Federal Consistency, Geographic Location Descriptions (GLDs) and Coastal & Marine Spatial Planning (CMSP) presented May 25, 2011 at The Workshop to Learn Ocean Planning Tools and Techniques

1. Federal Consistency, Geographic LocationFederal Consistency, Geographic Location
Descriptions (GLDs) and Coastal & MarineDescriptions (GLDs) and Coastal & Marine
Spatial Planning (CMSP)Spatial Planning (CMSP)
David Kaiser, Senior Policy AnalystDavid Kaiser, Senior Policy Analyst
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource ManagementOffice of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
National Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/welcome.htmlhttp://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/welcome.html
http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/consistency/welcome.html
Rhode Island Ocean SAMP & CMSP Workshop
Wednesday, May 25, 2011

2. NOAA SAMP ApprovalNOAA SAMP Approval
 Discussions with CRMC on meeting OCRM’s programDiscussions with CRMC on meeting OCRM’s program
change requirements:change requirements: early and oftenearly and often..
 Usual program change considerations:Usual program change considerations:
 Enforceable Policies (EPs) contain standards (“shall”Enforceable Policies (EPs) contain standards (“shall”
not “should,” etc.);not “should,” etc.);
 EPs do not apply to federal agencies or federal waters;EPs do not apply to federal agencies or federal waters;
 EPs are not federally preempted on their face;EPs are not federally preempted on their face;
 EPs do not discriminate against specific uses;EPs do not discriminate against specific uses;
 Other EP considerations for the SAMP: directives toOther EP considerations for the SAMP: directives to
state agencies, creation of advisory boards, “necessarystate agencies, creation of advisory boards, “necessary
data & information.”data & information.”

3. NOAA SAMP ApprovalNOAA SAMP Approval
 Two meetings (11/2010 & 5/2011) with OCRM, CRMC,Two meetings (11/2010 & 5/2011) with OCRM, CRMC,
and Stakeholders to explain OCRM’s comments.and Stakeholders to explain OCRM’s comments.
 Routine Program Change (RPC) submitted to OCRM byRoutine Program Change (RPC) submitted to OCRM by
CRMC. State RPC analysis focuses on: what is theCRMC. State RPC analysis focuses on: what is the
change (thechange (the ΔΔ) between current program/EPs and what) between current program/EPs and what
the SAMP adds.the SAMP adds.
 On May 3, CRMC adopts SAMP with OCRM’s changes.On May 3, CRMC adopts SAMP with OCRM’s changes.
 OCRM approves the incorporation of the SAMP into theOCRM approves the incorporation of the SAMP into the
RICRMP: May 11, 2011. SAMP EPs now apply throughRICRMP: May 11, 2011. SAMP EPs now apply through
CZMA Federal Consistency reviews.CZMA Federal Consistency reviews.
 Now the fun begins....Now the fun begins....

4. Reviewing Federal License or Permit ActivitiesReviewing Federal License or Permit Activities
Outside the Coastal Zone:Outside the Coastal Zone:
Geographic Location DescriptionsGeographic Location Descriptions
15 C.F.R. § 930.5315 C.F.R. § 930.53
a. States have FC lists of federal license or permit activities.
• To review listed activities outside CZ, state must describe
geographic location of such activities (GLDs).
b. GLD must be based on reasonably foreseeable coastal effects
from the listed activity in the proposed GLD. Therefore, different
listed activities may have different GLDs.
• Federal lands within the CZ boundary are automatically
GLDs.
b. If no GLD approved by OCRM, state may request OCRM
approval to review activities outside the CZ on a case-by-case
basis as an unlisted activity (15 C.F.R. § 930.54).

5. Inside CZ – Unlisted
Effects NOT Presumed
State Needs NOAA Approval
Inside CZ – Listed
Effects Presumed
FC Applies
STATE CZ BOUNDARY – 3 MILES
State Waters –
Rhode Island
R.I.
M.A.
FEDERAL WATERS
All Reviews are if Rhode Island is Seeking Review
(Same scenario would apply on land)
Hypothetical Geographic Location Boundary for R.I.
Outside CZ – Inside Geo Loc
Unlisted – Effects NOT Presumed
State Needs NOAA Approval
Outside CZ – Inside Geo Loc
Listed – Effects Presumed
FC Applies
Other State – Subpart I
Inside Geo Loc – Listed
Effects Presumed – FC Applies
Outside CZ – Outside Geo Loc
Listed or Unlisted
Effects NOT Presumed
State Needs NOAA Approval
Other State – Subpart I
Outside Geo Loc – Listed or Unlisted
Effects NOT Presumed
State Needs NOAA Approval
Other State
NO Subpart I
NO FC Review
State Waters – Mass.
FEDERAL WATERS
CZMA 307(c)(3)(A) License or Permit
Map

6. GLD Approval Based on Showing of EffectsGLD Approval Based on Showing of Effects
 Proposed GLDs must be geographically specific, apply to
specific listed federal license or permit activities, and based
on an analysis showing that effects on the state’s coastal
uses or resources are reasonably foreseeable.
 Effect analysis does not have to show proof of coastal
effects, but must show a reasonable causal connection. The
effects analysis cannot be based on speculation or
conclusory statements.
 A GLD does not need to delineate the boundary of where
effects are reasonably foreseeable and where they are not; it
only needs to show that within the area described that
effects are reasonably foreseeable.

7. Delaware based its findings of coastal effects
from offshore alternative energy projects on
potential migration disruptions to avian
species, acoustic and electromagnetic
disturbances to marine species; the effects of
exclusion zones on commercial and sport
fishing; interference with electronic
communications; and increased navigational
risks due to the rerouting of vessel traffic.
Avian impacts reduced after challenge from
BOEMRE.
Delaware’s final GLD for federal waters was
reduced to the BOEMRE MD/VA boundary
line as effects from alternative energy projects
not reasonably foreseeable in federal waters
off VA.
24 n.m. seaward boundary is based on the
area of potential environmental effects
described in the BOEMRE PEIS (2007) for
its offshore alternative energy program.

8. Connecticut initially proposed a
much larger GLD for OCSLA
offshore renewable energy
projects authorized by BOEMRE
– effects analysis not adequate.
The GLD was reduced to certain
fishing areas based on NMFS
statistical areas/data, which
provided a reasonable basis for
effects to commercial fishing in
these areas from potential
renewable energy development.

9. RI Ocean SAMP study
area in federal waters and
likely GLD

10. Federal Consistency and Regional CoastalFederal Consistency and Regional Coastal
and Marine Spatial Plans (CMSP)and Marine Spatial Plans (CMSP)
 Ocean Policy Executive Order (E.O.) 13547, 75 Fed. Reg. 43022-43027 (July
22, 2010), establishing ocean policy, CMSP and National Ocean Council
(NOC).
 State CMPs, state ocean management plans and state marine spatial planning
efforts, as well as state-led multi-state regional efforts, are expected to play a
role in the development of regional CMSPs.
 States can use the CZMA federal consistency provision to ensure consistency
between CMPs and regional CMSPs certified by the NOC.
o States can use in their CMPs (and state OM Plans) administrative
efficiencies in NOAA’s regulations to facilitate and streamline federal
consistency reviews. These administrative efficiencies include, e.g., creating
thresholds for when a federal action would be subject to state CZMA
review, use a “general consistency determination” that would cover
multiple occurrences of a federal action, and eliminate certain federal
actions from consistency reviews (beneficial coastal effects, de minimis
coastal effects)).

11. Federal Consistency and Regional CoastalFederal Consistency and Regional Coastal
and Marine Spatial Plans (CMSP)and Marine Spatial Plans (CMSP)
o Regional Planning Bodies (RPBs) could agree to formally incorporate these
CZMA federal consistency administrative efficiencies into a regional CMS Plan;
o A regional CMS Plan could include measures to ensure that it is consistent to
the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of the relevant
states’ coastal management programs and, vice-versa, states could consider
potential changes to the enforceable policies of their coastal management
programs to achieve agreed-upon regional CMS Plan objectives;
o States will likely be able to use the federal consistency provision to concur with
a NOC-certified regional CMS Plan as consistent with the enforceable policies
of a state’s coastal management program.

12. Federal Consistency and Regional CoastalFederal Consistency and Regional Coastal
and Marine Spatial Plans (CMSP)and Marine Spatial Plans (CMSP)
o A regional CMS Plan will not change the interstate consistency process. If a
state already has interstate consistency approval from NOAA, that approval will
not change.
o A regional CMS Plan may, however: (1) inform another state’s review
of an interstate activity, e.g., if the reviewing state agreed to the
regional CMS Plan, the state may choose not to review a federal action
in another state, because it is compatible with the regional CMS Plan;
and/or (2) mean that a state may choose to not seek interstate
consistency authority from NOAA.

13. http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/consistency/welcome.htmlhttp://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/consistency/welcome.html
David Kaiser, Senior Policy AnalystDavid Kaiser, Senior Policy Analyst
david.kaiser@noaa.govdavid.kaiser@noaa.gov -- 603-862-2719-- 603-862-2719
Kerry Kehoe, Federal Consistency SpecialistKerry Kehoe, Federal Consistency Specialist
kerry.kehoe@noaa.govkerry.kehoe@noaa.gov -- 301-563-1151-- 301-563-1151
Carleigh Rodriguez, Coastal Management SpecialistCarleigh Rodriguez, Coastal Management Specialist
carleigh.rodriguez@noaa.govcarleigh.rodriguez@noaa.gov -- 301-563-1125-- 301-563-1125
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource ManagementOffice of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
National Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration