NOAA evaluates CRMO

Hello folks! It’s me, CoCo, the mascot of the CNMI Organization for Conservation Outreach. It’s been a while since I’ve written, but today I’m back with a story about the Coastal Resources Management Office (CRM). The activities of CRM were recently carefully scrutinized by a panel of federal and state evaluators. No, there was nothing suspicious or out of the ordinary – this was simply part of a regular review by CRM’s main funding agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA. NOAA administers federal funds for the Coastal Zone Management Program. Passed in 1972, the Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Act directs federal resources toward coastal preservation and empowers the states to administer these resources locally. The Act requires periodic program review, and this year, five visitors came to evaluate the CNMI’s coastal program, otherwise known as the CRM office. The head of the team, John McLeod, has been leading program evaluations for the past 27 years, starting with the first set of CZM evaluations ever carried out. Coastal Zone Management programs have different names in each of the different jurisdictions, but in essence, they all serve the same purpose: to protect and manage coastal resources.

When the act was passed, eleven programs were created in states along the coasts of the mainland US. Now, the program has expanded to include 34 different programs! Over the years, McLeod has visited every CZM program at least once, and some more than that. He has evaluated CRM’s program about five times, but has visited the CNMI around ten times, and has seen many changes over the years. I caught up with him and asked him a few questions about the CNMI’s CZM program.

CoCo: John, what aspects of the program do you review?

John McLeod: In short, everything. Anything that relates to the coast comes under review. We spoke with just about everyone on the staff at CRM. We discussed permitting, enforcement, and CRM regulations. We talked about GIS (Geographic Information Systems) and technical capacity, about education and public outreach, and about the marine monitoring program. But we also sat down with people that aren’t on the CRM staff. While we work primarily with CRM, we also look at the Division of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) and the Division of Environmental Quality (DEQ), because they also fall under the CZM Act. In order for the Marianas, or for any jurisdiction, to have access to CZM funds, they have to have an approved act. Since DFW and DEQ are also involved in activities relating to the coast, they are part of the regulatory framework of the act. And so, we review their activities too. Not only that, but we spoke with the public, the private sector, nonprofits…anyone with understanding and awareness of coastal regulatory activities.

CoCo: Wow, that sounds like an awful lot of meetings. Didn’t you get sick of being inside?

JM: The meetings are only part of it. Most of the time, we spend a few days doing interviews at the office, then go out and see what’s going on in the field. So, we got a chance to see some of the current projects that CRM is working on. We went to LauLau and Obyan Beaches, to take a look at the sedimentation problems that CRM is trying to address with engineering plans. We also went to Rota, and we went to Managaha Island, where we learned more about the Saipan lagoon, erosion issues, and abandoned vessels. But there’s even more to an evaluation than the interviews and the field trips. Before we came we did our research. We read performance reports, documents, newspapers, and web pages. And the evaluation doesn’t end when we leave the island. The record is still open until the end of the month, so any actions that are taken until then are fair game.

CoCo: When you say “we,” who are you talking about?

JM: NOAA always sends a team of evaluators. Besides the federal folks, (myself and John Parks, Coastal Programs Specialist) we bring along at least one representative from other state CZM programs. This time, Donna Frizzera from the New Jersey Program, Pat Collins, Program Manger of Minnesota’s Lake Superior Coastal Program, and Teresita Perez, Planner from the Guam Coastal Management Program also attended. That gives both sides the opportunity to make connections among agencies and they can learn a lot from seeing how other programs operate.

CoCo: So, down to the meat of the evaluation – how is CRM doing?

JM: When we were out there, it was in the finest shape I’ve ever seen. They had the finest personnel, and a high degree of credibility. We’re talking in a superlative type of way. Now, like I said, the evaluation doesn’t end when we leave the islands. So, we’re still looking at actions that are taken, what is being permitted, who is permitting it, and decisions on staff positions that are funded through CZMA. But as I said to the staff at the exit meeting, they are carrying out the program in the highest and most effective way I’ve ever seen it done.

CoCo: Well, that’s high praise, especially since you’ve been coming out here for about 25 years! Can you give me some examples of the great things that CRM is doing?

JM: With pleasure! CRM has been doing a wonderful job on coordinating activities with other commonwealth and federal agencies. A perfect example is the LauLau and Obyan project, where CRM is working with a whole host of agencies to improve the roads, re-vegetate the badlands, and decrease sedimentation of coral reefs. The recent All-Islands Conference, in June 2005, was also an enormous success, involving a lot of work from the entire staff. The coral reef and GIS programs are also doing very well. Generally speaking, there’s just a high level of program excellence, and also a very good public perception of the program.

CoCo: Perception of the program? What do you mean by that?

JM: Well, we heard it from Honolulu, from Washington DC, and San Francisco, as well as from other federal agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Marine Fisheries Service – they all have high praise for the program.

CoCo: Well, that sounds great! Is there anything that CRM needs to work harder on in the future?

JM: We did make a couple of recommendations for the program to consider. First, we suggested that an inter-agency Managaha task force be formed to tackle issues such as landing fees, erosion, and the relationship with the concessionaire (currently Tasi Tours). Because it’s such an economic driver, and the issues are more than just protecting an area, everyone needs to be involved. Plus there are regulatory and permitting issues that DEQ and CRMO need to weigh in on. We also support the current efforts to establish the one-stop permitting, where members of the public could apply for all permits necessary for minor projects in one location. That would add predictability and quality to the process of permitting. We encourage increased training, not only for CRM staff, but also for elected officials such as the legislature and the mayor’s office. We believe that the role of the CRM board should be investigated. Rather than reviewing permit applications, which is a job for the technical advisors, the board should help to chart the direction of the agency. We want to make sure that the permitting process stays functioning at its current level. And finally, we suggest that CRM support regional initiatives in hazard planning and mitigation, especially with regards to natural disasters such as earthquakes.

CoCo: You’ve been visiting the CNMI for 25 years, what changes have you seen?

JM: What’s happened over the 25 year history of the program is that there has been a growing awareness of the issues that coastal management needs to address. We are now starting to understand more than just the issues around protecting the resource, but also around the various conflicting interests of the users. For example, the Historic Preservation Office was stuck in a little building out by the airport, and no one paid them any attention. By working with the program, their concerns became part of the decision-making process. Inter-agency dynamics have changed in other ways as well. Right now, there’s a pretty good level of cooperation. Coastal management programs are in part driven by personality. We need to work on the recognition that personalities do differ, but that doesn’t mean you can’t work together. Other differences – you used to be able to walk on any beach and step on war debris. Now you don’t find it at all, you don’t see it. The roads are much better now, and more hotels are around. I remember when the coastal management program was housed in the Nauru building. We had a lot of good exit discussions in the restaurant as it rotated!

But, you have to realize that the problems are mostly the same. From large garbage dumps that go back to WWII, to port and harbor related issues, to coral issues, to issues on land. Infrastructure problems are ongoing. There are always numerous issues, but you have to define which ones are significant, identify what can be dealt with, and prioritize your efforts in resolving them. Over time, these priorities do shift and change.

CoCo: Well, thanks for all of your time, Mr. McLeod. When will you be back again?

JM: Well, we’ll have to see how it goes. The next review is in three years, but I might be retired by then. If things go into a nosedive, I’ll be back sooner. I have a great opportunity to come out when we do the Guam program evaluation. I like the islands out there. They are beautiful islands and the people are wonderful. The strongest asset any program has is the people that live in the community.

(The voice of CoCo was provided by Qamar Schuyler, Coral Outreach Specialist for DEQ, DFW, and CRM. She can be reached at Qamar.Schuyler@crm.gov.mp.)