Detailed Information on the
Coastal Zone Management Act Programs Assessment

Redirect a portion of the program funding to competitive grants that more directly address regional and national priorities.

The Budget continues the CZMP and NERRS, but redirects some funding towards programs that can demonstrate progress in accomplishing core NOAA missions.

NOAA will ensure that the research opportunities available in the NERRS are well integrated with NOAA coastal and ocean research programs.

The CZMP and NERRS will work to complete the development of outcome oriented performance measures.

Measure: Percent of Coastal Zone Management Program (CZMP) system completed (% of 35 coastal States and territories)

Explanation:Tracks State progress in developing programs to support effective management, beneficial use, protection and development of the coastal zone.

Measure: Percent of State coastal nonpoint pollution control programs fully approved (% of 35 coastal States and territories)

Explanation:Tracks State progress in developing programs to control various sources of polluted runoff by implementing on-the-ground management measures in six categories. Note: The FY 2004 President's Request reduced funding for this effort from $10 million to $0. Performance targets reflect the change in budgetary resources available for this program.

Measure: Percent of biogeographic regions represented within the National Estuarine Research Reserve System (out of 29).

Explanation:

Measure: Number of new and enhanced sites created through the CZM Program that provides public access to the coastal zone (annual/cumulative)

Explanation:This measure includes public access sites that are funded by Federal CZM dollars and non-Federal matching dollars. The measure includes new access sites, enhanced access sites, and beginning in FY 2005, sites established through the regulatory/permitting process. Numbers are cumulative from the 2004 baseline. Long-term targets for this measure are still being developed and will be completed by October 2007.

Measure: Percent of Reserve System adequately characterized for management

Explanation:Reserves are characterized through site profiles. Each reserve is asked to complete a site profile to summarize the existing state of knowledge about reserve research and monitoring activities and identify research needs that should be addressed in the future. The completed site profile includes references to the primary technical literature and description of ecosystem components, ecological processes, habitats, and the floral/faunal communities that provide an adequate basis for the development of scientific studies and applied management investigations. Site profiles are technical documents that provide a summary of scientific information for academic and agency researchers, graduate students, advanced undergraduates, and coastal resource managers. Targets and actuals from FY 2002-2006 reflect the percent of 26 designated sites. Please note that a new reserve, the 27th in the System, was designated in 2006, so the baseline denominator for this measure will change from 26 to 27 for FY 2007 (*).

Measure: Program dollars per acre of habitat protected through the National Estuarine Research Reserve System.

Explanation:This measure provides a benchmark for comparison with EPA's National Estuary Program. EPA's Ocean, Coastal and Estuary Protection PART included a similar measure titled "Program dollars per acre of habitat protected or restored" within the NEP study area, through such mechanisms as land acquisition, conservation easements, deed restrictions, or other designations to prevent alteration of habitat. This measure is proposed as a long-term measure. Due to external variables, this measure would be more meaningful for tracking efficiency gains in 5-year increments versus annual changes. External variables can include annual fluctuations in appropriated funding, as compared with requested funding, which affect the level of resources available to the program, but is not based on the acreage protected within the System. It is also difficult to predict the acres of land to be incorporated into the boundaries of existing reserves within the system as a result of land acquisition projects selected under a competitive funding process or funded through earmarks.

Measure: Number of habitat acres acquired or designated for long-term protection (cumulative).

Explanation:This measure tracks the number of acres protected by state or local government agencies through the Coastal Zone Management Act. The protected acres are the number acquired from willing sellers under the Coastal Zone Management program in a given fiscal year or designated as a National Estuarine Research Reserve (through designation of a new site or addition of acreage to an existing site). The goal for the long-term protection measure is variable, as the yearly target can vary from hundreds to thousands of acres each year. The CZM program begins reporting acres protected in FY 2008. This measure directly contributes to the related NOAA measure in the Department of Commerce Annual Performance Plan, along with data from the Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program and the National Marine Sanctuary Program.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, (CZMA) creates Federal-State partnerships to support effective management, beneficial use, protection, and development of the coastal zone. Congressional policy for the program is established in section 303 of the CZMA. It also supports research and education in National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS).

Evidence: The CZMA declares that it is the national policy "to preserve, protect, develop, and where possible, to restore or enhance, the resources of the Nation's coastal zone for this and succeeding generations" and "to encourage and assist the states to exercise effectively their responsibilities in the coastal zone through development and implementation of management programs...giving full consideration to ecological, cultural, historic and esthetic values as well as the need for compatible economic development." (CZMA Sec. 303)

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: The CZM program addresses competing demands for economic development and environmental protection through an integrated approach to protecting, restoring, and developing the natural, cultural, and economic resources of the coastal zone. Participating States must develop program plans that protect wetlands, ensure public access to the coast, minimize harm from coastal hazards, consider ocean planning, and support compatible economic development. NOAA must review, evaluate, and approve the management plan for each program using established criteria. The NERRS serves as a platform for conducting research, education, and monitoring in support of coastal management. Science-based education and training programs target resource managers and others to better inform coastal resource decision-making.

Evidence: Congressional findings for CZMA declare that "there is a national interest in the effective management, beneficial use, protection, and development of the coastal zone" and that "the increasing and competing demands upon the lands and waters of our coastal zone occasioned by population growth and economic development...have resulted in the loss of living marine resources, wildlife, nutrient-rich areas, permanent and adverse changes to ecological systems, decreasing open space for public use, and shoreline erosion." (CZMA Sec. 302)

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: The CZM program is the only program that addresses national coastal issues in a comprehensive, integrated way. The program recognizes both the State and local role in addressing coastal land use, development, and zoning, as well as the national interest in these issues. The Program offers incentives and funding for coastal States to prepare and implement coastal management programs that are consistent with national objectives. Other Federal, State, local, or private efforts address specific issues, geographic areas, or programmatic authorities. The NERRS is the only Federal estuarine protected area program focused on research and education. However, there is overlap with other research and land protection programs.

Evidence: The 1999 study by Herschman et al ("US Coastal Zone Management Effectiveness Study", Coastal Management Journal, Vol. 27) notes that "Under the CZMA, all three levels of government, federal, state, and local, are given important roles to play and considerable flexibility in defining those roles." Other Federal, State, local or private efforts address specific issues, geographic areas, or programmatic authorities and many have direct links to implementation of the CZMA. The U.S. Ocean Commission website notes that "there are examples of management tools that have improved federal-state relations, such as the Coastal Zone Management Act. More attention needs to be given to examples of federal-state partnerships and collaborations that have worked and the reasons for success."

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: The program design is flexible enough to account for changing conditions or institutional arrangements in the States, while ensuring that the program goals are met. Federal funding is targeted to achieve programmatic goals, and is leveraged by State (and sometimes local) funding. NOAA reviews and approves each State's annual coastal management or research reserve work plan and any requests to re-allocate funds within tasks under the cooperative agreement. NOAA conducts programmatic reviews under section 312 and can withdraw or withold support if a state demonstrates that it is unable or unwilling to address program deficiencies.

Evidence: Requirements for each State's management plan as well as grant matching requirements are outlined in section 306 of the CZMA. Section 315 sets criteria and guidelines for the establishment and operation of the NERRS. Review of State performance in implementing coastal management plans is proscribed in section 312 (Review of Performance). Further detail about the structure and implementation of these programs are outlined in the implementing regulations at 15 CFR chapter 9.

Is the program effectively targeted, so program resources reach intended beneficiaries and/or otherwise address the program's purpose directly?

Explanation: CZM funding is formula based, but provides incentives for development of appropriate State and local coastal management capacities. The CZM program provides funding to the lead agency of each State or territorial CZM program, which is matched by State or local funding, generally on a 1:1 basis. Funding for NERRS is matched 70:30 (Federal:State) for operations, research, monitoring and education, and 1:1 for construction and acquisition. Funds are targeted at efforts at the state or local level that achieve the program's purpose, at times leveraging additional State or local funding.

Evidence: CZMA sections 306, 309, 312, and 15 CFR part 923 outline how funding is targeted to coastal State programs. Details of funding mechanisms for the NERRS are describe in section 315 of the CZMA and15 CFR part 921.

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: NOAA is currently developing more specific, outcome-oriented performance measures for the CZM and NERRS programs. These measures are intended to demonstrate progress in achieving the overall goals of the Act and reflect the national program results, while still providing the flexibility needed to recognize differences among States. Congress has also expressed concern in this area and directed NOAA "to begin designing and implementing performance measures to validate the continuation of the Coastal Zone Management program."

Evidence: Progress in developing measures is addressed in FY 2002 and FY 2003 quarterly reports to Congress on development of a National Performance Measurement System for the CZMA.

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: As discussed above, NOAA is currently working to develop more outcome-oriented performance measures. As these measures are established, targets and timeframes will also be developed.

Evidence: Progress in developing measures is addressed in FY 2002 and FY 2003 quarterly reports to Congress on development of a National Performance Measurement System for the CZMA.

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term measures?

Explanation: Once NOAA establishes more out-come oriented, long-term targets, it can determine the appropriate annual measures to demonstrate progress. Current measures are process-oriented and do not adequately demonstrate progress in achieving program goals.

Evidence: Progress in developing measures is addressed in FY 2002 and FY 2003 quarterly reports to Congress on the development of a National Performance Measurement System for the CZMA.

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets and timeframes for its annual measures?

Explanation: As discussed above, NOAA is currently working to develop more outcome-oriented performance measures along with annual measures to demonstrate progress toward program goals. As these measures are established, appropriate baselines and targets will be set.

Evidence: Progress in developing measures is addressed in FY 2002 and FY 2003 quarterly reports to Congress on development of a National Performance Measurement System for the CZMA.

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, etc.) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: These programs do not have adequate performance goals and therefore cannot receive a yes for this question. However, recipients of CZMA funds are bound by Federal financial assistance award reporting requirements. Awards and projects must reflect the Federally approved State coastal management programs which meet the national objectives of the CZMA. In 2002, NOAA and State CZM partners developed a joint Federal/State strategic plan for the Coastal Zone Management Program, and NOAA and NERRS partners developed a NERRS Strategic Plan and three-year action plan.

Evidence: Annual Federal financial assistance awards, semi-annual performance, and financial reports submitted by each State to the National Ocean Service's (NOS) Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM); joint Federal/State strategic plan for the Coastal Zone Management Program and NERRS Strategic Plan.

Are independent and quality evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: Independent staff conduct programmatic evaluations on a 3 year cycle to determine the achievement of each State coastal program and National Estuarine Research Reserve in addressing national goals, implementing their approved program, and adhering to the terms of Federal financial assistance awards. Interim reviews may be conducted on an as-needed basis. Other independent evaluations have assessed the effectiveness of the CZMA, particularly with regard to state implementation and on-the-ground results, (Herschman, et al. 1999, and Brower, et al. 1991), as well as NOAA's implementation of these programs at the national level (Department of Commerce Office of Inspector General, 1997). These reports have found these programs to be effective and have also made suggestions for improvement, such as the need to better quantify performance results at the national level.

Evidence: The scope and criteria for programmatic evaluations of the CZM and NERR programs are described at CZMA sections 312 (Review of Performance), 303 (policies) and 315 (NERRS), but primarily in implementing regulations at 15 CFR 923.133 and 15 CFR 921.40. The 2001 Report to Congress entitled 'An Assessment of the National Impacts of the Coastal Zone Management Program' (NOAA). A 1999 study entitled 'US Coastal Zone Management Effectiveness Study', (Herschman, et al., Coastal Management Journal, Vol. 27). A 1991 study entitled 'Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Program' (Brower, et al, University of North Carolina).

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: Given the current lack of meaningful annual and long-term performance goals, there is no evidence that budget requests are linked to performance.

Evidence:  

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: The CZM and NERR programs are working with State coastal programs to identify a core group of indicators that can be measured and reported through a national performance measurement system. A joint Federal/State performance indicators working group is building on the foundation provided by the Heinz Center report as it identifies a set of potential national indicators for each CZMA goal area. NOAA is also considering how the section 312 program evaluation process may be revised to incorporate this measurement system. A joint Federal/State workgroup is also developing performance measures for the NERRS, consistent with the 2002 NERRS Strategic Plan.

Evidence: Quarterly reports to Congress on progress in developing a performance measurement system for the CZM program; The Heinz Center Report: CZMA: Developing a Framework for Identifying Performance Indicators (2003); Draft Joint Federal/State Strategic Plan for the Coastal Zone Management program; NERRS Strategic Plan.

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: States and territories provide performance reports on a semi-annual basis that NOS/OCRM uses to review progress of CZM and NERR programs. Periodic programmatic evaluations are also conducted (see 2.6), which make use of the information provided in State performance reports. NOAA is currently developing a performance measurement system that will track and report information from State partners on their progress in meeting specific national goals of the CZMA.

Evidence: Annual Federal financial assistance awards, semi-annual performance and financial reports submitted to NOS/OCRM by each State. Evaluation findings under Section 312 of the CZMA. As a result of program evaluations conducted under section 312, States have restructured coastal zone programs and NERRs to more effectively carry out national program objectives. For example, States have transferred or elevated program functions, redirected resources, and developed new partnerships to better manage coastal resources.

Are Federal managers and program partners (grantees, subgrantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, etc.) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: Financial assistance awards and sub-awards include terms and conditions for accountability. Grantees must provide semi-annual performance reports showing they met the terms and conditions of the grant. Awards and OMB circulars include provisions for non-performance. Programmatic evaluations take place on a 3-year cycle to determine the achievement of each State coastal program and NERR in implementing their approved program and adhering to the terms of Federal financial assistance awards and provide sanctions for non-performance among State CZM or NERR programs.

Evidence: NOAA Financial Assistance Awards - Standard Terms and Conditions; Evaluation findings under Section 312 of the CZMA. Results of program evaluations conducted under section 312 can include recommendations at the "program suggestion" level, or if the problem to be addressed is more serious, at the "necessary action" level. States that do not take steps to address "necessary actions" can be found to be "not adhering" and subject to having funds withheld. As a result of these evaluations, States have restructured coastal zone programs and NERRs to more effectively carry out national program objectives. For example, States have transferred or elevated program functions, redirected resources, and developed new partnerships to better manage coastal resources.

Are all funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose?

Explanation: NOAA in general has been criticized for not processing grants in a timely manner. This fact was noted by NOAA's own Program Review Team. External factors that affect the date funds are awarded or obligated include the timing of congressional appropriations and timeliness of States in submitting financial assistance applications. OCRM ensures that funds are spent for the intended purposes.

Evidence: Financial assistance documents; FY 2002 assessment of OCRM's performance in reviewing financial assistance applications. NOAA's Program Review Recommendations, June 2002.

Does the program have procedures (e.g., competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, approporaite incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: There are no efficiency measures or targets established for this program. In developing performance indicators, the program could establish processes for tracking this information.

Evidence:  

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: NOAA and the States work together with other Federal and local entities to implement coastal policies through a variety of formal and informal forums including: the Coastal States Coordination Committee; regional workshops; annual CZM and NERRS program manager meetings; joint program managers meetings that include program managers from Sea Grant Colleges and National Estuary Programs; and various ad hoc collaboration efforts to address issues as they come up. Through these meetings and workshops NOAA staff, State CZM and NERRS staff, and staff from other Federal, State, and local partners collaborate on programmatic or regional issues, share information, and receive training on new techniques or tools available for managing the coasts. In addition, the NERRS and National Estuary Programs have provided Federal level coordination for several joint, locally based activities.

Evidence: The Coastal States Coordination Committee is comprised of State and Federal representatives from NOAA's CZM program, NERRS, Sea Grant program, and EPA's National Estuary Program and water quality programs. The Coordination committee generally meets 2 to 3 times each year. One regional workshop conducted by NOAA focused on training State and Federal agencies on the implementation of the CZMA's provision that Federal actions be consistent with State coastal policies. These workshops result in substantially improved coordination, consultation and cooperation, fewer disagreements between state and Federal agencies, and an effective process for resolving conflicts. Another workshop sponsored by NOAA in Glen Cove, NY, brought together Federal, State, and local agencies to support implementation of a community-based waterfront revitalization and brownfields redevelopment initiative. To date, Glen Cove has leveraged over $40 million in public and private investment to support the clean up and redevelopment of 214 acres on Long Island Sound. The project won a Coastal America 2003 Partnership Award.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: States have accounting systems that fall under self audit provisions of OMB. NOAA conducts an annual financial and performance audits, as well as an annual report and audit on loan repayment balances within the CZM Fund.

Evidence: NOAA Financial Assistance Awards - Standard Terms and Conditions

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: Work is underway to identify appropriate and meaningful indicators for the program. A 1997 Inspector General's program evaluation made management recommendations to NOAA for improving the effectiveness of the CZM and NERRS programs, particularly with regard to coordinating technical information and research with NOAA toward the needs of State coastal management efforts. NOAA took action to address the report's recommendations. A 2002 NOAA Program Review made recommendations to improve grants management within the agency. NOAA has taken steps to address these recommendations.

Evidence: Quarterly reports to Congress on NOAA's progress toward developing a performance management system for the Coastal Zone Management Act; 1997 Department of Commerce Inspector General program evaluation report on NOAA's implementation of the CZM and NERRS programs. NOAA Program Review Recommendations, 2002; FY 2002 assessment of OCRM's performance in reviewing financial assistance applications. Steps taken to address the Program Review Recommendations include additional training and reporting on grant processing timeframes.

Does the program have oversight practices that provide sufficient knowledge of grantee activities?

Explanation: NOAA employs program specialists to oversee State programs, negotiate tasks to be performed under cooperative agreements, and to monitor State progress in achieving those tasks. States keep NOS/OCRM informed of their activities with CZMA funds through periodic reports and semi-annual performance reports required by the terms of the grant. Program specialists work with their State CZM and Reserve programs on a regular basis. As part of periodic evaluations of State programs and National Estuarine Research Reserves, NOAA performs site visits to each coastal State or NERR and meets with agency staff, other agencies, the public and interested parties.

Evidence: State performance reports and work-products; regional meetings/workshops; program evaluation site visits and finding documents.

Does the program collect grantee performance data on an annual basis and make it available to the public in a transparent and meaningful manner?

Explanation: NOAA collects performance information and work-products through semi-annual reports that state grantees prepare and submit to NOAA. These documents are available for public review upon request. However, there is little useful performance information that is readily available to the public.

Evidence: State performance reports and work-products; final program evaluation documents.

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term outcome performance goals?

Explanation: As noted earlier, to date, long-term performance goals have been largely process-oriented. Program outcomes exist primarily as anecdotal information. Long-term outcome goals are currently being developed and will be reported as part of a national performance measurement system.

Evidence: Annual agency budget, performance plan and audit documents provide information on progress in meeting current, process-oriented long-term performance goals. Progress in developing a more out-come oriented National Performance Measurement Systems for the CZMA is addressed in FY 2002 and FY 2003 quarterly reports to Congress.

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: Current annual goals are process-oriented and do not adequately demonstrate progress in achieving program goals.

Evidence: Annual agency budget, performance plan, and audit documents provide information on progress in meeting current, process-oriented annual performance goals. Progress in developing a more out-come oriented National Performance Measurement Systems for the CZMA is addressed in FY 2002 and FY 2003 quarterly reports to Congress.

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program performance goals each year?

Explanation: At the national level, funding to administer the program has not kept pace with inflationary costs, the addition of new State programs, and increases in administrative costs. This has required the program office to perform more work with fewer resources. However, without outcome measures, there is no evidence to demonstrate that the program has been able to maintain or increase progress in meeting performance goals at flat funding levels.

Evidence:  

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., that have similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: The Federal/State partnership of the CZM program is a unique approach to coastal management and research. However, to the extent that other programs do exist that pursue management and research goals in coastal and estuarine areas, potential comparisons may be informative. Due to the lack of performance information there is no evidence that the CZMA programs compare favorably to other programs with similar purposes and goals.

Evidence:  

Do independent and quality evaluations of this program indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: A 1999 study on the Effectiveness of Coastal Zone Management in the United States, led by Marc Herschman, concluded that "state CZM programs are effectively implementing the five CZMA objectives examined". The study was based on an assessment of policies, processes and tools used, as well as limited outcome data and case examples where available. A 1991 study evaluating the CZM program concluded "that the states which have chosen to participate in the program have seen vast improvement in many aspects of management of their coastlines, in both economic and non-economic terms" and that these benefits "have a direct relationship with federal CZMA expenditures".

Evidence: "The US Coastal Management Effectiveness Study" Herschman, et al., Coastal Management Journal, Volume 27, Numbers 2-3, April-September 1999; "Evaluation of the National Coastal Zone Management Program", UNC-Center for Urban and Regional Studies, February 1991.