectious and hazardous waste facilities should be absolutely prohibited in the coastal area, and in he larger watershed, landfills need better enforcement to prohibit leakage into Lake Erie tributaries. Fourth, the State of Ohio should require training of local planning officials because they will make critical decisions about proposed developments that will affect adjacent property owners and the public, which is entitled to protection of its fragile and interdependent coastal resources. A model is the requirement for financial and investment training for county treasurers, Informed decision making at the local level is critical. Fifth, control of nonpoint pollution is equally important. I understand a plan for this is being developed. I would simply urge serious attention to enforcement of realistic means of preventing or controlling such runoff. Response to Comment: Comment noted. No change required. 1. Each enforceable policy clearly states the statutory authorization and the governmental entity responsible for enforcing it. Regarding public review of changes ODNR makes in the, process of making a final coastal erosion area designation, the procedure is very clearly and definitively prescribed in the Ohio Coastal Management Law (O.R.C. � 1506.06). That law requires that ODNR allow property owners affected by ODNR's preliminary identification and by modifications to it to object. The law does not provide for broad public review and comment such as that recommended by the commentor. However, this is not to say that decisions or changes are based on "private negotiations." ODNR must rule on objections based upon verifiable evidence or documentation subinitted by the objecting party. All information related to this process, including the preliminary identification and maps are public records. Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Part VII March 1997 2. See responses to item 5 of written comment #20 (Coast Alliance) and oral comment #11 (Brian Ulm) regarding wetlands. 3. ODNR does not agree that all waste disposal should be prohibited in the coastal area. 4. See response on this issue in response to oral comment #11. 5. Comment (regarding nonpoint pollution control noted. Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS PaA VII March 1997 ORAL COMMENT #16: LEE ANN STEIN, DEIS PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY, ASHTABULA, OHIO, October 3,1996 Summary of Testimony: I would like to see private property owners identified as affected interests in Part 11, page 5-134. In addition, it should be noted in the same section that Canadian lakefront residents rent or lease their land from the Canadian government and that in the U.S. we buy and own the land. Response to Comment: Comment noted. The text on page 5-134 has been changed to reflect the first comment. The second 2:@ comment recommends text that is more specific than required in the context. Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Part V111 March 1997 ORAL COMMENT #17: TIM BOJANOWSKI, DEIS PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY, ASHTABULA, OHIO, October 3,1996 Summary of Comments: It is my position that ODNR should not adopt the plan as presently stated because there are flaws. You're supposed to determine if it meets federal consistency requirements. I believe those are primarily focused on consistency among state and local governments and federal agencies. The plan addresses primarily governmental interests and not the interests of individual land owners. The federal government is going to give the state approximately $800,000 and the state is to implement and distribute that to local entities for projects that may be in their interest. There is no local or federal plan whereby an individual land owner can get funding for construction of erosion control structures. If the law's purpose is to require property owners to erect structures, then the government should assist the land owners. At current costs, the cost of building a home and constructing a control measure is prohibitive, thus foreclosing any development. The state will spend a great deal of money to control things in the water on their property, but the individual is left out. We have to look at the majority of the people and those are private property owners. A key portion of the plan should direct money to the individual land owner. Now if federal or state money goes to private property owners, it must be without strings so that their land in effect remains theirs. They don't want the financial assistance to require them to turn over their land for public use. One of the great things about the shoreline is that a private property owner owns his property right to the water's edge, to walk on the beach without interference from other beach-goers. A little privacy is all they seek and they get that here. That should be key to both the federal and the Ohio plan, The state plan is going to require a permit to construct a house or apartment unit in this area. Noticeably missing is a definition of a hardship. Now I have to go to the state as well as for all the other local pen-nits. I have to submit plans and describe the erosion control measure. Now you cannot just build a house and say to the builder I don't care what plans you use. Now you're going to have to pay extra money to get permits and get an engineering design for a structure in the water. It's not affordable. So is the director going to say that is a hardship? Definition of hardship must be placed in O.A.C. 1501-6-21. The document says that it will be a benefit. How? It will establish a bureaucracy to set up a zone, manage it and enforce rules and regulations. But it does not address the underlying problem, which is how to prevent erosion. Do you prevent erosion by moving buildings back? No. As you gentleman know, the I.J.C. issued a levels reference study in 1993. That report indicated that land control management measures will not affect the erosive qualities of Lake Erie. The problems are not associated with setback but with trying to control things occurring that are causing erosive activity. The I.J.C. report recommended reducing Lake Erie's level. Reducing the lake level will help with the erosive effects. We who live on the lake know that erosive activities fluctuate with the seasons. We also know that when the level is high, erosion is severe and storms cause real problems. Lake Erie has been above its mean level for 10 to 15 years. Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Part Vil March 1997 If we have several drought periods and the lake does not go down, then something is going on that's retaining water. Did the U.C. think of that? You bet and they said let's take care of the problem. They said let's remove the Niagara River constrictions, we'll pay $1.6 million to do it and that will help reduce Lake Erie's level. Would we as land owners rather see two years of bureaucratic management moving property back or would we rather see the money spent to open up the Niagara River and reduce the lake level. I bet the majority of property owners would rather see the level reduced. We know that since the 1950s the beaches have been lost. This is not something that has not been studied. The 1925 Freeman report recommended lake level management and actual techniques used today to regulate lake levels. We have a problem now with water being retained in Lake Superior due to construction of several locks up there. What are they going to do with that water? It's ooinc, C, I-D to have to come down. When it comes down, we're already up 13 inches. We're going to have even more and it's going to sit here. The bottom line is one factor would be to reduce lake levels. Many others have been discussed. We also know that increased shipping has resulted in greater draft depths being needed. Every inch of draft depth amounts to hundreds of thousands of dollars of profit every year. Keeping water levels high is in their best interests, as it is for hydro-electric power interests . It behooves the federal and state governments to assure that the citizens of this state who live on the shoreline have their property protected and not over managed to the point it amounts to a taking. Response to Comment: Comment noted. No change required. The issue, of appropriateness and legality of providing funding for private property owners to construct erosion control measures was addressed in response to written comment #11 (Roger Alexander), item #4. In addition, state law does not allow for expenditure of taxpayer dollars for purposes of protecting private property. With respect to laws and programs that benefit agencies and the agencies' actions to protect "their own property," it should be clarified that those agencies' actions in that regard are conducted for purposes of protecting public properties and Lake Erie as a public trust property and the benefits that accrue to all citizens from use and enjoyment of those public trust lands and waters. The purpose is not to benefit the agency itself. ODNR's ownership of state park lands, natural areas and wildlife areas as well as the state's ownership of Lake Erie waters and submerged lands, as proprietor in trust for the people of Ohio, is to provide for recreational and other public uses and protection of flora, fauna and natural features important to a sustainable coastal area ecosystem. This is in the interest of all who depend upon them including lakefront property owners and other private interests within the coastal area. The State of Ohio takes that stewardship role very seriously, and it is a significant cornerstone of the Ohio Coastal Management Program. Response was provided regarding the hardship provision in response to written comment #27 (Coast Alliance), item # 1.4. Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Part VIE[ March 1997 Environmental consequences, including benefits, of the OCMP were clearly and specifically described in Part III, pages 22 through 27 of the OCMP draft document and DEIS. Regarding the U.C. Levels Reference Study of 1993, it should be made clear that while recommending removal of specific fills in the Niagara River, the report rejected numerous other suggested water level regulation schemes. The report also recommended relocation of structures away from hazard areas, real estate disclosure requirements (citing Ohio's law), and erosion setbacks. Considering the context of the comment regarding funding, it must also be remembered that the annual funding for the OCMP is to be provided and used to address the entire range of resource management issues and conflicts and not coastal erosion management alone. However, expenditure of funds to reduce Lake Erie water levels is outside the scope of the OCMP. Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Part VII March 1997 ORAL COMMENT #18: ANDREW BRANIK, DEIS PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY, ASHTABULA, OHIO, October 3,1996 Summary of Cornments: I agree with what the gentleman said. Response to Comments: See response to oral comment #17. Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Part VII March 1997 ORAL COMMENT #19: LOU LEHMAN, DEIS PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY, ASHTABULA, OHIO, October 3,1996 Summary of Comments: Your book does recognize the high water problem. I agree with the comments in Section 5, page 134. Z> Very little has been said about easing the high water levels. When they are extremely high we really need a safety valve. Section 3, page 9 also recognizes the fact that Erie is still a foot and a half high and I have the charts to bear that out. Response to Comments: Comment noted. No change required. For further discussion, see response to oral comment #17. Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Part VII March 1997 ORAL COMMENT #20: KEITH RADER, LAKEFRONT PROPERTY OWNER, DEIS PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY, ASHTABULA, OHIO, October 3,1996 Summary of Comments: I've studied the lake very closely. On September 20, it was 37 inches above the low water datum and 13 inches above the new long term average. The first 20 years of the century had no rainfall. Lake Superior is 21 inches above low water datum and 10 inches above its regulated level of 602 feet. When they repaired the Sault locks this summer, it restricted the outflow. If they open the locks now we'll be in deep trouble. We met with the Corps and were reminded that the ice will restrict outflows even more. The power companies are only required to let out 50,000 cfs when the average flow is 200,000, so three fourths of the water has no place to go. We ought to let more water out the Niagara and the Chicago diversion and shut down the Ogaki Long Lac. Response to Comments: Comment noted. No change required. For further discussion, see response to oral comment #17. Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Part VII March 1997 ORAL COMMENT #21: LEONARD EAMES, ASHTABULA PORT AUTHORITY MEMBER AND LAKEFRONT PROPERTY OWNER, DEIS PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY, ASHTABULA, OHIO, October 3,1996 Summary of Comments: I see a great deal of confusion in a number of areas for property owners and business owners, a lack of perspective frorn the City of Ashtabula and the port authority being involved in this since the 24th Street bridge is the boundary. I think that the boundaries may be a little out of control going south from the lakeshore. I would like to see more reference as to what role the health department is going to play with marinas and industrial groups along the river if it's included in the CMP, and I'm not sure it should go to the 24th Street bridge. As a resident I think the 30 year setback is a hardship to ask somebody to move their house or not build close to the shore and I want to know who is going to make the determination on sites. Since the Corps doesn't come out and look at the site for erosion control, who is going to be coming out and making the decision of whether or not the property owner is allowed? Also, there is no mention of drainage; erosion is partly because ditches are not kept clean and the water is not allowed to go into the natural feeder streams that were there before roads and developments take place. Response to Comments: The Ohio Department of Health's and health districts' authorities and responsibilities with respect to marinas are explained in Chapter, Policy 32 on page 5-119. The rationale for establishing boundaries of the coastal area for purposes of the program are described in Chapter 3 of the program document. No changes are proposed for the coastal area boundary on the lower Ashtabula River. The requirement for a permit for new construction within coastal erosion areas does not constitute a setback or a requirement that houses be moved or that building not occur (refer to Chapter 5, Policy 1). Regarding enforcement, ODNR's Division of Real Estate and Land Management will be responsible as explained in Chapter 4 of the OCMP draft document. The divisions of Geological Survey and Engineering make site visits and provide technical assistance regarding site-specific erosion problems and methods of addressing them. With respect to drainage, the Ohio Coastal Management Law specifically defines coastal erosion areas as "the land areas anticipated to be lost to Lake Erie-related erosion . . . ." ODNR does, however, recognize the impacts that urban stormwater changes have had upon the lakeshore. This element will therefore be addressed within the context of both the development of the updated state nonpoint source pollution control program and the urban streams protection program that is a high priority initiative within ODNR's Strategic Action Plan for Coastal Management. Ohio Coastal Management Program & Final EIS Part V111 March 1997 VS D,,@nartmcnt Of CoTnncrce S':!rvc ':3, Center Library 2234 SOuth Hobs,n Av,nue Charleston, isc 294 05-2413 3 6668 14102 2477