MINUTES
October 17, 2001
**PLEASE NOTE:
A TRANSCRIPT OF THIS MEETING CAN BE INSPECTED AT THE OFFICE OF RIVER BASIN
COOPERATION, COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, 15TH
FLOOR, RACHEL CARSON STATE OFFICE BUILDING, HARRISBURG, PA
717-772-4785**
This
special meeting of the Coastal Zone Advisory Committee was called to order
by Jim Tabor (Tabor) at
10:05 a.m.
The
following were in attendance:
Julia
Morton – Governor’s Office of Policy
Meredith
Bland – NOAA, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
Irene
Brooks – PA DEP, Office for River Basin Cooperation
Khervin
Smith – PA DEP, Bureau of Watershed Management
Joe
Sieber – PA DEP, Office of Policy
Kelly
Burch – PA DEP, Northwest Region
Don
Gephart – PA DCNR, Southeast Region
Roland
Bergner – PA Game Commission
Greg
Schrum – PA DCNR, Central Office
Richard
Mulfinger – PA Fish and Boat Commission
Angela
Watson – PENNDOT
Christopher
Linn – Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission
Forsyth
Kineon – Delaware River Basin Commission
Jim
Tabor – PA DEP, Coastal Zone Management Program
Shamus
Malone – PA DEP, Coastal Zone Management Program
Greg
Williams – PA DEP, Coastal Zone Management Program
Don
Benczkowski – PA DEP, Coastal Zone Management Program
Scott
Pletcher – PA DEP, Coastal Zone Management Program
Jim
Tabor gave a brief overview of the meeting agenda.
Tabor said Doug Brennan’s presentation of the Environmental
Futures Planning Process would be postponed to another meeting.
Additional items added to the meeting agenda included committee approvals
of criteria for the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Program and the project that
Coastal wants to fund this year out of the Coastal Nonpoint Program.
Jim Tabor asked for discussion of Standardizing Selection Criteria for State and Local Projects. He said that at the last meeting (August 15, 2001) there was discussion of whether the advisory committee should take control of the selection process so as to have a single process that would involve both coastal zones and thereby eliminate the steering committees from going through the process for local projects. Khervin Smith (Smith) indicated that what was discussed was that the steering committees would continue to do their own selection criteria but that the advisory committee would review that at advisory committee meetings. Roland Bergner (Bergner) agreed that this had been the discussion. Smith moved that the advisory committee review the recommendations of the two steering committees for consistency with the state program goals and objectives and selection of local projects. Bergner seconded the motion.
Discussion: Joe Sieber (Sieber) asked if the motion meant that steering committees put together lists of projects and then come to the advisory committee to rank them in accordance with Coastal Zone Management (CZM) policies. Tabor said that, no, we would only be reviewing their criteria and re-ranking how that criteria is established. Smith indicated that he didn’t think that was what his motion said. Tabor said that the issue is whether the steering committees should still develop criteria or whether it should all be done at the advisory committee level. Smith then asked that his motion be withdrawn.
Following this, there was general discussion about the FLAG ball field project in Erie. Bergner said that maybe the advisory committee should just review the criteria that the steering committee develops. Tabor said that this was acceptable also. Smith then said that he thought that a review process was what he had moved for originally and that this would give the local steering committees an idea of how they can develop local criteria—giving them the criteria beforehand so that they would have a proper understanding of what was and was not eligible for funding. Julia Morton (Morton) then said that the issue with the ball field was that it did qualify for funding and that the advisory committee wanted to re-establish some of those criteria, give some guidelines that all projects would be held up to. She also indicated that with the ball field situation, the problem could have been avoided if the criteria were defined better, and that this was the purpose of the new process. Christopher Linn (Linn) agreed and said that with the ball field, there was to be construction of backstops and field improvements; construction that really didn’t have a strong link to the overall goals of the Coastal Zone Management Program. Tabor said that NOAA—Meredith Bland’s (Bland) office—had denied the ball field request for funding based on 306(a) guidance. He said that they were also denying the Eddystone Borough Jogging Trail. Morton then said that the 306 (a) needs to be part of the criteria so the communities don’t go through the expense to submit a project for consideration if they are going to be denied under it, unless there is some way to change 306(a) requirements. Tabor said that 306 (a) is federal guidelines and that the federal Office of Coastal Resource Management (OCRM) is becoming more involved in ensuring 306 (a) projects follow the federal guidelines. He said that in prior years, the federal government was much more lenient than it is now. Morton then said that it would thus make more sense now for the advisory committee to follow the 306 (a) guidelines in developing selection criteria. Irene Brooks (Brooks) asked if the steering committees are currently using a checklist now. Tabor replied that the current system provides for project application acceptance if it is recreational and lies within the Coastal Zone. Greg Williams (Williams) then said that the way the system works is that the advisory committee meets—once a year—and approves projects. At that same meeting they also revise the “advisory committee selection criteria.” Those criteria are for state projects. He said that these state project criteria are distributed to both steering committees. Then the steering committees modify those as they wish for their local projects. So, in the end, we wind up with three different selection criteria: Erie local selection criteria, Delaware local selection criteria, and state selection criteria. Brooks said that under that situation, if two projects were turned down, something was wrong. Williams replied to this by saying that this new situation is difficult because those ball field and Eddystone jogging trail type projects were approved by OCRM last year. Tabor agreed and said that it is the interpretation of the 306A guidance that NOAA has now made. Don Gephart (Gephart) asked if there wasn’t a difference between eligibility and selection criteria and that all selection criteria should meet eligibility requirements and that 306 (a) would be an eligibility requirement, not a selection criterion. Thus, the project would have to meet eligibility before even getting to the selection process. Tabor said that he was correct and that CZM is doing this now—ensuring projects meet eligibility before even being sent to the steering committees to act on. He said that we are getting direction, in writing, from the OCRM director’s office. The director will sign a letter telling CZM exactly what we can’t fund. He said that first, criteria have to follow one of the policy areas in the CZM program. That is the eligibility criteria. Second, there is certain guidance dealing with 306 (a) for construction projects—that is the eligibility criteria we will incorporate.
Jim Tabor then asked for a motion to develop selection criteria for projects to give to each steering committee to guide them in developing the local project criteria. Smith moved “that the advisory committee develop the selection criteria for projects that would meet the eligibility requirements as set forth by 306 (a) guidance and state goals and objectives, that would be used by the steering committees in setting the rank of the local projects.” No second of the motion was made.
Discussion: Don Benczkowski (Benczkowski) asked if the motion would be retroactive to the decision that was made by the 2001 steering committee. Tabor indicated that it would only start to apply to 2002 project applications. Morton asked what would be done for state projects, given that the motion concerned local projects. Smith indicated that the Advisory Committee would follow the same criteria. Tabor asked Smith if the motion says that the steering committees would not be involved in coming up with their own criteria and he answered in the affirmative. Morton asked if the motion means that the Advisory Committee would set the criteria for the steering committees and if this would be consistent with the state criteria so that it would be uniform and clear for everybody. Smith said that this was correct. Linn then asked Smith if the steering committees would still run the projects based on the criteria the Advisory Committee set. Smith said that this was correct. The motion passed.
The next item brought before the committee by Jim Tabor was the development of selection criteria for the Great Lakes Restoration Fund. He indicated that the eligibility requirements—listed—basically came out of the excerpts of the conference report. Tabor said that proposals funded under the program should be consistent with a state’s approved coastal zone management under 306 of the Coastal Management Act. Restoration projects eligible for funding would include contaminated site clean up, stormwater controls, wetland restoration, acquisition of greenways, buffers, and other projects designed to control polluted runoff and protect and restore coastal resources. Other eligibility requirements would be that construction and acquisition projects would have to meet 306 (a) requirements. This would be the same as the CZM program. Eligible recipients would be state agencies, local governments, regional agencies, and registered non-profit organizations. Tabor then asked if there were any questions on the eligibility requirements. Williams asked if there was some discussion as to a requirement that non-profit organizations would have to be sponsored in some way by local government. Bland said that there was. Williams asked whether this was implemented. Bland said that she did not know where it stood at the present time but that as far as she knew, it applied to any non-profit organization. Williams then said that, as it stood now, a non-profit organization could not be an eligible recipient. Bland agreed but said that NOAA was thinking about having the definition retyped. She then agreed with Williams that this was not settled. She said that most likely it will only be non-profits but that there was some discussion about having it be a non-profit that was somehow connected to local government and not a straight non-profit. Tabor asked Bland if “connected with local government” meant an endorsement from the local government concerning the project. She said that she thought so, but would check with John King who is primarily handling all of the criteria. Gephart then asked Bland if what she was saying was that if the non-profits are registered and pre-approved, then the application would already have approval. Tabor then asked her if he should change it to registered and pre-approved. Bland said that this was fine.
Shamus Malone (Malone) asked Bland how far along were the guidelines for the criteria for the grant program. Bland said she did not know but that they were stalled-out for some reason and that they hadn’t really heard anything. Malone then asked if there had been a shift in Congress’s priority to not go along with this grant or if the grant had been appropriated. Bland said she was not aware of any shift or appropriation. Tabor then said that he thought the announcement in the federal register was basically the guidance and asked her if additional guidance was coming out. Bland said that this hasn’t happened yet and that whenever they get anything on the program they are told it isn’t quite final. Tabor then asked if CZM was supposed to wait or move ahead. Bland said to move ahead---she was not sure how long it was going to be, but she didn’t see any big changes.
Kelly Burch (Burch) asked if the eligibility requirement for non-profits would exclude local watershed groups that DEP would be supporting with Growing Greener funds and some other means that aren’t registered—501 (c) (3) non-profit organizations. Williams said that what most of them do is go ahead and get registered, that there is nothing to it---you just ask the IRS to do that and they say yes, it’s easy. Gephart said that they have to be 501 ( c ) (3) registered anyway---it’s a requirement in the legislation.
Jim Tabor then asked if anyone had any additional items they wanted to include in the selection criteria. Kurt Carr (Carr) then asked about the wetland restoration goal, wondering if it wasn’t already a state bill. He thought that maybe a goal would be historic value of the coastal zone. Smith said that wetlands was one of the coastal zone national policies. Carr asked why then it should be repeated. Tabor said that first the Committee has to further state goals and objectives and then spin off from there and include projects that can be viewed as furthering restorations. Sieber asked if by saying state goals and objectives you are considering all state agencies. Tabor said that he was talking about the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s goals and objectives. Sieber asked if there is a book that says what all the policies and objectives are. Tabor said it was what the push is right now for watershed management, it’s the hot thing. Burch said that money has been appropriated for contaminated site clean up and stormwater control. He asked why those are not spelled out in the selection criteria for being under state goals and objectives or is the Committee looking at Act 2 to support that type of activity. Tabor said he was not implying it couldn’t be funded, just that he set up the criteria and strictly for discussion, he put forth the top three. He said that if the Committee wants to add to them, they could. Or if they want to change the order, they can do that too. It is the Committee’s call. Carr then said that he was getting the sense that all the Committee needs to do is put list projects, which further the Commonwealth’s goals and objectives and strike the other two goals. He said that was why he came---because the Historical and Museum Commission would want him to put some type of statement in the criteria about preservation. He said that he was pretty sure that Act 2 is a major priority to the Department right now. He said that watershed is another priority that is high. He said that all those things do incorporate the later two goals and objectives. He said the Committee should think what they would be saying---that watersheds are supposed to have the goal of contributing to wetland restoration as well as push for greenways and buffers throughout the area. Tabor then asked Carr if what he wanted was to not have the last two goals and objectives, just have projects furthering state goals and objectives and leave it at that. Carr said yes, that was what he wanted. Sieber then asked if there was anything more definitive, like the Commonwealth Futures program or something else that indicates what the hot items are for Pennsylvania. He said that watershed and greenways were the two things DEP would be really trying to push. He asked if anyone knew anything about restoration.
Morton said that each agency has policies and objectives that they adopted and they ask her office (Governor’s Policy Office) to make sure those goals and objectives are consistent with the administration. She said that DEP’s management should know what the goals are for the Department when it comes to environmental protection; the Transportation Department has their goals and objectives and DEP has theirs. She said that these may change from year to year because the agencies try to re-do them. She said the Department and the state have to come back in and change some of their goals and objectives to deal with the current crisis. So these goals are not in stone, but they are there every year. She said that the state has a big push for energy, that is a big policy. In answering Sieber’s previous question, she said she was not necessarily aware of any one book with all of the state’s goals. She said she represents infrastructure, environment and energy and she knows that all those agencies that have these do have their goals and objectives set. She said that with their funding priorities and legislative priorities the agencies are supposed to go back and see if these furthers the selections of their goals. She said that they need to ask if these will promote greenways, protect farmland, will it protect our water. She said that everything the departments do will require going back and associating with these goals. She summarized her statement by saying that furthering the Commonwealth’s goals and objectives could be an accurate statement for the selection committee. She said that some might not know and that it could be very confusing to someone not knowing what it might be. Malone said that this was nebulous, that it could make more people eligible, basically. Morton said that each agency has very defined goals and objectives, but getting these to what the selection committee or the state committee would need might be a little more difficult. Tabor said that it will come down to projects furthering state goals and objectives, and then the agency would have to look at eligibility requirements dealing with site clean-up. He said that would be the basis for those project’s state goals and objectives. He then said that the Committee could finish the discussion and just stay with the projects furthering state goals and objectives dealing in those particular areas. He then asked for a motion to limit the criteria to projects furthering state goals and objectives. Bergner then said you could expand if you wanted to, but if you wanted to address that in the conference report, it spells out some of these objectives. Tabor then said that was one reason why he listed acquisition of greenways and buffers and wetland restoration---because that’s two of the eligibility requirements. Bergner then said it mentions that up at the top. Angela Watson (Watson) asked if the Committee could prioritize what is up at the top since it is already listed. She said that if the Committee decided what the order is, we would be more likely to look at contaminated site clean-ups before looking at wetland restoration. Burch said that the Committee already established a ranking order by having the two goals listed below state projects. Tabor said that this was correct, these were the two CZM was most interested in. Watson then asked if the Committee just further includes the other ones. Tabor said that he thought the Committee could add them, add contaminated site clean up and stormwater control to the list. Carr complained that the Committee was adding them to the list of requirements and then taking them away here. Tabor said that this is what the Committee seems to want. Carr then said that each agency has a long list that enhances coastal resources and archeological resources and that there was some thought on this (from what the conference report says) p.59. He said then the local committees can decide these things.
Khervin Smith suggested that the language read: Projects for the Commonwealth goals and objectives, as determined to be eligible under 306 (a) requirements. Gephart then asked if the Committee was discussing criteria of eligibility or criteria of rating and ranking, there was a big difference. Tabor said the Committee was discussing the criteria of ranking. Gephart then asked why the Committee was talking about eligibility---eligibility already being done at the point of rating and ranking. Smith said it was to distinguish for clarification purposes, once that project comes in. He said, if you’re eligible, you’re going to be coming underneath the criteria of 306 (a), which is going to establish what type of criteria you can fall under. Gephart then said he thought eligibility means---are you eligible to apply. Tabor replied that this was a given. Gephart said that when you get to selection and rating and ranking, you are talking about what is eligible and what’s the most important of the eligible items. Smith replied that eligibility he was talking about was for those projects that meet Commonwealth’s goals and objectives. Gephart said that if he was an applicant and heard that, he wouldn’t know how to fill out the application; he wouldn’t know what the state goals and objectives would be. Smith said that if you know what the eligibility requirements are, you know what the goals and objectives are. He said you are going to have to be eligible to come in. Gephart then said possibly he was confused, but that to be eligible is one thing, to be rated and ranked is a completely different thing. He said you can have four items, wetlands, contaminated clean-up, stormwater controls, and acquisition as eligible projects. He asked which of those four is the criteria that you want to encourage the most, which would be rating and ranking criteria. Williams said that he thought it came down to when the conference report came out with these eligibility requirements. He said that they are actually doing is stating what they think should be the selection criteria because it lists several things---contaminated site clean-ups, stormwater controls, wetland restoration, acquisition of greenways and buffers, and pointedly, other projects designed to control polluted runoff and protect and restore coastal resources. He said that the last item—other projects—includes all sorts of things. He said that what the conference report is saying is that lots of things are eligible. He said that these listed things lose their meaning because they all fall under the last item. He said, thus, the things they list there are really what they are saying should be the selection criteria. Smith said yes, they were prioritizing. Willliams agreed, and said that they shouldn’t be in eligibility requirements, eligibility requirements really should be projects designed to control polluted runoff and protect and restore coastal resources. He said these other things, contaminated site clean-up, stormwater control, wetland restoration, acquisition of greenways and buffers, really ought to be selection criteria. He said that if he worked for the federal government, that is what he would have done.
Irene Brooks then said that having sat through similar discussions with other groups, it seems that the selection criteria becomes a topic if you have goals and coastal management has goals. She asked, what are your goals and objectives. She said that selection criteria needs to mirror that, so that your goals and objectives are attained in the selection. She said that at the same time, some of the other groups she has been on, their selection criteria meet some other criteria for selection after they are eligible. She said, then, if it’s impacting groundwater and people are getting sick, that project elevates to a higher level than beautification. She said that in these groups, that is how they go through their selection---what is the immediate impact. She said if the goal is to clean up and make it healthy, then, of course, anything that impacts that is number one. She said whether our goals are beautification or enhancement, the selection criteria needs to reflect what your goals are, or you won’t ever have a match, and your criteria won’t reflect your goals. She said another group that she sits on (like water), when they priortize, they sit there and ask if there is an impact to the community with water. She said they ask if people are getting sick because of the water. She said that if people are getting sick, then that project elevates in stature over some that is not, perhaps. She said that with selection criteria, you need to find out what your goals are, what is CZM trying to do with their funding in the community and then rank them, something along those lines.
Jim Tabor then said that with this funding source, what CZM is recommending, is the acquisition of greenways and buffers, and wetland restoration. He said that is what CZM wants to do. Brooks then said that these need to be the projects that are elevated, versus a ball field for somebody. She said CZM’s criteria would be what we are trying to achieve, what do we want, and then that needs to be reflected. Tabor then said that the criteria is a listing of all the eligible projects that CZM could find. He said that then they are set in order. He said the Committee can set all these up in priority and when the projects come in, we ride with our priority and then make a determination of what should be funded and what shouldn’t. Morton agreed. She said that if you get four projects applying, and one happens to fit into the number one priority, and assuming you only have enough money for one, you have determined which one wins because of the priority.
Jim Tabor then asked the Committee how they would like these prioritized. He asked what should be the third priority, contaminated site clean up? Carr indicated that he didn’t agree with this procedure. He said he thought that what the conference report was suggesting was better. He said the report indicates coastal resources and he thought that was very important. He said there are all kinds of coastal resources and he said that he didn’t want it at the very bottom of the criteria list. He said that he certainly wouldn’t want greenways built over historic resources and cause destruction of those resources. He said he didn’t think the Committee could have one overriding goal. He said that these are actually specific goals because of the wording---protect, enhance, manage coastal resources in the coastal zone. He emphasized---All resources! He said that was what he assumed the overall goal was here. He said the overall goal was not to provide greenways and buffers. He said, it is, but that wasn’t the only thing the Committee was supposed to be doing. He said that isn’t even the top thing. Tabor then said that this program was not a CZM program. He said there is separate funding source altogether. He said it is just housed under CZM because it is easier for NOAA to distribute the money if it’s done that way because it’s a one-time project.
He said it’s a one-time, one-year funding; $1.8 million coming to Pennsylvania. Carr then said he had spoken his recommendation to the Committee and he said if they were going to make a decision, that was fine. He said he just wanted the issue up there. Tabor then said that he has a listing based on facts that he has gotten about the projects that CZM would like to be funded. He said one of them is greenways and buffers which would go to the top of the list. He said second is wetlands restoration because that is a big part of the CZM project. Talking to Carr, he said that if he (Carr) thought that restoring coastal resources was important, the Committee could put that down as number three. He then asked Carr if, in the alternate, he would like to have it as number one? Carr answered yes and said he was being cornered by the question, he would have to respond that he wanted it as number one. He said that he was in no position to evaluate the other programs, he could only evaluate his own. He said that was why he preferred that the Committee left the criteria open a little more. Tabor asked Carr if what he was saying was that when the Committee comes back to review the projects it should look at each one on its own merit? Tabor said we will likely be here for three days if the Committee does it that way. Carr responded that when it comes to actual projects, as in the past, some of them go over the top very quickly---as the Committee just did for Erie when those projects were selected. He said that at that particular meeting there were clearly some that were really good, and clearly some that were really bad, regardless of the resources they were trying to protect or do something with. He said that, again, that is why he would prefer to keep it open. He said that if the rest of the Committee disagrees, that is fine also, that is the way things work. Tabor said that it does not matter to him. He said that if the criteria meets the state goals and objectives and then every project is voted on face value, that is ok with him.
Roland Bergner asked about the bottom line of the criteria---if it was to protect and restore coastal resources? Williams said that it depends on how you read that. Linn said that we do not even know what coastal resources are. Smith said that the Committee can spell out and expand on those but that the main thing is that projects be based on the protection and restoration of coastal resources, and then you expand. Williams said that it actually depends on how you are looking at it, that it is all one phrase. He quoted: “Other projects designed to control polluted runoff and protect and restore coastal resources.” He said that a project will really have to do all three. Smith answered Williams, saying that a project has to protect or restore something. Williams then said that a project must also be designed to control polluted runoff. He said that when you look at the language of the conference report, it doesn’t “or.” Williams said that the language could say: “and other projects designed to control polluted runoff or protect, or restore coastal resources” but that is not what it says. He quoted the language again: “Other projects designed to control polluted runoff and protect, and restore coastal resources.” He said that this indicates to him that the project must do all three things. Carr then asked what are the three things. Williams responded that they were to control polluted runoff (and have to be an NPDES project), protect, and restore. Bergner said that maybe the Committee should expand on those three areas.
Jim Tabor said that the Committee had to come to a closure on the discussion. He said there was a motion and a second. Williams said to leave the two and add “as determined to be eligible under the 306 (a) requirements. Smith said that the problem with that was that it was kind of vague. Carr said but that was what it is. He said there was nothing wrong with maintaining it as vague, if that is what the Committee wants. Tabor then said the motion was for projects furthering state goals and objectives as to be determined to be eligible under 306 (a). He asked for a second, which was given by Brooks. The motion was approved.
Don Benczkowski asked if the money could be used on private property. Tabor indicated that, no, it could not. Benczkowski then asked if a non-profit organization requests funding, like the watershed groups, could they be eligible. Tabor said it has to be public land. Benczkowski argued that watershed groups would be non-profit, they work on private property. Tabor said that Section 306 (a) says public land. Benczkowski then asked if it could be rights-of-way. Tabor said it can’t be any right-of-way or leases. He said it has to be in the public for at least 30 years. Burch said that the Committee needs to keep in mind that each program brings their own parochial interest to the table. He said the Secretary has kind of spoken, and these are going to be the two things that the Committee will look at first. He said that this is a one-time bill. He said other projects will come in but that what the Committee agreed to has to be the focus, assuming that they are the projects that do come in. Tabor agreed and said that the Committee’s decision will be the basis of it, if it’s a good project. He said that is the criteria. He said that the better projects will be funded first. Morton asked if this was a one-time project, if it will not be reoccurring every year. Tabor responded that it was one-time funding, that the Appropriations Committee added it. Linn asked if the money goes through the steering committee up in the Lake Erie coastal zone. He said he wanted to get the process down. Tabor said, no, the steering committee will be involved in the sense that they will just work the projects. Linn then asked if the Advisory Committee will get the projects. Tabor said, yes, the Committee will get the projects to set the criteria and the priorities. Linn then asked when that might occur. Tabor said he had a schedule worked up, but that the Advisory Committee will be meeting at the end of January to rank the projects. He said that everything will happen before the end of January. He said there will be an announcement of this sent to the Committee.
The next item on the agenda was the PA CZM 2002 Selection Criteria. Jim Tabor said that this was basically what we had last year. He asked if there were any suggestions on keeping them or if they should be continued. Forsyth Kineon (Kineon) asked about the last criteria (projects implementing previously CZM funded plans or studies) and wondered about that because EPA projects actually do the opposite, not fund projects that have been previously funded. She said she guessed it was to get funding out to different sources. Tabor said the reason for that is that, for example, when a project comes in for a design phase, they can apply the next year to follow through with the implementation. He said that this provision ensures that that design money is not wasted. Tabor then asked if there were any suggestions for changes, or, if not, the Committee could go with the same ones for another year. Mulfinger moved to keep the criteria for another year. Bergner seconded the motion and it was approved.
The next item on the agenda was under Other Business. Jim Tabor said that we have the Coastal Non-point Criteria and also the Coastal Non-point Project. He said the criteria was sent out a week or so ago. He said the first section spells out the eligibility and the second part is the criteria. He said this was based on our approved plan that CZM submitted to NOAA last July. He said CZM was involved in a 15-year strategy, which will begin shortly. He indicated that CZM does have a 5-year plan and the criteria is based on that plan. He says that this will set the stage for funding for 2002. Morton asked if a project that meets these criteria have to meet all of them or one or two of them in order to be eligible. Tabor said that you just need one. Morton asked if there was any priority. Tabor said no because the program is for a small amount of funds, not like the CZM program or Great Lakes Restoration. Morton then asked about the exclusions in #1. She was curious why some types of projects would be excluded---a creek here or a watershed there. She said it is in bullet point #1- Projects that located within the boundaries of the Coastal Non-point Program Management Area. She asked why there was an exception in there and what was the reasoning for it. Tabor said that that wasn’t included as the boundary under the program itself. He said CZM was suggested a boundary and it went with that boundary. He said it does not include Christiana Watershed because that flows into the Delaware and the Conneaut flows into the Ohio. Tabor then asked for a motion to accept the criteria. Carr so moved. It was seconded by Mulfinger. Tabor asked for discussion. Gephart asked if the exclusions are 306 (a) type exclusions. Kineon said that she thought they were 6217 exclusions as opposed to 306 (a). Gephart asked if they were legislative exclusions. Benczkowski asked about Conneaut Creek, saying that since the state was looking at non-point source pollution and since the Conneaut flows through Pennsylvania, shouldn’t the Committee take an active role keeping that on the list. He says that it does flow into Ohio but that water will eventually end up on the Erie County shoreline. Tabor said it has to be waters draining into Pennsylvania coastal waters. He said that is the criteria and so Conneaut is excluded. Benczkowski then asked about Twenty Mile Creek, which flows maybe ¾ of a mile into Pennsylvania, but the vast majority of the watershed is in New York state. He wanted to know if that should be eliminated too. Tabor said that Twenty Mile Creek was included. Malone said that that criteria was set up when they developed the CZM program and designated the coastal zone boundary. The motion was approved.
Jim Tabor then said that the last item on the agenda was submitted by Pat Pingel. It concerned a project to be funded out of this fiscal year’s grant money. The project will complete all the funding for the 6217 pot of money. He said the project will be split into two separate projects. He said it will be funded out of the Clean Water Initiative, which comes under the Section 309 program. He said this includes $47,000, plus the remaining $73,000 out of Coastal Non-point, giving CZM $118,000. He said the project meets the proposed criteria and supports the 5-year implementation plan and the 15-year strategy for the Coastal Non-point. He thought it was a good project to have indorsed on CZM’s Coastal Non-point program. He said that people in the Bureau of Watershed Management, under the water deputy, deal primarily with Watershed Assessment and Restoration. Malone asked if they have an advisory committee. Tabor said that they just have this committee as an advisory committee, but do not have a steering committee. Malone asked if the Advisory Committee was actually voting on the project. Tabor said yes. Morton said her office brought up a point about the Growing Greener application. She asked if CZM will be providing funding in addition to Growing Greener or will the Growing Greener funds be used as matching. She said the project was submitted to DEP under a Growing Greener application. Tabor said it was a Growing Greener application. He said it was one that didn’t make the funding boundary. Morton then asked if it wasn’t funded for Growing Greener and Tabor said that that was correct, it wasn’t. Malone asked how this was checked, how CZM will know that projects aren’t using Growing Greener money for certain things. Tabor said that CZM checks. He then asked for a motion to approve the project. Bergner so moved and Greg Schrum seconded. The motion was approved.
Jim Tabor then asked if there was any other items that had to go into the record before adjournment. Gephart said that with the Committee’s review process going through the selection criteria, how is CZM addressing Act 67 and 68, Comprehensive Planning. Williams answered that, yes, CZM put it in while it was still a draft in last year’s criteria. He said the other thing is said about our eligibility criteria was a part about being associated with a cooperative or joint municipal planning effort. Tabor said CZM didn’t have one, so it didn’t come into play this year. He said CZM included it in last year’s program and will again this year.
Jim Tabor then thanked everyone and adjourned the meeting at 11:19 AM.