Section 310 - Section A Semi-Annual Performance Report

NOAA Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
FY2009-2010 Performance Progress Report Guidelines
November 2008
Introduction
This document provides Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM) guidance
for the submission of performance progress reports for financial assistance awards under
Sections 306, 306A, 309, and 310 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended
(CZMA). OCRM needs the information contained in performance progress reports to determine
adherence by State, Commonwealth and Territory coastal management programs (coastal
programs) to the terms of financial assistance awards; compliance with grant tasks; adherence to
the approved management program and plan; progress on meeting Section 312 evaluation
necessary actions or program suggestions; and the extent to which the coastal program is
addressing management needs identified in Section 303(2)(A) through (K) of the CZMA.
Under the Federal Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 (CFOA), the files of all federal agencies,
including those of NOAA, have become subject to annual CFOA audit. These audits include a
determination as to whether Federal grant files contain up-to-date financial reports and
performance progress reports from recipients. If grant recipients have not submitted timely
performance progress and/or financial reports as required by the Terms and Conditions of the
award:
ƒ NOAA cannot issue new grant awards,
ƒ NOAA cannot approve post-award actions, and
ƒ NOAA must deny access to funds under all financial assistance awards to that recipient.
The goal of OCRM’s Coastal Programs Division (CPD) and NOAA’s Grants Management
Division (GMD) is to reduce the amount of paperwork required and staff time necessary to
prepare and process performance progress reports while still providing necessary information.

General Reporting Requirements
Reporting frequency: Performance progress reports are divided into three sections: Section A
(status of award tasks), Section B (status of program implementation activities), and Section C
(success stories). For each open financial assistance award, coastal programs are required to
submit performance progress reports on a semi-annual basis beginning from the start date of the
award. Coastal programs must include Section A in every performance progress report and
describe work performed under that award. Sections B and C should only be reported in the
performance progress report for the most recent award and cover work performed under all open
awards. Coastal programs should not submit quarterly performance progress reports. Although
some coastal programs require quarterly performance reports from their sub-awardees and CPD
leaves this decision to the coastal program, please do not send these quarterly reports under
separate cover to CPD. Instead, summarize sub-awardees’ quarterly reports in the semiannual
performance progress report.
FY2009-2010 Performance Progress Report Guidance

1

Reporting Deadline: Performance progress reports must be submitted no more than 30 days
after the end of the performance period in order to ensure compliance with NOAA Standard
Terms and Conditions, and to ensure compliance with the CFOA.
Electronic Reporting: All NOAA award recipients are deployed onto NOAA’s online grants
management system known as NOAA Grants Online. Therefore, all coastal programs MUST use
Grants Online to submit their performance progress reports and, to the extent possible,
associated work products as well. As there is only one module in Grants Online for each report,
all sections of the performance progress report and work products must be submitted together.
Also, in Grants Online, performance progress reports are submitted so that they are affiliated
with a specific award. Thus, consolidated reports for all open awards are no longer feasible and
coastal programs must submit a separate performance progress report for each open award.
In the Grants Online Performance Progress Report module, coastal programs can either choose
to copy and paste short reports into the text box provided or attach a Word or PDF file of the
performance progress report. Since the text box provided is small relative to the typical CZM
performance progress report, it is most likely easier to submit the performance progress report as
an attached file. Individual task reports and report sections should be compiled into one
comprehensive file. All work products available in electronic format should also be submitted as
attached files with the performance progress report. Work products should be submitted as
individual files rather than embedded in the performance progress report and the file name
should clearly indicate the task with which they are affiliated. Performance progress reports and
work products can be submitted in a variety of electronic formats, however, Adobe PDF or
Microsoft Word are the most commonly used.
CPD recognizes that it may not be possible to submit all work products electronically (e.g.,
videos, education posters). In these cases, work products can still be submitted in hard copy
directly to the state’s program specialist. Please ensure the product is identified by grant, task
number, and performance period so the report they are associated with is clear. Only ONE copy
is needed. A step-by-step guide to submitting performance progress reports in Grants Online is
in Attachment D.
Last Performance Report: For CZM awards, a comprehensive “final” report, covering all tasks
over the life of the award, is not required. Instead, CPD requires that the last report only cover
open tasks and activities, clearly indicating when they are completed (after which it is no longer
necessary to report on them). GMD has concurred with this decision (ref. Memorandum between
Uravitch and Litton, “Final Performance Report Waiver,” dated 12/28/98). The last performance
progress report is due 30 days after the close of the final performance period and should be
labeled as the last report for that award.
Coastal Zone Management Act Performance Measurement System: Congress directed NOAA
to design and implement a performance measurement system to demonstrate national
effectiveness in meeting the goals of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). The CZMA
Performance Measurement System was developed in cooperation with coastal programs to report
performance measures at the national level. FY2009 will be the first year of full implementation
FY2009-2010 Performance Progress Report Guidance

2

by coastal programs. Annual guidance for the CZMA Performance Measurement System is
issued separately and coastal programs are required to submit performance measure data through
the Coastal Management Portal. Performance measures and financial measures must be reported
annually in the Coastal Management Portal. State-reported contextual measures should be
regularly tracked, but these measures are only required to be reported once every five years in
the Coastal Management Portal. CZMA Performance Measurement System data will be used in
combination with examples of program successes reported in Section C to communicate to
stakeholders, including Congress, the importance of the national CZM Program.
OCRM will continue to work with CZM programs to improve and streamline the performance
measures and data reporting requirements for the CZMA Performance Measurement System. To
support such improvements, coastal programs are encouraged to include a task or sub-task in
their awards related to implementation of the CZMA Performance Measurement System.
Progress and implementation issues can then be reported for that task or sub-task in Section A of
performance progress reports.
Performance Progress Report Title: Please include the following information in a title or on a
cover page of the report:
Performance Progress Report for State Cooperative Agreement No.: NA09NOS419XXXX
for the Period from
to
Performance Progress Report Sections: This guidance document provides descriptions,
examples, and a suggested format for the information that should be submitted in performance
progress reports. Specific inconsistencies between OCRM reporting requirements and state
reporting systems should be resolved by the state program managers and the appropriate CPD
program specialist. Coastal programs are encouraged to make these reports as concise as
possible. Narrative discussions can be particularly brief in cases where attachments (contracts,
work products, meeting minutes, publications, public notices, etc.) provide a clear indication of
progress. Attachments may be reports prepared for internal office purposes, reports prepared by
the coastal program agency, or other statewide reports. Refer to Attachment A for examples.

Section A: Progress and Status of Award Tasks
Section A is reported semi-annually for each open award. Section A describes the status of each
Section 306, 306A (if applicable), 310, and 309 grant task and relevant special award conditions.
The report must be detailed enough to provide OCRM with a clear understanding of what has
been accomplished under each task during the performance period. It must also be informative
enough to provide OCRM with preliminary notice that revisions to a task or the award may be
necessary due to problems encountered during the performance period. However, describing
potential grant changes in the performance progress report does not replace the need to formally
request such changes.

FY2009-2010 Performance Progress Report Guidance

3

Section A should be organized in the following format for each task:
1. Task number and title, as written in the award application.
2. Status of associated special award conditions.
3. Description of task implementation progress (e.g., activities, key meetings held, permits
processed, contracts or work products completed, and summaries of findings for studies).
a. For each 309 task: progress in achieving program changes as identified in the
coastal program’s approved Section 309 Assessment and Strategies document.
4. Status and description of task milestones or outcomes completed. If required work
products, outcomes, or deadlines are not due for a task during the performance period, the
narrative should describe progress in achieving these outcomes.
5. Status of task as either “not started”, “in-progress”, “not on schedule” or “completed”
(including date of completion). If status is either “not started” or “not on schedule”,
please include an explanation and plans to complete task outcomes.

Section B: Status of Section 312 Evaluation Progress, State Permits, Federal
Consistency, and Program Changes
Section B is reported semi-annually and should only be submitted with the performance progress
report for the most recent award. Section B describes the work performed under all open awards
directly related to coastal program implementation regarding: (1) Section 312 Evaluation
Findings; (2) Permit administration, monitoring and enforcement, (3) Federal consistency, and
(4) Program changes. Information reported under these topics should include sufficient detail to
provide a clear understanding of the major activities, problems, controversies, and
accomplishments during the performance period.
In the case of topics 2 and 3, states should submit quantitative information in chart or tabular
form, as well as narratives that briefly describe the most significant aspects of the reporting
elements; example charts are provided in Attachment B. Coastal programs may use existing state
reporting mechanisms to provide the tabular data requested as long as the information that meets
the reporting requirements is provided. When a topic area in Section B is also a grant task (and
therefore reported under Section A), it is not necessary to repeat the same information in Section
B, as long as all the required information is provided. The following provides a more detailed
description of information to be reported under each topic of Section B.

FY2009-2010 Performance Progress Report Guidance

4

Section B.1: Section 312 Evaluation Progress
Section B.1 describes status and progress in meeting any ‘necessary actions’ or ‘program
suggestions’ identified in the most recent Section 312 Evaluation Findings. This section must be
detailed enough to provide OCRM with a clear understanding of what has been accomplished to
meet each necessary action or program suggestion during the performance period. This section
should also provide OCRM with preliminary notice if the coastal program is not on schedule to
meet requirements of the Section 312 evaluation findings. OCRM recognizes that not every
necessary action or program suggestion will have activities to report during every performance
period. If no activity occurred, simply indicate status in the narrative. Section B.1 should be
organized in the following format for each necessary action and program suggestion:
1. Title or summary, including identification as a necessary action or program suggestion
2. Description of progress in meeting requirements of the necessary action or program
suggestion
3. Deadline(s), if established in Section 312 Evaluation Findings
4. Status of completion as either “not started”, “in-progress” “not on schedule” or
“completed” (including date of completion). If status is either “not started” or “not on
schedule”, please include an explanation and plans to address requirements.
Section B.2: Permit Administration, Monitoring, and Enforcement
Section B.2 includes quantitative summary data on the total number and type of coastal programmandated permit applications received, issued, or denied for core programs. This section also
includes a brief description of any major on-going issues; controversial development projects or
permit applications; significant violations detected and their resolution; and other enforcement
actions. You may append news clippings, memos, etc., to support abbreviated summaries for
highly controversial projects. If an item had been discussed in previous reports, please update
this information as necessary.
In addition, describe the CZM agency’s efforts to monitor activities of other state or local
agencies (networked or otherwise); identify accomplishments or problems related to ensuring
agency compliance with the approved CZM program; and where necessary, discuss actions to
bring these agencies into compliance. If a coastal program is unable to provide information for
one or more of these categories, please discuss this with your coastal program specialist.
Section B.3: Federal Consistency
Section B.3 includes both charts and narrative information that describe federal consistency
reviews and activities during the performance period. The narrative report should briefly
describe, in case study format, significant consistency reviews; specific examples of
controversial projects; the type of project modifications required to meet consistency provisions;
and important consistency negotiations during the performance period.
FY2009-2010 Performance Progress Report Guidance

5

The narrative should also report on efforts to improve the consistency review or coordination
process (i.e., to develop regulations, guidelines or other advisory materials). Internal reports, etc.
that address these issues may be attached in lieu of additional narrative in the performance
progress report.
Section B.4: Program Changes
Section B.4 briefly summarizes significant or developing changes to a program’s authorities or
organizational structure that may affect the federally-approved CZM program in order to provide
preliminary notice to CPD of program change activities. Example activities include changes in
CZM or other core program statutes; changes in organization or coordination agreements;
amended regulations; approval of local coastal programs; and designation of special management
areas. Development of any potential new authorities, programs, agreements, etc. for which the
coastal program may seek incorporation should also be discussed and note any plans to submit a
draft or formal program change. If no program change activities have occurred during the
performance period, please include a statement to that effect. This report is not a substitute for a
draft or formal submission to OCRM of such program changes pursuant to 15 CFR 923.80-84.

Section C: Success Stories
Section C is reported semi-annually for accomplishments under any open award and should only
be submitted with the performance progress report for the most recent award. Section C should
include success stories from work performed under any open award or accomplishments of the
coastal program during the performance period. The purpose of Section C is to collect
information on innovative management, technical, and resource protection programs to share
among coastal programs and to cite specific accomplishments under the national CZM program.
OCRM has used examples of success stories in technical assistance bulletins, Congressional
testimony, factsheets, other NOAA documents, and in discussions with other coastal programs.
Section C success stories may also be highlighted in the National CZM Program’s quarterly
newsletter. Examples provided in Section C are extremely beneficial to the National CZM
Program to help demonstrate and communicate effectiveness.
For Section C, coastal programs will submit at least one or more examples of a project or
instance where the coastal program has been successful in addressing coastal management
issues. Coastal programs have considerable flexibility in choosing Section C examples and are
encouraged to use the six focus areas from the CZMA Performance Measurement System:
government coordination, public access, coastal habitat, coastal water quality, coastal hazards,
and coastal community development and coastal dependent uses. Other suggested areas of focus
are the coastal program’s role or state accomplishments in areas such as: federal consistency,
legislative or regulatory improvements, state or regional coordination, and conflict resolution.

FY2009-2010 Performance Progress Report Guidance

6

The narrative for each success story should include:
•
•
•
•
•
•

Identification and description of the coastal resource management issue;
If applicable, a geographic location of the project should be identified including
community name, Congressional district, and other location information;
Description of how the coastal program was involved;
Summary of the accomplishment and outcomes such as improvements in increased
resource protection and institutional relations (e.g., a Memorandum of Agreement with
another agency to ensure that coastal policies are better addressed);
Where possible, quantitative information on the degree of improvement (e.g., acres of
wetlands protected as a result of increasing the state’s monitoring and enforcement
efforts); and
Where possible, CZM federal and matching funds expended and associated state, federal,
and local funds leveraged for the improvement.

It is recommended that each Section C success story be approximately one half to one single
spaced page in length. The description should include enough information that OCRM can use
the report without requesting additional information. Coastal programs can attach any digital
photos, reports, or other work products associated with the success story if a copy is not already
provided through Sections A or B of the performance progress report. Examples of Section C
success stories are provided in Attachment C. Articles about state successes in previous CZM
newsletters are also good examples and can be found at
http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/news/czmnewsletter.html.

OMB Control #0648-0119, expires 02/28/2009. OCRM requires this information to report progress in relation to
projected work schedules and stated objectives. The data will be used to assure compliance. Public reporting
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 27 hours per response, including the time for
reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing
and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of
this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to John King, Chief, Coastal Programs
Division, OCRM, 1305 East-West Hwy., 11th Floor, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910. This report is required under
and is authorized under 15 CFR 24.40. Information submitted will be treated as public records. Notwithstanding
any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for
failure to comply with collection information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, unless
that collection displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.

FY2009-2010 Performance Progress Report Guidance

7

Attachment A
Section A: Section 306, 306A, 310, and 309 Tasks Status
‘STATE’ COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
FY2009 AWARD NA09NOS419xxxx
July 1, 2009 - December 31, 2009 (1st Semi-Annual Report Period)

Task 306-1—Program Administration: No special award conditions.
The two staff funded under this task continued to oversee and implement a number of the
major implementation activities as outlined in our grant. In the fall, contracts were executed for
the local pass-through projects once we received notification via Grants Online that the award
had been approved. The Program also hosted a workshop for potential grant applicants in the
upcoming year in advance of the RFP due date of December 1. Staff reviewed the proposals and
made preliminary selections of eligible projects. These will be forwarded to NOAA in the draft
application due in March. Staff monitored the activities of the state legislature with respect to
bills being considered that could impact the coastal program. Technical reviews were conducted
for two pieces of proposed legislation (described further in our Section B report). The updated
MOA between the Coastal Resources and the Water Quality Divisions was finalized and signed
in December; a copy is included in Attachment 306-1. Staff continued to participate in the state
dredging management workgroup and attended three meetings during the performance period.
Copies of the month-by-month program reports prepared for our Department head are also
included in Attachment 306-1 to provide additional detail regarding staff and program activities.
Task Milestones or Outcomes Completed:
• Local FY2009 Grant Workshop held August 15, 2009
• FY2008 sub-award contracts completed September 1, 2009
• MOA between Coastal Resources and Water Quality Division finalized on December
3, 2009
Task Status: In progress; on track to be completed by June 30, 2010

Task 306-2—Permit Administration and Federal Consistency: No special award conditions.
Staff working under this task is responsible for administering the CZM Program’s three
major permitting programs. During this performance period staff reviewed 84 development
projects. Of these, 12 were major, 11 were local, and 19 were federal actions. A complete
summary of permit and consistency activities can be found in the tables in Section B. Seven
sites were visited to assess potential impacts to wetlands. Staff also conducted six meetings with
applicants to explain the consistency review process. Included in Attachment 306-2 are copies
of significant consistency determinations and water quality certifications, as examples of ongoing project review activities. One appeal was filed during this performance period; a hearing
has yet to be scheduled. Copies of two final decisions for appeals that were issued in this period
FY2009-2010 Performance Progress Report Guidance

8

are also included in the Attachment.
Task Milestones or Outcomes Completed:
• Task outcomes are ongoing
Status: In progress; on track to be completed by June 30, 2010

Task 306-3—Wetland Mitigation Study: No special award conditions.
The final version of the wetland mitigation study entitled “Saltwater Marsh Mitigation in
Silver Bay,” was completed in November and the CZM Program is preparing to release the
results during the next performance period. The next task progress report will include a summary
of major findings from this study. To summarize, the study evaluated the relative success of 15
compensatory wetland mitigation projects performed from 2005-2007 around Silver Bay and
recommended changes to the program’s mitigation criteria and standards and tracking database.
Although the study began late due to heavy rains in the spring, the study team was able to meet
the planned target date for completion of the report. The Program will begin to evaluate the
steps necessary to implement the proposed changes in the next performance period. A copy of
the study is included as Attachment 3.
Task Milestones or Outcomes Completed:
• Saltwater Marsh Mitigation in Silver Bay study completed in November 2009
Status: In progress; on track to be completed by June 30, 2010

Task 306-4—Technical Assistance to Local Governments for Inspection Staff: No special
award conditions.
Contracts were executed for three of the cities identified in our application and they have
begun work. The fourth, Washington, had to be cancelled owing to an inability to come up with
the required match. A request to NOAA to reprogram the approximately $25,000 in federal
funds to a different locality or another task, will be submitted during the next performance
period.
Task Milestones or Outcomes Completed:
• Finalized contracts for 3 of 4 cities targeted by this task
Status: Not on track; Sub-award to one community was not completed and will be
reprogrammed to a different locality to accomplish task outcomes

FY2009-2010 Performance Progress Report Guidance

9

Task 306A-1—Acorn Park Fishing Pier: Special award condition met: Title Opinion and
Checklist submitted October 10, 2009.
This task has fallen 3 months behind schedule as the recipient was restricted from starting
work on the project because they had not submitted a title opinion and project checklist. These
documents were received in October and forwarded to OCRM immediately. The signed
checklist was received from OCRM in November. The recipient anticipates being able compress
the construction schedule so as to still complete the project within the original 18-month award
period.
Task Milestones or Outcomes Completed:
• Finalized contract with city
Status: Not on schedule; contract with sub-awardees has been finalized with a
compressed construction schedule for completion by June 30, 2010

Task 309-1—Development of New Setback Regulations: No special award conditions.
Work is progressing on schedule for this task, which relates to the Sect. 309 Hazards
strategy to establish new setback regulations for development in beach and dune habitat. The
interagency workgroup met twice during the performance period; the second time to finally
come to agreement on the new proposed setback distance. Consensus was reached in part based
on the Division’s completion of the new erosion rate calculations and shoreline change maps.
Once a decision was made, staff was able to finalize the proposed rule language. The language
will be presented to the Commission for consideration at their next quarterly meeting in March.
Barring any complications, the rules should be adopted by fall 2010, as planned. Subsequent to
that, the rules will be submitted to NOAA as a routine program change. A copy of the draft rules
highlighting the revisions is included as Attachment 4.
Task Milestones or Outcomes Completed:
• Held 2 interagency workgroup meetings
• Issued new erosion rate and shoreline change maps
• Completed draft rules for interagency comments
Status: In progress; on schedule for completion by June 30, 2010

FY2009-2010 Performance Progress Report Guidance

10

Attachment B
Section B: Status of Section 312 Evaluation Progress, State Permits, Federal
Consistency, and Program Changes
Section B:
FY2009 AWARD NA09NOS419xxxx
FY2008 AWARD NA08NOS419xxxx
July 1, 2009 - December 31, 2009

B.1: Status of Section 312 Evaluation Progress
Necessary Action: Routine Program Changes: Program must submit all outstanding
program changes within six months of receipt of final evaluation findings issued on
October 15, 2008. Following submission of all outstanding program changes, program
must work with their CPD program specialist to develop a schedule for submitting future
program changes on a regular basis. Program will provide semi-annual updates to
OCRM describing progress in addressing this Necessary Action”.
Program has established a workgroup to hold regular meetings to review RPC needs
and develop regular requests. Staff will use the RPC reporting section provided within
Section B reports to submit a semi-annual RPC approval request. Beginning with the next
Section B report, all RPCs for the performance period will be formally submitted to
OCRM. On Dec. 11, 2009, staff submitted to OCRM a draft RPC document for comment
and review to ensure that the product meets expectations.
Deadline: June 11, 2010
Status: In progress; on schedule to meet deadline

Section B.2: Permit Administration, Monitoring, and Enforcement
Permit Administration: The coastal program did not receive any unusual or
controversial permit applications during the performance period. A summary of the total
permits filed, issued, and denied are categorized by core coastal program and attached in
Chart #1.
Monitoring State Consistency: The mitigation workgroup for state and local agencies
held its annual mitigation review meeting on September 15, 2009. During the meeting,
agencies reviewed state and local tidal wetland and beach/dune permits issued with
mitigation requirements for adherence with coastal program policies. The workgroup
found that all mitigation requirements adhered to coastal program policies. However, the
workgroup agreed to update technical guidance related to “in-kind” mitigation.

FY2009-2010 Performance Progress Report Guidance

11

Enforcement: The program obtained a favorable ruling regarding its authority to order
the removal of houses on the public beach under the State Open Beaches Act (OBA),
NAT. RES. CODE §§ 61.001-.026, and state law authorizing removal orders for
unauthorized structures on state-owned submerged land, NAT. RES. CODE §§
11.012(c), 11.041, 11.077, 51.302.
Severance v. State Commissioner, Cause No. 4:06-CV-2467, U.S. District Court,
Southern District of State. Person x, a California resident, purchased three houses in
‘city’that were on the public beach. Through the Pacific Legal Foundation, a property
rights activist group, person x filed a federal lawsuit against the state commissioner in his
official capacity, claiming that the possibility of enforcement of the Open Beaches Act
through litigation for removal violated their constitutional rights. Person x argued that the
imposition of the “rolling beach easement” which put the house on the beach is a
governmental taking of property for public use without just compensation. In May 2007,
United States District Judge granted the state’s motion to dismiss Severance’s claims on
a number of grounds. Severance appealed the district court’s dismissal to the U.S. Court
of Appeals. Briefing is complete. Oral argument has not yet been scheduled.
Section B.3: Federal Consistency
The coastal program reviewed 108 federal permit and license applications, of which nine
were above the Program’s established thresholds. The average time taken to review
federal permit and license applications was twelve days. A summary of federal
consistency reviews is given in Chart III, “Federal Licenses and Permits.”
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service contacted the coastal program to enter into early
coordination discussions regarding the issuance of new maps for the Coastal Barriers
Resources System in the state’s coastal zone. Regular meetings have been scheduled for
the next 6 months to coordinate this initiative.
In respect to permit streamlining, the program was informed at a meeting in July that the
state has agreed to assume permit evaluation of the USACE pier General Permit. (A
transfer timeline had not been identified as of this writing.) Additionally, the program
was informed that the USACE plans to monitor usage of the boat ramp GP for specific
bay systems before determining whether to offer permit evaluation responsibilities to a
state agency. The program is also being kept informed regarding possible development of
additional GP.
Section B.4: Program Changes
The interagency coastal council met on September 15, 2009 and reviewed proposed
changes to state policies that are part of the coastal program network. Networked state
agencies agreed to develop a summary of all proposed rule changes that will affect the
coastal program by March 2009. An analysis of these summaries will be provided in the
next performance progress report.

FY2009-2010 Performance Progress Report Guidance

12

Examples of Permit Administration Status Charts for B.2
These charts are meant as guides. States may submit this data in another format if one is used by the applicable agency as long as the
same information is included, or else manipulate the data to fit charts of this type.

Chart #1—Summary of Permits
(for coastal programs with direct permitting authority or if not, the networked permit and enforcement agencies, as well as local
governments if the program has approved local components - indicate as appropriate)

State/Local Permitting Agency
(Coastal Management Agency or
Network Agency)

Core Program or Type of Permit
Activity (where applicable, indicate
major or minor)

Department of Environmental Quality

Tidal wetlands fill

Department of Marine Resources

Submerged Lands

Local government (if appropriate)

Stormwater management permit

Total
Applications
Filed

Total
Permits
Issued

Total
Permits
Denied

10

7

3

Total Activity

FY2009-2010 Performance Progress Report Guidance

13

Examples of Federal Consistency Status Charts for Section B.3

Chart #2—Direct Federal Agency Activities (Section 307(c)(1) and (2))
- Each individual project acted on during the past six months should be listed.
Non-concurrence
Federal Agency

DOD/ACOE

Activity or Project

Concurrence

Insufficient
information

Dredge Material Disposal - Port Bienville Harbor

Inconsistent with
state policies
x

Time of
Review
45 days

Chart #3—Federal Licenses and Permits (Section 307 (c)(3)(A))
- Group projects by federal agency and type of license or permit
Number of Non-concurrences
Federal Licensing
or Permit Agency
DOD/ACOE

Type of Permit

Section 10

FY2009-2010 Performance Progress Report Guidance

Number of
Permits

Number of
Concurrences

6

3

Insufficient
information

Inconsistent with
state policies

1

2

Time of
Review
60 days

14

Chart #4—Federal Licenses and Permit Activities Described in Detail in OCS Plans (Section 307(c)(3)(B))
- List each individual project
Non-concurrence
Federal Agency

DOI/MMS

Project Name and Plan of Exploration or
Development

Concurrence

Insufficient
information

Santa Lucia Unit - P0007 (POE)

Inconsistent with
state policies
x

Time of
Review
6 days

Chart #5—Federal Assistance to State and Local Governments (Section 307(d))
Non-concurrence
Agency

Type of Assistance

HUD

FY2009-2010 Performance Progress Report Guidance

Total

Concurrence

3

3

Insufficient
information

Inconsistent with
state policies

Time of
Review

15

Attachment C
Examples of Section C Success Stories
Virginia CZM Efforts Result in Dune, Beach Protection: Virginia Governor Timothy Kaine
signed legislation expanding the reach of the Virginia Coastal Primary Sand Dunes and Beaches
Act to the entire coastal zone (roughly the area east of Interstate 95) on February 22nd. Passage
of the legislation is the culmination of years of coordination and research by the Virginia Coastal
Zone Management (CZM) Program. At the time of the original dune act legislation in 1980, it
was known that coastal primary sand dunes existed in nine localities, but there was no
comprehensive inventory of dune or beach resources.
A series of studies funded by the Virginia CZM Program and conducted by the Virginia Institute
of Marine Science showed that extensive dune and beach resources were unprotected, especially
from the effects of shoreline hardening structures designed to control shoreline erosion. Based on
this new information the Virginia CZM Program’s Coastal Policy Team, consisting of
representatives from the program’s network of coastal agencies and localities, supported the idea
of expanding the act, and Virginia State Delegate Harvey Morgan sponsored the bill. As a result
of the expanded legislation, more localities have the ability to manage these critical resources by
adopting ordinances that would be administered by local wetlands boards. If a coastal locality
chooses not to adopt the ordinance, then the Virginia Marine Resources Commission will
regulate development affecting dunes and beaches in that locality.
Rhode Island Promotes Urban Waterfront Revitalization through its Metro Bay SAMP:
The Metro Bay area, comprised of the cities of Cranston, East Providence, Providence and
Pawtucket at the northern end of Narragansett Bay, is a former industrial hub for the region.
However, over the years, the waterfront area along this region has become outdated and
underutilized. With the help of the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council
(CRMC), the cities are now acting to make the region a more appealing place to live and work
by improving the economic, social, and environmental resources of the working waterfront;
attracting major developers with more predictable and efficient permitting; and providing
recreation and access to the water.
To achieve these goals, the CRMC is coordinating with the cities, government agencies and
community organizations to prepare a special area management plan (SAMP) for the Metro Bay
area. The Metro Bay SAMP will provide a functional framework for future environmentally and
economically sensitive redevelopment within the SAMP boundary, encompassing most of the
waterfront in the four cities. One key effort of the Metro Bay SAMP has included establishing an
Urban Coastal Greenway (UCG) policy, a new regulatory approach for coastal vegetative buffers
in the urbanized environment of northern Narragansett Bay. The UCG provides a mechanism to
redevelop the urban waterfront of the Metro Bay region in a way that integrates economic
development with expanded public access along and to the shoreline, as well as the management,
protection and restoration of valuable coastal habitats.
For example, the policy establishes buffer width, vegetation, and public access standards, and
requires low impact development techniques to manage stormwater. However, the UCG also
FY2009-2010 Performance Progress Report Guidance

16

provides for increased flexibility compared to Rhode Island’s standard buffer regulations. It
established four different urban greenway zones (residential zone, area of particular concern
zone, inner harbor and river zone, and development zone). Each zone has its own buffer
standards. In addition, the UCG allows development to reduce the greenway width in return for
site or coastal resource enhancements such as improved public access or habitat conservation.
The Urban Coastal Greenway policy is a vital part of the ongoing update of the Metro Bay
SAMP, and will serve as the impetus for billions of dollars of redevelopment in the four cities.
The policy will allow for a more predictable, flexible process for developers wanting to
redevelop these former industrial areas while enhancing public access and protecting coastal
resources. For additional information on the Metro Bay SAMP and the Urban Coastal Greenway
policy visit www.crmc.state.ri.us/samp/metrobay.html
Indiana CZM Dunes Creek Project Received National Award: The Indiana Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) was presented with the Award of Excellence by the National
Association of Conservation Engineers (ACE) for the Dunes Creek daylighting project it
completed in February 2006. “Daylighting” is an industry term for taking a stream that has been
routed through a culvert and restoring it to an open channel, thereby exposing it to natural light.
This was done to restore the stream’s natural character and reduce storm-water runoff. The
restored section is located within the Indiana Dunes State Park. In the 1930s, the Civilian
Conservation Corps (CCC) directed the creek underground and into approximately 1,300 feet of
concrete pipe beneath a parking lot. Approximately 500 feet of that stream section was
daylighted and restored through this project. While one of the project goals was to restore Dunes
Creek to a more natural look, the main driving force was to take advantage of the resulting water
quality benefits. The stream empties into Lake Michigan, adjacent to the Indiana Dunes State
Park bathing beach. High fecal coliform levels were occurring throughout the summer, forcing
the beach to close periodically. Multiple state and federal agencies studied the issue for years,
and concluded that the source of the coliform bacteria was not man made, but the result of runoff
washing material from the adjacent woods into the creek during heavy rainfall. In addition to the
beach problems, this created recurring erosion and flooding issues for the park. Restoration of
the creek offered an opportunity to rectify these problems and improve both water quality and
habitat.
This project is showing early signs of success. The newly planted vegetation has begun to grow
and stabilize the bank. In addition, preliminary testing already has shown some reduction in
coliform bacteria levels, even though experts predicted that it would take at least a year for the
biological systems to begin to function as engineered. Ultimately this restoration project should
lead to lower bacteria levels at the Indiana Dunes state park beach, and thus fewer days of beach
closures.

FY2009-2010 Performance Progress Report Guidance

17

Attachment D:
How to Submit a Performance Progress Report in NOAA Grants Online
1. Click the "Award" tab, located across the upper portion of your Grants Online page.
2. Click the “Search Report” link located on the left hand side of the page.
3. The “Search Financial and Performance Progress Reports” page is displayed. On this page,
click the “Search” button to retrieve all reports available to you. In order to limit your
selection to specific reports, populate the search criteria and click on the “Search.”
4. In the search results, locate and click on the “Progress Report” you wish to complete. The
“Performance Progress Report” detail page is displayed.
5. On this page, in the blue text box above the “Spell Check” button, include a comment that
your performance report and any relevant items are attached to this report. Then, upload the
report itself with any additional files under the “Attachments” section. Please note that large
attachments may not upload; limit the size of your attachments to less than 10 megabytes.
6. To upload attachments:
a. Scroll to the bottom of the page and click the “Attachment” link.
b. Click the “[+]” link
- Another section will display allowing you to search your computer for the file.
- Click the “Browse” and follow the prompts.
- You must fill in the “Description” field with a short description of the attachment. If
you do not enter a description, the attachments will NOT save.
- Click the “Save Attachment” button and the attachment is uploaded to Grants Online.
- Repeat until all needed attachments are included. Unfortunately it is not possible to
upload more than one file at a time.
7. To start workflow, click the “Save and Return to Main” button. A message will appear
confirming that you want to start workflow; click the “Yes” button.
8. This action generates a review task, which is sent to your “Task Inbox” for this request. The
report has not been submitted until you review this task and select “Forward to Agency”. To
forward the report to NOAA for review, it may take two cycles of “review” on your end.
This is a functionality build into Grants Online to allow for hierarchical review and is not
always relevant to Coastal Management awards; however, you must follow this process to
ensure your report is sent to NOAA.
9. To submit the report, click the “Inbox” tab and then click on the “Tasks” link. You should
see a task for the performance report; click the “View” link next to the task. The Launch
page is displayed for the task. Select the action you wish to perform from the action
dropdown menu, which initially should be “Forward Report to Recipient Authorized
Representative.” If you wish, you can add a comment in the box for your Authorized
Representative (Note: you have to hit the “Save” button for the comment to be recorded).
Click the “Submit” button. The review task will then be forwarded to the Recipient
Authorized Representative(s) in your organization.
10. The Authorized Representative will need to follow the same steps as in #9, only their action
will be “Forward Report to Agency.” Note that if the person who initially created the report
also has the role of “Recipient Authorized Representative,” that person will have to process
two tasks to submit the request to NOAA. Once “Forward Report to Agency” has been
selected and “Submit” has been clicked, the report should have been finally submitted.

FY2009-2010 Performance Progress Report Guidance

18