Download Lecture 25 Local Coastal Zone Management and GIS

Lecture 25 Local Coastal Zone Management and GIS
Learning Objectives
25.1 Why is coastal zone management at the local jurisdiction level an important concern for
many areas around the world? How should we interpret “local”?
25.2 How do conventional management techniques relate to growth management techniques for
communities? Why are growth management techniques commonly associated with coastal
areas?
25.3 How is GIS useful in promoting communication, cooperation, coordination and
collaboration among local governments?
Local Coastal Management
Coastal counties comprise only 17 percent of the U.S. contiguous land area. However, as of 2003
53% of the population lives in these areas. Many other people visit these areas on vacation and
business, and thus see them as having significant value worthy of protection (Crosset, K.,
Culliton, T., Wiley, P., and Goodspeed, R. (September 2004) Population Trends Along the
Coastal United States: 1980-2008. Coastal Trends Report Series. Silver Spring, MD: NOAA.)
Town(ship)s, Cities, and Counties can be considered “local” when it comes to coastal zone
management. Management is about planning, budgeting improvement programs and
implementing (intended) improvements in those jurisdictions through projects.
Many day-to-day management decisions are made at the local level. There are 19,000+
municipalities and 3,100+ counties in US. Many decisions that influence coastal resources are
made a local level. Furthermore, remember decisions often have diverse stakeholder groups who
have interest in, and often participate in, such decisions.
Regulation of land use development decisions is the primary responsibility of local jurisdictions,
but public, private and not-for-profit entities make decisions. Beatley, Brower and Schwab argue
that land use and comprehensive planning can be most responsive to the interests, needs, issues,
and concerns of the constituencies at the local level. Furthermore, they suggest that coastal
communities can become sustainable coastal communities.
Sustainable coastal communities (as counties, cities, towns, and villages)
 seek to minimize their destructive impact on natural systems and the natural environment,
 create highly livable and enduring places
 build communities that are socially just and in which the needs of all groups in the
community are addressed
That “sustainability” perspective follows from the 1987 report of the Brundtland Commission
(and many subsequent initiatives) that popularized the concept of sustainable development,
defining it as
“development that meets the needs of the present without compromising
the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”
(World Commission on Environment and Development 1987, p.8)
Characteristics of a sustainable coastal community (Beatley, Brower, Schwab 2002, p. 198)
 Minimize disruption of natural systems and avoid consumption and destruction of
ecologically sensitive lands (e.g., coastal wetlands, maritime forests, species habitat, and
areas rich in biodiversity),
 Minimize their ecological footprints and reduce the wasteful consumption of land;
promote compact, contiguous development patterns and encourage separation of urban
and urbanizable lands from natural and rural lands,
 Avoid environmental hazards and reduce exposure of people and property to coastal
hazards by keeping people and property out of coastal floodplains, high-erosion zones,
and inlet hazards areas,
 Reduce waste generation (e.g., air pollution, water pollution) and the consumption of
nonrenewable resources and promote the recycling and reuse of waste products,
respecting earth’s ecological capital to supply ecological services; understand and live
within the natural ecological carrying capacity of the area,
 Reduce dependency on the automobile and promote a more balanced and integrated
transportation system; encourage and facilitate the use of a variety of alternative and
more sustainable modes of transportation (e.g., mass transit, bicycles, walking) and
integrate land use and transportation decision making,
 Promote and develop a sense of place and understanding and appreciation of the
bioregional context in which they are situated,
 Foster a high degree of livability; aesthetically pleasing and visually stimulating
community whose design uplifts human spirit,
 Incorporate a strong public and civic dimension, that is reflected in the communities
spatial and physical form; promoting places of public interaction that help shape a sense
of identity,
 Achieve a human scale and encourage integration of uses and activities (e.g., commercial
and residential) and enhance livability in various ways (e.g., reduce crime, reduce auto
dependent, develop vibrant spaces),
 Seek to eradicate poverty and ensure a dignified life for all residents; provide affordable
housing, health care, meaningful employment, and reduce separation between income
groups,
 Value participation of all citizens (residents) and provide opportunities for participation
in governance.
The relationship between those key concepts of sustainable communities and several key
functions of governance in which local governments are involved is central to implementing
coastal zone management. We will elaborate on sustainability management in the next lecture,
but first let us consider conventional management and then growth management techniques.
Conventional Management Techniques – a step toward growth management
- Functional plans – single theme (land use, transportation, water resource) in isolation
- Zoning ordinances – cluster
- Setback requirements
- Subdivision ordinances
- Transfer of development rights from environmentally sensitive sites to urban suburban sites
Conventional (community) management is practiced in almost all 19,000+ municipalities and
3,100+ counties to address community change. However, some communities are growing (in
population size with associated impacts) more rapidly; thus, some have a recognized need for
more growth guidance in so-called “growth management” and “new urbanism”.
Growth Management – a step toward sustainability
Many local jurisdictions are managing development with a growth management framework. The
overall policy framework is commonly developed at the state level and then passed to the
counties and cities for implementation. That implementation is often coordinated at a regional
level – thus drawing together state, regional and local efforts in managing growth.
As of 2006, 11 of 50 US states enacted growth management laws
- 3 states - Florida, New Jersey, and Oregon - have been using top-down controls, i.e., a
strong state level control to encourage development growth (consider coastal orientation
of these states; which is not surprising remembering the 17% of US counties has 50% of
population)
- 8 states - Georgia, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Rhode Island, Vermont, and
Washington – use bottom-up control, i.e., stronger local level control.
- A 12th state – California – is beginning to use a combination of both.
- 27 states have some role in growth management, but it is not substantial as in the
previous eleven.
- 13 have no mandates in the form of state laws or regulations, as growth (if any) is not
viewed as problematic.
In “top down planning” states, such as Oregon, goals are more specific at the state level than
they are in “bottom up planning” states like Washington. In top-down states, the goals are stated
in such a way that all counties within the state plan in the same way. In bottom-up planning
states, the goals are generalized, but made specific by local jurisdiction implementation as long
as the jurisdiction makes some kind of plan. Certain thresholds about development can be
different from jurisdiction to jurisdiction (i.e., county to county and city to city).
Newer techniques for growth management - in addition to conventional techniques, there are
additional techniques needed for managing rapid growth
- Comprehensive plans as opposed to more conventional functional plans
- Zoning ordinances for special character and sense of place, e.g., high density cluster
development with open space adjacent
- Concurrency management – capital facility infrastructure and land use in connection with
each other
- Urban growth boundaries – foster densification in already urban areas; protect rural areas
When we consider coastal zone management, the issues of concern do not often align with the
approaches that are in place to solve most conventional problems. That is, conventional and
growth management techniques do not necessarily focus on addressing coastal problems, e.g.,
degradation of Puget sound nearshore habitat or degradation of salmon habitat. Efforts to address
those concerns need to be more “cross-cutting”, that is they cut across jurisdictions.
GIS is useful for fostering a participatory approach (i.e., communication, cooperation,
coordination and collaboration) to salmon habitat recovery due to the inherent character of
information integration that underlies the technology.
Modes of participation:
- communication: agree to talk with one another
- cooperation: agree to exchange information products to use as each sees fit
- coordination: agree to sequence the development of separately created information products for
the benefit of both
- collaboration: agree to work together and jointly develop products for the benefit of both
Local partners working together to protect and restore salmon habitat.
Let us consider an example of a participatory approach directed at salmon recovery involving
watershed management based on water resource inventory areas. Plan and project activity occurs
among a coalition of local governments, business, and not-for-profit groups, principally funded
by local governments due to mandates. Efforts in King County are occurring in WRIAs 7-10.
For example in WIRA 9, 16 local governments are developing a salmon habitat recovery plan.
Carrying out the plan recommendations will protect and restore a healthy watershed ecosystem
for both people and fish. Staff from King County Dept of Natural Resources are provided under
contract to assist with coordination, with funds coming from those 16 local governments.
Chinook salmon are listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. In WRIA 9 citizens,
scientists, businesses, environmentalists, and governments are worked together to completed a
science-based Salmon Habitat Plan. See the “local action map” on right side of page for projects
that implementation the plan.
Prioritization of Marine Shorelines of WRIA 9 for Juvenile Salmonid Habitat Protection
and Restoration May 2006 Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed
Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 9
http://dnr.metrokc.gov/Wrias/9/NearshoreHabitatPrioritization.htm
The Salmon Habitat Recovery effort is different but related to the Puget Sound Nearshore
Partnership because of the difference in “place”. Consider the nearshore subwatersheds on the
action plan map.
The significant coordination of efforts we are seeing is only a “tip of the iceberg” for what is
needed to plan, program, and implement sustainable coastal communities. What is needed is full
recognition of the links among functional themes (land use, transportation, water resources) as
well as links among decision processes (planning, improvement programming, projects). Those
links are considered more thoroughly in the next session as a way to practically characterize
Beatley, Brower and Schwab’s “Framework for Sustainable Coastal Development”.