Coastal Zone Management
Measuring Program's Effectiveness Continues to Be a Challenge Gao ID: GAO-08-1045 September 12, 2008In 1972, Congress enacted the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) to protect the nation's coastlines from growing demands associated with residential, recreational, commercial, and industrial uses. The act encourages coastal states and territories to develop programs to manage and balance economic development and coastal protection. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) administers the program and provides financial and technical assistance to participating states. GAO was asked to provide information on (1) NOAA's methodology for awarding CZMA grants to the states, (2) the extent to which NOAA has processes for ensuring that grants are used in a manner that is consistent with the CZMA, and (3) the extent to which NOAA's state program evaluations and performance measurement system enable the agency to assess the effectiveness of the National Coastal Zone Management Program. GAO reviewed relevant laws, regulations, and documents and interviewed NOAA and the 34 state coastal program officials.
NOAA awards coastal program grants to states generally according to the requirements of the CZMA and congressional direction provided through the annual appropriations process. For the majority of grant funding awarded by NOAA, CZMA regulations require the agency to provide each state a base amount and a proportional share of funding based on a state's shoreline miles and coastal population. For more than 20 years, because of a congressionally mandated cap of $2 million per state, NOAA has had to redistribute funds from those states whose proportional share would have exceeded the cap to other states whose grant amount is under the cap. As a result, states with longer shorelines or larger coastal populations have essentially received a static level of funding, while states with shorter shorelines or smaller coastal populations have seen increases greater than they likely would have received without the cap. In addition, NOAA's present practices for awarding coastal zone grants deviate somewhat from its regulations. For example, NOAA is not using a competitive process for awarding coastal zone enhancement grants as required. NOAA has established processes to ensure that state grant activities comply with the requirements of the CZMA. Specifically, NOAA requires states to submit draft grant proposals each year that include a detailed narrative and budget for each project proposed for funding. NOAA reviews the states' grant applications and negotiates the terms of work and management of the projects before awarding the grant. NOAA officials told us that, as part of this review, they ensure that the states' grant requests are consistent with the goals outlined in the CZMA. After the funds are awarded, NOAA monitors the states' progress through semiannual reports that the states must submit. NOAA's periodic evaluations of states' coastal management programs and its performance measurement system have weaknesses that limit the agency's ability to determine the effectiveness of the National Coastal Zone Management Program. NOAA's evaluations of state programs are of limited value because they do not provide the agency with independent information to assess program performance against performance goals. NOAA's recently developed performance measurement system is also of limited value because it lacks measurable targets, a process for ensuring data reliability, or measures for assessing state programs' effectiveness in meeting all CZMA goals. Furthermore, although NOAA plans to use both the results from its periodic evaluations of state programs and its new performance measurement system to determine the effectiveness of the National Coastal Zone Management Program, the agency has not yet developed an approach that would allow it to integrate the information from these sources to assess progress at the national level.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-08-1045, Coastal Zone Management: Measuring Program's Effectiveness Continues to Be a Challenge
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-08-1045
entitled 'Coastal Zone Management: Measuring Program's Effectiveness
Continues to Be a Challenge' which was released on September 30, 2008.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to the Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast
Guard, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, U.S. Senate:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
September 2008:
Coastal Zone Management:
Measuring Program's Effectiveness Continues to Be a Challenge:
Coastal Zone Management:
GAO-08-1045:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-08-1045, a report to the Subcommittee on Oceans,
Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard, Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation, U.S. Senate.
Why GAO Did This Study:
In 1972, Congress enacted the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) to
protect the nation‘s coastlines from growing demands associated with
residential, recreational, commercial, and industrial uses. The act
encourages coastal states and territories to develop programs to manage
and balance economic development and coastal protection. The National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) administers the program
and provides financial and technical assistance to participating
states.
GAO was asked to provide information on (1) NOAA‘s methodology for
awarding CZMA grants to the states, (2) the extent to which NOAA has
processes for ensuring that grants are used in a manner that is
consistent with the CZMA, and (3) the extent to which NOAA‘s state
program evaluations and performance measurement system enable the
agency to assess the effectiveness of the National Coastal Zone
Management Program. GAO reviewed relevant laws, regulations, and
documents and interviewed NOAA and the 34 state coastal program
officials.
What GAO Found:
NOAA awards coastal program grants to states generally according to the
requirements of the CZMA and congressional direction provided through
the annual appropriations process. For the majority of grant funding
awarded by NOAA, CZMA regulations require the agency to provide each
state a base amount and a proportional share of funding based on a
state‘s shoreline miles and coastal population. For more than 20 years,
because of a congressionally mandated cap of $2 million per state, NOAA
has had to redistribute funds from those states whose proportional
share would have exceeded the cap to other states whose grant amount is
under the cap. As a result, states with longer shorelines or larger
coastal populations have essentially received a static level of
funding, while states with shorter shorelines or smaller coastal
populations have seen increases greater than they likely would have
received without the cap. In addition, NOAA‘s present practices for
awarding coastal zone grants deviate somewhat from its regulations. For
example, NOAA is not using a competitive process for awarding coastal
zone enhancement grants as required.
NOAA has established processes to ensure that state grant activities
comply with the requirements of the CZMA. Specifically, NOAA requires
states to submit draft grant proposals each year that include a
detailed narrative and budget for each project proposed for funding.
NOAA reviews the states‘ grant applications and negotiates the terms of
work and management of the projects before awarding the grant. NOAA
officials told us that, as part of this review, they ensure that the
states‘ grant requests are consistent with the goals outlined in the
CZMA. After the funds are awarded, NOAA monitors the states‘ progress
through semiannual reports that the states must submit.
NOAA‘s periodic evaluations of states‘ coastal management programs and
its performance measurement system have weaknesses that limit the
agency‘s ability to determine the effectiveness of the National Coastal
Zone Management Program. NOAA‘s evaluations of state programs are of
limited value because they do not provide the agency with independent
information to assess program performance against performance goals.
NOAA‘s recently developed performance measurement system is also of
limited value because it lacks measurable targets, a process for
ensuring data reliability, or measures for assessing state programs‘
effectiveness in meeting all CZMA goals. Furthermore, although NOAA
plans to use both the results from its periodic evaluations of state
programs and its new performance measurement system to determine the
effectiveness of the National Coastal Zone Management Program, the
agency has not yet developed an approach that would allow it to
integrate the information from these sources to assess progress at the
national level.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO suggests that Congress clarify whether CZMA grants should reflect
state coastal variations and that NOAA address a number of weaknesses
in its current processes for awarding grants, evaluating state
performance, and assessing the effectiveness of the program. NOAA
agreed with the majority of our recommendations.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-1045]. For more
information, contact Anu Mittal at (202) 512-3841 or mittala@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter1:
Results in Brief:
Background:
NOAA Generally Follows Statutory Requirements, but CZMA Grants Do Not
Reflect Differences in States' Shoreline Miles and Coastal Populations:
NOAA Monitors States' Use of Grant Funding to Ensure That Spending
Aligns with the Goals of the Coastal Zone Management Act:
NOAA Conducts Periodic Evaluations of States' Coastal Programs and Has
Developed Some Performance Measures, but Cannot Determine Overall
Program Effectiveness:
Conclusions:
Matter for Congressional Consideration:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: NOAA's Calculation of Coastal Zone Management Grant
Awards:
Appendix III: Coastal Zone Management Act Grants by State:
Appendix IV: Coastal Zone Management Act Performance Measurement
System:
Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Commerce:
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Coastal Zone Management Grant Awards by State for Fiscal Years
2004 through 2008:
Table 2: Coastal Zone Enhancement Grant Awards by State for Fiscal
Years 2004 through 2008:
Table 3: Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Awards by State for Fiscal
Years 2004 through 2008:
Figure:
Figure 1: Funding for the National Coastal Zone Management Program for
Fiscal Years 1991 through 2008:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
September 12, 2008:
The Honorable Maria Cantwell:
Chairman:
The Honorable Olympia J. Snowe:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard:
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation:
U.S. Senate:
Our nation's coastal areas, including those lining the Great Lakes, are
home to more than half the population of the United States, and
millions of people visit these areas each year. Coastal economic
activities, such as fishing, shipping, oil and gas development,
tourism, and recreation, benefit coastal communities as well as the
nation's economy, contributing billions of dollars and millions of jobs
each year. Coastal habitats also provide important environmental
benefits by filtering pollutants from runoff; buffering shoreline
communities against storms; and providing spawning grounds, shelter,
and food for marine life, including a number of endangered or
commercially important species. A number of factors, however, such as
coastal development and associated sprawl, pollution, worsening storm
damage, and rising sea levels jeopardize the future prosperity of our
nation's coastal zones. Coastal development can damage habitats and
alter sediment and water flows. Pollution from this development,
including sewage effluent and stormwater discharges, can contaminate
water and marine life and may lead to outbreaks of diseases or curtail
beach and ocean recreation. Coastal hazards, such as hurricanes and
projected sea level rise, put people and property at risk. In addition,
recent growth in offshore ocean economic activities--such as liquefied
natural gas terminals, pipelines, offshore wind farms, and sand and
gravel operations--also demonstrate the need for responsible management
of the coastal zone that balances economic development with protecting
coastal resources.[Footnote 1]
In 1972, Congress enacted the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) to
protect the nation's coastal environment from growing demands
associated with residential, recreational, commercial, and industrial
uses. The act encourages coastal states, Great Lakes states, and the
U.S. Territories and Commonwealths--hereafter referred to as "states"-
-to develop programs to manage and balance economic development and
coastal protection. The CZMA declares the national policy is to
encourage states to preserve, protect, develop, and, wherever possible,
restore or enhance valuable natural coastal resources such as wetlands,
floodplains, estuaries, beaches, dunes, barrier islands, and coral
reefs, as well as the fish and wildlife using these habitats. As
amended, the act's goals for state programs are broad and include
protecting coastal resources, managing development in hazardous areas,
improving public access to the coasts for recreation, assisting in
redevelopment of urban waterfronts and ports, and improving government
coordination.
To accomplish the CZMA's goals, Congress established a framework for a
federal and state coastal management partnership. The Department of
Commerce's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA)
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM) administers this
partnership, known as the National Coastal Zone Management Program, at
the federal level and provides financial and technical assistance to
states participating in the program. State participation in the
National Coastal Zone Management Program is voluntary. To participate,
states must develop and implement a comprehensive coastal management
program that addresses the CZMA's goals and meets other federal
requirements. These requirements include designating coastal area
boundaries subject to the state's management program, identifying
permissible land uses in the coastal zone, and describing the
organizational structure for implementing the state's program. NOAA
must approve each state's program; at present, 34 of 35 eligible states
have NOAA-approved coastal management programs.
The CZMA provides states with the flexibility to design coastal
management programs to best fit their coastal needs. As a result, the
National Coastal Zone Management Program includes 34 individual state
programs, which vary in their organizational structure and the issues
they choose to address. For example, some states, such as Rhode Island,
have a single centralized agency at the state level that administers
the entire coastal program, while other states, such as Washington,
engage in partnerships with local and county government to implement
their coastal programs. In addition, the activities of the state
programs also vary across states. For example, Louisiana primarily
conducts permitting, mitigating, and enforcement activities, while
Minnesota focuses heavily on preservation activities by collaborating
with other government agencies and nonprofit organizations to restore
and protect critical habitat.
Under the CZMA, states are eligible to receive, among others, two
primary grants: (1) grants to manage state programs (known as coastal
zone management grants) and (2) grants to support improvements in state
programs (known as coastal zone enhancement grants). Coastal zone
management grants support the management and administration of state
programs, providing funds for personnel costs, supplies, and equipment.
When determining the amount of coastal zone management grant awards,
the CZMA requires NOAA to (1) determine a maximum and minimum grant
amount each fiscal year to promote equity between coastal states and
effective coastal management, and (2) consider the extent and nature of
the shoreline and area covered by the program, population of the area,
and other relevant factors. In contrast, coastal zone enhancement
grants fund specific activities that promote the continuous improvement
of state coastal programs in specified areas of national significance,
such as reducing development in high-hazard locales or protecting
coastal wetlands. The CZMA requires states to submit proposals to
receive grants, and NOAA evaluates and rates these proposals when
awarding the grants. Total funds provided under the two grants to the
34 states in fiscal year 2008 was $65.5 million, with the majority of
funding ($55.5 million) allocated that year to coastal zone management
grants.
To ensure that the states are adhering to their approved coastal
management program, the CZMA calls for performance evaluations of all
state coastal zone management programs. These evaluations are to
include a written report with an assessment of the extent to which
states have (1) implemented and enforced their approved programs, (2)
addressed the coastal management needs identified in the CZMA, and (3)
adhered to the terms of the federal grant awards. According to NOAA, it
uses these periodic evaluations to identify and describe state program
accomplishments and identify solutions to resolve deficiencies as well
as to help evaluate the overall program's progress toward national
goals. However, several external reviews have criticized the agency for
being unable to demonstrate the effectiveness of the National Coastal
Zone Management Program using quantifiable evidence. Specifically, the
Department of Commerce's Inspector General in 1997 and the Office of
Management and Budget in 2003 cited it for failure to demonstrate the
progress the national program has made in achieving the CZMA's
goals.[Footnote 2] According to these reviews, NOAA is able to offer
only anecdotal evidence from its periodic state program evaluations to
demonstrate the accomplishments of the national program. In response to
this criticism and congressional committee direction, the agency began
developing the Coastal Zone Management Act Performance Measurement
System to use in conjunction with the results of its performance
evaluations. This performance measurement system consists of six broad
focus areas, such as coastal water quality and public access, with 15
core performance measures. For example, to measure the effectiveness of
public access activities, NOAA has developed a performance measure for
the number of new public access sites added through acquisitions or
easements using coastal zone management funds. As part of this effort
to determine effectiveness of the coastal zone management program in
achieving the CZMA's goals, it intends to use quantitative data
collected by the states as indicators of performance, along with
qualitative data collected from the periodic evaluations.
With the reauthorization of the CZMA under consideration by
Congress,[Footnote 3] you asked us to determine (1) the methodology
NOAA uses for awarding grants to the states; (2) the extent to which
NOAA has processes for ensuring that grants are used in a manner that
is consistent with the requirements of the CZMA; and (3) the extent to
which NOAA's state program evaluations and performance measurement
system enable the agency to determine the effectiveness of the National
Coastal Zone Management Program.
To evaluate the processes NOAA follows for awarding grants and for
ensuring that the grants are used for activities consistent with the
CZMA, we reviewed (1) applicable statutes and regulations, (2) NOAA's
policies and procedures, and (3) the funding methodology used by NOAA.
To determine the extent to which the agency evaluates state coastal
programs and can assess the effectiveness of the National Coastal Zone
Management Program, we reviewed applicable statutes and regulations to
identify NOAA's evaluation requirements. We also reviewed the policies
and procedures the agency follows for conducting performance
evaluations of state programs and accompanied NOAA evaluators during a
state evaluation. In addition, we examined NOAA's Coastal Zone
Management Act Performance Measurement System to determine whether the
measures align with national goals, cover core state program
activities, and include measurable targets with reliable data. Finally,
we interviewed NOAA program officials and state coastal zone program
managers from the 34 states and territories to gather their opinions on
NOAA's grant processes, the benefits of the evaluation process and the
challenges in measuring the effectiveness of the overall program with
the current performance measurement system. Appendix I presents a more
detailed description of our scope and methodology. We performed our
work between September 2007 and September 2008 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards
require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient,
appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence
obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions
based on our audit objectives.
Results in Brief:
Although NOAA has generally followed the requirements of the CZMA and
congressional direction provided through the annual appropriations
process, the grants awarded to the states do not reflect variations in
states' shoreline miles and coastal populations. NOAA primarily divides
its coastal grant budget between coastal zone management grants and
coastal zone enhancement grants, with the majority of funding available
for coastal zone management grants. To calculate how much each state
will receive in the form of a coastal zone management grant, NOAA
determines a base, or minimum amount of funding that each state should
receive. NOAA also determines each state's proportional share of the
total funding that takes into account variations in states' shoreline
miles and coastal populations. NOAA initially allocates to each state
either the base amount or the proportional share, depending on which
amount is higher. For example, in fiscal year 2008 if a state's
proportional share was less than the base amount for that year--
$672,000--then the state's allocation would be the base amount. For
those states whose proportional share exceeds the base amount, NOAA is
also required to apply a cap to each grant. For over 20 years, NOAA has
applied a congressionally-mandated cap of $2 million per state, and
because of the cap, NOAA has had to redistribute funds from those
states whose proportional share would have exceeded $2 million to other
states. As a result, states with longer shorelines or larger coastal
populations have essentially received a static level of funding over
time, while states with shorter shorelines or smaller coastal
populations have seen funding increases greater than they likely would
have received without the cap. To calculate coastal zone enhancement
grant awards for states with approved proposals, NOAA uses a similar
process, which is weighted by shoreline miles and coastal populations.
Although NOAA is generally adhering to statutory requirements and
congressional guidance when administering CZMA grants, we found several
instances where the agency was not following its established
regulations. For example, NOAA's regulations state that the agency will
rank states' enhancement strategies, and may also award a portion of
the coastal zone enhancement grants competitively to those projects
that have special merit. However, NOAA is not using either competitive
process for awarding these grants. According to agency officials, NOAA
determined that the administrative effort to institute a competitive
process to award a portion of funds to projects that have special merit
outweighed the relatively limited amount of funding available for these
grants.
NOAA has established processes to ensure that state grant activities
comply with the requirements of the CZMA. Specifically, NOAA requires
states to submit draft grant proposals each year that include a
detailed narrative and budget for each project proposed for funding
under the award, along with project deliverables and benchmarks. NOAA
reviews the states' grant applications and negotiates the terms of work
and management of the projects before finalizing and awarding the
grant. NOAA officials told us that, as part of this review, they ensure
that the states' grant requests are consistent with the goals outlined
in the CZMA. After the funds are awarded, NOAA also requires the states
to submit semi-annual performance reports that describe the status of
each proposed task and indicate whether the task is on schedule and
when the work is expected to be completed. The states must also submit
a number of financial reports that include information on cash
management. NOAA officials told us that through the review of these
financial and semi- annual performance reports, they monitor the
progress of the grants and assess whether the states' actions are
consistent with all applicable federal grant guidelines and laws,
including the CZMA.
Both NOAA's periodic evaluations of states' coastal management programs
and its performance measurement system have weaknesses that limit the
agency's ability to determine the effectiveness of the National Coastal
Zone Management Program. Although NOAA's periodic evaluations of state
programs provide valuable information on states' accomplishments and
identify areas of potential improvement, these evaluations are of
limited value in determining the effectiveness of the national program.
This is because the evaluations lack independence and do not assess
states' progress toward performance goals. For example, according to
state program officials, before a state evaluation is undertaken, state
officials influence the topics selected for NOAA's review, identify
program stakeholders for NOAA to interview, and participate in these
interviews. We believe that conducting state program evaluations in
this manner cannot provide NOAA with the objective, unbiased
information that it needs for an independent assessment of the national
program. NOAA is currently implementing a performance measurement
system to provide quantitative data to assess the effectiveness of the
national program. While the performance measures appear objective and
link to goals outlined in the CZMA, several weaknesses in this system
limit its usefulness. In particular, NOAA has not developed measurable
targets for the majority of the 15 core performance measures it has
identified, nor has it established a process to ensure that the
performance measurement data collected from the states are valid,
accurate, and consistent. In addition, NOAA has not developed measures
to assess state programs' effectiveness in meeting all CZMA goals,
especially those that call for improved and expedited decision making
regarding coastal resources. Furthermore, although NOAA plans to use
both the qualitative results from its periodic evaluations of state
programs and quantitative information collected through its new
performance measurement system to determine the effectiveness of the
National Coastal Zone Management Program, the agency has not yet
developed an approach that would allow it to integrate the information
from these two sources. Integrating this information could provide the
agency with a more effective approach for assessing the coastal zone
management program.
We are suggesting that as Congress considers reauthorization of the
CZMA, it may wish to reconsider whether coastal zone management grants
should reflect each state's respective shoreline miles and coastal
population and if so, whether the $2 million cap should be raised or
eliminated. In addition, we are recommending that NOAA review and
revise, as needed, its regulations and grant award practices for the
coastal zone grants to ensure that they are in alignment. We are also
recommending that in order to strengthen NOAA's ability to evaluate the
overall progress of the National Coastal Zone Management Program, the
agency make improvements to its' current evaluation tools--by, among
other things, creating measurable targets and a process for ensuring
the accuracy of performance measurement data. In commenting on a draft
of this report, NOAA agreed with the majority of our recommendations,
but disagreed with our recommendation to develop performance measures
to assess state programs' progress toward improving coastal management
processes. NOAA stated that it believes that the inclusion of a
performance measure to measure the percent of federal consistency
projects modified due to consultation with the states addresses our
recommendation. We do not believe the inclusion of this measure in the
agency's performance measurement system adequately assesses other key
aspects of states' effectiveness in coordinating and simplifying
procedures to expedite governmental decision making. Furthermore,
because NOAA is currently phasing in the performance measurement system
and is continuing to make changes to the system, we believe that now is
the time for NOAA to ensure that its performance measurement system
contains measures that address all of the goals outlined in the CZMA.
Background:
In 1972, Congress enacted the Coastal Zone Management Act to balance
the competing demands of growth and development with the need to
protect coastal areas. In enacting the CZMA, Congress declared that it
is national policy "to preserve, protect, develop, and where possible,
to restore or enhance, the resources of the Nation's coastal zone." The
act establishes a voluntary, cooperative program, known as the National
Coastal Zone Management Program, to encourage states to exercise
authority over coastal areas through the development and implementation
of management programs. To participate, states must develop and seek
federal approval for a coastal zone management program that minimally
addresses federal guidelines and the goals outlined in the CZMA. The
goals for state programs include:
* protecting and restoring natural resources;
* managing coastal development to improve, safeguard, and restore the
quality of coastal waters;
* improving public access to the coast;
* managing coastal development to minimize the loss of life and
property in coastal hazard areas;
* assisting in the redevelopment of deteriorating urban waterfronts and
ports, and sensitive preservation and restoration of historic,
cultural, and esthetic coastal features;
* providing for priority consideration for coastal-dependent uses; and:
* improving government coordination and decision making.
Grants Available Under the CZMA:
To encourage state participation, NOAA provides federal grants and
other assistance. The grants fall into three categories:
* Coastal zone management grants (CZMA section 306 and 306A). Coastal
states participating in the National Coastal Zone Management Program
receive a coastal zone management grant each year for programmatic
costs. States are required to match the grant funds provided. Coastal
zone management grants fund personnel costs, supplies, overhead, and
equipment. They also fund projects that assist communities and
organizations in planning for management of resources in coastal areas
and educational and public outreach projects. Although these funds are
primarily programmatic, states may use a portion to help preserve or
restore coastal areas, redevelop urban waterfronts and ports, and
provide access to public beaches and coastal waters.
* Coastal zone enhancement grants (CZMA Section 309). Congress
established these grants, which do not require state matching funds, in
1990 to encourage each state to continually improve coastal programs in
the following areas: wetland protection and restoration, increased
public access to coastal areas, control of development impacts,
reducing and managing development in coastal hazard areas, special area
management planning, management of ocean resources, reduction of marine
debris along the coast, and facilitating the siting of energy and
aquaculture facilities. To receive these grants, every 5 years a state
must assess the success of its previous management actions within the
key areas and identify priority needs for improvement. Each state must
also develop a proposal that describes the projects it will undertake
to achieve enhancements in selected areas. Examples of program
improvements include new or enhanced management plans to address issues
such as sea level rise and improved protection against coastal hazards.
* Coastal nonpoint pollution control grants (CZMA Section 6217). In the
1990 reauthorization of the CZMA, Congress required states in the
National Coastal Zone Management Program to develop a nonpoint
pollution control program to restore and protect coastal waters.
Nonpoint pollution is runoff from sources such as lawns, roadways,
farms, construction sites, and leaking septic tanks, which threatens
coastal water quality. States must develop a program that implements
management measures to prevent and mitigate degradation of coastal
waters from polluted runoff. NOAA and the Environmental Protection
Agency jointly administer the program at the federal level, and both
agencies must approve states' programs. NOAA awards a small amount of
grant funding to the states to assist with the nonpoint pollution
program. These grants have ranged from a total of $10 million in fiscal
year 2002 to no funding in fiscal year 2007, and in fiscal year 2008,
NOAA divided a total of $2 million among the states.
In addition to these federal grants, NOAA also provides technical
assistance, and the CZMA offers another incentive, known as federal
consistency, to any coastal state or territory willing to develop and
implement an approved comprehensive coastal management program. Federal
consistency allows states with approved coastal programs to review
federal actions--including agency activities, permits, financial
assistance, and outer continental shelf activities--that might affect
the state's coastal uses or resources.
Through fiscal year 2008, 34 of 35 eligible coastal states and
territories have chosen to develop coastal zone management programs and
have received federal approval for these programs. Illinois, the only
coastal state not participating in the program, is currently developing
a program. Together, the national network of approved state programs
covers 99 percent of the nation's 95,331 miles of shoreline, including
the Great Lakes.
Through fiscal year 2008, NOAA has awarded states approximately $1.7
billion in grants to develop and implement state coastal zone
management programs. Funding for the program increased overall through
the 1990s, but has leveled off more recently, with NOAA distributing
$67 million to the 34 state programs in fiscal year 2008. Figure 1
shows the National Coastal Zone Management Program funding from fiscal
year 1991 to fiscal year 2008.
Figure 1: Funding for the National Coastal Zone Management Program for
Fiscal Years 1991 through 2008:
This figure is a combination line graph showing funding for the
national coastal zone management program for fiscal years 1991 through
2008. The X axis represents the fiscal year, and the Y axis represents
the dollars in millions. The lines represent constant dollars and
nominal dollars.
Fiscal year: 1991;
Constant dollars: 51,055,908;
Nominal dollars: 35,322,008.
Fiscal year: 1992;
Constant dollars: 57,881,508;
Nominal dollars: 41,053,008.
Fiscal year: 1993;
Constant dollars: 59,559,108;
Nominal dollars: 43,203,008.
Fiscal year: 1994;
Constant dollars: 63,551,608;
Nominal dollars: 47,089,908.
Fiscal year: 1995;
Constant dollars: 66,882,608;
Nominal dollars: 5,600,008.
Fiscal year: 1996;
Constant dollars: 61,862,908;
Nominal dollars: 4,770,008.
Fiscal year: 1997;
Constant dollars: 60,836,908;
Nominal dollars: 47,729,008.
Fiscal year: 1998;
Constant dollars: 67,880,112;
Nominal dollars: 53,900,908.
Fiscal year: 1999;
Constant dollars: 73,436,512;
Nominal dollars: 59,076,008.
Fiscal year: 2000;
Constant dollars: 71,521,712;
Nominal dollars: 58,700,008.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Constant dollars: 82,310,200;
Nominal dollars: 69,148,000.
Fiscal year: 2002;
Constant dollars: 90,826,616;
Nominal dollars: 77763016.
Fiscal year: 2003;
Constant dollars: 89,586,616;
Nominal dollars: 78,253,016.
Fiscal year: 2004;
Constant dollars: 88,148,016;
Nominal dollars: 79,000,016.
Fiscal year: 2005;
Constant dollars: 75,631,920;
Nominal dollars: 69955016.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Constant dollars: 76,089,416;
Nominal dollars: 72,708,016.
Fiscal year: 2007;
Constant dollars: 67,030,108;
Nominal dollars: 65,780,008.
Fiscal year: 2008;
Constant dollars: 67,516,016;
Nominal dollars: 67,516,016.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of NOAA data.
[End of figure]
To provide Congress information on how state programs use CZMA funds
and on the program's accomplishments, the CZMA calls for NOAA to
prepare a report to Congress every 2 years; NOAA issued the most recent
of these reports in 2006. In the past, the agency has primarily relied
on anecdotal evidence compiled in part from its evaluations of state
programs to identify program accomplishments that it includes in these
reports.
CZMA Program Evaluation Requirements:
NOAA's evaluation of a state's program consists of a weeklong visit to
the state by a team of NOAA evaluators--comprising a NOAA lead
evaluator, a coastal management specialist (who serves as the day-to-
day liaison with the state coastal program), and a representative from
another state coastal program. These evaluators meet with state coastal
program officials and individuals familiar with the state's program
(such as local officials and environmental groups); they also visit
some of the sites where the state program is conducting projects and
hold at least one public meeting. In addition to the site visit, NOAA
evaluators review relevant state documents, such as grant and project
reports. They also conduct follow-up interviews with stakeholders, as
needed, to understand the program's activities. At the end of the
evaluation week, the NOAA evaluators discuss with state program
officials the issues identified during meetings with stakeholders, the
state's accomplishments, and potential recommendations to improve the
program with state program officials. NOAA's recommendations fall into
two categories: (1) program suggestions--actions that NOAA believes a
state should take to improve its program--and (2) necessary actions--
actions the state must take by a specific date or the next regularly
scheduled evaluation. The CZMA requires NOAA to issue a findings report
within 120 days after the last public meeting.
Although these periodic evaluations provide NOAA anecdotal evidence of
accomplishments, NOAA's reporting of accomplishments did not provide
specific measurable effects resulting from program implementation. Both
a 1997 report by the Department of Commerce's Inspector General and a
2003 evaluation by the Office of Management and Budget concluded that
NOAA was unable to demonstrate results for the National Coastal Zone
Management Program and required NOAA to develop a system of
quantifiable goals and performance measures.
NOAA's Efforts to Establish a CZMA Performance Measurement System:
In response to criticism about its inability to demonstrate results for
the CZMA program and requests from Congress, NOAA, working with the
state programs, has been developing a performance measurement system.
Beginning in 2001, NOAA commissioned the H. John Heinz III Center for
Science, Economics, and the Environment to develop a framework for the
performance measurement system. Using this framework, NOAA and
volunteers from nine state coastal programs--Alabama, Alaska,
California, Hawaii, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, and South
Carolina--developed an initial list of performance measures. In 2004,
seven state coastal programs--Florida, Maine, the Northern Marina
Islands, South Carolina, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin--
volunteered to participate in a pilot project to evaluate the draft
performance measures for usefulness and feasibility. On the basis of
results from the pilot project, OCRM modified the performance measures
in January 2005. States began submitting data using a phased approach
in 2006, and, according to NOAA officials, NOAA will complete the final
phase of the system in 2009.
The Coastal Zone Management Act Performance Measurement System
establishes a framework to demonstrate the national impact of the
CZMA.[Footnote 4] The system currently consists of performance measures
organized under the following six broad issue areas developed to
capture the objectives of the CZMA:
* Government coordination and decision making. Three performance
measures collected through 55 different categories of data focused on
state's federal consistency review processes and activities related to
education and training.
* Public access. Three performance measures collected through 10
different categories of data to quantify the impact of state programs
on providing new and enhanced public access to the coastal zone.
* Coastal water quality. Four performance measures collected through
six different categories of data to describe state's ability to manage
coastal development to improve, safeguard, and restore the quality of
coastal waters.
* Coastal habitat. Three performance measures collected through 13
different categories of data to determine trends in acres of created,
restored, and protected habitat, including wetlands, floodplains,
estuaries, beaches, dunes, barrier islands, and coral reefs.
* Coastal-dependent uses and community development. One performance
measure collected through two different categories of data to describe
the role of state programs in working with coastal communities to
develop and implement local plans to manage growth and development and
in redeveloping underused and deteriorating urban waterfront areas and
ports.
* Coastal hazards. One performance measure collected through two
different categories of data to describe the role of state programs in
working with communities to manage coastal development so as to
minimize the loss of life and property caused by improper development
in areas vulnerable to floods, storm surge, erosion, sea-level rise,
land subsidence, and saltwater intrusion.
In addition to the core performance measures, NOAA developed financial
measures to track state expenditures in each of the six issue areas and
contextual measures to provide information on environmental and
socioeconomic factors influencing a state's program. According to NOAA,
states will submit data for the financial measures, and both the state
programs and NOAA will collect data for the contextual measures. NOAA
officials stated that, although the current list of performance
measures is being implemented, they are continually revising the system
throughout the ongoing implementation phase on the basis of feedback
they receive from state coastal programs.
NOAA Generally Follows Statutory Requirements, but CZMA Grants Do Not
Reflect Differences in States' Shoreline Miles and Coastal Populations:
Each year NOAA awards coastal program grants to states according to
appropriations acts and congressional direction. Partly because of a 24-
year-old congressional cap on the amount that any one state can receive
in coastal zone management grants, these grants do not reflect the
variations in states' shoreline miles and coastal populations. NOAA's
present practices in awarding coastal zone management and coastal zone
enhancement grants deviate somewhat from its regulations. In addition
to coastal zone management grants and coastal zone enhancement grants,
NOAA also awards a small amount of funding to the states to support
coastal nonpoint pollution control activities: the CZMA requires NOAA
to award these grants according to its coastal zone management grant
regulations.
NOAA Generally Awards Coastal Management Grants to States According to
Congressional Direction and Statutory Requirements:
Although Congress does not appropriate a specific amount of money for
CZMA grants to states each year, annual appropriation committee reports
direct NOAA to award a certain amount of grant funding under the
coastal zone management program. NOAA follows this direction in
establishing its annual budget for CZMA grants. The agency then
determines the amounts of funding that will go, respectively, into
coastal zone management grants and coastal zone enhancement grants.
NOAA has awarded the majority of funding to the coastal zone management
grants because the CZMA limits the amount of funds that can be
allocated for coastal zone enhancement grants to between 10 and 20
percent of the amount appropriated for all coastal grants--up to $10
million annually. In fiscal year 2008, the total amount NOAA planned to
award in coastal zone management grants was $55 million. Once NOAA has
determined the annual budget allocation for each type of CZMA grant, it
calculates the amount of funding each state will receive for each
grant, generally in accordance with statutory requirements.
For the coastal zone management grants, the CZMA requires NOAA to
establish a minimum and maximum grant amount the states may receive and
also provide states with amounts that consider each state's shoreline
miles and coastal population. NOAA determines a minimum or base amount
that will be applicable to all states. According to the NOAA official
responsible for calculating the grant, he determines the minimum amount
by considering the previous year's funding and the current available
budget. In fiscal year 2008, the minimum amount each state could
receive was $672,000. As the first step in determining each state's
coastal zone management grant amount, NOAA calculates a proportional
share of funding for each state according to the state's shoreline
miles and coastal population.[Footnote 5] As required by its
regulations, NOAA uses a formula to determine each state's proportional
share of coastal management grants, weighted 60 percent for shoreline
miles and 40 percent for coastal population. NOAA's figures for coastal
population--defined as the population of counties that are located
entirely or partially within a state's federally approved coastal zone
boundary--come from the decennial census. NOAA's data for shoreline
miles primarily come from a study the agency published in the
1970s.[Footnote 6]
After NOAA officials calculate each state's proportional share of
coastal zone management grants, they determine if the state's
proportional share is below the minimum amount that each state could
receive for the year. For states whose proportional share is below the
minimum amount, NOAA assigns the state the minimum amount. Thus, for
this step in the allocation process, states only receive their
proportional share if the proportional share exceeds the minimum
amount. However, this practice does not match NOAA's regulations. The
regulations specify that each state will receive a coastal zone
management grant amount that is based on a (1) a minimum share plus (2)
a proportional share of the remaining funds. While under current
funding conditions the results of NOAA's allocation formula are not
significantly different than what would result from the allocation
formula required by its regulations, this deviation could have
significant consequences in the future if funding conditions change,
such as additional funds are made available to the program.
In addition to the minimum and the proportional aspect, CZMA also calls
for NOAA to use a coastal zone management grant allocation method that
includes a cap to promote more equity among the states. As a result,
NOAA's next step in the grant calculation process is to establish a
maximum cap on the amount of funding that any one state can receive in
the form of a coastal zone management grant. Although the CZMA gives
NOAA discretion to determine the maximum cap, for the last 24 years,
Congress has set the cap at $2 million, and NOAA has used this mandated
congressional limit instead of setting its own.[Footnote 7] NOAA
applies the cap to every state's initial grant amount that is based on
the states proportional share or the minimum and those states whose
proportional share exceeds the cap will have funds redistributed to
those states whose initial grant amounts are below the cap. When NOAA
redistributes funds to states whose grant amounts are below the cap, it
again takes into consideration each state's shoreline miles and coastal
population.
The net effect of applying the relatively low congressional cap of $2
million is that the grants that NOAA makes to the states currently do
not reflect their proportional shares. For example, for fiscal year
2008, without any cap in place, California's proportional share is
approximately $5.6 million. Because of the $2 million cap, NOAA will
have to redistribute approximately $3.6 million from California to
those states whose share is below the cap. Conversely, for the same
year, Delaware's proportional share is approximately $275,000, and
because this is below the minimum base amount that NOAA has determined
that each state must receive for the year of $672,000, NOAA will
increase the amount Delaware will receive to the minimum base amount.
In addition, because Delaware's base amount is below the $2 million
congressional cap, when NOAA redistributes funds from states like
California whose proportional share exceeds the cap, Delaware will
receive an additional $539,000. Appendix II provides an example of how
NOAA calculates coastal zone management grant awards. This grant
calculation process results in states like California receiving only
about 36 percent of what would be their purely proportional share of
the coastal zone management grant funding and states like Delaware
receiving over 400 percent of their proportional share of this funding.
While the CZMA requires a minimum and maximum to promote equity, the
congressional cap of $2 million that is imposed in annual
appropriations acts has the effect of limiting the impact of the CZMA's
requirement that funding regulations consider shoreline and coastal
areas.
Funding for coastal zone management grants has grown slightly over the
last decade, such that NOAA awarded $11 million more in fiscal year
2008 than it did in fiscal year 1998. As a result of the congressional
cap on coastal zone management grants, however, states with longer
shorelines or larger coastal populations have received a relatively
static level of funding, while states with shorter shorelines or
smaller coastal populations have seen their funding increase beyond
what they likely would have received under the CZMA. Eleven states have
been at the cap since 1998 and have had no increases in funding. For
example, Florida--with over 8,000 shoreline miles and approximately 16
million in coastal population--has not received any increases in
funding since 1998. When the dollars are adjusted for inflation,
Florida has experienced an effective funding decrease of 37 percent
when comparing fiscal year 1998 to fiscal year 2008. In contrast, the
other states have seen funding increases in large part because of the
cap. Because NOAA redistributes the funds from the states over the cap
to those below the cap according to shoreline miles and coastal
population, the larger of the remaining states have gained more than
the smaller ones. For example, Wisconsin--with 820 shoreline miles and
approximately 2 million in coastal population--has seen an increase in
funding since fiscal year 1998 of approximately $1 million. This
represents an effective 92 percent increase over the same time period
when adjusted for inflation. Guam---with 110 shoreline miles and
approximately 155,000 in coastal population--has seen an increase in
funding from fiscal year 1998 to fiscal year 2008 of $240,000. At the
fiscal year 2008 grant funding level, 18 states were at the $2 million
cap--with several others not far behind.
NOAA's Award Practices for Coastal Zone Enhancement Grants Do Not
Completely Reflect Grant Regulations:
As in determining grant awards for coastal zone management grants, once
NOAA receives its budget for the year, it determines the amount of
funding to award in coastal zone enhancement grants. However, the CZMA
limits the total amount of funds available for coastal zone enhancement
grants to between 10 and 20 percent of the amount appropriated for all
coastal grants--up to a maximum of $10 million annually. Since fiscal
year 2000, NOAA has awarded $10 million each year in coastal zone
enhancement grants. In fiscal year 2008, the individual state awards
ranged from $76,000 to $536,000.
To award coastal zone enhancement grants, the CZMA requires NOAA to
evaluate and rank state proposals for the grants and make funding
decisions on the basis of these proposals. NOAA's regulations further
outline the criteria the agency must follow for these grants and allow
for the funds to be awarded competitively. According to these
regulations, NOAA is to determine each year the amount of coastal zone
enhancement funding to be distributed according to a weighted formula
and the amount to be distributed through projects of special merit that
are to be awarded competitively. According to the regulations, for the
weighted formula, NOAA is to start by using the same method for grant
distribution as used for coastal zone management grants. NOAA is to
provide a base amount to each state and additional funding based on
shoreline miles and coastal population. Then, NOAA must take this
number and multiply it by an additional weighting factor. NOAA is to
develop this additional weighting factor based on an evaluation and
ranking of each state's strategy for using the funds. According to
NOAA's Federal Register notice for coastal zone enhancement grant
regulations, it interprets the word "rank" to mean that a state's
strategy would be assigned a position or rank, relative to other state
submissions. NOAA anticipated that the ranking would result in several
ranking categories.
NOAA does not rank states in accordance with its own interpretation of
the relevant grant regulations. When awarding coastal zone enhancement
grants, NOAA does provide a base level of funding to each state that
has an approved strategy and additional funding based on state's
shoreline miles and coastal population. NOAA also evaluates and
approves each state's proposal. However, NOAA does not establish a rank
order for all proposals; instead, it ranks each proposal as "pass" or
"fail." As a weighting factor, NOAA assigns states with proposals that
pass a 1 and those that fail a 0. States receiving a zero receive no
coastal zone enhancement funds. This is not the position NOAA took when
it issued the regulations, and we believe that this ranking process
does not establish a relative ranking of states in relation to one
another. Moreover, if NOAA developed a relative ranking scheme, then
the amount of funds that states would receive as coastal zone
enhancement grants would also vary according to the competitive ranking
of their strategies, in addition to their shoreline miles and coastal
populations.
Since 1995, NOAA has chosen not to award any coastal zone enhancement
grants through a competitive process to projects of special merit. This
is because according to NOAA officials, they had awarded a portion of
the grants through a competitive process to projects of special merit
in fiscal years 1992 through 1995, but that experience led to the
conclusion that the administrative effort for NOAA and the states was
too much relative to the relatively small amount of available funding
to make the effort worthwhile. In addition, NOAA officials said that
funding according to a weighted formula based on coastal miles and
population provides the states a more predictable level of funding to
support multiyear activities.
NOAA Awards a Small Amount of Funds as Coastal Nonpoint Pollution
Control Grants:
To receive coastal nonpoint pollution control grants, which must be
matched by state funding, states must have at least conditional
approval of their coastal nonpoint programs from both NOAA and the
Environmental Protection Agency. Currently, 21 states have full
approval, and 13 states have conditional approval. States with full
approval receive more in CZMA grant funds.
NOAA determines the amount of funding to award to states as coastal
nonpoint pollution control grants each year. Like the other CZMA
grants, Congress does not appropriate a specific amount of money for
coastal nonpoint pollution control grants, but committee reports direct
NOAA to allocate a certain total amount for these grants. In fiscal
years 2003 through 2006, NOAA awarded states almost the full amount
suggested by Congress for nonpoint pollution control grants.[Footnote
8] In fiscal year 2007, however, NOAA did not award any coastal
nonpoint pollution control grants. According to NOAA officials, in
fiscal year 2007, the coastal nonpoint pollution control program was
identified as a congressional earmark and was not included in the
President's fiscal year 2007 budget request. Congress funded NOAA via a
continuing resolution in 2007, without a relevant committee report
directing NOAA to spend funds on the nonpoint pollution control grants.
In the absence of committee direction, NOAA chose not to make any
coastal nonpoint pollution control grants. In fiscal year 2008, in
contrast, NOAA has thus far awarded states half of the amount suggested
by Congress.
The CZMA directs NOAA to award nonpoint pollution control grants
primarily on the basis of its regulations for coastal zone management
grants. NOAA's application of the methodology (e.g., establishing
minimum and maximum amounts) has varied through the years depending
upon the funding levels available for these grants. In fiscal year
2008, all 34 states received $42,000 each for their coastal nonpoint
pollution control programs, and the 21 states that had full approval of
their coastal nonpoint pollution control programs received an
additional $26,000 each. According to the NOAA official responsible for
the program, there has been a marked reduction in nonpoint pollution
control funding, which has led NOAA to emphasize providing each state
minimum funding sufficient to maintain some effort on the program.
Appendix III provides the amount of CZMA grant funds awarded to each
state for all three grants from fiscal years 2004 through 2008.
NOAA Monitors States' Use of Grant Funding to Ensure That Spending
Aligns with the Goals of the Coastal Zone Management Act:
NOAA reviews states' grant applications and negotiates the terms of
work and management of projects before finalizing and awarding grants.
The agency has also established processes to ensure that states'
spending of funds awarded under the CZMA complies with the law's
requirements. NOAA requires states to submit a draft grant application
each year via an online system. As part of the application, states must
submit a project narrative and detailed budget for each proposed
project, along with project deliverables and benchmarks. The detailed
budget must show how states will spend federal dollars as well as state
matching funds.
According to NOAA, to approve and monitor the use of CZMA funds that
states receive, agency officials take the following steps:
* Review grant applications. OCRM coastal management specialists review
the draft application to ensure that proposed activities meet the
following criteria: (1) address goals outlined in the CZMA; (2) address
the state's priority coastal issues; (3) fund activities that are part
of the state's approved coastal management program and take place
within the state's coastal zone boundary; (4) adhere to federal grant
guidelines, including adequate detail on individual project goals and
activities to determine purpose and likelihood of success; (5) receive
appropriate state matching dollars; (6) address recommendations from
state evaluations that require funding; and (7) adhere to other
relevant federal laws, such as the National Environmental Policy Act
and the Endangered Species Act.
* Negotiate changes. After initial review of the grant application, the
coastal management specialist provides comments to the state and
negotiates any changes that may be required for the application to meet
NOAA's criteria and receive approval.
* Approve and award grants. After OCRM and the state program reach
agreement, the state submits a final application. The coastal
management specialist, along with OCRM program and budget officials,
reviews the final application. After OCRM staff are satisfied that the
draft application meets all applicable criteria, they forward the grant
application and a recommendation to approve the award to NOAA's Grants
Management Division. Officials in this division conduct a cost analysis
and legal review of the grant application. Once they complete their
review, they formally approve the award and issue the state the funds.
According to NOAA and over half of the 34 state program officials we
interviewed, the recent changes to the process for reviewing,
approving, and awarding grants--such as the new online system--has
improved the timeliness of states' receiving their annual funding.
* Continual monitoring. After receiving funding, states are required to
use the online system to submit semiannual reports describing the
status of each task approved for funding. The coastal management
specialist reviews the reports to determine states' progress completing
tasks as outlined in the approved grant application. The state must
also submit a number of financial reports that include information on
cash management. Both the coastal management specialist and the Grants
Management Division review the financial reports to monitor the
progress of the grants and assess whether the states actions are
consistent with all applicable federal grant guidelines and laws,
including the CZMA.
NOAA Conducts Periodic Evaluations of States' Coastal Programs and Has
Developed Some Performance Measures, but Cannot Determine Overall
Program Effectiveness:
The OCRM strategic plan states that it will use periodic evaluations of
states' coastal zone management programs and the performance
measurement system to determine the effectiveness of the National
Coastal Zone Management Program. However, NOAA's evaluations of the
states' coastal zone management programs lack the independence required
to provide the agency with unbiased data and the criteria needed to
measure the states' progress toward achieving CZMA's overall goals. In
addition to weaknesses in the evaluations, NOAA's recently developed
performance measurement system (1) lacks measurable targets; (2) relies
on state program officials to report their own activities, without
validation from the agency; and (3) does not include measures to assess
CZMA goals that call for improved and expedited decision making
regarding coastal resources. Furthermore, NOAA has not developed an
approach that would allow it to integrate the qualitative information
obtained from its state evaluations and the quantitative information
collected through the performance measurement system, which could
provide the agency with a more effective approach to assessing the
coastal zone management program.
NOAA's Periodic State Evaluations Lack Independence and Performance
Goals to Determine Whether State Programs Are Achieving Results:
NOAA's evaluations of state coastal programs provide the agency with a
synopsis of ongoing activities, program accomplishments, and program
deficiencies, but are not adequate for assessing state program
effectiveness. This is because assessing program effectiveness involves
independent monitoring and evaluating of accomplishments against
established goals. However, NOAA's evaluations neither provide the
agency with objective and independent information nor do they assess
states' progress toward established goals.
NOAA's evaluations of state programs lack the independence needed to
assess effectiveness, because state program officials influence the
topics of review, identify stakeholders for NOAA to interview, and
generally participate in NOAA's interviews with the state coastal
program's stakeholders--potentially hindering an open discussion about
the program's performance. Numerous state program officials reported to
us that they influence the evaluation in several ways. Specifically,
one official said, "the results [of the evaluation] are based on who
NOAA meets with, and we [state program officials] decide who to march
in front of them." Another state program official commented that during
the evaluations "we showed them what we wanted them to see; we decide
what they see, where they go, and who they meet." In addition, one
state program official commented that interviews conducted during the
evaluation could result in a limited exchange of information because
interviewees are hesitant to be negative about the program while state
program officials are present. Although NOAA officials acknowledge that
the involvement of state program officials during the evaluations may
give the impression that the evaluations lack independence, they
believe that the involvement of state officials is critical to helping
them identify topics for review and stakeholders to interview. Based on
our interviews and observations, we believe that conducting state
program evaluations in this manner cannot provide NOAA with the
objective, unbiased information that it needs for an independent
assessment of the national program.
The evaluations also lack a means to measure results because NOAA has
not developed performance goals for the state programs, nor has it
requested states to do so. For example, during the evaluations, NOAA
requests state programs to provide examples of accomplishments they
have made since the prior evaluation. Yet without criteria against
which to measure the states' program accomplishments, NOAA cannot say
whether they met, exceeded, or failed to meet expected progress. In
addition, while most state program officials told us the evaluations
are beneficial--because they provide state program officials with
evidentiary support to convince other state partners of needed program
changes--several state officials commented that the use of criteria,
such as performance goals, would make the evaluations more useful. NOAA
recognizes that the evaluations lack a means to measure results, and
agency officials told us that the CZMA does not expressly call for the
agency or state programs to develop such criteria.
Weaknesses in NOAA's Performance Measurement System Limit the Agency's
Ability to Assess Effectiveness of the National Coastal Management
Program:
Although NOAA has made progress in developing a quantifiable
performance measurement system based on the goals outlined in the CZMA,
additional work is needed before the system will provide a clear
picture of whether the program has furthered CZMA goals effectively.
The current system does not include meaningful, measurable targets--
essential elements for measuring a program's progress toward an
identified outcome. In reviewing the targets included in the system, we
could identify only one measurable performance target and even this
target cannot demonstrate whether the related activity is needed or
will be effective in meeting coastal needs. Specifically, the one
performance target that NOAA has developed is to create 250 new or
enhanced public access sites each year through 2012. NOAA officials
reported that the agency developed this target on the basis of
historical data indicating that on average state programs create 250
new public access sites per year. Although the agency has identified
this as a target, we could find no support to suggest whether an
increase of 250 public access sites was an appropriate number to meet a
need within these coastal areas.
The remainder of the performance measures included in the system lack
measurable targets entirely. For example, state programs reported to
NOAA that 4,305 volunteer monitoring events were conducted in coastal
watersheds in 2006 through 2007. However, without establishing how many
monitoring activities are needed to achieve a certain end goal, a
simple count of activities says nothing about their effectiveness. In
addition, numerous state program officials told us they were concerned
about the lack of targets in the performance measurement system. One
state official remarked that without meaningful targets, the system
could lead to state programs "teaching to the test," that is, focusing
activities on issues that they know NOAA will measure, and excluding
non-measured activities that might actually be necessary to address a
coastal need. Another official stated that the current measurement
system uses a "shotgun approach"--collecting many pieces of data and
hoping that some of them will be useful. NOAA officials stated that, as
the agency completes the phased implementation of the system, they plan
to work with state programs to develop additional measurable targets.
Furthermore, for NOAA to use the performance data for cumulatively
reporting progress toward intended results, it must ensure that the
data are consistent and reliable. The agency receives data from 34
separate state programs--with many states in turn receiving the data
from various sources outside their own programs. Our survey of state
program officials highlighted several areas of concern relating to data
accuracy, reliability, and consistency, including:
* Accuracy. Some states reported that they submit precise numbers to
NOAA, while other states reported that they often submit estimates for
some measures. We found numerous instances where NOAA included state-
submitted estimates in its internal analysis of performance measurement
data and did not indicate that the analysis was based partly on
estimates.
* Reliability. At least 10 state program officials reported that they
must rely on external sources, such as other state or local government
agencies, to collect data that they submit to NOAA. Collecting data
from external sources concerns some program managers, with one state
program official stating that he has no control over the reliability of
those data. Another state program official commented that much of the
data requested by NOAA are the responsibility of other agencies, which
are "inadequately staffed and have no time to gather and compile the
data." According to NOAA, the networked organizational structure of
many state programs increases the level of difficulty in reliably
reporting on coastal zone management program activities implemented
through networked partners.
* Consistency. Although NOAA provides states with a guidance document
to define performance measure terms, the terminology used within the
performance measurement system still can lead to inconsistencies in the
data submitted by the states. Several state program officials reported
that the system's terminology is open to interpretation because they
did not believe that NOAA has provided clear definitions for all of the
performance measures. For example, NOAA developed a performance measure
for the percentage of marinas in the coastal zone participating in the
Clean Marina designation program. To support this performance measure,
the agency requested that states submit data regarding marinas. One
state program official reported difficulty identifying the number of
marinas because of the varying definitions of the term marina within
federal, state, and local governments, and NOAA did not provide a clear
definition of the term in its guidance to state programs. Reviewing the
data submitted, we found that some state programs determined "marinas"
to include public docks, boat launches, boat yards, yacht clubs,
community docks, and upland slips. Yet, it is unclear whether all
states used the same definition.
* According to NOAA officials, the agency does not have a documented
process for ensuring the accuracy, reliability, and consistency of data
reported by the states. Rather, NOAA officials reported that they
provide states with written guidance describing each performance
measure, conduct annual workshops to increase state program officials'
knowledge of reporting requirements, review state performance
measurement data to determine if it is "reasonable," and ask state
program officials to review the data they submit. In addition, NOAA
requests states to maintain documentation of data submitted for the
performance measurement system. However, NOAA officials acknowledged
that they have not reviewed any documentation supporting the data
submitted by the state, nor can they verify that states are collecting
or maintaining this type of documentation. While we agree that it is
important to provide sufficient guidance regarding the performance
measures, without appropriate internal controls, such as a systematic
review process, NOAA cannot ensure that the data it is receiving are
sufficiently accurate and reliable for reporting progress toward
overall CZMA goals.
In addition to weaknesses within the current performance measurement
system, NOAA has not developed measures to assess state programs'
effectiveness in meeting those CZMA goals that call for improved and
expedited decision making regarding coastal resources. As stated in
NOAA's strategic plan for the National Coastal Zone Management Program,
one of the program's central tenets is to improve government
coordination and efficiency in coastal management. Without including
measures that assess state program's ability to improve processes, the
agency cannot report whether state programs are accomplishing these
CZMA's goals effectively, and the agency could be missing an
opportunity to improve program management. For example, CZMA calls for
state programs to coordinate and simplify procedures in order to
expedite government decision making regarding coastal resources. During
our review, however, a local government official commented that the
state coastal program in his state was ineffective at reviewing coastal
development permits within the period allotted by state law. As a
result, coastal permits routinely receive default approval, without
review to ensure consistency with responsible coastal development. The
official stated that the problem has existed for a number of years, and
the coastal program has been unable to improve its permit review
procedures. With a performance measure to determine states'
effectiveness at improving procedures to increase timeliness and
expedite decision making, NOAA as well as the states would be more
aware of states' performance and problems and be able to focus their
efforts on correcting these issues. NOAA officials recognize the
importance of expedited decision making and improved efficiency, but
they told us that they have not included explicit measures for this
goal in their performance measurement system because of the difficulty
in identifying outcome-oriented measures and the expense and burden it
would place on state programs. We recognize the difficulties and
potential costs associated with developing these measures, but believe
that developing such measures in the performance measurement system
would help NOAA as well as the states improve the national coastal
program. Furthermore, according to the results of a 2002 NOAA survey to
determine how many states were already participating in a performance
measurement system, 10 state programs already collect data to assess
government efficiency. For example, North Carolina is already counting
the number of permits issued within a 75-day statutory target to
measure its success in developing streamlined techniques to improve
permit response time. By working collaboratively with state programs
that already collect such data for their state-based performance
measurement system, we believe NOAA could ease the expense and burden
that developing and implementing these measures might place on state
programs.
NOAA Lacks a Strategy for Integrating Information from Its Periodic
State Evaluations with Its Performance Measurement System:
NOAA recognized the need in the OCRM strategic plan to use both the
qualitative data from its periodic state evaluations and the
quantitative data collected through the performance measurement system
for determining the coastal zone management program's effectiveness.
However, it has not yet developed an approach for integrating the
qualitative and quantitative information obtained from these two
evaluation tools. Integrating the information from these evaluation
tools could provide the agency with a more effective approach to
assessing the coastal zone management program, including:
* Better understanding of program performance. Strictly using
quantitative data will provide NOAA with information about the extent
to which state programs have met certain program goals but may not be
able to provide information on key questions, such as how to improve
program performance, the reasons for observed performance, or the
program's net impact on its outcome goals.[Footnote 9] For example, the
agency developed a performance target for state programs to have 700
public access sites in the coastal zone by 2007 and increase that by
250 each year through 2012. NOAA's performance measurement data
indicate that as of April 2008, state programs have approximately 1,000
public access sites in the coastal zone. While the numbers suggest that
state programs have not only achieved but have surpassed NOAA's numeric
target, they provide little indication on how these 1,000 public access
sites address the CZMA's goal of providing public access to the coasts
for recreational purposes. However, if this quantitative data is
integrated with the qualitative information collected during NOAA's
periodic evaluations of states' programs it would enhance the agency's
ability to fully assess a state programs' progress in furthering the
CZMA's goals.
* Improved assessment for difficult-to-measure activities. Many coastal
programs conduct activities intended to result in social and
environmental change, which is often difficult to measure using only
quantitative data. When interviewed, several state program officials
expressed concern that the performance measures alone do not capture
the effects--such as changing public opinion or achieving voluntary
compliance with development regulations--of many of their coastal zone
management activities. For example, one state program official
commented that the state conducts many activities to educate developers
and the public on responsible development. As a result of these
efforts, according to this official many of the development permits
that are now submitted to the state for review do not require
modification to align the developers' plans with coastal development
laws. Yet, this state official was concerned that although the
performance measurement system captures the number of educational
activities and the number of permits modified, it cannot capture the
effect of the educational activities, such as developers' increased
awareness about coastal development laws. However, if NOAA developed an
approach to integrate its quantitative and qualitative data sets, it
could use information collected during its state program evaluations to
complement its performance measurement data and thereby more fully
assess these often difficult-to-measure activities.[Footnote 10]
* Validation of progress assessments. An integrated approach will also
provide NOAA with a process to validate both its quantitative and
qualitative data sets. For example, NOAA could take advantage of data
collected and work performed during its weeklong state program
evaluations to check the reliability of state-submitted data. However,
NOAA currently has no mechanism for communicating or integrating the on-
the-ground evidence obtained during these evaluations with the data
submitted by the states for the performance measurement system.
NOAA officials have recognized the potential benefits of integrating
the evaluation tools and told us they have recently developed a
workgroup to research opportunities for integration, but could not
provide us a time frame when this action might be completed.
Conclusions:
When Congress passed the CZMA, it established a requirement that NOAA
should distribute coastal zone management grants to the states
according to regulations that take into account variations in each
state's shoreline miles and coastal population. Over time, however, the
annual congressional cap on the maximum amount that a state can receive
in the form of a coastal zone management grant has caused many states
to receive similar amounts of funding, regardless of their shoreline
miles or coastal populations. We recognize that any changes to NOAA's
current method of distributing grant awards would inevitably result in
some states' receiving more funds and some receiving less funds.
Nevertheless, if Congress wishes to give full effect to the CZMA
provision authorizing proportional grants to the states, then the
annual hard cap--which has been constant for the past 24 years--
prevents NOAA from developing a cap that, over time, could give the
states coastal zone management funding that is more proportional to
their respective shoreline miles and coastal population.
While NOAA's current methods for calculating grants generally comply
with statutory requirements, the agency is not following its own
regulations when determining the states' grant amounts. We believe
that, if the agency is not going to follow its established regulatory
process, then either the regulations should be updated to reflect
current practices or the practices should be modified to comply with
the regulations. Currently, the amounts awarded to the states for
coastal zone management grants are not significantly different as a
result of NOAA's deviation from the regulations. However, if Congress
were to raise or eliminate the cap, this deviation could be
significant. Furthermore, when NOAA developed its regulations for
awarding coastal zone enhancement grants, the agency stated its intent
that a portion of the grants would be awarded by a ranking process, and
the remainder to projects selected competitively. However, NOAA has not
followed the ranking processes outlined in its regulations when
awarding these grants and has discontinued awarding any funds for
selected projects, given the limited funding available for these grants
and the administrative burden of awarding the grants competitively.
Finally, assessing effectiveness of a national program comprising of 34
individual state programs with each conducting its own management
activities is a complex and difficult undertaking. To its credit, NOAA
has periodically evaluated state coastal programs and is currently
implementing a performance measurement system. However, the agency's
ability to determine the effectiveness of the National Coastal Zone
Management Program is undermined by the lack of (1) independent and
credible performance data; (2) meaningful, performance goals for the
state programs; (3) measures to assess state program's progress toward
improving coastal management processes; and (4) an approach for
integrating information gathered from state evaluations and the
performance measurement system. We believe that the combined effect of
these deficiencies will continue to prevent NOAA from being able to
present a clear and credible picture of what the National Coastal Zone
Management Program has achieved and how the individual state programs
have contributed to the achievement of CZMA's overall goals.
Matter for Congressional Consideration:
In reauthorizing the CZMA, Congress may wish to clarify whether it
would like eligible states to receive equal amounts of funding under
the coastal zone management grants or whether these grants should be
proportional and reflect each state's respective shoreline miles and
coastal population. If Congress decides that states should receive
coastal zone management grants that are proportional to each state's
varying shoreline miles and coastal population, then Congress should
consider raising or eliminating the cap.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
We recommend that the Administrator of NOAA review and revise as needed
its regulations and grant award practices for the coastal zone
management and enhancement programs to ensure that they are in
alignment.
To strengthen NOAA's periodic evaluations of state coastal management
programs, we recommend that NOAA take the following two actions:
* Establish performance goals so that evaluators have criteria for
evaluating state coastal programs.
* Ensure that evaluations are independent by revising the role of state
coastal management officials in the review process.
To enhance NOAA's ability to evaluate the overall progress of the
National Coastal Zone Management Program, we recommend that NOAA take
the following three actions:
* Create targets for performance measures already developed that can be
used to assess the effectiveness of the national program.
* Develop appropriate internal controls for verifying that the data
received for the performance measurement system are reliable and
consistent across participating states.
* Develop measures to assess state programs' effectiveness in improving
processes.
To strengthen NOAA's ability to determine the effectiveness of the
National Coastal Zone Management Program, we further recommend that
NOAA develop an approach to integrate the qualitative data from its
periodic state evaluations with the quantitative data in its
performance measurement system.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Commerce for
review and comment and we received written comments from NOAA on behalf
of the Department. NOAA generally agreed with the report's assessment
and recommendations, but stated that the limitations of the current
CZMA and the intricacies associated with managing a congressionally
mandated federal-state partnership program present significant
challenges. Of the seven recommendations that we made, NOAA disagreed
with one. Specifically, NOAA disagreed with our recommendation that it
should develop performance measures to assess the effectiveness of
state programs in improving processes. In this regard, NOAA believes
that the performance measure it has selected to measure the percent of
federal consistency projects modified due to consultation with the
states is appropriate and addresses our recommendation. NOAA further
stated that developing additional process measures in response to our
recommendation would increase implementation costs and diminish the
focus on program outcomes. While we are aware of the measure used by
NOAA to assess the effectiveness of federal consistency reviews, we do
not believe this measure adequately assesses other key aspects of
states' effectiveness in coordinating and simplifying procedures to
expedite governmental decision making. Moreover, as we noted in the
report, a number of states are already collecting data to assess the
efficiency of governmental decision-making. Therefore, we continue to
believe that NOAA should work with the states to develop measures to
assess these processes. While we understand NOAA's concern that adding
additional measures to a system that is already collecting data for 88
categories of data could increase costs, we believe that because NOAA
is phasing in the performance management system and is continuing to
make changes to the system that this provides the agency an ideal
opportunity to ensure that all its performance measures address all of
the goals outlined in the CZMA.
NOAA also provided us with technical comments that we incorporated, as
appropriate. The full text of NOAA's written comments as well as our
response can be found in appendix V.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 17 days
from the report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report
to interested congressional committees and the Secretary of Commerce.
We will also make copies available to others upon request. In addition,
the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-3841 or mittala@gao.gov. Contact points for our
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on
the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to
this report are listed in appendix VI.
Signed by:
Anu K. Mittal:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
We were asked to address issues related to the Coastal Zone Management
Act, as amended (CZMA), by reviewing the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) methodology for awarding financial
assistance, and evaluating NOAA's ability to determine effectiveness of
the national coastal program. Specifically, we were asked to determine
(1) the methodology NOAA uses for awarding grants to the states; (2)
the extent to which NOAA has processes for ensuring grants are used in
a manner that is consistent with the requirements of the CZMA; and (3)
the extent to which NOAA's state program evaluations and performance
measurement system enable the agency to determine the effectiveness of
the National Coastal Management Program.
To determine the methodology followed by NOAA in awarding states
financial assistance under the CZMA, we reviewed the act and its
regulations. We also reviewed NOAA's policies and procedures for
calculating grant awards. In semi-structured interviews with NOAA
officials and officials from each of the 34 state coastal zone programs
participating in the National Coastal Zone Management Program, we
discussed NOAA's methodology for awarding grants and the extent to
which the awards were timely. We obtained documentation from NOAA on
grant awards to the states from fiscal year 1991 (the earliest year for
which NOAA had readily available information) through fiscal year 2008.
Because congressional committee reports direct NOAA on the amount of
funds Congress would like awarded to the states in CZMA grants, we
reviewed congressional committee reports for fiscal years 2003 through
2008. We also determined the extent to which NOAA adheres to these
proposed amounts.
To determine the processes NOAA has in place for ensuring that grants
are used in a manner consistent with the requirements of the CZMA, we
reviewed NOAA's policies and procedures for awarding grants. We also
reviewed a number of approved grant applications states submit to NOAA.
We interviewed NOAA officials to gain a better understanding of the
procedures for reviewing and negotiating grant awards and conducting
oversight of state activities.
To determine the extent to which NOAA evaluates state coastal programs
and can assess the effectiveness of the National Coastal Zone
Management Program, we reviewed the CZMA, the Government Performance
and Results Act of 1993, and Department of Commerce regulations to
identify NOAA's review requirements. We interviewed NOAA officials and
officials from each of the 34 state coastal zone programs to discuss
the process for conducting evaluations and benefits the evaluations
have for state programs. We obtained and reviewed prior evaluations
conducted on the program, such as a 1997 Department of Commerce
Inspector General report and the 2003 Office of Management and Budget
performance review. We obtained and reviewed NOAA's Procedural Guidance
for Conducting Evaluations, the evaluation template used for developing
final evaluation reports, and accompanied NOAA evaluators during a
state evaluation. To assess the effectiveness of NOAA's evaluations, we
relied on criteria identified in previously published GAO reports, as
well as Office of Management and Budget guidance.[Footnote 11]
Specifically, we determined that evaluations should be independent,
systematic, and objective, and answer questions about program
performance and results. In addition, we reviewed the findings of a
NOAA convened committee that evaluated NOAA's evaluation process in
2004.
In addition, we reviewed NOAA's Coastal Zone Management Act Performance
Measurement System to determine whether the measures meet criteria for
successful performance measures. We developed the following criteria to
evaluate performance measures using previously published GAO reports:
(1) alignment with national goals, (2) addressing core program
activities, (3) objectivity, (4) measurable targets or goals, (5)
reliability, and (6) inclusion of government priorities. In addition,
we considered key legislation, such as the Government Performance and
Results Act of 1993. We obtained and reviewed guidance documents that
NOAA provided to state coastal program managers, and we attended an
information session NOAA conducted for state officials that explained
initial findings and lessons learned from implementing the performance
measures. We interviewed NOAA officials and officials from each of the
34 state coastal zone programs to discuss the development of the
performance measures, and the successes and challenges associated with
implementing the system. We also obtained and reviewed the performance
data NOAA collected from state programs and analyzed the comments state
program officials provided NOAA about the data they submitted.
In conducting our 34 semi-structured interviews with officials from
each of the state coastal zone programs, we gathered their opinions on
NOAA's grant processes, the benefits of the evaluation process, and the
challenges in measuring the effectiveness of the overall program with
the current performance measurement system. We conducted the majority
of these interviews in person, although, several required telephone
interviews. We tape-recorded and transcribed these interviews. We then
conducted content analyses of the 34 interviews in order to summarize
themes and opinions expressed by state coastal program officials.
We conducted this audit from September 2007 to September 2008 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives.
[End of section]
Appendix II: NOAA's Calculation of Coastal Zone Management Grant
Awards:
Step 1: NOAA Determines Budget:
NOAA determines the amount of its fiscal year budget to award in
coastal zone management grants. NOAA may also add additional funds to
this amount from unspent funds returned by the states from the prior
year.
Step 2: NOAA Determines the Minimum and Maximum Amounts:
NOAA determines a minimum and maximum amount that each state will
receive. Congress dictates that the cap shall not exceed $2 million. In
addition, if the funds provided for all CZMA grants (e.g., management
and enhancement grants) exceed the funds provided in the previous year,
no state may receive more than 5 percent or less than 1 percent of the
additional funds.
Step 3: NOAA Determines Each State‘s Weighting Factor for Calculating
Proportional Shares:
NOAA determines a weighting factor for each state based on the state‘s
proportional share of shoreline miles and coastal population. NOAA
determines a weighting factor for shoreline miles and a weighting
factor for coastal population and then adds them together to create one
weighting factor.
The weighting factor for coastal mileage is determined by:
60% multiplied by shoreline miles for the state divided by total
national shoreline miles.
Example: Delaware has 381 miles of coastline, and there are 95,429
total national shoreline miles. (0.6) x 381 divided by 95,429 =
0.002395:
The weighting factor for coastal population is determined by: 40%
multiplied by coastal population for the state divided by total coastal
population.
Example: Delaware has 783,600 people living in coastal counties, and
there are a total of 122,411,728 nationally. (0.4) x 783,600 divided by
122,411,728 = 0.00256:
Delaware‘s combined weighting factor is 0.002395 plus 0.00256 =
0.00496:
Step 4: NOAA Calculates Each State‘s Proportional Share:
NOAA multiplies each state‘s weighting factor by the total amount of
funds available for the coastal zone management grants.
Step 5: NOAA Adjusts Funds Based on Minimum and Maximum Allocation
Levels:
NOAA determines whether each state‘s proportional share places them
below the minimum amount or above the maximum amount. For states below
the minimum, NOAA increases the funds to reach the minimum amount. For
states above the maximum amount, NOAA reduces the funds to the maximum
amount.
For fiscal year 2008, NOAA determined that the minimum amount would be
$672,000. For states whose proportional share was lower than this
amount, NOAA raises the state‘s grant to $672,000. NOAA determined that
the maximum cap will be $1,967,000. For states whose proportional share
exceeds this cap, NOAA reduced the state‘s grant to $1,967,000.
Step 6: NOAA Redistributes Funds in Excess of the Cap:
The excess funds from states whose proportional share exceeded the
maximum are redistributed to the states below the maximum using each
state‘s coastal miles and population weighting factor, relative to the
other states below the maximum. This process may have to be repeated
several times because after each redistribution additional states may
have grant amounts in excess of the cap and then NOAA will have to
readjust their amounts as well resulting in another round of
redistributed funds.
Step 7: NOAA Calculates the Total Grant Award:
Once all excess funds have been allocated, NOAA finalizes the states
grant amount.
[End of section]
Appendix III: Coastal Zone Management Act Grants by State:
This appendix provides information on the grant awards the states
received in fiscal years 2004 through 2008. There are tables for each
of the grant types--coastal zone management, coastal zone enhancement,
and coastal nonpoint pollution control.
Table 1: Coastal Zone Management Grant Awards by State for Fiscal Years
2004 through 2008:
State: Alabama;
Coastal mileage: 607;
Coastal population: 540,258;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: $1,606,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: $1,347,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: $1,382,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: $1,295,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: $1,278,000.
State: Alaska;
Coastal mileage: 33,904;
Coastal population: 538,332;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 2,020,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 1,960,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 2,080,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 1,967,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 1,967,000.
State: American Samoa;
Coastal mileage: 126;
Coastal population: 57,291;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 888,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 818,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 842,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 783,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 779,000.
State: California;
Coastal mileage: 3,427;
Coastal population: 24,260,099;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 2,020,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 1,960,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 2,080,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 1,967,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 1,967,000.
State: Connecticut;
Coastal mileage: 618;
Coastal population: 2,120,734;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 2,020,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 1,960,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 1,998,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 1,874,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 1,848,000.
State: Delaware;
Coastal mileage: 381;
Coastal population: 783,600;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 1,509,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 1,276,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 1,309,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 1,226,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 1,211,000.
State: Florida;
Coastal mileage: 8,426;
Coastal population: 15,982,378;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 2,020,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 1,960,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 2,080,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 1,967,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 1,967,000.
State: Georgia;
Coastal mileage: 2,344;
Coastal population: 538,469;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 2,020,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 1,960,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 2,080,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 1,967,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 1,967,000.
State: Guam;
Coastal mileage: 110;
Coastal population: 154,805;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 922,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 844,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 866,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 807,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 803,000.
State: Hawaii;
Coastal mileage: 1,052;
Coastal population: 1,211,537;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 2,020,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 1,921,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 1,969,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 1,847,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 1,821,000.
State: Illinois;
Coastal mileage: 63;
Coastal population: 6,021,097;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 0;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 0;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 0;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 0;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 0.
State: Indiana;
Coastal mileage: 45;
Coastal population: 741,468;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 1,158,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 1,016,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 1,044,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 976,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 966,000.
State: Louisiana;
Coastal mileage: 7,721;
Coastal population: 2,170,717;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 2,020,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 1,960,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 2,080,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 1,967,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 1,967,000.
State: Maine;
Coastal mileage: 3,478;
Coastal population: 944,847;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 2,020,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 1,960,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 2,080,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 1,967,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 1,967,000.
State: Maryland;
Coastal mileage: 3,190;
Coastal population: 3,592,430;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 2,020,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 1,960,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 2,080,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 1,967,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 1,967,000.
State: Massachusetts;
Coastal mileage: 1,519;
Coastal population: 4,783,167;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 2,020,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 1,960,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 2,080,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 1,967,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 1,967,000.
State: Michigan;
Coastal mileage: 3,224;
Coastal population: 4,842,023;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 2,020,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 1,960,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 2,080,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 1,967,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 1,967,000.
State: Minnesota;
Coastal mileage: 189;
Coastal population: 236,946;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 1,041,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 932,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 955,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 893,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 885,000.
State: Mississippi;
Coastal mileage: 359;
Coastal population: 363,988;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 1,273,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 1,102,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 1,130,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 1,057,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 1,046,000.
State: New Hampshire;
Coastal mileage: 131;
Coastal population: 389,592;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 1,062,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 946,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 972,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 906,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 900,000.
State: New Jersey;
Coastal mileage: 1,792;
Coastal population: 7,575,546;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 2,020,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 1,960,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 2,080,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 1,967,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 1,967,000.
State: New York;
Coastal mileage: 2,625;
Coastal population: 16,088,089;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 2,020,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 1,960,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 2,080,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 1,967,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 1,967,000.
State: North Carolina;
Coastal mileage: 3,375;
Coastal population: 826,019;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 2,020,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 1,960,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 2,080,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 1,967,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 1,967,000.
State: Northern Mariana Islands;
Coastal mileage: 206;
Coastal population: 69,221;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 972,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 880,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 905,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 845,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 837,000.
State: Ohio;
Coastal mileage: 312;
Coastal population: 2,767,328;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 2,020,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 1,960,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 2,038,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 1,899,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 1,869,000.
State: Oregon;
Coastal mileage: 1,410;
Coastal population: 1,326,072;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 2,020,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 1,960,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 2,080,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 1,967,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 1,967,000.
State: Pennsylvania;
Coastal mileage: 140;
Coastal population: 2,946,892;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 2,020,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 1,915,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 1,961,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 1,841,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 1,815,000.
State: Puerto Rico;
Coastal mileage: 700;
Coastal population: 2,685,883;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 2,020,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 1,960,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 2,080,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 1,967,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 1,967,000.
State: Rhode Island;
Coastal mileage: 384;
Coastal population: 1,048,319;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 1,646,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 1,376,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 1,413,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 1,323,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 1,307,000.
State: South Carolina;
Coastal mileage: 2,876;
Coastal population: 981,338;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 2,020,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 1,960,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 2,080,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 1,967,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 1,967,000.
State: Texas;
Coastal mileage: 3,359;
Coastal population: 5,211,014;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 2,020,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 1,960,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 2,080,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 1,967,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 1,967,000.
State: U.S. Virgin Islands;
Coastal mileage: 175;
Coastal population: 108,612;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 963,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 872,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 896,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 835,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 831,000.
State: Virginia;
Coastal mileage: 3,315;
Coastal population: 4,440,709;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 2,020,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 1,960,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 2,080,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 1,967,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 1,967,000.
State: Washington;
Coastal mileage: 3,026;
Coastal population: 4,070,515;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 2,020,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 1,960,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 2,080,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 1,967,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 1,967,000.
State: Wisconsin;
Coastal mileage: 820;
Coastal population: 1,992,393;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 2,020,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 1,960,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 2,080,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 1,967,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 1,940,000.
Source: NOAA grant data.
Notes: In some instances, a state may receive more than the $2 million
maximum amount because NOAA also awards states any money returned from
the previous year unspent.
Illinois does not participate in the National Coastal Zone Management
Program.
[End of table]
Table 2: Coastal Zone Enhancement Grant Awards by State for Fiscal
Years 2004 through 2008:
State: Alabama;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: $105,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: $105,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: $104,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: $104,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: $104,000.
State: Alaska;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 540,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 540,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 536,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 536,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 536,000.
State: American Samoa;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 76,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 76,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 76,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 76,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 76,000.
State: California;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 540,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 540,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 536,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 536,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 536,000.
State: Connecticut;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 179,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 179,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 177,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 177,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 177,000.
State: Delaware;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 101,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 101,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 101,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 101,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 101,000.
State: Florida;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 540,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 540,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 536,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 536,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 536,000.
State: Georgia;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 273,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 273,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 270,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 270,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 270,000.
State: Guam;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 77,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 77,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 77,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 77,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 77,000.
State: Hawaii;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 175,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 175,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 174,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 174,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 174,000.
State: Indiana;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 0;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 0;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 86,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 86,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 86,000.
State: Louisiana;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 540,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 540,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 536,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 536,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 536,000.
State: Maine;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 413,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 413,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 409,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 409,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 409,000.
State: Maryland;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 526,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 526,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 521,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 521,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 521,000.
State: Massachusetts;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 418,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 418,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 413,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 413,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 413,000.
State: Michigan;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 540,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 540,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 536,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 536,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 536,000.
State: Minnesota;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 82,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 82,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 82,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 82,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 82,000.
State: Mississippi;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 92,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 92,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 91,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 91,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 91,000.
State: New Hampshire;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 83,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 83,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 83,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 83,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 83,000.
State: New Jersey;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 540,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 540,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 536,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 536,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 536,000.
State: New York;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 540,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 540,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 536,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 536,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 536,000.
State: North Carolina;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 396,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 396,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 392,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 392,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 392,000.
State: Northern Mariana Islands;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 80,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 80,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 80,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 80,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 80,000.
State: Ohio;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 182,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 182,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 180,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 180,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 180,000.
State: Oregon;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 219,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 219,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 216,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 216,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 216,000.
State: Pennsylvania;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 174,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 174,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 172,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 172,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 172,000.
State: Puerto Rico;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 219,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 219,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 215,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 215,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 215,000.
State: Rhode Island;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 107,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 107,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 106,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 106,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 106,000.
State: South Carolina;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 352,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 352,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 349,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 349,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 349,000.
State: Texas;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 540,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 540,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 536,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 536,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 536,000.
State: U.S. Virgin Islands;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 79,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 79,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 79,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 79,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 79,000.
State: Virginia;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 540,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 540,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 536,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 536,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 536,000.
State: Washington;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 539,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 539,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 532,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 532,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 532,000.
State: Wisconsin;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 193,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 193,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 191,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 191,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 191,000.
Source: NOAA grant data.
Note: Indiana was not eligible for this grant in fiscal years 2004 and
2005.
[End of table]
Table 3: Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Awards by State for Fiscal
Years 2004 through 2008:
State: Alabama;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: $89,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: $45,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: $70,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 0;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: $42,000.
State: Alaska;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 305,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 112,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 102,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 0;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 42,000.
State: American Samoa;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 240,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 92,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 82,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 0;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 68,000.
State: California;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 580,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 197,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 187,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 0;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 68,000.
State: Connecticut;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 283,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 105,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 95,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 0;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 68,000.
State: Delaware;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 257,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 97,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 87,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 0;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 68,000.
State: Florida;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 305,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 112,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 102,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 0;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 68,000.
State: Georgia;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 172,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 71,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 70,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 0;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 42,000.
State: Guam;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 72,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 40,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 70,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 0;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 68,000.
State: Hawaii;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 110,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 52,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 70,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 0;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 42,000.
State: Indiana;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 0;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 28,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 70,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 0;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 42,000.
State: Louisiana;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 305,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 112,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 102,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 0;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 42,000.
State: Maine;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 535,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 183,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 173,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 0;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 68,000.
State: Maryland;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 580,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 197,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 187,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 0;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 68,000.
State: Massachusetts;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 539,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 184,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 174,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 0;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 68,000.
State: Michigan;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 305,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 112,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 102,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 0;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 42,000.
State: Minnesota;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 75,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 41,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 81,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 0;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 68,000.
State: Mississippi;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 80,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 43,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 70,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 0;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 42,000.
State: New Hampshire;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 246,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 94,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 84,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 0;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 68,000.
State: New Jersey;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 305,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 112,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 102,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 0;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 42,000.
State: New York;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 305,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 112,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 102,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 0;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 68,000.
State: North Carolina;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 524,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 180,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 170,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 0;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 68,000.
State: Northern Mariana Islands;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 244,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 93,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 83,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 0;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 68,000.
State: Ohio;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 114,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 53,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 70,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 0;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 42,000.
State: Oregon;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 137,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 60,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 70,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 0;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 42,000.
State: Pennsylvania;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 280,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 104,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 94,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 0;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 68,000.
State: Puerto Rico;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 307,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 113,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 103,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 0;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 68,000.
State: Rhode Island;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 260,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 98,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 88,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 0;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 68,000.
State: South Carolina;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 221,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 86,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 76,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 0;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 68,000.
State: Texas;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 305,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 112,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 102,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 0;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 42,000.
State: U.S. Virgin Islands;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 244,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 93,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 83,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 0;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 68,000.
State: Virginia;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 580,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 197,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 187,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 0;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 68,000.
State: Washington;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 305,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 112,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 102,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 0;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 42,000.
State: Wisconsin;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2004: 291,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2005: 108,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2006: 98,000;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2007: 0;
Fiscal years: Grant allocation in 2008: 68,000.
Source: NOAA grant data.
Note: Indiana was not eligible for this grant if fiscal year 2004.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Coastal Zone Management Act Performance Measurement
System:
NOAA developed the following issue areas and performance measures to
determine the effectiveness of the National Coastal Zone Management
Program.
Issue area: government coordination and decision making:
Performance measures:
1. Percent of federal consistency projects submitted where the project
was modified due to consultation with the applicant to meet state
coastal zone management (CZM) policies;
2. Number of (a) educational activities offered by the CZM program and
(b) the number of participants;
3. Number of (a) training opportunities offered by the CZM program and
(b) the number of participants;
Categories of data:
* Total number of federal consistency projects reviewed during the
reporting period;
* Number of federal agency activities projects reviewed where the
project was modified due to consultation with the applicant to meet
state CZM policies;
* Number of federal license or permit activity projects reviewed where
the project was modified due to consultation with the applicant to meet
state CZM policies;
* Number of Outer Continental Shelf projects reviewed where the project
was modified due to consultation with the applicant to meet state CZM
policies;
* Number of projects for federal financial assistance to state agencies
or local governments reviewed where the project was modified due to
consultation with the applicant to meet state CZM policies;
* For each issue area (public access, coastal habitat, coastal water
quality, coastal hazards, and coastal dependent uses and community
development ):
- Number of educational activities offered by the CZM program;
- Number of educational activities reported above that was conducted
jointly with a National Estuarine Research Reserve (NERR);
- Number of participants in educational activities offered by the CZM
program;
- Number of participants reported above that participated in
educational activities conducted jointly with a NERR;
- Number of marine debris and coastal cleanup activities supported by
the CZM program; * Number of pounds of debris removed by marine debris
and coastal cleanup stewardship activities supported by the CZM
program.
* For each issue area (public access, coastal habitat, coastal water
quality, coastal hazards, and coastal dependent uses and community
development ):
- Number of training opportunities offered by the CZM program;
- Number of training opportunities reported above that was conducted
jointly with a NERR;
- Number of participants in training opportunities offered by the CZM
program;
- Number of participants reported above that participated in training
opportunities conducted jointly with a NERR.
Issue area: public access:
Performance measures:
4. Number of new public access sites added through acquisition or
easement using CZM funds;
5. Number of existing public access sites enhanced using CZM funds;
6. Number of sites where public access was (a) created, (b) protected,
or (c) enhanced through CZM regulatory activities.
Categories of data:
* Number of new recreational boating public access sites added through
acquisition or easement using CZM funds;
* Number of new nonboating public access sites added through
acquisition or easement using CZM funds;
* Number of existing recreational boating public access sites enhanced
using CZM funds;
* Number of existing nonboating public access sites enhanced using CZM
funds;
* Number of new recreational boating public access sites created
through CZM regulatory activities;
* Number of new nonboating public access sites created through CZM
regulatory activities;
* Number of recreational boating public access sites protected through
CZM regulatory activities;
* Number of nonboating public access sites protected through CZM
regulatory activities;
* Number of recreational boating public access sites enhances through
CZM regulatory activities;
* Number of nonboating public access sites enhances through CZM
regulatory activities.
Issue area: coastal habitat:
Performance measures:
7. Number of acres of key coastal habitats (a) created or (b) restored
using CZM funds;
8. Number of acres of habitat in the coastal zone protected by
acquisition or easement using CZM funds;
9. Number of acres of key coastal habitats lost or gained due to core
CZM regulatory programs.
Categories of data:
* Number of acres of tidal (or Great Lakes) wetlands created using CZM
funds;
* Number of acres of tidal (or Great Lakes) wetlands restored using CZM
funds;
* Number of acres of beach or dune created using CZM funds;
* Number of acres of beach or dune restored using CZM funds;
* Number of acres of nearshore (intertidal, subtidal, submerged)
habitat created using CZM funds;
* Number of acres of nearshore (intertidal, subtidal, submerged)
habitat restored using CZM funds;
* Number of acres of other habitat created using CZM funds;
* Number of acres of other habitat restored using CZM funds;
* Number of acres of habitat in the coastal zone protected by
acquisition or easement using CZM funds;
* Number of acres of tidal (or Great Lakes) wetlands lost or gained due
to activities subject to core CZM regulatory programs;
* Number of acres of beach and dune lost or gained due to activities
subject to core CZM regulatory programs;
* Number of acres of nearshore (intertidal, subtidal, submerged)
habitat lost or gained due to activities subject to core CZM regulatory
programs;
* Number of acres of other key habitat lost or gained due to activities
subject to core CZM regulatory programs.
Issue area: coastal water quality:
Performance measures:
10. Percent of marinas in the coastal zone participating in the clean
marina designation program;
11. Number of volunteer monitoring program activities in coastal
watersheds conducted with CZM funds;
12. Number of sites monitored by volunteer programs supported with CZM
funds;
13. Number of coastal communities supported by CZM funds in developing
or implementing ordinances, policies, or plans to control or prevent
polluted runoff to coastal waters.
Categories of data:
* Number of marinas in the coastal zone;
* Number of marinas in the coastal zone participating in a clean marina
designation program;
* Number of volunteer monitoring program activities in coastal
watersheds conducted with CZM funds;
* Number of sites monitored by volunteer monitoring programs conducted
with CZM funds;
* Number of coastal communities and special units of government such as
storm water districts supported by CZM funds in developing or
implementing ordinances, policies, or plans to control or prevent
polluted runoff to coastal waters;
* Number of coastal communities and special units of government such as
storm water districts in which CZM funded policies, plans, or projects
to control or prevent polluted runoff to coastal waters were
implemented during the reporting period.
Issue area: coastal hazards:
Performance measures:
14. Number of communities in the coastal zone that have (a) undertaken
activities to reduce future damage from hazards and (b) implemented
educational programs to raise public awareness of coastal hazards using
CZM funds.
Categories of data:
* Number of communities that undertook activities to reduce future
damage from hazards using CZM funds;
* Number of communities that implemented educational programs or
campaigns to raise public awareness of coastal hazards using CZM funds.
Issue area: coastal dependent uses and community development:
Performance measures:
15. Number of coastal communities supported by CZM funds in (a)
developing and implementing local plans that incorporate growth
management principles and (b) port or waterfront redevelopment
projects.
Categories of data:
* Number of coastal communities supported by CZM funds in developing
and implementing local plans that incorporate growth management
principles;
* Number of coastal communities supported by CZM funds in port or
waterfront redevelopment projects.
[End of section]
Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Commerce:
Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at the
end of this appendix.
United States Department Of Commerce:
The Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere:
Washington, D.C. 20230:
September 4, 2008:
Ms. Anu Mittal:
Director:
Natural Resources and Environment:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Ms. Mittal:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Government
Accountability Office's draft report entitled Coastal Zone Management
Measuring Program's Effectiveness Continues to be a Challenge (GAO-08-
1045). On behalf of the Department of Commerce, I enclose the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's comments on the draft report.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr.:
Vice Admiral, U.S. Navy (Ret.):
Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere:
Department of Commerce:
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Comments on the Draft
GAO Report titled "Coastal Zone Management: Measuring Program's
Effectiveness Continues to be a Challenge" (GAO-08-1045/September
2008):
General Comments:
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) appreciates
the focus on the Coastal Zone Management Program, and is in agreement
with many of the report's recommendations. We note, however, the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) limited its review to state
coastal programs and not the entirety of the Coastal Zone Management
Act (CZMA) programs. The National Estuarine Research Reserves are
authorized and implemented via Section 315 of the CZMA and are subject
to Section 312 program evaluations, but were not evaluated by GAO for
this report. The focus of the GAO findings only relates to evaluation
of state coastal programs.
This report will provide another perspective as NOAA moves forward
towards reauthorization of the CZMA. Concepts identified by the report
in terms of enhanced performance measurement and competitive funding
are similar to ideas raised during the CZMA visioning process, and are
important topics to consider during reauthorization. While NOAA
generally agrees with the assessment and recommendations in GAO's
report, the limitations of the current CZMA, and the intricacies of a
congressionally mandated federal-state partnership program, provide
significant challenges.
Comment 1 – Evaluations:
According to GAO, NOAA can establish measurable goals and criteria by
which state coastal programs will be evaluated. NOAA believes that we
must evaluate coastal programs against the three criteria for
evaluations established in the CZMA: (1) the extent to which the state
has implemented and enforced the program approved by the Secretary (of
Commerce); (2) the extent to which the state has addressed the coastal
management needs identified in section 303(2)(A)- (K); and (3) the
extent to which the state has adhered to the terms of any grant, loan,
or cooperative agreement funded under CZMA. Therefore, NOAA conducts
evaluations of coastal management programs as mandated by the three
criteria established in the CZMA. NOAA is currently evaluating the CZMA
for potential improvements relevant to GAO and other recommendations.
See comment 1.
Comment 2 – State Program Measurable Goals:
The GAO report's discussion of measurable goals and targets to guide
demonstration of national effectiveness has been an important
consideration in NOAA's efforts to develop the CZMA Performance
Measurement System. As part of this process, NOAA has worked
cooperatively with state programs to identify measurable goals and
performance measures relating to the objectives of CZMA. NOAA
recognizes the need to develop targets related to goals in the
performance measurement system currently under development. However,
NOAA feels the appropriate level for setting targets is at the national
program level, rather than for each individual state program.
See comment 2.
Given the existing statutory framework and the complexity and costs
associated with developing state level targets for 34 separate states,
NOAA believes it would be impractical to begin developing state level
targets. Under the CZMA, states develop coastal management programs and
submit them to NOAA for approval. Once approved, NOAA does not have the
authority to compel states to meet additional requirements to maintain
program approvability. Thus, there would be limited capacity to
establish and enforce state level targets. There are also practical
constraints with developing individual state targets given the diverse
nature of state programs, and the broad, sometimes conflicting goals,
enumerated in the CZMA.
Comment 3 ” Data Reliability:
The GAO report raises a critical need for data accuracy, reliability,
and consistency. NOAA is addressing this need using a phased approach
to develop a performance measurement system. NOAA and the states have
used an iterative process to refine or eliminate measures that had low
reliability, problems with consistency across states, or that had low
accuracy due to reliance on external sources. For example, the majority
of the current performance measures rely primarily on data from
activities directly funded or conducted by state programs.
The phased implementation approach was also used to work out
consistency issues that would be revealed through national
implementation. For example, NOAA has refined and finalized performance
measure terms based on needs identified by each implementation phase.
The full range of consistency issues could only be identified once each
program began reporting and are being addressed at the end of each
phase through improved guidance and streamlining of measures to
eliminate measures with high levels of inconsistency that cannot be
resolved.
In addition, state programs have used the phased implementation period
to establish new data tracking and collection systems necessary to
accurately report on performance measures. State programs have invested
significant resources to meet new requirements of the performance
measurement system; however, establishing data tracking systems
requires significant time and effort. States will continue to improve
these reporting systems as the performance measurement system matures.
Comment 4 ” Process Measures:
The GAO report's discussion of the need to assess state programs'
effectiveness in meeting the CZMA goal for improved and expedited
decision making regarding coastal resources identifies an important
aspect of the national program and its success. However, the report
does not recognize the performance measure related to federal
consistency meets their recommendation for assessing effectiveness for
improved decision making. Federal consistency is one of the primary
processes states use to improve and expedite decision making for
coastal resources. The federal consistency measure focuses on the
"Percent of federal consistency projects submitted where the project
was modified due to consultation with the applicant to meet State CZM
policies." Federal consistency is an important mechanism to achieve the
goal of improved and expedited decision making that involves state
review of federal activities affecting the uses or resources of the
coastal zone in coordination with state coastal zone management
policies. This consultation process is one of the primary ways states
improve and expedite decision making for coastal resources.
See comment 3.
Comment 5 ” `Measurable Goals" and "Targets":
The GAO report's discussion of integrating performance measurement data
with evaluation information supports NOAA's intention to provide both
quantitative and qualitative data to demonstrate the effectiveness of
the national program. However, the report is somewhat inconsistent in
its use of the terms `measurable goals' and `targets.'
NOAA uses the definitions suggested by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) in the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) guidance. The
term measurable goals as used by GAO in this report, best relates to
the PART term "performance goals." OMB defines performance goals as
measurable objectives against which achievement can be compared. The
term "target" is defined as a quantifiable or otherwise measurable
characteristic that tells how well a program must accomplish a
performance measure.
NOAA developed performance or measurable goals in conjunction with a
programmatic strategic plan. These goals are one of the considerations
used when evaluating state program accomplishments in implementing
their approved program. However, targets specific to individual
programs have not been developed and changes to the CZMA would be
required to use such targets as criteria for evaluation. As discussed
earlier, the appropriate level for setting targets is at the national
program level, rather than for each individual state program.
NOAA Response to GAO Recommendations:
Recommendation 1: "We recommend that the Administrator of NOAA review
and revise as needed its regulations and grant practices for the
coastal zone management and enhancement programs to ensure they are in
alignment."
NOAA Response: NOAA agrees with this recommendation. NOAA believes it
is in compliance with the existing regulations, but recognizes it is
useful to periodically review and revise regulations and internal
procedures. The report raises a specific concern regarding the process
for allocating base coastal management funding. The regulations 15
C.F.R. 923.110(c)(1)-(2), require each state receive both a minimum
share and a proportional amount of the funding, which is what currently
happens. The other issue raised by the report is the Section 309
enhancement grants program. While the program has evolved since its
inception in 1990, NOAA continues to meet regulatory requirements to
review state enhancement strategies based on the criteria defined in
the regulations, and provides each state with a weighting factor based
on this review.
See comment 5.
Recommendation 2: "To strengthen NOAA's periodic evaluations of state
coastal management programs, we recommend that NOAA take the following
action: establish measurable goals for the program so that evaluators
have criteria for evaluating state coastal programs."
NOAA Response: NOAA generally agrees with this recommendation, and is
already establishing measurable goals for the national coastal zone
management program. Because state programs are given flexibility to
design their programs to best fit their coastal needs, they have
variation in organizational structure, the issues they choose to
address, and how they address those issues. NOAA is researching ways to
integrate the state program evaluations and the national performance
measurement system, but NOAA believes it requires changes to the CZMA
in order to fully accomplish this. NOAA is also working with its state
partners to develop national program targets. Given the existing
statutory requirements, and the complexity and costs associated with
developing state level targets for 34 separate states, NOAA believes
that it would be premature to begin developing state level targets.
Once the national level program targets are established, it may be
appropriate to consider whether additional targets at the state level
are desirable.
See comments 1 & 2.
Recommendation 3: "To strengthen NOAA's periodic evaluations of state
coastal management programs, we recommend that NOAA take the following
action: ensure that evaluations are independent by revising the role of
state coastal management officials in the review process."
NOAA Response: NOAA generally agrees with this recommendation and will
consider process improvements to further enhance independent data
collection methods. The responsibility for evaluations rests with a
division separate from the division working closely with coastal
programs and awarding funding. The evaluation team also includes a
manager or senior staff member from another state coastal program to
provide additional external and independent perspective. Because of the
nature of the federal-state partnership established by Congress for the
national coastal zone management program, NOAA needs some assistance
from state coastal management officials to identify key partners for
program implementation, provide general background information and to
coordinate site visit logistics. A public meeting is held to seek
independent input from citizens, and written comments sent to NOAA are
encouraged and accepted from anyone. Anyone, including someone with
whom the evaluation team met during the site visit, is welcome to
contact the evaluation team leader after the visit to provide
additional information or ask questions. Historically, evaluation teams
have met with state partners, agency representatives, and other groups
both with and without state coastal program officials present.
Recommendation 4: "To enhance NOAA's ability to evaluate the overall
progress of the National Coastal Zone Management Program, we recommend
that NOAA take the following action: create targets for performance
measures already developed that can be used to assess the effectiveness
of the national program."
NOAA Response: NOAA agrees with the recommendation to create and
improve national level targets for performance measures to assess the
effectiveness of the national program.
Recommendation 5: "To enhance NOAA's ability to evaluate the overall
progress of the National Coastal Zone Management Program, we recommend
that NOAA take the following action: develop appropriate internal
controls for verifying that the data received for the performance
measurement system are reliable and consistent across participating
states."
NOAA Response: NOAA agrees with the recommendation to develop
appropriate internal controls for verifying performance measurement
data reported by states. NOAA has established an interim process for
reviewing performance measurement data reported by states during the 4
phased implementation approach. However, once phased implementation is
completed, NOAA recognizes the need to formally establish appropriate
review processes to verify state reported data.
Recommendation 6: "To enhance NOAA's ability to evaluate the overall
progress of the National Coastal Zone Management Program, we recommend
that NOAA take the following action: develop measures to assess state
programs' effectiveness in improving processes."
NOAA Response: NOAA does not support the recommendation to develop
additional performance measures for decision-making processes. NOAA's
goal is a streamlined performance measurement system that focuses on
outcomes. In addition, the use of process rather than outcome measures
does not support the requirements from OMB related to their evaluation
of the national program under the PART. After considering several
process measures, NOAA chose to include one measure related to the
federal consistency process to demonstrate national program
effectiveness in improving decision making. NOAA believes additional
process measures would increases implementation costs and diminish the
focus on program outcomes.
See comment 3.
Recommendation 7: "To strengthen NOAA's ability to determine the
effectiveness of the National Coastal Zone Management Program, we
further recommend that NOAA develop an approach to integrate the
qualitative data from its periodic state evaluations with the
quantitative data in its performance measurement system."
NOAA Response: NOAA supports the recommendation to integrate
qualitative data from state evaluations with quantitative performance
measurement system data to demonstrate the effectiveness of the
National Coastal Zone Management Program.
The following are GAO's comments on NOAA's letter, dated September 4,
2008.
GAO Comments:
As we recognize in our report, NOAA's periodic evaluations are to
determine the extent to which a state has implemented and enforced its
approved program, addressed the coastal management needs identified in
the CZMA, and adhered to the terms of federal grant awards. We believe
that establishing performance goals at the state level would enhance
NOAA's evaluation process because such goals would enable the agency
and the states to determine if the state has met or exceeded expected
progress and also help better identify needed actions.
1. As long as NOAA intends to use its periodic evaluations of state
programs as part of its efforts to determine the effectiveness of the
national program, it is important to be able to clearly measure the
accomplishments of the state coastal programs. To this, we continue to
believe that it is important to establish state level goals and targets
although we recognize that NOAA, under the current CZMA, does not have
the authority to compel states to meet such targets.
2. We disagree that the federal consistency measure adequately captures
states' effectiveness in coordinating and simplifying procedures in
order to expedite governmental decision making. As we note in our
report, some states have already developed appropriate performance
measures and are collecting these data for their states' performance
measurement systems. We understand NOAA's concern that adding
additional measures to a system that is already collecting data for 88
categories of data could increase costs. However, we believe that NOAA
could ease the expense and burden by working collaboratively with those
states that have already developed and implemented such measures.
Moreover, because NOAA is currently phasing in the performance
management system and is continuing to make changes to the system, we
believe that this is an ideal time to ensure that the agency's
performance measurement system contains measures that address all of
the goals outlined in the CZMA.
3. We revised our report as appropriate.
4. As stated in our report, we do not believe that NOAA is in
compliance with the existing regulations for awarding coastal zone
management and enhancement grants but are encouraged that the agency
has agreed to review its regulations and practices and bring them into
alignment.
[End of section]
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Anu K. Mittal (202) 512-3841 or mittala@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact named above, Sherry McDonald, Assistant
Director; Leigh White and Jay Spaan made key contributions to this
report. Also contributing to this report were Elizabeth Beardsley,
Ellen W. Chu, and Anne Rhodes-Kline.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] Recognizing this need, the Pew Oceans Commission, funded by the
private Pew Charitable Trusts, issued a report in 2003, reviewing the
state of the oceans and calling for an overhaul of the nation's ocean-
related policies. Shortly thereafter, the federally commissioned U.S.
Commission on Ocean Policy issued another report, which also
recommended a policy overhaul and outlined a national agenda for
protecting and restoring marine environments. See Pew Oceans
Commission, America's Living Oceans: Charting a Course for Sea Change
(Philadelphia: Pew Charitable Trusts, 2003), and U.S. Commission on
Ocean Policy, An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century (Washington,
D.C.: 2004).
[2] U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Inspector General, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: Coastal Zone Management and
National Estuarine Research Reserve System Programs Require Management
Attention to Increase Effectiveness, Report No. IPE-9044 (Washington,
D.C.: December 1997), and Office of Management and Budget, Performance
Assessment Reporting Tool, Coastal Zone Management Act Programs,
Assessment Year 2003 (Washington, D.C.: 2003).
[3] Congress has considered reauthorization of the CZMA numerous times
over the past 3 decades, most recently, with two reauthorization bills
introduced in the 110th Congress. Both NOAA and the Coastal States
Organization, a group representing participants in the National Coastal
Zone Management Program, have been developing suggested revisions for
potential CZMA reauthorization.
[4] See appendix IV for a complete listing of the performance measures
included in the Coastal Zone Management Act Performance Measurement
System.
[5] The CZMA states that NOAA can also consider special factors in
addition to shoreline mileage and coastal population. Nevertheless,
NOAA has never used any special factors.
[6] NOAA regulations required NOAA to use the most recent available
data from or accepted by the National Ocean Survey. NOAA uses mileage
listed in NOAA's "The Coastline of the United States."
[7] Each year in appropriations law, Congress dictates that no state
may receive more than $2 million in the form of a coastal zone
management grant. However, if the funds provided for coastal CZMA
grants exceed the funds provided in the previous year, no state may
receive more than 5 percent or less than 1 percent of the additional
funds.
[8] In fiscal years 2003-2006, NOAA awarded the states 99 percent of
the full amount, and in fiscal year 2004, NOAA awarded states 95
percent of the amount suggested by Congress.
[9] AO, Program Evaluation: Studies Helped Agencies Measure or Explain
Program Performance, GAO/GGD-00-204 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 29, 2000),
and GAO, Program Evaluation: Strategies for Assessing How Information
Dissemination Contributes to Agency Goals, GAO-02-923 (Washington,
D.C.: Sept. 30, 2002).
[10] GAO, Managing for Results: EPA Faces Challenges in Developing
Results-Oriented Performance Goals and Measures, GAO/RCED-00-77
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 28, 2000).
[11] GAO, Performance Measurement and Evaluation: Definitions and
Relationships, GAO-05-739SP (Washington, D.C.: May 2005), and Office of
Management and Budget, What Constitutes Strong Evidence of a Program's
Effectiveness? (Washington, D.C.)
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room LM:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
