{"Bibliographic":{"Title":"Biennial report to the Congress on coastal zone management Fiscal Years 1981-1982","Authors":"","Publication date":"1987","Publisher":""},"Administrative":{"Date created":"08-20-2023","Language":"English","Rights":"CC 0","Size":"0000066536"},"Pages":["HT\n392\n.U35\n1984/\nBiennial Report\n1985\nto the Congress\nOF\nOn Coastal Zone\nManagement\nSTATES\nOF\nFiscal Years 1984 and 1985\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE\nNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration\nNational Ocean Service\nOffice of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management","HT\n392\n,U35\n1984/1985\nPublic Law 96 - 464\nATMOSPHERIC\nBiennial Report\nAND\nGROUND\nNOAA\nto the Congress\nOn Coastal Zone\nOF\nManagement\nFiscal Years 1984 and 1985\nApril 1987\nLIBRARY\nOCT 15 2002\nNational Oceanic &\nAtmospheric Administration\nU.S. Dept. of Commerce\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE\nMalcolm Baldrige, Secretary\nNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration\nAnthony J. Calio, Under Secretary\nNational Ocean Service\nPaul M. Wolff, Assistant Administrator\nOffice of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management\nPeter L. Tweedt, Director","A\n1\nTHE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE\nWashington, D.C. 20230\n/\nSTATES of\nThe President\nPresident of the Senate\nSpeaker of the House of Representatives\nSirs:\nI am pleased to submit the Biennial Report of the Office\nof Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic\nand Atmospheric Administration pursuant to Section 316\nof the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended\n(16 U.S.C. 1451) for fiscal years 1984 and 1985.\nSincerely,\nMalesha Biblings\nSecretary of Commerce\nEnclosure","Table of Contents\nPage\nIntroduction\ni\n316 (a) (1)\nState Programs Approved During FY 1984-1985\n1\n316(a)( (2)\nStatus and Accomplishments of Participating States\n2-19\n316(a) (3)\nFunding During FY 1984-1985\n20\n316(a)( (4)\nDisapproved Programs\n21\n316(a) (5)\nSection 312 Program Evaluation\n22\n316(a) (6)\nSection 307 Consistency\n25\n316 (a) (7)\nRegulations\n28\n316(a) (8)\nNational Strategy for Coastal Management\n30\n316 (a) (9)\nProblems in Administering the Act\n31\n316 (a( (10)\nSection 308 Coastal Energy Impact Program\n32\n316 (a) (11)\nInterstate/Regional Coordination\n33\n316(a)( (12)\nResearch, Training and Coordination\n34","i\nINTRODUCTION\nSection 316 of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), as\namended, requests that the Secretary of Commerce prepare and\nsubmit to the President for transmittal to the Congress a\nreport summarizing the administration of the Act for each\nbiennial period. The section further specifies 12 issues which\nare to be addressed in each report. This report covers the\nactivities under the Act for Fiscal Years (FY) 1984 and 1985.","1\n316(a)(1) IDENTIFICATION OF STATE PROGRAMS APPROVED IN FISCAL\nYEARS 1984 AND 1985\nNo state programs were approved during this biennium but progress\nhas been made toward completing the second segment of the New\nHampshire Coastal Program and the Virginia Coastal Management\nProgram received Federal approval in September 1986.\nNew Hampshire\nThe Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on the Combined\nNew Hampshire Coastal Program is nearing completion.\nProgress is being made on the proposed Combined New Hampshire\nCoastal Program document. The Combined Coastal Management\nProgram boundaries would encompass the State's Atlantic coast-\nline, the Portsmouth Harbor - Piscataqua River area, and Great\nand Little Bay and its tidal rivers. The State would rely\nprimarily on existing State authorities to manage and control\nactivities in the coastal program boundaries.\nVirginia\nThe Federal review process began on December 14, 1984, when\na DEIS Notice of Intent appeared in the Federal Register. A\nFederal agency scoping meeting was held in Washington, D.C.\non January 9, 1985. A DEIS and revised program document were\ndistributed in mid-August 1985. A FEIS and program document\nwere prepared and Federal approval was granted in September 1986.\nEstuarine Sanctuaries\nDuring the biennium, the North Carolina National Estuarine\nSanctuary added its fourth component -- Masonboro Island,\nwhich is a 5,046 acre barrier island bounded by the Atlantic\nOcean to the east and the Atlantic Intercoastal Waterway to\nthe West.\nAlso, the Weeks Bay (Alabama) National Estuarine Sanctuary was\napproved. This is a 2,670-acre estuarine embayment connecting\nthe Fish and Magnolia Rivers with Bon Secour Bay (southeasten\nMobile Bay).","2\n316 (a) (2) LIST OF PARTICIPATING STATES INCLUDING STATUS AND\nACCOMPLISHMENTS\nTable I\nSTATUS OF STATE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS\nActual or Estimated\nComments and Status\nFederal Approval Date\n10/1/85\nBy Fiscal Year (ends 9/30)\nState\nApproved\n1976\nWashington\nApproved\n1977\nOregon\nApproved\n1978\nCalifornia\nApproved\n1978\nMassachusetts\nApproved\n1978\nWisconsin\nApproved\n1978\nRhode Island\nApproved\n1978\nMichigan\nApproved\n1978\nNorth Carolina\nApproved\n1978\nPuerto Rico\nApproved\n1978\nHawaii\nApproved\n1978\nMaine\nApproved\n1978\nMaryland\nApproved\n1978\nNew Jersey\n(Bay and Ocean Shore Segment)\nApproved\n1979\nVirgin Islands\nApproved\n1979\nAlaska\nApproved\n1979\nGuam\nApproved\n1979\nDelaware\nApproved\n1979\nAlabama\nApproved\n1979\nSouth Carolina\nApproved\n1980\nLouisiana\nApproved\n1980\nMississippi\nApproved\n1980\nConnecticut\nApproved\n1980\nPennsylvania\nApproved\n1980\nNew Jersey\n(Remaining Section)\nApproved\n1980\nNorthern Marianas\nApproved\n1980\nAmerican Samoa\nApproved\n1981\nFlorida\nApproved\n1982\nNew Hampshire\n(Ocean and Harbor Segment)\nFederal\n1982\nNew York\napproval\n1986\nVirginia\nis scheduled\nin FY 1986.\nNon-participating\n\"\nOhio\n\"\nIndiana\n\"\nGeorgia\n\"\nMinnesota\n\"\nIllinois\n\"\nTexas","3\nTable 2\nAPPROVED NATIONAL ESTUARINE SANCTUARIES\nApproval Date\n1. South Slough, Oregon\n1974\n2. Sapelo Island, Georgia\n1975\n3. Waimanu, Hawaii\n1976\n4. Old Woman Creek, Ohio\n1977\n5. Rookery Bay, Florida\n1977\n6. Apalachicola, Florida\n1979\n7. Elkhorn Slough, California\n1979\n8. Padilla Bay, Washington\n1980\n9. Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island\n1980\n10. Chesapeake Bay, Maryland\n1981\n11. Jobos Bay, Puerto Rico\n1981\n12. Tijuana River, California\n1981\n13. North Carolina National Estuarine Sanctuary\n(4 Sites)\nRachel Carson\n1982\nZeke's Island\n1982\nCurrituck\n1983\nMasonboro\n1984\n14. Wells, Maine\n1982\n15. Hudson River, New York\n1982\n16. Weeks Bay, Alabama\n1985","4\nALABAMA\nThe Alabama Environmental Management Commission approved an\namendment to the Alabama Coastal Area Management Program to\nestablish a new coastal construction control line.\nAn inventory was undertaken to provide precise locational\ndata, as well as descriptive information of the current\nquality and quantity of natural diversity features present\nin an area to aid in providing input into State acquisition\ndecisions.\nAlabama made progress in resolving uncertainties regarding\nthe delegation of State Coastal Permit Authorities to local\ncontrol coastal cities and counties.\nWeeks Bays National Estuarine Sanctuary\nA draft environmental impact statement and managment plan were\nprepared. In September 1984 a governmental and public review,\nin accordance with NEPA procedures, examined the impacts of\nestablishing a Sanctuary. Following approval of the draft\nmanagement plan and the final environmental impact statement,\nthe site entered an initial acquisition and development phase.\nALASKA\nThe Governor of Alaska signed Administrative Order No. 78\nwhich establishd the framework for a project-based State and\nFederal consistency review to be coordinated by the Division\nof Governmental Coordination (DGC). Regulations implementing\nthe new procedures were promulgated and NOAA/OCRM approved the\nregulations for incorporation into the Alaska Coastal Management\nProgram on June 22, 1984.\nThe DGC established regional offices in Fairbanks, Anchorage,\nand Juneau. Special workshops were held for district and\nBorough staff to explain the consistency review process and to\neducate local governments in their role; also, training sessions\nfor potential applicants were conducted.\nThe State sponsored a 2-day workshop for the coastal districts.\nTopics discussed were OCS, program development and implementation,\nmonitoring and compliance, and water quality issues.","5\nAMERICAN SAMOA\nThe American Samoa program concentrated on public awareness.\nVarious forms of the media and public meetings have been used\nto further the environmental awareness of the Samoan people.\nPala Lagoon contains the longest remaining mangrove areas in\nAmerican Samoa and is designated as a Special Management Area.\nThe Territory completed the Pala Lagoon Study which focused on\nthe importance of this highly valuable ecosystem and provided\nrecommendations on better ways to protect the Lagoon.\nDraft legislation to institutionalize the program is being\ndeveloped and, if passed, would result in substantial improve-\nment to the basis of authority which currently is an Executive\nOrder.\nCALIFORNIA\nThe California Coastal Commission established procedures for\nreviewing Federal agency actions and federally-permitted\nactivities for consistency with the California Coastal\nManagement Program in a manner similar to the process by\nwhich it issues coastal development permits under the\nCalifornia Coastal Act.\nThe San Dieguito Lagoon Enhancement Program stressed public\nparticipation. A Citizens Advisory Group was formed in the\nearly stages of planning and then expanded to include affected\nproperty owners. Multi-agency participation was sought and\nthe coordination effort among those agencies and their open\ncoordination and participation were significant components\nfor progress.\nA 2-year interagency planning effort resulted in adoption of\nthe Richardson Bay Special Area Plan, which resolves land\nownership and water quality issues in shorelands areas.\nElkhorn Slough National Estuarine Sanctuary\nEighty acres of land were added to the Sanctuary property\nbringing the total acreage to 1330.\nA public lecture series was begun. Recent presentations included\nthe history of the railroad in Elkhorn Slough and a discussion\nof botanical aspects of the region. Presentations are scheduled\non a bi-monthly basis.\nThe Sanctuary applied for State funding to construct approximately\n4,000 feet of boardwalk adjacent to the wetlands. Application\nwas also made to fund construction of sediment catch basins.\nThese catch basins would supply information on the offsite\nimpacts of adjacent land use practices.","6\nTijuana River National Estuarine Sanctuary\nIn September 1984 the California Coastal Commission held a\nfield trip to the Sanctuary. The Commissioners and interested\npublic were able to see the Sanctuary resources and discuss\nthe management problems onsite with the experts (Sanctuary\nManager, Management Authority Members, City Planning Staffs,\nand Scientist). .\nThe Tijuana Estuary was reopened to tidal circulation with\nthe bulldozing of the estuary's mouth. This was preceded by\nseveral weeks of dredging of channels that had been blocked\nby sand from winter storm waves. In conjunction with the\ndredging, sand excavated from the channels was put back on\nthe beach where the dunes once were. The \"new\" dunes will\nbe stabilized by native plants and seeds planted with the\naid of volunteers.\nCONNECTICUT\nFunds were provided to coastal municipalities for mandatory\ncoastal site plan review and the review process developed into\na highly effective system assuring developmental compliance\nwith both municipal and state coastal management policies.\nThe Harbor Management Act which became effective in October 1984,\ncreated an opportunity for municipalities to manage their harbor\nareas and make them compatible with state coastal management\nstatutes as well as their own municipal coastal programs.\nA General Permit for Connecticut was issued by the Corps of\nEngineers and has eliminated much of the Corps' duplication of\nthe state's regulatory program.\nDELAWARE\nThe Delaware Coastal Management Program continued to direct its\nattention to improvements in the management of the Inland Bays\narea. This area, encompassing Rehoboth, Assawoman, and Indian\nRiver Bays, is under intense pressure from second home develop-\nment, and is experiencing problems such as deterioration of\nground and surface water quality and closure of shellfish\nbeds. A Governor's Inland Bays Task Force was established to\ndevelop management solutions and the Task Force delivered its\nrecommendations to the Governor in May 1984. A summary of\nthese recommendations was distributed to the general public\nas an insert in local newspapers on July 4, 1984.\nIn addition, a conference was held in July 1985 to discuss\nthe problems facing the Inland Bays--including current and\nfuture efforts to improve their management.","7\nFLORIDA\nPassage of wetlands legislation in 1984 strengthened the State's\nability to protect natural resources. Also, the Governor's\ninitiative to require a coordinated interdepartmental approach\nto solving coastal management problems in the Keys and to\ncoordinate existing programs such as the aquatic preserve\nprogram, habitat protection efforts for endangered species,\nthe Areas of Critical Concern program, and the Outstanding\nFlorida Waters Program has been effective.\nThe newly available regional hurricane evacuation plans and data\nhave assisted civil defense authorities and local officials in\nprotecting lives and property from hurricanes.\nApalachicola National Estuarine Sanctuary\nThe Sanctuary hosted the Florida Federation of Women's Club's\nseminar on water resources. In addition, the Sanctuary was\nthe site of the Florida Park Service Interpretive Workshop.\nThe Sanctuary also hosted a meeting of 4-H leaders and biology\nteachers. One result of the meeting with the local biology\nteachers was to begin developing research goals for the\nSanctuary.\nRookery Bay National Estuarine Sanctuary\nA freestanding exhibit featuring information on the Sanctuary\nand the national program was constructed by the Florida Department\nof Natural Resources and installed at The Conservancy's Briggs\nNature Center. During 1985, a speaker program was initiated.\nOver the year, 15 presentations were made, reaching approximately\n500 persons. At the first annual Ecology Exposition held at The\nConservancy's Nature Center in Naples, the Sanctuary displayed\nan exhibit on the estuary, its economic. importance, the national\nprogram, and the program at Rookery Bay. Over 2,200 persons\nattended the 2-day event.\nGEORGIA\nSapelo Island National Estuarine Sanctuary\nPublic visits and tours of the Sanctuary were conducted. Special\ntours include an all-day tour offered periodically. Sanctuary\nstaff accompany groups through the sanctuary discussing topics\nand performing activities related to each group's particular\ninterests. A large number of schools and organized groups from\naround the State have participated in these special tours.\nA monitoring program has been undertaken by the Coastal Resources\nDivision which consists of a 15-minute trawl in the Duplin River\neach quarter of the year. The contents of the trawl net are\nidentified, analyzed and recorded.","8\nGUAM\nThe Bureau of Planning (BOP) prepared a public information\nresource guide for the Island. The guide focuses on the fragile\nquality of the territory's natural environments.\nA management plan for Public Lands located in the coastal zone\nwas completed. The plan sets policies and land use designation\nwhen the Government of Guam reviews applications for leases and\nsales of public lands.\nHAWAII\nThe Governor signed into law a process that facilitates permit\nprocessing. In addition to designating the Department of\nPlanning and Economic Development as a coordinating point for\nintergovernmental simplification, a Consolidated Application\nProcess is being established which makes participation mandatory\nfor State agencies.\nA project was begun by the Statewide Advisory Committee (SAC)\nto evaluate the progress and effectiveness of each county, and\nof the State as a whole, toward achieving the objectives of\nthe Program and to reassess the continuing viability of those\nobjectives in relation to current coastal issues and problems.\nA primary component of this project is public input through the\nuse of public meetings on the various islands.\nWaimanu National Estuarine Sanctuary\nThe State concluded its final discussions with all of the\nprincipal landowners in Waimanu Valley and received an initial\naward to cover the first year of Sanctuary operations. The\nagreements reached include State ownership of all of the lands\nwithin the ecological core of the Sanctuary and easements for\nof\naccess through those lands administered by the Department\nHawaiian Home Lands.\nDuring 1985, the State of Hawaii finalized the Sanctuary's\nacquisition phase by discharging a Federal tax lien on three\nacquired parcels of lands.","9\nLOUISIANA\nThe State continued to develop a Special Area Management\nPlan for Lake Pontchartrain utilizing a task force designated\nby the Governor; and the Department of Natural Resources (DNR)\ninitiated a multi-year comprehensive study of the impacts of\nshell dredging on the Lake.\nThe DNR made progress in acquiring and making operational its\ncomputerized mapping system.\nFor the New Orleans World Fair, the DNR developed a special\n\"Coast Week\" program which included displays and a coastal\nposter.\nMAINE\nThe State Legislature moved responsibility for overseeing\nthe Shoreline Zoning Act from the State Planning Office to\nthe Department of Environmental Protection. The Legislature\nalso passed the Freshwater Wetlands Act which gave the State\nauthority for inland wetlands over 10 acres.\nThe newly established Coastal Advisory Committee, composed\nof State cabinet level members, began its meetings in the\nfall of 1984.\nA court case has been important in implementing the core coastal\nlaws. A property owner was ordered to pay a $72,000 fine to the\ntown of Kittery for violation of local land use laws and $10,000\nto the State for violation of State wetlands law.\nWells National Estuarine Sanctuary\nIn October 1984 the Sanctuary acquired 90 acres of wetlands\nand 50 acres of transitional uplands which make up a portion\nof the Laudholm Farm. The Sanctuary is scheduled to complete\nacquisition of the Laudholm Farm property in 1986. In addition,\nthe Town of Wells, Maine, is working to acquire other key\nestuarine land and water areas in the Webhannet and Little\nRiver estuaries.\nFive educational brochures which explain the value and significance\nof the natural resources in the Sanctuary were prepared.\nThe State Planning Office, the Department of Conservation, and\nthe Education and Research Subcommittee have begun working\ncooperatively to begin the preparation of baseline environmental\nstudies on the Sanctuary's resources.","10\nMARYLAND\nThe Maryland General Assembly enacted a landmark program with\na major State financial commitment to improve the quality of\nthe Chesapeake Bay and the management of its resources by\ncontrolling pollution, restoring aquatic and land resources,\nand protecting shorelines from erosion and sediment runoff.\nThe program incorporated 34 initiatives requiring ten pieces\nof legislation for implementation and funding.\nThe Secretary of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR)\ndeclared striped bass (a significant commercial and recreational\nresource) a threatened species and proposed a moratorium\non commercial and recreational fishing for striped bass.\nRegulations were issued that prohibited the taking, possession,\ntransportation, exportation, processing, sale, or shipment of\nstriped bass.\nChesapeake Bay National Estuarine Sanctuary\nThe Monie Bay component formally became a part of the Sanctuary\nin July 1985 when the necessary Memorandum of Understanding\n(MOU) was signed by the Tidewater Administration, the DNR Forest,\nParks and Wildlife Service, and the DNR Secretary.\nMASSACHUSETTS\nMajor legislation was enacted which: (1) established the\nMassachusetts Coastal Management Program in law the program\nwas originally \"networked\" from existing laws), (2) established\na $25 million bond program for building coastal facilities,\ni.e., fishing piers, access structures, etc. and (3) gave the\nState new responsibility to implement the tidelands program.\nThe Massachusetts program provided the coordination of complex\nissues and decisions toward the clean-up effort of Boston\nHarbor, and $8.5 million in Coastal Facilities Improvement\nProgram Grants was awarded to 18 coastal municipalities to\nimprove fishing, marine and recreational facilities.\nWaquoit Bay National Estuarine Sanctuary\nThe Commonwealth of Massachusetts proposed Waquoit Bay\n(Barnstable County, on the southern shore of Cape Cod) for\ndesignation as a National Estauarine Sanctuary in July 1981.\nFollowing evaluation of the 2,250 acre site, the Commonwealth\nformally applied in October 1984, and an acquisition and\ndevelopment grant was made in November 1984. The Commonwealth's\nuse of these grant funds will be to acquire the vacant Swift\nThe\nEstate located on a bluff on the north side of the Bay.\nbuilding (an old \"Victorian\" mansion) will be renovated and\nused as the Sanctuary's central facility.","11\nMICHIGAN\nA comprehensive action plan for protecting and managing Michigan's\n275,000 acres of designated sand dunes areas was completed by\nthe Citizens Sand Dune Advisory Committee and submitted to the\nGovernor. From this report, the Natural Resource Commission\n(NRC) adopted a policy which will guide all agency programs and\nactivities that may impact Great Lakes sand dunes. Essentially,\nthe policy describes how the State's sand dunes will be protected\nthrough management of public lands and other operations affecting\nsand dunes.\nMichigan's program has received statewide visibility through\nfunding of low cost construction projects. The funds have\nbeen used as a catalyst for local governments to combine other\nfunding sources to assist in solving management problems which\ntraditionally have not been addressed.\nThe Michigan Resource Inventory Act provided land resource\ndata to aid public and private interests through the creation\nof county portfolios. The data is used for permit review,\nassessing potential development, and research.\nMISSISSIPPI\nSpecial Management Areas (SMA) planning has been the major\nfocus of the Mississippi Coastal Program. The Port Bienville\nPlan is undergoing final revisions and the Pascagoula Plan\nhas been completed.\nA coastal zone regional permit dated November 21, 1984, for\nminor construction activities and associated discharge of\ndredged and fill material under Section 10 of the Rivers and\nHarbor Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of\n1977 was successfully negotiated with the Mobile District Corps\nof Engineers (COE). Working with the COE Mobile District, the\nBureau of Marine Resources (BMR) created a \"General Permit\" (GP)\nfor hydrocarbon exploration and appraisal drilling activities\nwithin the coastal waters of Mississippi.\nTwo illustrated marine education booklets for elementary school\nchildren on vertebrate and invertebrate animals were completed\nand distributed.","12\nNEW HAMPSHIRE\nCoastal wetlands protection has increased through the continued\nprovision and expanded pre-application review role of the two\ncoastal wetlands inspectors operating out of the Coastal Program\nOffice in Portsmouth.\nInformal recommendations were made to the Portsmouth Harbor Oil\nSpill Cooperative following discussions of a comprehensive,\ncoordinated response plan for each of the oil terminals located\non the Piscatagua River. Representatives from the oil industry\nhave agreed to purchase equipment needed to adequately respond\nto oil spills.\nNew Hampshire has taken steps to increase public access on the\ncoast. Four State park properties have been opened to the public\nand a study was completed for the town of Rye on ways to improve\npublic access to the shoreline.\nNEW JERSEY\nThe Hudson River Walkway Plan was completed. The Walkway is\nplanned as a continuous 18-mile route providing direct public\naccess to the water edge along the west shore of the Hudson\nRiver between George Washington Bridge and the Bayonne Bridge.\nA staff summary report on hazards mitigation was generated\nfollowing participation in the first Interagency Hazard\nMitigation Assessment held on the Atlantic Coast. The report\ndetailed recommended actions and conditions for the State and\nfor each municipality.\nThe New Jersey program has been actively involved in a variety\nmost notably in a joint letter by the\nof beach access issues\nState Public Advocate and the CZM Director which was sent to\nmunicipal officials and clearly discussed present legal\nrequirements and obligations of the communities to provide\npublic access to the general public.\nNEW YORK\nIn January 1984, the opening ceremony was held for the initial\noperation of the real time tide water level telemetry system in\nNew York Harbor.\nThe New York program staff undertook a major role in developing\nthe report of the Striped Bass Task Force which recommended long\nterm solutions to mitigate adverse effects on the New York\ncommercial fishing industry.\nA conference was held in September 1984 with local governments\npreparing local waterfront revitalization plans.","13\nHudson River National Estuarine Sanctuary\nThe and foundation, masonry and external shell for the renovation\nexpansion of the Bard College Ecology Field Station\ncompleted. This field research facility will include wet was\ndry and will labs, a small library/study area and a specimen collection; and\nsupport research in each of the four components of the\nSanctuary--Stockport, Tivoli, Iona, and Piermont.\nNew York purchased 45 acres at its Tivoli Bays component, and\nacquired a conservation easement on 55 acres of adjoining\nuplands. Also, research to measure community composition and\nstanding crop of vascular vegetation at Tivoli Bay continued.\nVegetation, soil, and litter sampling was completed and all\nsamples have been processed.\nNew York Office's of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation\n(OPRHP) has planned trails and a boardwalk for the Stockport\nSanctuary site, and has designed interpretive exhibits for two\npublic boat launch sites in the Stockport vicinity.\nNORTH CAROLINA\nThe Coastal Resources Commission (CRC) adopted new rules which\nregulate the location of oceanfront structures with more than\nfour units or more than 5,000 square feet. The rules became\neffective January 1, 1984.\nThe CRC approved changes to the rules for the beach access\nprogram, The the mitigation policy and the permit revision process.\nrevised beach access standards establish a process for\nThe determining the legal status of traditional beach accessways.\nmitigation policy has been revised to emphasize the public\ninterest requirements that must be met in order to be eligible\nfor mitigation. The guidelines for the permit review process\nwere changed to clarify the procedure to be followed when\nrequesting additional information from permit applicants.\nNorth Carolina National Estuarine Sanctuary\nMasonboro Island, the fourth component of this Sanctuary, has\nprogressed through the acquisition phase. Surveys of more\nthan 80 privately-held tracts of land comprising the Island\nare scheduled for 1985 and early 1986. of these 80, surveys,\ntitle certification, and appraisals have been completed for\n10 \"priority tracts\", which were identified for their proximity\nto existing State-owned land. A four-wheel ATC vehicle was\nacquired in early summer 1985 for use in the Masonboro survey\nwork, as well as for enforcement and research activities.\nThirty-three acres of the Island were also donated by New\nHanover County to the Sanctuary.","14\nEducational and interpretive activities at all components\nincreased during 1985, with well over 500 participants in\nsponsored field trips, and several thousand individual\nvisitors. In addition, over 2,000 individuals attended\nsanctuary sponsored slide shows or lectures during 1985.\nNORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS\nThe Coastal Resources Management Office (CRMO) worked with the\nSouth Pacific Regional Environmental Programme to design a\ntwo-week training course for the Coastal Resources Management\nAgency's personnel. The course focused on improving the\nparticipants' environmental assessment skills.\nThe CRMO, with assistance from the Pacific Basin Development\nCouncil, organized a conference in Saipan entitled \"Coastal\nResource Management: A Tool for Sound Development.\" The\nconference emphasized the benefits of partnership between\nbusiness and government when financial responsibilty for\nmaintaining and enhancing natural resources is shared.\nOHIO\nold Woman Creek National Estuarine Sanctuary\nApproximately 10,000 persons visited the site or participated\nin Sanctuary programs during 1985. Sanctuary programs\nincorporated slide/multi-media presentation, aquatic ecology\nfield trips, interpretive nature hikes, visitor center tours,\nand canoe trips into the estuary.\nTwo technical reports were completed by Sanctuary staff: \"An\nAnnotated Species List of the Algae of the Old Woman Creek\nEstuary,\" and \"The Fish of old Woman Creek Estuary.'\nSanctuary staff participated in the National Marine Educators\nConference (Williamsburg, Virginia, July 1985) ; the Highway\nRunoff Water Quality Training Course (McLean, Virginia, August\n1985); and a NESP research guidelines development meeting\n(North Carolina, June 1985).","15\nORE GON\nThe Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) adopted\na revised administrative rule for periodic review of local\ncomprehensive plans. Cities and counties are required to\nperiodically review their comprehensive plans, beginning 2 to\n5 years after plan acknowledgement, in order to keep the plans\nup-to-date and consistent with the Statewide Planning Goals.\nThe 1983 Legislative Assembly directed the LCDC to conduct a\ncomprehensive review of Statewide Planning Goals relating to\nestuarine resources, coastal shorelands, beaches and dunes,\nand ocean resources. The LCDC conducted numerous public\nhearings during July, September and October of 1984.\nRevisions to the coastal goals were adopted by the LCDC and\nthe most significant changes included: clarification of the\n\"needs\" test for dredge and fill projects in estuaries,\nclarification of the extent of the boundary for shorelands,\nand provisions to allow the management of foredunes in areas\nof accreting beaches and dunes.\nSouth Slough National Estuarine Sanctuary\nThe South Slough National Estuarine Sanctuary Interpretive\nCenter was completed, offering for the first time a paved road\ninto the Sanctuary. The Center is situated on a 300-foot hill,\noverlooking the estuary and a portion of the Coos Bay estuary.\nPlans are underway for the Interpretive Center's second phase,\nscheduled for completion in mid-1986. The second phase will\nprovide an auditorium/classroom, office space, additional\nexhibit space, enlarged reception area and book/field guides\nsale area.\nDuring 1985, the Sanctuary Management Commission met quarterly\nand assigned three primary tasks to the advisory committee.\nThe 12-member committee has completed two: identification of a\nplacement site for a tide station and a meteorological station;\nand design guidelines for development of a permanent, surveyed\nbenchmark locating system. The committee will also develop a\nmaster planning process for the group use facility and investigate\nany possible liabilities involved.","16\nPENNSYLVANIA\nThe program has funded a comprehensive automated fish and\nwildlife data base focusing primarily on the Lake Erie coastal\nzone area.\nIn the Delaware Estuary area the Philadelphia City Planning\nCommission has completed its 4-year CZM funded effort to\ndevelop a comprehensive riverfront planning process for the\nCity of Philadelphia. The Plan gives an overall view of the\nnatural and manmade coastal environment in Philadelphia and\nprovides goals, policies, and recommendations for improving\nthe City's coastal resources.\nTwo Coastal Energy Impact Program (CEIP) projects in the\nDelaware River coastal zone were formally dedicated. These\nwere the Pulaski Pier Park Project in the City of Philadelphia\nand the Commodore Barry Bridge Recreation Area in the City of\nChester. The Pulaski Pier project restored and rehabilitated\na city owned pier into a passive recreational area. The\nCommodore Barry Bridge project represents the only publicly\nowned and operated boat launching facility in Delaware County.\nPUERTO RICO\nThe Department of Natural Resources (DNR) was instrumental in\nthe preparation of a budget initiative submitted to Congress\nwhich resulted in a special appropriation of $5 million for the\nFY 1985 budget of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the\nexpress purpose of acquiring privately-owned environmentally\nsensitive lands. Lands related to Cartagena Lagoon, Tortuguero\nLagoon and Vega Baja will be acquired by the U.S. Fish and\nWildlife Service. The land acquired at Tortugeuro Lagoon will\nbe combined with property currently being leased by the DNR and\nthe entire tract will be managed by the DNR under a cooperative\nagreement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.\nJobos Bay National Estuarine Sanctuary\nThe Sanctuary acquired the former Hotel Americano Complex ( of\nthe Puerto Rico Sugarcane Corporation), to be remodeled for use\nas the Visitor/Research Center. The two-story Victorian building\non 2 acres of land will be cleaned, fenced, and redesigned for\nSanctuary uses. During 1985, a boardwalk was constructed to\nprovide better access for researchers and students.\nAn illustrated, six-page brochure on the Sanctuary was made\navailable for public distribution by the Department of Natural\nResources. An educational program consisting of onsite and off-\nsite interpretive seminars was given to primary and secondary\nschool groups discussing the ecological relationships among the\nSanctuary's marine, estuarine, and terrestrial communities.","17\nRHODE ISLAND\nThe Coastal Resources Center (CRC) completed a report, \"Public\nAccess to the Water in Newport Harbor,\" which examined the cur- -\nrent conditions and opportunities for public access, particularly\nalong portions of Newport Harbor. Although private and public\nsteps have been taken to provide access to the Harbor, overall\nneeds and opportunities had not been fully assessed until the\nCRC's report, and no plan had been developed to link State and\nlocal responsibilities and activities.\nA series of workshops was held to familiarize the members of\ntown boards and commissions and the town staffs with the\ncoordinated permit review process.\nThe Salt Pond Region Plan was adopted by the Coastal Resources\nManagement Council (CRMC). The Salt Pond Plan underwent an\nextensive public review process. A public information workshop\nwas held at the end of May 1984, followed by two formal public\nhearings in July and August 1984.\nNarragansett Bay National Estuarine Sanctuary\nThe Sanctuary published self-guided nature trail pamphlets\nfor visitors' use, and a Sanctuary newsletter. A series of\nnaturalist programs, designed for student groups and for the\ngeneral public, was conducted during 1985 and attended by over\n2,000 persons.\nA formal Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was agreed to and\nsigned by the Department of Environmental Management (DEM) and\nNOAA. The MOU establishes the basis for the long-term operation\nand management of the Narragansett Bay National Estuarine Sanctuary\nin a manner consistent with the mission and goals of the National\nEstuarine Sanctuary Program.\nSOUTH CAROLINA\nThe South Carolina Coastal Council developed three documents\nwhich clarify the process of developing a marina--including\nacquisition of required approval and certifications.\nThe Council also produced the South Carolina Coastal Council\nStormwater Management Guidelines. The document details best\nmanagement practices for stormwater management in the coastal\nzone for: offsite transport; methods of collection/distribution\nroof drainage; and golf course drainage guidelines by area and\ntype of development.","18\nThe Council used the NOAA's National Weather Service Sea, Lake\nand Overland Surge from Hurricanes (SLOSH) and Special Program\nto List the Amplitude of Surges from Hurricanes (SPLASH) models\nto complete a three-phased study of evacuation planning for\nthe coast. The model was used to reproduce the South Carolina\nshoreline, including dunes and manmade barriers such as cause-\nways, and was programmed to produce wind and wave data for\n186 hypothetical hurricanes making landfall at 15 different\npoints along the coast.\nVIRGIN ISLANDS\nThe \"Mooring Bill\" was signed into law and implementation\nbegan in June 1985. The legislation authorizes the Department\nof Conservation and Cultural Affairs to collect fees for boat\nmoorings and to develop plans designating where boats will be\nallowed to moor.\nWASHINGTON\nThe Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE) prepared a report\nentitled, \"Shellfish Protection Strategy,\" that articulated the\nagency's program for protecting commercial shellfish culture\nareas from bacterial contamination. Based on this report, the\nDepartment's Shorelands and Water Quality divisions cooperated\nwith local health and planning departments to develop a program\nfor controlling non-point pollution.\nThe WDOE conducted a series of training sessions covering\nshoreline administration, special management techniques, and\nstate-of-the-art methods. One benefit has been the interchange\nof information among the local, state, and Federal resource\nagencies involved in coastal zone management.\nThe Department launched a program for natural resources protection\nthrough creation of a Natural Resources Section within the\nShorelands Divisions which has responsibility for wetlands,\nduneland, and estuary protection. Through a contract with\nthe Department of Natural Resources, Natural Heritage Program,\n19 estuarine wetlands were identified and described.","19\nPadilla Bay National Estuarine Sanctuary\nIn 1985 majority ownership was acquired in 35 acres of marsh,\nwhich had been farm land until a dike burst in 1960. Activities\nin the Sanctuary included guided nature walks, films shown\neach Sunday and slide shows supplemented with field trips.\nSeveral workshops on different topics led by staff and experts\nwere held. The Sanctuary has established a Junior Ecologist\nProgram (for 6 to 11 years) to explore Padilla Bay through\nnature studies, crafts, and creative games. They also have\na Mini-Explorers Nature Study Program for 3-5 year olds.\nWISCONSIN\nThe Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) drafted new\nadministrative rules establishing general water quality standards\nfor wetlands (standards already exist for other surface waters\nof the State). These standards will assist the DNR in implementing\nthe State's wetland protection policy by providing guidance for\n401 water quality certification decisions.\nThe Wisconsin Coastal Management Program (WCMP) worked with the\nDNR in a multi-year effort to propose new legislation that\nwould modify the State's dredged material disposal policy. The\nnew legislation is primarily the result of information gained\nfrom two demonstration projects funded by the WCMP on the use\nof clean dredged material for erosion mitigation and shoreline\nbeach nourishment.\nThe Wisconsin Water Diversion Bill became law in September 1985.\nIt will implement the Great Lakes Charter's main objectives of\ndiscouraging long-range diversions and improving water management\nin the State. The Wisconsin Coastal Management Council helped to\ndevelop this legislation.","11,103\n10,934\n38,739\n4,404\n2,942\n10,414\n1,076\n20,677\n18,743\n18,047\n16,036\n3,244\n2,994\n15,612\n4,975\n4,209\n8,066\n1,709\n1,746\n92,853\n13,722\n15,735\n18,139\n15,276\n4,994\n7,291\n10,461\n19,351\n1974-1985\n83,799\n3,157\n39,677\n8,559\n7,660\n21,277\n9,321\nTotal*\nITIMIZATION OF ALLOCATION OF FUNDS AND A PROJECTS AND AREAS ON WHICH FUNDS WERE EXPENDED\n9\n0\n0\n0\n10\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n240\n70\n0\n168\n280\n0\n411\n301\n0\n0\n0\n0\n592\n15\n1,600\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n300\n0\n0\n540\n10\n1985\nSection 315\nIncludes $50,182,000 in loans.\n5. Includes $32,110,000 in loans.\n7. Includes $13,795,000 in loans.\nIncludes $24,843,000 In loans.\n6. Includes $2,503,000 in loans.\nIncludes $1,965,000 in loans.\n3. Includes $1,850,000 in loans.\n4. Includes $1,200,000 in loans.\n280\n60\n0\n0\n0\n0\n62\n0\n0\n0\n0\n52\n787\n0\n18\n100\n0\n632\n0\n0\n50\n0\n0\n50\n0\n0\n0\n0\n50\n0\n0\n0\n1984\n510\n0\n0\nFunds Expended by States Under the CZMA By Section (Dollars in Thousands)\nFY 1983 .. $250,000\nFY 1984 - $300,000\nFY 1985 - $120,000\n1974-1983\n600\n830\n162\n0\n0\n0\n1,261\n24\n0\n50\n50\n439\n1,767\n0\n2,025\n0\n331\n25\n0\n0\n3,742\n0\n0\n0\n240\n0\n0\n0\n780\n668\n28\n0\n0\n3,811\n1,751\n55(FY85)\n125(FY85)\n200(FY85)\n300(FY85)\n200 (FY85)\nSection 309\n6709\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\no\n0\n0\no\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\no\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n1.\n2.\n8.\n9.\n0\n35\n0\n0\n0\no\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n6\n0\n0\n0\no\n0\no\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\no\n0\no\n0\n1985\nSection 308\n0\n0\n0\n0\n9\n0\n0\n75\n9\n0\n0\n42\n25\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n33\no\n0\n101\n0\n75\no\n0\n135\nIncludes all Federal funding awarded since 1974 through FY 1985: Sections 305,\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n66\n0\n0\n1984\n34,5568\n4,8986\n16,5367\n79,8475\n573\n2,353\n669\n306, 306A, 308, 309, and 315 (Mari ine Sanctuary funding is not included).\n1,3574\n59,6392\n8,9443\n1,748\n193\n2,295\n2,080\n286\n1,959\n308\n805\n1,779\n1,447\n1974-1983\n1\n0\n4,358\n2,740\n2,307\n1,243\n343\n312\n0\n381\n2,093\n226\n1,769\n1,820\n4,384\n4,134\nSection 306A\n(all FY85)\n0\n370\n260\n50\n50\n0\n222\n0\n0\n829\n42\n0\n254\n0\n652\n0\n0\n126\n1,603\n520\n0\n350\n0\n0\no\n45\n0\n0\n0\n245\n78\n0\n59\n0\n0\n1,630\n607\nIncludes Section 305 program planning funds\n493\n0\n848\n0\n863\n900\n1,563\n624\n1,178\n0\n0\n949\n778\n2,397\n3,096\n771\n3,515\n1,279\n2,000\n1,289\n1,348\n2,000\no\n437\n750\n0\n0\n1,115\n718\n584\n952\n2,000\n478\n1985\nSection 306\n0\n425\n0\n738\n575\n150\n522\n647\n612\n0\n0\n586\n0\n0\n0\n0\n966\n0\n0\n739\n1,750\n0\n400\n400\n0\n0\n701\n797\n981\n0\n1,750\n400\n500\n1,750\n400\n1984\n4,183\n3,125\n2,234\n12,399\n7,979\n4,610\n7,616\n6,348\n6,645\n9,232\n2,046\n1,672\n9,887\n1,076\n3,192\n9,169\n10,955\n2,191\n1974-1983*\n1,365\n9,356\n7,927\n9,189\n9,585\n11,052\n8,742\n1,857\n2,984\n6,239\n1,709\n20,410\n2,053\n22,949\n5,594\n4,690\n3,641\nNorthern rinas\nSouth Carolina\nVirgin Islands\n316(a)(3)\nNorth Carolina\nNew Hampshire\nAmerican Samoa\nMassachusetts\nPennsylvania\nRhode Island\nPuerto Rico\nMississippi\nWashington\nConnecticut\nNew Jersey\nWisconsin\nCalifornia\nMinnesota\nLouisiana\nVirginia\nNew York\nMaryland\nMichigan\nIllinois\nDelaware\nIndiana\nOregon\nFlorida\nGeorgia\nAlabama\nTexas\nHawaii\nAlaska\nMaine\nOhio\nState\nGuam","21\n316(a)(4) STATE PROGRAMS DISAPPROVED\nNo state programs were disapproved during this biennium.","316(a)(5) EVALUATIONS CONDUCTED DURING FY 1984 - 1985\nState\nProgram\nDate\nConclusion\n*\nAlabama\n*\nAlaska\nAmerican Samoa\n306\nFebruary 1985\nadhering\nCalifornia\n306\nAugust\n1984\nadhering\nConnecticut\n306\nOctober\n1984\nadhering\nDelaware\n306\nJune\n1984\nadhering\nFlorida\n306\nFebruary\n1985\nadhering\nnot adhering * : *\nFlorida\n315\nJuly\n1985\n*\nGuam\nHawaii\n306\nFebruary\n1985\nadhering\nadhering\nLouisiana\n306\nMay\n1984\nadhering\nMaine\n306\nJanuary\n1984\nadhering\nOctober\n1984\nMaryland\n306\nMaryland\n315\nJuly\n1985\nadhering\nApril\n1985\nadhering\nMassachusetts\n306\nadhering\nMichigan\n306\nJune\n1984\nadhering\nMississippi\n306\nJuly\n1985\n1985\nadhering\nNew Hampshire\n306\nJanuary\n1984\nadhering\n306\nMay\nNew Jersey\n1984\nadhering\n306\nNovember\nNew York\n1984\nadhering\nNorth Carolina\n306\nMarch\n*\nNorthern Marina\nIslands\n1985\nadhering\n306\nFebruary\nOregon\nadhering\nSeptember\n1984\nPennsylvania\n306\n1984\nadhering\n315\nAugust\nPuerto Rico\nadhering\n1984\n306\nAugust\nPuerto Rico\nApril\n1985\nadhering\nRhode Island\n306\nNovember 1984\nadhering\nSouth Carolina\n306\nSeptember 1984\nadhering\nVirgin Islands\n306\nadhering\nApril\n1985\n306\nWashington\nApril\n1984\nadhering\n306\nWisconsin\nNot evaluated during FY 84 or FY 85. Scheduled for early\n*\nFY 1986.\nAnother evaluation will be conducted in the fall of 1986.\n*\nIf, at that time, there is not adequate progress, it will\nbe necessary to recommend a repeal of the Rookery Bay National\nEstuarine Sanctuary designation.","23\n312 EVALUATION PROCESS\nTime\nActivity\n3 months before\nEvaluation team leader reviews existing\nsite-visit\nfiles, missing documents, and prepares\nfor the upcoming evaluation.\n2 months before\nEvaluation leader meets with relevant\nsite-visit\nstaff to discuss issues and identify\nareas of program implementation to be\nreviewed during the site-visit.\n6 weeks before\nA letter is forwarded to the state\nsite-visit\ninforming of the evaluation\nidentifying specific issues to be\naddressed during the site-visit.\nA letter is forwarded to the Federal\nagencies informing of the site-visit\nidentifying specific issues, and\nrequesting their participation by\nmeeting with the evalution team.\n15 days before\nState publishes notice of site-visit\npublic meeting\npublic meeting (s) .\n2 weeks before\nA letter is forwarded to the Governor\nsite-visit\nof the State being evaluated which\nincludes a copy of the tentative\nsite-visit schedule and the letter\ninforming the state of the evaluation\nand site-visit.\n1 week before\nSite visit schedule is completed. State\nsite-visit\nSenators and relevant Congressmen are\ngiven a courtesy call informing them of\nthe site-visit. A pre-site-visit meeting\nis conducted with the Office Director,\nwhen necessary.\nMonday before\nNOAA Public Affairs provides news media\nsite-visit\nwith a press release outlining site-visit\nschedule and notice of public meeting (s).\nIncludes: public meetings, meeting with\nSite-visit\nFederal, state, and local government\nofficials, elected officials, public and\nprivate interest groups, and citizens.","24\nActivity\nTime\nDraft findings are forwarded to the State.\n2-3 months after\nsite-visit\nState responds to draft findings.\n1 month after\nreceipt of\ndraft\nFinal findings are forwarded to the State\n45 days after\nand notice of availability is published\nstate response\nin the Federal Register.","25\n316(a)(6) LISTING OF PROJECTS AND ACTIVITIES NOT CONSISTENT\nWITH APPROVED STATE PROGRAMS\nDuring the Spring of 1984, the NOAA Administrator initiated a\ncomprehensive study of the experiences gained to date in applying\nthe Federal consistency provisions of the CZMA. The Draft\nStudy which was issued in April 1985, presents and examines\nstatistical information on the implementation of the Federal\nconsistency process for FY 1983; describes the laws, regulation\nand policies which guide the Federal consistency process from\nthe early stages of interpreting the language of the CZMA and\nidentifying Federal actions subject to Federal consistency\nreview, through informal negotiations to reach agreements and,\nfinally, the formal mechanisms available to resolve disputes;\nreports on the comments and concerns received by NOAA regarding\nthe Federal consistency process; and provides case studies\nwhich illustrate both the problems and the successes encountered\nin the Federal consistency process.\nSecretarial Appeals\nThe CZMA empowers the Secretary of Commerce to override a\nstate's consistency objection to the issuance of a Federal\nlicense or permit if the Secretary finds that the activity is\nconsistent with the purposes of the CZMA, or is necessary in\nthe interest of national security. During FY 1984 and 1985\n12 appeals were filed. of the 12, 2 cases were dismissed,\n5 cases were withdrawn, 1 case was denied, 3 cases were\nsustained and 1 case is still pending. In addition, during\nthis biennium, action was taken on 4 appeals filed prior to\nFY 1984. Two of the cases were withdrawn, 1 case was denied\nand 1 case was dismissed. The accompanying list summarizes\nthis information.","26\nCONSISTENCY APPEALS SUMMARY\nAppellant:\nCZMA Section\nNotice of Appeal\nDate of\nFiled\nDecision/\nDismissal\nUnion Oil Co.\n307 (c) (3) (A) (B)\n12/17/82\nWithdrawn\n10/31/83\n307(c) (3) (A)&(B)\n08/26/83\nWithdrawn\nExxon Co.\n12/14/83\n(Santa Rosa)\n307(c)(3)(A)\n08/05/83\nDenied\nF.S. Worthy, Jr.\n05/09/84\n307(c)(3)(A)\n08/05/83\nDismissed\nJ.T. Taylor\n01/19/84\nSustained\n307(c) (3) (A)&(B)\n12/12/83\nUnion Oil Co.\n11/9/84\n(P-0203)\nDismissed\n307 (c) (3) (A)\n02/10/84\nEel River\n11/13/85\n03/09/84\nDenied\n307(c) (3) (A)&(B)\nExxon Co.\n11/14/84\n(Santa Rosa)\nPending\n03/09/84\n307 (c) (3) (A)\nAcme Fill Corp.\nWithdrawn\n05/17/84\n307 (c) (3) (A)\nTulalip Tribes\n09/28/84\nWithdrawn\n08/02/84\n307 (d)\nCity of Hudson\n01/02/86\n(NY)\nSustained\n10/23/84\n307(c)(3)(A)\nSouthern Pacific\n09/24/85\nTransportation\nCo.\nWithdrawn\n11/08/84\n307(c)(3)(A)\nFlorida East\n08/08/85\nCoast\nRailway Co.\nDismissed\n12/14/84\n307 (c) (3) (A)\nNorthwestern\n04/16/85\nPacific Acquiring\nCorp Eureaka\nSouthern Railway\nCo. Inc.\nSustained\n03/13/85\n307 (c)(3)(A)&(B)\nGulf Oil Corp.\n12/23/85","27\nAppellant:\nCZMA Section\nNotice of Appeal\nDate of\nFiled\nDecision/\nDismissal\nNational\n307 1(c)(3)(A)\n05/21/85\nWithdrawn\nWelders\n02/12/86\nSupply Co.\nJoseph\n307(c)(3)(A)\n08/28/85\nWithdrawn\nMalatesta\n02/12/86","28\n316(a)(7) A SUMMARY OF THE REGULATIONS ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY\nOR IN EFFECT DURING THE PRECEDING FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR\nSection 306 (g)\nIn December 1985, the OCRM distributed its first written\ninternal procedures for processing changes to State Coastal\nZone Management Programs. This paper described OCRM's procedures\nand schedules for processing Routine Program Implementations\n(RPIS) and amendments. The written procedures will increase\nthe predictability and effectiveness of the process, and will\nbe revised on an as needed basis.\nSection 306A Guidance\nIn May 1985, the OCRM issued a guidance paper outlining the\nadministration of the financial assistance program under\nSection 306A, Resource Management Improvement Grants of the\nCZMA. The paper described the relationship between funding\nand activities under Sections 306 and 306A, the conditions\nunder which a state may apply, the type of projects which\nqualify for funding, a description of the application proce-\ndures, and discussion and examples of documentation necessary\nto receive funding approval under Section 306A.\nThe OCRM determined that it was not necessary to promulgate\nregulations to implement Section 306A because of the specificity\nof the legislation. However, because of the combined appro-\npriation for Sections 306 and 306A, and because Section 306A\nwas being implemented for the first time, OCRM felt it was\ndesirable to provide more guidance to the states on the use\nof these funds and necessary application procedures.\nSection 307\nThe National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)\namended its existing regulations on November 11, 1985 to\nexclude Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and gas lease sales\nfrom the Federal consistency requirements of Section 307(c)(1)\nof the CZMA. This rulemaking was required to conform current\nFederal regulations to the January 11, 1984 ruling of the U.S.\nSupreme Court in Secretary of the Interior et al. V. California\net al.\nNOAA provided a 90-day public comment period on the Advance\nNotice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) and held eight regional\nmeetings to discuss the issues in the ANPR and to gather\ninformation.\nSection 315\nThe National Estuarine Sanctuary Program Final Regulations,\nwhich were published in the Federal Register on June 27, 1984,\nbecame effective October 5, 1984. The new regulations revised\nexisting procedures for selecting and designating national\nestuarine sanctuaries and provided a greater degree of guidance\nfor long-term management.","29\nIn summary, the regulations included more standards and guidelines\nfor states to follow in developing and operating a national\nestuarine sanctuary, as well as additional guidelines for NOAA\nin overseeing the program.\nList of Current Regulations\n15 CFR 920 - CZM Program Development Grants\nSection 305, issued in 1977, superseded by Part 923\n15 CFR 921 - National Estuarine Sanctuary Program Regulations\nSection 315, issued in 1974, revised October 1984\n15 CFR 923 - CZM Program Development and Approval\nSections 305 and 306, issued in 1979, revised 1982\n15 CFR 925 - State Coastal Zone Management Programs issued in\n1975, superseded by Part 923\n15 CFR 926 - CZM Program Development Grants, Allocation of\nFunds to States Section 305, issued in 1975\n(Authorization for program development grants\nremoved in 1980 amendments.)\n15 CFR 927 - Allocation of Program Administration Grants\nSection 306, issued 1979, revised 1982\n15 CFR 928 - Review of Performance\nSections 312 and 316, issued 1982\n15 CFR 930 - Federal Consistency with Approved CZM Programs\nSection 307, issued in 1979, amended 1985\n15 CFR 931 - Coastal Energy Impact Program\nSection 308, issued in 1979, revised 1982\n15 CFR 932 - CZM Interstate Grants\nSection 309, issued in 1977\n15 CFR 933 - CZM Research and Technical Assistance\nSection 310, issued in 1977","30\n316(a)(8) A SUMMARY OF A COORDINATED NATIONAL STRATEGY AND\nPROGRAM FOR THE NATION'S COASTAL ZONE INCLUDING\nIDENTIFICATION AND DISCUSSION OF FEDERAL, REGIONAL\nSTATE AND LOCAL RESPONSIBILITIES AND FUNCTIONS\nTHEREIN\nEfforts continued to institutionalize coastal zone management\nprograms at the state level and reduce the Federal role as\noriginally intended by the Congress. During the 1980 CZMA\nreauthorization hearings, the previous Administration proposed\nan 8-year phasedown of Federal funding. In fact, as part of the\ngrant application process in FY 1982, states were required to\nconsider alternative sources of funding and staff levels necessary\nto continue their CZM program in the absence of Federal funds.\nThe states have had several years to prepare for the shift in\nfinancial responsibility.\nThis trend is reflected in the CZMA reauthorization bill which\npassed the House of Representatives in July 1985. The legis-\nlation reduces over 4 years the Federal share of grants under\nSection 306 and 306A from the current 80/20 ratio to a 50/50\nratio. The Congress considered the increased state share to\nbe a more equitable partnership. [Note--this provision was\nincorporated in the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation\nAct which became P.L. 99-272 in April 1986].\nResource Management Improvement Grants (Section 306A), which\nprovide funds to be used for several purposes-- acquire fee\nsimple or other interests in land, to implement low-cost\nconstruction projects, to redevelop deteriorating or under-\nutilized urban waterfronts and ports, and to provide access to\npublic beaches and other public coastal areas--was added to the\nAct in 1980. The Congress provided no funds for this section\nuntil FY 1985 when a combined appropriation of $34 million was\nmade available for both Sections 306 and 306A. (For a listing\nof the distribution of Section 306A grants in FY 1985, see the\ntable in Section 316 (a) (3) of this Report on page 20) . The\nfunding of Section 306A confirms Congressional intent to transfer\ncoastal management responsibilities to the states by expanding\nstate involvement and capability.\nBoth formal and informal action has been taken to ensure that\nstates will be capable and committed to assuming full fiscal\nand administrative responsibility for their estuarine sanctuaries\nafter Federal assistance ends. Three new provisions were added\nto the National Estuarine Sanctuary Regulations in 1984 which\nstrengthened and encouraged the commitment of the states to\ncontinue the effective operation and management of the Program.\nIn addition, during the annual process by which states seek\noperational grants for the next year, the states are strongly\nencouraged to look within their state budgets for money to pay\nthe salaries of the sanctuary manager and other sanctuary staff\nas part of their state match rather than use Federal assistance\nfor salaries.","31\n316(a)(9) SUMMARY OF OUTSTANDING PROBLEMS IN ADMINISTRATION\nOF THE CZMA\nCZMA implementation during the past 11 years has been moderately\nsuccessful. State structures are in place to deal with coastal\nissues and implement effectively coastal management programs.\nFederally-approved CZM programs have been instituted in 28 of\nthe eligible 35 coastal states and territories, covering over\n90 percent of the 95,000 mile coastline of the United States.\nFederal approval of the 29th program, Virginia, was granted in\nSeptember 1986.\nThe program's accomplishments are due to the substantial\ncontributions of time and money from Federal, state and local\ngovernments. As the states assume funding of this program\nas they deem appropriate to address their coastal management\nconcerns, NOAA will meet the Federal commitment by continuing\nto monitor and evaluate these programs to assure that they\ncontinue to meet CZMA requirements. NOAA also will provide the\nnecessary technical assistance and coordination on consistency\nand other coastal issues. We believe that problems can be\nhandled administratively through program change guidance.\nWith regard to the National Estuarine Sanctuary Program, the\nCongress placed a greater emphasis on the research aspect of\nthe program by redesignating all existing estuarine sanctuaries\nas National Estuarine Research Reserves in the reauthorization\nlegislation, P.L. 99-272. NOAA will address these concerns in\nthe next biennium.","32\n316(a)(10) SUMMARY OF SECTION 308 ACTIVITIES\nThe OCRM has continued to monitor existing Coastal Energy Impact\nProgram (CEIP) activities in the coastal states. No new grant\nfunds were available due to the phasedown of this program.\nHowever, disbursements totaling $570,000 were made during FY 1984\nunder Sections 308 (b) and 308 (c)(1),(2), and (3).\nSome of the projects funded during this period included: a study\nof the environmental impacts of peat mining in North Carolina; a\nstudy of the impact of Crown Bay Port facilities on the coastal\nareas of St. Thomas, Virgin Islands; the Lake Charles, Bayou\nComprehensive Health Foundation, Ltd., medical equipment purchase\nin Louisiana; the Parson's Creek (New Hampshire) environmental\nmitigation project; the development and implementation of a\nDelaware Bay coal transfer sampling and monitoring program; a\ncoal slurry pipeline project in Maryland; and the Falls Township\nWaterfront Park in Pennsylvania.\nDuring FY 1985, the OCRM disbursed $41,000 of Section 308 funds.\nThe State of Washington received $35,000 to complete a SEPA/NEPA\nreview of the Gray's Harbor Estuary Management Plan, and the\nState of Maryland received $6,000 to conduct a study of the\nconcentrations of Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PNA) in\nthe coastal zone of the Chesapeake Bay.","33\n316(a)(11) INTERSTATE AND REGIONAL PLANNING AND COORDINATION\nSection 309 ( Interstate Grants) received its first funding\nin FY 1983 when the OCRM awarded a grant of $250,000 to the\nMaryland Department of Natural Resources on behalf of the\nChesapeake Bay States. A second Section 309 grant was awarded\nto the Maryland Department of Natural Resources in FY 1984 in\nthe amount of $300,000. In FY 1985, $1 million was appropriated\nfor this Section. The FY 1985 grants distributed under this\nsection can be found in Section 316(a) (3) of this Report.\n(See page 20.)","34\n316(a)(12) SUMMARY AND EVALUATION OF RESEARCH, STUDIES\nAND TRAINING\nConferences\nA in State Program Managers' meeting was held November 19-21, 1985\nAnnapolis, Maryland. Representatives from all approved coastal\nzone management programs were in attendance. Topics discussed\nwere the Coastal Zone Management Act reauthorization and regulation\nchanges, submission and processing of State program changes, OCS\nissues, Federal consistency litigation and legal issues, Federal\nwetlands mitigation activities, Army Corps of Engineers' activities,\ncoastal issues. hazards, interstate grants, toxic waste issues and grant\nRepresentatives from other Federal agencies and Capitol\nHill Staff contributed to the discussions.\nThe Third National Estuarine Sanctuary Workshop was held in\nWashington, D.C., from November 13-16, 1984. Discussion focused\non integration of interpretive programs, research and coastal\nmanagement decisionmaking. The workshop, which was attended by\nover 80 people representing State and Federal resource management\nagencies, the scientific research community and environmental\neducations, included the presentation of five case-studies by\nteams of scientists and managers who had sucessfully used research\nto resolve estuarine use conflicts and other management problems.\nThe Fourth National Estuarine Sanctuary Workshop was conducted\nOctober 7-11, 1985 at the Old Woman Creek National Estuarine\nSanctuary near Huron, Ohio. \"The People Side of Estuaries\" was\nthe theme for information exchanges on educating decisionmakers\nand the public about estuaries and estuarine management issues.\nDiscussions focused on ways of improving the quality and delivery\nof all educational programs at national estuarine sanctuaries.\nCZIC\nThe Coastal Zone Information Center (CZIC) provides a variety of\ninformation services to OCRM staff, state CZM programs, and the\ngeneral public. CZIC researches questions on the coastal zone,\nmails out publications upon request, and provides referrals to\nthose who wish to research a topic in detail. CZIC houses\nmaterials on the history of the CZM program and a collection of\nstate publications produced over the life of the program.\nDuring FY 1984-1985, OCRM produced five editions of the CZM\nInformation Exchange, a publication which summarizes current\nactivities in each state and provides updates on coastal issues.","35\nSanctuary Management Plans\nSanctuary Management Plans were approved for the following\nsanctuaries in FY 1984-85:\nWeeks Bay, Alabama\nElkhorn Slough, California\nTijuana River, California\nRookery Bay, Florida\nSapelo Island, Georgia\nWaimanu, Hawaii\nChesapeake Bay, Maryland\nHudson River, New York\nNorth Carolina, North Carolina\nSouth Slough, Oregon\nPadilla Bay, Washington\nDEIS\nThe Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the State\nof Virginia was prepared and distributed during the biennium.","Effect of Wastewater Discharge. Salt Marsh Monitoring.\nMarsh on Elkhorn Slough National Estuarine Sanctuary.\nDistribution and Abundance of Benthic Invertebrates\nAn Analysis of Nutrient, Chlorophyll, Heavy Metal,\nDistribution and Population Dynamics of Hargeria\nStudies on Meiofauna and Trophic Interactions in\nVascular Plant Survey of the Apalachicola Bay\nPhytoplankton Responses to Nutrients/Salinity\nMonitoring Ecology Changes in a Restored Salt\nSUMMARY OF NOAA FUNDED RESEARCH PROJECTS CONDUCTED AT NATIONAL ESTUARINE SANCTUARIES--FY 1984-85\nMonitoring Basic Ecosystem Properties at the\nTijuana River National Estuarine Sanctuary.\nWetlands of the Apalachicola River/Bay NES\nand Pesticide Levels in Rockery Bay NES.\nSeagrass Beds in Rookery Bay NES.\nRapax in Sapelo Island NES.\nin Rookery Bay NES.\nTITLE OF PROJECT\n(2nd Year)\n(2nd Year)\n1985\n1985\n1985\nFISCAL\n1984\n1984\n1984\n1984\n1984\nYEAR\nSapelo Island\nElkhorn Slough\nApalachicola\nTijuana River\nRookery Bay\nCalifornia\nSANCTUARY\nGeorgia\nFlorida\n#","Hudson River NES and Study of Fish Community structure.\nPopulations and Long-Term Impacts of Pond Excavation\nDemographic, Land Use and Environmental Forecasts for\nFlovial Erosion, Sedimentation and Hydraulic Geometry\nSiting of Man-Made Ponds for Increasing Waterfowl\nPublic/Private Partnership in Research Within the\nDepositional and Diagenetic Processes in Old Woman\nSUMMARY OF NOAA FUNDED RESEARCH PROJECTS CONDUCTED AT NATIONAL ESTUARINE SANCTUARIES--FY 1984-85\nHabitat Mapping of the Rachel Carson Component\nPhosphorous Dynamics in Old Woman Creek NES.\nin Nearby Watershed of Old Woman Creek NES.\nOld Woman Creek 1980 through 2010.\nof the North Carolina NES.\non Marsh Integrity.\nTITLE OF PROJECT\nCreek NES.\nFISCAL\n1985\n1985\nYEAR\n1985\n1984\n1984\n1985\n1985\nRachel Carson Component\nOld Woman Creek\nChesapeake Bay\nNorth Carolina\n\"\n\"\nHudson River\nSANCTUARY\nMaryland\nNew York\n⑉\nOhio","Gathering, Processing and Recording Meteorological Data\nLandsat Thematic Mapper Tape and Multispectral Scanner\nStructure of the Bivalve Nucula Annulata and Sediment\nHydrology and Organic Carbon Dynamics in Mangrove\non an Extended Basis within Narragansett Bay NES.\nLand Cover/Use Study Using Landsat Multispectral\nScanner and Thematic Mapper Data - Unsupervised\nImpact of Zostera Japonica in South Slough NES.\nImpact of Pollution on the Growth Rate and Age\nSUMMARY OF NOAA FUNDED RESEARCH PROJECTS CONDUCTED AT NATIONAL ESTUARINE SANCTUARIES--FY 1984-85\nComputer Compatible Tape for Research at URI.\nHabitat Needs of Migrant and Resident Water\nForests of the Jobos Bay NES.\nClassification Approach.\nBirds at Jobos Bay NES.\nErosion Resistance.\nTITLE OF PROJECT\nFISCAL\n1985\n1985\n1984\n1985\n1985\n1984\n1985\nYEAR\nNarragansett Bay\n\"\n\"\n\"\nRhode Island\nSouth Slough\nPuerto Rico\nJobos Bay\nSANCTUARY\nOregon\n06\n\"","Origin and Fates of Organic Nitrogen in Padilla Bay\nGuidelines for Developing Research Opportunities,\nSUMMARY OF NOAA FUNDED RESEARCH PROJECTS CONDUCTED AT NATIONAL ESTUARINE SANCTUARIES--FY 1984-85\nFunding, Study Procedures and Data Management\nWater Quality Baseline Data Research.\nDungeness Crab Study.\nTITLE OF PROJECT\nNES.\nFISCAL\n1984\n1985\n1985\n1985\nYEAR\nPadilla Bay\nWashington\nSANCTUARY\n\""]}