Site Designation

National Estuarine Research
Reserve Designation Guidance
Site Selection, Nomination, and Designation

February 1, 2020
Authored by NOAA

Stewardship Division
Office for Coastal Management
National Ocean Service
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

OMB Control No. 0648-0121
Expiration Date: XX/XX/202X

National Estuarine Research Reserve
Designation Guidance
Site Selection, Nomination, and Designation

Dear User,
The enclosed guidance provides a detailed overview of the national estuarine research reserve
designation process, including feedback and insights from different states where reserve sites were
designated. The process to designate a new reserve in the national system is a long and involved multiyear process requiring a long-term commitment by a state or territory and NOAA. There are multiple
steps and milestones to this process that will require the involvement of many individuals and
organizations at the local and state levels. Reserves are based on partnerships, with NOAA serving as the
lead federal partner. Other partners in the process include state agencies, nonprofit groups, universities,
and members of local communities, to name a few. Forming a collaborative partnership between a lead
state partner or champion, NOAA, and other interested parties during the designation process is
important and necessary for the long-term success of a future reserve.
On average, a designation may take between 3 to 5 years if all partners are working diligently
throughout the process. As the primary audiences for this guidance, the lead state partner and NOAA
staff need to work together toward achieving the designation milestones laid out in this document. The
guidance is broken out into eight sections, providing specific guidance and recommendations to the lead
state partner and NOAA staff. Contained within the document are links to other important supporting
documentation and guidance.
The user should note that certain details related to internal NOAA approval processes may change over
time and should be reviewed and compared to current clearance and approval procedures.

Paperwork Reduction Act:
A Federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be
subject to a penalty for failure to comply with an information collection subject to the requirements of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 unless the information collection has a currently valid OMB Control Number. The
approved OMB Control Number for this information collection is 0648-0121. Without this approval, we could not
conduct this information collection. Public reporting for this information collection is estimated to be approximately
2500 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the information collection. All responses to this
information collection are required to obtain or retain benefits, pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management Act of
1972, 16 USC Chapter 33. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this information
collection, including suggestions for reducing this burden to the Office for Coastal Management (OCM), attention Liz
Mountz at [email protected].

Table of Contents
1. Introduction to the National Estuarine Research Reserve System............................ 1
What is a National Estuarine Research Reserve? ........................................................................ 2
History of Reserve Designations .................................................................................................. 2
Future Expansion of the National Estuarine Research Reserve System ...................................... 3
Funding Support for Reserve System Designation....................................................................... 4

2. Designation Process Overview ................................................................................ 6
A. The Basic Designation Process ............................................................................................... 7
B. Critical Milestones to Reserve Designation ........................................................................... 7
Milestone 1. A Governor’s Letter of Interest........................................................................... 8
Milestone 2. Site Selection and Nomination ........................................................................... 8
Milestone 3. Drafting an Environmental Impact Statement and Management Plan .............. 9
Milestone 4. Developing NOAA-State and Multi-party Memorandums of Understanding .. 11
Milestone 5. Finalizing the environmental impact statement and the Management Plan... 11
Milestone 6. Finding and the Record of Decision .................................................................. 12
Milestone 7. Designation Ceremony ..................................................................................... 13
C. Detailed Internal NOAA Process for Reserve Designations ................................................. 13
D. Post-Designation – Reserve Funding and Implementation.................................................. 13
E. State Approaches to the Designation Process ..................................................................... 14

3. Best Practices ....................................................................................................... 15
List of Best Practices .................................................................................................................. 15
Create a NOAA-State Coordination ....................................................................................... 15
Use a Stakeholder Engagement Process ................................................................................ 16
Identify the Lead State Agency Early ..................................................................................... 16
Assign a Project Lead ............................................................................................................. 17
Nurture Local Support for a Reserve ..................................................................................... 18
Use Teams and Committees throughout the Process ........................................................... 18
Identify and Delineate Core and Buffer ................................................................................. 19
Develop Timelines and Requirements for Each Part of the Process ..................................... 20
Secure Long-term Source of State Match Early in the Process ............................................. 21
Communicate Early and Often ............................................................................................... 22
Learn from Previous Reserve Experiences............................................................................. 22
Tribal Engagement is a Priority .............................................................................................. 23
Plan for a 5+ Year Designation Effort ..................................................................................... 24

4. Site-Selection Criteria and Process ........................................................................ 25
A.
B.
C.
D.

Introduction to Site Selection .............................................................................................. 25
Preliminary Screening Process ............................................................................................. 26
Site Screening and Application of Site-Selection Criteria .................................................... 27
Reserve System Site-Selection Criteria ................................................................................ 28

E. Overall Site-Selection Process and Nomination ................................................................... 42

5. Boundary Delineation .......................................................................................... 44
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.

Introduction to Boundary Delineation ................................................................................. 44
General Principles ................................................................................................................ 45
Basic Scientific Principles for Establishing Reserve Boundaries ........................................... 45
Recommended General Procedure for Proposed Boundary Delineation ............................ 46
Multi-Component Reserves ................................................................................................. 47

6. Developing an Environmental Impact Statement and Reserve Management Plan . 49
A.
B.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.

Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 49
NEPA Process........................................................................................................................ 50
Developing a Draft Environmental Impact Statement ......................................................... 53
Developing a Draft Reserve Management Plan ................................................................... 66
Environmental Impact Statement and Management Plan Milestones................................ 69
Public Comment and Review for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.................... 71
Developing a Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Reserve Management Plan73
Considerations for Federally Recognized Tribes .................................................................. 74
Federal Consultations........................................................................................................... 76
Federal Consistency ............................................................................................................. 81

7. Navigating the NOAA Review and Clearance Process ............................................ 82
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.

Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 82
Review and Clearance Process Overview............................................................................. 82
Nomination Review and Approval ....................................................................................... 83
Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Management Plan Review and Clearance85
Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Management Plan Review and Clearance92
30-Day Cooling-Off Period ................................................................................................... 96
NOAA Findings of Designation ............................................................................................. 96

8. Guidelines for MOUs ............................................................................................ 98
A. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 98
B. Choosing the Correct Authority and Type of Agreement .................................................... 98
C. MOU Clearance Process ....................................................................................................... 99

Appendix A – MOU Examples ................................................................................. 101
Appendix B – Governor Letter of Interest Examples ................................................ 113
Appendix C – Designation Findings Examples .......................................................... 118
Appendix D – Site Nomination Review Checklist ..................................................... 122
Appendix E – Historical Reserve Designations ......................................................... 126
Appendix F – Environmental Impact Statement Structure ....................................... 127
Appendix G – Cumulative Effects Analysis Recommendations and Tips ................... 133
Appendix H – Record of Decision ............................................................................ 138

Appendix I – Certification of Findings ...................................................................... 143
Appendix J – Important Questions and Answers for Public Meetings ....................... 144
Appendix K – NOAA Introductory Remarks for Draft Environmental Impact Statement and
Draft Management Plan Public Meeting ................................................................. 147
Appendix L – Detailed Designation Timeline Example ............................................. 150
Appendix M – Detailed Designation Process ........................................................... 151
Appendix N – Compliance with the Endangered Species Act .................................... 155
Appendix O – Compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act .................... 158
Appendix P – NOAA Document Editing Tips ............................................................ 158

1. Introduction to the National Estuarine Research Reserve
System
The National Estuarine Research Reserve System (Reserve System) is a network of 29 protected areas
representing different biogeographic regions and estuarine types within the U.S. that are protected for
long-term research, monitoring, education, and coastal stewardship. Established by the Coastal Zone
Management Act of 1972, as amended, the Reserve System is a partnership program between the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the coastal states. NOAA provides
funding and national guidance. Each reserve is managed at the site level by a lead state agency or
university, with input from local partners.

Figure 1. National Estuarine Research Reserve System, 2017

Reserve staff members work with local communities and regional groups to address natural resource
management issues, such as nonpoint source pollution, visitor use, invasive species, habitat restoration,
and changing climatic conditions. Through integrated research, education, and resource stewardship,
the reserves help communities develop strategies to deal successfully with these coastal resource issues.

1|P a g e

Reserves provide adult professional audiences with training on estuarine issues of concern in their local
communities. They offer field classes for K-12 students and professional development programs in
estuarine education for teachers. Reserves also provide long-term water quality and biological
monitoring as well as opportunities for scientists and graduate students to conduct research in a “living
laboratory.”

What is a National Estuarine Research Reserve?
Each reserve, as defined in § 921.2 of the National Estuarine Research Reserve System regulations, is
“an area that is a representative estuarine ecosystem suitable for long-term research, which may include all of the
key land and water portions of an estuary, and adjacent transitional areas and uplands constituting to the extent
feasible a natural unit, and which is set aside as a natural field laboratory to provide long-term opportunities for
research, education, and interpretation . . . .”

In other words, reserves serve as living laboratories for the study of estuaries and natural and manmade changes. They help connect science to people, whether they are teachers, students, decision
makers, or coastal residents, and serve as demonstration sites where new ideas are tested and
modeled.
A number of system-wide programs implemented by reserves focus on monitoring, training, and
education that allow them to have a regional and national impact. The integration of locally relevant
reserve programs with system-wide approaches fosters innovation and allows comparison of estuarine
conditions across the country. In addition, reserves, as place-based entities, build trusted long-term
relationships with local communities, state and federal agencies, and other nongovernmental entities
and form partnerships that amplify the impact of individual reserves and the Reserve System. By
working locally, regionally, and nationally, the Reserve System is more efficient and effective in
addressing the key issues faced by coastal managers and communities today.

History of Reserve Designations
The U.S. Congress, through the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972, established the Reserve
System. Originally designated as estuarine sanctuaries, the 1985 reauthorization of the CZMA, enacted
in 1986, renamed them as estuarine research reserves. In 1974, South Slough, located in southwestern

2|P a g e

Oregon, became the first reserve designated. Since then, the system has expanded to 29 reserves with
the most recent, He’eia in Hawai’i, designated in 2017.

The Reserve System expanded significantly during the 1980s and 1990s as noted in Figure 2. Then, in the
2000s the number of reserve designations leveled off to roughly one per five years. Despite significant
increases in funding for the Reserve System in 1999, most of those resources were allocated to support
a range of system-wide programs including the System-Wide Monitoring Program, Graduate Research
Fellowships, and the Coastal Training Program.

As currently comprised, the Reserve System includes several multi-component reserves that are also
multi-component designations, which means that, in some cases, different sites making up a reserve
were designated over time. Examples include Chesapeake Bay Maryland and North Carolina reserves. In
the history of the Reserve System, only one designated reserve was subsequently de-designated from
the system. Waimanu Valley, in Hawaii, was originally designated in 1978 and then de-designated in
1996 by NOAA. A full listing of history of reserve designations is provided in Appendix E.

NATIONAL ESTUARINE RESEARCH
RESERVES DESIGNATED
13

8
5

1970s

1980s

1990s

2

2

2000s

2010s

Figure 2. Research Reserve Designations by Decade (through 2017)

Future Expansion of the National Estuarine Research Reserve System
Within the U.S., 34 coastal and Great Lakes states and U.S. territories are eligible to designate a reserve.
Of these, 24 states and territories have one or more reserves for a total 29 reserves across the nation.
South Carolina has two reserves, while Florida and California have three each. As of 2018, Connecticut
and Louisiana are the only marine coastal states in the country lacking a National Estuarine Research
Reserve.

3|P a g e

In 2016, NOAA convened a Blue Ribbon Panel to look at “what should drive future geographic expansion
and how to determine the point at which the system could be considered ‘complete.’” The panel noted
that, historically, geographic expansion of the Reserve System was driven by biogeographic
representation and interest from the states. However, the panel recognized that the Reserve System is
challenged in trying to balance system expansion with the need to provide sufficient baseline support to
existing reserves. The relatively flat budget scenarios since the early 2000s make this a key consideration
when considering bringing new reserves into the system.
Currently, eight sub-regions (as defined in Appendix 2 of the Reserve System regulations (15 CFR Part
921)) do not contain a research reserve. To identify strategies needed to fill this gap, NOAA with its
Reserve System partners are working to develop 5-year and 10-year strategic plan for the system and its
resource needs. A steering committee was formed to establish a vision for the future of the Reserve
System that is based on
 A recognition that completing biogeographic representation within the Reserve System may not
be the most efficient or effective way to achieve its mission and goals per 15 CFR 921.1;
 A commitment to increasing congressional interest in understanding the Reserve System goals
and the process for establishment of additional reserves to help meet the mission; and

 A need to align budget and resources with the pace of expansion to achieve current system
goals and meet coastal community needs.

Funding Support for Reserve System Designation
Before starting a designation process, a state should consider what resources it will need to sustain a
multi-year designation process and identify matching funding and staff to support the operation of a
reserve upon designation. Per Reserve System regulations §920.10, pre-designation assistance is
available to coastal states for site selection and scoping, site nomination, development of a draft
management plan and draft environmental impact statement, development of a final management plan
and final environmental impact statement, and to support a designation ceremony. This assistance may
not exceed $100,000 during the length of the designation process. In addition to the federal financial
assistance, states must provide 30 percent matching support (Table 2). Other federal financial assistance
is not eligible to be used as state match to the pre-designation assistance. States have many options to
supplement the federal financial assistance, and those are outlined in Table 1. In many instances, a state
will use a combination of options to support the designation process.

4|P a g e

Table 1. State and University Funding Support for Research Reserve Designation
Type of Funding Support
Cash

Generic Description

Match for Federal Pre-Designation Assistance
Third-Party Grants

Partner Support
In-Kind
Staff Support

State financial resource are used to match the
federal dollars to support any or all aspects of the
designation process
State leverages third-party funding to support
designation process outside of pre-designation
assistance grant matching requirements (nonfederal funding only)
Funding provided by partners to support any or
all aspects of the designation process including
document printing.
State staff support used as match to federal
funds or to generally support designation
Non-cash support from a partner (i.e., food,
facilities, supplies, vehicle use, volunteers, etc.)
Mapping support to the site nomination,
management plan development, and
environmental impact statement process

Partner Support
GIS or Product Support
Combined
Travel Support

Funding or staff supporting travel or logistics for
meetings and reserve site-selection visits
State uses a combination of cash and in-kind
support to meet the federal matching
requirements to support any or all aspects of the
designation process

Partial Cash and In-Kind Match

Upon designation, a reserve becomes eligible for annual operations funding and
construction/acquisition funding resources. Each funding option has specific statutory matching
requirements as described in table below.

Table 2. Federal Funding Sources and Matching Requirements 2018 for Research Reserves
Type
Operations Funds
Construction Awards
Land Acquisition Awards
Other NOAA Funds

Federal Share
70%
70%
50%
Variable

Match Requirements
State Share
30%
30%
50%
Variable

5|P a g e

2. Designation Process Overview
The process for federal designation of a national estuarine research reserve (research reserve or
reserve) requires multiple steps and involves many individuals and organizations. Reserves are built on
partnerships, with NOAA serving as the lead federal partner. Other partners include state agencies,
nonprofit groups, universities, and members of the local community. The collaborative partnership
formed between the lead state partner, NOAA, and other interested parties during the designation
process is important and necessary for the long-term success of a proposed reserve. It takes the support
from all partners to designate and operate a reserve. Since 2000, on average it takes approximately five
years to designate a reserve if all partners are working diligently during each step of the process.
Each reserve designated is operated and managed by
a state lead organization. This is where the
designation process begins. Usually, a specific state
resource agency or university will take the lead in
organizing an effort to learn about what the national
system is and to begin mobilizing local stakeholders
to support a reserve designation. The state must
take the first step in seeking federal designation as a
reserve. NOAA works with the state at each step
along the way. (photos NOAA)

6|P a g e

A. The Basic Designation Process
The basic process for designating a national estuarine research reserve is summarized graphically in
Figure 3. Note that there are several key components of the process that, combined, provide the
essential information needed for the NOAA administrator to make an informed decision to designate or
not.
Figure 3. National Estuarine Research Reserve System Designation Process, 2017

B. Critical Milestones to Reserve Designation
The critical milestones leading to the designation of a reserve are listed below and discussed in more depth on the
subsequent pages. Situations may vary, resulting in slight modifications to some of the designation milestones.
Detailed information for each of these steps can be found in additional guidance documents and the Reserve
System regulations (15 CFR 921).









Governor’s Letter of Interest
Site-Selection Criteria and Nomination
Drafting an Environmental Impact Statement and Management Plan
Developing NOAA-State and Multi-party Memorandums of Understanding
Finalizing the Environmental Impact Statement and Management Plan
Findings and Record of Decision
Designation Ceremony

7|P a g e

MILESTONE 1. A GOVERNOR’S LETTER OF INTEREST
Each reserve designation has one or more local champions that seek to develop local community and
state support to pursue the development of a national estuarine research reserve. Before the
consideration of a governor’s letter of interest, the champion works to develop support for the idea of a
reserve. Usually, the champion is from a university or state agency working with local coastal interest
groups to gauge public support for a reserve site and to identify a potential state lead in developing a
reserve. Building support for creating a reserve site within a state can take years before in advance of
seeking a governor’s letter of interest. Critical considerations include the following:
• Developing state and local support for a generic site location. (More specific location is
determined during Site Selection.)
• Identifying the lead state agency or university to lead the designation process. The state lead
is typically the managing reserve partner (e.g., University of Texas for Mission-Aransas
Research Reserve) at the time of designation but not always, as was the case with the He’eia
Research Reserve process.
• Working with state elected officials to address the required cost-share funding for ongoing
reserve operations (30 percent match requirement for annual operations awards)
• Working with federal legislators to support additional annual operations funding for a new
reserve
The state champion or lead is advised to open a dialogue with the NOAA Office for Coastal
Management’s Stewardship Division director to address questions about the process.
Recommended elements of the governor’s letter of interest include the following:






Explain why the state would like to designation a national estuarine research reserve.
Identify a lead state agency or university to work with NOAA.
Request designation assistance funding and technical assistance.
Address the letter to the NOAA administrator.
Signed and dated by the state or territorial governor.

Examples found in Appendix B.

MILESTONE 2. SITE SELECTION AND NOMINATION
Site selection is a process that enables the state to evaluate and select candidate sites for the
consideration as a reserve. Critical to the success of this step is the formation of committees or teams
(See Section 3, “Best Practices”) to evaluate and select a site for nomination to NOAA. For a state, these
groups are designed to
•
•
•

Identify and Evaluate candidate sites;
Conduct outreach to the public and affected entities;
Develop partnerships to support reserve designation and future operations;

8|P a g e

•
•

Select a site for nomination; and
Create a nomination package for NOAA.

Overall, there are four critically important parts to site selection and nomination, detailed as follows:

Developing Site Selection Criteria
Site selection criteria are designed to address
major site considerations that reflect the goals
of the National Estuarine Research Reserve
System as described in § 921.1 of the system
regulations. Sites may consider modifying or
adding additional criteria that reflect regional
differences in the ecological characteristics of
the habitats to be considered. The suite of
criteria selected by a state for a Reserve
System designation process require NOAA
approval.

Preliminary Site Screening
Prior to the application of the full suite of site
selection criteria, it may be appropriate for the
state, in consultation with the Office for Coastal
Management, to utilize a simplified procedure to
screen the proposed sites to eliminate those
areas that are clearly not suitable candidates. A
preliminary screening should reduce the amount
of time and effort that is required to apply the full
suite of criteria to all sites. This is particularly
important for states with a large array of potential
sites.

Selecting a Site for Nomination

Creating a Nomination Document

Upon narrowing down the list of potential sites,
a state should evaluate the remaining
candidate sites using the approved siteselection criteria. Typically, a small team of
experts, with strong technical expertise or
relevant local knowledge, scores the list of
candidate sites using the approved selection
criteria. The scored sites are ranked and
forwarded to another team for final selection.
In addition to scoring according to the siteselection criteria, a nominated site should
incorporate public, partner, and stakeholder
input.

A site nomination package makes the case to
NOAA for the designation of a new reserve to the
Reserve System. The nomination provides the
rationale for why the site would be a valuable
addition to the national network and contribute to
the goals as described in § 921.1 of the Reserve
System regulations. The package should at a
minimum provide a detailed description of the
site-selection process; describe how the site
conforms to Reserve System requirements under
§ 921.11 of the system regulations; provide a
detailed description of the site; and describe its
compatibility with existing plans and land and
water uses.

Section 3 of this guidance provides additional detail about site selection and nomination.

MILESTONE 3. DRAFTING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND MANAGEMENT PLAN
Management Plan
Upon NOAA approval of a site nomination, the NOAA administrator identifies the next steps in the
reserve designation process. This includes
•
•

Identifying who the state will be working with at NOAA;
Hosting joint state and NOAA public meetings in the area affected by a reserve designation to

9|P a g e

•

•

identify significant issues related to the proposed site that were not captured during the public
engagement process prior to site nomination;
Notifying the state or university lead to begin preparing a draft reserve management plan with
assistance and support from NOAA. Note that the draft plan includes the development of
appropriate memorandums of agreement/understanding between NOAA and the lead state
agency or university and between the state and any land-owning partners; and
NOAA’s responsibility in preparing a draft environmental impact statement with support from
the state.

Designating a national estuarine research reserve is considered a major federal action under both the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., and 15 CFR § 921.13 of the
Reserve System regulations. This requires that NOAA careful consider the environmental effects of
proposed actions, analyze potential environmental effects of proposed actions and their alternatives,
avoid or minimize adverse effects of proposed actions, and restore and enhance environmental quality
to the greatest extent practicable. Early on in the environmental impact statement development
process, all applicable consultations (Endangered Species Act, NHPA Sec. 106, etc.) related to this
federal action should also be implemented.
The nominated reserve site and its management alternatives and impacts are evaluated in depth to
satisfy all federal and state environmental statutes. NOAA’s Office for Coastal Management and the lead
state agency or university work closely together to develop both the Draft management plan and the
DEIS documents.
During this step, NOAA is required to publish the following Notices in the Federal Register.

Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement
and hold scoping meetings
Notice of the availability of the draft environmental impact
statement and draft mangement plan for public comment
Notice of the public meetings on the draft environmental impact
statement and draft mangement plan
Figure 4. NOAA-Published Federal Register Notices Early in Designation Process, 2017

The date of publication of the draft environmental impact statement and draft management plan in the
Federal Register begins a required 45-day comment period on the draft statement and plan. Jointly, the
state lead and NOAA hold a public meeting or meetings on the draft statement and plan no sooner than
30-45 days after the announcement. NOAA also publishes a notice of the public meetings in the Federal
Register 15 days before the hearing. Concurrently, the state publishes a notice of the public meetings in

10 | P a g e

the local media and, depending on state requirements, may publish the notice through official
administrative outlets.

MILESTONE 4. DEVELOPING NOAA-STATE AND MULTI-PARTY MEMORANDUMS OF
UNDERSTANDING
Memorandums of understanding (MOU) are created to formalize partnerships and work with other
federal agencies; universities; state, local, and international governments; tribes; private institutions;
and other organizations. In the case of a national estuarine research reserve, an MOU details the
federal-state role in the management of a reserve and expresses the state’s long-term commitment to
operating and managing a reserve in accordance with Section 315 of the Coastal Zone Management Act.
If the proposed reserve has multiple land and water owners or managing entities, the lead state partner
must develop additional MOUs with those parties to ensure the long-term protection and operation of a
reserve. Drafts of all MOU’s must be included in the draft management plan and final MOUs in the final
management plan. The MOUs must be signed before the official designation of the reserve. The NOAAstate partner MOU template is included Appendix A.

MILESTONE 5. FINALIZING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND THE MANAGEMENT
PLAN
Upon completion of the 45-day public comment period for the draft environmental impact statement
and draft management plan, the lead state agency and NOAA prepare finalized versions of those
documents. The following general actions should occur:


NOAA, after consulting with the state, responds to public comments on the draft
environmental impact statement and draft management plan.



NOAA makes changes to the draft environmental impact statement in response to the
public comments.



The state, after consulting with NOAA, makes necessary changes to the draft management
plan and submits preliminary and final documents to NOAA for review.



The NOAA-state and joint party MOUs establishing roles and responsibilities are finalized.



The final environmental impact statement and final management plan include:
o

Added chapter or appendix containing public comments and how they were addressed
in the environmental impact statement;

11 | P a g e

o
o
o

Finalized versions of the MOUs in the draft management plan appendices;
List of the agencies and individuals that were specifically notified of the opportunity to
comment on the draft environmental impact statement and draft management plan
documents; and
Revised versions of the environmental impact statement and management plan for the
proposed reserve.

Upon approval, NOAA, or in some cases the state partner, prints the final environmental impact
statement and final management plan and distributes it to those who provided comments, to other
interested parties, and to the NEPA distribution list posted on the Council on Environmental Quality
website and available from the NOAA Office for Coastal Management’s Environmental Compliance
webpage.
NOAA, through the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, publishes a Federal Register notice
announcing the availability of the final environmental impact statement and final management plan. The
date of publication begins a 30-day “cooling-off” period. During this time, NOAA may receive comments
but is not obligated to respond to them. This is essentially a time to address any minor issues or major
litigious issues.

MILESTONE 6. FINDING AND THE RECORD OF DECISION

Complete ongoing
Endangered Species
Act, National
Historic
Preservation Act,
Essential Fish
Habitat, Marine
Mammal Protection
Act, and other
required
consultations

NOAA prepares the
designation findings

NOAA prepares a
record of decision
Record of Decision

NOAA makes a
consistency
determination with
the federally
approved state
coastal management
program

Designation Findings

Federal Consistency
Determination

Signing the MOU

Signing the NOAAstate and joint party
MOUs

Federal Consulations

NOAA, through the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), announces the availability of the final
environmental impact statement and final management plan in the Federal Register. After a 30-day
cooling-off period is over and all issues identified through public comments or other avenues have been
addressed, the following actions need to occur:

Figure 5. Designation Process Actions Post-Cooling-Off Period, 2017

NOAA prepares the designation findings, certificate of designation, and the record of decision for
signature by the NOAA administrator. Once the designation findings and record of decision are signed,
the designation of the site to the national system is official.
Subsequently, NOAA publishes a Federal Register notice announcing the reserve designation, the
consistency determination, and the NEPA record of decision. The lead state partner announcing the

12 | P a g e

designation of the reserve should publish the designation in the local media and state administrative
outlets as appropriate.

MILESTONE 7. DESIGNATION CEREMONY
Following the publishing of a Federal Register notice and local media announcement of a reserve
designation, the state normally organizes a designation ceremony with congressional and state
participation.

NOAA may support the state by providing an invitation list of NOAA personnel, arrange for speakers
from NOAA, and assist with publicity. At the event, NOAA presents a ceremonial certificate of
designation to state officials and congressional representatives.

C. Detailed Internal NOAA Process for Reserve Designations
As outlined in Figure 3, the overall reserve designation process has many steps and milestones over the
course of a multi-year designation effort. NOAA uses a detailed internal decision-making process to
review and clear actions that achieve the milestones identified throughout the process. Periodically,
some of the details within this process may change due to internal Office for Coastal Management and
National Ocean Service (NOS) decision-making. Section 7, “Navigating the NOAA Review and Clearance
Process,” provides important guidance for NOAA staff to follow to ensure that the different milestones
and requirements of the designation process are met.

D. Post-Designation – Reserve Funding and Implementation
Annual Reserve System operations funding is supported through annual congressional appropriations to
the reserves. This funding is allocated for reserve operations, management, education, monitoring, and
research according to Section 315 (e) of the Coastal Zone Management Act, and applicable Reserve
System regulations under §921 subparts G, H, and I. Operational funding must be matched 70:30
(federal: state) except for specific projects that benefit the entire system. Reserves wishing to designate
part of their allocation to another entity must meet statutory and regulatory requirements regarding

13 | P a g e

recipient eligibility. Additionally, Office of Management and Budget Uniform Grants Guidance applies to
all Reserve System operations awards. For more information on Office of Management and Budget
Grants Guidance, visit www.grants.gov/fi/web/grants/learn-grants/grant-polices.

Separate Reserve System Procurement, Acquisition, and Construction (PAC) funding is available to
support reserve facilities construction and land acquisition needs. This funding is based on annual
congressional appropriations and is competitively awarded to applicable reserves in the system. New
reserves are encouraged to compete for this funding to meet their facility needs and build the
infrastructure necessary to implement their core programs. Note that to be eligible for PAC funding,
projects submitted by the reserve must be identified in the reserve management plan.
Each year, the Office for Coastal Management provides official guidance to reserves following
congressional appropriations and specific guidance from NOAA. Typically, the Reserve System ORF and
PAC funding guidance is released between February and April.

E. State Approaches to the Designation Process
Historically, states and territories have taken different approaches to the designation of a research
reserve site. Each approach used has its benefits and challenges. The table below offers a glimpse of
some of the benefits and challenges that may be encountered when implementing different approaches
to developing a reserve site.

Table 3. Research Reserve Development Approaches for States

Process and Operational Lead
are the Same

Process Lead and Operational
Lead are Different

14 | P a g e

Site Selection is Competitive
Between Estuaries and
Organizations

Site Selection is a
Collaborative Process Across
Coastal Geography

3. Best Practices
Designation of a national estuarine research reserve is a multi-year effort that includes multiple steps
requiring a concerted and detailed engagement by NOAA and the state Lead. Over the course of
multiple designation processes, many best practices have been identified to aid the various parties in
successfully designating a site to the National Estuarine Research Reserve System. They have also laid
the groundwork for the long-term success and viability of the reserve.
To ensure a successful designation effort and build the foundation for a successful reserve in the years
to come, key best practices are listed for the state and NOAA to consider during the designation of a
reserve site.

List of Best Practices
CREATE A NOAA-STATE COORDINATION
Setting up a NOAA-state coordination team provides the key designation staff with an overall view of all
the parts of the development process over the entire length of the designation. To sustain and
streamline the designation process through the multi-year effort, an important observation from the
state perspective is to keep the NOAA and state staffing consistent through the process.
Example NOAA Coordination Team Makeup – Reserve System
site liaison; General Counsel assigned to the state; Office for
Coastal Management NEPA coordinator; Office for Coastal
Management regional lead or designee.

15 | P a g e

Example State Coordination Team Makeup – State partner lead, facilitator or communications lead,
science lead. Other staff are variable based on need and site.

USE A STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT PROCESS
“We enabled their ‘ownership’ of both the process and decisions,
which I think was key.” – Patrick Robinson, Wisconsin Extension
Although each reserve designation process is unique, a successful strategy implemented by many states
has been to use a stakeholder engagement process. Traditionally top-down, agency-driven decisionmaking has been the primary mechanism in natural resource management. More recently, successful
resource management actions have incorporated processes that involve stakeholders and acknowledge
the importance of public attitudes, perceptions, beliefs, and knowledge. 1 Stakeholder engagement has
become a key component of designating national estuarine research reserves.

Since 2000, states have identified stakeholder engagement as a key component of their success in the
National Estuarine Research Reserve System designation process. Bringing the full range of stakeholders
to the table from the beginning enables a state to ensure that
•
•
•
•

Potential adversaries and allies to the action feel that their voices and concerns are heard;
Obstacles or hurdles to a reserve are identified early in the process and time is allowed for
solutions to be developed;
Willing stakeholders feel some ownership with the designation process and decisions; and
Decisions are transparent and collaborative.

Given the multi-year timeline from conception to designation, the time and effort invested in a
stakeholder engagement process will pay huge dividends in the long-term not just for this process but
also in the long-term success of the reserve.

IDENTIFY THE LEAD STATE AGENCY EARLY
“Ensure that the lead state agency for the management of the reserve
is involved and committed to the process . . .” – Hawaii Office of Planning

NOAA, Coastal Services Center [now Office for Coastal Management]. 2007. Introduction to Stakeholder Participation. NOAA
Coastal Services Center, Charleston, South Carolina.

1

16 | P a g e

Given the substantial investment of time and people needed to complete a reserve designation, it is
critically important to identify and secure the commitment of a lead state agency to manage the process
and operate the future reserve. The lead state agency should be prepared to commit state resources to
support a multi-year effort and engage NOAA and other stakeholders throughout the designation
process. This is key to ensuring that the process and engagement with stakeholders are sustained over
time.
According to §921.11 of the National Estuarine Research Reserve System regulations, the state or
territorial governor must formally identify a lead state agency or university that has the authority and
responsibility for leading the designation process. The lead state agency is identified either in writing
through an initial letter to NOAA seeking to designate a reserve or through a subsequent formal site
nomination. Examples of these letters are found in Appendix B.
In partnership with NOAA, the state agency lead is tasked with managing the process and developing the
appropriate documentation for a reserve designation. Although the lead state agency may be different
for the management and operation of a reserve, it is essential that the lead be identified early. Without
a lead state agency partner, NOAA will not begin a designation process. Ideally, the governor will
identify the same lead state agency for both the development of a reserve and its subsequent operation.
Early identification allows for better coordination with NOAA and certainty for potential partners.

ASSIGN A PROJECT LEAD
“Assigning a project lead was key!” – Sally Palmer, University of Texas
Ideally, both the lead state agency and NOAA identify and assign a lead person to manage the complex
multi-year reserve designation process. These two people regularly engage with each other and their
respective designation teams to ensure that the process is streamlined and sustained. These individuals
develop agreed-upon timelines and roles and responsibilities for each phase of the designation process.
On the state side, some of these include the following:
•
•

•
•
•
•

Ensuring that the many different committees or teams are meeting and working toward specific
goals and objectives;
Hosting meetings about the process with a variety of potential stakeholders (i.e., local
businesses, nongovernmental organizations, state agencies, municipalities, homeowner
associations, etc.);
Proactively identifying and addressing obstacles or concerns identified by stakeholders;
Developing position descriptions for each committee or team so that all know their roles;
Providing periodic updates to stakeholders and partners about the process; and
Engaging with congressional delegations to gain support and keep apprised of the designation
process status.

On the NOAA side, this may include
• Organizing periodic briefings with NOAA leadership on the status of the effort;

17 | P a g e

•
•

Leading the NOAA team that will review the site nomination and developing an environmental
impact statement to support or not support designation of the proposed reserve; and
Engaging with local stakeholders about what a reserve is and what it really means to have one.

NURTURE LOCAL SUPPORT FOR A RESERVE
The Reserve System designation process is a first and important step in the evolution of a reserve.
Previous lead state agencies have noted that proactively bringing together stakeholders in the
designation process was critical to ensuring success. Using a stakeholder engagement process is also one
way to build and nurture local support for a reserve. Sometimes the local stakeholders are initially
skeptical of what it means to have a reserve site. Providing multiple opportunities for stakeholders to
engage in the process and communicate issues or concerns will go a long way to building a local network
of reserve supporters and sow the seeds of a future “Friends of the Reserve” group.

USE TEAMS AND COMMITTEES THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS
“Probably the greatest factor in our success . . .” – Wisconsin Extension
The use of teams and committees to support various parts of the designation process is critical to a
successful reserve designation. No one partner or individual has the knowledge and expertise to manage
and complete the seven critical steps of the designation process or ensure stakeholder support for a
reserve. Teams and committees enable the state agency lead to meet designation milestones, create
information products, and build stakeholder support for a reserve.
Teams and committees form to support the reserve designation process in many ways, including
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Identifying and evaluating candidate sites
Formulating state-specific site-selection criteria
Educating the public and partners about the process and selected site
Developing partnerships between stakeholders in support of a reserve
Helping create a vision, mission, and goals for a reserve
Creating technical or outreach materials to support designation
Developing support within the state congressional delegation for a reserve
Managing a public participatory process
Bringing together diverse expertise and perspectives into the different steps of the designation
process
Working with the state or territorial governor to nominate a site for consideration

Multiple committees or teams are normally created to manage and guide the state through the different

18 | P a g e

phases of the designation. At a minimum, the lead state agency usually creates the following teams:
Site Coordination or Management Team
This team is typically lead by the lead state agency or university. It provides leadership and oversees the designation
process for the state side. This team ensures that all the other teams are staffed and working towards defined goals and
objectives. Most often, this team develops the site nomination package and the draft and final reserve management plan,
and supports NOAA’s environmental impact statement. This team also works to build support for a new reserve site within
its congressional delegation.

Site Selection Team
This team consists of technical experts and people with local knowledge essential for the site-selection process. This team
helps create resource-mapping products for potential sites, reviews and modifies site selection criteria to account for state
and local considerations, and incorporates local knowledge to inform the selection process.

Site Evaluation Team
This team consists of technical experts and key stakeholders or partners that evaluate and score sites using uniform site
selection criteria. In addition, this team can offer specific cultural and local perspectives regarding proposed sites.

State-NOAA Liaison team
This small team consists of persons representing the lead state agency and key partners. This team communicates directly
with the NOAA team to coordinate the different parts of the designation process over time. Many of the individuals on this
team are usually on the Site Coordination Team too.

Education and Outreach Team
This team consists of people with expertise in education and public outreach. The team develops and implements a public
participatory process to ensure that stakeholders are informed about the designation process and to gather and share
issues and concerns with the lead state agency, NOAA, and the other teams. It also help develops and disseminates
reserve designation-related educational materials and resources to stakeholders and partners.

Teams meet as often as needed to accomplish their specific objectives and will eventually sunset as
different milestones are achieved. The use of teams is time-consuming but essential to a successful
reserve designation process. Using a collaborative and participatory process, the teams engage in
decision-making and provide ownership for those involved. This creates an effective process and will pay
dividends in the future as the reserve develops after designation.

IDENTIFY AND DELINEATE CORE AND BUFFER
Identifying the core and buffer areas of a proposed reserve site is a critical consideration when a state
nominates a reserve to NOAA. Section 921.11 of Reserve System regulations describes site boundaries

19 | P a g e

as follows: “encompass an adequate portion of the key land and water areas of the natural system to
approximate an ecological unit and to ensure effective conservation. Boundary size will vary greatly
depending on the nature of the ecosystem. Reserve boundaries must encompass the area within which
adequate control has or will be established by the managing entity over human activities occurring
within the Reserve.”
In practice, once the general site is identified through the site-selection process, the state agency lead
must not only identify proposed boundaries for the site but also identify core and buffer areas within
that proposed boundary. Section 5 provides more details on delineating reserve boundaries.
Reserves may include existing federal or state lands already in a protected status where mutual benefit
can be enhanced. However, NOAA will not approve a site for potential reserve status that is dependent
primarily (greater than 50 percent of total area) upon the inclusion of currently protected federal lands
in order to meet the requirements for reserve status (such as key land and water areas). Normally,
federal land areas generally included within reserve boundaries should serve as a buffer or for other
ancillary purposes; and may be included, subject to NOAA approval, as a limited portion of the core area.

DEVELOP TIMELINES AND REQUIREMENTS FOR EACH PART OF THE PROCESS
“Ensuring teams and committees were aware of the timeline . . . was critical
for the success of these groups” – Hawaii Office of Planning
Understanding specific milestones in the process is very helpful for guiding the work and expectations of
the state agency Lead, NOAA, partners, and others involved in a reserve designation process. As a multiyear effect using multiple teams or committees to achieve specific goals and objectives, the
development of timelines is an important planning tool supporting reserve designation. They are not
static planning tools and must be periodically updated to account for real-world and unexpected
changes that occur over time.
In previous designations, timelines have been created to support a variety of needs. These include
• Tracking the major milestones of the multi-year process
• Managing the details of specific steps in the process (i.e., developing reserve management plan)
• Detailing NOAA’s internal clearance process
• Providing an overview of the process for public audiences
• Supporting budget planning for state congressional delegations

•

Guiding specific teams and committees (i.e., Site-Selection Team)

Timelines can be simple or complex depending on the need and the specific audience. Consider each of
these factors carefully when developing a timeline. Examples follow:

20 | P a g e

Proposed Heeia National Estuarine Research Reserve - Key Milestones Timeline
July 1-15

July 16-30

Aug 1-15

Aug 16-30

Sept 1-15

Sept 16-30

Oct 1-15

Oct 15-31

NOS Review
8/8 to 8/25
NOS Approval
by 8/25

Publish
FRN
by Sept 2

Transmit
FRN to EPA
by 8/26 and
DEIS in
E-NEPA by
8/26

Nov

Dec

Develop FMP

October 6
6-8pm
Public
Meeting

DEIS-DMP Public Comment
45 days and extended 13 days at
the request of USEPA (closes
10.30.16)

Publish
Extended
FRN
by Oct 14

Jan 2017

Feb

OCM, NOS
Review &
Clearance
2 weeks

Develop FEIS

March

30 day
Break

April

May

Brief NOAA
Administrator

NOAA
signs
ROD

Publish
FRN for
FEIS-FMP

June

Final MOAs
Signed
Prepare ROD,
Findings of
Designation and
Notice

Compile Public
Comments on
DEIS-DMP
Courtesy Hill
Briefings

Courtesy Hill
Briefings

SECURE LONG-TERM SOURCE OF STATE MATCH EARLY IN THE PROCESS
“I think that state match is an incredibly important decision that needs to last in
spite of politics, retirements . . .” – Sally Palmer, University of Texas
Reserve system regulations stipulate a 70:30 match requirement for annual operational funds. As a
result, there are two important considerations during the development of a new reserve.
1.
2.

Federal appropriations from Congress to support the Reserve System annual operations awards.
State funding to meet the match requirements of federal appropriations to a reserve.

Previously detailed in Section 1, “Funding Support for Reserve System Designation,” the lead state
partner should look to secure increased federal funding early in the process. This is extremely important
because without an increase in federal funding, the available operational funding for the other reserves
already in the Reserve System will decrease when the newly designated reserve becomes operational.

21 | P a g e

July

Secondly, the lead state agency has to plan for several financial resource commitments. These include
matching funds for federal pre-designation assistance, funding staff and meeting support for the
process, and most importantly, securing a source of long-term state match for reserve operations
described in Table 1. Since 2000, federal-supported annual operations awards average over $600,000,
with states providing 30 percent match for those dollars. Some important considerations for the lead
state agency include the following:
1. What are my potential sources for long-term match funding?
2. Are there key partners I can leverage to support reserve operations after designation?
3. How to I work with my congressional delegation to increase Reserve System base funding on
the federal side?
4. What do I need to do secure long-term match funding to support reserve operations?
5. Does my source of state match offer flexibility in changing budget cycles?
Answer these questions early in the process to prevent funding from becoming a roadblock to a
successful reserve designation toward the end of the process. The long-term viability and success of a
reserve depends on addressing these two considerations before designation.

COMMUNICATE EARLY AND OFTEN
“Persistence, meetings, and smiling.” – University of Texas
Meeting often and early was very important over the course of the process. The use of multiple teams
or committees to manage and guide the state through the different phases of the designation requires a
lot of communication, facilitation, patience, and listening. Organize these teams and committees early in
the designation effort and have them meet often. This will help them achieve their goals and objectives
and develop ownership in the process by its members.
Outside of the multiple teams directly involved in designation, the state lead should meet periodically
with a host of other critical stakeholders, including state agencies, local nongovernmental organizations,
municipalities, tribal and cultural organizations, business groups, etc. A consistent flow of information
and feedback with these stakeholder groups is critically important to build and maintain stakeholder
support for a reserve. It will also help the state and NOAA identify and address important issues and
concerns that these stakeholders communicate.

LEARN FROM PREVIOUS RESERVE EXPERIENCES
Staff from the state agency leads have access to a wealth of experience within the Reserve System and
have experience going through the designation process, the initial startup phase, and longer-term
reserve operations and management. Some suggestions on how a state agency lead can learn from

22 | P a g e

previous reserves:

 Seek NOAA recommendations of specific reserve staff to consult with.
 Invite reserve managers from comparable reserves to talk to local stakeholders and partners
about what it means to have a research reserve.
 Participate in the National Estuarine Research Reserve System Annual Meeting and Program
Managers Meeting to learn about how the system collaborates and coordinates strategically and
programmatically.
 Send staff to visit other reserves to learn how a reserve operationalizes its activities and how it
interacts with its reserve advisory board.

TRIBAL ENGAGEMENT IS A PRIORITY
Under Executive Order 13175, ‘‘Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments’’
(November 6, 2000), establishes the manner in which the NOAA works with federally recognized Indian
tribes when developing policies that have tribal implications, including the designation of a reserve site.
This executive order reaffirms the unique government-to government relationship that exists between
Indian tribes and NOAA. Federally recognized tribes, as sovereign governments, require consultation
through consensus-based government-to-government discussions. However, this executive order does
not cover other cultural groups, such as Native Hawaiians and the Geechee (i.e., Gullah) of Georgia and
Florida. Regardless, tribes and other cultural groups potentially affected by a potential reserve site and
their representative associations must be engaged in the designation process. Examples consultations
letters are found in Appendix A.

Some basic guidelines around this engagement:



Federally recognized tribes are not a public but rather a foreign government requiring
government-to-government consultation.



Each interested tribe or cultural group should be offered an opportunity to consult on
the reserve designation.



There is a difference between federally recognized and non-recognized tribes.



All consultations are different, and there are no hard-and-fast rules for consultation.



The federal government has an innate trust interest with the tribes.

23 | P a g e

IMPORTANT - Consult with qualified legal counsel before engaging with tribal or cultural groups as
part of a designation process.

PLAN FOR A 5+ YEAR DESIGNATION EFFORT
Designation of a national estuarine research reserve is a complex multi-year effort that requires
sustained engagement by the state agency lead, NOAA, and the many partners and stakeholders that
participate in the process. All recent reserve designations have run from 3 to 5 years from the time
NOAA positively responds to the letter of interest from a state or territorial governor. This does not
include the initial engagement with stakeholders, partners, and elected and appointed officials that
must happen before asking the governor to send a letter to NOAA. Many previous efforts noted that the
process takes a long time and a substantial amount of work; however, given the magnitude of the
decision, it is time well spent to ensure the long-term success of a reserve.

NOAA may respond to a letter of interest by not pursuing a designation at that time. Although rare, this
could occur if the current administration does not support expansion of the Reserve System; if there are
not sufficient resources at the Office for Coastal Management to support the 3-5 year designation
process; or if there is strong objections from Congress. These factors and others could impact NOAA’s
decision whether to move forward with the process.

24 | P a g e

4. Site-Selection Criteria and Process
A. Introduction to Site Selection
Once NOAA determines that it can accept a new nomination based on the state or territorial governor’s
letter of interest, the identified state agency lead may submit an application to NOAA for site-selection
funding. As outlined in Section 1, the state is eligible for federal funds for pre-designation activities.
Activities appropriate for these funds are developing site selection, developing and applying a siteselection process, preparation of the draft environmental impact statement and draft management plan
and final environmental impact statement and final management plan, and limited basic
characterization studies of the physical, chemical, and biological attributes of the site.
Note: Federal assistance may not exceed $100,000 during the length of the designation process.
To ensure that pre-designation assistance funds are available for subsequent steps in the process, NOAA
recommends that the state agency lead use approximately $25,000 to $40,000 in federal funding along
with additional state resources to support the site-selection process. While not imperative that the state
agency lead manage pre-designation funds, it is encouraged that they be prepared to accept and
manage funds once the designation occurs. Any applications for pre-designation funds must identify
who will be conducting the work and supplying match for the award.
Use the site-selection criteria detailed below in Section 4 as a model for determining new sites for the
Reserve System. The criteria can be modified in consultation with the Office for Coastal Management to
reflect regional differences in the ecological characteristics of the habitats to be considered. The relative
“values” placed upon the criteria can also be modified as appropriate.
At the very outset of the site-selection and site-nomination process, determine whether there is an
existing reserve located in the particular biogeographic and typological classification scheme under
consideration. Candidate sites located in a biogeographic sub-region not currently represented are
automatically of high value to the National Estuarine Research Reserve System. However, candidate
sites within a biogeographic sub-region that is already represented in the national system can still be
considered if they include unique habitat types. Some keys to a successful site-selection process are
described in Figure 6.

25 | P a g e

DEVELOPMENT OF A PROCESS FOR SELECTING A SITE, including
development of site-selection criteria. It is recommended that the state establish a
site-selection committee comprising key individuals with relevant expertise (e.g.,
scientists, educators, resource managers). Identification of significant cultural and
historic areas when developing site-selection criteria is important.
IDENTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL SITES THAT ARE REPRESENTATIVE
of the biogeography, suitable for long-term research and education, compatible
with existing uses, and containing key land and waters to approximate an
ecological unit. Look at potential sites within the entire biogeographic sub-region
of the state.
INVOLVE AND SEEK THE VIEWS of affected landowners, resource users,
local governments, and state and federal agencies, as well as others interested in
the process. The site-selection process should be collaborative and involve a
diverse array of stakeholders.
DEVELOPMENT OF A STRATEGY FOR INCORPORATING PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION into the process. The state, in conjunction with NOAA, holds
a public meeting in the vicinity of the site or sites being considered to discuss the
criteria and application of those criteria. Notice should be made in the local
newspaper and Federal Register at least 15 days prior to the meeting.
INCLUDE A DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS OF SITES CONSIDERED,
why a site was not preferred, and rationale for the site selected. The Governor
formally submits the site nomination for NOAA approval. NOAA may request
additional information or suggest changes to the nomination.

Figure 6. Key Elements of Site Selection

B. Preliminary Screening Process
Before the application of the full suite of site-selection criteria detailed above, it may be appropriate for
the state, in consultation with the Office for Coastal Management, to utilize a simplified procedure to
screen the proposed sites to eliminate those areas that are clearly not suitable candidates. A preliminary
screening should reduce the amount of time and effort that is required to apply the full suite of criteria
to all sites. Candidate sites that do not meet the following preliminary screening criteria should be
considered for elimination.

26 | P a g e

•

The candidate site is a representative estuary in the biogeographic region or sub-region.

•

The proposed boundaries of the candidate site include sufficient land and water area to
maintain the integrity of the ecosystem.

•

The candidate site consists of publicly owned lands or demonstrates sufficient potential for
land acquisition and adequate land-use control to meet Reserve System objectives.

•

The candidate site is accessible by normal modes of transportation.

•

The candidate site is suitable for research, monitoring, and resource protection activities.

•

The candidate site is suitable for education, training, and interpretation activities.

•

The candidate site is suitable to address key local, state, and regional coastal management
issues.

C. Site Screening and Application of Site-Selection Criteria
There are a variety of ways that the application of the full set of site-selection criteria (Section 4) to the
screened sites can be undertaken. An initial step is to identify who will be responsible for this phase of
the site-selection process. Normally, these individuals become members of a site-selection committee.
Once the site-selection committee has been identified, it is recommended that each member
preliminarily assess and score each of the candidate sites individually. If necessary, the scoring within
each criterion may be crafted to help better evaluate the proposed sites.
Field visits to each site will allow the committee members an opportunity to gain firsthand knowledge of
the characteristics of each site. They should also give everyone a better understanding of the factors to
be considered under each selection criterion and how these factors should be taken into account. Field
trips may be appropriate before scoring the sites. However, the committee members should be familiar
with the site-selection criteria before visiting the candidate sites.

Figure 7. Site-Selection Decisional Processes, 2017
27 | P a g e

After site-selection committee members have assessed the candidate sites individually, the siteselection committee should convene to assess the sites collectively and determine one site for
nomination to the governor. Several options exist for this collective decision-making. These options are
described below:

Option 1. Strict Averaging of the Individual Scores
All committee member scores for each criterion would be averaged and then totaled
and weighted to arrive at one site to recommend to the governor for nomination.
Option 2. Working Group Discussions
The site-selection committee would be divided into two to three small working groups
to assess all of the candidate sites, taking their individual assessments and scores into
account. Each working group would then reach consensus as a group on an appropriate
score for each criterion.
Thereafter, the working groups would reconvene in full committee and compare their
collective decision-making with the goal of overall consensus on the scoring for each
candidate site. One site would be recommended to the governor for nomination.
Option 3. Committee Discussion
The committee as a whole would assess each site, taking individual assessments and
scores into account. Members would reach consensus as a group on each criterion and
ultimately select the site to be recommended to the governor for nomination.

D. Reserve System Site-Selection Criteria
The site-selection criteria are designed to help states evaluate and select new estuarine research
reserve sites for consideration within the national system. The criteria provided in this guidance fully
support the guiding principles of site selection as described in §921.11 of the Reserve System
regulations. However, additional criteria or modifications are allowed, in consultation with the Office for
Coastal Management, to reflect regional differences in the ecological characteristics of the habitats to
be considered or other factors. In addition, the relative “values” placed upon the criteria can also be
modified as appropriate.

28 | P a g e

The criteria fall into the four major categories:

I. Environmental Representativeness
II. Value of the Site for Research, Monitoring,
and Resource Protection
III. Suitability of the Site for Education and
Interpretation
IV. Acquisition and Management Considerations
Figure 8. Site-Selection Criteria, 2017

I. Environmental Representativeness: Ecosystem and Ecological Characteristics
In order to determine the representativeness of a candidate site relative to ecosystem type (as defined
in Appendix 2 of Reserve System program regulations (15 CFR Part 921)), the site will be evaluated using
the following suite of ecological, biological, physical, and chemical characteristics that fall under the
general category of “Ecosystem and Ecological Characteristics.” The first five criteria for ecological and
biological characteristics focus primarily on factors concerning a site’s diversity and balance in regard to
the types of ecosystems and habitats present, as well as any significant or unique biotic trait. The
remaining criteria for physical and chemical characteristics focus on a site’s position within the
watershed to which it belongs, geological and salinity characteristics, water quality, and the degree to
which it is developed.
A. Ecosystem Composition. This is a measure of the diversity of ecosystem types present within the
boundaries of the site. This criterion is based on the assumption that sites that have a high diversity of
major ecosystem types are of higher relative “value” for protection and management than those with
low ecosystem diversity (unless the ecosystem in consideration is rare or unique: see “Habitat
Uniqueness of the Site”). Use the following ecosystem type designations (Appendix 2 of Reserve System
program regulations (15 CFR Part 921)). Modify as appropriate.

29 | P a g e

•
•
•
•
•

Coastal Marshes
Coastal Swamps
Coastal Mangroves
Intertidal Beaches
Intertidal Mud and
Sand Flats
• Intertidal Algal Beds

Group III - Submerged
Bottoms

Group II - Transition Areas

Group I - Shorelands

• Maritime ForestWoodland
• Coastal Shrublands
• Coastal Grasslands
• Coastal Tundra
• Coastal Cliffs

• Subtidal Hard Bottoms
• Subtidal Soft Bottoms
• Subtidal Plants

3 Points

The site has a high diversity of ecosystem composition, i.e., it
contains at least one representative habitat from each of the three main ecosystem
groups listed above (e.g., maritime forest, coastal marsh, and oyster reef).

2 Points

The site has a moderate diversity of ecosystem composition, i.e., it contains at least one
representative habitat from two of the three main ecosystem groups listed above (e.g.,
maritime forest and coastal marsh).

1 Point

The site has a low diversity of ecosystem composition, i.e., it contains at least two
representative habitats from only one of the three main ecosystem groups listed above
(e.g., coastal marsh and mud flat).

0 Points

The site has a very low diversity of ecosystem composition, i.e., it contains only a single
habitat type within any one of the three main ecosystem groups listed above (e.g.,
maritime forest).

B. Balanced Ecosystem Composition. This is a measure of the relative composition of ecosystem types
within the boundaries of a site. This criterion is based on the assumption that sites with a balanced
proportion of ecosystem types are of higher relative “value” for protection and management. High,
moderate, and low values are assigned to sites that contain variations in the proportions of all three
ecosystem types. A value of zero is assigned to a site that is dominated by one ecosystem type or
contains less than three ecosystem types.
3 Points

The site contains representative upland, intertidal, and subtidal habitats in relatively
equal proportions (i.e., areal cover of any one ecosystem type not less than 25 percent
of the total area).

2 Points

The site contains representative upland, intertidal, and subtidal habitats, with the areal
cover of any one type not less than 10 percent of the total area.

1 Point

The site contains representative upland, intertidal, and subtidal
habitats, with the areal cover of any one type less than 10 percent of the total area.

30 | P a g e

0 Points

The site contains representative upland, intertidal, and subtidal habitats, with the areal
cover of two types being less than 10 percent of the total area or the site consists of
habitats from only one or two of the three major ecosystem types.

C. Habitat Composition and Complexity. This is a measure of the diversity of habitat types present within
the major ecosystem type found within the boundaries of the site. This criterion is based on the
assumption that sites that have a high diversity of habitat types are of higher relative “value” for
protection and management than those with a low diversity of habitat types. Major ecosystem type is
defined here as that type that comprises approximately 40 percent of the site. Use the habitat type
designations listed above for “ecosystem composition.”
3 Points

The site has a high diversity of habitat composition within its major ecosystem type, i.e.,
it contains three or more habitat types or subtypes within its major ecosystem type
(e.g., site consists of a combination of swamps, coastal marshes, and mud flats) or has a
combination of multiple coastal marsh types (e.g., high, mid, and low marsh zones).

2 Points

The site has a moderate diversity of habitat composition within its major ecosystem
type, i.e., it contains only two habitat types or subtypes within its major ecosystem type
(e.g., consists of a combination of swamps and a single coastal marsh type).

1 Point

The site has a low diversity of habitat composition within its major ecosystem type, i.e.,
its major ecosystem type consist of a single habitat type (e.g., maritime forest or Juncus
marsh).

D. Habitat Uniqueness of the Site. This criterion is a measure of the presence of rare or unique habitat
types within a candidate site. This criterion recognizes the importance of emphasizing unique areas in
the selection process, in addition to the representativeness of the candidate site in terms of ecosystem
and habitat diversity. Unique habitat is defined here as a habitat type of “limited” known occurrence
within the biogeographic region or sub-region. This criterion can be a simple “yes/no” question.
3 Points

The site contains one or more “unique” habitat types within its boundaries.

0 Points

The site contains no “unique” habitat types within its boundaries.

E. Significant Faunal and Floral Support. This is a measure of the degree to which a site supports

significant faunal or floral components. This criterion focuses on a site’s contribution (i.e., function)
toward supporting the activities (e.g., feeding, nesting) of the following suite of significant faunal or
floral components. The list of components includes groups or organisms that are known to be
dependent upon estuarine habitats for the entire or a crucial part of their life cycle.
•

Fish and Shellfish Spawning and Nursery Grounds (includes use by either freshwater,
estuarine, or estuarine-dependent marine species)

•

Migratory Bird or Waterfowl Use

•

Bird Nesting or Roosting Area

•

Critical Mammal Habitat

•

Non-Game Animals (amphibians, reptiles, etc.)

31 | P a g e

•

State or federally Listed Species (animal or plant – including candidate species)

3 Points

The candidate site supports or serves as an important site for a wide range of the faunal
or floral components listed above (4 of 6) or is an extremely important site for any
threatened or endangered species.

2 Points

The site supports or serves as an important site for a moderate range and diversity of
the significant faunal or floral components listed above (3 of 6).

1 Point

The site supports or serves as an important site for one or two of the significant faunal
or floral components listed above.

0 Points

The site does not support significant faunal or floral components.

F. Site’s Relationship to Its Tidally Influenced Drainage Basin. This is a measure of relative proportion or
juxtaposition of a site relative to the greater tidally influenced drainage basin to which it belongs. This
factor assumes that, except for the deltaic portions of major river systems, most coastal drainage basins
are relatively small, tidally influenced, coastal plain drainages, and that a site’s “value” increases as a
function of how much of the overall drainage basin is encompassed within its boundaries. Aerial photos
and detailed topographic maps should be used for judging this criterion.
3 Points

The site encompasses a relatively large percentage (greater than 75 percent) of the
tidally influenced portion of the drainage basin to which it belongs.

2 Points

The site is not large relative to the overall drainage basin (less than 75 but greater than
25 percent), but is situated either near the mouth or headwaters of the drainage basin.

1 Point

The site is small relative to the overall drainage basin (less than 25 percent), but is
situated either near the mouth or headwaters of the drainage basin.

0 Points

The site is small relative to the overall drainage basin (less than 25 percent) and does
not encompass either the mouth or headwaters of the drainage basin.

G. Geologic Representativeness, Diversity, and Uniqueness of the Site. This is a measure of the
representativeness, diversity, and uniqueness of the geologic characteristics that define part or the
whole of a candidate site. This criterion attempts to consider both the surface and subsurface geologic
formations that may be representative or unique within a site, particularly as they affect or define
associated biotic habitats. Included in these considerations are the ways that local geology affects
surface hydrology, such as drainage systems, and subsurface hydrology, such as shallow-water aquifers.
Geologic and hydrologic maps should be used to evaluate this criterion.
3 Points

The site has numerous representative geologic characteristics, two or more unique
geologic characteristics, and contains a high diversity of formation types or strata within
its boundaries.

2 Points

The site has a moderate number of representative geologic characteristics and at least
one unique geologic characteristic, and contains a moderate diversity of formation types
or strata within its boundaries.

32 | P a g e

1 Point

The site has a moderate number of geologic characteristics, no unique geologic
characteristics, or contains a moderate diversity of formation types or strata within its
boundaries.

0 Points

The site has few or only one representative geologic characteristics, no unique geologic
characteristics, or contains few or only one formation type or strata within its
boundaries.

H. Salinity Gradient. This is a measure of the range of salinity within a candidate site’s boundaries. This
criterion recognizes the effect of salinity on the biotic structure of estuarine habitats (including the plant
communities and faunal components that inhabit them). It makes the assumption that a site with a
greater range of salinity will support a broader range of habitat types and organisms.
3 Points

The site encompasses a 25 parts per thousand (ppt) or greater range of salinity within its
boundaries (e.g., 0-25 ppt, 5-30 ppt).

2 Points

The site encompasses a 15-24 ppt range of salinity within its boundaries (e.g., 0-15 ppt,
5-25 ppt, 10-30 ppt).

1 Point

The site encompasses a 6-14 ppt range of salinity within its boundaries (e.g., 0-8 ppt, 1022 ppt, 25-32 ppt).

0 Points

The site encompasses a 5 ppt or less range of salinity within its boundaries (e.g., 0-5 ppt,
8-10 ppt, 20-25 ppt).

I. Degree Developed and Potential Impacts to Water Quality. This is a measure of the degree to which
the site and its surrounding area are developed and the relative impacts to surface waters from human
activities. This criterion is based on the assumption that human impacts to a site are directly
proportional to the degree of development. Exceptions to this assumption may need to be considered
where development at a site and its surrounding area have been subject to high levels of control. Data
on land use and water quality measurements from local, county, and state government agencies should
be used to judge this criterion.
3 Points

The site is relatively undisturbed and the watershed contains low intensity development
(e.g., few residences, minimal agricultural or silvicultural activity) or the land is in
protected status.

2 Points

The site is relatively undisturbed and the watershed contains
moderate development (e.g., relatively few residences, moderate agricultural or
silvicultural activity, minimal commercial development).

1 Point

The site has been moderately disturbed and the watershed contains relatively intensive
development (e.g., moderate density of residences, or the presence of industrial
activity).

0 Points

The site has been extremely disturbed and the watershed contains very intensive
development (e.g., high density residential, or commercial or industrial activity).

II. Value of the Site for Research, Monitoring, and Resource Protection

33 | P a g e

A. Value of Site for Research. This is a measure of the opportunities offered by characteristics of the site
for research, such as a high diversity of ecosystem and habitat types, a balanced habitat composition, a
wide salinity range, biotic or geologic representativeness of the site, known historic uses or
archaeological sites, and unique opportunities to conduct applied research regarding important local,
state, and regional coastal management issues (including past and potential management activities). The
assumption is that a site with representative, unique, and highly diverse characteristics will provide
greater research, monitoring, and resource protection opportunities than one lacking these
characteristics. Ratings generated for these factors under previous selection criteria can be used as a
guide for rating this overall factor.
3 Points

The site has (1) a high diversity of ecosystem and habitat types, (2) moderate salinity
range, (3) representative biotic and geologic sites or characteristics, (4) state and
federally listed species, (5) historic and archaeological significance, and (6) opportunities
to address important habitat or resource management issues.

2 Points

The site has four or five of the six above.

1 Point

The site has two or three of the six above.

0 Points

The site has one or none of the six above.

B. Previous Research and Monitoring Efforts. This is a measure of the degree to which the site has been
used for past research and monitoring, including considerations of the diversity of inquiry (fields of
research), and the availability of data (the form and availability of documentation, e.g., peer-reviewed
papers, grey literature, inventory reports). The assumption is that an area with previously established
research and monitoring interest offers greater opportunity for future projects than an area that has not
sparked such an interest in the past.
3 Points

The site has a long history of well-documented research and monitoring projects in a
wide variety of topics. Data are readily available.

2 Points

The site has had major and well-documented research and monitoring efforts,
generating data that are readily available. It has not had a long history of research and
monitoring.

1 Point

The site has had only minor research and monitoring projects generating limited data
(e.g., inventories) that may be difficult to obtain.

0 Points

The site has no known history of research and monitoring.

C. Suitability of Site for Environmental Baseline Monitoring. This is a measure of the suitability of the site
as a reference area for assessing long-term resource trends or ecological characteristics, based on the
degree to which the site has been altered by land-use practices on or near the site. The assumption is
that a site that has relatively pristine land areas and waters will be a more valuable reference area to
generate baseline monitoring information than a site that has been extensively altered.
3 Points

The site has outstanding areas to generate environmental baseline data to assess longterm resource trends or ecological characteristics for a wide range of needs.

34 | P a g e

2 Points

The site has adequate areas to generate environmental baseline data to assess longterm resource trends or ecological characteristics for many needs.

1 Point

The site has marginal areas to generate environmental baseline data to assess long-term
resource trends or ecological characteristics.

0 Points

The site has been so extensively altered by past activities that it is unsuitable for
generating environmental baseline data.

D. Ability to Address Key Local, State, and Regional Coastal Management Issues. This is a measure of the
degree to which the site is appropriate for investigating issues relevant to coastal management at the
local, state, and regional levels. Solutions to these issues may require either the application of land
management practices or habitat manipulations in order to perform meaningful research and
assessment. As such, the site should offer both adequate control areas plus areas where demonstration
projects and habitat manipulations can be accommodated in order to study many of the issues of
concern. The assumption is that a site where coastal management issues arise and can be addressed will
be of greater value from a resource protection standpoint than sites where these issues do not arise.
The significant issues should be identified for each region and may include the following:
•

Wetlands development

•

Wetlands mitigation, restoration, creation

•

Dredging and spoil disposal

•

Beneficial uses of dredged materials

•

Shoreline erosion

•

Commercial or recreational fisheries

•

Waterfowl and other wildlife management

•

Best management practices for habitat protection or management (e.g., fire
management)

•

Best management practices to limit impacts from agricultural, silvicultural, or
development activities

•

Best methods to control pestiferous insects or undesirable vegetation

•

Effects of pollutants on water quality and living resources

•

Impacts of sea-level rise

•

Prehistoric and early historic settlement and land use

3 Points

The site is highly appropriate for investigating coastal zone management issues.

2 Points

The site is appropriate for investigating coastal zone management issues.

1 Point

The site is minimally appropriate for investigating coastal zone management issues.

0 Points

The site is not appropriate for investigating coastal zone management issues.

35 | P a g e

III. Suitability of the Site for Training, Education, and Interpretation
A. Diversity and Quality of Training, Education, and Interpretation Opportunities. This is a measure of the
variety and quality of training, education, and interpretation opportunities (i.e., ecological,
archaeological, cultural, historical, etc.) provided by the site for the different target audiences. The
assumption is that a candidate site with a diversity of such opportunities of high quality will be utilized
to a greater extent than one with fewer opportunities.
3 Points

The site has numerous different training, education, and interpretation opportunities of
high quality.

2 Points

The site has several significantly different educational opportunities of good quality.

1 Point

The site has few significant educational opportunities.

0 Points

The site has insignificant educational opportunities.

B. Diversity and Availability of Target Audiences. This is a measure of the diversity and availability of
target audiences (e.g., user groups, resource managers, residents, environmental groups, decision
makers, teachers and students, the general public) which may routinely utilize the site for training,
education, and interpretation. The assumption is that a candidate site with a variety of available target
audiences will be utilized to a greater extent than one with fewer target audiences.
3 Points

The site is suitable for a variety of target audiences that are readily available.

2 Points

The site is suitable for a moderate number of target audiences that are readily available.

1 Point

The site is suitable for few target audiences that are available.

0 Points

The site is so remote or inaccessible that it is not suitable for any target audience.

IV. Acquisition and Management Considerations
Acquisition, Facilities, and Proximity
A. Land Ownership. This is a measure of the degree to which the property is divided (e.g., divided into only
a few parcels or owned by many individuals). The assumption is that a candidate site with fewer property
owners will be easier to acquire or control.
3 Points

The property is relatively undivided.

2 Points

The property is divided with few property owners.

1 Point

The property is divided with many property owners.

B. Publicly Owned Lands and Feasibility of Land Acquisition. This is a measure of the degree to which the
land within the site is currently owned by the state, federal government, or local governments, or
environmental interest groups, and the degree to which there is interest in donating or selling property
by its owners. The assumption is that the degree of control needed to maintain the site in relatively

36 | P a g e

pristine conditions increases with publicly owned land and lands controlled by environmental groups,
and that the chances of purchasing additional areas increase with private property owners who are
willing to sell.
3 Points

A large percentage (more than 50 percent) of the candidate site is currently owned by
the state, federal, or local governments, or environmental groups, and these entities
have an interest in participating in a research reserve.

2 Points

State, federal, or local governments, or environmental groups own 25 to 50 percent of
the candidate site with the remainder in the hands of a few owners who have an
interest in participating in a research reserve.

1 Point

State, federal, or local governments or environmental groups own less than 25 percent
of the site with the remainder in the hands of a few owners who have an interest in
participating in a research reserve.

0 Points

The site is owned by a large number of owners with little potential interest in sale or
donation.

C. Availability of Facilities. The degree to which there are existing facilities or potential sites for future
facilities that can be used by staff, researchers, classes, and training groups (e.g., administrative building
space, dormitories, labs, interpretive centers, trails and boardwalks, boat ramps, etc.). The assumption is
that, due to limited reserve construction funds, a candidate site with existing facilities can meet the
objectives of the Reserve System program sooner and more completely than a site without existing
facilities. The availability of other sources of construction funds should be considered as part of this
criterion.
3 Points

The site has established structures and facilities that can be used for reserve activities.

2 Points

The site has limited established structures or facilities that can be used for reserve
activities.

1 Point

The site has excellent potential for the development of facilities for reserve activities.

0 Points

The site has limited potential for the development facilities for reserve activities.

D. Proximity and Accessibility of Site to Researchers, Educators, and Resource Management Decision
Makers. This is a measure of (1) the relative proximity of the site to urban centers, K-12 schools,
research and education institutions, and resource management agencies that may routinely utilize the
site and (2) the adequacy of the roads or points for boat access at the site. The underlying assumption is
that the proximity and accessibility of the site will enhance its utilization for education, research,
monitoring, and resource protection purposes.
3 Points

The candidate site can be utilized by the above-listed entities during a single day trip.
There are good roads or points for boat access at the site.

2 Points

The candidate site is relatively isolated and utilization would require an overnight stay
from any of the above-listed entities, but accommodations are readily available. There
are adequate roads or points for boat access at the site.

37 | P a g e

1 Point

The candidate site is relatively isolated and reasonable accommodations for an
overnight stay to utilize the site are limited. There are limited roads or points for boat
access at the site.

0 Points

The candidate site is extremely isolated and accommodations to utilize the site are not
available. There are inadequate or no roads, or points for boat access at the site.

Management Considerations
E. Controlled Land and Water Access. This is a measure of the degree to which land and water access to
the candidate site can be controlled and limited. It is based on size, geography, proximity to adjacent
development, and historical controls. The assumption is that the integrity and security of a potential
reserve site can be better maintained with a higher level of controlled land and water access.
3 Points

The candidate site is relatively isolated and of a size that can be controlled. Historically,
access has been controlled, and can easily be controlled in the future due to the
presence of limited access points by boat or vehicle.

2 Points

The candidate site is not very isolated, but has a limited number of access points.
Historically, site access has not been controlled, but the site is of a size that it can be
controlled in the future.

1 Point

Site access will be difficult to control due to the large number of access points or the
size of the area. Historically, site access has not been controlled and it is unclear
whether it can be controlled in the future.

0 Points

Site access cannot be controlled due to the large number of access points, lack of
historical controls, the size of the area, or dense adjacent development.

F. Compatibility with Existing Management Practices and Consumptive and Non-Consumptive Uses. This
is a measure of the degree to which existing management practices (e.g., habitat manipulations, best
management practices) and historic and current consumptive and non-consumptive uses might be in
conflict with foreseeable management practices implemented under a research reserve program. The
assumption is that sites with fewer conflicts are more likely to maintain both public support and the
integrity of the site.
NOTE: This factor should be measured in light of special circumstances (such as the presence of
unique habitats or of listed species) that might cause the state to limit what is now unlimited
use or practices by groups or individuals and, in the process, cause some conflict in regard to
designation of a reserve site. It should be measured with an eye toward balancing protection of
critical sites or resources against reasonable access to other parts of the site.
3 Points

Existing management practices and consumptive and non-consumptive uses would not
be in conflict with any foreseeable management policy of a research reserve.

2 Points

Due to the presence of proportionately small areas of unique habitat and endangered
species or threats to the integrity of the ecosystem, there is the potential for limited
restrictions on existing management practices or consumptive and non-consumptive

38 | P a g e

uses of a site.
1 Point

Due to the presence of areas of unique habitat and endangered species and threats to
the integrity of the ecosystem, some restrictions on existing management practices or
consumptive and non-consumptive uses of a site are likely.

0 Points

Large areas of unique habitat and threats to the integrity of the ecosystem will require
restrictions on existing management practices or consumptive and non-consumptive
uses of a site.

G. Compatibility with Adjacent Land Use. This is a measure of the potential conflicts between
management practices on a research reserve site with land-use practices on adjacent lands. It is also a
measure of the adequacy of land-use regulations, plans, or other controls to sustain the site’s resources
for long-term research, education, and resource protection. The assumption is that a candidate site with
compatible land-use practices on adjacent lands is more likely to maintain the integrity of the reserve.
NOTE: As with the previous factor, this issue should be evaluated with an eye toward the
potential for present or future conflicts with adjacent lands and the potential to designate
buffer zones around a site.
3 Points

A large percentage of the land adjacent to the site is not currently used for activities
that might impact the site (and therefore, may be obtainable as a buffer) or the land-use
practices on adjacent lands would not have any negative impacts on a possible research
reserve.

2 Points

A large to moderate percentage of the land adjacent to the site is not currently used for
activities that might negatively impact the site, or the land-use practices on adjacent
lands either could be negotiated or would have only minor impacts a possible research
reserve.

1 Point

Some of the land adjacent to the site is currently used for activities that would have
negative impacts on a possible research reserve and may not be negotiable.

0 Points

A large percentage of the land adjacent to the site is currently used for activities that
would have negative impacts on a possible research reserve and would lead to conflicts.

H. Future Development Plans. This is a measure of the potential level of future development in areas on
or adjacent to a candidate site that would impact the site. The assumption is that a candidate site with
minimal to no development plans on-site and on adjacent lands is more likely to maintain the integrity
of the reserve.
NOTE: Even more so than the previous factor, this issue involves the degree to which adjacent
lands are currently being used or may be attainable as buffer areas for the research reserve.
3 Points

A large percentage (more than 50 percent) of the land adjacent to the site is currently
undeveloped or is, for whatever reason, very unlikely to be developed in the near future
(e.g., consisting of marginally developable property, such as wetlands, which could be
obtained as buffer).

39 | P a g e

2 Points

A moderate percentage (between 25 and 50 percent) of the land adjacent to the site is
currently undeveloped or is not likely to be developed in the near future.

1 Point

A small to moderate percentage (10 to 25 percent) of the land adjacent to the site is
currently undeveloped or is not likely to be developed in the near future, with limited
levels of development on other lands.

0 Points

A large percentage (more than 50 percent) of the land adjacent to the site is developed
and the area is likely to continue to be developed in the future.

V. Additional State Criteria (Optional and Process Specific)
In many cases, the state’s site-selection-related committees and teams have added additional siteselection criteria that reflect specific and unique state or regional characteristics or management
considerations. Any additional state developed criteria must be approved by NOAA as part of the suite of
site-selection criteria that will be applied to the process of determining a possible site for nomination as
a research reserve. Some examples of criteria developed by other states are provided below:
A. Coastal Resilience Research. This consideration is important for the reserve site in order to be able to
assess climate and coastal change impacts on the area.
3 Points

The site’s ecological resources will be affected by climate change impacts including
erosion, sea-level rise, etc., and these impacts will be able to be well-documented.

2 Points

The site’s ecological resources will be affected by climate change impacts including
erosion, sea-level rise, etc., and these impacts may be able to be documented.

1 Point

The site’s ecological resources will be affected by climate change impacts including
erosion, sea-level rise, etc., and these impacts will probably not be able to be
documented.

B. Natural Community Diversity. This is a measure of the diversity of representative natural community
types present within the boundaries of the site (see criterion 1A for a list of representative natural
community types in the Superior Coastal Plain Ecological Landscape). This criterion is based on the
assumption that sites that have a high diversity of representative natural community types are of higher
relative “value” for protection and management than those with a low diversity of representative
natural community types. Evaluation of this criterion will rely on the best professional judgment of SiteSelection Technical Team members and potential supplemental analysis using aerial photography,
topographic maps, National Hydrography dataset, and other existing resources.
3 Points

The candidate site has a high number of representative natural communities present,
i.e., it is in the top-quarter when the candidate sites are evaluated on the number of
natural communities present.

2 Points

The site has a moderate number of representative natural communities present, i.e., it
is in the top-half when the candidate sites are evaluated on the number of natural
communities present.

40 | P a g e

1 Point

The site has a low number of representative natural communities present, i.e., it is in
the bottom half when the candidate sites are evaluated on the number of natural
communities present.

0 Points

The site has a very low number of representative natural communities present, i.e., it is
in the bottom quarter when the candidate sites are evaluated on the number of natural
communities present.

C. Extent of Lake Superior Intrusion and Seiche Influence. This criterion recognizes the importance of
Great Lakes water intrusion and seiche influence to freshwater estuary structure and function. The
criterion assumes that sites with observable, frequent Lake Superior intrusion and seiche influence will
best demonstrate the associated physicochemical gradients (e.g., specific conductivity, turbidity, and
temperature) that are intrinsic to freshwater estuaries. Evaluation of this criterion will rely on the best
professional judgment of Site-Selection Technical Team members, and, when possible, will be supported
through a review of existing sources of information.
3 Points

The site has significant Lake Superior intrusion and seiche influence.

2 Points

The site has moderate Lake Superior intrusion and seiche influence.

1 Point

The site has minimal Lake Superior intrusion and seiche influence.

0 Points

The site has no Lake Superior intrusion and seiche influence.

D. Value of Site for Environmental Education and Interpretation Programs. It is likely that sites with
existing education programs have the necessary infrastructure in place to further expand their
programs, thus it is valuable to rate sites based on the presence of these programs. However, in an area
as large and relatively pristine as the Lake Superior shoreline, numerous excellent sites exist where
virtually no education or interpretation programs have been developed. Thus, the potential for
education and interpretation program development should be considered as well according to the
diversity and quality of educational and interpretive program opportunities.
3 Points

The site has a long history of education and interpretation, or the site offers excellent
potential for future education and interpretation program development.

2 Points

The site has a good but short history of education and interpretation, but is otherwise
well suited for education and interpretation program development, or the site offers
good potential for future education and interpretation program development.

1 Point

The site has had only a minor amount of education and interpretation being conducted,
or the site offers fair potential for future education and interpretation program
development.

0 Points

The site offers no significant potential for education and interpretation program
development.

E. Drainage Basin and Freshwater Inflow Interface. In Western Gulf of Mexico estuaries, a critical

41 | P a g e

physical factor in ecosystem function is the presence and amount of riverine influence. Thus, it is
imperative that a site encompass a river, stream, bayou, or deltaic network of features with sources of
freshwater inflow from adjacent drainage basins.
3 Points

The site has significant freshwater inflow.

0 Points

The site does not have significant freshwater inflow.

E. Overall Site-Selection Process and Nomination
Once NOAA determines that it can accept a new nomination submission, the lead agency may submit an
application to NOAA for site-selection funding (50:50 match requirement). A state is eligible for a total of
$100,000 in federal funds for pre-designation activities, which include site selection, preparation of the
draft environmental impact statement and draft management plan, and final statement and plan, and a
limited basic characterization of the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of the site. It is
recommended that the preliminary application for the site-selection phase request $25,000 to $40,000.
The previously detailed set of site-selection criteria is a model for states that plan to propose new sites
for the National Estuarine Research Reserve System. A state may choose to modify them in consultation
with the Office for Coastal Management to reflect regional differences in the ecological characteristics
of the habitats to be considered. In addition, the relative “values” placed upon the criteria can be
modified as appropriate.
The governor submits to the NOAA administrator a site-selection document and a nomination letter
identifying the proposed site and confirming the lead state agency. NOAA reviews the site-selection
document and sends a letter to the governor accepting, rejecting, or suggesting modifications to the
nomination.
The nomination must identify the site-selection agency, the potential managing agency, and a proposed
site-selection process that incorporates public participation. Steps for selecting a site include the
following:
•

•

•
•

The state develops a process for selecting a site that includes site-selection criteria, and
implements the process. NOAA recommends that the state establish a site-selection committee
composed of key interested individuals (e.g., scientists, educators, resource managers,
nongovernmental organizations) for this purpose.
The site-selection process should cover the entire biogeographic sub-region within the state and
then narrow down the options. A site must contribute to the biogeographic and typological
balance of the National Estuarine Research Reserve System, and be adequately protected for
long-term research, education, and stewardship.
Contacts must be made with affected landowners, potentially affected adjacent resource users,
local governments, and state and federal agencies.
The state, in conjunction with NOAA, holds a public meeting in the vicinity of the site or sites
being considered. The meeting must be publicized in a local newspaper and in the Federal
Register at least 15 days before being held.

42 | P a g e

•

The state normally submits preliminary and final site-selection documents. NOAA may request
additional information or suggest changes to the nomination.

43 | P a g e

5. Boundary Delineation
A. Introduction to Boundary Delineation
NOAA has identified 11 distinct biogeographic regions and 29
sub-regions in the U.S., each of which contains several types of
estuarine ecosystems (15 C.F.R. Part 921, Appendix I and II). As
of 2017, the system includes 29 reserves and three state in the
process of designating a reserve.
Reserve boundaries will vary depending on the nature of the
ecosystem. Boundaries must include an adequate portion of the
key land and water areas of the natural system to approximate
an ecological unit and to ensure effective conservation.
Criteria for setting boundaries are contained in Reserve System
regulations (Title 15 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part
921, Section 921.11). The main factor in delineating reserve
boundaries is a determination that the site’s boundaries
“encompass an adequate portion of the key land and water
areas of the natural system to approximate an ecological unit
and to assure effective conservation.” The regulations intend
that environmental and scientific factors be given primary
consideration in the initial delineation of proposed boundaries.
Once a site is selected by a state, the delineation of proposed boundaries is the next important step
before approval of the site by NOAA. The establishment of final boundaries is a difficult process that
requires consideration of many factors, environmental and administrative. Boundary size will vary
greatly depending on the size of the ecosystem.
A balance must be sought in determining the overall size of a reserve between encompassing enough
area to include an ecosystem large enough to make long-term estuarine research viable, and having a
discrete contiguous area that can be effectively managed. The reserve boundary must provide
protection for the ecosystem but may not be arbitrary (i.e., based on the availability of property nearby
which may be available for purchase). This is, in part, an effort to ensure that property interests
purchased in an effort to establish adequate state control of a reserve are actually required for the
integrity of the reserve.
National Estuarine Research Reserves may include existing federal or state lands already in a protected
status where mutual benefit can be enhanced. Limits do apply, however, to the extent of federal lands
that can be included in a reserve. NOAA will not approve a site that is dependent primarily upon the
inclusion of federal lands in order to meet the requirements for reserve status (such as key land and
water areas). Generally, federal lands included within a reserve should serve as a buffer or for other
ancillary purposes; and may be included, subject to NOAA approval, as a limited portion of the core
area.

44 | P a g e

B. General Principles
Boundaries of reserves connote some degree of control by the managing entity over human activities
and the natural resources occurring within the reserve. Generally, reserve boundaries will include two
areas: key land and water areas, or a “core” area, and a buffer zone. Control on the landward side may
involve direct ownership or jurisdiction by the agency that manages the core area; it may also mean
control exercised by administrative action, easements, or by other means. Federal and state lands
contiguous with the reserve may be included within the boundaries only after formal agreements
approved by NOAA have been established through proper administrative or legal measures.

C. Basic Scientific Principles for Establishing Reserve Boundaries
•

Reserve boundaries are proposed by the lead state agency through a site-nomination document
for consideration by NOAA. It is preferable that boundaries include contiguous land and water
areas that are essential to the reserve, i.e., to establish a natural field laboratory capable of
supporting Reserve System long-term research, stewardship, and educational objectives.

•

Boundaries should encompass an entire ecological
unit (habitats and communities), including adjacent
terrestrial areas, especially watersheds and drainage
areas. However, protecting a whole watershed will, in
most cases, be extraordinarily difficult and prohibitive
in cost. The solution is to establish and protect a core
area incorporating the critical portions of the
estuarine ecosystem.

•

Key land and water areas make up a core area to
preserve, for research purposes, a full range of
significant physical, chemical, and biological factors
contributing to the diversity of fauna, flora, and
natural processes occurring within the estuary.

•

The determination of which water and land areas are
“key” to a particular reserve must be based upon
specific scientific knowledge of the area. A basic principle to follow when deciding upon key land
and water areas is that they should encompass resources that are representative of the total
ecosystem and which, if compromised, could endanger the research objectives of the reserve.

•

An area adjacent to or surrounding the core, and on which the integrity of the core area
depends, is the buffer zone. Buffer zones protect the core and provide additional protection for
estuarine-dependent species. The buffer zone may also include an area best suited for facilities
required for research and interpretation. Additionally, buffers must encompass an area
sufficient to accommodate the shift of the core in case of biological, ecological, or
geomorphologic change.

•

Buffers are usually of the same biome as the core and may accommodate NOAA-approved
manipulative research that should not be carried out in the core. They may encompass wetlands

45 | P a g e

not in the core area, ecotones, and upstream effects where practical, as well as shoreland and
contiguous ocean or bay water.
•

Determination of the landward boundary of a reserve is difficult because of transitional zones,
the slope of the upland, the size of the estuary, and other factors. At a minimum, the landward
boundary should encompass wetlands that contribute to estuarine processes. Wetlands may be
defined in terms of vegetation, and the upland limit of wetlands can be defined accordingly.
There is generally a transitional zone (ecotone) in which vegetative types from two or more
ecological groups mix together. Ecotones combine the characteristics of the communities they
join and often have an unusually high abundance and diversity of life and serve a unique
function to the ecosystem. The emergence of upland vegetation will indicate in general terms
where the landward boundary of a reserve should be drawn. However, how much, if any, of the
uplands are included in the proposed boundary must be determined on the basis of scientific
judgment and not property lines or the availability of land for acquisition.

•

Estuarine resources do not necessarily end at the shoreline, but may include adjacent open
water areas.

D. Recommended General Procedure for Proposed Boundary
Delineation
I. Conduct a scientific survey of the proposed site
Identify proposed land boundaries
 Vegetation types
 Landform/physical (natural or man-made)
 Land uses
 Estuarine-dependent physical processes, biological components, or combination
Identify proposed water boundaries
 Natural delineation between discrete or separable landforms
 Natural delineation between discrete or separable water bodies or portions of the same
water body.
II. Identify key land and water areas (Core Area)
 Within boundaries established by a scientific survey (see I above), identify, and rank in
order of their importance, the most important ecological units of the proposed area, i.e.,
those units most important to the integrity of the area and its resources. (Refer to the list
of basic principles listed in this sub-section C.)
 Consider the following when ranking:
 Why are these units important?
 What is the minimum land and water area needed to protect these highest priority
ecological units?
III. Identify buffer areas

46 | P a g e

 Within the boundary established for the scientific survey (see I above) and in consideration
of the core area identified in II, identify the minimum buffer area required to
 Ensure the long-term viability of the core area for research purposes, and
 Provide sites for needed research or educational support facilities and
infrastructure (i.e., trails, boardwalks, boat launches).
Note that core and buffer areas “will likely require significantly different levels of control (see Reserve
System Regulations Sec. 921.13(a) (7)).” Key aspects of core and buffer areas are listed in the table 4
below.
Table 4. Core and Buffer Zones of a Research Reserve

CORE

For national estuarine research reserves, the term
“core area” refers to key land and water areas.
The term “key land and water areas” refers to
that core area within the reserve that is so vital to
the functioning of the estuarine ecosystem that it
must be under a level of control sufficient to
ensure the long-term viability of the reserve for
research on natural processes.
Those ecological units of a natural estuarine
system which preserve, for research purposes, a
full range of significant physical, chemical, and
biological factors contributing to the diversity of
fauna, flora, and natural processes occurring
within the estuary.
The determination of which land and water areas
are “key” to a particular reserve must be based on
specific scientific knowledge of the area. A basic
principle to follow when deciding upon key land
and water areas is that they should encompass
resources representative of the total ecosystem,
and which if compromised could endanger the
research objectives of the reserve.

BUFFER

The term “buffer zone” refers to an area adjacent
to or surrounding key land and water areas and
essential to their integrity.
Buffer zones protect the core area and provide
additional protection for estuarine-dependent
species, including those that are rare or
endangered.
When determined appropriate by the state and
approved by NOAA, the buffer zone may also
include areas necessary for facilities required for
research and interpretation.
Additionally, buffer zones should be established
sufficient to accommodate shifts of the core area
because of biological, ecological, or
geomorphological change that reasonably could
be expected to occur.

E. Multi-Component Reserves
A multi-component reserve has two or more noncontiguous protected areas, or components, that are
under the managerial jurisdiction of the reserve. Multiple components are appropriate when a state has
a complex coast that makes it impossible for a single component to represent the habitat diversity in a
biogeographic region. They should not be considered solely as a means for increasing protected land
within a state.
A multi-component reserve as shown in Figure 9 is “treated as one reserve in terms of financial

47 | P a g e

assistance and development of an overall management framework and plan” (Reserve System
regulations, §921.10b). It is subject to the same funding limits as single-component reserves, and it must
function as one unit and not as individual “mini” reserves. When reviewing a multi-component site
considered by the lead state agency, NOAA will look for strong administrative, educational, research,
and monitoring plans that establish an identity for the reserve and the national system. A state may
choose to develop a multi-component reserve at any time during designation or operation of the
reserve. The number of components is not limited, but the benefit of additional components must be
balanced against increased management responsibility and program dilution. NOAA and the lead state
agency will determine the feasibility of planned components with each reserve on a case-by-case basis.
Since 2000, lead state agencies have considered multi-component reserves but not pursued this option
because of the prohibitive operational costs and coordination needs involved in managing this type of
reserve.

Figure 9. North Carolina Research Reserve – Multi Components

48 | P a g e

6. Developing an Environmental Impact Statement and
Reserve Management Plan
A. Introduction
The development of an environmental impact statement and reserve management plan is the most
comprehensive and time-intensive part of a reserve designation process. According to Reserve System
regulations §921.12, upon NOAA approval of the site nomination, the state and NOAA must develop a
draft management plan and prepare a draft environmental impact statement. Reserve System
regulations clearly define the roles of NOAA and the state partner in this process.
 NOAA is the primary lead in developing the draft environmental impact statement to meet
its NEPA obligations. And the lead state partner supports NOAA’s preparation of the draft
environmental impact statement by collecting relevant information and providing it to
NOAA.
 The lead state partner is the primary lead for developing a draft management plan,
including the drafting of a NOAA–state MOU and any additional MOUs between state
partners. NOAA provides guidance to assist in the development of the management plan
and MOUs.
The lead state partner and NOAA should begin to prepare a draft environmental impact statement and
draft management plan immediately following the approval of the notice of intent to prepare those
documents. The basic milestones in the development of the draft statement and plan are shown in
Site Selection
& Nomination

Environmental
Impact Statement
Process and
Management Plan

Notice of
Intent to
Prepare EIS

Developing
Draft EIS/MP

Public
Scoping
Meeting(s)

DEIS/DMP
Public
Comment
Meetings

Prepare
MOUs
Record of
Decision

Designation
Findings

Prepare
Final EIS/MP

Complete CZMA
Federal
Consistency, ESA,
NHPA, NMFS

49 | P a g e

Figure 10.

Initiate
Required
Federal
Consultations

Figure 10. Basic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and
Management Plan (MP) Development Processes, 2017

B. NEPA Process
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, requires that federal agencies consider the
environmental impacts of major federal actions. The designation of a reserve is considered a major
federal action and requires a NEPA review before NOAA can officially designate a reserve. As required by
National Estuarine Research Reserve System regulations (§ 921.13), an environmental impact statement
and management plan must be developed to assess the possible environmental impacts of the proposed
designation and to identify future management strategies if the proposed reserve is designated.
NEPA is triggered when a proposal for a major federal action exists. Council of Environmental Quality
regulations define major federal actions to include adoption of official policy, such as rules and
regulations; adoption of formal plans; adoption of programs; and approvals of specific projects.
Normally, the key question from §102(2) (C) is – “Does the proposed action significantly affect the
quality of the human environment?”. However, Reserve System regulations §921.12 require the
development of an environmental impact statement for the designation of a national estuarine research
reserve.
NOAA must meet NEPA requirements whenever NOAA’s decision on a proposal for action would result
in a physical effect on the human environment, even when the effect would be beneficial, and
regardless of who proposes the action or where it would take place (40 C.F.R. 1508.18).
After NOAA approval of the site nomination document, the lead state agency may submit an application

50 | P a g e

to NOAA, limited to the unallocated portion of the $100,000, for development of the draft
environmental impact statement/draft management plan, Final environmental impact statement/final
management plan, and other basic characterization studies. The state application for post-site-selection
funding must include
 A Draft Management Plan outline, including milestones and timeline, and
 An outline of a draft memorandum of understanding between the lead state agency and NOAA
detailing the federal and state roles in reserve management (as well as additional MOUs with
land-owning [or-leasing] or managing partners, if applicable).

C. Starting the NEPA Process for a Reserve Designation
Before preparation of the draft environmental impact statement and draft management plan, NOAA
publishes a notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement in the Federal Register. The
notice should





Describe the proposed action and possible alternatives
Provide information on planned scoping meetings or hearings
Provide contact information
Provide a minimum 30-day public comment period

The lead state partner, with assistance from NOAA, holds a scoping meeting(s) to solicit the views of the
public regarding the proposed project before the draft environmental impact statement and
management plan are prepared. NOAA must publish the notice of intent in the Federal Register at least
15 days before the scoping meeting. Concurrent to the NOAA action, the lead state partner must both
advertise the scoping meeting in local media outlets (newspapers at least 15 days before the scheduled
scoping meeting) and send letters to potential stakeholders about the scoping (Figure 11). An example
notice of intent is found in Appendix F.

Figure 11. Notice of Intent (NOI) for environmental impact
statement (EIS) and Scoping

51 | P a g e

The formal public scoping process begins after the notice is published in the Federal Register, but can in
practice begin before that notice is published. The purpose of a scoping process is to help the lead state
partner and NOAA determine the range of issues associated with the designation of a national estuarine
research reserve based on the site nomination document.
The scoping process may be conducted using several formats, including
•
•
•
•

Internal meetings between NOAA and state-level stakeholders
Formal public hearings where the public provides testimonial that is recorded into the official
record
Informal public meetings with at-large or invited individuals to discuss the proposed designation
Solicitation of public comment through various media (mass mailings, newspapers, internet,
phone conversations)

52 | P a g e

Although a public meeting is not a typical requirement, Reserve System regulations § 921.11 (c) require
NOAA to hold a public scoping meeting with the lead state partner in the area or areas most affected by
the proposed reserve designation. This meeting is required to be held no earlier than 15 days after the
notice of intent is published in the Federal Register.
The goal of a public scoping meeting is to determine the range of issues regarding the proposed
designation by engaging a broad group of interested private and public parties. The process helps NOAA
and the lead state partner to be responsive to information and concerns that may arise (See Appendix J,
“Important Questions and Answers for Public Meetings”). The process helps determine the relevant
stakeholders; identify significant environmental issues; strengthen stakeholder support for reserve
designation; and identify information gaps or other actions that may affect designation. During the
scoping meeting(s), comments are accepted from the public and eventually considered and addressed in
the draft environmental impact statement and draft management plan as they are developed.
Previous reserve-designation-related scoping meetings have identified multiple benefits for the process:
 The lead state partner found these meetings very useful for providing a venue for NOAA to
engage with partners who want to better understand what it really means to be part of a
research reserve.
 Provides an opportunity for NOAA to communicate face to face with partners and stakeholders
the differences between a national estuarine research reserve and other types of protected
areas (i.e., national marine sanctuary).
 Alleviates concerns from stakeholders and partners about new regulations regarding the
management of the lands and waters within the reserve. NOAA regulations § 921.11 (c) (3) note
that the core areas of a proposed reserve “must be under a level of control sufficient to ensure
the long-term viability of the Reserve for research on natural process.” As such, these controls
must already be in place using existing state regulations for designation of a reserve to occur.
Note: Scoping is an iterative process and continues throughout the development of the environmental
impact statement until the final version is published in the Federal Register.

D. Developing a Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Upon the publishing of the notice of intent in the Federal Register, NOAA, with support from the lead
state partner, begins developing a draft environmental impact statement to support an environmental
analysis of the proposed reserve designation. The analysis process that produces an environmental
impact statement allows the NOAA administrator to make an informed decision about whether to
designate the proposed reserve into the Reserve System.
For a reserve designation, the development of a draft environmental impact statement can typically be a

53 | P a g e

6-12 month project. The lead state partner is advised to begin collecting information for the
environmental impact statement before the publishing of the notice of intent. For the lead state
partner, this includes
 Leveraging the work of the various teams and committees that was used in the nomination
document previously submitted to NOAA for acceptance;
 Utilizing mapping products and documents that were contracted out in support of the siteselection and nomination process; and
 Leveraging partner knowledge and information about the site.
Most importantly, the environmental impact statement preparers must remember to address
stakeholder concerns or comments identified during the scoping meetings when developing the draft.
Figure 12 provides a detailed roadmap of the process NOAA and the lead state partner follow in
preparing a draft environmental impact statement and associated draft management plan for a new
reserve. Additional guidance can be found within the Companion Manual for NOAA Administrative
Order 216-6A at https://www.nepa.noaa.gov/docs/NOAA-NAO-216-6A-Companion-Manual01132017.pdf
Important considerations regarding the development of the draft environmental impact statement
include the following.
 NOAA taking the lead in developing the draft, with the lead state partner and associated
stakeholder committees or teams taking a supporting role.
 Identifying a small team within the Office for Coastal Management to support the development
of the draft. At a minimum, include representation from the Office for Coastal Management’s
Ecosystems Team, General Counsel, and Environmental Compliance Team, and an Office for
Coastal Management lead.

54 | P a g e

Figure 12. Overall process for preparing a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
and Draft Management Plan (DMP)

Prepare Draft EIS
& Management
Plan

NOAA Develops
DEIS
State Develops
DMP

Preliminary
NOAA Review
of DEIS/DMP

Revise
Preliminary
DEIS/DMP

Begin CZMA Federal
Consistency
Determination Process
Draft Consistency
Determination Document
prepared for State
Begin Federal
Consultations

ESA Section 7
Essential Fish
Habitat
NHPA Section
106

Prepare Draft MOA s
between NOAA &
State and between
state partners

Consultations
Completed

Draft MOA routed for
Department of
Commerce Tracking

Receive
Consistency
determination
from State

Prepare DEIS/DMP
Documentation
Package

DEIS/DMP clearance
process at NOAA
Publish notice of public
meeting(s) on
DEIS/DMP in FRN
U.S. EPA Announces
Availability of
DEIS/DMP in FRN

Public Meeting
on DEIS/DMP
Advertise public
Meeting(s) in Local
Media

Final EIS – Final MP
Development
Process

55 | P a g e

 NOAA and the lead state partner must work together throughout this process and ensure that
partners and stakeholders are engaged throughout.
 Partner and stakeholder concerns identified through the public engagement process (i.e.,
scoping meetings) must be addressed in the document.
 If tribes are involved, make sure to have specific targeted engagement with them from
sovereign nation to nation.
 Concurrently, initiate consultations with federal agencies for applicable federal statutes (i.e.,
Endangered Species Act Section 7, Marine Mammal Protection Act, National Historic
Preservation Act, etc.).
 NOAA and the lead state partner develop a draft environmental impact statement development
timeline.
 Leverage the Office for Coastal Management for facilitation and geospatial support for
developing the draft statement and draft management plan.
 An internal NOAA review and clearance process for environmental impact statements is
incorporated into this review process. The NOAA clearance process for approving a draft EIS for
public comment includes both a preliminary review and formal clearance.

After completing the initial scoping meetings, the development of the draft environmental impact
statement and associated environmental analysis include the following:

Create Draft
Environmental Impact
Statement
Development Team

• Ecosystem Team
• General Counsel
• Office for Coastal Management Environmental Compliance
• Regional Staff
• Lead State Partner

This team is tasked with conducting the environmental analysis for the designation of a research
reserve. To sustain continuity between the draft environmental impact statement and the final version,
it is important that the team remain in place for the duration of the designation process. At a minimum,
bi-weekly team meetings are recommended to ensure that actions and milestones are met.

Identify Purpose
and Need

•What and where is the proposed action?
•Is there a management plan that meets applicable
requirements?
•What is the need for designating this site?
•Acting upon the request from a governor.

The draft environmental impact statement development team needs to describe what NOAA and the
state want to do, and identify where this action is going to occur. For a research reserve designation, the

56 | P a g e

purpose of the proposed action includes both the designation of the proposed reserve and approval of
the reserve management plan and its subsequent implementation of plan management elements
resulting from the designation. This should answer the question, “Why is NOAA proposing to approve
the reserve designation?”
Depending on the location of the proposed reserve, the need for the proposed action could either be
1. To fill a currently unrepresented gap in the national system furthering the national goal to
ensure that the system reflects the wide range of estuarine types within the U.S. as described in
Appendix 2 of the Section 921, or
2. Represent a significant addition to the Reserve System because of its unique estuarine type or
habitats that are not represented in the system, or
3. Represent a coastal state currently not represented in the Reserve System.
Additionally, the team needs to note that NOAA is acting upon a nomination of the site by the state or
territorial governor for inclusion within the national system.
The purpose and need serves as an important screening criterion for determining which alternatives to
designation of the proposed reserve are reasonable. All reasonable alternatives examined in detail must
meet the defined purpose and need.

Provide State
Context

• Site selection and nomination process
• Proposed site overview
• Scoping
• Alternative sites considered during site selection
• Documents that influence the scope of the environmental analysis
• Permits, licenses, and entitlements associated with the action

To further support the purpose and need for the action to designate a reserve, the draft environmental
impact statement development team should provide an overview of the public involvement in the
process. The team should specifically summarize the site-selection and nomination process and identify
relevant issues discovered during scoping. For a research reserve designation, it’s important to provide a
basic overview of proposed reserve and alternative sites considered during the site-selection process.
Also, the draft environmental impact statement needs to identify any laws, regulations, and other
documents that have influenced the scope of this analysis.

Develop
Alternatives

• Description of the alternatives
• Boundary alternatives
• Detailed description of the preferred alternative/proposed action
• No action alternative
• Alternatives previously considered but eliminated

57 | P a g e

The draft environmental impact statement development team needs to describe the proposed action to
designate a reserve and the range of alternatives to that action. According to Council of Environmental
Quality regulations 40 CFR 1502.14, the process must
 Rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives, and for alternatives
which were eliminated from detailed study, briefly discuss the reasons for their having been
eliminated.
 Devote substantial treatment to each alternative considered in detail, including the proposed
action so that reviewers may evaluate their comparative merits.
 Include reasonable alternatives such as alternative boundaries, sites, multiple sites or others.
 Include the no-action alternative. The no-action alternative is the most likely future that could
be expected to occur in the absence of the project.
 Identify NOAA’s preferred alternative or alternatives, if one or more exists.
 Include appropriate mitigation measures not already included in the proposed action or
alternatives.
The team will need to provide objective descriptions of all reasonable alternatives under consideration
by NOAA. It is recommended that NOAA and the lead state agency partner include short, concise
summaries of the impacts of each alternative, provided in comparative form. This usually includes
providing a matrix or table summarizing and comparing the alternatives in terms of environmental
impacts and benefits. For a research reserve designation, the alternatives identified in this section are
those that may be feasibly carried out based on technical, economic, environmental, and other factors,
and meet the purpose and need for the proposed action. The range of alternatives must include
•
•
•

No-Action Alternative – Analysis of the impacts of no reserve designation. It’s a continuation of
the status quo where the stated purpose and need for a reserve designation is not met.
Preferred Alternative – This is the proposed action of designating a reserve. Note that this
alternative may be different than the site nomination boundaries.
Boundary Alternatives – Typically, different boundary configurations are considered as part of
the analysis and one of these might be the preferred alternative.

Figure 13. Examples of Sites Eliminated
from Detailed Study

58 | P a g e

The draft environmental impact statement should also include a discussion of alternatives that were
considered but not analyzed. During the site-selection stage of the designation process, the lead state
agency may consider a number of alternatives that could be considered reasonable but are unlikely to
accomplish the goal of designating a new reserve. Any alternatives considered but rejected for further
analysis should be briefly discussed in a subsection of the draft environmental impact statement (i.e.,
“Alternatives Considered, but not Further Analyzed”). The team must briefly describe why other
alternatives were eliminated from the more detailed review. This allows the draft to identify these
alternatives, as shown in Figure 13, and to explain why they were not reasonable for achieving the
purpose and need of designating a proposed reserve.
This draft should also include a detailed description of the proposed action or preferred alternative.
Within this description, include the total acres for each component of the proposed site that is
described, as well as a map that depicts the core and buffer areas within the proposed boundary, as
shown in Figure 14.

Figure 14. Example Preferred Alternative Core and Buffer Areas detailed study

Additionally, providing a brief description of the anticipated environmental impacts or consequences of
the proposed action and alternatives on the affected environment is important to include when
comparing alternatives. A more detailed analysis of the impacts of each alternative is to be discussed in
the “Environmental Consequences” section of the draft environmental impact statement.

Describe the
Affected
Environment

• Description of the natural environment that includes:
• Phyiscal characteristics (hydrology, water quality, climate, etc...)
• Biological characteristics (habitats, living resources, T&E Species, etc.)
• Description of the human environment that includes:
• Economic setting (economy, demographics, infrastructure, etc...)
• Historic and cultural setting (historical sites, cultural resources, archaeological
features, land uses, human uses, etc.)

59 | P a g e

The “Affected Environment” section describes the existing and historical environment in and around the
proposed reserve boundaries. Federal regulations 40 CFR 1502.15 describe this requirement as follows:
“The environmental impact statement shall succinctly describe the environment of the area(s) to be
affected or created by the alternatives under consideration. The descriptions shall be no longer than is
necessary to understand the effects of the alternatives. Data and analyses in a statement shall be
commensurate with the importance of the impact, with less important material summarized,
consolidated, or simply referenced. Agencies shall avoid useless bulk in statements and shall concentrate
effort and attention on important issues. Verbose descriptions of the affected environment are
themselves no measure of the adequacy of an environmental impact statement.”
This section of the draft environmental impact statement is typically divided into subsections that
address two major categories of resources affected by the research reserve designation. These are the
natural environment and the human environment. For example, previous reserve designation
environmental impact statements have used subsections describing biological resources (including
endangered and threatened species), socioeconomic resources, habitat, cultural resources, and
historical resources. Other ideas for subsections are hydrology, geology, existing infrastructure, climate.
Under the “Natural Environment” section, the team should summarize the current conditions of the
resources and environment in the geographic area. Under “Physical Resources,” make sure to include
specifics about special status or listed species that are found in the area.
For the “Human Environment” section make sure to provide sufficient information regarding the current
condition and or presence of historical and cultural resources.
Details on the location and range of both the species and historical or cultural resource will be very
important toward meeting the requirements of other federal statues like the Endangered Species Act or
the National Historic Preservation Act during the designation process. Only include information
pertaining to existing conditions; impact analyses occur in later parts of the draft environmental impact
statement.
Note that each resource described in the “Affected Environment” section must also receive a parallel
discussion in the “Environmental Consequences” section of the draft environmental impact
statement. Additionally, incorporating by reference other environmental impact statements and
environmental assessments may be useful for adding specific information about the affected
environment without adding length to the document.

Analyze the
Environmental
Consequences

• Affected resoures and impacts of each alternative
• Review of impacts mirrored for each resource identified under the
affected environment
• Cumulative impact analysis
• Relationship to other applicable state, regional, local polices
• Irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources

The core environmental impacts analysis of a “federal action,” such as a research reserve designation, is
the “Environmental Consequences” section. The team must provide a detailed analysis and description

60 | P a g e

of any general or specific environmental impacts or effects resulting from reserve designation or the
reasonable alternatives that have been considered. This analysis must mirror each part of the natural
and human environments described in the “Affected Environment” section.
Impacts and effects can include ecological (such as the effects on natural resources and on the
components, structures, and functioning of affected ecosystems), aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic,
social, or health, whether direct, indirect, or cumulative. They may also include those resulting from
actions that may have both beneficial and detrimental effects, even if on balance the agency believes
that the effect will be beneficial.
In addition to any direct or indirect impacts to individual resources described in the affected
environment, the team must also include an analysis of the cumulative impacts. The cumulative impacts
of the proposed action (e.g., reserve designation) include both direct and indirect effects on the
resources, ecosystems, and human community described in the “Affected Environment” section. The
team should note that cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant
actions taking place over a period of time. To help support this analysis, cumulative effects analysis
recommendations and tips are provided in Appendix F.
Furthermore, the team must review how the establishment of the proposed reserve affects known
state, local, and regional plans or policies for areas within the reserve boundaries. Referencing the
proposed reserve management plan and the various agreements between parties, the analysis should
look at how the lands and waters are managed within the proposed boundaries in relationship to other
relevant plans and polices within the same areas.
NEPA also requires consideration of the relationship between local short-term uses of the environment
and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity. For reserve designations, the analysis
is expected to show that short-term uses of the environment relating to a research reserve site are
expected to result in overall improvements to the health and quality of the affected natural and
socioeconomic environments. Any adverse effects are expected to be predominantly short-term (e.g.,
during the restoration or construction process). Such short-term, adverse effects are also expected to
coincide with long-term benefits to ecosystem services and productivity.
To close out this section, NEPA requires an analysis of the extent to which the proposed action’s direct
and indirect effects would commit operational resources to uses that cannot be recovered or that future
generations would be unable to reverse. Resource commitments are considered irreversible or
irretrievable when impacts from their use or consumption would limit future use options and those
changes could not be reversed, reclaimed, or repaired. Irreversible commitments generally occur to
nonrenewable resources such as minerals or cultural resources, and to those resources that are
renewable only over long time spans, such as soil productivity, while irretrievable commitments
generally apply to the loss of production, harvest, or natural resources and are not necessarily
irreversible. Typically for a reserve designation, implementation of the reserve management plan should
result in few irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources.
The team should organize this section to show the following:
 The overall or general impacts of reserve designation and the significance of these impacts.
 Specific impacts or effects of reserve designation and their significance as related to the sections

61 | P a g e

described in the “Affected Environment” section.
 Possible conflicts between the reserve designation and applicable federal, regional, state, and
local plans, programs, or controls for the proposed reserve site.
 Unavoidable adverse environmental or socioeconomic impacts that may result from reserve
designation.
 The cumulative impacts of reserve designation and alternatives on activities occurring in the
area or environment affected by the action.
 If identified, mitigation measures (measures that avoid, reduce or minimize the effects of
designating a research reserve) should be included in the analysis of each alternative. A table
can be used to show mitigation measures for each alternative identified in the environmental
impact statement. Mitigation measures may include the following actions:
o Avoidance of impacts associated with the preferred action or its alternatives
o Minimizing the degree or magnitude of the reserve designation and its implementation
o Compensating for the impact of reserve designation
Note: resource manipulation and restoration activities described within the reserve management plan
may address mitigation by detailing actions planned to restore affected environments or habitats.

Overall, designation of a research reserve is typically an administrative function, and the environmental
consequences are positive because designation brings the development of research, education, and
stewardship programs; economic benefits to local communities; and the potential for strengthened
environmental protections implemented by the state. =

Review Compliance
with other
Requirements

• Federal statutes
• Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, etc.
• Executive Orders
• 11990, 13089, 13112, 13175, etc.
• Environmental justice

The environmental impact analysis must also include a review of the proposed action’s compliance with
other statutory, regulatory, or administrative requirements. Provide a basic overview of each relevant
requirement and a short description of how the reserve designation is in compliance with that
requirement. Relevant requirements to review include the following:












Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 7401 et seq.)
Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. §§ 1251 et seq.)
Coastal Zone Management Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 1451, et seq.)
Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 1531, et seq.)
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 1801 et seq.)
Marine Mammal Protection Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 1361 et seq.)
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 715 et seq.)
National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 470 et seq.)
National Marine Sanctuaries Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 1431 et seq.)
Environmental Justice and Executive Order 12948
Executive Order 11990 − Protection of Wetlands

62 | P a g e

 Executive Order 13690 − Establishing a Federal Flood Risk Management Standard and a Process
for Further Soliciting and Considering Stakeholder Input
 Executive Order 13089 – Coral Reef Protection
 Executive Order 13112 − Invasive Species
 Executive Order 13158 − Marine Protected Areas
 Executive Order 13175 − Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments

Required Components of an Environmental Impact Statement
Cover Sheet
Executive Summary
Table of Contents
Purpose and Need
Description of the Proposed Action
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Affected Environment
Environmental Consequences
List of Preparers

Figure 15. Required Draft Environmental
Impact Statement Contents

Distribution List
Index and Appendices

NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1502.10) require all environmental impact statement documents to contain
the following contents as shown in Figure 15. More detail regarding this content is provided below.

Cover Sheet
Every environmental impact statement must have a one-page cover sheet that includes the following
information:
 A list of the responsible agencies, including the lead agency and any cooperating agencies. In the
case of reserve designation, these include the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, Office for Coastal Management, and
their addresses.
 The title of the proposed action that is the subject of the statement, together with the state and
county, or counties (or other jurisdiction if applicable), where the action is located. Recent
examples include
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
Federal Approval of the Texas National Estuarine Research Reserve and Management
Plan: The Mission-Aransas Estuary

63 | P a g e

He‘eia National Estuarine Research Reserve
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Management Plan
to Establish the San Francisco Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve
 The name, address, and telephone number of the person at the NOAA who can supply further
information.
 A designation of the statement as a draft, final, or draft or final supplement.
 A one-paragraph abstract of the statement.

Executive Summary
The executive summary must accurately summarize the substantive parts of the environmental impact
statement and should be no more than a few pages in length. The summary shall include
 A brief summary of the major conclusions
 A description of any areas of controversy (including issues raised by agencies and the public)
 The major issues (including the choice among alternatives) that are discussed in the statement

Table of Contents
The table of contents organizes the environmental impact statement and should include a list of tables,
figures, and acronyms, in addition to the major sections of the document. Other recommended
components referenced in the table of contents include a list of preparers or acknowledgments, list of
persons or organizations receiving the document, references, and a list of attachments and appendices.

Purpose and Need
An environmental impact statement must contain a purpose and need statement. Council of
Environmental Quality regulations 40 CFR 1502.13 state, “The statement shall briefly specify the
underlying purpose and need to which the agency is responding in proposing the alternatives including
the proposed action.” The purpose and need specifies the underlying purpose and need to which NOAA
is responding and sets the overall direction of the environmental analysis process.

Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives
As required by Section 102 (2) (E) of NEPA, every environmental impact statement must contain a

64 | P a g e

detailed description of the proposed action and alternatives. This section describes the proposed action
and each alternative that will accomplish the purpose and need for reserve designation. Identifying the
proposed action will inform reviewers of the reserve designation being considered. The proposed action
is also call the preferred alternative of all the alternatives NOAA has identified for the environmental
impact statement. NOAA selects a preferred alternative based on environmental, economic, technical,
and other considerations.

The Affected Environment
This section is a description of the current state of the environment in which the proposed action and
alternatives are considered. Current conditions within the boundaries of the proposed reserve and its
vicinity are described in detail and serve as a baseline for comparison of alternatives and their
associated impacts.

Environmental Consequences
An environmental impact statement must have a detailed description and analysis of the anticipated
environmental consequences of the proposed action and alternatives (including the no-action
alternative) on the resources described in the “Affected Environment” section. In this section, NOAA and
the state partner provide a detailed analysis and description of any general or specific environmental
impacts or effects resulting from research reserve designation or the reasonable alternatives that have
been considered.

List of Preparers
The environmental impact statement must include a list of persons involved or consulted in the
preparation of the document. This section should include any person who was primarily responsible for
preparing the document or background papers, or who provided substantial information. This includes
NOAA staff members and state partner staff members.

Distribution List
The environmental impact statement must include a distribution list that includes other agencies,
organizations, and individuals who have requested the document. An asterisk or some kind of notation
should be included for those organizations or individuals who commented on the draft document.

65 | P a g e

Index and Appendices
The environmental impact statement must contain an index. The index should include an alphabetical
list of key words and their associated page numbers that will allow the reader to find information easily
within the document. The index should focus on subject matter and not be a simple repeat of the table
of contents. Any appendices to support the environmental impact statement should also be included.
There are several mandatory appendices or attachments:







Reserve management plan
Reserve–NOAA memorandum of understanding
Reserve–Local partner memorandum of understanding (i.e., multi-party MOU)
Public comments to the environmental impact statement and responses to those comments
Concurrence letters as per other legal requirements
Federal consistency

Other materials best consolidated into the appendix:
 Lengthy technical discussions, baseline studies, etc…
 Materials likely to be understood by technically trained individuals

E. Developing a Draft Reserve Management Plan
Estuarine sites nominated for the Reserve System, including current research reserve sites, face multiple
anthropogenic and natural stressors. These sites must plan for the continued protection and use of the
reserve for research, education, and public access. Developing a comprehensive management plan will
provide a foundation for addressing the challenges of protecting and managing the future reserve.
Therefore, the purpose of a reserve management plan is to
 Provide the vision and framework to guide reserve activities during a five-year period;
 Present opportunities to discuss reserve niche and strategic collaborations with partners;
 Communicate how the reserve is addressing priority coastal management issues through their
stated goals, objectives, and strategies;
 Highlight reserve priorities and staff capabilities to address those priorities;
 Demonstrate how Reserve System programs are locally relevant and nationally significant;
 Enable the reserve and NOAA to track progress and determine opportunities for growth; and
 Position the reserve to acquire facilities construction and land acquisition funds.
Per federal regulations, 15 C.F.R. Part 921.13 (a), management plans must describe the reserve’s most
pressing coastal management issues; goals, objectives, and actions for addressing those issues; plans for
administration, research, education and interpretation, public access, construction, acquisition, and
resource protection; and restoration and habitat manipulation, if applicable—and they must include a
memorandum of understanding between NOAA and the state agency. Required and optional
components for management plans are listed below in Table 5. Additional information, including a

66 | P a g e

checklist for each required component, can be found in Part 2, “Guidance for Reserve Management Plan
Components.”
The draft management plan developed during the reserve designation process serves as
 Part of the draft environmental impact statement as an attachment or appendix, and
 As a stand-alone management plan document
Detailed guidance on each of the components of a research reserve management plan can be found in
the “Reserve System Management Plan Guidelines and Resources – 2019.”

Table 5. Reserve System Management Plan Components
Executive Summary (approximately 1-2
pages)
Introduction to the Reserve System
(approximately 3 pages)
Introduction to the Reserve
(approximately 5 pages)

Program Foundations (approximately 6
pages – 2 per system-wide program)
Reserve Strategic Plan (variable)
Administrative Plan (approximately 5
pages)

Public Access and Visitor Use Plan
(approximately 5 pages)
Resource Protection Plan (approximately
5 pages)
Facility Development and Improvement
Plan (approximately 5 pages)
Acquisition Plan (approximately 5 pages)

Resource Manipulation Plan (If
applicable)

Describe plan purpose and scope, designation date and acreage of
reserve, threats and stressors and priority management issues,
reserve niche
Standard language
 Synopsis of history, as well as ecological, social, and
cultural value to community (reference site profile or
other documents for more extensive background, this is
simply an overview to set context)
 Overview of threats and stressors
 Description of boundary
o Core and buffer description
o Boundary map with core and buffer; land
ownership map; habitat map
 Research and Monitoring; Education; Coastal Training
(standard system-wide language)
 Program context, capacities, needs, and opportunities
(and as possible evaluation strategies)
 Goals, objectives, and actions for research, monitoring,
education, training, and stewardship
 Organizational framework and chart
 Staffing needs and plan
 Advisory committees and purpose
 Key partnerships and opportunities for administration
(optional volunteer plan, vessel and vehicle plan, and
communications plan)
 Description of public access points, as well as challenges
 Map of public access points
 Description of management authorities
 Description and map of allowable uses
 Surveillance and enforcement, as well as challenges
 Overview of current facilities, uses, and challenges
 Description of facility needs
 Acquisition target areas and description of value and
purpose
 Map of acquisition areas
 Acquisition strategy

67 | P a g e

Restoration Plan (If applicable)
Appendices

 MOU between NOAA and state and other multi-party
MOUs
 Federal Consistency determination
 Public comments and description of how they were
addressed
 Additional plans of reference as appropriate

Based on the Companion Guide for NERR Management Plan Guidance found on the Reserve System intranet.

The state (e.g., lead state partner), with assistance by NOAA, prepares a preliminary and final draft
management plan, including an MOU identifying the state and NOAA roles in managing the reserve. The
state submits the preliminary and final versions of the draft management plan and its supporting
documents to NOAA for review before a decision to move the process to public comment.

•Time investment and
realistic timelines
•GIS support
•Keeping stakeholders
engaged
•Detailed and updated
management plan
guidance
•State staff to support
the management plan
development

NOAA Support

•Public input on the
management plan
•Facilitated engagement
with site partner and
stakeholders
•Funding to support plan
development
•Structuring the goals and
objectives
•Engagement by NOAA
staff at management plan
development meetings

Challenges/Needs

Critical Factors

For a reserve, the management plan is the primary long-term planning document, which is required for
the designation of a research reserve site. For a lead state agency, the development of a management
plan is a process that can take a year or more. For a lead state partner, feedback and lessons learned
from other states that have led a successful management plan development process as part of a
research reserve designation can provide important insights. The following graphic (Figure 16)
summarizes feedback about the management planning process from the most recent reserve
designations.

•NOAA management
plan guidance
•Plan templates from
other research reserves
•Developing priorities,
goals, and objectives
•Technical assistance
throughout
management plan
development

Figure 16. Management Plan Development Tips from State Leads

NOAA has a number of resources that can support the management plan development process:
 Reserve System Management Plan Guidelines and Resources, 2013

68 | P a g e

 Preparing to Write Your Strategic Plan, Social Science Tools for Coastal Programs, 2011
 Introduction to Planning and Facilitating Effective Meetings, 2010.
 NOAA Habitat Blueprint: A Framework to Improve Habitat for Fisheries, Marine Life, and Coastal
Communities (2012), NOAA Office of Habitat Conservation, National Marine Fisheries Service.
 NOAA’s Habitat Priority Planner: A GIS Tool to Help Identify and Prioritize Areas for
Conservation, Restoration, and Planning.
For additional tools and information visit https://coast.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/

F. Environmental Impact Statement and Management Plan
Milestones
As previously outlined in Section 2, “Designation Process Overview,” and per federal regulations, 15
C.F.R. Part 921.13, NOAA and the lead state partner have specific milestones to achieve as part of the
designation process. The following required milestones are specific to the development of the
environmental impact statement (EIS) and management plan (MP).

69 | P a g e

NOAA Milestones
Prepare a notice of intent to assemble a draft
EIS/MP, with a minimum public comment
period of 30 days before the release of the draft
EIS, to be published in the Federal Register.

Prepare, with assistance from the state, a
preliminary and final draft EIS.

File a completed draft EIS/draft MP with the
U.S. EPA and prepare a 45 day notice of
availability for public comment to be published
in the Federal Register. The Notice of
Availability is published no less than 30 days
prior to a public meeting(s) on the draft
EIS/draft MP.

Prepare a notice announcing a public
meeting(s) on the draft EIS/MP to be
published in the Federal Register.

Address comments received on the draft
EIS/MP and file a completed final EIS/MP with
the U.S. EPA. Notice of Availability for the final
EIS/MP is published in the Federal Register no
less than 30 days before issuing a Record of
Decision.

Prepare a notice announcing the designation
of the new reserve and the availability of the
NEPA Record of Decision to be published in
the Federal Register.

State Milestones
Conduct a scoping meeting(s) to solicit public
comment on the proposed reserve prior to
preparing the draft EIS/draft MP. Advertise
the meeting(s) in local media at least 15 prior
to the meeting(s) being held.

Prepare, with assistance from NOAA, a
preliminary and final draft MP to NOAA.
The draft MP must contain a draft MOA(s)
between the state and NOAA.

Publish a notice in local media of the public
hearings to review the draft EIS/draft MP.
The hearings should be held 30-45 days after
NOAA announces the availability of the draft
EIS/draft MP in the Federal Register.

Prepare, with assistance from NOAA, a
preliminary and a final EIS/MP and submit to
NOAA. The final EIS/MP must respond to all
comments received on the draft EIS/MP, as well
as a final MOA between the state and NOAA
and any other MOAs developed with local
partners (see Appendix A).

Submit all relevant MOAs signed by the state
and all applicable partners. NOAA must
receive copies of the signed MOAs prior to
the NOAA administrator signing the
designation findings and certificate that
officially designates the reserve.

Publish a notice in local media announcing
the official designation of the new reserve.

70 | P a g e

G. Public Comment and Review for the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement
As per Reserve System regulations, 15 C.F.R. Part 921.13 (d), NOAA, through the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, announces the availability of the draft environmental impact statement and draft
management plan in the Federal Register. The date of publication begins the 45-day comment period on
the draft environmental statement and management plan. The public comment period must include a
public meeting in the vicinity of the proposed action.

For Reserve System designations, the lead state partner and NOAA jointly hold this public meeting, or
meetings, between 30-45 days after the Federal Register announcement. NOAA also must publish a
notice of the public meeting in the Federal Register 15 days before the meeting.

Combined Notice of Availability and Public Meeting
Notice
State

State

Notice of Public Meeting in Local Media and Required
Administrative Record
Notice of Public Comment Period and Pubic Meeting in
Social Media

Figure 17. Informing the Public – NOAA AND State Roles

In most cases, NOAA publishes the notice of availability of the draft environmental impact statement
and draft management plan, and the notice of the public meeting together as one combined notice in
the Federal Register as listed in Figure 17. Concurrently, the lead state partner publishes a notice of the
public meeting in various local media and its required administrative record to ensure that local
stakeholders are informed of the public meeting. It is also recommended that the lead state agency use
social media to inform local stakeholders and those that have participated in the designation process to
date.

 Hosting a Public Meeting on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft
Management Plan
NOAA relies on the lead state partner to host a public meeting about the draft environmental impact

71 | P a g e

statement and the draft management plan. In most cases, NOAA publishes the notice of availability of
the draft documents and the notice of the public meeting together as one combined notice in the
Federal Register as listed in Figure 17. Concurrently, the lead state partner publishes a notice of the
public meeting in various local media to ensure that local stakeholders are informed. It is also
recommended that the lead state agency use social media to inform local stakeholders and those that
have participated in the designation process to date. In planning the public meeting be sure to
 Develop a process agenda for the meeting that details the roles of NOAA, lead state partner,
and others during the meeting.
 Prepare official NOAA remarks introducing the meeting and giving instructions on how to
provide comment to the audience. Example is provided in Appendix K.
 Have all participants sign in so that in the future you can communicate the release of the final
documents to them.
 Provide appropriate handouts about the site and the Reserve System.
 Show maps of the site and the alternatives for participants to see.

NOTE: At the public meeting, NOAA is accepting public comments, not responding to them. Responses
will be provided in the final environmental impact statement and final management plan.

 Gathering Public Comments
There are multiple ways to ensure that written comments on the draft environmental impact statement
and draft management plan are captured by NOAA to support the development of final versions. These
include
 Filling out the comment sheet and placing it in the comment box on the table near the entrance
to the meeting before you depart
 Making oral comments at public meeting(s)
 Making comments through the federal e-rulemaking portal. See
www.regulations.gov/docket
Once the appropriate document for comment is accessed, the commenter must click the
‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach comments.

 By mailing comments directly to
[ADD APPROPRIATE CONTACT PERSON]
OFFICE FOR COASTAL MANAGEMENT
NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE, NOAA
1305 EAST WEST HIGHWAY, N/ORM2, ROOM 10622
SILVER SPRING, MD 20910

72 | P a g e

IMPORTANT NOTE: Written comments will be accepted until [the closing date identified in the Federal
Register Notice]. Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received
after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NOAA.

 Review of Public Comments
At the conclusion of the public comment period, NOAA and the lead state partner will compile and
review the comments on the draft environmental impact statement and draft plan for the proposed
reserve designation. NOAA and the lead state partner will create a final environmental impact
statement and final management plan that address the relevant comments from the public comment
period. Furthermore, any subsequent changes identified by NOAA and the lead state partner that did
not make it into the published draft documents can be incorporated into the final environmental impact
statement. Each public comment must be listed with a specific response and placed in an appendix of
the final environmental impact statement and management plan document.
If, during the comment period, NOAA determines that some critical information was omitted in the draft
environmental impact statement that would have a bearing on the decision to designate a reserve, a
supplement may need to be published to incorporate this new information.

H. Developing a Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final
Reserve Management Plan
Upon closure of the public comment period for the draft environmental impact statement and draft
management plan, NOAA and the lead state partner begin preparing a final environmental impact
statement and plan to support a designation decision by the NOAA administrator. It is recommended
that two months be allocated to develop these documents before beginning the official review and
clearance process. Developing the final versions requires:
 NOAA to work collaboratively with the lead state partner in compiling and responding to
comments on the draft documents. Comments and responses are included in an appendix to the
final documents.
 NOAA and the state make necessary changes to the draft documents and submit preliminary
and final documents to NOAA for review. The final documents must include these appendices:
 Proposed MOU between NOAA and the state (not signed)
 Draft or final MOU(s) among reserve partners establishing roles and responsibilities (these
must be finalized before designation but should not be signed in the final environmental
impact statement and management plan)

73 | P a g e

 Public comments and responses.
 Upon approval, NOAA, or in some cases the lead state partner, provides electronic copies of the
final environmental impact statement and management plan to those who provided comments,
to other interested parties, and to the NEPA distribution list posted on the Council on
Environmental Quality website.
 Upon approval, NOAA, or in some cases the lead state partner, may also print the environmental
impact statement and management plan and distribute it to those who provided comments, to
other interested parties, or to the NEPA distribution list posted on the Council on Environmental
Quality website and available from the NOAA Office of Public and Constituent Affairs.
 NOAA, through the U.S. EPA, publishes a Federal Register notice announcing the availability of
the final environmental impact statement and management plan. The date of publication begins
the 30-day “cooling-off” period. During this time, NOAA may receive comments but is not
obligated to respond to them. This is essentially a time to address any minor issues or major
litigious issues.

I. Considerations for Federally Recognized Tribes
A critical consideration during the development of the environmental impact statement and supporting
reserve management plan is the consultation and coordination with Indian tribal governments in
accordance with Executive Order 13175 and the subsequent NOAA policy that “establishes the manner
in which the Department works with federally recognized Indian tribes when developing Department
policies that have tribal implications.” The policy reaffirms the unique government-to-government
relationship that exists between Indian tribes and NOAA. NOAA continues its commitment to support
tribes in the development of strong and stable economies able to participate in today’s national and
global marketplace.
As a result, the Office for Coastal Management will work to identify local tribes and tribal associations
that are affected by the designation of a research reserve. Figure 18 provides recommendations on
tribal consultations during a reserve designation.
Some of the key concerns that should be addressed in the designation process include:
 Off-reservation treaty rights – Rights to hunt, fish, and gather on state lands. Recognized tribes
have access to these lands and self-regulate their ability to hunt, fish, and gather on them. These
rights were never given up by the tribes, and they retain them according to treaty. Are these
compatible with Reserve System regulations?
 Delegated authorities – Tribal associations may have delegated authorities from federally
recognized tribes. These associations or commissions protect member tribes’ interests in
exercising their reserved treaty rights and manage natural resources.

74 | P a g e

 Unique sovereign relationship – Tribes maintain a unique sovereign relationship with the
federal government. As such, the tribes expect government-to-government consultation directly
with NOAA and request that the lead state partner not interfere with or usurp this tribal–federal
relationship.
 Cultural Groups – Cultural groups, such as native Hawaiian’s, may have significant social and
governance powers in coastal communities. As such, NOAA should make every effort to consult
with these groups and consider them key stakeholders in the designation process.

Each tribe or cultural group should be offered the opportunity to consult on a research reserve
designation. Send individual consultation letters to each tribe, including both the tribal chair and tribal
natural resouce staff in the area of the proposed reserve.

Send consultation letters to each cultural group and tribal association in the area of the
proposed reserve. Work with the lead state partner to identify these groups.

All consultations are different, and there are no hard and fast rules for consultation (use legal
counsel to navigate consultations).

Review previous federal–tribal protected area management efforts in the area.

Consider an expanded MOA with the state partner to include affected federally recognized
tribes.

NOAA should work closely with interested tribes on research reserve designation in a
government-to-government consultation framework.

There is a difference between federally recognized and non-recognized tribes. Federally recognized
tribes that are interested in participating in the process may seek to be a cooperating agency in the
process.

Interested tribes and cultural groups may want to be able to influence reserve research education, and
stewardship activities within the proposed reserve. They should have an opportunity to participate in the
development of the reserve management plan.

Figure 18. Tribal Consultation Recommendations

75 | P a g e

NOAA and the lead state partner must also account for what the expectations of tribes and cultural
groups are for their engagement and participation in the research reserve designation process. Some of
these may include the following:
 Any future research reserve designation within the ceded territories must not modify, alter, or
in any way affect treaty rights. This, by necessity, includes access to and availability of harvested
resources. For the tribes, protecting water bodies and associated shorelines includes the
protection of treaty rights.
 The tribes, as sovereign governments, require consultation through consensus-based
government-to-government discussions.
 Tribes maintain a unique sovereign relationship with the federal government. As such, the tribes
expect government-to-government consultation directly with NOAA. Tribes are not a public but
rather a foreign government requiring government-to-government consultations.
 Consultation of all individual tribes and specific cultural groups identified in the process.

J. Federal Consultations
Under NEPA, the environmental impact statement is an umbrella that integrates related environmental
review and consultation requirements (e.g., Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, National Historic
Preservation Act, etc.). These requirements are discussed on pages 22-24 of the Companion Manual for
NOAA Administrative Order 216-6A at http://www.nepa.noaa.gov/docs/NOAA-NAO-216-6ACompanion-Manual-03012018.pdf.

• Sec. 404
• U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (permits)
• Regulates the discharge
of dredged or fill into
waters of the U.S.
• Regulates structures in
navigable waters
• Look at alternatives to
damaging aquatic
resources
• Includes mitigation &
advoidace considerations

National Historic Preservation Act

• Sec.7
• Adminstered by U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service
and National Marine
Fisheries Service
• Actions that may
adversely affect listed
species (T&E) and
critical habitats
• Informal or formal
consultations
• Initated by requesting
species list for area

Clean Water Act

Endangered Species Act

These reviews and consultations should be prepared concurrently with the environmental impact
statement and be integrated into the final version. Furthermore, the environmental impact statement
needs to identify all federal requirements and licenses, as well as relevant state requirements. The key
federal consultations (Figure 19) include the following:

• Sec. 106
• Identify historical
properties affected by the
undertaking.
• Assess effects and avoid,
mitigate, or minimize
adverse effects
• Includes religious and
cultural resources
• Applies only to federal
government affiliated
agencies
• State historic
preservation officer and
tribal historic
preservation officer

Figure 19. Key EIS Consultations

76 | P a g e

Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 1531, et seq.)
The purpose of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is to protect animal and plant species from extinction
and direct all federal agencies to conserve endangered and threatened species and the ecosystems
upon which they depend. Under the act, NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (collectively, the services) publish lists of endangered, threatened, candidate, and other
species with special status under the act. The services also may designate critical habitat for endangered
or threatened species. As described in the Companion Manual, section 7(a)(2) of the ESA states, “Each
Federal agency shall ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out . . . is not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of [critical] habitat.”

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has primary responsibility for terrestrial and freshwater
organisms, and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has primary responsibility for marine
species. Some species fall under both agencies, depending on location of the effect (i.e., sea turtles).
When a federal agency action may affect a protected species or its critical habitat, that agency is
required to consult with NMFS or the USFWS, depending upon the protected species potentially
affected.
Under this statute, NOAA must
 Determine whether listed or proposed species or designated or proposed critical habitat may be
in the action area;
 Determine the effects of the action on the species or critical habitat;
 Explore ways to modify the action to reduce or remove adverse effects or benefit the species or
critical habitat; and
 Make a determination if the project will have “no effect” or whether informal or formal
consultation is required.
The general consultation process is described below in Figure 20.

77 | P a g e

Figure 20. ESA Section 7 Consultation Process

A more detail description of the ESA consultation process for the designation of a research reserve is
found in Appendix N.

Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. §§ 1251 et seq.)
The Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. §§ 1251 et seq.) is the principal federal law governing water quality. The
act’s objective is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s
waters. The act regulates both the direct (sometimes called point source) and indirect (sometimes called
nonpoint source) discharge of pollutants. Section 404 authorizes a permit program, administered by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, for the discharge of dredged or fill material into the waters of the U.S.
Section 401 of the act requires applicants for federal licenses or permits to conduct activities that may
result in a discharge of pollution into navigable waters to obtain certification of compliance with
applicable state water quality standards and goals (or a waiver from the state). Other sections of the act
govern point source and nonpoint source pollution. Figure 21 provides a graphically representation of
the waters that the corps has jurisdiction over under different parts of the act.

78 | P a g e

Figure 21. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Jurisdiction

The designation of a research reserve may include activities, as described in the reserve management
plan, work in jurisdictional waters of the U.S. that could discharge (dump, place, deposit) dredged or fill
material in waters of the U.S., including wetlands. The team should consult with the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers to determine if such activities require permits under section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The
specific impacts of the proposed activities to tidal and fresh waters will determine what permit type is
required.
Under this statute, NOAA must
 Determine if the proposed activities would neither degrade nor have of the effect of degrading
the jurisdictional waters in the area;
 Determine if activities identified in the reserve management plan require permits under section
404 of the Clean Water Act;
 If applicable, determine the type of permit needed (i.e., nationwide, regional general,
programmatic general, individual; and
 Describe the best management practices that the proposed reserve or partners are planning to
implement to avoid or mitigate impacts related to activities identified in the management plan.

79 | P a g e

National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 470 et seq.)
The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 established a comprehensive program to
preserve the historical and cultural foundation of the nation as a living part of community life. Section
106 of the NHPA is a crucial part of that program that requires consideration of historic preservation in
the many projects with federal involvement that take place every day across the nation.
For a research reserve designation, complying with Section 106 is the responsibility of NOAA. While the
lead state partner may be asked to provide pertinent information needed for completing a Section 106
consultation, NOAA remains responsible for all findings and determinations. The team will need to
consider the effects on historic properties of a research reserve designation (“undertakings” as defined
by 36 CFR 800.16).

Figure 22. NHPA Section 106 Consultation Process

The Section 106 consultation process, as outlined in Figure 22, requires the team to identify and
evaluate historic properties with the proposed research reserve boundaries and make an initial
determination of the effects of their undertakings on historic properties or resources. NOAA is required
to prepare a findings determination letter for the state or tribal historic preservation officer.
A more detail description of the NHPA consultation process for the designation of a research reserve is
found in Appendix O.

80 | P a g e

K. Federal Consistency
The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) (16 U.S.C. §§ 1451, et seq.) was established to preserve,
protect, develop, and, where possible, restore and enhance the nation’s coastal resources. Under the
act, Section 307 requires that any federal action inside or outside of a state’s coastal zone that affects
any land or water use or natural resources of the coastal zone to be consistent, to the maximum extent
practicable, with the enforceable policies of approved state management programs. In the case of the
designation of a research reserve, the state Coastal Zone Management Program must certify that the
proposed reserve is consistent with the state’s approved coastal management program. Section
921.4(b) of the Reserve System regulations provide additional guidance.
Under this statute, NOAA must
 Draft a CZMA federal consistency determination document, in cooperation with Office for
Coastal Management federal consistency staff, for the applicable state coastal program;
 Send the determination letter to the state for review and concurrence; and
 Complete this review at least 90 days before the expected record of decision by the NOAA
administrator.

81 | P a g e

7. Navigating the NOAA Review and Clearance Process
A. Introduction
A significant part of the process to designate a research reserve site is internal to NOAA. Oversight of the
National Estuarine Research Reserve System is through the Office for Coastal Management within the
National Ocean Service (NOS). Both the Office for Coastal Management and NOS are deeply involved in
the review and clearance of the new research reserve site prior to a decision by the NOAA administrator
to officially designate or not.
Periodically, some details in the review and clearance process change, and policies and procedures are
updated. The process described below was recently used in 2016-17 for the He’eia Research Reserve
designation process. This process can span several years of the approximately 5 years, on average,
required to designate a reserve.

B. Review and Clearance Process Overview
There are four distinct review and clearance points during the designation process as described in Figure
23. These include:
 Nomination Review and Approval
 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)/Draft Management Plan(DMP) Review and
Clearance
 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)/Final Management Plan (FEIS) Review and
Clearance
 NOAA Findings of Designation

Nomination
Review and
Approval

• Internal Office for Coastal
Management Clearance
• NOS Review and Clearance
• Administrator Concurrence

DEIS/DMP
Review
&Clearance

• NEPA Coordinator Review
• Concurrent Office for Coastal Management Staff Review
• Internal Office for Coastal Management Clearance
• NOS Review and Clearance

FEIS/FMP
Review &
Clearance

• NEPA Coordinator Review
• Consultations Complete
• Concurrent Office for Coastal
Management Staff Review
• Internal Office for Coastal
Management Clearance
• NOS Review and Clearance

NOAA
Findings of
Designation

• Administrator
Briefings
• 30-day cooling off
• Preparing ROD and
Findings

Figure 23. Major NOAA Review and Clearance

82 | P a g e

Understanding the process and accounting for it within a designation timeline is critical for the
coordination of the process between NOAA and the lead state partner. With a clear timeline and
associated milestones, the partners will be better able to coordinate and make the necessary resource
commitments to ensure successful process. A more detailed step-by-step process is provided in
Appendix M.

C. Nomination Review and Approval
Plan for a 3.5 month review and approval of a proposed research reserve site nomination from the state
or territorial governor developed by the lead state partner. The review and clearance process must
include appropriate briefings and associated materials, including 3-things memo, talking points,
designation timeline, a site map, summary of alternatives, and a review of issues of concern. In
preparation for the NOAA brief and decisional, prepare a letter from the NOAA administrator to the
state or territorial governor informing them of NOAA’s decision to move forward or not. Figure 24 below
provides a step-by-step overview of this NOAA decisional process.

Allow 3 weeks

Allow 1 week
Start NOS-NOAA clearance process

Allow 2-3 weeks

Allow 2 weeks

1 month (estimate)
Figure 24. NOAA Review and Decisional Process for
Reserve System Site Nominations

Nomination Documentation Requirements for a Research Reserve Nomination Review
Based on Sec. 921.11 of the Reserve System regulations, the site nomination document must include
 A description of the proposed site(s) and its (their) major resources, including location, proposed
boundaries, and adjacent land uses.

83 | P a g e

 A description of the proposed site-selection process, including an analysis of how the proposed site
contributes to the biogeographical and typological balance of the Reserve System.
 A description of the proposed site’s ecological characteristics, including its biological productivity and
diversity of flora and fauna. The site should also, to the maximum extent possible, be an estuarine
ecosystem minimally affected by human activity or influence as per Sec. 921.12(e) of the Reserve
System regulations.
 Identification of the site-selection agency and the potential reserve management agency.
 A description of the public participation process used to support site selection that
•
•
•
•

Describes how the state sought the views of affected landowners, local governments, other
state and federal agencies and other parties who are interested in the area(s) being considered
for selection as a potential National Estuarine Research Reserve.
Provide evidence that at least one public meeting in the vicinity of the proposed site was held
and that notice the meeting, including the time, place, and relevant subject matter, was given
through the area’s principal newspaper at least 15 days before the date of the meeting.
Captures the views of interested parties by including a summary of public comments, and, if
interstate issues are involved, documentation that the governor(s) of the other affected state(s)
has been contacted.
Provides copies of all correspondence, including contact letters to all affected landowners.

 A list of all sites considered and a brief statement of the reasons why a site was not preferred.
 A discussion of the proposed site(s) capacity to attract a broad range of research and educational
interests.
 A description of the site’s suitability for long-term estuarine research, including ecological factors and
demonstrate proximity to existing research facilities and educational institutions.
 Appropriate maps and a description of the proposed site’s boundaries. The proposed boundaries
should encompass an adequate portion of the key land and water areas of the natural system to
approximate an ecological unit and to ensure effective conservation.
NOTE: For research reserve designations, boundary size will vary greatly depending on the nature of the ecosystem
(e.g., Kachemak Bay, AK - 366,100 acres vs. Old Woman Creek, OH at 573 acres). In general, reserve boundaries
must encompass the area within which adequate control has or will be established by the managing entity over
human activities occurring within the identified boundaries. Reserve boundaries will encompass two areas: key
land and water areas (known as the “core area”) and a buffer zone. The core and buffer zones will likely require
significantly different levels of control (see Sec. 921.13(a) (7)). See more on core and buffer areas in Section IV.
Boundary Delineation.

 Identifying within the proposed boundaries, any existing federal or state lands already in a protected
status where mutual benefit can be enhanced. Federal lands and waters identified within the proposed
boundary cannot exceed 49 percent of the total area. NOAA will not approve a site for potential
national estuarine research reserve status that is dependent primarily upon the inclusion of currently
protected federal lands in order to meet the requirements for reserve status (such as key land and water
areas).
NOTE: If such lands are included within a proposed reserve’s boundary, it may be included, subject to NOAA
approval, as a limited portion of the core area.

84 | P a g e

 A description of the site’s compatibility with existing and potential land and water uses in contiguous
areas as well as approved coastal and estuarine management plans.
 A brief discussion of the site’s relevance and importance to education and interpretive efforts,
consistent with the need for continued protection of the natural system.
Appendix D, “Site Nomination Checklist,” will help you evaluate the Reserve System site nomination for
consistency with Reserve System regulations and requirements. Comments should be relevant to the
review criteria and assist the NOAA administrator in his or her decision to accept the nomination or
return it to the state for additional action. Other comments related to opportunities or connections to
ongoing NOAA activities and plans are welcome.

D. Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft
Management Plan Review and Clearance
Preliminary Review and Clearance
Plan for a 3-month preliminary review of the draft environmental impact statement and draft
management plan. Included in the preliminary review are briefings for the Office for Coastal
Management stewardship director and program manager, and the NOS and Office for Coastal
Management NEPA coordinators. These briefings must include briefing documents (e.g., 3-things memo,
talking points, designation timeline, site map, summary of alternatives, and any issues of concern). As
part of these briefings, prepare an overview of this research reserve designation process and NOAA’s
internal review and clearance process. The Reserve Reserve Designation Team lead is typically
responsible for setting up these briefings. Additionally, these documents will support future briefings for
the Office for Coastal Management director and the NOAA assistant administrator during the formal
Office for Coastal Management and NOS clearance process.
Start the preliminary review after briefing Office for Coastal Management leadership and the NEPA
coordinators. Following these briefings, allow a 2-week period for the Office for Coastal Management
and NOS NEPA coordinators to review the preliminary draft environmental impact statement and draft
management plan.
After the NEPA coordinator review, allow 3 weeks for the draft documents to be reviewed internally and
concurrently by the Office for Coastal Management:
For the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Management Plan
•
•
•
•

Lead state partner
Office for Coastal Management (OCM) Ecosystems Program manager
OCM regional team lead
OCM Stewardship Division director

For the Draft Management Plan Only
• OCM Reserve System research coordinator
• OCM Reserve System education coordinator
• OCM Reserve System stewardship coordinator

85 | P a g e

•

OCM Reserve System Coastal Training Program coordinator

Allow for a 21-day internal Office for Coastal Management review period.
Concurrent with the Office for Coastal Management clearance, the NOS NEPA coordinator will request a
technical assistance review with appropriate National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) staff.

Endangered Species Act
Section 7

Essential Fish Habitat

Marine Mammal Protection
Act

National Marine Sanctuaries

Regional NFMS staff review

Regional NMFS staff review

Regional NMFS staff review

National Marine Sanctuaryaffected resources staff review

NOAA HQ staff review

NOAA HQ staff review

NOAA HQ staff review

Courtesy copy to Sanctuary
Headquarters staff.

Figure 25. NMFS Technical Assistance Review Components

The breadth of a technical assistance review with NMFS staff is shown in Figure 25. Allow up to 30 days
for this review to be completed. The final review is by NOAA’s Office of General Counsel–Ocean and
Coasts Section (GCOS). The Oceans and Coasts Section provides legal counsel to the National Ocean
Service, including the National Marine Sanctuary Program, the Office for Coastal Management, and the
Office of Coast Survey. In these roles, the office helps implement the National Marine Sanctuaries Act,
the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Coast Survey Act, and other statutes. GCOS is provided with 1-2
weeks to complete their review of the preliminary DEIS/DMP.
Upon receipt of comments from the Office for Coastal Management, NEPA Coordinator, and others
obtained during the preliminary review process, NOAA and the lead state partner revise the preliminary
DEIS/DMP in preparation for the formal document review process. NOAA takes the lead in preparing the
final DEIS with assistance from the lead state partner. Similarly, The lead state partner, with assistance
from NOAA, prepares a final DMP, including an MOU identifying the state and NOAA roles in managing
the reserve. Time allotted to complete revisions to the DEIS/DMP is based on the breadth and depth of
the comments received during the preliminary review process. Expect to allot 4-6 weeks for a revised
DEIS/DMP to be ready to start the Formal DEIS/DMP review and clearance process.
Note: Consider a 1-week in-person meeting with the lead state partner to hammer out changes to the
draft environmental impact statement and draft management plan.

Formal Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Management Plan Review and
Clearance
The formal review and clearance process required by NOAA, as shown in Figure 26, allows for official
clearance of the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) and draft management plan (DMP) by the
Office for Coastal Management and NOS. Upon completion of a revised DEIS/DMP based on comments

86 | P a g e

received from the preliminary review and clearance process, Office for Coastal Management
Communications staff provide a final editorial review of the executive summary of the environmental
impact statement. If possible, complete this step before beginning the formal NOAA clearance process.
Tips for writing and formatting large documents are found in Appendix P.
NOTE: Provide Office for Coastal Management Communications with the draft executive summary in
Microsoft Word format.
Once a revised version of the DEIS/DMP and supporting documents are ready for the official clearance
process, work with administrative staff to enter the documents into the controlled correspondence
routing system. In preparation for moving the DEIS/DMP through the formal NOAA review and clearance
process, the following documents (paper and digital) need to be included in the Data by Design Routing
(controlled correspondence):
 3-things memo (prep for the meeting with Office for Coastal Management director and NOS
assistant administrator)
 Transmittal memos (NOS environmental compliance coordinator to EPA)
 Dear reviewer letter (NOS Environmental Compliance to EPA)
 DEIS/DMP

Internal
Office for
Coastal
Management
Clearance

• Enter into controlled correspondence routing
• OCM Director Briefing & Clearance
• 1 Week Standard
NOS
Environmental
Compliance
Coordinator
Clearance

• 10 days

GCOS
Clearance • GCOS Staff & Director (1 week)
NOSDivision
AA Briefing
• Policy and Constituent• Affairs
•
NOS
AA
Review
NOS
Clearance • NOS Chief of Staff • 6 weeks Standard
• NOS Deputy AA

Figure 26. Detailed NOAA DEIS/DMP Clearance Process

Transmittal • NOS NEPA coordinator prepares all
documents for transmittal to EPA for
to EPA
publication

87 | P a g e

Key considerations during the Review and Clearance Process
For the formal review of the reserve designation DEIS/DMP, there are multiple steps to follow within the
Office for Coastal Management and NOS clearance process. There are several very important steps for
the Office for Coastal Management reserve designation team lead to pursue during this review and
clearance period.
1. Work with the Office for Coastal Management administrative staff in the Business Division and
the NOS assistant administrator correspondence unit to ensure that the documents are entered
into controlled correspondence and routed correctly.
2. Look into Office for Coastal Management leadership availability for meetings and briefings
about the designation and the DEIS/DMP with the NOAA Reserve Development Team and state
partners. The times available for leadership to meet may be limited so plan accordingly.
3. Seek Office for Coastal Management leadership support and Planning, Policy, and
Communication Division assistance in developing courtesy political leadership briefings about
the reserve designation process.
4. Provide copies of the revised DEIS/DMP to known formal reviewers before the start of the
formal review process for the purpose of pre-review (e.g., Office for Coastal Management NEPA
coordinator, Stewardship director, GCOS, Office for Coastal Management director, Policy and
Constituent Affairs Division, NOS chief of staff, NOS assistant administrator)
5. Coordinate with Planning, Policy, and Communication Division on their efforts to develop a
rollout plan for the DEIS/DMP.
6. Ensure that external consultations (i.e., Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection
Act, etc.) are moving forward.
Some important considerations for Office for Coastal Management leadership at this time:
1. Make time for review of the DEIS/DMP and availability to participate in briefings regarding the
designation process.
2. Assist in preparing NOS for a concise approval process.
3. Breakthrough unforeseen Office for Coastal Management–NOS obstacles to timely clearance.
Step 1 – Internal Office for Coastal Management clearance of the DEIS/DMP
This includes a briefing for the Office for Coastal Management director and deputy director to clear the
document for NOS. Expect to provide a one-week window to prepare for the briefing, allowing the
Office for Coastal Management director and deputy director to review the documents, hold a briefing,
and answer questions. Official clearance occurs in the online system. The Office for Coastal
Management administrative staff and the NOS Correspondence Unit create the official review and
clearance routing in the online system as well as a hard-copy control sheet.
Step 2 – NOS environmental compliance coordinator clearance
Provide the NOS environmental compliance coordinator with a copy of the DEIS/DMP for review. Any
NEPA-related actions that require NOS assistant administrator clearance must be reviewed by the NOS
environmental compliance coordinator. This step provides the coordinator with an opportunity to
review the document and will facilitate the timely processing of the document within NOS.
Step 3 – GCOS clearance
Following clearance by the Office for Coastal Management, transmit the document to GCOS for legal

88 | P a g e

review and clearance. Since the NOAA designation team includes legal counsel from GCOS, most legal
issues should have already been addressed earlier in the process. However, GCOS review and clearance
officially occurs outside of the controlled correspondence online system; therefore, a hard copy must be
provided, and clearance is provided through signature on a hard-copy control sheet.
NOTE: This step should only need a week to complete. Check in with
GCOS periodically to ensure that their review and clearance of the
document is completed.
Step 4 – NOS clearance
After GCOS clears the DEIS/DMP package, the NOS controlled
correspondence unit officially manages the NOS clearance process.
The package is transmitted to the NOS Policy and Constituent Affairs
Division for review. In addition to Policy and Constituent Affairs
Division, the NOS chief of staff and NOS deputy assistant
administrator review and clear the package before clearance by the
NOS assistant administrator. This includes a briefing for the NOS
assistant administrator. Relevant NOS and Office for Coastal
Management leadership will most likely participate in this meeting.
Therefore, schedule this briefing as soon as the final DEIS/DMP is
ready for review. Expect to provide a four-week review within NOS,
allowing NOS leadership time to review the documents and to hold a
briefing. Note: The supporting materials prepared for the Office for
Coastal Management leadership briefing are typically used for the
NOS briefing.

NOS Controlled
Correspondence
Control Sheet













NOS Correspondence Unit
NOS Environmental
Compliance Coordinator
NOS Correspondence Unit
GCOS
NOS Correspondence Unit
Policy and Constituent Affairs
Division
NOS Correspondence Unit
NOS Chief of Staff
NOS Correspondence Unit
NOS Deputy AA
NOS AA
NOS Correspondence Unit

Step 5 – Transmittal to EPA
After the briefing, the NOS assistant administrator will have the option to clear the package. Any
additional corrections to the DEIS can be made at this time. Once cleared by the NOS assistant
administrator, scan the signed documents, enclose them with the DEIS/DMP, and forward to the NOS
environmental compliance coordinator for clearance. The Office for Coastal Management environmental
compliance coordinator finalizes the transmittal letter and dear reviewer letter for forwarding to U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency electronically.
Before transmitting the Federal Register Notice to EPA, the Office for Coastal Management sends the
DEIS/DMP package to the NOS Office of Legislative Affairs representative introducing the project, map,
web link, and note that says that we would like to set up courtesy briefings with the state delegation
and authorized natural resource committees.
Once cleared, the document is expected to be published in the Federal Register as the designation
process moves to a required 45-day public comment period.

89 | P a g e

Concurrent Federal Register Notice Review and Clearance Process
As the package is being reviewed by the Policy and Constituent Affairs Division, the NOAA designation
team can begin a concurrent process for both the Office for Coastal Management review and clearance
of the Federal Register notice of availability for the public comment period and the Federal Register
Notice for the public meeting as per Reserve System regulations. The formal review and clearance
process required by NOAA, as shown in Figure 27, allows for official clearance of the DEIS/DMP by the
Office for Coastal Management and NOS.
As described in Reserve System regulations, 15 C.F.R. Part 921.13 (d), NOAA announces the availability
of the DEIS/DMP for public comment in the Federal Register through a notice of availability. The date of
the Federal Register Notice publication begins the 45-day comment period on the DEIS/DMP. Separately
and concurrently, a second Federal Register Notice as required by Reserve System regulations is used to
give notice of the required public meeting(s) to be held at least 15 days after publication of the notice of
availability and public comment period. In most cases, NOAA and EPA work to publish the notice of
availability of the DEIS/DMP and the notice of the public meeting concurrently in the Federal Register.
Public Meeting FRN
Clearance
Office for
Coastal
Management
Stewardship
Divison
Director

FRN
Developed
by OCM
Staff

Clearance by
NOS
Environmental
Compliance
Coordinator

Clearance by
GCOS

Clearance &
Signature by
OCM Director

Publish FRN
and
Notice of Public
Meeting

NOS clears
Public Meeting
FRN

Notice of Availability FRN

FRN
Developed
by OCM
Staff

Clearance OCM
Stewardship
Divison
Director

Clearance by
NOS
Environmental
Compliance
Coordinator

Clearance by
GCOS

Clearance &
Signature by
OCM Director

EPA Clears FRN
through e-NEPA

Publish FRN
Notice of
Availability for
Public
Comment
Period

Figure 27. Concurrent DEIS/DMP Notice of Availability and Public Meeting Federal Register Notice

Some key actions when developing a Federal Register Notice announcing the DEIS/DMP public comment
period area are as follows:
 Determine the point of contact for receiving public comments on DEIS/DMP. The notice should
also direct commenters to submit comments through the federal e-rulemaking portal. Go to:
http://www.regulations.gov
 Make sure to set up an account in the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS.gov). This
allows you to post documents for review on regulations.gov and have a central location to
capture and archive comments from the public.

90 | P a g e

 Work with the lead state partner and regional staff to determine a public meeting date.
 Prepare Federal Register notice text announcing public meeting on DEIS/DMP.
 Send the draft federal register notice through the clearance process described in Figure 27.
Reviewers (in order) Ecosystems program manager – clearance; Stewardship director –
clearance; Office for Coastal Management or NOS environmental compliance coordinator –
review; GCOS – clearance; Office for Coastal Management deputy director – clearance; Office
for Coastal Management director – clearance and signature. Federal register notice signatory
authority resides with the Office for Coastal Management director.
 Submission of the federal register notice to EPA is concurrent with NOS assistant
administrator approval of the DEIS/DMP.
 The complete DEIS package that is transmitted electronically to EPA through the e-NEPA
electronic filing system (Central Data Exchange, or CDX). The federal register notice will be filed
on Friday (if delivered before 2 p.m.) and published the following Friday.
 Work with the lead state partner to develop a DEIS/DMP distribution list.
 Mail the DEIS/DMP to interested parties concurrent with transmittal of the federal register
notice to EPA. Send electronic copies to interested parties and to the NEPA distribution list
posted on the Council of Environmental Quality website.

Overall Designation Concurrent Processes Reminder
DEIS/DMP

Public Comment
Period

Public Comments
Recieved and
Reviewed

Federal NEPA
Consultations

Informal
Consultations

Formal
Consulations

MOA
Development

NOAA-State
Partner MOA for
a research reserve
site

Joint Party MOA

Federal
Consistency

Consultation

Figure 28. What’s happening concurrently in the national estuarine
research reserve designation process at this time?

91 | P a g e

E. Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final
Management Plan Review and Clearance
As described in Section 6. Subsection H, a final environmental impact statement (FEIS) and final
management plan (FMP) is developed based on the comments received during the public comment
period. Combined with the results of the different ongoing and concurrent consultations, the FEIS/FMP
is used to support a designation decision by the NOAA administrator. Some additions to the FEIS/FMP
that was not part of the DEIS/DMP include the following:
 An appendix documenting the public comments and responses
 Final MOUs between NOAA and the state and the multi-party (unsigned)
 Distribution list for the DEIS/DMP
 Federal consistency determination documentation
 Correspondence for other federal consultations
 Consultations with tribal or other cultural groups, if applicable
Note: External consultations with appropriate USFWS, NMFS, state historic preservation officer or tribal
historic preservation officer, and other officials, and a federal consistency review must be completed
and enclosed in the FEIS before the start of the formal review and clearance process.

92 | P a g e

A step-by-step overview of the detailed NOAA review and clearance process laid out in Figure 29 allows
for official clearance of the FEIS/FMP by the Office for Coastal Management and NOS. Once the
FEIS/FMP and supporting documents are ready for the official clearance process, work with Office for

Internal
OCM
Clearance

• Enter into controlled correspondence routing
• Office for Coastal Management director
Briefing and Clearance
• Allow for 1 Week
NOS
Environmental
Compliance
Coordinator
Clearance

• NOS and Office for Coastal Management
Environmental Compliance Coordinator Review
• Allow for 2 days

GCOS
• GCOS staff and director
Clearance • Allow for 2 days
• Policy and Constituent Affairs Division
Review
NOS
2 Weeks
•
Clearance NOS chief of staff
• NOS deputy assistant administrator

Figure 29. Detailed NOAA FEIS/FMP Clearance Process

Transmittal • NOS NEPA coordinator prepares all
documents for transmittal to EPA for
to EPA
publication

Coastal Management administrative staff to enter the documents into the controlled correspondence
routing system.
In preparation for moving the FEIS/FMP through the formal NOAA review and clearance process, the
following documents (paper and digital) need to be included in the Data by Design Routing (controlled
correspondence):
 Three-things memo (prep for the meeting with Office for Coastal Management director and
NOS assistant administrator)
 Transmittal memos (NOS environmental compliance coordinator to EPA)
 Dear reviewer letter (NOS environmental compliance to EPA)
 FEIS/FMP
 Rollout plan
Anticipate a shorter Office for Coastal Management and NOS review of the FEIS/FMP (1-month
combined total) as the reviewers have already seen the draft version and during the DEIS/DMP
clearance process. Once cleared, a mandatory 30-day cooling-off period must occur before bringing the
research reserve designation to the NOAA administrator for consideration and a possible record of
decision and designation findings.
Note – Rollout plan and invitations for the NOAA administrator to attend the designation ceremony

93 | P a g e

need to be made 3 months before designation! Fill out an event request form and contact NOS Program
Coordination Office and Policy and Constituent Affairs Division staff.

Key considerations during the FEIS/FMP Review and Clearance Process
For the formal review of the reserve designation FEIS/FMP, there are multiple steps to follow within the
Office for Coastal Management and NOS clearance process. There are several very important steps for
the Office for Coastal Management reserve designation team lead to pursue during this review and
clearance period.
1. Work with the Office for Coastal Management administrative staff in the Business Division and
the NOS assistant administrator correspondence unit to ensure that the documents are entered
into controlled correspondence and routed correctly.
2. Arrange briefing with Office for Coastal Management and NOS leadership about the FEIS/FMP
and the closing steps of the designation process. This includes briefing for the NOAA
administrator and a record of decision with the NOAA Reserve Development Team and state
partners. The times available for leadership to meet may be limited, so plan soon after the
public comment period for the DEIS/DMP ends.
3. Seek Office for Coastal Management leadership support and Planning, Policy, and
Communication Division assistance in developing courtesy political leadership briefings about
the reserve designation via the rollout plan.
4. Prepare and clear Federal Register notice of availability of the FEIS/FMP concurrent with the
FEIS/FMP review.
Some important considerations for Office for Coastal Management and NOS leadership at this time
include the following:
1. Make time to participate in FEIS clearance briefings
2. Work with NOAA downtown to schedule NOAA administrator briefing and decisional
3. Break through unforeseen Office for Coastal Management–NOS obstacles to timely clearance
The details of the FEIS/FMP clearance process mirror the DEIS/DMP clearance process described in
subsection D but include a shorter review period at each step. The FEIS/FMP review occurs concurrently
with the Federal Register notice of availability review, as shown in Figure 30.

Federal
Register
Notice
Developed
by NOAA
Staff

Clearance
Office for
Coastal
Management
Stewardship
Divison
Director

Clearance by
NOS
Environmental
Compliance
Coordinator

Clearance
by GCOS

Clearance
and
Signature
by OCM
Director

Publish
Federal
Register
Notice of
Availability

Figure 30. FEIS/FMP Notice of Availability

94 | P a g e

Once cleared by NOS, the Office for Coastal Management Communications staff makes final edits to the
executive summary of the FEIS. The Federal Register notice and the document should be made available
electronically through Regulations.gov. NOAA or state partner may print copies of FEIS/FMP for
distribution to those persons that provided comment, to other interested parties, and to the NEPA
distribution list posted on the Council of Environmental Quality website. Concurrently, publishing in the
Federal Register officially starts the mandatory 30-day cooling-off period before any record of decision
by the NOAA administrator. This is essentially a time to address any minor issues or major litigious
issues.
Note: A complete FEIS package that is transmitted electronically to EPA through the e-NEPA electronic
filing system (Central Data Exchange, or CDX, includes the dear-EPA letter, the FEIS/FMP, and the
Federal Register notice.

95 | P a g e

F. 30-Day Cooling-Off Period
During the cooling-off period the Reserve Designation Team follows these steps:
 Ensure the final MOU signed by NOAA and state partner. Five copies are
signed by the Office for Coastal Management director and sent to appropriate
state official for signature. State partner returns three signed copies to the
Office for Coastal Management.
 Receive a signed copy of the separate multi-party MOU signed by state
partner and other key reserve partners.
 The lead state partner begins to organize a designation ceremony with
assistance from Office for Coastal Management Policy, Planning and
Communication division staff.
 Work with Office for Coastal Management and NOS leadership to schedule a
briefing for the NOAA administrator to consider designation of the proposed
research reserve.
 Prepare materials for the NOAA administrator briefings. Repurpose briefing
materials from the NOS leadership FEIS/FMP clearance process.
 Prepare formal National Estuarine Research Reserve designation package that
goes to the NOAA administrator

G. NOAA Findings of Designation
In preparation for a research reserve designation decision by the NOAA administrator,
the Designation Team prepares a Federal Register notice announcing the designation
of a reserve under consideration, a findings of designation (Appendix C), and the NEPA
record of decision regarding the designation decision (Appendix H).

Develop FMP-FEIS

NOAA
Approval/Clearance
Process for FEIS-FMP

ROD & Findings of
Designation

NOAA Administrator
Approval

Official Designation

Note This Federal Register notice is channeled through NOAA, not EPA.
Another critical component is coordinating with the Office for Coastal Management Policy, Planning and
Communications staff to implement a communications strategy (press release (reviewed by NOAA
Communications, web rollout, etc.). Policy, Planning and Communications staff should also engage with
Office for Coastal Management leadership and the lead state partner to prepare for a designation
ceremony and in assembling a briefing package (e.g., designation findings package) for NOAA
administrator.
Note: When preparing briefing materials for the NOAA administrator be sure to use the briefing
templates or contact the NOS Program Coordination Office directly for guidance.

96 | P a g e

The formal review and clearance process required for the Designation Findings Package is shown in
Figure 31. Controlled correspondence routing for the package includes the NOAA Administrator Decision
and allows for official clearance of the package by the Office for Coastal Management and NOS.
Although there is no set timeframe for a decision by the NOAA administrator, plan for 1 month
clearance process for the package.

Ecosystems
Program
Clearance

Stewardship
Division
Clearance

GCOS Clearance

Office for Coastal
Management
Director
Clearance

NOAA
Administrator
Decision

NOS Transmittal
to Federal Register

Publish
FEDERAL
REGISTER
NOTICE
Designation
Findings

Figure 31. Formal NOAA Designation Findings Review and Clearance Process

Office for Coastal Management leadership and staff will brief the NOAA administrator on the proposed
action to designate a research reserve and provide the findings package. The complete designation
findings package for the NOAA administrator’s signature includes – record of decision, findings of
designation, and designation notice, and possibly the ceremonial designation certificates (Appendix C). If
the NOAA administrator decides to accept and approve a NOAA recommendation to designate a
research reserve, two parts require his or her signature.

 To complete the NEPA requirements of the federal action, the record of decision must be
signed. See Appendix H for an example.
 To fulfill the CZMA requirements for designation, the findings of designation must be signed and
noted in the Federal Register. Sometimes a ceremonial certificate of designation is also signed.
See Appendix C for an example.
Note: The NOAA-state MOU is signed by the Office for Coastal Management director and does not
become effective until the NOAA administrator signs the findings of designation.
Another important planning consideration is related to a designation ceremony at the research reserve
site. Sometime after official designation by NOAA, a designation ceremony is held at the new reserve
site. The NOAA administrator or other NOAA leadership may attend along with members of the state
congressional delegation. For the ceremony, consider sending a NOAA flag, printing a ceremonial
certificate, and obtaining a gift for the site (e.g., map), among other considerations.

97 | P a g e

8. Guidelines for MOUs
A. Introduction
Memorandums of understanding (MOU) are made to form partnerships and work with other federal
agencies, universities, states, local and international governments, tribes, private institutions, and other
organizations. The process of initiating, extending, or modifying these agreements involves clearance of
the official MOU and required supporting documentation, which can often be time-consuming. Approval
and clearance signatures are obtained during a controlled routing of the MOU package through the
program office, NOS senior management, NOAA General Counsel, and if required the Office of the
Executive Secretary, and Department of Commerce General Counsel. As a general rule, if you are trying
to establish a relationship with any party outside of NOAA, and it involves the use of money, property,
or employee time, you should contact the Department of Commerce General Law Division (202-4825391) as early as possible to get some guidance. Information on agreements is also available online at
www.ogc.doc.gov/ogc/admin/general.html.
Several steps need to be taken to process agreements:
•
•
•
•
•
•

Advanced planning
Choosing the right type of agreement
Drafting the terms and conditions
Reviewing and clearing the agreement
Executing the agreement
Administering the agreement

B. Choosing the Correct Authority and Type of Agreement
The name memorandum of agreement, or MOU, carries no legal authority, but is simply a way to refer
to an agreement with another organization. However, it is important to choose the correct authority
and type of agreement for the relationship you are about to establish. Agreements between NOAA and
other agencies are important for several management and legal reasons. You may want to keep track of
funds, justify program activities, or ensure that a job gets done. There are also legal reasons such as 31
U.S.C. §1301, “only for purpose of appropriation,” 31 U.S.C. § 1501, “obligation only when in writing,”
and 31 U.S.C. §1532, “no transfer without authority.” If you feel that drafting an agreement with
another agency is needed, you must first determine what type of agreement is necessary.
There are essentially five types of agreements:

98 | P a g e

1. Contracts
2. Economy Act Agreements (31 U.S.C. § 1535)
3. Joint Projects (15 U.S.C. § 1525)
4. Grants and Cooperative Agreements
5. Other Types of MOUs and Agreements
Other types of MOUs and Agreements
Some relationships are formed because of unique statutory authority or because they do not involve
expenditure of funds or property. The Office of General Counsel is available to help draft these types of
agreements and can offer advice on traps for the unwary.
A template for the aforementioned agreements can be viewed on the Department of Commerce Office
of General Counsel website at https://ogc.commerce.gov/. Please consult this website before you draft
a document.

C. MOU Clearance Process
For a National Estuarine Research Reserve MOU, an Office of General Counsel-approved template is
available in Appendix A. This template is well drafted and contains all necessary supporting
documentation. Usually, the NOAA Reserve Designation Team members include legal counsel from
GCOS. GCOS pre-clears the MOU before the Office for Coastal Management’s MOU coordinator enters it
into the NOS Agreements Database.
NOS has created an electronic MOU Agreements Database that serves as a repository for MOU
documents and tracks their status. The NOS MOU point of contact is Martin Freeman or Rachel Keylon.
Martin Freeman can be reached at (301) 713-3070 or at [email protected]. His office is located
on the 13th floor of SSMC4. He ensures that the MOU moves through the clearance process. Below are
the steps required to process a research reserve MOU. NOTE: You will want to start with at least five
copies of your original document for signature. The research reserve state lead partner will keep two

MOU
Drafted and
Cleared by
GCOS

MOU Record
Created in MOU
Tracking Database

Clearance by
NOS and
Signature by
OCM Director

MOU Signature
by State Partner

NOS Uploads
Signed MOU to
Tracking
Database

Figure 32. Basic Research Reserve MOU Clearance Process

99 | P a g e

copies and the Office for Coastal Management will keep two copies. You may want more copies if there
are several partners.
Step 1. A new record must be created in the MOU Database Tracking System by the Office for Coastal
Management staff.
Once the MOU language has been agreed upon by all parties, email the MOU to the Office for Coastal
Management MOU coordinator for entering the agreement into the Notice of Availability Database. The
MOU coordinator is located in the Business Management Division ([email protected]).
Step 4. A hard copy of the MOU must be submitted to the NOS MOU official for clearance.
Once all required signatures are obtained, the package should be delivered to the NOS MOU
coordinator. As previously noted, the NOS MOU point of contact is Martin Freeman or Rachel Keylon.
They ensure that the MOU moves through the NOS clearance process. Once the NOS chief financial
officer signs the NOS approval memo, the NOS MOU coordinator forwards the MOU to the Office for
Coastal Management MOU coordinator for Office for Coastal Management clearance and signature.
Step 2. The MOU package is routed through the Office for Coastal Management for clearance and
signature.
Upon receipt of the cleared MOU from NOS, the MOU coordinator works with the Office for Coastal
Management Director’s Office for clearance and signature and includes the folder containing the MOU
paperwork and supporting documentation. Once signed by the director, the Director’s Office will send
the signed MOU to Stewardship liaison.
Step 3. State partner signatures are obtained for the MOU.
The Office for Coastal Management emails the MOU package to the state partner for co-signature.
Following signature by the state lead agency, the executed agreement will be emailed back to the Office
for Coastal Management.
Step 5. The approved agreement is entered into the NOS MOU database.
The Office for Coastal Management emails the fully signed version of the MOU to the NOS MOU official
to upload the executed version into the database to make it a permanent part of the system. It is at this
point that the agreement will be assigned an official MOU tracking code. A hard copy is retained for
official record.

100 | P a g e

Appendix A – MOU Examples
NOAA-State Partner MOU Template
Memorandum of Understanding
Between the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration And
The (state agency)
Detailing the state-federal roles in the Management of the (name of reserve)

This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) establishes the framework for the cooperative management of (name
of reserve) in the State of (said state), between (state partner agency) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Office for Coastal Management (NOAA). This MOU supersedes the previous Memorandum of
Understanding between NOAA and (state partner agency) regarding (name of reserve) made on (date of last
MOU).

I.

BACKGROUND

A. The State of (said state) has determined the waters and related coastal habitats of (state reserve areas)
provide unique opportunities for study of natural and human processes to contribute to the science of estuarine
ecosystem processes, enhance environmental education opportunities and public understanding of estuarine
areas, and provide a stable environment for research through the long-term protection of reserve resources.

B. The State of (said state) has determined that the resources of the (name of reserve) and the values they
represent to the citizens of (said state) and the United States will benefit from the management of these resources
as part of the National Estuarine Research Reserve System.

C. The (state agency), as the agency designated by the Governor of (said state), is responsible for maintaining,
operating and managing the (name of reserve) in accordance with Section 315 of the CZMA and acknowledges the
value of state-federal cooperation for the long-term management and protection of the reserve in a manner
consistent with the purpose of its designation.

D. NOAA finds that the State of (said state) has satisfied the legal and procedural requirements for designation
and, pursuant to its authority under Section 315 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended
(CZMA, 16 U.S.C. § 1461), and in accordance with implementing regulations at 15 C.F.R. Part 921, has designated
the (name of reserve).

101 | P a g e

E. The (name of reserve) management plan approved by NOAA describes the goals, objectives,
strategies/actions, administrative structure, and institutional arrangements for the reserve, including this MOU
and others. In consideration of the mutual agreements herein, NOAA and (state agency) agree to the following
roles indicated in Section II of this agreement.

II.

STATE-FEDERAL ROLES IN RESERVE MANAGEMENT

A.

(state agency) Role in Reserve Management The (state agency) shall:

1. be responsible for compliance with all federal laws and regulations, and ensure that the (name of reserve)
management plan is consistent with the provisions of the CZMA and implementing regulations;

2. ensure protection of the natural and cultural resources of the reserve, and ensure enforcement of the
provisions of state law and regulations aimed at protecting the reserve;

3. ensure adequate, long-term protection and management of lands and waters included within the reserve
boundary;

4. apply for, budget, allocate, and expend funds in accordance with federal and state laws, the reserve
management plan, and annual funding guidance for reserve operations, research and monitoring, education and
stewardship, and, as necessary, land acquisition and reserve facility construction;

5. conduct and coordinate research and monitoring programs that encourage scientists from a variety of
institutions to work together to understand the ecology of the reserve ecosystem to improve coastal management;

6. conduct and maintain programs that disseminate research results via materials, activities, workshops, and
conferences to resource users, state and local agencies, school systems, general public, and other interested
parties;

7. provide staff and endeavor to secure state funding for the manager, education coordinator, and research
coordinator;

8.

secure facilities and equipment required to implement the provisions within the reserve management plan;

9.

ensure adequate funding for facilities operation and maintenance;

10. maintain effective liaison with local, regional, state, and federal policy makers, regulators and the general
public;

102 | P a g e

11. serve as principal contact for issues involving proposed boundary changes and/or amendments to the reserve
management plan; and
12. respond to NOAA’s requests for information made pursuant to Section 312 of the CZMA, particularly
cooperative agreement and grant progress reports and evaluation findings, including necessary actions and
recommendations.

B.

Federal Role in Reserve Management NOAA’s Office for Coastal Management shall:

1. administer the provisions of the Sections 312 and 315 of the CZMA to ensure that the reserve operates in
accordance with goals of the Reserve System and the (name of reserve) reserve management plan;

2. review and process applications for financial assistance from the (state agency), consistent with 15 C.F.R. Part
921, for management and operation of the reserve, and, as appropriate, land acquisition and facility construction;

3. advise (state agency) of existing and emerging national and regional issues that have bearing on the reserve
and Reserve System;

4. maintain an information exchange network among reserves, including available research and monitoring data
and educational materials developed within the Reserve System; and

5. to the extent possible, facilitate the allocation of NOAA resources and capabilities in support of reserve goals
and programs.

C.

General Provisions

1. Nothing in this agreement or subsequent financial assistance awards shall obligate either party in the
expenditure of funds, or for future payments of money, in excess of appropriations authorized by law.

2. Upon termination of this agreement or any subsequent financial assistance awards to (state agency), any
equipment purchased for studies to further this agreement will be disposed of in accordance with applicable
federal law, regulations, and the terms and conditions, including special award conditions, applicable to financial
assistance awards.

3. A free exchange of research and assessment data between the parties is encouraged and is necessary to
ensure success of cooperative studies.

D.

Other Provisions

1. Nothing in this agreement diminishes the independent authority or coordination responsibility of either party
in administering its respective statutory obligations. Nothing in this agreement is intended to conflict with current

103 | P a g e

written directives or policies of either party. If the terms of this agreement are inconsistent with existing written
directives or policies of either party entering this agreement, then those portions of the agreement which are
determined to be inconsistent with such written directives or policies shall be invalid; but the remaining terms not
affected by the inconsistency shall remain in full force and effect. In the event of the discovery of such
inconsistency, and at the first opportunity for revision of this agreement, the parties shall seek to amend or
terminate the agreement in accordance with the provisions of subsection V of this agreement.

2. Any disagreement on the interpretation of a provision, amendment, or other matter related to this
agreement shall be resolved informally at the lowest operating level of each party’s respective organization. If such
disagreement cannot be resolved, then the area(s) of disagreement shall be stated in writing and presented to the
other party for further consideration. If agreement is not reached within thirty (30) days of presentation, then the
parties shall forward the written presentation of the disagreement to their respective higher official for
appropriate resolution.

III.

REAL PROPERTY ACQUIRED FOR PURPOSE OF THE RESERVE

The (state agency) agrees to fully comply with conditions set forth at 15 C.F.R. § 921.21(e), which establishes legal
documentation requirements concerning the use and disposition of real property acquired for reserve purposes
with federal funds under Section 315 of the CZMA.

IV.

PROGRAM EVALUATION

NOAA’s Office for Coastal Management will schedule periodic evaluations of (state agency) performance in
meeting the terms of this agreement, financial assistance awards, and the reserve management plan. Where
findings of deficiency occur, NOAA may initiate action in accordance with the interim sanctions or withdrawal of
designation procedures established by the CZMA and applicable regulations at 15 C.F.R. Part 921, Subpart E.

V.

EFFECTIVE DATE, REVIEW, AMENDMENT AND TERMINATION

A. This agreement is effective on the date of the last signature on this agreement and shall be in effect until
terminated by either party.

B. This agreement will be reviewed periodically by both parties and may only be amended by the mutual written
consent of both parties.

C. This agreement may be terminated by mutual consent of both parties or by unilateral termination by either
party. Termination of this agreement may provide grounds for NOAA (at its discretion) to withdraw designation of
the reserve from the Reserve System, pursuant to applicable provisions of the CZMA and its implementing
regulations as described under 15 C.F.R. Parts 921 (Subpart E) and 923 (Subpart L). Section 315 of the CZMA
provides that NOAA may withdraw designation of a National Estuarine Research Reserve if: 1) NOAA finds that any
of the criteria for establishing the reserve no longer exist; or 2) a substantial portion of the research conducted

104 | P a g e

within the reserve fails to meet Reserve System guidelines. In making any decision to withdraw designation, NOAA
will take into consideration factors set forth in 15 C.F.R. § 921.40.

D. Should this agreement be terminated or designation of the reserve be withdrawn by NOAA, reimbursement
of unexpended funds from financial assistance awards shall be determined on a pro rata basis according to the
amount of work done by the parties at the time of termination or withdrawal. Additionally, reimbursement for
land purchased and facilities constructed with NOAA funds shall be consistent with terms and special award
conditions of financial assistance awards.

E. If any clause, sentence or other portion of this MOU shall become illegal, null, or void for any reason, the
remaining portions of this MOU shall remain in full force and effect.

F. No waiver of right by either party of any provision of this MOU shall be binding unless expressly confirmed in
writing by the party giving the waiver.

IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties have caused this agreement to be executed.

Name

Name

Director

Director

Office for Coastal Management

State Agency Department

National Ocean Service
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
U.S. Department of Commerce

Date

Date

105 | P a g e

Tribal Consultation Letter Example

106 | P a g e

Cooperating Agency Memorandum of Agreement–Memorandum of Understanding Example
COOPERATING AGENCY AGREEMENT
and
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
THE FOND DU LAC BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR CHIPPEWA
and the
THE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE FOR COASTAL MANAGEMENT

This Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) is entered into by The Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior
Chippewa (Fond du Lac), a federally recognized Indian tribe, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration’s (NOAA) Office for Coastal Management (OCM) (hereinafter the Parties). The MOA
provides a framework for cooperation and coordination throughout the preparation and completion of
the procedures required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et
seq., for OCM’s proposed action to designate a national estuarine research reserve (NERR) on the St.
Louis River near Superior, Wisconsin (hereinafter the Proposed Action). The MOA is consistent with the
guidance and regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) at 40 C.F.R. Parts 1500-1508.
Whereas, NOAA OCM is the lead agency for the Proposed Action to establish a National Estuarine
Research Reserve on the St. Louis River, in and adjacent to Superior, Wisconsin;
Whereas the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa is a sovereign entity that enjoys
government-to-government relationship with the United States;
Whereas NOAA OCM recognizes the special expertise of the Fond du Lac Band of Chippewa in
evaluating any impacts that the Proposed Action may have on the Fond du Lac’s exercise of its treaty
rights, treaty trust resources, and cultural and historic resources related to the Fond du Lac;
The Parties agree as follows:

107 | P a g e

I.

PARTIES and AUTHORITIES

NOAA Estuarine Reserves Division enters into this MOA pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management Act
(CZMA), 16 U.S.C. §§ 1451, 1461, and its implementing regulations; the National Environmental Policy
Act, 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq. (NEPA), and its implementing regulations; and Executive Order No. 13175,
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, 65 Fed. Reg. 67249-52 ((November 9,
2000).
Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa enters into this MOA pursuant to its inherent authority
pursuant to its sovereignty, created by the La Point Treaty of September 30, 1854, 10 Stat. 1109; the
sovereign obligation of the Fond du Lac Reservation Business Committee, as the governing body of the
Fond du Lac Band, under the Indian Reorganization Act, 25 U.S.C. § 461 et seq., and in accordance with
the Indian Self-Determination Act, 25 U.S.C, § 450 et seq.; the Executive Office of the President
memorandum to the Council on Environmental Quality, dated July 28, 1999; and the cooperating agency
status responsibilities found in 40 C.F.R. § 1501.6.
II.

OBJECTIVES

The Parties enter into this MOA to memorialize their responsibilities and expectations and to
further coordination and cooperation during the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) analyzing the impacts to the human environment of the Proposed Action to establish a National
estuarine research reserve (NERR) near the St. Louis River and Superior, Wisconsin.
III. RESPONSIBILITIES
NOAA Estuarine Reserves Division is the lead agency for the purposes of NEPA, with obligations for
fulfilling the requirements of NEPA. NOAA OCM will provide necessary and appropriate expertise and
coordination and will ensure all information relevant to the Proposed Action is included and analyzed in
the NEPA documents in accordance with the requirements of NEPA and the CEQ regulations;
NOAA Estuarine Reserves Division will work cooperatively with Fond du Lac to ensure full access to nonprivileged data, information, analysis, expertise, and public comments received during and until the
conclusion of the NEPA process;
Fond du Lac will use its best efforts to act as a cooperating agency and will review and identify
information relevant to the Proposed Action with particular attention to historic and past use of the
relevant area, associated historical and cultural information, habitat characterization, and its expertise
in the treaty resources in and around the area proposed for designation as a NERR.

108 | P a g e

IV. CONFLICT RESOLUTION
Every effort will be made by the Parties to reach mutual agreement regarding issues addressed and
analyzed during the NEPA process. In the event a conflict arises between the Parties, the following
procedures will be followed:
1) The designated Points of Contact for each Party will use their best efforts to resolve the dispute;
2) In the event the Points of Contact are unable to resolve the dispute, the immediate supervisor within
the government or agency of each Point of Contact shall meet and use their best efforts to resolve the
dispute;
3) In the event the second level of dispute resolution is unsuccessful, either Fond du Lac or NOAA OCM
may request formal government-to-government consultation in such a format as is acceptable to both
Fond du Lac and NOAA OCM to resolve their concerns.
V.

AMENDMENT AND TERMINATION

This MOA may be amended by written agreement signed by all of the Parties.
Any Party may withdraw and terminate its participation in this MOA upon 30 days written notice to each
of the other Parties. This MOA will remain in effect until the Record of Decision concluding the NEPA
process for the Proposed Action is signed by the designated NOAA official.
VI. NO FUNDS WILL BE TRANSFERRED
This MOA does not authorize or effect any transfer of funds. In addition, all obligations of NOAA
OCM pursuant to this MOA are subject to and dependent upon the availability of funds. Nothing in this
MOA creates any right, benefit, or legal obligation, substantive, procedural, or enforceable by any Party
or non-party to the MOA.

SIGNATURES

109 | P a g e

For the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa:

___________________________________________________ Date:_______________
Karen R. Diver, Chairwoman, Fond du Lac Reservation Business Committee

For NOAA Estuarine Reserves Division:

_______________________________________________________Date ____________
Laurie McGilvray, Division Chief

110 | P a g e

Cultural Consultation Letter Example

111 | P a g e

112 | P a g e

Appendix B – Governor Letter of Interest Examples

113 | P a g e

114 | P a g e

115 | P a g e

116 | P a g e

117 | P a g e

Appendix C – Designation Findings Examples

118 | P a g e

119 | P a g e

120 | P a g e

121 | P a g e

Appendix D – Site Nomination Review Checklist
Fulfillment of National Estuarine Research Reserve System Program Regulations 15CFR 921.11
The following is a checklist that will be used by Office for Coastal Management staff to ensure that a site
nomination package fulfills the Reserve System program regulation requirements.

Contents of the Site Nomination Package in
Fulfillment of 15 CFR 921.11 (b) and (d)



Nomination of the proposed site by the governor



Description of the site-selection process

 Identification of the site-selection agency and potential management agency
 List of all sites considered
 Brief statement of the reasons why a site was not preferred
 Description of the proposed site in relationship to each of the guiding principles (15
CFR 921.11 (c))

 Analysis of the proposed site based on the biogeographic scheme/typology
 Description of the proposed site and its major resources.


location



proposed boundaries

122 | P a g e



adjacent land uses



maps

 Description of the public participation process
 Summary of public comments
 Documentation that governor(s) of other affected state(s) has been contacted if
interstate issues are involved



Copies of all correspondence, including contact letters to affected landowners

Fulfillment of Procedural Requirements in 15 CFR 921.11 (b) and (d)

 The state sought the views of:
 Affected landowners
 Local governments
 Other state agencies
 Federal agencies
 Other parties interested in the area
 The state held at least one public meeting in the vicinity of the proposed site
 Fifteen days before the meeting, notice of the meeting was placed:
 in the area’s principal newspaper

123 | P a g e

 by NOAA in the Federal Register

Conformity of the Proposed Site with Guiding Principles in 15 CFR 921.11(c)
____

The site contributes to the biogeographic and typological balance of the Reserve
System.

____

The site is located in a biogeographic region and sub-region not represented in
the system.

____

The site is a representative estuarine ecosystem.

____

The site’s ecological characteristics will attract a broad range of research
interests.

____

The site is suitable for long-term estuarine research based on ecological factors
and proximity to research facilities and educational institutions.

____

The site’s ecological characteristics will attract a broad range of educational
interests.

____

The site is important to education and interpretive efforts.

____

The site is, to the maximum extent possible, minimally affected by human
activity or influence.

____

The site is compatible with existing and potential land and water uses in
contiguous areas.

____

The site is compatible with approved coastal and estuarine management plans.

124 | P a g e

____

The site boundaries encompass an adequate portion of key land and water areas
to approximate an ecological unit.

____

The site boundaries encompass an adequate portion of key land and water areas
to ensure effective conservation.

____

Less than 50 percent of the proposed reserve is currently federally protected.

____

The managing entity has or will establish adequate control over human activities
occurring within the area.

Conformity of State’s Request for Funds for EIS and Management Plan with 15 CFR 12
____

Request for funds for EIS and management plan
(Amount: $_______)

____

Request for funds for limited site characterization
(Amount: $_______)

____

Draft management plan outline

____

Outline of draft MOU between state and NOAA

125 | P a g e

Appendix E – Historical Reserve Designations
Reserve

Bio Region

Connecticut
Virginian
He‘eia
Insular
Lake Superior
Great Lakes
Mission-Aransas
Louisianian
San Francisco Bay
Califorinian
GTM
Carolinian
Grand Bay
Louisianian
Kachemak Bay
Fjord
Jacques Cousteau
Virginian
Delaware
Virginian
North Inlet-Winyah
Carolinian
Bay
ACE Basin
Carolinian
Chesapeake Bay, VA
Virginian
Great Bay
Acadian
Waquoit Bay
Virginian
Wells
Acadian
Weeks Bay
Louisianian
North Carolina
Carolinian
Chesapeake Bay, MD Virginian
Hudson River
Virginian
Jobos Bay
West Indian
Tijuana River
Californian
Apalachicola
Louisianian
Old Woman Creek
Great Lakes
Narragansett Bay
Virginian
Padilla Bay
Columbian
Elkhorn Slough
Californian
Rookery Bay
Louisianian
Waimanu Valley
Insular
Sapelo Island
Carolinian
South Slough
Columbian
♦DEDICATION CEREMONY DATES

Bio Sub-Region

Designation Date

South Atlantic
Chesapeake Bay
Southern Gulf of Maine
Southern New England
Southern Gulf of Maine
Panhandle Coast
North Carolinas
Chesapeake Bay
Southern New England
Caribbean
Southern California
Panhandle
Lake Erie
Southern New England
Puget Sound
Central California
West Florida
Hawaiian Islands
South Atlantic
Middle Pacific

August 27, 1992
June 14, 1991
October 3, 1989
June 20, 1988
August 31, 1986♦
February 19, 1986
1985#
July 1985#
September 27, 1982
September 1981
1982
November 1, 1980
September 5, 1980♦
August 1980
1980
1979
September 12, 1978
1978*
December 22, 1976
1974

Southern New England
Hawaiian Islands
Lake Superior
Western Gulf
San Francisco Bay
East Florida
Mississippi Delta
Aleutian Island
Southern New England
Middle Atlantic
South Atlantic

EST 2018-19
January 18, 2017
October 18, 2010
May 1, 2006
October 10, 2003♦
August 20, 1999
June 16, 1999
February 12, 1999
April 3, 1998
July 21, 1993
August 30, 1992

*WAIMANU VALLEY RESEARCH RESERVE DE-DESIGNATED JUNE 10, 1996
#MULTI-COMPONENT DESIGNATIONS:
Chesapeake Bay, MD
Monie Bay – July 1985
Jug Bay –- Sept. 22, 1985
Otter Point Creek – Oct. 4, 1990

North Carolina
Currituck Banks – 1985
Rachel Carson –- 1985
Zeke’s Island – 1985
Masonboro Island – designation: Jan. 4, 1991

126 | P a g e

Appendix F – Environmental Impact Statement Structure
The NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1502.10) require all EIS documents to contain the following contents.

Cover Sheet
Table of Contents
Description of Proposed Action
Affected Environment
Mitigation Methods
Distribution List

Required EIS Contents
Executive Summary
Purpose and Need
Alternatives to Proposed Action
Environmental Consequences
List of Preparers
Index and Appendices

a. Cover Sheet
Every EIS must have a one-page cover sheet that includes the following information:

NATIONAL ESTUARINE RESEARCH RESERVE DESIGNATION GUIDANCE | 2/1/2018

•

127

•

A list of the responsible agencies including the lead agency and any cooperating agencies. In the case of reserve
designation, U.S. Department of Commerce; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; National Ocean Service;
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management; Estuarine Reserves Division; and address
The title of the proposed action that is the subject of the statement, together with the state and county(ies) (or other
jurisdiction if applicable) where the action is located. Recent examples include:
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
Federal Approval of the Texas National Estuarine Research Reserve
and Management Plan: The Mission-Aransas Estuary

Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Management Plan
to establish the San Francisco Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve

•
•
•

The name, address, and telephone number of the person at the NOAA who can supply further information.
A designation of the statement as a draft, final, or draft or final supplement.
A one-paragraph abstract of the statement.

b. Summary
The summary must accurately summarize the substantive parts of the EIS. It may also be called the executive summary and should
be no more than a few pages in length. The summary shall include:
•
•
•

A brief summary of the major conclusions.
A description of any areas of controversy (including issues raised by agencies and the public).
The major issues (including the choice among alternatives) that will be discussed in the EIS.

c. Table of Contents

The table of contents provides organization to the EIS and should include a list of tables, figures, and acronyms in addition to the
major sections, described below, of the document. Other recommended components referenced in the table of contents include a
list of preparers or acknowledgments, list of persons or organizations receiving the document, references, and a list of attachments
and appendices.

d. Purpose and Need
An EIS must contain a purpose and need statement. Council of Environmental Quality regulations 40 CFR 1502.13 state, “The
statement shall briefly specify the underlying purpose and need to which the agency is responding in proposing the alternatives
including the proposed action.” This section presents a brief statement explaining why the action (i.e., reserve designation) is being
considered. The purpose and need specifies the underlying purpose and need to which NOAA is responding and sets the overall
direction of the environmental analysis process. The purpose and need section should answer the question, “Why is NOAA
proposing to approve the reserve designation?” An example is that the reserve is “representative of an estuarine ecosystem suitable
for long-term research and education.” A proposed reserve should be in a biogeographic region that is currently unrepresented in
the national system and/or have a unique ecosystem type(s) or physical characteristics described in Appendix 2 of the Sec. 921, or
are from a state currently not represented in the Reserve System.

The purpose and need serves as an important screening criterion for determining which alternatives to designation of the proposed
reserve are reasonable. All reasonable alternatives examined in detail must meet the defined purpose and need.

NATIONAL ESTUARINE RESEARCH RESERVE DESIGNATION GUIDANCE | 2/1/2018

The purpose and need statement must:

128

• Be broadly to address the number of alternatives to be considered.
• Describe the goal or end result of the action not the manner in which to accomplish the end result.
• Be short and concise manner that describes the driving force behind NOAA’s desire to designate the proposed reserve.

e. Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives
As required by Section 102 (2) (E) of NEPA, every EIS must contain a detailed description of the proposed action and alternatives.
Considered the heart of the EIS, this section describes the proposed action and each alternative that will accomplish the purpose
and need for reserve designation. Identifying the proposed action will inform reviewers of the reserve designation being considered.
The proposed action is also call the preferred alternative of all the alternatives NOAA has identified for the EIS. NOAA selects a
preferred alternative based on environmental, economic, technical, and other considerations.

In addition to the proposed action, this section should provide objective descriptions of all reasonable alternatives under
consideration by NOAA. It is recommended that NOAA and the state partner include short, concise summaries of the impacts of
each alternative, provided in comparative form. Previous reserve designation EIS documents have used a tabular format to depict
each alternative and their impacts as shown in Figure 1. A more detailed analysis of the impacts of each alternative should be
discussed in the “Environmental Consequences” section of the EIS.

NATIONAL ESTUARINE RESEARCH RESERVE DESIGNATION GUIDANCE | 2/1/2018

Figure 1. Example tabular format of Alternatives and their Impacts

129

The alternatives identified in this section are those that may be feasibly carried out based on technical, economic, environmental
and other factors, and meets the purpose and need for the proposed action. A no-action alternative must be included as one of the
alternatives described in this section.

According to Council of Environmental Quality regulations 40 CFR 1502.14 the Proposed Action and Alternatives section should:
•
•
•
•
•
•

Rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives, and for alternatives which were eliminated from
detailed study, briefly discuss the reasons for their having been eliminated.
Devote substantial treatment to each alternative considered in detail including the proposed action so that reviewers may
evaluate their comparative merits.
Include reasonable alternatives such as alternative boundaries, sites, multiple sites or others.
Include the No-Action Alternative. The No-Action Alternative is the most likely future that could be expected to occur in the
absence of the project.
Identify NOAA’s preferred alternative or alternatives, if one or more exists.
Include appropriate mitigation measures not already included in the proposed action or alternatives.

Refer to the NOAA, December 16, 2002, Memorandum for Legal Guidance on Determining Related Actions and Developing
Reasonable Alternatives for Inclusion in a Single EIS at http://www.nepa.noaa.gov/reasonable_alts.pdf for more information on
development of alternatives.

Determining the Number of Alternatives to Include
The number of alternatives considered reasonable will vary depending on the nature of the purpose and need for the action. The
alternatives described in this section should be representative of all of those possible actions that can be reasonably expected to
satisfy the purpose and need.

At a minimum, NOAA must include a description of two alternatives: the proposed action or preferred alternative and the no-action
alternative. However, in the case of national estuarine research reserve designation, NOAA and the state partner should look at
several alternatives including:
•
•
•

Alternative reserve boundaries
Alternative reserve sites
Alternative management options

In many instances there are potentially a very large number of possible alternatives. NOAA should only analyze and compare a
reasonable range of alternatives in the EIS to meet the purpose and need for designating a new reserve.

What is the No-Action Alternative?
NOAA must include a no-action alternative as part of the EIS for reserve designation. The no-action alternative is simply the
continuation of the status quo and the proposed National Estuarine Research Reserve is not designated. In this alternative, NOAA
will not meet the stated purpose and need of the action. The alternative should accurately describe what would happen if the
reserve designation did not take place without being overly speculative. Additionally, this alternative provides a baseline comparison
with the proposed action and any alternatives.

NATIONAL ESTUARINE RESEARCH RESERVE DESIGNATION GUIDANCE | 2/1/2018

Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed

130

During the initial stages of the designation process, NOAA and the state partner may consider a number of alternatives that could be
considered reasonable but are unlikely to accomplish the goal of designating a new reserve. For example, during the site-selection
process an alternative site was looked at but was not considered reasonable because the site lacked adequate state control and was
dropped from consideration.

Any alternatives considered but rejected for further analysis should be briefly discussed in a subsection of the EIS (i.e., “Alternatives
Considered, but not Further Analyzed”). This allows NOAA to identify these alternatives and to explain why they were not
reasonable for achieving the purpose and need of designating a proposed reserve.

Summarizing the Environmental Consequences
Within this section, NOAA and the state partner should briefly describe the anticipated environmental consequences of reserve
designation and alternatives on the affected environment. A detailed analysis of these environmental consequences will be found in
the Environmental Consequences section of the EIS.

Designation of a research reserve is typically an administrative function and the environmental consequences are positive as
designation brings the development of research, education, and stewardship programs; economic benefits to local communities;
and the potential for strengthened environmental protections implemented by the state. Some explanation of the environmental
consequences of future reserve infrastructure should be described, if applicable.

f. The Affected Environment
This section is a description of the environment in which the proposed action and alternatives are considered. Current conditions of
the proposed reserve and its vicinity are described in detail and serve as a baseline for comparison of each alternative and their
associated impacts.

Federal regulations 40 CFR 1502.15 describe this requirement as follows:
The environmental impact statement shall succinctly describe the environment of the area(s) to be affected or
created by the alternatives under consideration. The descriptions shall be no longer than is necessary to understand
the effects of the alternatives. Data and analyses in a statement shall be commensurate with the importance of the
impact, with less important material summarized, consolidated, or simply referenced. Agencies shall avoid useless
bulk in statements and shall concentrate effort and attention on important issues. Verbose descriptions of the
affected environment are themselves no measure of the adequacy of an environmental impact statement.

This section is typically divided into subsections that address major categories of resources affected by the research reserve
designation. For example, previous research reserve designation EIS’s have used subsections describing biological resources
(including endangered and threatened species), socioeconomic resources, habitat, cultural resources, and historical resources. Other
ideas for subsections include the following as well as other areas of interest specific to the proposed reserve:
Hydrology
Zoning
Existing Infrastructure

Geology
Pollution Sources
Climate

NATIONAL ESTUARINE RESEARCH RESERVE DESIGNATION GUIDANCE | 2/1/2018

Each resource described in the Affected Environment Chapter must also receive a parallel discussion in the Environmental
Consequences Chapter. Additionally, incorporating by reference other environmental impact statements and environmental
assessments may be used to add information about the affected environment without adding length to the document. This is
especially useful if existing infrastructure or land acquisition projects are ongoing during the designation process.

131

g. Environmental Consequences
An EIS must have a detailed description of the anticipated environmental consequences of the research reserve designation and
alternatives (including the No-Action Alternative) on the resources described in the Affected Environment section. In this section,
NOAA and the state partner describe the scientific and analytic basis for the comparison of the proposed research reserve
designation and alternatives. The section must provide a detailed analysis and description of any general or specific environmental
impacts or effects resulting from research reserve designation or the reasonable alternatives.

Effects can include ecological (such as the effects on natural resources and on the components, structures, and functioning of
affected ecosystems), aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social, or health, whether direct, indirect, or cumulative. Effects may
also include those resulting from actions which may have both beneficial and detrimental effects, even if on balance the agency
believes that the effect will be beneficial.

The section should be organized to show the following:
•
•
•

•

The overall or general impacts of research reserve designation and the significance of these impacts.
Specific impacts or effects of research reserve designation and their significance as related to the sections described in the
Affected Environment section.
Possible conflicts between the research reserve designation and applicable federal, regional, state, and local plans,
programs, or controls for the proposed reserve site. This includes but is not limited to the:
o Endangered Species Act
o Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
o National Historic Preservation Act
o Coastal Zone Management Act
Unavoidable adverse environmental or socioeconomic impacts that may result from research reserve designation.

•

The cumulative impacts of research reserve designation and alternatives on activities occurring in the area/environment
affected by the action. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place
over a period of time.

h. Mitigation Measures
In some examples, alternatives, including the preferred alternative, reference measures that avoid, reduce or minimize the effects of
designating a research reserve. If identified, these mitigation measures should be included in the analysis of each alternative in the
Environmental Consequences section. A table can be used to show mitigation measures as related to each alternative identified in
the EIS.

Mitigation measures may include the following actions:





Avoidance of impacts associated with the preferred action or its alternatives
Minimizing the degree or magnitude of the research reserve designation and its implementation
Compensating for the impact of research reserve designation
Restoring affected environments or habitats. The resource manipulation/ restoration part of the management plan may
address mitigation in detail.

NATIONAL ESTUARINE RESEARCH RESERVE DESIGNATION GUIDANCE | 2/1/2018

i. List of Preparers

132

The EIS must include a list of persons involved or consulted in the preparation of the document. This section should include any
person that was primarily responsible for preparing the document, background papers, or provided substantial information. This
includes NOAA staff and state partner staff.

j. Distribution List
The EIS must include a distribution list that includes other agencies, organizations, and individuals who have requested the
document. An asterisk or some kind of notation should be included for those organizations or individuals who commented on the
draft document.

k. Index and AppendicesThe EIS must contain an index. The index should include an alphabetical list of key words and their
associated page numbers that will allow the reader to find information easily within the EIS. The index should focus on subject
matter not a simple repeat of the table of contents. Any appendices to support the EIS should also be included. One mandatory
appendix or attachment is the Reserve Management Plan. Other materials that are best consolidated into the appendix are:







Lengthy technical discussions, baseline studies, etc…
Materials likely to be understood by technically trained individuals
Comments to the EIS and responses to those comments
Concurrence letters as per other legal requirements
Reserve – NOAA Memorandum of Understanding
Reserve – Local partner Memorandum of Understanding

Appendix G – Cumulative Effects Analysis Recommendations and Tips
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Created March 21, 2008
Updated October 17, 2017

Cumulative Effects Analysis Recommendations and Tips

NATIONAL ESTUARINE RESEARCH RESERVE DESIGNATION GUIDANCE | 2/1/2018

The Council on Environmental Quality’s Regulations for Implementing NEPA defines cumulative impact as:
the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to
other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or
non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually
minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. (40 CFR 1508.7)

133

Although there is no universal guidance explaining how to conduct cumulative effects analyses, the Council of
Environmental Quality and several federal agencies have developed a handbook to assist a NEPA practitioner
with the analysis of cumulative effects. This document, derived from several different sources regarding
cumulative effects analysis, will provide tips and recommendations for developing a cumulative effects
analysis for a NOAA major federal action.
In general, the level of cumulative effects analysis needs to be aligned with the degree of direct and indirect
effects of the proposed action or preferred alternative on the environment. Developing a cumulative effects
analysis should be seen as an iterative process, in that the analysis may shed light on resources that were not
discovered during the scoping process, requiring the analyst to add them to the affected resources and
reanalyze a portion of the cumulative impacts.

Scoping for Cumulative Impacts:

The purpose of scoping is to determine whether the resources, ecosystems, and human communities of
concern have already been affected by past or present activities and whether other agencies or the public
have plans that may affect the resources in the future.
Step 1: Identify the significant cumulative effects issues associated with the proposed action and define the
assessment goals 2
To identify the significant cumulative effects issues, an analyst must define (a) the direct and indirect effects of
the proposed action, (b) the resources, ecosystems, and human communities that will be affected, and (c)
which effects on these resources are important from a cumulative effects perspective. Table 2 lists questions
that should be considered to identify all pertinent significant cumulative effects issues.
Step 2: Establish the geographic scope for the analysis
To establish the geographic scope for analysis, analysts should:
• determine the area that will be affected by the action (This is the project impact zone.)
• make a list of the resources within that zone that could be affected by the proposed action
The eleven step process is taken directly from the Council on Environmental Quality’s Considering Cumulative Effects, which is
referenced at the end of this document.
2

• determine the geographic areas occupied by those resources outside of the project impact zone (In
most cases, the largest of these areas will be the appropriate area for the analysis of cumulative
effects.)
• determine the affected institutional jurisdictions, both for the lead agency and other agencies or
groups

NATIONAL ESTUARINE RESEARCH RESERVE DESIGNATION GUIDANCE | 2/1/2018

Step 3: Establish the time frame for the analysis
To identify the time frame for the analysis, analysts should consider:
• the nature of the proposed action
• the resource(s) of concern
• the point in time at which further cumulative effects (or, if appropriate, their discounted present
value) are expected to become inconsequential
• the period for which useful predictions can be made

134

Step 4: Identify other actions affecting the resources, ecosystems, and human communities of concern
This is also known as identifying the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.
Effective cumulative effects analysis requires close coordination among agencies so that all past, present, and
future actions are considered. The availability of data often determines how far back past effects can be
analyzed. Identifying present actions is easier than identifying past or future actions, but it can still be a
difficult task. The first step in identifying future actions is to investigate the plans of the proponent agency and
other agencies in the area. In general, future actions can be excluded if: (a) the action is outside the
geographic boundaries or time frame established for the analysis, (b) the action will not affect resources that
are the subject of the analysis, (c) including the action would be considered arbitrary, or (d) the action is not
reasonably foreseeable (e.g., not formally proposed, planned, permitted, authorized, or funded).

Describing the Affected Environment:

The purpose of describing the affected environment is to describe the baseline conditions to provide the
context for evaluating environmental consequences of the cumulative effects.
Step 5: Characterize the resources, ecosystems, and human communities identified in scoping in terms of
their response to change and capacity to withstand stresses
The existing conditions for resources and ecosystems can best be described by first establishing an
environmental baseline, or point of reference, for each resource/ecosystem. Likewise, the relative well-being
of human communities can be judged on the basis of demographic, geographic, economic, social, and health
indicators. The baseline should describe the status of the resource/ecosystem, taking into account the
conditions, trends, and past actions that have resulted in the current condition. Appropriate indicator
measures should be selected to represent each resource/ecosystem.
Step 6: Characterize the stresses affecting these resources, ecosystems, and human communities and their
relation to regulatory thresholds
Environmental impact assessment is an attempt to characterize the relationship between human activities and
the resultant environmental and social effects; therefore, the next step in describing the affected environment
is to compile data on stress factors pertaining to each resource, ecosystem, and human community. Two types
of information should be used to describe stress factors contributing to cumulative effects. First, the analyst

should identify the types, distribution, and intensity of key social and economic activities within the region.
Data on these socioeconomic “driving variables” can identify cumulative effects problems in the project area. 3
Second, the analyst should look for individual indicators of stress on specific resources, ecosystems, and
human communities. Like the familiar “canary in the coal mine,” changes in certain resources can serve as an
early warning of impending environmental or social degradation.4 The goal of characterizing stresses is to
determine whether the resources, ecosystems, and human communities of concern are approaching
conditions where additional stresses will have an important cumulative effect.
Step 7: Define a baseline condition for the resources, ecosystems, and human communities
This baseline will provide the analyst with the necessary information to properly evaluate the environmental
consequences of cumulative effects. However, obtaining information to describe the affected environment
can be expensive and time-consuming. Analysts should determine which data are essential for a specific
analysis and compare that with the data sets that are readily available. There are many sources of data
available on the internet, from federal agency websites to local or regional planning organization websites. For
example, Census Bureau data can be helpful for providing demographic, housing, and socioeconomic data.

NATIONAL ESTUARINE RESEARCH RESERVE DESIGNATION GUIDANCE | 2/1/2018

Determining the Environmental Consequences:

135

Step 8: Identify the important cause-and-effect relationships between human activities and resources,
ecosystems, and human communities
It is important to link the various stresses and the resources they affect. Cause-and-effect relationships can be
simple (linear) or complex (non-linear). The relationship between the percent of fine sediment and in a stream
bed and the emergence of salmon fry is an example of a model of cause and effect that can be useful for
identifying the cumulative effects on a specific resource. This model describes the response of the resource to
a change in its environment. To determine the consequences of the proposed action on the resource, the
analyst must determine which cumulative environmental changes will result from the proposed action and
other actions.
Using information gathered to describe the affected environment, the factors that affect resources
(i.e., the causes in the cause-and-effect relationships) can be identified and a conceptual model of cause and
effect can be developed. The model can be developed even if the exact mechanism or magnitude of the
cause-and-effect relationship is not known. Because models can become quite complex with several
relationships that cannot be quantified with known data, the analyst should restrict the model to include only
important relationships that can be supported with information.
The next step is to quantify the effect on the resource for each identified relationship using available data. If
cause-and-effect relationships cannot be quantified, or if quantification is not needed to adequately
characterize the consequences of each alternative, qualitative evaluation procedures can be used. The analyst
may categorize the magnitude of effects into a set number of classes (e.g., high, medium, or low) or provide a
descriptive narrative of the types of effects that may occur. Often, the analyst will be limited to qualitative
evaluations of effects because cause and-effect relationships are poorly understood or because few sitespecific data are available.

McCabe, G, C Orians, C Clavate, and K Branch. 1991. Driving variables that impact environmental quality.
Battelle Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA.
4 Reid, WV, JA McNeely, DB Tunstall, and D Bryant. 1991. Indicators of Biodiversity Conservation. World
Resources Institute, Washington, D.C.
3

Even when the analyst cannot quantify cumulative effects, a useful comparison of relative effects can enable a
decision-maker to choose among alternatives. The cause-and-effect relationships for each resource are used
to determine the magnitude of the cumulative effect resulting from all actions included in the analysis.

NATIONAL ESTUARINE RESEARCH RESERVE DESIGNATION GUIDANCE | 2/1/2018

Step 9: Determine the magnitude and significance of cumulative effects
The analyst’s primary goal is to determine the magnitude and significance of the environmental consequences
of the proposed action in the context of the cumulative effects of other past, present, and future actions. The
critical element in reaching this goal is defining an appropriate baseline or threshold condition of the resource,
ecosystem, and human community beyond which adverse or beneficial change would cause significant
degradation or enhancement of the resource, respectively.
Initially, the analyst will determine the separate effects of past, present, proposed, and other future actions.
Once each group of effects is determined, cumulative effects can be calculated.
The cumulative effects of a specific resource will not necessarily be the sum of the effects of all actions.
Knowing how a particular resource responds to environmental change is essential for determining the
cumulative effect of multiple actions.
The significance of effects should be determined based on context and intensity. In its implementing
regulations for NEPA, the Council of Environmental Quality states that “the significance of an action must be
analyzed in several contexts such as society as a whole (human, national), the affected region, the affected
interests, and the locality” (40 CFR 1508.27). Significance may vary with the setting of the proposed action.

136

Step 10: Modify or add alternatives to avoid, minimize, or mitigate significant cumulative effects
If it is determined that significant cumulative effects would occur as a result of a proposed action, the project
proponent should avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects by modifying or adding alternatives. The
decision-maker should not overlook opportunities to enhance resources when adverse cumulative effects are
not significant. By analyzing the cause-and-effect relationships resulting in cumulative effects, strategies to
mitigate effects or enhance resources can be developed. For each resource, ecosystem, and human
community of concern, the key to developing constructive mitigation strategies is determining which of the
cause-and-effect pathways results in the greatest effect. Although mitigation of significant effects is an option,
in most cases avoidance or minimization are more effective than remediating detrimental effects.
Step 11: Monitor the cumulative effects of the selected alternative and adapt management
Due to the complex nature of cumulative effects analysis, uncertainties in the analysis will always exist.
Therefore, monitoring is essential to analyzing the actual effects of the proposed action and mitigation
measures on the environment. Important components of a monitoring program for assessing cumulative
effects include the following:
• measurable indicators of the magnitude and direction of ecological and social change
• appropriate timeframes and spatial scales
• means of assessing causality and measuring mitigation efficacy
• provisions for adaptive management
Adaptive management is a useful tool in these situations to provide a way to continually adjust management
and mitigation measures in the face of new information regarding effects on the environment and should use
the data gained in monitoring to inform new decisions.
References

NATIONAL ESTUARINE RESEARCH RESERVE DESIGNATION GUIDANCE | 2/1/2018

Council on Environmental Quality. 1997. Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National Environmental
Policy Act.
Council on Environmental Quality. June 24, 2005 Memorandum regarding Guidance on the Consideration of
Past Actions in Cumulative Effects Analysis.
Council on Environmental Quality. 2007. A Citizen’s Guide to the NEPA.
National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Regional Office. 2012. Guidance on Cumulative Effects
Analysis in Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements.

137

NATIONAL ESTUARINE RESEARCH RESERVE DESIGNATION GUIDANCE | 2/1/2018

Appendix H – Record of Decision
2017 Example

138

139

NATIONAL ESTUARINE RESEARCH RESERVE DESIGNATION GUIDANCE | 2/1/2018

140

NATIONAL ESTUARINE RESEARCH RESERVE DESIGNATION GUIDANCE | 2/1/2018

NATIONAL ESTUARINE RESEARCH RESERVE DESIGNATION GUIDANCE | 2/1/2018

2010 Example

141

142

NATIONAL ESTUARINE RESEARCH RESERVE DESIGNATION GUIDANCE | 2/1/2018

NATIONAL ESTUARINE RESEARCH RESERVE DESIGNATION GUIDANCE | 2/1/2018

Appendix I – Certification of Findings

2010 Example

143

Appendix J – Important Questions and Answers for Public Meetings
QUESTION: How will the proposed reserve affect current public uses at the site?
ANSWER: Designation will not, in-and-of-itself change the current public uses of the lands and waters within a
reserve. State authorities manage public uses on state lands and waters, and site land owners make decisions
about the permissible uses of their land consistent with applicable state authorities. The state and/or site land
owners may decide to change or modify to uses to meet specific reserve management plan goals and
objectives for the site or at some future time for reasons that have yet to be determined or foreseen.

NATIONAL ESTUARINE RESEARCH RESERVE DESIGNATION GUIDANCE | 2/1/2018

QUESTION: Will designation of the proposed reserve result in new federal regulations?
ANSWER: The designation, in-and-of-itself, will not result in any new federal regulations for the area. There
are, however, existing regulatory requirements which guide how the site would be managed as a reserve.
Decisions regarding land uses in the area will be determined through the reserve management plan process
and be implemented by respective landowners consistent with the overall guidance provided by the Reserve
System implementing regulations. As part of this process, land uses may change over time provided they are
consistent with the applicable Reserve System regulations.

144

QUESTION: Will NOAA consider comments submitted by a Stakeholder after the close of the comment period
provided in the Federal Register notice?
ANSWER: NOAA can only guarantee that relevant comments submitted during the comment period will be
considered. Although NOAA retains discretion to consider relevant comments submitted outside the comment
period, to ensure that comments are considered, the public should submit any comments before the (Date)
close of the comment period.
QUESTION: What are the benefits of having a research reserve at the site?
ANSWER: The benefits of a reserve generally include the following:
 bringing new scientists and students from all over the U.S. to study at the site
 providing opportunity to apply for funds for facilities and land acquisition
 providing an opportunity to apply for operational funds that are currently restricted to Reserve System
sites
 additional opportunities to educate k-12 students about the estuary, science, and cultural knowledge
 improved science-based information becomes available to support local decision makers
 fostering collaborations and partnerships to solve local and regional problems
QUESTION: What is the difference between Nomination and Designation for National Estuarine Research
Reserves?
ANSWER: The governor of a state submits a nomination of a proposed site for a reserve to NOAA for
consideration. The nomination package must include a detailed site-selection process and a description of the
public participation process used to support site selection. Designation of a reserve is considered by NOAA
after a NEPA review is completed and a management plan is developed for the proposed site. Designation
officially recognizes the site as a reserve in the national system of estuarine research reserves, while
nomination simply starts the formal process toward designation.
QUESTION: What is the difference between the federal vs. state roles in a reserve?

ANSWER: (Lead state partner) would be NOAA’s partner in the day to day operation and management of the
reserve. NOAA provides national programmatic support, funding, and coordination for the national estuarine
research Reserve System.

NATIONAL ESTUARINE RESEARCH RESERVE DESIGNATION GUIDANCE | 2/1/2018

QUESTION: What is the difference between a National Estuarine Research Reserve and a National Marine
Sanctuary?
ANSWER: Reserve sites are operated by a state partner (i.e., state agency or University) in partnership with
NOAA’s Office for Coastal Management with a70-30 funding match for annual operations support using
cooperative agreements. National marine sanctuaries are managed by NOAA’s Office of National Marine
Sanctuaries. In some instances NOAA works closely with state co-managers in national marine sanctuaries that
include state waters, but as part of a national marine sanctuary, the areas are under federal protection.
Reserves are established under the Coastal Zone Management Act, while National Marine Sanctuaries are
established under the National Marine Sanctuaries Act. Research Reserves generally consist of state lands and
waters and may include uplands, beaches and dry land associated with the estuaries. Marine sanctuaries may
include state and federal waters and the submerged lands under them but do not include any dry land.
Although the systems do have different legislation and purposes, they serve similar goals of place-based
conservation, fostering science-based management, and working on the ground with local communities.
Within the National Ocean Service, these programs are increasingly working together to share lessons across
the two systems.

145

QUESTION: How is a research reserve site nomination different from the Sanctuary nomination process?
ANSWER: Research reserve site nominations and National Marine Sanctuary nominations are two different
processes run under different authorities (Coastal Zone Management Act and National Marine Sanctuaries
Act). The National Estuarine Research Reserve designation process begins with a specific nomination request
from the Governor of a state to NOAA. An interested state conducts a detailed site-selection and nomination
process with community input to identify the most appropriate sites for a future estuarine research reserve.
The Governor of the state would then submit the nomination of a proposed reserve site to NOAA for
consideration. If the nomination is accepted by NOAA, the state then develops a management plan for the site
and NOAA completes an environmental review of the proposed designation, culminating in designation of a
new National Estuarine Research Reserve. Sanctuaries may be either nominated by the public or established
by Congress through legislation (e.g., Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary). The Sanctuary
Nomination Process is a community-based, grassroots process that allows interested individuals and
organizations to nominate marine and Great Lakes areas for NOAA to consider as a national marine sanctuary.
The Governor of a state or a state agency may be part of the community that submits a national marine
sanctuary nomination. Once a Sanctuary Nomination is received, NOAA will review to consider whether to add
the nominated site to an inventory of areas for possible national marine sanctuary designation through a
public process outlined in the National Marine Sanctuaries Act. For more information on the sanctuary
nomination process visit: www.nominate.noaa.gov.
QUESTION: What are the next steps after the public comment period?
ANSWER: Upon completion of the public comment period of the proposed reserve’s Draft Environmental
Impact Statement and Draft Management Plan, NOAA and lead state partner would proceed to the next phase
of the reserve designation process, which includes considering and responding to the relevant comments
received from the public. If NOAA determines that designation is appropriate, a final version of the reserve
management plan and environmental impact statement would be released, along with NOAA’s response to
any public comments received.

Concurrently, NOAA and the lead state partner also would finalize a memorandum of understanding that will
guide the federal-state partnership and the University will have a similar arrangement with all the key partners
at the state level governing those partnerships. Upon completion of the NEPA review and the development of
a final reserve management plan, the NOAA Administrator will review the final package and decide whether to
issue a finding of designation officially designating the reserve.

NATIONAL ESTUARINE RESEARCH RESERVE DESIGNATION GUIDANCE | 2/1/2018

QUESTION: What is NOAA’s plan to provide funding for the new reserve site?
ANSWER: Once a reserve is designated, it is eligible to receive funds from NOAA under the Coastal Zone
Management Act, which are allocated by equal share amounts among operational reserves. Funds from NOAA
for any newly designated reserve, however, are not guaranteed and depend on appropriation levels from
Congress and priority to ensure operation of existing reserves. NOAA will consider the resource needs of the
whole research Reserve System in planning for future years’ budget requests.

146

Appendix K – NOAA Introductory Remarks for Draft Environmental
Impact Statement and Draft Management Plan Public Meeting
PUBLIC HEARING INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
He‘eia National Estuarine Research Reserve
(6:00 PM, Thursday, October 6, 2016)
GOOD EVENING LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. I’D LIKE TO WELCOME YOU TO THIS PUBLIC HEARING WHICH HAS BEEN CALLED FOR THE
PURPOSE OF RECEIVING TESTIMONY ON THE PROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH THE HE’EIA NATIONAL ESTUARINE RESEARCH RESERVE, ON
THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT DISCUSSING THIS PROPOSAL AND THE PLAN THAT WILL BE USED TO MANAGE
THE RESEARCH RESERVE.

NATIONAL ESTUARINE RESEARCH RESERVE DESIGNATION GUIDANCE | 2/1/2018

MY NAME IS JOHN KING AND I AM A DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF NOAA’S OFFICE FOR COASTAL MANAGEMENT, AN AGENCY OF THE

147

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSHPERHIC ADMINISTRATION, IN THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND WORK IN
PARTNERSHIP WITH THE STATE OF HAWAI’I’S OFFICE OF PLANNING. THE OFFICE FOR COASTAL MANAGEMENT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR
ADMINISTERING THE PROVISIONS OF THE FEDERAL COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1972 THAT PROVIDES IN PART, THE
AUTHORITY TO DESIGNATE AND SUPPORT THE STATE MANAGEMENT OF ESTUARINE RESEARCH RESERVES.

WITH ME TODAY ARE MS. JOELLE GORE, THE DIRECTOR OF THE STEWARDSHIP DIVISION IN THE OFFICE FOR COASTAL
MANAGEMENT, UNDER WHICH FEDERAL SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSED HE’EIA RESEARCH RESERVE RESIDES. MS. GORE WILL HAVE
AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS YOU SHORTLY.

THIS MEETING IS BEING HELD PURSUANT TO SECTION 921.13(d) OF THE ESTUARINE RESERCH RESERVE REGULATIONS WHICH YOU
CAN SEE ON IN APPENDIX A ON PAGE 1-10 OF THE DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN. THE HEARING ALSO SATISFIES PART OF THE
PROCEDURES OF THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT OF 1969, WHICH CALLS FOR THE PREPARATION OF DRAFT AND FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS CONCERNING PROPOSED MAJOR FEDERAL ACTIONS THAT MAY SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECT THE
ENVIRONMENT. IN THIS CASE, THE FEDERAL ACTION INCLUDES THE DESIGNATION OF THE HE’EIA RESERVE UNDER THE PROVISIONS
OF THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1972 ENSURING A JOINT STATE-FEDERAL PARTNERSHIP AND THE APPROVAL OF A
MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK DESCRIBED IN THE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE RESEARCH RESERVE.

THIS PUBLIC MEETING IS BEING HELD AS PART OF THE PROCESS TO CONSIDER THE ENVIRONMENI’AL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED
RESEARCH RESERVE. The Office for Coastal Management AWARDED A PREVIOUS FINANCIAL GRANT TO THE STATE OF HAWAI’I’S
OFFICE OF PLANNING TO CONDUCT A PRE-DESIGNATION PLANNING STUDY AND TO COORDINATE WITH LOCAL, STATE, AND
FEDERAL AGENCIES AND PUBLIC INTEREST GROUPS FOR THE CREATION OF A RESEARCH RESERVE MANAGEMENT PLAN. THIS OFFICE,
THE OFFICE OF PLANNING, AND THE UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI’I INSTITUTE OF MARINE BIOLOGY HAVE PREPARED THE DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS HEARING.

ATERNATIVES TO FEDERAL APPROVAL, BOUNDARIES, ALTERNATIVE SITES AND TAKING NO ACTION ARE PRESENTED AND EVALUATED
IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ALONG WITH THEIR POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES. THE PREFERRED
ALTERNATIVE PRESENTED FOR THE HE’EIA ESTUARINE RESEARCH RESERVE DOES NOT REPRESENT A FINAL DECISION. THIS HEARING
PROVIDES AN OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL INTERESTED PARTIES TO PRESENT THEIR VIEWS ON THE ADEQUACY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT AND THE PREFERRED RESERVE DESIGNATION ALTERNATIVE.

NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND A NOTICE OF THIS PUBLIC MEETING WAS
PRINTED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER ON FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 2. NEWSPAPER ANNOUNCEMENTS ON THIS HEARING APPEARED IN X
NATIONAL ESTUARINE RESEARCH RESERVE DESIGNATION GUIDANCE | 2/1/2018

LOCAL NEWSPAPERS:

148

ELECTRONIC COPIES OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT WERE MADE AVAILABLE TO INDIVIDUALS AND
INTERESTED PARTIES IN ADVANCE OF THIS HEARING AT COAST.NOAA.GOV/CZM/COMPLIANCE. THERE ARE A LIMITED NUMBER OF
COPIES AVAILABLE FOR YOU TO VIEW TODAY AT THE STORY TABLES.

COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THIS HEARING, AND WRITTEN COMMENTS RECEIVED BY OCTOBER 17, WILL BE FULLY CONSIDERED
BY APPROPRIATE NOAA DECISION MAKERS IN DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT TO ESTABLISH THE ESTUARINE RESEARCH RESERVE.
RESPONSES TO ALL COMMENTS WILL BE PROVIDED IN THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. AGAIN, THE PERIOD FOR
RECEIVING PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THIS DOCUMENT CLOSES ON OCTOBER 17TH.

WRITTEN COMENTS MAY BE SUBMITTED USING ONE OF THREE METHODS. THESE INCLUDE ELECTRONICALLY, BY SUBMITTING
COMMENTS THROUGH THE FEDERAL E-RULEMAKING PORTAL. BY MAILING COMMENTS SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO THE PROGRAM
OFFICIAL IDENTIFIED BELOW. OR LASTLY BY FILLING IN THE COMMENT SHEETS PROVIDED AND DEPOSITING THEM IN THE
COMMENT BOX ON THE TABLE IN THE BY THE ENTRANCE. I CAN PROVIDE THIS INFORMATION AGAIN LATER FOLLOWING THE
MEETING FOR ANYONE WHO MAY BE INTERESTED IN SENDING WRITTEN COMMENTS ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT.

JOELLE GORE, STEWARDSHIP DIVISION CHIEF
OFFICE FOR COASTAL MANAGEMENT
NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE, NOAA
1305 EAST WEST HIGHWAY, N/ORM2, ROOM 10622
SILVER SPRING, MD 20910.

BEFORE RECEIVING YOUR COMMENTS ON THIS ESTUARINE RESEARCH RESERVE PROPOSAL, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK MS. JOELLE GORE
TO PROVIDE YOU WITH A BRIEF BACKGROUND ON THE NATIONAL ESTUARINE RESEARCH RESERVE PROGRAM AND A SUMMARY OF
THE IMPACTS WE ANTICIPATE WITH APPROVAL OF THE LAKE SUPERIOR NATIONAL ESTUARINE RESEARCH RESERVE AND ANNUAL
FINANCIAL GRANTS TO ASSIST WITH IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROGRAM.

HERE ARE THE PROCEDURES WE INTEND TO USE FOR THIS MEETING. ALL PERSONS HAVE BEEN ASKED TO SIGN ATTENDANCE CARDS
AND INDICATE IF THEY WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A STATEMENT. IF YOU HAVE NOT FILLED ONE OF THESE OUT, PLEASE RAISE YOUR
HAND AND WE WILL PROVIDE ONE. WE WOULD LIKE EACH SPEAKER TO MAKE THEIR PRESENTATION FROM THE TABLE SO WE AND

NATIONAL ESTUARINE RESEARCH RESERVE DESIGNATION GUIDANCE | 2/1/2018

THE AUDIENCE AND THE RECORDER CAN HEAR YOU MORE CLEARLY.

149

A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OF THIS HEARING WILL BE TAKEN AND WILL BE USED TO ASSIST IN THE PREPARATION OF A MEETING
SUMMARY. IF YOU HAVE A PREPARED STATEMENT, I WOULD APPRECIATE A COPY FOR OUR RECORDS.

ONLY THOSE MAKING STATEMENTS OR SENDING COMMENTS WILL RECEIVE COPIES OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT OR YOU MAY SPECIFICALLY REQUEST A COPY BEFORE YOU LEAVE TODAY.

IT IS IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT THIS MEETING IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECEIVING YOUR COMMENTS ONLY. THERE WILL BE
NO RESPONSE TO YOUR COMMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE OFFICE FOR COASTAL MANAGEMENT, OP, OR HIMB AT THIS TIME. THAT
BEING SAID, YOUR COMMENTS ARE IMPORTANT IN BETTER UNDERSTANDING POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF A RESEARCH RESERVE SITE.
RESPONSES TO ALL COMMENTS WILL BE PROVIDED AFTER THEIR FULL CONSIDERATION IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS AND DECISIONMAKING PROCESS AND YOU WILL SEE THOSE RESPONSES IN THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. SHOULD YOU HAVE
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS OR REQUESTS FOR CLAIRIFICATIONS, ROB, MYSELF OR THE OTHER STAFF PRESENT MAY ASSIST YOU AFTER
THE FORMAL PART OF THE HEARING.
WE APPRECIATE YOUR ATTENDANCE HERE TODAY AND LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR COMMENTS, OBSERVATIONS, AND EXPRESSION
OF SUPPORT OR CONCERN. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THE PROCEDURES OF THIS HEARING?
IF NOT, WE CAN PROCEED WITH THE FIRST SPEAKER. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND AFFILIATION FOR THE RECORD.

NATIONAL ESTUARINE RESEARCH RESERVE DESIGNATION GUIDANCE | 2/1/2018

Appendix L – Detailed Designation Timeline Example

150

Appendix M – Detailed Designation Process
National Estuarine Research Reserve Designation
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and Draft Management Plan
(DMP) Step-by-step Process
1.
2.

3.
4.

NATIONAL ESTUARINE RESEARCH RESERVE DESIGNATION GUIDANCE | 2/1/2018

5.
6.

151

7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.

Site Nomination document approved by NOAA
Notice of intent (Attachment 1) to prepare draft Environmental Impact Statement/Management Plan and notice of scoping
meeting is created by Office for Coastal Management staff for publication in the Federal Register Notice. The notice of intent
should:
a. Described the proposed action
b. Provide information in planned scoping mtgs. or hearings
c. Provide contact information
Publish a notice of intent in the Federal Register at least 15 days before scoping meeting.
State partner advertises in local media outlets, newspapers, and administrative requirements and sends letters to potential
stakeholders about the scoping meeting concurrently with federal action.
Public scoping meeting is held
State partner, in collaboration with NOAA, develops and prepares a Draft EIS and Draft MP. An EIS contains (see NOAA NEPA
guidance for further details):
a. Cover sheet
b. Summary or Executive summary
c. Table of Contents
d. Purpose and Need statement – brief statement explaining why this EIS is being developed
e. Description of proposed actions and alternatives (remember to include “No-Action Alternative”) Also, identify the
preferred alternative
f. Affected Environment
g. Environmental Consequences
h. Mitigation measures (if applicable)
i. List of Preparers
j. Distribution List
k. Index
l. Appendices
State partner and NOAA address stakeholder concerns identified in scoping meetings in development of Draft EIS and Draft
Management Plan
Send state or tribal historic preservation officer preliminary Sect 106 contact letter –NOS NEPA Coordinator
Review team conducts an internal edit of the draft document
Determine the need for printed versions of the draft EIS document for distribution (local determination).
Work with state partner to get distribution list for the DEIS/DMP
Preliminary NOAA review for DEIS/DMP (Total 3 months)
Set up meetings to brief Office for Coastal Management director and NOS assistant administrator for Office for Coastal
Management and NOS clearance process
NOS NEPA Coordinator Review of draft DEIS/DMP (2 weeks)
Create draft the briefing documents (e.g., three-things memo) for Office for Coastal Management Director and NOS
Administrator. Be sure to include the following attachments: talking points, a sitemap, summary of alternatives, and any issues
of concern.
Brief Ecosystems Program Manager and Stewardship Division Director on DEIS/DMP Review
Office for Coastal Management review by Ecosystems Program Manager, Stewardship Division director, Planning, Policy, and
Communication Division director – 3 weeks maximum – Additional documents for review include the 3-things briefing memo
with note of briefings scheduled
Revise DEIS/DMP based on preliminary Office for Coastal Management comments

NATIONAL ESTUARINE RESEARCH RESERVE DESIGNATION GUIDANCE | 2/1/2018

152

19. Request a Technical Assistance Review for DEIS from appropriate NMFS staff and coordinated through the NOS environmental
compliance coordinator (30days) this was a change from previously required 2 weeks
a. Regional contacts (NMFS) for Endangered Species Act Section 7,
b. Regional contacts for Essential Fish Habitat compliance,
c. Regional contacts for Marine Mammal Protection Act.
d. NOAA Headquarters ESA, Essential Fish Habitat, and Marine Mammal Protection Act contacts
20. Concurrent with NMFS Technical Review - Request compliance with National Marine Sanctuary-affected resources with
sanctuary staff and send a courtesy copy to Sanctuary Headquarters staff.
21. Revise DEIS/DMP based on NMFS Technical Review comments
22. General Counsel–Ocean and Coasts Section (GCOS) Review of the DEIS/DMP (1 week)
23. Revise DEIS/DMP based on preliminary GCOS comments
24. Office for Coastal Management communication review conducts a final edit of the executive summary (needs to be in word)
Time (14-21 days Est.)
25. Email DEIS and DMP and the 3-things briefing memo to NOS assistant administrator, Office for Coastal Management director
and deputy director, and GCOS with note of briefings scheduled
26. Formal Clearance Process Begins for DEIS/DMP (Total 7 weeks)
27. Enter document into Data by Design
28. Internal Office for Coastal Management clearance process – Briefing for Office for Coastal Management director and deputy
director – 1 week
29. NOS Review/Clearance Begins (Total 6 weeks standard)
30. NOS environmental compliance coordinator Pre-review (2 weeks)
31. GCOS staff/director clearance (1 week)
32. Policy and Constituent Affairs Division Review and Clearance - (1 week)
33. NOS chief of staff clearance – (1 week)
34. Designation Team and Ecosystems Program Manager brief NOS assistant administrator for clearance
35. Internal NOAA Review/Clearance Process Details
a. Finalize the point paper from the NOS assistant administrator to the NOS environmental compliance coordinator.
b. Documents
c. Set up controlled correspondence process in Data by Design with NOS correspondence Unit. Reviewers should be:
i. Correspondence Unit
ii. GCOS
iii. Correspondence Unit
iv. PPAD
v. Correspondence Unit
vi. NOS Chief of Staff
vii. Correspondence Unit
viii. NOS deputy assistant administrator
ix. NOS assistant administrator
x. PPAD Contact
xi. NOS NEPA Coordinator
NOTE: after NOS assistant administrator signs it, make corrections to the DEIS and then work with Office
for Coastal Management and NOS environmental compliance coordinator with transmittal letter and Dear
Reviewer letter
xii. Enclose the point paper and transmittal letter.
xiii. Office for Coastal Management or NOS environmental compliance coordinator prepares all documents
that accompany the DEIS – that is, 1) the “Dear Reviewer” letter and 2) the “EPA” [Environmental
Protection Agency] letter. These can be found at www.intranet.nepa.noaa.gov. When those are ready,
forward them electronically to [email protected] to review.
36. NOS assistant administrator clearance
37. Official NOS environmental compliance coordinator Clearance- After clearance by NOS assistant administrator, scan signed
documents and enclose those documents with the DEIS to the NOS environmental compliance coordinator and send a copy to
Office for Coastal Management environmental compliance coordinator staff and the Ecosystems Program Manager for official
14 day review period (2 weeks)
38. NOS environmental compliance coordinator clearance and signs transmittal letters to EPA and reviewers

NATIONAL ESTUARINE RESEARCH RESERVE DESIGNATION GUIDANCE | 2/1/2018

153

39. Before transmitting Federal Register Notice to EPA electronically, Office for Coastal Management sends DEIS and paragraph to
NOS OLA rep introducing the project, map, web link and note that says that we would like to set up courtesy briefings with the
state delegation and authorized natural resource committees. Keep the Office for Coastal Management’s Policy and Constituent
Affairs Division liaison in the loop.
40. Prepare concurrence letters for Endangered Species Act Section 7 and Regional Essential Fish Habitat compliance (to
appropriate NMFS and USFWS contacts) and National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 (to appropriate state or tribal
historical preservation officer). It is advised that this be done in time to include the concurrence letter in the FEIS. The state or
tribal historic preservation officers have 30 days to respond to the concurrence letter.
41. Determine who will be the point of contact for receiving public comments on DEIS/DMP. Office for Coastal Management
Stewardship Division Director or Designee
42. Work with partners and regional staff to determine public meeting date.
43. Prepare Federal Register Notice text announcing public meeting on DEIS/DMP. Only the Federal Register text is necessary.
Signatory authority resides with the Office for Coastal Management Director.
a. Reviewers (in order) Ecosystems program manager – clearance; GCOS – clearance, Stewardship Division director –
clearance, Office for Coastal Management deputy director – clearance, Office for Coastal Management director –
clearance and signature.
44. The Federal Register notice needs to be delivered electronically to EPA (not NOAA) for publication.
https://www.epa.gov/nepa/environmental-impact-statement-filing-guidance If the Federal Register Notice will be filed on
Friday (if delivered before 2pm) and published the following Friday
45. Make sure you are ready to email DEIS/DMP to interested parties concurrent with delivery to EPA. File Federal Register Notice
and email copies to interested parties and to the NEPA distribution list posted on the Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ)
website.
46. EPA announces availability of DEIS/DMP in Federal Register Notice (45-day minimum public comment period) at least 15 days
before meeting date. State partner advertises public meeting in local media outlets concurrently with NOAA notice.
47. Public meeting(s) held at least 15 days after Federal Register notice publishes.
48. Public meeting(s) comments received by the closing date (45days after Federal Register notice published) are incorporated into
Final EIS/FMP. Add appendix with public comments to the document.
49. NOAA drafts a CZMA federal consistency determination document. Send federal consistency determination to state for review
and concurrence. Try to complete at least 90 days before the federal action. If the timing is less than 90 days, get an email
confirmation from the state that the adjusted timeframe is acceptable.
50. State creates a draft/final MOU(s) between state partner and reserve partners establishing roles and responsibilities (must be
finalized before designation but should not be signed in the FEIS/FMP). Enter MOU into NOS MOU database.
51. Office for Coastal Management staff compiles public comments. Add an appendix to EIS that contains scanned copies of all
public comments.
52. Note –Rollout Plan and invitations for the NOAA assistant administrator to attend the designation ceremony need to be made 3
months before designation! Fill out an event request form and contact NOS Program Coordination Office and Policy and
Constituent Affairs Division staff.
53. Office for Coastal Management staff prepares final draft of Final EIS/Management Plan incorporating responses to public
comments by state partner with the help of NOAA (2 months)
54. NOAA Review of draft FEIS/FMP (4 months or less)
55. Office for Coastal Management environmental compliance coordinator review of draft FEIS/FMP (Ecosystems Program manager,
Stewardship director/deputy, GCOS, Policy and Constituent Affairs Division, NOS environmental compliance coordinator, etc. as
noted above) 2 weeks maximum.
56. The Final EIS/MP includes an unsigned Memorandum of Agreement between NOAA and the state partner and ideally, signed
concurrence for ESA and NHPA requirements. If there are any issues re: endangered species, historical preservation, and/or fed
consistency, these concurrence letters should be included in the FEIS. Otherwise it is not mandatory, but still encouraged.
57. ESA section 7 and NHPA section 106 consultations complete and concurrence letters received from appropriate USFWS, NMFS,
state or tribal historic preservation officer and other officials.
58. Upon complete of NOAA review. Office for Coastal Management Communications staff makes final edits to the executive
summary. (14 days)
59. After a final review by NOAA, NOAA or state partner prints some copies of FEIS/Final Management Plan for distribution but
makes the document available electronically to those persons that provided comment, to other interested parties, and to the
NEPA distribution list posted on the Council of Environmental Quality website.
60. Final package includes:
a. FEIS/FMP that incorporates:

61.
62.
63.
64.

65.

NATIONAL ESTUARINE RESEARCH RESERVE DESIGNATION GUIDANCE | 2/1/2018

66.

154

67.
68.

69.
70.
71.
72.

i. DEIS comments
ii. MOUbetween NOAA and state partner, unsigned
iii. MOU(s) between state partner and other reserve partners, unsigned
iv. Concurrence letters for ESA and NHPA (ideally) and Federal Consistency Letter
v. List of persons receiving the FEIS/FMP
vi. Index and appendices, as appropriate
vii. Cover sheet that states the document is an EIS consolidated with a Management Plan
After package is reviewed (14 days) and signed off by NOS environmental compliance coordinator, the package must be
uploaded to e-NEPA at EPA for filing. See https://www.epa.gov/nepa/environmental-impact-statement-filing-guidance for help.
The Federal Register notice will be filed on Friday (if delivered before 2pm) and published the following Friday
FEIS/FMP is emailed to those persons that provided comment, to other interested parties, and to the NEPA distribution list
posted on the Council of Environmental Quality website.
EPA publishes the Notice of Availability of FEIS/FMP in the Federal Register Notice. The date of publishing starts a 30 day public
“cooling-off” period.
During cooling-off period:
a. Final MOU signed by NOAA and state partner. Five copies are signed by Office for Coastal Management Director
and sent to appropriate state official for signature. State partner returns three signed copies to the Office for
Coastal Management.
b. Separate MOU(s) signed by state partner and other reserve partners. NOAA receives a signed copy
c. State begins to organize a designation ceremony with assistance from Office for Coastal Management Policy,
Planning and Communications staff.
After cooling-off period: Office for Coastal Management prepares record of decision, findings of designation, notice of
designation.
NOAA prepares Federal Register Notice from NOAA announcing Reserve Designation, the Consistency Determination, and the
NEPA Record of Decision. This Federal Register notice is channeled through NOAA, not EPA.
Schedule briefings with the NOAA Administrator
Coordinate with Office for Coastal Management Policy, Planning and Communications to develop a communications strategy
(press release (reviewed by NOAA PA, web rollout, etc). Communications person will also help prepare for the ceremony,
assembling a briefing package for NOAA Admin re: the ceremony, sending a NOAA flag, printing ceremonial certificate,
obtaining a gift for the site (map), etc.
Prepare briefing materials and brief NOAA administrator on designation and the ceremony, may require 1-3 briefings. Be sure to
use the briefing templates provided at http://www.dco.noaa.gov/correspondence.html or contact the NOS Program
Coordination Office
NOAA Administrator briefed and signs Record of Decision and Findings of Designation making the site officially a National
Estuarine Research Reserve.
NOAA publishes a notice in the Federal Register announcing the Reserve Designation, the Consistency Determination, and the
NEPA Record of Decision.
Designation ceremony is held and state partner announces designation in local media outlets.

Appendix N – Compliance with the Endangered Species Act
Compliance with the Endangered Species Act
May 2017
The purpose of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is to protect and recover imperiled species and the ecosystems
upon which they depend. It is administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS). The USFWS has primary responsibility for terrestrial and freshwater organisms, while the
NMFS has primary responsibility for marine species. Some species fall under both agencies, depending on location
of affect (i.e. sea turtles).

NATIONAL ESTUARINE RESEARCH RESERVE DESIGNATION GUIDANCE | 2/1/2018

Under the ESA, species may be listed as either endangered or threatened. “Endangered” means a species is in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. “Threatened” means a species is likely to
become endangered within the foreseeable future. All species of plants and animals, except pest insects, are
eligible for listing as endangered or threatened. For the purposes of the ESA, Congress defined species to include
subspecies, varieties, and, for vertebrates, distinct population segments.

155

Overview of the Section 7 Interagency Consultation Process
Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA states, “Each Federal agency shall ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried
out . . . is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result
in the destruction or adverse modification of [critical] habitat . . “. Under ESA Sec. 7., federal agencies must:
• Determine whether listed/proposed species or designated/proposed critical habitat may be in the action
area;
• Determine the effects of the action on the species/critical habitat;
• Explore ways to modify the action to reduce, remove adverse effects or benefit the species/critical habitat;
and
• Make a determination if the project will have no effect or there is informal or formal consultation required
Step 1: Determining the Action Area:
To ensure ESA compliance, NOAA must evaluate all areas or locations to be affected directly or indirectly by the
federal action. The “action area” can be much larger than the immediate project area involved in the action. To
determine the “action area” for ESA consultation related to grants and funded projects or actions within the Office
for Coastal Management and the Coral Reef Conservation Program, the federal program office or Office for Coastal
Management Coral Reef Conservation Program point of contact will
1. Identify the range of impacts from the proposed activity, such as
 Ground disturbance (including access roads)
 Changes in water quality and quantity (both surface and underground water)
 Air quality
 Lighting effects
 Noise disturbance
2. Draw a line around all of the affected areas identified under action #1 to define the action area.
High-resolution maps can be Generate from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) webpage
(https://viewer.nationalmap.gov/basic/#startUp). Select “USGS topo” as the data set on the upper left, 7.5 minute

(i.e., 1:24,000) will be preselected in the right, upper legend. Drag a box using the box icon within the map to select
an area (or enter coordinates, or zoom in, etc.) and then press the “Find Maps” button on the upper left hand
corner under “Datasets.” All of the available 1:24,000 maps in that selected area will pop up.
Step 2: Making an Initial Determination (i.e., No Effect, May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect or Likely to
Adversely Affect):
Once the action area has been identified, staff is expected to obtain a list of potential endangered or threatened
species in that location using the search function on the USFWS’ Endangered Species webpage
(http://www.fws.gov/endangered/index.html) and/or contacting the appropriate NMFS regional office.
The USFWS webpage includes species habitat preferences and life history for listed species in the 50 states and is
searchable by state, county or species.
For projects in the territories, staff should contact the NMFS or USFWS office in that jurisdiction to solicit this
information.
Using this information, and other information/documentation that you may have about the project (including
permits), consider the following questions:

NATIONAL ESTUARINE RESEARCH RESERVE DESIGNATION GUIDANCE | 2/1/2018

1. Is the proposed action going to be in or affecting the habitat type(s) preferred by the endangered or
threatened species?
2. If so, will the species be exposed to project impacts?
3. If so, will the action potentially affect the species?

156

You will make one of the following conclusions: (*)
1*. There are no listed species or critical habitat in your project area.
2*. There may be listed species or critical habitat in your project area, but there will be no adverse effect
on them because
a. The project will be conducted in the off-season;
b. The methods being implemented will not affect the listed species; or
c. The applicant has a valid ESA permit for the activity that details the allowable activities.
3*. There are listed species or critical habitat in your project area, but there will be no adverse effect on
them because proper best management practices will be used.
4*. There are listed species or critical habitat in your project area, and there will be an adverse effect on
them or critical habitat.
Once you have made your conclusion, you will proceed with the consultation process.
Step 3: Conducting the Consultation Process
If you conclude 1*, this is a No Effect determination. Document with a Memo to the Record, including information
to support this conclusion (why is there no effect to species or habitat). Upload the memo into Grants Online or CRequest or maintain with the administrative record for the action. Nothing else is required.
If you conclude 2* or 3*, this is a May affect but not likely to adversely affect (MANLAA) determination and
includes beneficial, discountable, or insignificant effects to species or habitat. This determination requires written
concurrence from NMFS or USFWS, as applicable.

1. Send an email or formal letter to the appropriate regional NMFS or USFWS office requesting concurrence.
Provide the following information:
 Project description
 Action area, maps, diagrams
 Listed species
 Project effects on each species, and reason, including those that are discountable, insignificant,
discountable or wholly beneficial.
2. The NMFS or USFWS office will generally respond promptly and agree with NOAA’s initial determination.
Occasionally, they may ask for additional information.
3. Infrequently, NMFS or USFWS will respond with a concurrence as long as certain best management practices or
other conditions are followed to ensure no adverse effects. In this case, staff must work with the state, grantee, or
principal investigator to ensure they understand the additional requirements and receive written agreement that
best management practices will be followed.

NATIONAL ESTUARINE RESEARCH RESERVE DESIGNATION GUIDANCE | 2/1/2018

4. Upload the original letter to NMFS or USFWS, as well as their concurrence document and other supporting
documents, into Grants Online or C-Request or maintain with the administrative record for the action.

157

If you conclude 4*, OR NMFS or USFWS does not concur, you have a Likely to Adversely Affect determination and
you must request Formal Consultation with NMFS or USFWS. Historically, the Office for Coastal Management has
not funded projects that required formal consultation for a number of reasons, including the lack of staff resources
necessary to complete the consultation. You should consult leadership and work with the state or awardee to
identify another project that can be completed without the added requirements of formal consultation. Formal
Consultation can take many months to complete and the process is as follows.
1. Once you have provided a complete project description, the NMFS or USFWS has 30 days to determine if
the request is complete. If not, you will need to provide the specific information needed.
2. If the request is complete, the NMFS or USFWS has 90 days from the receipt of request to complete formal
consultation and 45 days to prepare the biological opinion (135 days total) BEFORE the project may
proceed.
3. Upload the completed biological opinion, and other correspondence, into Grants Online or C-Request or
maintain with the administrative record for the action.
For more information, see the ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook: www.fws.gov/endangered/esalibrary/pdf/esa_section7_handbook.pdf
USFWS - https://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/consultations-overview.htm
USFWS IPaC - https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/
NMFS - http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/laws/esa/

Appendix O – Compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act
Compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act, May 2017
The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 established a comprehensive program to preserve the
historical and cultural foundation of the nation as a living part of community life. Section 106 of the NHPA is a
crucial part of that program that requires consideration of historic preservation in the many projects with federal
involvement that take place every day across the nation.

NATIONAL ESTUARINE RESEARCH RESERVE DESIGNATION GUIDANCE | 2/1/2018

Complying with Section 106 is a federal agency responsibility and, while applicants may be asked to carry out some
of the tasks for completing a Section 106 review, the federal agency remains responsible for all findings and
determinations.

158

Overview of the NHPA Section 106 Consultation Process
Section 106 requires federal agencies to consider the effects on historic properties of projects they carry out, assist,
permit, license, or approve (“undertakings” as defined by 36 CFR 800.16). Federal agencies must also provide the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings before the
approval of the expenditure of any federal funds on the undertaking or before the issuance of any license. Agencies
comply with Section 106 through the process in the implementing regulations, “Protection of Historic Properties”
(36 CFR Part 800).
Historic properties are any prehistoric or historic districts, sites, buildings, structures, or objects that are listed in
the National Register of Historic Places, which is maintained by the National Park Service. Historic properties may
also be eligible for listing depending on the property’s age, integrity and significance. Also included are any
artifacts, records, and remains (surface or subsurface) that are related to and located within historic properties and
any properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations.
A fundamental goal of the Section 106 process is to ensure that federal agencies consult with interested parties to
identify and evaluate historic properties, assess the effects of their undertakings on historic properties or
resources, and attempt to negotiate an outcome that will balance project needs and historic preservation values.
Conducting the Section 106 Process
Step 1: Establish if Federal Action is an Undertaking
The first step in the Section 106 review process requires the federal agency to determine whether the proposed
project is an undertaking (36 CFR 800.3(a)).
An undertaking is defined as “a project, activity, or program funded in whole or in part by a federal agency,
including those carried out by or on behalf of a federal agency, those carried out with federal financial assistance,
and those requiring a federal permit, license, or approval.” (36 CFR 800.16) Once a federal agency determines it has
an undertaking, it must determine whether that undertaking is a type of activity that has the potential to affect
historic properties, assuming such properties are present. The following questions can help an agency determine
whether it has an undertaking that may require Section 106 review.

 Is a federally owned or federally controlled property involved in the project, such as a military base, park,
forest, office building, post office, or courthouse? Will approval be required to use federal lands for a rightof-way or associated activity?
 Will a project that is receiving federal funds, grants, or loans involve any bricks and mortar activities? Will it
involve ground or sediment disturbance or excavation? Will it change or restrict existing land use in the
future?
 Does the project require a federal permit, license, or approval to cross wetlands, operate a dam or wind
turbines, or to site a telecommunications tower? Does the project involve filling wetlands or affect
navigable waterways that requires a Corps of Engineers permit?
 Does a privately funded undertaking require the use of federal lands to connect a linear activity such as a
gas or oil pipeline or broadband? Has the applicant been advised to obtain a federal permit, approval, or
license?
It the answer is “no” to all of the above, the action is not an undertaking. Document your conclusion in a memo to
the file and upload into Grants Online or C-Request or maintain with in the administrative record for the action. No
further action is required to comply with Section 106.

NATIONAL ESTUARINE RESEARCH RESERVE DESIGNATION GUIDANCE | 2/1/2018

If the answer is “yes” to any of the above, the action is an undertaking. In general, the Office for Coastal
Management provides federal funds to support program implementation. These financial assistance awards
include a variety of different project types. It is recommended that the Office for Coastal Management consider
federal funding to be an “undertaking.” Continue with Step 2.

159

Step 2: Making the Initial Determination
If the action has no potential to cause effects on historic properties or resources, even assuming that such historic
properties were present, no further Section 106 review is required.
1. Example activities that have no potential to cause effects include: staffing, planning, administration,
feasibility studies, engineering design, preparation of bid documents or permit applications.
2. Document your determination in a memo for the record and upload into Grants Online or C-Request or
maintain in the administrative record for the project.
All other determinations will require written consultation.
Step 3: Identification of Historic Properties or Resources, including Tribal
1. Define the Area of Potential Effect for the project. The Area of Potential Effect is a geographic area within
which a project may directly or indirectly affect historic properties. It should include areas that may result
in ground disturbance; visible or audible disturbances; or changes in public access, traffic patterns or land
use. The Area of Potential Effect may be larger than the project area.
a. Provide this information on a high-resolution map (1:24,000 or USGS quad map)
2. Identify any historic properties in the Area of Potential Effect. Historic properties can be found through a
variety of methods, including state or tribal databases, local historic societies, libraries or local government
archives.
3. The National Park Service maintains the listing of every property listed in the National Register. They may
also have information on properties that have been determined to be eligible for listing and have been
nominated for, but not yet listed on the National Register. (http://www.nps.gov/nr/)

a. The National Park Service also supports a mapping tool to assist with identification of public, nonrestricted sites (www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9-b808-4ff8-a2f9-a99909164466)
4. Some state historic preservation offices have searchable databases – these can also provide useful
information for identifying historic properties, especially those eligible for listing.

NATIONAL ESTUARINE RESEARCH RESERVE DESIGNATION GUIDANCE | 2/1/2018

Step 4: Assess Effects and Prepare Consultation Letter

160

1. Identify the appropriate state historic preservation officer or tribal historic preservation officer. Tribal historic
preservation officer information can be found on the following websites:
a. Individual state historic agency website.
b. The National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (http://nathpo.org/wp/thpos/find-athpo/ )
c. Bureau of Indian Affairs
(https://www.bia.gov/WhoWeAre/BIA/OIS/TribalGovernmentServices/TribalDirectory/)
2. Prepare a letter to the state or tribal historic preservation officer that describes the determination (see below)
and request concurrence. The state or tribal historic preservation officer has 30 days in which to respond. After
that time, the Office for Coastal Management may presume concurrence. Typically, state historic preservation
officers require hard-copy requests, but may accept advance courtesy copies by email or FAX.
a. Consultation letters should provide the following:
i. Project description
ii. Map of the Area of Potential Effect
1. Provide USGS quad maps or similar scale.
a. Obtain from applicants
b. Generate from USGS webpage (https://viewer.nationalmap.gov/basic/#startUp)
i. Select “USGS topo” as the data set on the upper left, 7.5 minute (i.e.,
1:24,000) will be preselected in the right, upper legend. Drag a box using the
box icon within the map to select an area (or enter coordinates, or zoom in,
etc.) and then press the “Find Maps” button on the upper left hand corner
under “Datasets.” All of the available 1:24,000 maps in that selected area
will pop up.
iii. High-quality photos and diagrams
iv. Description of all known National Register-listed (or eligible) properties, including description of
search methods
v. Assess effects of undertaking on listed sites and make determination.
1. Generally, one of the following determinations are made:
a. If no historic properties or resources are found, the determination is typically No
Historic Properties Affected.
b. If there are historic properties or resources within the Area of Potential Effect, the
determination will either be No Adverse Effect or Adverse Effect. (36 CFR 800.5)
i. A No Adverse Effect determination is appropriate for: planning, education,
and outreach activities; certain restoration activities on historic properties
(historic lighthouses); landscaping; or certain curatorial work. This
determination may also be appropriate if the historic property is too far
away to be affected by the action.

ii. An Adverse Effect determination would include activities that involve
physical destruction or removal/relocation of historic property or resource.
3. The state or tribal historic preservation officer has 30 days to respond to consultation letter. If the state or tribal
historic preservation officer does not respond, the Office for Coastal Management can presume concurrence.
a. Keep in mind that postal system and mail rooms may affect when the state or tribal historic preservation
officer actually receive the request AND when the Office for Coastal Management receives a response.
i. Provide exact mailing address details for response – on Office for Coastal Management letterhead
that does not include address.
4. Staff should upload the initial correspondence and the state historic preservation officer’s response (or a
memorandum to the file indicating that no response was received within 30 days and the historic preservation
officer’s concurrence is presumed) into Grants Online, C-Request or maintain in the administrative record for the
project. These documents and all supporting documentation must be made publically available. The Office for
Coastal Management’s NEPA and Environmental Compliance webpage is one location for satisfying this
requirement. Work with the Office for Coastal Management’s NEPA environmental compliance coordinator for
further advice.

NATIONAL ESTUARINE RESEARCH RESERVE DESIGNATION GUIDANCE | 2/1/2018

If the state or tribal historic preservation officer objects to the Office for Coastal Management’s determination, the
officer may invite the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation to participate in any future consultations, including
the development of a memorandum of agreement (MOU). Note: An MOU can take months to complete the NOAA
clearance process. Given the significant level of effort required, staff should consult with the Office for Coastal
Management’s NEPA environmental compliance coordinator regarding a path forward for the project. Typically,
the office has worked with the state to identify alternate solutions or project options.

161

Special Consideration for Native Hawaiian Organizations
Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations are entitled to consult on undertakings that may affect historic
properties of religious and cultural significance to them, regardless of location. A federal agency must conduct
government-to-government consultation with federally recognized Indian tribes and such consultation should be
conducted in a sensitive manner respectful of tribal sovereignty. Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations
possess special expertise in identifying and assessing the eligibility of properties that may possess religious and
cultural significance to them for the National Register of Historic Places, whether located on and off tribal lands.
They also possess expertise in assessing effects to these resources. (www.achp.gov/docs/consultation-indian-tribehandbook.pdf and http://www.achp.gov/Native%20Hawaiian%20Consultation%20Handbook.pdf)
NOAAs Tribal Consultation Procedures
NOAA has additional information for tribal consultations, and issued a handbook in 2013. This Handbook is
intended to improve coordination and consultation with Indian tribal governments. It assists NOAA, including its
regional and field staff, in conducting effective government-to-government consultations and fulfills NOAA’s
obligations under E.O. 13175 and Department Administrative Order 218-8 on Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments, and the Department of Commerce Tribal Consultation and Coordination Policy.
(www.legislative.noaa.gov/tribalrelations.html)
Additional Information
The regulations implementing Section 106 can be found on the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s Web site
at www.achp.gov/regs-rev04.pdf.
National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers – http://ncshpo.org/

Appendix P – NOAA Document Editing Tips
Writing and Formatting Large Documents
•

•

•
•
•
•

NATIONAL ESTUARINE RESEARCH RESERVE DESIGNATION GUIDANCE | 2/1/2018

•

162

No acronyms. The policy of our office is to eliminate acronyms from all documents, no matter the intended
audience. After introducing a full name or term, use a shortened version, pronoun, or synonym for following
references.
Minimize jargon. Law, science, government, and educational and technical fields, to name a few, all have
specialized language that might as well be an unknown tongue. Allow others into your specialized culture by
avoiding jargon, or by using it judiciously.
Don’t go crazy with capitalization. Readers become fatigued when unnecessary words are called out for special
attention. A few examples: Federal, State, the Reserve, the Committee.
Avoid repetition. Your reader’s time is limited. If your message is so important, say it really well and repeat it
only when warranted.
Sentence length. Vary the length and structure of your sentences to keep your reader’s interest. Reading a
paragraph aloud will often help you shape your sentences.
Write a final draft. Text with typos and other simple errors is essentially a rough draft. Make your best effort
before you submit your work so that the editor can concentrate on improvements rather than corrections to
your document.
Keep layout simple.
o Use Calibri as your font.
o Use only three or four heading levels, or you will risk confusing your reader.
o Use section and page breaks sparingly and consistently—or you will likely confuse Word!
o Use graphics only when they add to the message, and then use only simple tables or graphics.
o Keep your report cover simple.