The federal Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, a branch of the Department of Commerce, recently concluded an evaluation of the state’s Coastal Zone Management Program. The program, overseen by the Office of State Planning within the governor’s office, was found generally to be “satisfactorily adhering to its programmatic obligations.” However, to judge from the scope and number of “necessary actions” that OSP has been ordered to make by the federal evaluators, rather serious deficiencies exist in OSP’s administration of the program.
Under an agreement with NOAA, which is ultimately responsible for administering the federal Coastal Zone Management Act, the state performs many of the tasks needed to carry out the federal law. The precise terms and scope of state actions are set forth in a written “program document,” revised periodically. In return for the state’s services, the federal government provides financial assistance that amounts to roughly half — at present: $800,000, more or less — of the total cost of administering the joint state-federal Coastal Zone Management Program. The state uses some of those federal dollars to help the counties carry out their responsibilities for administering the coastal Special Management Area under the state Coastal Zone Management Act (Chapter 205A). Again, written contracts or agreements set forth the obligations of the counties to the state in return for receiving CZM funds. The amount of assistance received by each county varies according to geographic area. Thus, Hawai`i County gets the most money (about $190,000 a year) and Kaua`i County the least (about $120,000) — although these amounts are, obviously, not in direct proportion to the counties’ respective land sizes.
This explanation of the relations obtaining among the federal, state and county governments is much simpler than the relations themselves, yet it may provide some background against which to understand the evaluation process.
Despite the overall satisfactory rating, the federal evaluators made 10 recommendations for changes to the state program — five of which are mandatory.
Staffing
First on the list of necessary actions is the addition of staff to the state’s CZM Program and the requirement that the state “continue to seek from the Legislature state funds necessary to match federal CZM funds.” According to the evaluation, “due to state budget constraints, approval to fill/replace staff positions has not been granted, even with federal funds available to pay for the positions.” Of the authorized positions, the evaluation says, “one person has been on an extended detail, one person has recently resigned, and one position has not been under the direction” of the Coastal Zone Management Program “for a number of years.”
“Unless corrective action is taken,” the evaluation says, the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management “could determine that Hawai`i is not adhering to its federally approved program, which could result in fiscal sanctions against the state.”
The evaluators found other staffing problems at the county level, leading them to make a non-mandatory “program suggestion.” At the county level, federally financed staff positions are often not filled because of hiring freezes. “In the County of Kaua`i,” they wrote, “CZM-funded planner/permitting staff are classified as one-year contractual positions, even after twenty years of [Hawai`i Coastal Zone Management Program] funding. As a result, staff are hired as one-year temporaries, and a high turnover rate is experienced.” To remedy this, the OSP “is encouraged to work with each county to facilitate the provision of adequate county CZM staff with long-term experience. This includes conducting training programs for the counties to support county staff as they implement the permitting procedures.”
Compliance
The second mandate to the Office of State Planning is to “develop a more systematic monitoring and enforcement program that meets the needs of the [Hawai`i Coastal Zone Management Program].” The state relies on the counties and citizen complaints to monitor and enforce compliance with the state CZM Act. Of three counties visited by the evaluation team (Kaua`i, Honolulu, and Hawai`i), only one (Honolulu) had a full-time staff position dedicated to enforcement.
“By contrast,” the evaluation says, “the County of Hawai`i, because of the lack of staff, undertook only limited monitoring and enforcement and did not even log citizen complaints. Similarly, while the County of Kaua`i does conduct limited routine monitoring, much of the focus during recent years in Kaua`i County has been the aftermath of Hurricane `Iniki. This variation in monitoring and enforcement is of concern to OCRM. OSP needs to examine, in conjunction with the counties, the need for more consistent monitoring and enforcement procedures and reporting requirements for the counties.”
The report describes one failed effort at developing a unified permit tracking program for the state — the so-called H-PASS system, which died of obsolescence before it ever was in full operation. After H-PASS, “the counties reverted to using inefficient, manual methods of collecting data, summarizing data from computer print-outs, in order to report general SMA permit and shoreline variance information to” the Office of State Planning.
Since 1993, the Coastal Zone Management Program has pursued a new computerized permit tracking system. “At the time of the evaluation site visit,” the evaluation team writes, “each of the counties had been provided with the new computer system, including software, and training of county personnel was pending. As a result, the system was not functional at the time of the site visit, and it was unclear when it would be.”
Thus, the evaluation of OSP and county agencies’ ability to monitor and enforce coastal regulations resulted in the identification of two “necessary actions” and one “program suggestion.” They are:
— That OSP “develop a more systematic monitoring and enforcement program.” Underscoring the urgency of this aspect of the program, NOAA is requiring the state to submit a plan for doing this by early April;
— That, by August, the OSP bring the new computerized permit tracking system into use and prepare a user’s guide for the counties; and
— That Office of State Planning “conduct semi-annual meetings” with the counties to discuss CZM management concerns. This is merely a recommendation, not a requirement.
Public Involvement
The federal Coastal Zone Management Act requires participating states to have some regular means of public involvement. Until 1992, the Statewide Advisory Committee, whose members represented state and county agencies, industry, and citizen groups, fulfilled this role. In its 1991 evaluation of the Hawai`i program, NOAA recommended that OSP develop new procedures for strengthening SAC. SAC had been meeting monthly since the late 1970s, but since at least the late 1980s, questions had arisen regularly about its usefulness.
In 1992, SAC was disbanded. This was in part a result of NOAA’s recommendations to improve the public participation element of the Hawai`i CZM program. It was also an outgrowth of the state’s Ocean Resources Management Plan, which was completed in January 1991 — about the same time the NOAA evaluation came out, recommending changes to SAC.
The Ocean Resources Management Plan was the work of the Ocean and Marine Resources Council, which was established by the Legislature in 1988. Like the Statewide Advisory Committee, the Ocean and Marine Resources Council was made up of representatives from government and private sectors. Unlike SAC, the council, established under the administrative arm of the Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism, enjoyed a high degree of participation by the member agencies. As part of its legislative recommendations, the council proposed a new office for marine and coastal affairs be established by the governor, separate from the existing Office of State Planning.
A New Forum
In 1992, Harold Masumoto, then director of the Office of State Planning, undertook an effort to bring together what were emerging as disparate and even competing trends. The Statewide Advisory Committee was disbanded, just as the Ocean and Marine Resources Council dissolved, having completed its legislatively mandated task. Masumoto devised what he called a new Coastal and Ocean Management Implementation Initiative, or COMII, which provided for the Office of State Planning to retain its lead agency status for the Coastal Zone Management Program. According to a white paper outlining the new strategy, the focus of COMII was to be on interagency coordination, which would occur “through the efforts of a public/private coordinating body” — that is, COMPAG — “and its associated working groups.” The purpose of COMII, then, was to implement both the Hawai`i Ocean Resources Management Plan and the Coastal Zone Management Program assessment recommendations, with COMPAG replacing both the SAC and the Ocean Resources Management Council.
COMPAG’s first meeting was in July 1992.1 It has met nine times since then, at roughly three-month intervals.
When NOAA’s evaluators were visiting Hawai`i, they report, they heard “several concerns … about the adequacy of COMPAG to address coastal issues. These concerns included the breadth of issues covered by the COMPAG, especially the lack of adequate coverage of coastal zone issues. Several people expressed concerns that the COMPAG was not apprised of coastal program initiatives early enough, but rather were updated as to the status of various projects already in progress.”
In addition, the evaluators report, “concerns were also raised regarding the public notice procedures currently implemented for federal consistency reviews” — that is, determinations by the Office of State Planning that proposed coastal projects are consistent with the federal Coastal Zone Management Act. “Specifically, environmental groups expressed concern that public notices did not appear in the OEQC Bulleting, but as legal notices in newspapers only. Subsequent to the evaluation site visit, OCRM issued guidance to the states for developing public notice procedures that are consistent with the CZMA requirements.”
The NOAA evaluators take note of the change in administrations in Hawai`i, resulting in new leadership in the Office of State Planning. “Since the COMPAG was established by the previous director, the status of the COMPAG is uncertain at this time,” the report says. Still, they go on to say, a means for providing public participation and involvement on coastal issues is a requirement element of the state’s Coastal Zone Management Plan. “OSP must make a determination on the appropriate method for providing this aspect of public participation and input. If this includes a revision to the [state CZM] program, a program change must be submitted to” the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resources Management.
Achievements
The NOAA evaluation team had praise for the Hawai`i Coastal Zone Management Program was praised for several achievements in the last four years. They found that public access to the shoreline had been enhanced through expansion of Na Ala Hele, the Hawaiian trails system, and by signage programs undertaken by Hawai`i and Kaua`i counties with CZM funds.
The evaluators commended OSP also for its “quick reaction to initiating a damage assessment project” on Kaua`i in the wake of Hurricane `Iniki.
The Department of Land and Natural Resources, with a grant from OSP, conducted an inventory and assessment of fishponds on Moloka`i. This project, too, won the evaluation team’s praise: “This project provided an opportunity to develop and manage a valuable resource in a way that will influence land use policy setting for the surrounding areas. In addition to keeping with the goals and policies of enhancing historic and cultural resources, the project could contribute to the Island of Moloka`i’s economic activity. OSP and DLNR are to be commended for their role in the restoration of this traditional resource.”
The evaluators were also impressed by the Office of State Planning’s beach management plan. “OSP is to be commended on the proactive role that they have taken in studying erosion trends, coastal processes and regulatory options,” the evaluators wrote. “The various studies developed provide solid recommendations to improve beach management in Hawai`i.”
— Patricia Tummons
Volume 5, Number 9 March 1995
Leave a Reply