[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
CRC MULICATION NO. 1001 CASE STUDIES ()lF -fl7j,k,STAL MANAkilp-4 CIE from the United States -w - twAl LLJ LLJ 7A, V) uj L.) cr_ =3 c:) V) lw LLJ or ow -j CD V) It C) -:4 7e, V) HT jil Lu 392 C37 1991 MEN V) Cj=M Rmuw Centw,, The Ufdvm* of RWe Mand C) Sponsored By: National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Office of Environment and Natural Resources, Bureau for Research and Development, U.S. Agency for International Development Coastal Resources Center, The University of Rhode Island CASE STUDIES OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT@/ EXPERIENCE FROM THE UNITED STATES Editor and Coordinator: Brian Needham Project Directors: Stephen Olsen and Lynne Zeitlin Hale 1991 Coastal Resources Center The University of Rhode Island I The individual case studies included in this report represent the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the sponsoring agencies. LIST OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements ii Preface PART I: INTRODUCTION Coastal Management in the US: The Context for the Case Studies The Case Studies 4 PART 11: THE CASE STUDIES 7 Approaches to Program Design and Implementation The Alaska Coastal Management Program: Involving local people in coastal 9 resource planning and decision making. Author: Jan Caulfield The Coastal Management Program in North Carolina: Establishing a process 23 for managing development in hazard areas and preparing coastal land use plans. Author: David Owens Strong State Coastal Regulations: Threats, incentives, loopholes and the design 35 of the New Jersey Coastal Program, 1970-1991. Author: David Kinsey American Samoa's Coastal Program: Land and water resource management within 47 a traditional leadership and communal land tenure system. Author: Lelei Peau A Management Plan for a Coastal Ecosystem: Rhode Island's Salt Pond Region. 57 Authors: Stephen Olsen & Virginia Lee Management Strategies for Environmentally Sensitive Sites Efforts to balance marine-based tourism with protection of coral reefs and sea 71 grass beds in a Caribbean Park. Author: Caroline Rogers A perspective on planning in the Florida Keys: Habitat-based land use planning. 83 Author: George Garrett Development in Hawaii: Management of a major resort development (Kaanapali). 97 Author: Philip Ohta Private development of Hilton Head and Daufuskie Islands, S. Carolina. 107 Authors: Melvin Goodwin, Margaret Davidson & Shirley Connor i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thanks are due to all the authors for their hard work and dedication in the timely production of case studies despite their normal busy schedules. Also acknowledged are the contributions of Virginia Tippie, former Assistant Administrator of the National Ocean Service, NOAA, and Nora Berwick, Coastal Resources Management Project Officer, Agency for International Development. Their efforts and enthusiasm to get the project underway are much appreciated. For the preparation of these case studies an Advisory Committee was established consisting of representatives from NOAA and the Staff of the Coastal Resources Center: Marcella Jansen, NOAA Katie Ries, NOAA Stephen Olsen, CRC Lynne Hale, CRC Virginia Lee, CRC Donald Robadue, CRC Brian Crawford, CRC Thanks are due to the committee for their contribution to this project. They helped set the guidelines and select the case studies, participated in the Working Meeting with the authors, and assisted in the review of draft texts. Thanks are also due to members of the Administrative Staff of the Coastal Resources Center, in particular Jean Krul for her overall administrative assistance, Annette Burgess for her painstaking word processing, and to Carol Hunter, Cindy Moreau and Jeanne Nava for their outstanding organization of the two day Working Meeting of the authors and Committee. Acknowledgement is also due to Wendy Andrews for her cover design and Betsy Watkins for her contribution to the production of graphics. PREFACE Coastal regions are home to three-quarters of the world's population. They support many of the world's most productive and biologically diverse ecosystems, produce most of the world's fish catch, and support significant portions of the world's agriculture, industry and tourism. The number and variety of demands placed on coastal resources create a complex and urgent need for integrated rather than sectorial resource management strategies. Successful coastal management is issue driven and is achieved by resolving existing problems with a combination of science, policy, law making and administration. How programs evolve is highly dependent upon the social, political, cultural and economic circumstances in th@ country concerned, and thus each program is unique. However, the experience gained from the past successes and failures of others can be of great use to current practitioners. Experience in coastal management in the United States now spans 20 years. There are many examples of both successes and failure in addressing coastal problems. It is our belief that there is much to be learned from this experience. In an effort to make some of the US coastal management experience more accessible to others, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); the lead national agency for US coastal management, teamed up with the Agency for International Development (A.I.D.); the agency primarily responsible for US foreign assistance, and the University of Rhode Island (URI) Coastal Resources Center (CRQ; an organization dedicated to the formulation of effective management strategies for coastal environments, worked together to prepare a set of case studies on two aspects of the US experience in Coastal Management. The two topics illustrated by the case studies are: approaches to program design and implementation, and management strategies for environmentally sensitive sites. The purpose of this initial set of case studies is to test the hypothesis that a series of case studies focusing on selected topics of interest to coastal managers will be instructive, and give practitioners in other locations useful ideas about how they might address similar situations. The selection of case studies included in this volume was made by a Working Committee comprised of NOAA and CRC Coastal Management professionals. Initial draft case studies were presented and discussed at a lively authors' workshop, held at the University of Rhode Island in May of 1991. At this session, lessons were drawn from the cases and their commonalities and differences discussed. We invite comments back from you our readers and hope these Case Studies prove useful to those tackling similar problems elsewhere in the world. John Carey, Acting Assistant Administrator, National Ocean Service, NOAA Richard Bissel, Assistant Administrator, Bureau for Research and Development, A.I.D., Washington, D.C. Stephen Olsen, Director, Coastal Resources Center, URI iii PART 1: INTRODUCTION COASTAL MANAGEMENT INTHE UNITED STATES: THE CONTEXT FOR THE CASE STUDIES Essential to understanding any experience is some knowledge of the physical, socio-economic and political context in which the events described have occurred. Important facts about the United States (US) and its coastal areas that shaped how coastal management evolved in this country include the following: 1. The US is a wealthy country with a per capita GNP of almost $17,000. It also has tile highest per capita consumption of natural resources in the world. 2. The US coastline extends more than 95,000 miles and encompasses a diversity of habitats ranging from subtropical coral reefs to frozen reaches of the Arctic. 3. Seventy-five percent of the US population lives within 50 miles of the shore. For people in the US, the coast is a place to live, work and recreate. The US coastal population continues to increase and place ever growing stresses on coastal ecosystems. 4. The economic interests found in US coastal regions such as ports, energy production facilities and other industrial and commercial activities, exert great environmental, social and political pressures. The intensity, variety and diversity of interests results in occasional severe conflicts. 5. There are diverse and separate political jurisdictions and a wide variety of governance arrange- ments for managing and allocating coastal resources. 6. The US has a "federalist" political system. This means that individual states have considerable independence and authority in managing their natural resources. In some states, particularly those on the Atlantic Coast, municipal governments also have considerable authority and have tradition- ally had primary jurisdiction over land use decisions. 7. There would, be strong political opposition to any large scale, centralized national effort to regulate development in the United States' coastal areas. A decentralized approach to coastal management was therefore adopted to provide a balance among national, state and local interests. "Coastal management," began as a distinct endeavor in the US with the passage of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) in 1972. The CZMA was one of a number of environmental legislative initiatives, which also included the Clean Water Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Fisheries Management and Conservation Act, that were passed by the US Congress in the early 1970s to protect and better manage the nation's environment and natural resources. The CZMA was prompted by the recognition that environmental quality along many coastlines of the United States has been degraded; critical habitats, especially wetlands, have been lost at alarming rates; fisheries are declining; development of coastal areas is accelerating; and use conflicts are 1 increasing. The CZMA did not, however, attempt to resolve all these issues. The legislation is an attempt to bring order to the development process along the nation's shoreline, to avoid of minimize use conflicts, and to reduce losses in coastal environmental quality. The CZMA sets forth four national coastal management policies: To preserve, protect, develop, and where possible, to restore or enhance the resources of the coastal zone of the United States. To encourage and assist the states to develop and implement coastal management programs that meet specified national standards. 0 To encourage the preparation of "special area management plans" to protect significant natural resources, to ensure "reasonable coastal-dependent economic growth" and to provide "improved protection of life and property in hazardous areas and improved predictability in government decision making." 0 To encourage the participation and cooperation of public, state and local governments, interstate and other regional agencies, and federal agencies in achieving the purposes of the CZMA. To encourage states to participate in this voluntary program, the federal government offered both financial and policy incentives. Planning grants were given to states for up to three years to design Coastal Management Programs which help achieve the national policy objectives. Plans which met with federal approval were given additional funding for implementation. The policy incentive, "federal consistency" with approved state plans, was of equal or even greater importance than the grant funds in encouraging state participation in the National Coastal Management Program. Federal consistency means that the federal government is required to conduct their activities within a state's coastal zone in a manner consistent with the approved state program. This provision gives coastal states substantially more control over important national decisions such as offshore oil and gas development and licensing of power plants than they would have without an approved coastal management plan. In order to gain national approval for their coastal management plans, states had to meet a number of procedural and substantive requirements set by the national government. State coastal plans were required to define the inland boundary of the coastal zone and to demonstrate they had the authorities necessary to implement the policies included in the plan. The states were required to have an open and participatory planning process, identify key interest groups, and actively seek their participation. States also had to work with national government agencies to define and provide for the "national interest" in their coastal zone. Substantively, states were required to give "adequate consideration" and formulate policies for such priority issues as: protection of natural resources; management of coastal development to minimize loss of life and property in hazardous areas; siting major industrial, commercial and energy facilities in the coastal zone; and public access to the shore. 2 As of 1991, 29 out of 35 eligible states participate in the National Coastal Management Program. Because of consistent national requirements, the state coastal management programs that have emerged over the past 20 years share many common features. All have a designated coastal zone, permit systems for selected coastal developments, policies on shorefront development and all limit or prohibit the filling of coastal wetlands. The variation in how states have tailored these program components to the unique environmental and socio-political context of their state is both interesting and instructive. For example, state coastal zone inland boundaries vary from only one hundred feet landward of mean high water in sections of urban New Jersey to several hundred miles inland in rural Alaska. In North Carolina, managing coastal development in high hazard areas was the program's initial focus; in New Jersey, stopping the filling of wetlands was the priority issue. The diversity in each State's specific policy objectives and how these objectives were met reflects the diversity of environments, local governance arrangements and values found in the different coastal states. The CZMA is administered at the national level by the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM), which is part of the Department of Commerce. NOAA makes grants to states of federal funds and conducts biennial evaluations of state program performance. Congress has strengthened and expanded the US CZM program with amendments to the CZMA in 1980 and 1985. The Act was reauthorized and further strengthened in 1990. When examining coastal management in the US, the following four points should be bome in mind: 1. The CZMA attempts to achieve national policy objectives for coastal management through a voluntary partnership between federal and state levels of government. Because of both the physical and political diversity of the United States, the CZMA recognizes that if coastal management is to be effective, determining how national policy objectives are to be achieved must be left to each state. No new national regulatory agency is setup by the CZMA. On- the-ground coastal management, both planning and implementation, is carried out by each state and in some cases by local governments. The national role in coastal management is to set policy and determine standards that state programs must meet. The national government approves state plans and periodically evaluates state program performance against CZMA criteria. In approving state programs, the federal government ensures that the "national interest" in a state's coastal zone is adequately considered. Upon approval, the federal government is obligated to conduct its activities in a manner consistent with the coastal management program of the appropriate state. 2. The CZMA attempts to balance competing interests in coastal areas. Because the CZMA has both protection and development clauses, coastal management programs must balance and accommodate competing interests such as protecting critical resources while ensuring "reasonable" economic development and growth. This means that coastal management in the US is about choices and the allocation of limited resources. Therefore, coastal programs must and do consider societal values as well as technical and scientific information in their planning and decision-making processes. 3 3. Coastal management programs have been shaped by extensive public participation. The CZMA was, at the time of passage, unusually specific in its requirements for public participation in the coastal management process. The professional planners, lawyers, and scientists involved in coastal programs have grown to recognize the significance of this provision. The public participation requirements have often driven the planning process and set the stage for the bargaining and accommodation among competing uses that characterizes coastal zone management programs in the United States. 4. Coastal management in the US is essentially an attempt to bring order to the development process and avoid unnecessary conflicts and losses in environmental quality. As a result of the CZMA and complimentary state and local initiatives, the pace of degradation of the the US coastal region appears to have slowed. There have also been some noteworthy cases of restoration of key areas and of conflict resolution. The CZMA and the resulting state programs have not, however, dealt directly with such key resource degradation issues as loss of coastal fisheries or declining water quality, nor have state coastal programs attempted to define sustainable levels of use within coastal regions. THE CASE STUDIES Approaches to Program Design and Implementation A basic question for any new or evolving coastal management program is what its basic design strategy will be. Programs must answer questions such as: � What are the problems that need solving in the coastal region? � Will the coastal program attempt to be comprehensive or will it focus on a few issues or a limited geographic area? � How will the planning process proceed? � Who will make key decisions? � What role will resource users have in planning and implementation? � Will the program be primarily regulatory or will non-regulatory management techniques such as incentives, public education, land acquisition, and improved coordination play key roles? Five case studies were selected to illustrate a variety of coastal management program design choices made in response to the US Coastal Zone Management Act. This topic was chosen as one that is particularly relevant to developing countries that are now attempting to design coastal management programs. 4 Many countries have strongly centralized govemance systems and thus focus on national level coastal planning and implementation and lack experience in the delegation of responsibilities to local levels of govemment. The US coastal management experience included in the five selected case studies show different approaches to balancing planning and management responsibility among federal, state and local levels of govemment to achieve national policy objectives. For example, in Alaska, when CZM was introduced, the state was in a period of rapid development. There was no local govemment in many rural areas, and no local voice in shaping how development would occur. Here the coastal program became committed to local self-determination and created local planning boards to formulate regional coastal management plans. These framework plans embraced local values and were designed to shape how development would proceed. In contrast, in New Jersey local municipalities have traditionally made all land use decisions. Such decisions had larger than local consequences, and alarming resource degradation was occurring along the coast. New Jersey's coastal program therefore provided the state with a major role in how development may or may not proceed in critical coastal habitats. This' was achieved by introducing state permits for development in designated, narrowly-defined coastal areas. The North Carolina program has worked to balance state and local responsibilities. This program encourages local planning, but gives the state a major role in protecting critical coastal habitats and controlling specified forms of development. The five program design case studies also illustrate differences in the focus of state coastal programs. None are comprehensive: all have made decisions about which issues to address in specific geograph ic locations. For example, in Rhode Island, an entire ecosystem is the focus for a special area management plan; in Alaska maintaining the fish and wildlife which support the subsistence lifestyle of rural Alaskans is central; and in North Carolina, controlling development in high hazard areas has been made a priority. There is also diversity in how policy objectives are achieved. In America Samoa and New Jersey, coastal development permits are a central feature of these coastal programs. In the America Samoa case, the special challenge of attempting to institute such a permit system within a traditional culture is particularly interesting. In Rhode Island, North Carolina and Alaska, non-regulatory management measures such as education and increased coordination among levels and units of govemment play a larger role. Finally, the practice of coastal management has demonstrated time and again that coastal programs cannot only address technical issues but must consider a society's values. For this reason, in three of the cases-Alaska, Rhode Island, and North Carolina-states chose to create Councils composed largely of citizens or representatives of local government, not technical experts, to make the Program's policy decisions. Management Strategies for Environmentally Sensitive Sites Managing development by directing it away from sensitive areas, minimizing environmental impacts and reducing conflicts among different uses has been a major feature of coastal management in the US. The four cases included in this section illustrate a variety of techniques that have been used to promote environmentally sound development. The cases all focus on tourism-related development. The tourism industry is experiencing explosive growth in many developing countries and depends in large part upon high quality habitats, good water quality and the protection of scenic and cultural 5 resources. Few locations, however, have been successful in managing tourism development so as to maintain these amenities. In all the cases included in this volume, state coastal management has been only one of several programs used to manage development. Regulation through permit programs, prohibited and limited use areas, and zoning has been the primary management tool. In Hawaii, South Carolina and the Virgin Islands, authors report that stringent regulations have been most effective and accepted by the public when they have been applied to limited geographic areas that are recognized as critical. or fragile. In Florida, comprehensive land use planning based on habitat protection .is an innovative management technique. Despite the need to rely on regulation, all authors also emphasize the importance of building a constituency and achieving adequate consensus that stringent regulation is required and ultimately benefits all parties. All the authors in this group also underscore the importance of government decisions in providing or withholding infrastructure as a key means for controlling demands to intensify development. In the Florida Keys, for example, the author concludes that infrastructure. decisions will ultimately limit development more effectively than plans and regulations. By: Stephen Olsen and Lynne Zeitlin Hale Coastal Resources Center University of Rhode Island 6 PART 11: THE CASE STUDIES Alaska Rhode Island New Jersey North Carolina South Carolina Maui 91 Florida Hawaii (Keys) U.S. Virgin Islands American Samoa U.S. STATES AND TERRITORIES SELECTED FOR CASE STUDIES 7 8 The Alaska Coastal Management Program Involving Local People in Coastal Resources Management Decisions Jan Cauffield Alaska is a unique state; it is the largest but most sparsely populated state in the United States. It has a coastline of 33,000 miles, which is highly valued by Alaskans as having cultural, economic, recreational and spiritual significance. The maj ority of the total population of 550,000 live on or near the coastline, including many in remote, small villages. The populations of Alaska's coastal villages consist largely of Native Alaskans who have inhabited these areas for tens of thousands of years, and rely on the natural resources of the coastal area for their primary source of food and income. Major changes are occurring to these resources as a result of oil and gas development, development of wetlands and waterfront areas, and increasing recreational uses by non-residents. In formulating a Coastal Management Program, Alaska has been successful in involving coastal residents in decisions about the use, development and protection of coastal resources. Local governmental units, created through the coastal program, are responsible for preparing management plans for the coastal areas in which they live-setting their own priorities and working with the state and federal governments to implement the plans. Local residents and government units have learned to effectively participate in a planning and decision-making process that balances their interests with those of the state and national government, private industry and special interest groups. This case study focuses on one of Alaska's 32 coastal districts, the Bristol Bay Coastal Resource Service Area (CRSA). The case reviews how the Bristol Bay CRSA utilized the coastal management planning process to influence how development will proceed in their region. The Bristol Bay CRSA designed its plan to protect fish and wildlife habitat from incompatible resource development, to maintain the subsistence way of life in the region, and to resolve conflicts over use of a popular recreation area by local residents and new tourism businesses. Through planning and cooperation with the state and federal governments in plan implementation, the Bristol Bay CRSA has achieved many of its goals. INTRODUCTION resource decisions. It focuses on the Bristol Bay Coastal Resource Service Area, one of Alaska's 32 Through examination of the Alaska Coastal Man- local coastal districts, and looks at the district's agement Program, this case study explores the success in addressing local concerns by the follow- opportunities for coastal residents, communities ing means: and regions to participate in decisions about the use, development and protection of coastal re- the development of a coastal management plan sources. The study describes the features of Alaska's for the region coastal program that involve local people in coastal - preparation of a specific management plan for a heavily used recreational fishing and hunting Jan Cau4fteld was aformer Coastal Program Coordinatorfor area Alaska and now works in the Department of Environmental Conservation. 9 cooperation with state and federal governments The Alaska Coastal Management Act was enacted in implementation of the plans. in 1977 by the state Legislature to ensure that as Alaska's coast is used and developed, its resources Finally, the study looks at Alaska's success in and values are conserved and protected. achieving strong local involvement in coastal deci- sions, and discusses some remaining challenges. This case study focuses on one of the three primary goals of Alaska's coastal program: involving local Alaska's oceans and coastal areas are vital places, people in decisions about the use and protection of rich in natural resources that provide food andjobs coastal resources. The Alaska Coastal Manage- for local residents, they create economic opportu- ment Act recognizes that Alaskans want to have the nities for private industry, generate revenue for maximum control over decisions affecting the government, and supply energy and mineral re- coastal areas in which they live, and is structured to sources that benefit the nation. The coasts are of involve local people in these decisions. cultural, recreational and spiritual value to Alas- kans, including indigenous Native Alaskans who have inhabited and depended upon coastal areas BACKGROUND for tens of thousands of years. Alaska's coastal waters, wetlands, and watersheds also nurture some Local involvement in coastal management can be of the most productive fishing stocks in the world, most successful if local people are active in all and provide habitat for thriving populations of aspects of the program: stating their goals and marine mammals, waterfowl, caribou, and other concerns at public meetings, writing plans, and animals. Daily decisions made by the state and putting their plans into action by working with federal governments regarding coastal develop- others to make decisions about development ment projects determine the fate of Alaska's 33,000- projects and to resolve conflicts. The Legislature mile coastline. Questions regarding coastal devel- designedthe following structure forAlaska's coastal opment in Alaska touch on all aspects of resource program to ensure that this occurs. use, environmental protection and public concern. For example: Local Representation on Statewide Council The Legislature established a 16-member Coastal Where should offshore oil and gas exploration Policy Council to oversee the state program. Nine and development occur, and what should be done of the Council members are locally-elected offi- to protect marine mammals and valuable fisheries cials such as city mayors, appointed by the Gover- from oil spills, noise disturbance, and other im- nor to represent each of the state's nine coastal pacts? regions. Working with the seven state government representatives on the Council, the local represen- Which wetland and waterfront areas in Alaska's tatives ensure that local concerns and issues are villages and cities should be developed for com- expressed, discussed and acted upon by the top munity growth, and which protected from develop- policy-making body in the program. ment? Coastal Districts Plan for Local Areas How can conflicts be resolved between coastal Alaska's program is designed to allow local coastal residents who have traditionally used fish and areas, called "coastal resource districts," to write wildlife for subsistence, and non-residents whose plans that will guide coastal activities and develop- use of coastal areas for recreational fishing and ment. Although the Coastal Policy Council de- hunting is increasing? fined an initial coastal zone boundary for the state and adopted general coastal development stan- dards, these were interim rules. They were in- 10 PROFILE Mandate for the Alaska Coastal Program The three primary goals of the Alaska Coastal Management Act are: � To balance natural resource protection and resource development throughout Alaska's coastal zone � To involve Alaskans in decisions about the use and protection of their coastal resources � To simplify the state permitting process for coastal development projects, and reduce the time it takes to obtain state government approval for a project Geographic Scope The Alaska Coastal Management Program covers the 33,000 mile coastline of the State of Alaska. The state's "coastal zone" extends seaward three miles offshore. The inland boundary of the coastal zone varies throughout the state, is set by the local planning entity, and extends inland to the extent necessary to manage development projects that are likely to impact Alaska's coastal resources. In some cases, the inland boundary extends more than 200 miles inland, along the courses of anadromous fish streams. Program Structure A 16 member Coastal Policy Council, consisting of local government representatives and state officials with representation from Alaska's nine coastal regions, oversees the Coastal Manage- ment Program. Thirty-two local coastal areas known as Coastal Resource Districts have responsibility to write and implement local plans, which must be approved by both the state Coastal Policy Council and the federal government. In four large rural coastal regions, in which no local level of government exists, Coastal Resource Service Areas have been created to involve local residents in coastal planning. Approved local coastal management plans are implemented primarily through a "consistency review" process at the state level which ensures that government-sponsored and private coastal development projects that require state or federal permits, are in compliance with the policies of approved local coastal management plans. tended to be replaced by more specific plans writ- Fourof Alaska's coastal districts arecalled "Coastal ten at the local level. Resource Service Areas" (CRSAs). CRSAs are organized in large rural coastal regions of Alaska In Alaska, 32 coastal resource districts have been that are not represented by an organized local formed to prepare and implement coastal manage- governmentl. These areas have no local govern- ment plans (Figure 1). Twenty-eight of the coastal ment authorities that would allow them to regulate districts are cities and boroughs (regional govern- coastal development projects. The state Legisla- ments, called "counties" in most other states), ture created CRSAs to allow local residents in which are organized local governments with land these areas to influence where and how coastal use powers, such as zoning and local permitting. development projects occur, through participation 11 CHUKCHISEA BEAUFORT SEA ACTIVE COASTAL DISTRICTS UNDER THE ALASKA COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM OME 0 CITIES BOROUGH. MUNICIPALITY, AND CRSA BOUNDARY BERING SEA ANCHORAG JUNEAU BRISTOL BAY GULF F CRSA ALA A BRISTOL BAY BOROUGH - -- ALEUTIANS WEST CRSA,,,,p 0 MILES 300 Figure I. Alaska's Coastal Districts in state and federal government permitting deci- Local Participation in Plan Implementation sions. Approved coastal district plans are implemented in a variety of ways. However, the primary way in Coastal resource districts write local management which plans are implemented is through the "con- plans that: sistency review process" established in state and inventory resources in the region federal coastal management law2. Under the con- consider issues of concern to local residents sistency review process, all government- sponsored define an appropriate coastal zone boundary and private development projects that may impact adopt policies to guide coastal development the coastal zone must be reviewed to make certain decisions they comply with Alaska's coastal program before describe how the plan will be implemented. they receive state and federal permits or approvals Coastal districts may also write more specific man- to proceed. Projects are approved only if they are agement plans for areas with unique coastal values, consistent with the policies of local coastal man- or where there are particular conflicts over the use agement plans. of the area. Local coastal management plans must be approved by the state Coastal Policy Council Coastal districts have a strong role in this review and the federal government. Once approved, the process. The state agencies coordinating the re- local plans have the force and effect of state and views consider the coastal districts to be experts in federal law. applying the policies of their local management 12 plans. If conflicts arise during project reviews, The degree to which local concerns are met also coastal districts, government agencies and the depends on the willingness of the state and federal project applicant meet to discuss ways to resolve governments to work in good faith with local the concerns. Ultimately, if a coastal district dis- people to help them achieve their goals. The state agrees with the results of a project review, it can and federal governments have a responsibility to appeal the decision to higher levels in state govern- help reconcile diverse interests fairly, by involving ment, the Governor, and the Coastal Policy Coun- local people and other affected interests in discus- cil. sions and negotiations to resolve disputes. Achiev- ing the correct "balance of power" between local Public Participation interests and those of the state and federal govern- To ensure that local management plans are sup- ments, and ensuring that private industry and other ported by residents and respond to local concerns, interest groups are also treated fairly, is a challenge Alaska's coastal districts closely involve the public both during the development and implementation during plan development and implementation. of each local coastal management plan. Coastal districts talk with local communities, Na- tive Corporations3, private industry, and otherpub- The opportunities for local people to address their lic interest groups. Districts use workshops, for- concerns through Alaska's coastal program, as mal public hearings, questionnaires, newspaper well as the challenges involved in resolving con- and radio stories, and brochures or newsletters to flicts between local desires and other points of educate the public and ask for public input. view, can be seen in the following case study. Coastal District Funding CASE STUDY: The Bristol Bay Coastal Finally, adequate and stable funding is needed for Resource Service Area coastal districts to actively participate in coastal management. State and federal funds are provided The Bristol Bay CRSA is located in southwestern to Alaska's coastal districts to allow them to pay Alaska, north of the Aleutian Chain, bordering the one or two staff, prepare management plans, par- productive coastal waters of Bristol Bay. The ticipate in the project review process, track impor- region includes 40,000 square miles of land, rang- tant coastal issues, and educate the public about the ing from wet coastal lowlands to rugged volcanic plans. Over $1 million is distributed in grants to mountain ranges, as well as the bay itself. Acces- Alaska's coastal districts each year. sible to the Test of Alaska only by air or water, the region includes 29 different communities, popu- Although Alaska's coastal program is structured to lated by 7,000 people from four ethnic and linguis- favor local involvement, local views cannot solely tic groups: Eskimo, Aleut, Athapaskan Indians and control decisions on where and how coastal devel- Caucasians. opment will occur. There are often legitimate conflicts between the goals of local residents, and The state and federal governments own most of the the state and federal agencies obliged to manage land in the region. The largest private landowners resources for the benefit of all members of the are the village and regional Native Corporations. public, notjust those in the local vicinity. Conflict- Only a very small proportion of the land is owned ing views on coastal management decisions may by private individuals. At the time the CRSA was also be expressed by other affected parties, such as formed, there was no organized local government private industry, Native Corporations, or environ- representing the larger Bristol Bay area4. mental organizations. Local coastal districts have the responsibility to balance their goals with the The Bristol Bay region is internationally recog- views and needs of these other parties. nized for its abundant fish and wildlife resources. Commercial fishing is theregion's economic main- 13 stay, providing 45% of alljobs in the cash economy. The CRSA Coastal Management Plan The region supports the largest salmon fishery in Local residents voted to form the Bristol Bay the world. In 1990, Bristol Bay's commercial CRSA in October 198 1, and held another election fishermen were paid approximately $200 million to choose a seven-member CRSA Board in January for their salmon catch. The bountiful salmon, 1982. Over the next three years, the CRSA Board herring, shellfish and bottom fish stocks of the bay and two staff planners worked to inform the public and rivers, along with the abundant wildlife, also of the planning process, discover what the public's support a thriving subsistence economy. Govern- concerns were, consult with private industry and ment is the second largest cash employer in the Native Corporations with interests in the region, region, followed by a growing tourism industry. inventory coastal resources, and write a manage- ment plan that would receive state and federal CHRONOLOGY OF MAJOR EVENTS approval. 1972 United States Congress adopts the fed- The CRSA's staff were "planners", rather than eral Coastal Zone Management Act 1977 Alaska State Legislature adopts the professional scientists trained in the technical as- Alaska Coastal Management Act pects of oceanography or marine biology. As 1978 Alaska Coastal Policy Council adopts planners, the staff were skilled in research and initial coastal zone boundaries for the writing, organizing information, conducting pro- State of Alaska and general regulations ductive meetings, and communicating effectively with which coastal development projects must comply with the public and government agencies. The staff 1979 Alaska Coastal Management Program is used paid consultants and government agencies to approved by the federal government. obtain the specific technical and scientific exper- Following federal approval, local coastal tise that was needed to prepare the plan. communities and regions in Alaska be- gin to organize as "coastal districts" and prepare specific management plans for While the Bristol Bay CRSA was planning for the coastal resources within their districts coastal zone, others were planning for major oil 1981 Bristol Bay Coastal Resource Service and gas lease sales in the federal waters of the bay Area (CRSA) organizes as a coastal dis- outside the state limit. In 1986, nine private com- 1982 trict, by public election anies paid $95 million to the federal government Bristol Bay CRSA elects a seven-mem- p her Board to represent the districtduring in exchange for the right to explore for oil on Outer coastal management planning and imple- Continental Shelf (OCS) Lease Sale 92 in Bristol mentation Bay5. Additional OCS lease sales were scheduled 1985 Bristol Bay CRSA Coastal Management forcomingyears. Although the State of Alaska had Program is approved by the state Coastal deferred oil leasing in state waters within three Policy Council 1987 Bristol Bay CRSA program is approved miles of the shore because of its concern for the by the federal government. The CRSA bay's valuable fisheries, the state was leasing land begins development of the Nushagak & on shore for oil exploration. Mulchatna Rivers Recreation Manage- ment Plan for a heavily-used coastal Oil and gas exploration was not the only develop- recreation area 1990 Recreation managementplan is approved ment issue facing the region. Other on-going or by the state Coastal Policy Council and potential development activities included placer the federal government and hard rock mining, sand and gravel extraction, 1991 Bristol Bay CRSA continues to imple- construction of new transportation and energy trans- ment both approved plans, primarily mission corridors, commercial fish processing, through reviewing coastal development projects that require state or federal gov- settlement of wilderness areas by new residents, emment permits for consistency with and increasing use of remote areas for commercial the plans lodges and other recreation facilities. 14 Local residents were concerned with the possible of shore (the limit of the state's jurisdiction), and impacts of these new developments on the rich all lands and waters below 200 feet in elevation fisheries and wildlife of the region. If not properly throughout most of the region8. conducted, resource development could result in oil and fuel spills, toxic waste contamination, noise The new coastal zone boundary extended inland to and disturbance, shoreline and wetland alteration, a distance over 200 miles from the shoreline, along water withdrawal, and pollution of salmon streams the courses of all anadromous fish streams and and marine waters. Activities that might interfere their tributaries, which are the lifelines of the with residents' traditional subsistence and recre- region's cash and subsistence economies. The ational uses of fish and wildlife also concerned the boundary also included a corridor of land one mile public. wide on each side of anadromous fish streams and 200 feet wide on each side of their tributaries, to The primary goal of the CRSA management plan ensure that activities near these important waters was to ensure that the fish and wildlife upon which would be subject to the coastal manag6ment plan. residents depend would be protected from harm, while allowing for compatible resource use and The CRSA Board drafted 52 management policies development6. The goal was stated as follows: to regulate private, state and federal projects that are located within the coastal zone boundary, or The fish and wildlife of the Bristol Bay that may affect coastal resources within the bound- region form the basis of the economy, ary. The policies covered a wide range of uses and whether used for commercial, subsistence activities in the region, including: waterfront de- or recreational purposes. These popula- velopment, oil and gas, mining, recreation, trans- tions depend upon adequate amounts of portation and utilities, seafood processing, subsis- natural habitat for their health and sur- tence, habitat protection, air and water quality, vival. Development activities create com- geophysical hazards, and historical/archaeological peting demands for this habitat which could resources. Rather than establishing very explicit lead to reduced populations. The goal of siting or design criteria, the policies were written as the Bristol Bay CRSA coastal manage- "performance standards" to give the project appli- ment plan is to maintain and enhance the cant the flexibility to design a development project natural productivity of fish and wildlife that meets the intent of the policy. For example: populations and habitats. The objective of the plan is to ensure that development Subsistence: Maintenance of subsistence activity occurs in a manner that has no, or use will be given the highest priority when minimal, impact on important fish and approving proposed land uses in [subsis- wildlife populations. tence use] areas. Before a potentially conflicting activity may be authorized, an The CRSA began to achieve its goals by defining analysis of the possible adverse impacts a new coastal zone boundary that included consid- upon subsistence use must be conducted erably more area than the interim boundary set by and appropriate safeguards... must be pro- the Coastal Policy Council. Coastal districts are vided. allowed to redefine the interim coastal zone bound- ary to include areas where development activities Habitats: Maintenance and enhancement may have a significant impact on marine coastal of fisheries will be given the highest prior- waters and on the fish and wildlife that depend ity when evaluating projects which may upon coastal waters, such as marine mammals and impact fish spawning, migration, rearing, anadromous fish7. In Bristol Bay, the interim and overwintering areas. Shorelines that boundary included marine waters within three miles have banks, beaches, and beds critical to 15 fish populations will be maintained in a ary 1985, the coastal zone boundary was approved productive natural condition. without change. Water Quality: No petroleum products Although many of their concerns had been ad- or toxic substances will be stored in such dressed through changes in policy language, some form or manner that they could contami- representatives of private industry were not satis- nate waterbodies, including groundwater. fied with the result of the state Coastal Policy Measures to prevent and cleanup spills of Council vote, and asked the federal government to petroleum or toxic materials will be incor- require additional changes to the plan. During the porated into the design and operation of all federal review of the plan, debate again raged over storage facilities. the extent of the coastal zone boundary, and also focused on three policies that regulated oil and gas When the CRSA coastal management plan was activity. The first policy prohibited the use of submitted to the state Coastal Policy Council for explosives for in-water seismic testing, and re- review and approval, comments on the plan were quired the use of other technology that would be received from state and federal agencies, private harmless to fish and wildlife. The second required industry, Native Corporations, environmental or- that oil produced offshore be transported to shore ganizations, commercial fishing groups, and mem- via pipeline, rather than stored offshore. The third bers of the public. Although many of the com- required that oil pipelines crossing fish streams be ments suggested only minor changes to technical designed to minimize damage from oil spills. information or the wording of policies, some sig- nificant conflicts did emerge. Private companies The federal approval process, normally concluded interested in developing the region's oil, gas and within four weeks, took two years to complete. The other resources, and several state and federal agen- federal government prepared a detailed report, cies, objected that the new coastal zone boundary analyzing the effects of the expanded coastal zone included too much area and extended too far in- boundary and the three policies on the national land. They were also concerned that the policies interest in production of oil and gas to satisfy the regulating oil and gas development would unnec- country's energy needs. To obtain federal ap- essarily restrict the oil and gas industry's planned proval, it was necessary to change the three policies activities. The CRSA, and other parties interested relating to oil exploration and development - the in protecting the bay's fisheries from possible first to remove the prohibition on the use of explo- development impacts, argued that the boundary sives for in-water seismic exploration, and the and policies were warranted given the value of the others to allow for a case-by-case consideration of fisheries. costs and benefits when decisions are made about offshore oil storage and oil pipeline design. The The state Coastal Policy Council's staff moderated federal government eventually concurred with the a series of informal meetings between the CRSA, state's decision on the coastal zone boundary, and state government agencies, and private interest no changes to the new boundary were required. groups to attempt to reach agreement on the plan. The CRSA agreed to make changes, both minor The resolution of these disputes between the CRSA and substantive, to the plan's policies in order to Board, the state and federal governments, and the address public comments. However, the Council public constituents they represented, required many determined that the extremely high value of the meetings, conference calls, exchanges of letters, Bristol Bay fisheries warranted the protection pro- and the assistance of Alaska's Congressional del- vided by the extensive coastal zone boundary pro- egation. It was a lengthy, difficult and contentious posed by the CRSA Board. When the plan was process. At times, the CRSA Board and the state approved by the Coastal Policy Council in Febru- Coastal Policy Council openly questioned the fed- 16 eral government's commitment to fairly address- their planning goals. In the Fall of 1987, the CRSA ing the concerns of local people. However, all Board signed a cooperative agreement with the parties were eventually able to reach agreement on state departments of Natural Resources (manages acceptable policy language. When the plan re- state land) and Fish and Game (manages fish and ceived federal approval in February 1987, two wildlife) to develop a recreation management plan. years to the day after its state approval, it repre- sented a consensus of these parties. The plan addressed some very sensitive issues: public access, the quality of each individual's rec- The Nushagak & Mulchatna Rivers Recreation reational experience, and the feeling of "owner- Management Plan ship" held by long-time users of the area. Tradi- After completing the regional management plan, tional recreation users wanted to ensure that the the Bristol Bay CRSA tackled a local controversial quality of their experience and their success in issue - the use of the Nushagak and Mulchatna hunting and fishing would not be diminished. New, riverdrainages and theirfish and wildlife resources, visitors from outside the region, and entrepreneurs by a growing tourism industry. Use of the area by with tourism businesses, insisted on fair treatment visitors from outside the Bristol Bay region for and equal access to the area and use of its resources. sport fishing, hunting and recreational boating had increased dramatically in recent years. The de- The CRSA and state agency planning team went to mand for sites for tourism facilities (such as lodges, great lengths to involve all affected parties. An airstrips, docks and fishing camps) raised local advisory board was established, including repre- concern about possible infringement on traditional sentatives of environmental organizations,' sport uses of the area and its resources by local residents, fishing and hunting groups, Native Corporations, as well as the ability of the area's fish and wildlife tourism businesses, and federal agencies. Work- to support more recreation use. shops, public service announcements, and a series of planning team newsletters were used to provide A survey of commercial tourism businesses con- information on the plan. Public input was received ducted by the CRSA in 1986 showed the potential through the advisory group, public meetings, infor- for conflict. Between 1982 and 1986, average mal conversations and phone calls, and a detailed sport fishing effort by both local and visiting fish- workbook asking for public responses to specific ermen increased by 85% over the previous five- management alternatives being considered by the year average, with intensive fishing each year from planning team. The planning team also developed June to September. Sport hunting of moose and attractive information displays that combined writ- caribou had also increased dramatically. Sixty ten text with maps and photographs. The displays percent of the tourism businesses in the region were placed in airports to educate visitors about the (recreation guides, air carriers and lodges), had region, its recreational values, and the recreation opened for business within the previous ten years. management plan. Most clients using these services were not local residents, but were from other places in Alaska or Over a three-year period, the planning team wrote from outside the state. a detailed recreation management plan for all state lands and waters within the planning area9. The The CRSA Board wanted to prepare a plan that plan accomplished the following: would accommodate new commercial recreation users, while ensuring that traditional use would not 1. Designated 25 management units for primi- be displaced from areas used intensively by local tive, semi-primitive or semi-developed use people for fishing, hunting and recreation. Since experiences. In primitive areas, visitors would the State of Alaska owns and manages 85% of the see little or no evidence of human use, while in lands within Nushagak and Mulchatna river drain- semi-developed areas, visitors might see evi- ages, the CRSA joined with the state to accomplish dence of heavier use. For each designation, the 17 plan specified what types of facilities could be projects such as construction of temporary recre- developed. For example, permanent facilities ation camps, to major development questions such (such as lodges and airstrips) were prohibited as the federal government's plans for further oil within primitive and semi-primitive units, but and gas leasing in federal waters near Bristol Bay. could be allowed within semi-developed units In each case, the CRSA asks affected cities and under certain circumstances. The plan also villages for their comments and reviews the project included general guidelines for the siting and for compliance with: the policies of its approved operation of recreation facilities. management plans. The CRSA provides its com- ments to the state agency coordinating the review, 2. Designated 49 "public use sites" that are and meets with agencies and other parties to dis- important for public access, camping, hunting, cuss and resolve any conflicts that arise. A typical fishing, or other recreation or public use. Pub- coastal project review, which was not controver- lic use sites will remain open for use by all sial, is described below. members of the public. Permanent and tempo- rary facilities were prohibited at these sites. In February 199 1, the state Department of Natural Resources asked the CRSA for comments on a 3. Recommended: proposal to construct a temporary camp for a com- 0 continued cooperation to work on remain- mercial sport fishing business on the Middle ing issues, such as the allocation of fish and Nushagak River. The project developer, a fishing wildlife among users, and managing the num- guide, had applied to the state for permission to ber of people using the area for recreation locate the camp on state land. The proposed 9 establishing agreements with federal and facilities were modest: a 12 by 25 foot tent, smaller Native Corporation landowners to encourage tent for equipment storage, temporary boat dock compatible management of their lands and pit latrine. The camp was located next to an. * increased enforcement of regulations that important king salmon spawning area, and offered protect fish, wildlife, and environmental excellent sport fishing for salmon and other fish. quality � additional public education The CRSA staff contacted the traditional village � removal of existing trespass structures. councils and village Native Corporations of four nearby communities. Staff also reviewed the pro- The recreation management plan was approved by posal for compliance with the Nushagak and the state Coastal Policy Council and the federal Mulchatna recreation management plan. The pro- government as an amendment to the Bristol Bay posed camp site was located within a management CRSA plan in 1990. Only minor changes to the unit designated as "semi-primitive." The plan plan were necessary to address public comments allowed the temporary camp at the proposed loca- received during the state Council's review. The tion, provided it was sited and developed to mini- recreation management plan was also adopted by mize evidence of human use. the state Department of Natural Resources as an amendment to its land management plan. The CRSA approved of the project, but suggested some changes to ensure the camp would have Coastal Management Plan Implementation minimal impact on fish, wildlife and other recre- Because it has no local government powers of its ation users. The CRSA suggested that: own, the Bristol Bay CRSA implements its plans 0 the camp be located out of view from the through the coastal project review process coordi- main river channel, with its facilities placed nated by the state. The CRSA Board is asked to close together to minimize disturbance of the review and comment on an average of 35 coastal natural area development projects each year, ranging from small public acces s for other recreational users be 18 allowed agement plans, written by local people and ap- * fuel be stored away from the river and proved by the Coastal Policy Council and the waste and wastewater disposed of properly federal government, are now the basis for coastal 0 any cultural or historical resources discov- resource decisions in most of Alaska. Districts ered on the site be left undisturbed. have used these plans to participate in state-coordi- nated reviews of a wide range of proposed coastal These requirements will be included as part of the development projects. The involvement of coastal state land use permit issued for the project. districts in meetings to reach consensus on dis- puted development projects has been successful, Through project reviews such as this, the Bristol and relatively few decisions have been elevated to Bay CRSA is able to put its coastal management a higher level of state government for reconsidera- plans into action and achieve its original planning tion10, or appealed to the Coastal Policy Council goals. As it gains experience through implementa- for formal dispute resolution 11. This has benefited tion of the plans, or as new coastal issues arise in the project developers, since local concerns are re- district, the plans can be amended. solved through negotiation, rather than through time-consuming administrative appeals and court CONCLUSIONS disputes. Alaska's coastal program has been successful in Each coastal district plan accomplishes something involving local coastal residents in decisions about different, depending upon the needs and interests the use and protection of coastal resources. Con- of people in the area. Plans for rural areas have ducting coastal management planning at the local often taken the approach used by Bristol Bay, and level, rather than the state level, has been the emphasized protection of fish and wildlife and primary reason for this success. Although not all of subsistence activities. Coastal plans for Alaska's Alaska's local coastal districts are as active as the urban areas have often focused on streamlining Bristol Bay CRSA, each has benefited from the governmen ,t approvals for waterfront and wetland opportunity provided by the Alaska coastal pro- development projects to encourage community gram to be involved in coastal resource decisions. growth and economic opportunity. Coastal dis- tricts have also completed special management Since 1979, 30 local coastal management plans plans and projects related to specific local con- have been completed. Alaska has learned that the cerns, including floodplain management and drain- planning process takes time. The state Legislature age control, port and harbor development, protec- originally set a deadline of 30 months for comple- tion of watersheds for city drinking water supplies, tion of all local coastal management plans. The enhancement of coastal public access, and preven- process has taken over 12 years. Local coastal tion of marine debris. districts that have written plans recently have com- pleted their plans in less time (now averaging As Alaska's coastal program moves from plan approximately two years), since they have used the development to implementation, there are chal- earlier plans as examples, have received more lenges ahead. First, the program must maintain its training in coastal management planning from the commitment to resolving local concerns, and con- state government, and have benefitted from the tinue to find the proper balance of power between knowledge of state government staff and private local, state, federal and non-government interests consultants that are now experienced in the coastal in coastal management. There has been a recent management planning process. tendency in Alaska to view the state government administration's decisions as paramount in the Although the planning process has been time- program. Legislation introduced by the state ad- consuming, the policies of the local coastal man- ministration in 1990 would take away the Coastal 19 Policy Council's role in hearing appeals of state development projects occur, and ensure thatprojects government decisions on development projects. are compatible with the views of local residents While this legislation has not been adopted by the regarding how their coastal areas should be used state Legislature, it signals the state government's and protected. interest in gaining more control over development decisions. This trend should be reversed by strength- - Involving local people in coastal management ening the Council's role in establishing coastal planning takes time and money. 'Me amount of management policy for Alaska, and retaining their time and money that must be invested to produce role in resolving disputes over the state's coastal local plans can be reduced by: (1) providing suit- development decisions. able examples of successful plans for local plan- ners to use, (2) providing training for local plan- Second, state government agencies should recog- ning staff, and (3) relying on state government nize the contributions that local coastal districts agencies and private consultants that are experi- could make in monitoring development projects enced in coastal management planning. for compliance with environmental regulations. Although this has been discussed by Alaska's Coastal management laws should establish a coastal program managers in recent years, no real structure that specifically provides for local in- progress has been made toward establishing a volvement, through (1) local participation on a cooperative relationship between agencies and dis- coastal policy-making body, (2) local responsibil- tricts forproject monitoring. The state should work ity for plan preparation, (3) a strong role for locals with coastal districts to determine how they can in plan implementation, and (4) strong public par- assist with monitoring efforts, and provide them ticipation requirements. with necessary funding and training. * Local people must have access to adequate Finally, the state should take steps to increase the funding, during plan development and after the awareness of the general public - the "person on plan is approved, to ensure that they can fully the street" - of Alaska's coastal program and the participate in coastal management decisions. opportunities it offers to local people. Although support for the program is strong among the local - There may be legitimate conflicts between the coastal districts, the general public has little knowl- goals of local residents, the state and federal gov- edge of the program. As pressure to reduce govern- ernment agencies, and non-govemment interests, ment spending builds in Alaska, grassroots public such as private industry. Local coastal districts support will be needed to ensure that funding is have the responsibility to balance their goals with available for plan implementation and new initia- the views and needs of these other parties. Like- tives to address emerging coastal issues. The wise, the degree to which local concerns are met public's recognition of the opportunity Alaska's depends on the willingness of the state and federal coastal program provides for local involvement in governments to work in good faith with local coastal resource decisions will be critical to main- people to help them achieve their goals, through taining the program. negotiation with all affected parties. LESSONS LEARNED Notes Local involvement in coastal resource deci- 1. Two rural regions that originally organized as CRSAs, later voted to become organized boroughs and assume full local sions can be successfully achieved by preparing government powers and responsibilities. These include the coastal management plans at a local, rather than Northwest Arctic Borough and the Aleutians East Borough. state government, level. Local management plans 2. In addition to participation in the "consistency review" pro- can be used to influence where and how coastal cess described here, cities and boroughs may implement their 20 coastal management plans using local goverriment powers cerns, the Coastal Policy Council denied the appeal. The such as local permitting, zoning, capital improvement projects, Council determined that the state government had followed or purchase of coastal lands and waters. correct procedures when holding the lease sale and had properly considered the policies of the CRSA's approved 3. Regional and village native Alaskan Corporations were formed coastal management program. 71e CRSA is pursuing the with the passage of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act case in state court. of 1971. The Corporations are major landowners in the State of Alaska. References 4. The Bristol Bay Borough, a small borough located within the region, is an incorporated local government with its own Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Alaska Department of approved coastal management plan. In April 1989, another Fish and Game, and Bristol Bay Coastal Resource -Service Area. part of the BristolBay region voted to incorporate as the Lake August 1988. Nushagak & Mulchatna Rivers Recreation Manage- and Peninsula Borough. Thenewly-formed borough will also ment Plan: Resource Assessment. prepare its own management plan for the area within its jurisdiction. _. August 1990. Nushagak & Mulchatna Rivers Recre- ation Management Plan. 5. OCS Lease Sale 92 was the subject of litigation by the State of Alaska and other affected parties. In October 1989, the Bristol Bay Coastal Resource Service Area. January 1984. Bristol United States Congress placed a moratorium on oil and gas Bay Coastal Management Program. Volume 1, Resource Inven- exploration activities inBristol Bay, which has been extended tory. through September 30, 1991. June 1986. Commercial Recreation Service Providers 6. Other goals and objectives of the plan related to the wide Study. Jon Isaacs and Associates. variety of issues in the region, including subsistence, oil and gas, mining, transportation, residential settlement, historical _. June 1987. Bristol Bay Coastal Management Program. and archaeological resources, and recreation. Volume 2, Management Plan. 7. "Anadromous fish" are fish that live in the sea, but ascend Office of Coastal Zone Management and Office of Coastal Manage- rivers from the sea to spawn. ment, 1978. Final Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed Coastal Management Program for the State of Alaska. U.S.Depart- 8. On the south side of the Alaska Peninsula, the interim coastal ment of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis- zone boundary included lands and waters below 1000 feet in tration. elevation. Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management. 1986. Envi- 9. Although the plan applies only to state lands and waters, the ronmental Assessment: Amendment No. 2, Inclusion of the Bristol planning team hoped that other major landowners (primarily Bay Coastal Management Program into the Alaska Coastal Man- the federal government and the Native Corporations) would agemcnt Program. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oce- consider its intent while managing their lands. anic and Atmospheric Administration. 10. From July 1, 1989 to June 30,1990 the Office of theGovernor . 1987. Final Finding of Approvability: Amendment coordinated the review of 450 coastal development projects. Request to the Alaska Coastal Management Program to Include Local coastal districts were given the opportunity to partici- Bristol Bay Coastal Resource Service Area Coastal Management pate in each of those reviews. Of the 450 projects, only seven Program. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and were elevated to a higher level in the state government for Atmospheric Administration. reconsideration. Seaman, G.A., in press. Alaska Coastal Management Program: 11. Since 1979, the Coastal Policy Council has received only five Development of the Coastal Zone Boundary. Alaska Departmentof appeals of coastal development project decisions, four filed Fish and Game. by members of the public and one filed by a local coastal district. The four appeals filed by the public were each State of Alaska, Division of Governmental Coordination. February withdrawn or inactivated following meetings attended by the 1985. Revised Findings and Conclusions for the Bristol Bay Coastal Coastal Policy Council and moderated by the Office of the Management Program. Governor. The appeal filed by a coastal district (the Cenaliulriit CRSA in the Yukon-Kuskokwim area) concerned a state _. June 1989. Alaska Coastal Management Program offshore mining lease sale. After hearing the CRSA's con- Statutes and Regulations. 21 For further information and provision of key references contact: The Division of Governmental Coordination PO Box AW Juneau, Alaska 99811 22 The Coastal Management Program in North Carolina Establishing a Process for Managing Development in Hazard Areas and Preparing Coastal Land Use Plans David Owens North Carolina has a coastline of barrier islands facing the Atlantic and an extensive inland coastal area of shallow estuaries and wetlands. The last 40 years have witnessed an acceleration of urban development along the barrier islands, while the rest of the coastal area remains largely rural in character. The North Carolina coastal program established standards for development in high hazard areas and helped develop local comprehensive land use plans for all coastal communities. This case study examines the process through which a coastal program was developed in North Carolina. It discusses how local governments and affected parties and interest groups were actively involved in the state-mandated program. The case looks at when and why the North Carolina Coastal Program has been successful. The author concludes that active involvement of local governments and affected parties in all stages of program development, from issue definition to evaluation, makes an impor- tant contribution to program effectiveness and was politically necessary. Use of a fair and open decision-making process, an active public education and involvement program, multiple management tools, and commitment of adequate time to develop and refine program policies were also critical aspects of program success. Finally, he concludes that a focus on using the coastal management program to produce results rather than plans or documents, and having capable program leaders, were also of vital importance. INTRODUCTION Setting for Coastal Management The coastal area of North Carolina (Figure 1) As North Carolina developed its coastal manage- consists of two subareas with distinctive environ- ment program, it was confronted with the chal- mental, economic and social settings. The inland lenge of designing a program that would address portion of the coastal area is a region of broad, key state and national management concerns in a shallow estuaries and extensive wetlands, with context where there was a strong tradition of local small towns and widespread rural areas. Primary government autonomy and private landowner in- land uses in this area are agriculture and forestry. dependence. To have a successful program it was Many sections have high unemployment and low vital to develop regional consensus that resource wages, and the social and political structure has management was necessary and that a state-local been relatively stable for generations. partnership was essential. The barrier island portion of the coastal area is David Owens is aformer Director of the Division of Coastal different. Here change has been rapid. Over the Management in the Department ofNatural Resources, North past forty years there has been an acceleration of Carolina. He now worksfor the Institute of Government at the urban development, and there are now substantial University ofNorth Carolina. 23 Elizabeth C i t VY Atlantic Ocean N Washington,. 0 CAPE HATTERAS 0.00, Morehead City CAPE LOOKOUT Atlantic Wilm Iington- Ocean 4 CAPE FEAR L Figure 1. North Carolina's Coastal Area tourism and recreational developments along the BACKGROUND barrier islands. In this part of the coast, land values are very high and there have been large short term Development of a coastal management profits from land development. Increasing num- program bers of retirees and permanent service workers are The state's first step in developing a coastal man- bringing additional change. As a result of these agement program was to adopt special-purpose changes, the social and cultural setting on the legislation to address the most pressing and visible islands has been substantially altered. problems of coastal development. In 1969 laws were adopted to halt the destruction of salt marshes A decline in coastal water quality and fishery through dredging and filling and to require coastal productivity, combined with a sense that the barrier counties to regulate alteration of frontal sand dunes islands were being "overdeveloped," were the prin- along the oceanfront. These laws demonstrated to cipal factors motivating state interest in coastal local governments and landowners that the state management. Prior to the late 1960's, virtually all was serious about coastal management and would land use and development decisions in coastal take steps to address the matter, but would also areas, as elsewhere in North Carolina, were left involve local governments in implementation where solely in the hands of individual landowners. Only possible. The knowledge that something was going a few of the small towns had local land use regula- to be done to address these questions convinced tions; state and national regulations were minimal. local people to actively participate in the design and implementation of a more comprehensive pro- gram when that offer was made in the early 1970's. 24 PROFILE Mandate for Program The primary goals of the North Carolina Coastal Area Management Act are: � to provide a management system capable of preserving and managing the natural ecologi- cal conditions � to ensure the development or preservation of the land and water resources in a manner consistent with ecological considerations � to ensure the orderly and balanced use and preservation of coastal resources � to establish policies, guidelines, and standards for the protection, preservation, and con- servation of natural resources; economic development; recreation; transportation; and historic, cultural, and scientific aspects of the coastal area Geographic Scope The geographic scope of the program is set by law. The "coastal area" for planning purposes was defined as those counties with land bordering either the Atlantic Ocean, a coastal estuary, or waters subject to tidal influence. The law listed the types of critical environmental areas that could be subject to the regulatory program, but left some discretion as to which areas were actually designated. Program Structure The North Carolina Coastal Area Management Act established a citizen Coastal Resources Commission to develop coastal policies and state guidelines for mandated local plans. Local land use plans were required to be prepared in accordance with the state guidelines within a strict time limit. The Act also required critical environmental areas to be designated and that standards for development in those areas be established and enforced through a new state- level permit program. The Coastal Resources Commission also developed management strategies which include regulation, education, land acquisition and public investment for key coastal issues such as development in high hazard areas. The requirement for this more comprehensive ap- The initial proposal was to place decision-making proach was set by the 1974 adoption of the Coastal power at the state level and in the hands of the Area Management Act (CAMA). This law estab- professional staff. This proved politically unac- lished a comprehensive regional resource manage- ceptable to the affected local governments. It was ment program for the state's twenty county coastal also opposed by private property owners and the area. development community, both of whom felt they would have more influence if the decisions were A key initial issue in program design was assign- made locally by political rather than technical ment of authority for making major decisions. Two personnel. After considerable debate a compro- key questions were presented. The first was the mise decision was reached. The decision was made degree to which decisions would be made at the to share power between the state and local govern- state as opposed to the local level. The second was ments and to use a citizen commission rather than how much power to place in the hands of profes- a professional staff for major policy decisions. sional staff. 25 Program policy decisions are made by a citizen The mandatory land use planning provision of Coastal Resources Commission (CRC) appointed CAMA required all coastal counties to adopt com- by the governor. CRC membership is not a full- prehensive land use plans in accordance with stan- timejob; commission members all have otherjobs, dards adopted by the Coastal Resources Commis- mostly in the private sector. The members volun- sion. The state standards define the issues that must teer their time for commission meetings, which be addressed and the procedures to be followed, but usually last two days and are held at six to eight leave substantive policy decisions to the local week intervals. governments. Plans must be updated every five years. The state spends about $250,000 per year on The commission has fifteen members and all but land use plans. two must be residents of the coastal area. The governor's appointments are made from nomina- The regulatory provisions apply to all of the state's tions submitted by local governments. The law coastal waters and wetlands and to about three requires that a wide variety of real estate, agricul- percent of the most critical land area in the coastal ture, forestry, local government, and financing area. These regulated areas include oceanfront interests be represented on the commission. The areas subject to erosion, storm flooding, and inlet coastal legislation would not have been approved movement, estuarine and public trust waters, coastal by the legislature without this mandated active wetlands, a buffer strip around coastal waters, involvement of local governments and coastal citi- several small surface watersheds and public well zens in the operation of the program. fields, and a key archaeological site. Any develop- ment in these areas requires a permit and must There are several implications of this choice. First, conform both to state standards and to any appli- it emphasizes that the design of a coastal manage- cable provisions in an approved local land use plan. ment program must consider political, cultural, Actual permit administration is handled by the social, and economic factors. It cannot be consid- state for major developments, and by local govern- ered on technical or ecological concerns alone. ments for smaller development projects. The state Second, it proved to be important to actively in- processes between 250 and 400 major develop- volve those most affected by coastal management ment applications per year, and local permit offic- directly in the design of the management system. ers process 1,000 minor development permits an- Third, and perhaps most important, the choice nually. Permit processing time averages 75 days pushed the coastal management program towards for major projects and 20 days for minor projects. consensus building as the model for decision- Another 1,000 simpler projects per year receive an making. It developed that many of the substantive expedited permit review that takes only a few days. program decisions that were eventually made were more environmentally sensitive, had more land Land acquisition is used as a coastal management owner and affected party support, and had far tool to secure beach access and protect particularly greater public understanding and backing than any important natural areas. The beach access program set of technical directives issued by state bureau- focuses on securing pedestrian access to beaches, crats could have secured. with the provision of parking and restrooms also addressed in some sites. With natural areas, the Overview of the program state buys the land for the reserve sites and main- The coastal management program that has been tains the land in a undeveloped state for research, developed as a result of the CAN4A, integrates education and low-intensity recreational use. planning, regulatory, land acquisition, policy de- velopment, and public education components. A further major program function is that of policy development and coordination. Although many key policy issues are dealt with directly in regula- 26 tory provisions and land use planning standards, manage development in oceanfront hazard areas; others result in adoption of general policy state- the second is the effort to bring modem, effective ments, legislative recommendations, and sugges- land use planning to the rural coastal area. tions for action by other state and federal agencies. Issues the state has addressed to date have included Oceanfront development management such diverse topics as beach access, erosion, float- Developing a reasonable management plan for ing homes, peat mining, coastal water quality, oceanfront development was the focus of the North mitigation, post-storm planning, and maritime for- Carolina coastal management program's efforts est protection. from 1978 to 1985. Public education initiatives have also been impor- North Carolina's 320-mile ocean coastline is sub- tant. Handbooks have been prepared for local gov- ject to the natural forces typical on barrier islands. emments, developers, and the general public to Hurricanes strike the state's coast once every ten explain major program components. Workshops, years, on average. Winter storms cause similar newsletters, and public meetings are also exten- devastation. Inlets form and migrate. Most of the sively used. coast suffers from long term erosion, with two feet per year being typical and substantial areas having an erosion rate of six feet per year or higher. This CHRONOLOGY OF MAJOR EVENTS dynamic natural system has faced increasing de- velopment pressure. The barrier island beach com- General: munities now predominantly consist of single- 1974 Coastal Area Management Act adopted family cottages and small motels, with increasing 1978 Supreme Court upholds the CAMA as pressure for high-rise buildings and relatively dense constitutional development along the oceanfront. Hazard area development standards: 1977 Initial permit standards developed There were several reasons that establishing stan- 1978 Permit program initiated dards for development in coastal high hazard areas 1979 Minimum oceanfront setback adopted was a key concern. The high public cost of im- 1981 Limited non-permanent structures allowed in part of setback proper development, the loss of access to the beach, 1983 Setback doubled for large structures the aesthetic impact of high-density oceanfront 1983 Post storm land use plans mandated development, and the results of efforts to stabilize 1985 Shoreline hardening structures banned the shoreline were of substantial concern to the Land use planning: state. The state's sandy ocean beaches, tradition- 1974 Original planning guidelines adopted ally uncluttered and freely available to the public, 1975 Deadline for production of original plans are "the coast" to many of the state's citizens. To 1978 Guidelines revised to add policy focus them, keeping the beaches from being despoiled is 1980 Deadline for first plan updates the reason for the coastal program's existence. The oceanfront development standards that were adopted by CRC address several key factors, in- CASE STUDY: Development in Oceanfront cluding the location of new development, the types Hazard Areas and Land Use Planning of erosion protection efforts that can be undertaken by upland property owners, the density of develop- Examples of collaborative process ment in inlet areas, construction standards, the Two work areas will be discussed in detail to protection of existing beach accesses, and notice of illustrate how a collaborative decision-making pro- coastal hazards to builders. cess has been implemented. The first is the effort to 27 The adoption and implementation of a minimum - a distance equal to thirty times the long-term setback for new oceanfront development illus- annual erosion rate, measured from the vegetation trates the collaborative decision-making process. line; 0 the crest of the "primary dune" (defined as the The CRIC spent substantial time considering what first dune with an elevation to the 100-year storm the public interest in this subject was-why gov- level plus six feet); emment should get involved at all. They concluded - the landward toe of the "frontal dune" (defined that a statewide minimum oceanfront setback was as the first dune with substantial protective value); necessary to minimize loss of life and property, and reduce public costs from poorly sited develop- - sixty feet landward of the vegetation line. ment, protect future public use of the beach, protect natural dunes,. provide a natural buffer area for Even though this rule was developed through a beach movement, preserve aesthetic values, and very public process, strong opposition did not arise offer some protection for unwary land purchasers. during consideration of the rule. In the year follow- They decided local government action alone would ing its adoption, however, the rule's effect became not be sufficient for three main reasons: there was a need to assure a minimum level of protection for state-owned beaches; complex technical and legal issues were involved that individual local govern- ments did not have the capability to address; and 0 FIRST LINE OF STABLE 30 x EROSION small municipalities competing for quality tourism RATE NATURAL VEGETATION OCEAN developments were in a difficult position to take independent action on setback requirements. 0 x EROSIO14 FIRST LINE OF STABLE RATE NATURAL VEGETATION So the CRIC embarked on a highly publicized effort CIRESt 6 OF DUNE OCEAN to establish a reasonable and workable setback F NTAL PRIMARY DUNE rule. It attempted to formulate precisely the man- DUNE I-SO x E agement objectives of a setback rule, to develop a TOE OF Rosiot FIRST LINE OF STABLE FRONTALI RATE NATURAL VEGETATION better understanding of the natural forces and de- DUNE..... FRON AL velopment pressures affecting the immediate ocean- DUN -E front, and to examine fully the technical and legal aspects of various alternative setback rules. It is (A)(B)(Q. The different minimum oceanfront setbacks required important that this entire process took place in a when building small structUTes. very open, public setting. All meetings and presen- tations were held in coastal locations and were 0 0 60 x EROSION RATE OR FIRST LINE OF STABLE open to the public. Interested citizens were allowed 30 x EROSION RATE 1061 NATURAL VEGETATION to attend, and ask questions of the technical ex- 00 :3 WHICHEVER IS LESS "..: perts, staff and commission members. Substantial 00 press coverage of the discussions greatly aided in public education and understanding of the issue and choices facing the commission. 'Me minimum setback required when building large structures on the Oceanfront. The result was the adoption of a rule in 1979 that established a four-part minimum oceanfront set- Figure 2. Setback Requirement back requirement. The rule, illustrated by Figure 2, E @R FR NE F -TA LE OS-O I ST L' 0 r RATE NATURA VEGETATION 0CEAN 30 EROSION RATE R EST 0, DUNE FRONT U@ NE 0 EAN required all new development to be the furthest landward of 28 apparent to coastal real estate agents and property A second example of collaborative decision-mak- owners, especially those with interests in some 800 ing for development in hazard areas involved set- parcels of land that could not be developed under ting standards for oceanfront erosion control ef- the setback standard. The intense public debate and forts. The minimum oceanfront setback prevents political pressure generated by this concern led the most immediate problems with new development. commission to reexamine its stand on a minimum However, given extensive existing development oceanfront setback. The CRC commissioned an and pervasive continuing erosion hundreds of ex- independent evaluation of the financial effects of isting structures are or will soon be in danger of their rule and conducted extensive public discus- falling in the ocean. Traditional responses to this sion and dialogue with developers, landowners, problem; bulkheads for individual homes and sea- and local governments. walls for entire communities, can destroy the pub- lic beach, can increase erosion for neighbors, and The reevaluation led to two changes in the setback are very costly. The alternative of abandoning rule in 198 1. First, an exemption to the setback was large private investments in beachfront develop- adopted to allow very low-intensity uses of the area ment was considered politically infeasible. There- between the vegetation line and setback line, such fore the CRC was faced with the difficult tasks of as campgrounds, small gazebos, and unpaved park- finding an appropriate balance between these pub- ing lots. A second exemption provided limited lic and private interests, developing the necessary "grandfathering" of lots subdivided before the public and political consensus for implementation, setback's original effective date. It allowed single- and fashioning an effective set of implementing family residences to be located in front of the management tools. erosion-rate setback, provided they met the sixty- foot minimum and dune setback provisions and The same general collaborative process that was more stringent construction standards. This ex- successfully used for the development of the set- emption still left some 500 lots unbuildable. back rule was used to develop a rule for erosion control structures. The CRC started by establishing Even with these changes, the CRC continued to a special task force made up of state, local, and reevaluate the effectiveness of the setback rule federal officials to develop recommendations. This over the next two years. Experience with the origi- formalized the informal intergovernmental work- nal setback, especially given the rapidly escalating ing relationships that had been established earlier. demand for high-density development, convinced All of the task force's meetings were open to the the CRC that the setback was inadequate for large public and were held on the Outer Banks, the area structures. The physical bulk and frequent multiple suffering the greatest immediate erosion problems. ownership of large structures makes relocation, the The task force concluded that the state should take preferred method of dealing with erosion prob- a policy stand against attempts to permanently lems, considerably more difficult as well as in- stabilize the shoreline, but should allow temporary creasing potential loss of life, property, and public efforts to deal with erosion problems, such as beach resources. So after very active and public delibera- nourishment and low, temporary sandbag bulk- tion, in 1983 the minimum erosion rate portion of heads. The CRC subsequently adopted these rec- the setback rule was doubled for large structures. ommendations in 1985. This action again caused a great deal of contro- The CRC is now reexamining its total ban on versy. But because the commission had taken time shoreline hardening structures. Given changes in to involve the public in developing its rules and had CRC appointments, new members are serving who based the action on a clear, well-understood ratio- had not participated in the earlier education and nale, there was strong support for the rule. policy development process. The federal govern- ment, through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 29 (who have a responsibility to regulate any struc- such as water and sewer lines, must be located tures or alteration in navigable waters), several outside hazard areas. The national flood insurance local governments, and a modest number of land- program has been revised to allow insurance pay- owners have urged that greater flexibility be al- ments to be used for the relocation of endangered lowed so that some erosion control structures could structures prior to storm damage rather than after be allowed. The matter is still under discussion and such an event. reevaluation. Comprehensive land use planning As with the setback, the process used to develop the Before the CANIA instituted mandatory local land regulations proved to be critical to success. This use planning, most of the rural counties and small meant paying careful attention to the purposes to be municipalities in coastal North Carolina had no addressed, developing a thorough understanding comprehensive land use plans orregulations. Much of the natural dynamics of the shoreline and effects of the early opposition by landowners and coastal of development, considering a range of options for local governments to the idea of coastal manage- meeting the objectives, developing a broad under- ment was based on the premise that coastal local standing of the problems, and securing a consensus governments were being singled out unfairly to for action among both state and local officials. institute the unpopular practice of determining limits to what private property owners could do It is important to note that in addition to these two with their land. regulatory initiatives, the state also was using a number of nonregulatory techniques to manage Yet comprehensive local land use planning was oceanfront development in North Carolina. Use of made one of the cornerstones of the program. The these measures not only served to more effectively legislature concluded that, whereas the state regu- address the issues of development in hazard areas, latory program could directly protect the most they also significantly improved the political ac- sensitive lands and waters, planning at a local level ceptability of the overall program. was the best method for addressing long-term general development issues such as density of These nonregulatory initiatives included the re- development, the character of coastal communi- quirement, as of 1983, that local land use plans ties, and other traditional land use concerns. include a post-storm policy section to address pre- storm mitigation program, evacuation plans, and The process for plan development was that the post-storm reconstruction policies. The state's CRC set standards for the plan, local governments beach access law, adopted in 1981 at the height of then did the technical studies and public discussion the setback rule controversy, mandated that a pri- required and adopted the plans, which were re- ority for acquisition be given to access lands that viewed and approved by the CRC. As with the were unsuitable for permanent substantial struc- oceanfront standards, the commission took great tures. This legislative recognition that some ocean- care to discuss the proposed standards with local front property is unsuitable for development pro- governments prior to adopting them. vided additional legal and political support for the setback concept, although in practice very few The land use planning standards that were adopted acquisitions were made under that mandate. How- reflectthis collaborative effort. The CRC setmostly ever, acquisition of large parcels through the estua-. procedural standards, such as the extent of public rine sanctuary, wildlife refuge, and parks programs participation required, the kind of analysis re- has been a vital element in resolving key individual quired, and what issues had to be addressed. The controversies. Public investment policies likewise choice of what policy to adopt for each issue was have been incorporated into the management pro- left to local elected officials. gram. New growth-inducing public investments, 30 The land use plans are put into effect in several critical in the long-term survival and effectiveness fashions. At the local level, they are increasingly of the management program. No single level of used by elected officials as guides to local deci- government has adequate knowledge and authority sion-making, although it must be noted that the to successfully design and implement a coastal quality of individual plans still varies significantly. management program, thus necessitating a work- The plans provide guidance on broad policy ques- ing partnership. tions, such as the formulation of regulatory ordi- nances and public investment programs, as well as It is also essential to have those most directly on individual projects. Citizens have come to view affected participate directly in program decisions. the process of updating and amending the plans as The concept of a citizen commission making key a means to elevate community discussion of par- policy decision rather than the professional bu- ticularly important issues and reach community reaucracy was initially considered a major weak- consensus. At the state level, the plans'policies are ness of the North Carolina program. But having mandatory standards to be considered for coastal local opinion leaders thoroughly consider an issue, management permits. Moreover, all state agency debate alternatives, discuss it with their neighbors, decisions, particularly public investment decisions, and come to a consensus on the best course of must be consistent with approved plans. Since the action, can contribute greatly to the wise resolution plans are an official part of the state's coastal of the many difficult issues involved in coastal program, they also constrain federal agency deci- management. sions through the consistency provisions of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act. These fac- Still, it is also critical to note that participation tors, over the course of years, have led local offi- alone is inadequate. It is vital to secure the involve- cials and citizens to take the plans more seriously. ment of citizens with integrity, devotion, skill and a commitment to building consensus and serving CONCLUSIONS the overall public good. There is also a dilemma posed by the active involvement of those most Coastal management in North Carolina has matched directly affected, be they development, fishing, a coordinated management system with a complex conservation, or other interests. There is a ten- natural system. Many critical coastal resources are dency for each group to become narrow advocates being preserved, protected, and reasonably man- of their particular point of view and to see coastal aged to the long-term benefit of both public and management merely as the referee between com- private interests. peting interests. Effective coastal management must go beyond this referee role to affirmative promo- The intergovernmental partnership for manage- tion of the public interest. ment has been important. National interests are being served, from the protection of habitat critical It is important that the process used to reach coastal for interstate fisheries to the protection of beaches management decisions be fair and open. The broad serving national tourism. Yet these coastal man- public perception in North Carolina that balanced, agement issues require complex policy decisions fair decisions were generally reached was at least that cannot be reduced to uniform national techni- in part based on confidence that a fair process was cal standards. A successful coastal management used. This builds public knowledge of and support system must remain sensitive to local needs and for the program. This is essential if the program is desires for the future, incorporating the balance to serve the broader public interest rather than only necessary to resolve equitably the conflicts be- the interests of the politically powerful, or those tween competing legitimate interests. This balance with the greatest economic stake in the outcomes. can only be fairly achieved by remaining readily It is not necessary that a highly formalized process accessible to the people of the coastal area, a factor be used. In fact, in North Carolina while a deliber- 31 ate, rational decision-making model was employed, of these tools is more effective in accomplishing it was very .important that it was conducted rela- management objectives than any one tool alone. tively informally in order to be accessible to citi- This also builds political and public support for the zens. People did not have to hire lawyers, engineers program. It is especially important that coastal or scientists to participate. They could come to management not be viewed strictly as a regulatory meetings, listen, learn and offer their opinions program, a task which is seldom politically popu- directly. These decisions did not turn into a battle lar, as almost all constituencies will believe the of experts. This kind of informal, collaborative regulators are either doing too much or not enough. decision-making is increasingly difficult to secure in North Carolina, as coastal management has North Carolina's coastal management program become increasingly adversarial. The adversarial successfully used a consensus building, collabora- process may well better serve the interests of nar- tive approach to address several important and row special interests, but at the expense of collabo- difficult issues. Success, however, has been diffi- ration and the overall public interest. cult to sustain, especially where the management needs are less clear and the solutions more com- Another consideration is the importance of focus. plex. A concerted effort to protect and improve Even a strong coastal management program can coastal water quality has been underway for six take on only a limited number of difficult and years and is still incomplete. Addressing the tre- controversial issues at any one time. Staff and mendous environmental and cultural pressures budget limitations, the limited ability to focus generated by rapidly increasing levels of high- popular attention, and the necessity of avoiding the density resort development is barely underway. creation of a critical coalition of opponents all Still, a process for effective resolution of these dictate the careful selection of key targets for issues has been established and is available to action. The strategy for building a program in address such issues as the state has the will and North Carolina was to select highly visible and leadership to confront. important topics, such as hazard area standards and land use planning, and do an excellentjob on them, LESSONS LEARNED thereby building a record of accomplishment and program credibility that could be carried forward There are several lessons from this experience in to new issues. managing oceanfront development. Coastal management should also be primarily con- First is the critical importance of involving all cerned with results. A plan in and of itself is not the affected parties in the decision-making process. It goal of coastal management. Improved manage- is important that this be done at all stages of policy ment of coastal resources is the goal, which re- development - defining the problem to be ad- quires an on-going management process. This on- dressed, selecting a course of action, and evaluat- going effort requires substantial policy and politi- ing the effectiveness of the actions taken. For cal leadership to be sustained. A key task of coastal example, when adopting the oceanfront setback management is to identify individuals with vision standard, the program's citizen decision-makers and leadership at all governmental levels and se- spent many hours debating what public purposes cure their active participation in the program. the rule should address, carefully questioning tech- nical experts as to the accuracy and reliability of Another important consideration is the benefit of their data, learning the legal implications of the using a variety of tools for addressing coastal alternatives, and considering the economic and management issues. Regulations, land acquisition, social consequences of their action. As a result, tax policy, and education have all been vitally they were well prepared to deal with the intense important in North Carolina. The coordinated use pressures generated by their decision. Also, since 32 these decisions were made as the result of very vate decisions. Increasing the level of understand- open public discussion with full opportunity for ing of planning purposes, procedures, and even both formal and informal participation by those terminology takes time and a great deal of discus- affected, there was greater public acceptance of the sion. As each locality has invested the time it takes decision. to accomplish this (rather than relying on a stan- dardized plan hurriedly prepared by an itinerant A second lesson is the value of flexibility on professional planner), each generation of plans has means. On the setback issue, when opposition was been used increasingly as an effective management expressed, the CRC was prepared to thoughtfully tool. reevaluate the effects of their decision and to seri- ously consider other alternatives for achieving A second key lesson is that the character of the plan their policy objectives. This reasonable approach and of the planning process must be closely related was important in maintaining the commission's to the character of the individual community un- credibility and political support. dertaking the planning. In rural areas with modest development levels, meetings and discussions about A third lesson is that complex and controversial community water supply, the appearance of the issues such as these require considerable time and shopping district, the availability of park space, or resources to resolve. High financial stakes, strong housing rehabilitation in a deteriorating neighbor- emotions, and difficult technical and legal issues hood are more productive investments of planning are involved. Five years were devoted to studies, resources than developing computerized mapping deliberation, action, evaluation, and revision of the or high-tech performance standards. Technical data hazard area standard. Steadiness of purpose, flex- on topics from soil types to economic projections ibility as to means, commitment to action, and are helpful and necessary, but the planning must perseverance are essential attributes to policy mak- maintain a scale that its principal users, particularly ers during this process. local officials and citizens, understand and can use in day-to-day operations. Fourth, public education and consensus-building are essential. Establishing broad public understand- A third lesson is that planning works best where ing of the need for action and of the rationale for the there is something to plan, such as where there are choices made is critical in creating a political development pressures and sensitive resources and environment in which difficult choices can be the resultant questions of balance and community made and implemented. While it is critical that direction. In North Carolina, one of the key roles of those most directly affected have a strong role in the planners has been to raise community aware- these policy choices, it is important to recognize ness of the benefits of planning by clearly showing that others are also affected and the broader public the links between development and its long-term interests must be addressed. Public education and effects. discussion help assure that these broader, more long-term concerns are addressed. A fourth lesson is the importance of actively in- volving the public in the planning process. Al- Several lessons can be learned from North though plans must be technically accurate and Carolina's experience with land use planning. The legally defensible, from the outset an emphasis has first is that effective land use planning in largely been placed on making them "people plans" rather rural areas is a labor-intensive, evolutionary pro- than "planner plans." That has required an empha- cess. Many local elected officials previously made sis on participation and policy rather than just decisions based on who was involved and the studies and technical data. This emphasis has served circumstances at the time of decision. Landowners to significantly increase public rights in coastal feared government intervention in previously pri- waters, wetlands, and beaches, the effects of devel- 33 opment, and the role of good planning in managing Owens, David W. 1980. The future of the Currituck Outer Banks. that development. Consequently it has led to broad Carolina Planning 6, 2:44-52. popular and political support for planning and . 1983. Land acquisition and coastal resources CAMA and has greatly increased acceptance of management: A pragmatic perspective. William and Mary Law land use planning as a legitimate function of gov- Review 24,4:625-667. emment. . 1985. Coastal Management in North Carolina: Building a Regional Consensus. Journal of the American Planning Note Association 51, 3:322-329. Parker, Francis, David Brower, and Dirk Frankenberg. 1976. Eco- Portions of this case study were previously published in the Journal logical determinants of coastal area management. Raleigh: Sea of the American Planninp Association. Grant College Program, University of North Carolina. References Schoenbaum, Thomas J. 1974. The management of land and water use in the coastal zone: A new law is enacted in North Carolina. North Carolina Law Review 53, 2:275-302. DeGrove, John M. 1984. Land growth and politics. Chicago: APA Planners Press. . 1982. Islands, capes, and sounds. Winston-Salem, Heath, Milton S. 1974. A legislative history of the Coastal Area N.C.: John F. Blair Publishers. Management Act. North Carolina Law Review 52, 2:345-398. Liner, Charles D. 1982. An analysis of the Coastal Area Manage- For further information and provision of key ment Act erosion rate setback regulation. Chapel Hill: Institute of Government, University of North Carolina. references contact: Department of Environment, Health and McElyea, William D., David R. Godschalk, and David R. Brower. National Resources, 1982. Before the storm: Managing development to reduce hurricane damages. Raleigh, N.C.: Office of Coastal Management. Division of Coastal Management 225 North McDowell Street Outer Banks Erosion Task Force. 1984. Report to the Coastal Raleigh, NC 27602 Resources Commission. Raleigh, N.C.: Office of Coastal Manage- ment. 34 New Jersey's Strong State Coastal Regulation Threats, Incentives, Loopholes, and Coastal Program Design, 1970-1991 David N. Kinsey Although the most densely populated state in the nation, New Jersey has miles of sandy beaches and protected bays and estuaries which support major tourism and commercial fishing industries. Residential property along this coastline is enormously valuable. Other parts of the coast, along river and bay fronts, were developed for heavy industry 75 years ago, but are now often severely deteriorated or underutilized. There are intense pressures on New Jersey's coastal area as competing interests have tried to find a balance between further development and the preservation of the environment. The state has a history of powerful, special interest groups with political influence making concensus building difficult. This case study describes how the New Jersey coastal program has developed in stages over a period of 20 years and analyses three successful and two unsuccessful attempts to influence coastal program design. The State of New Jersey instituted direct state regulation of coastal development during the decade of the 1970's and has continued to rely on this approach to coastal management throughout the 1980's and now into the 1990's. Resource management issues evolved over this 20 year period, beginning with preserving wetlands and protecting resort and rural coastal regions from industrial development, before moving on to comprehensive coastal planning and management, urban waterfront planning and regulation, and dune protec- tion. The case concludes that the New Jersey CZM program has been most successful in managing coastal development; it has been less successful in protecting critical coastal resources. The political and economic influence of coastal property owners, developers, and local governments have repeatedly combined to inhibit efforts to integrate state coastal policies into municipal land use decision-making in all of New Jersey's diverse coastal regions. INTRODUCTION basic task for designers of coastal programs. The State of New Jersey has opted, since the 1970's, to Deciding which levels of government should pro- rely heavily on regulation by a strong state agency tect and manage coastal resources, and how gov- to control coastal development. Why did New ernmental agencies should relate to each other, is a Jersey choose and maintain this approach? Threats to natural coastal resources from develop- David N. Kinsey is an international consultant in urban, ment, as well as the incentives of federal funds and environmental, and coastal planning and a partner of Kinsey & Hand in Princeton, NJ. He worked in the New Jersey Depart- influence over federal coastal decisions prompted ment of Environmental Protectionfrom 1975-1983 and served as the State of New Jersey to design, implement, and Director of its Division of Coastal Resources. 35 refine its coastal program over the course of two decades. Initial threats in the 1970's included ram- pant dredging and filling of coastal wetlands, as NEW YORK well as proposals for deepwater oil ports, refiner- ies, and offshore oil exploration. The federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 provided funds to design the program as well as the major incentive Jersey for New Jersey to extend its coastal program to the City 0 state's urban waterfronts. Continued dune destruc- .5, tion, overdevelopment, and nonpoint pollution of bay and ocean waters threatened the coast in the Sandy late 1980's. Hook PENNSYLVANIA Trenton This case study examines how these threats and incentives influenced the design of New Jersey's e@ Q/ coastal program., specifically the choice of the e strong state regulatory approach. Throughout 1970- 00' 1Al 1991, program design has been a dynamic process co in New Jersey. As the program has matured, new threats have become politically important, and the influence of different actors and interests has risen Atlantic or fallen. The fundamental decision to rely on state City coastal regulation has not yet been modified. The N political pragmatism and economic realities to be DELAWARE examined in this case study will explain why the strong state regulation approach, even with its Cape May loopholes, has been retained, despite periodic de- 0 20 bates on the advantages of involving other levels CAFRA Boundary miles and agencies of government more directly in coastal management. BACKGROUND Figure 1. New Jersey coastal zone boundary To understand these coastal program design issues, developed barrier islands at the Jersey Shore face an environmental-political portrait of New Jersey the Atlantic Ocean for 127 miles (204 km), backed must first be outlined. by bays and tidal rivers with vast wetlands (see Figure 1). Built-up waterfronts, ports, and refiner- Located on the East Coast of North America, ies in northeastern New Jersey and along the Dela- between and part of the metropolitan regions cen- ware River contrast with summer resorts, such as tered on New York City and Philadelphia, New Atlantic City, and suburbs at the Shore. Northeast- Jersey has a land area of 7,468 square miles (19,342 ern New Jersey is densely populated, while South km2). The state had a 1990 population of 7,7 30,18 8 Jersey and the northwestern part of the state are people, with the highest state population density in more rural. the United States, i.e., 1,035 people per square mile (400 people per km2). While primarily a state of Before 1969, New Jersey's 567 municipalities held older, growing, and new suburbs, almost one-half exclusive control over land use decision-making. of New Jersey is forest land. Sandy beaches and Twenty-one counties, an intermediate level of gov- 36 PROFILE Mandate for the New Jersey Coastal Program The Coastal Management Program has a mandate to protect natural resources, manage coastal resources, consider economic interests of coastal residents, and protect public health and safety. Geographic Scope The boundary of New Jersey's Coastal Program and the scope of regulatory jurisdiction varies by region. All tidal, bay, and ocean waters of the state, and a strip of uplands between 100' (30 m) to 500'(152 m) inland of the mean high water line along more urban, built-up tidal waterways. Elsewhere included in the coastal zone the upland coastal boundary extends at least one mile (1.6 km) and up to 20 miles (32 km) inland of the ocean, to encompass about 20% of New Jersey's land area. Program Structure The New Jersey Coastal Management Program is administered by the State Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Coastal Resources. Division responsibilities include: � Coastal planning, policy development, and advocacy � Regulation of new development through coastal construction permits � Managing State-owned tidelands real estate � Engineering (shore protection, dredging, and navigation) � Monitoring and enforcing regulatory and tidelands laws � Promoting sound coastal development and protection, through grants to local governments and special studies � Marine law enforcement, through the Marine Police (transferred to the State Police in 198 1) � Protecting freshwater wetlands, regulating stream encroachments, mapping flood hazard areas, and supervising dam safety statewide (since 1987) emment, exercise only advisory roles in regional Seven major actors have been involved in coastal planning, and merely regulate drainage and devel- program design in New Jersey: opment along county roads. Over the past two decades, however, state legislation has entrusted a - the governor cabinet-level agency, the New Jersey Department - the state coastal agency, i.e. the Division of of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) and several Coastal Resources in the NJDEP state commissions with responsibility for regional - the state legislature and site-specific land use planning and regulation. 9 state courts To protect wetlands, flood plains, an historic canal - local governments (municipal and county) park, coastal and forest regions, reservoir water- - private economic interests (home builders, real sheds, and aquifer recharge areas, these laws cre- estate brokers, banks, and property owners) ated a strong role for state government in land use * environmental interest groups policy, in the name of environmental protection. Four different governors from two different politi- Consensus does not come easily among these play- cal parties have wielded great influence in propos- ers. The actions, as well as inaction, of some actors ing and enacting these laws'. 37 have prompted others to make coastal protection and then continued to refine the program and initiatives. Players hold sharply different views on undergo periodic federal program evaluations. This the importance of natural coastal resources. Trust- case study analyzes three successful and two un- ing relationships have never existed among all successful spurts of coastal program design. participants in coastal program design in New Jersey. For example, environmental interest groups While the regulatory component of New Jersey's generally distrust local governments and private coastal program is emphasized, it should not be economic interests, which they view as pro-devel- forgotten that other important coastal resource and opment. Finally, the relative interest, influence, statewide water resource management functions and importance of some participants in coastal are carried out by the agency known since 1979 as issues has fluctuated over these two decades. the Division of Coastal Resources. Protecting Coastal Wetlands, 1970-1973 CHRONOLOGY OF MAJOR EVENTS During the 1960's, home builders, with the ap- proval of local governments, dredged and filled 1970 State Coastal Wetlands Act enacted about 1,500 acres (607 ha) of coastal wetlands each 1972 Federal Coastal Zone Management Act en- year at the edges of the bays of the Jersey Shore, in 1973 acted order to develop summer, retirement, and year- State Coastal Area Facility Review Act (CAFRA) enacted round houses.2 Three factors combined to lead the 1978 New Jersey Coastal Management Program, Governor and State Legislature to enact New Bay and Ocean Shore Segment Jersey's Coastal Wetlands Act3 in 1970 approved by federal government 1980 State Dune and Shorefront Protection Act growing awareness of the public benefits of proposed State Attorney General's Opinion allowed wetlands protection expansion of Waterfront Development Law the model of other Northeastern states which Jurisdiction Statewide New Jersey Coastal had passed coastal wetlands laws in the 1960's Management Program approved * and the fervor of environmental protection 1987 New Jersey Coastal Commission proposed launched by the first Earth Day in April 1970. by Governor (not approved) 1988 Emergency rules to protect Shore and revise thresholds on state coastal The law assigned NJDEP, not local governments, agency's jurisdiction adopted by NJDEP the responsibility of implementing this new pro- 1990 NJDEP emergency rules invalidated by gram to regulate, and essentially prohibit, pro- State Courts posed development of wetlands through a new state permit process. NJDEP and its predecessor agencies had some experience in managing and regulating coastal resources. For example, the CASE STUDY: Two Decades of Evolution in agency had sold and leased state-owned tidelands State Coastal Regulation real estate for more than a century and had admin- istered a permit program for docks, piers, bulk- New Jersey's present system of managing coastal heads, dredging and other development in navi- resources, largely but far from exclusively through gable waters for decades, since passage of the 1914 state agency coastal construction permits, has Waterfront Development Law.4 evolved over two decades, with several spurts of program design initiatives and legislative battles. To protect the interests of property owners and to New Jersey developed and obtained federal ap- assisi NJDEP in administering the new wetlands proval for its coastal program under the federal permit program, the law required the state coastal Coastal Zone Management Act during 1974-1980, agency to map about 300,000 acres (121,3 80 ha) of 38 coastal wetlands, notify each property owner that above sea level in the coastal plain, in order to wetlands were to be strictly regulated, and hold include and protect promptly most coastal wet- public hearings in each county before adopting the lands. The legislators intended this boundary to maps and beginning to implement this new pro- plug the procedural loophole in the Coastal Wet- gram. The law exempted two areas of wetlands in lands Act that had allowed wetlands filling to urban-industrial northeastern New Jersey: along continue while NJDEP undertook the mapping all tidal rivers and bays and in a 19,730 acre (7,983 required by the law. ha) region regulated by a then recently-established state-level regional development agency.5 While NJDEP staff scientists and lawyers reviewed the NJDEP embarked on costly, time-consuming, and legislators' proposal and developed a counter-pro- detailed (scale of 1:2,400 or I"=200') wetlands posal which focused the legislative debate. The mapping, developers continued filling wetlands, state coastal agency proposed a landward bound- sometimes literally until the hour this wetlands ary further inland, to protect uplands adjacent to protection program took effect. After full imple- tidal waterbodies, soils with physical limitations mentation in 1973, following tempestuous public for development, and water quality in densely hearings with outraged property owners, the an- populated areas. Rather than prohibit industrial nual rate of wetlands filling plummeted to less than land uses, NJDEP proposed a coastal permit pro- one acre (0.4 ha) by 1979. gram using performance standards to regulate a detailed list of industrial, energy, and other types of Protecting the Shore from Industrial Develop- facilities. The list included residential develop- ment, 1972-1973 ments of 25 units or more, roads, and public facili- Before the state coastal agency could implement ties such as wastewater treatment plants, but did fully the Coastal Wetlands Act, state legislators not include commercial development. proposed in 1972 a new, more comprehensive coastal regulatory program to protect the Shore, Local governments and private economic interests bays, and Delaware River coastal regions from opposed the legislation. Environmental groups energy and industrial development. Targeted at supported it. Amendments narrowed its geographic threats to the environment and coastal resort jurisdiction to the Jersey Shore and back bays, economy posed by proposals for deepwater ports Raritan Bay, Delaware Bay, and their tidal tributar- for importing foreign oil, new petrochemical fa- ies and adjacent uplands, a "coastal area" of 1,376 cilities, and onshore facilities for offshore oil ex- square miles (3,563 km2), about 20% of New ploration, this legislation proposed to exclude heavy Jersey's land area. Passage of the federal Coastal industry from the residential-resort Jersey Shore Zone Management Act in late 1972 gave further fronting the Atlantic Ocean, its back bay shores, impetus to this state-level proposal, which called and the rural, undeveloped edges of the Delaware for completion of a state coastal management strat- Bay. This.initiative also proposed a new state egy within four years. The federal law provided a coastal permit program for industrial development national framework and funds for assisting the along the 115 mile (184 km) long tidal portion of development of state coastal management pro- the Delaware River, up to the state capitol at grams. The last minute intervention by a candidate Trenton. for governor saved the coastal proposal from fur- ther crippling amendments. Two additional concerns prompted this proposal: (a) the time required to map and make effective the The Coastal Area Facility Review Act was then Coastal Wetlands Act of 1970 and (b) extensive enacted in 1973.6 The law specifically stated that development of summer and retirement homes at this new state coastal permit program, entrusted to the Shore. The proposed inland coastal boundary NJDEP, was to supplement existing municipal was set at the 10 foot Q meter) contour interval land use planning, zoning, and regulation. Devel- 39 opers of regulated facilities in the coastal area tion to protect dunes, in effect to lower CAFRA's would need approvals from both local government 25 unit regulatory threshold and protect the few and the state coastal agency. remaining oceanfront dunes from even single fam- ily development. The Governor then deferred this Protecting Beaches and Dunes, 1979-1980 initiative for a year, as protection of a vast forest In 1988 the federal government approved New region had higher priority on his political agenda Jersey's coastal program for the first segment of its and that of legislative leaders and statewide envi- coastal zone, the "coastal area" under CAFRA. ronmental groups.8 The program included myriad detailed policies, from beach erosion to power plants, from white One year later, NJDEP drafted, and with the cedar stands to hotel-casinos, to guide NJDEP's Governor's tacit support, a non-coastal legislator coastal permit decisions. Yet the program had introduced the proposed Dune and Shorefront Pro- insufficient regulatory jurisdiction to protect tection Act.9 This initiative proposed a new state beaches and dunes from inappropriate develop- coastal permit for construction, reconstruction, or ment, due to the thresholds under CAFRA that expansion of structures in beaches, dunes, and a allowed residential development of 24 or fewer "shorefront area" extending inland to the first paved dwelling units and commercial development of road parallel to the ocean, to allow for the natural 299 or fewer parking spaces7 withouta statecoastal movement landward of wind-blown sand dunes. permit. These thresholds had become significant While the bill proposed additional state coastal loopholes. regulation, it also authorized NJDEP to delegate implementation and enforcement to municipalities Despite these gaps in the regulatory system, the that adopted dune and shorefront protection ordi- federal government decided that the state's legal nances acceptable to NJDEP. authority under CAFRA, coupled with the Coastal Wetlands Act, Waterfront Development Law and Prompted in part by the increased likelihood of laws on tidelands real estate and coastal engineer- major losses of life and property damage along the ing, provided a sufficiently strong mandate for coast from flooding and storm surges due to dune direct state agency involvement in the key deci- destruction, the state coastal agency drafted this sions affecting the coastal region. This pragmatic legislation with the advice of scientists and the approach, the only feasible option under New Jer- support of environmental groups. NJDEP esti- sey law at the time, recognized the political impos- mated that at most 200 undeveloped building lots sibility of either amending CAFRA to plug the remained along the 127 tnile (204 km) oceanfront. loopholes or passing new legislation delegating However, the politically fatal flaw in the bill be- coastal decision-making to local governments with came its provision that would prohibit rebuilding guidance and oversight from the state. The national structures more than 50% damaged by coastal economic recession of the mid- 1970's had arrived storms. Seven hundred oceanfront and barrier is- just as NJDEP began implementing the CAFRA land property owners, rallied by local govern- permit program. Regulatory delays on coastal per- ments, banks, builders, building contractors, real mits had outraged homebuilders, while some local estate interests and an astute international public governments had complained that the state coastal relations firm, packed the second and final legisla- agency usurped their land use powers. In that tive hearing on the bill. political-economic climate, NJDEP decided that seeking expanded jurisdiction through new legis- Land values along the ocean are staggering. For lation would have been futile. example, average real estate values on one 23 mile (37 km) long developed barrier island, Long Beach In 1979, the state coastal agency proposed and the Island, are nine times that of average real estate Governor announced an initiative to seek legisla- values in New Jersey. Oceanfront land values are 40 even higher, with the land often worth more than to explain this approach to expanded statejurisdic- even expensive oceanfront houses. Repeated bitter tion without explicit legislative authorization, and complaints about the bill's threat to property val- accepted the agency's justification. Riverfront in- ues and near unanimous opposition at the hearing dustries and private sector groups opposed the combined to force its sponsor to withdraw the bill. reinterpretation. The state builders association chal- Environmental groups stayed silent in face of the lenged the rules, but a state appeals court upheld overwhelming opposition. NJDEP's initiative. 10 Regulating Urban Waterfronts, 1980 Successful adoption of this expanded state coastal To complete the statewide coastal program under permit jurisdiction in 1980 completed the legal federal law, New Jersey had to demonstrate coastal authority needed to meet the federal standards for control over land uses along tidal waterfronts out- coastal program approval. This enabled New Jer- side of the "coastal area" defined by the State sey to invoke the "federal consistency" provisions Legislature in CAFRA in 1973. Tackling this chal- of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act. This lenge at the same time as its ill-fated dune bill meant that the state had more influence in dealings initiative, the state coastal agency had to accom- with federal agencies on their activities in or affect- plish this legal-political task without new state ing the coastal zone, particularly offshore oil ex- legislation. ploration that threatened the state's marine fishing industry. This approval also enabled New Jersey to Reinterpretation of the agency's jurisdiction under continue to receive vital federal funds to imple- the 1914 Waterfront Development Law provided ment, enforce, monitor, and refine its program, the key that opened the program of regulating conduct special studies, and review comprehen- urban waterfronts, mainly areas along the Hudson sively and revise its substantive policies in 1986 River across from Manhattan and along the Dela- and 1990. ware River in southwestern New Jersey. Unregu- lated waterfront development had prompted pas- The new urban waterfront regulatory authority sage of this law, to increase the competitiveness of provided other benefits, too. First, it plugged a New Jersey municipalities which vied with New loophole in wetlands jurisdiction by bringing an York City, for port and harbor development in the additional 3,800 acres of tidal wetlands in north- era before municipal zoning and land use regula- eastern New Jersey under a state coastal permit tion. For 64 years NJDEP and its predecessor program. Second, it enabled the state coastal agency agencies had interpreted this law as applying only to advocate and insist on public access to the to activities at or below the mean high water line. waterfront as a condition of permits. Numerous The term "waterfront" had been viewed simply as large and small residential and office development itwater." proposals to redevelop dilapidated piers, aban- doned railroad yards, and obsolete industrial build- A formal opinion of the state's attorney general ings along the Hudson River proliferated during authorized the state coastal agency to define, by the real estate boom of the 1980's. All along the rule, the term "waterfront" to include a narrow strip state's tidal riverfronts NJDEP promoted water- of uplands. As the federal government had previ- front walkways and required public visual and ously approved a narrow upland coastal boundary physical access, relying on its legal authority under around San Francisco Bay in California, NJDEP the reinterpreted 1914 Waterfront Development followed that precedent and established the land- Law. Local governments even adopted the com- ward limit of the waterfront by rule at a minimum pelling vision of NJDEP's plan for a walkway of 100 feet and a maximum of 500 feet of uplands, along the Hudson River in municipal land use plans outside of the "coastal area." A committee of the and ordinances, although no law linked these state State Legislature summoned the state coastal agency and local plans. The national Trust for Public Land 41 helped create the Hudson River Waterfront Con- named his proposal in mid-1987, calling for the servancy, to develop a high quality, standard-set- State Legislature to establish a new and powerful ting walkway at the missing links between pri- New Jersey Coastal Commission. 13 Coastal legis- vately-developed segments of the walkway. lators then introduced a b 'ill, drafted by the Governor's office and environmental groups, that Protecting the Shore and Ocean Water Quality, assigned broad coastal planning, regulatory, 1987-1991 intergovernmental, land acquisition, advocacy, and Mysterious deaths of dolphins in the Atlantic Ocean financial powers to the proposed new regional and forced closings of ocean summerresort beaches commission and appropriated $20 million for its due to polluted ocean waters in the mid-1980's operation.14 The geographic scope for the new signaled a coastal and political crisis in New Jer- agency was to be the same "coastal area" as defined sey, where tourism is one of die. state's largest by the State Legislature fourteen years earlier in the industries. Local governments at the Shore com- CAFRA law. The bill proposed to transfer the state Plained about water quality, inadequate shore pro- coastal agency staff, funds, and files concerning tection funds and programs, and ocean disposal of the "coastal area" to the new commission. wastes. Builders and local governments decried the dual control over land use decisions by munici- The bill proposed three new thresholds for coastal palities and the state coastal agency as duplicative, construction permits, to modify the thresholds un- confusing, and frustrating. der CAFRA. First, a coastal permit was to be required for any residential, commercial, or other Environmental groups protested the impact of type of structure on an undeveloped lot fronting on nonpoint sources of water pollution, the lack of a the ocean, bay, or river shores, with the exception land use management plan for the coast, locally- of public facilities for shore protection, transporta- approved luxury cabanas built at hazardous sea- tion, or beach uses. Second, any proposal to de- wall locations, I I blocked public access for fishing velop three or more dwelling units and 10 or more and swimming, and the adverse cumulative impact parking spaces within 1,000 feet (305 m) of the of extensive coastal construction built below the ocean, tidal rivers, or tidal bays would require a residential and commercial development thresh- coastal permit. Third, the bill proposed relaxed olds of the Coastal Area Facility Review Act and its regulation beyond the 1,000 feet (305 m) coastal rules. So pervasive were 24 unit projects, one unit strip in regions designated for growth, with a higher below the threshold, that observers quipped that threshold of 75 units before a coastal permit would future archaeologists would suggest that 24 units be -required. had been the ideal building type. To promote intergovernmental consistency, the Many actors agreed that issues with regional im- bill required state, regional, county, and municipal pacts, important to the Shore environment and government agencies to comply with the coastal economy, such as transportation, stormwater con- management plan to be prepared by the new coastal trol, land use, were regulated not on a regional commission. This provision would dramatically basis, but instead from a narrower, municipal per- restructure the relationships between agencies and spective. Many actors also agreed that more funds levels of government, and eventually shift away were needed to protect and manage the Shore. from direct state regulation as the approach to coastal control. To address these problems, 12 the Governor pro- posed a powerful new Clean Ocean Authority in The State Legislature slowly considered this com- early 1987. After-his staff and senior NJDEP staff plicated, almost radical initiative in 1987-1988, as met local leaders from every one of the 48 ocean- its proponents refined their proposal, with the as- front municipalities, the Governor revised and re- sistance of environmental groups and state coastal 42 agency staff. 15 Homebuilders, local governments, Instead of appealing this legal setback, the state and some coastal legislators reacted warily to the coastal agency, legislators, and environmental Governor's ambitious proposal. Frustrated that the groups developed and advocated new coastal leg- proposal was stalled in the Legislature, the Gover- islation in 1991. Although scaled-down from the nor invoked emergency powers in late 1988, de- Coastal Commission proposal, the latest initiative claring that the "coastal area@' faced "imminent still proposed ambitiously to amend the Coastal peril" because the CAFRA thresholds allowed Area Facility Review Act, plug its loopholes, re- one-half of coastal development to proceed with- vise its thresholds, mandate a detailed coastal man- out adequate safeguards, and directed the state agement land use plan, and require other local, coastal agency to adopt emergency rules to plug the regional, and state agencies to conform with this loopholes. Acting again under the 1914 Waterfront plan. The explicit intent of the new bill was to Development Law, NJDEP interpreted by rule the protect the coastal environment; the bill proposed term "waterfront," within the "coastal area," to to delete from existing law favorable references to extend inland from beaches, dunes, wetlands, and economic growth.19 Homebuilders opposed this water areas at least 100 feet (30 m) or, if farther, as comprehensive legislative approach, fearing that far inland as the first residential, commercial, or the purpose of the coastal plan would be limiting industrial land use with a building. growth, rather than protecting the environment. Environmental groups offered only weak political The Governor anticipated that the emergency rules support, viewing the proposal as not strong enough would create public pressure for the Legislature to to protect the coastal environment. enact his Coastal Commission proposal, a tech- nique that had been successfully used twice in the The governor, beleaguered with a tax revolt and a previous ten years. 16 Instead, outraged property State Legislature anxious about reelection, did not owners and developers successfully challenged actively support this legislation. As a result, a this upland regulatory initiative in state courts. The stalemate persisted among the principal actors in- state coastal agency attempted to modify its new volved in coastal program design, as over-develop- regulations to comply with an appeals court's rul- merit and inappropriate development at the Jersey ings, by limiting the upland to a maximum of 1,000 Shore belied the myth that CAFRA protected the feet (305 m) from the most inland beach, dune, or coast.20 wetlands, but the State Supreme Court invalidated the new upland jurisdiction in 1990. 17 The Court CONCLUSIONS declared that the expanded jurisdiction, intended primarily to protect the coastal environment, ex- New Jersey has succeeded in managing its coast, ceeded the underlying purpose of the Waterfront but failed at protecting its coast. The distinction Development Law, which was to regulate com- between management and protection is real. Coastal merce along the waterfront itself, not areas 1,000 management includes promoting needed coastal feet or more from the water. development at the right locations. Management means striking balances between competing objec- NJDEP responded to the court decision, with the tives. Protection means protecting all fragile and support of a new governor, by adopting revised sensitive natural resources that merit protection. rules, changing the maximum upland boundary to The thresholds that became loopholes under 500 feet (154 m) from the most inland oceanfront CAFRA and the lack of integrated state-local coastal beach or dune. Again property owners successfully decision-making explain this mixed record of suc- challenged this refinement. An appeals court again cess and failure. invalidated the NJDEP rules in late 1990 as ex- ceeding the agency's legal authority under the Waterfront Development Law. 18 43 Compared with the condition of its coastal regions stormwater runoff, is increasingly a concern and waterfronts in the 1960's, New Jersey has throughout the United States, not just in New made staggering progress in protecting coastal Jersey. Indeed, the federal Coastal Zone Manage- resources and promoting environmentally-respon- ment Act Amendments of 1990 require coastal sible coastal development. For example, destruc- states to develop a Coastal Nonpoint Pollution tion of certain natural resources has been halted, Control Program. In New Jersey, large residential particularly wetlands. Public access to beaches and projects approved with CAFRA permits that re- waterfronts has increased dramatically. Explosive quire "best management practices" to control development took place in the Atlantic City region, stormwater quality and quantity have no demon- spurred on by new casinos, while New Jersey's strable adverse impacts on water quality, even on edge of the Hudson River became a focal point of nearby sensitive shellfish areas.22 By contrast, urban revitalization, both without harming the smaller projects that escape state coastal regulation coastal environment. Coastal high-rise construc- often discharge polluted stormwaters to coastal tion continued, but at locations that did not abuse waters and rely on subsurface disposal of wastewa- scenic vistas, cast shadows on beaches, or over- ter, using individual septic systems rather than whelm neighborhoods. NJDEP easily achieved the sewers. While the state coastal agency regulates original goal of CAFRA, to protect the coast from only about one-half of new development in the extensive energy industrial development, as few coastal area, existing developed areas and farming applications for such facilities were ever even practices generate significant polluted stormwaters submitted. NJDEP also upgraded its monitoring that adversely affect coastal water quality without and enforcement functions at several field loca- any state or local regulation or remedial action. tions, once federal funds were available to cover the statewide coastal zone. Despite the commitment to strong state coastal regulation, closer links have been forged between The $24 million investment in federal coastal man- the state coastal agency and local governments. agement funds in New Jersey since 1974 has been NJDEP used federal coastal funds to help local indispensable to the achievement of these results. governments develop numerous boat ramps, fish- The state's 1973 CAFRA law had included only a ing piers, waterfront walkway plans, and public paltry $ 100,000 appropriation to carry out its am- access projects. State courts have required and bitious regulatory and planning mandate. A peak of supported municipal efforts to recognize statewide about $1 million per year in coastal permit applica- coastal policies on beach access23 and marinas.24 tion fees paid by developers reimbursed the cost of The state and local governments have systemati- most, but not all of the NJDEP staff that review cally invested increased shore protection funds in those projects. This federal financial incentive beachfilling, dune creation, and related projects served its purpose effectively, and enabled the state following priorities established in the state coastal to hire a diverse planning, regulatory, and enforce- agency's 1981 Shore Protection Master Plan. ment staff, conduct special studies, and share about 10% of its funds with local governments for coastal Yet the political influence of the local governments projects. Good coastal management requires funds. and the private sector, protecting the important Federal funds have made the difference in New economic interests of oceanfront and coastal prop- Jersey between good coastal management with a erty owners along the Jersey Shore, has proven to vision and mere regulation of some coastal devel- be decisive in thwarting efforts to regulate devel- opment. opment strictly at naturally hazardous locations along the ocean and bays. Dunes remain vulnerable The issue of coastal nonpoint pollution highlights to developer destruction with local government the mixed record of the New Jersey program.21 acquiescence. While the state coastal agency has This type of water pollution, largely from undertaken extensive scientific studies and public 44 education on shoreline change, beach-dune pro- - Take advantage of threats and incentives to files, and storm hazard reduction strategies, the increaE@@ the management and protection of coastal Jersey Shore remains vulnerable to a catastrophic resources coastal storm.25 0 Act pragmatically in the political context 0 Recognize and identify economic interests and In developing New Jersey's federally-approved their power coastal management program, the state coastal - Act with a long-tenn perspective agency successfully involved diverse interests to - Be patient shape the management strategy and its policies during 1975-1980.26 This base of involvement did Notes and References not lead, however, to a legislative expansion of See also David N. Kinsey, "Lessons Learned from the New coastal jurisdiction and a reordering of state-local 1 Jersey Coastal Management Program," Journal of theAmeri- coastal relationships, despite initiatives by three can Planning Association, Vol. 5 1, No. 3, Summer 1985. pp. successive governors from two different political 330-336, and David N. Kinsey, "CZM from the State Per- parties, the state coastal agency, and legislators in spective: The New Jersey Experience," Natural Resource the 1980's and early 1990's. Journal, Vol. 25, January 1985, pp. 73-102. 2 On wetlands in New Jersey, see Ralph W. Tiner, Jr., Wet- No consensus coalesced in New Jersey on further lands of New Jersey, National Wetlands InventoKy (Newton protecting the Jersey Shore through mid-1991 due Comer, MA: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1985). to three factors: first, the enormous economic stake 3 New Jersey Statutes Annotated 13:9A-1 to -10. of coastal property owners and developers in main- 4 New Jersey Statutes Annotated 12:5-3. taining the status quo; second, a continuing lack of aconstituency for comprehensive, balanced coastal 5 Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission es- management and protection; and third, the lack of tablished in 1969. SeeNew Jersey Statutes Annotated 12:17- astute, passionate state-level political leadership 1 to -67.1. committed to long-term coastal protection. Gover- 6 New Jersey Statutes Annotated 13:19-1 to -21. nors and legislators in the late 1980's and early 7 The state coastal agency created this threshold by regula- 1990's tinkered with regulatory thresholds instead tion, by limiting the statutory definitionOf"Toad" construc- of first building coalitions to support improved tion to roads more than 1,200 feet in length and large parking protection for coastal beaches, dunes, erosion haz- lots with 300 spaces or more. See New Jersey Administra- ards areas, and critical wildlife habitat. Well-known tive Code 7:7 -2. 1 (b) 1. loopholes remain which weaken but do not fatally 8 The Pinelands Protection Act, New Jersey Statutes Anno- flaw the effectiveness of New Jersey's coastal tated 13:18A-1 to -29, was enacted in 1979. See Beryl Robichaud Collins and Emily W.B. Russell, editors, Pro- program. Built pragmatically on a base of existing tecting the New Jersey Pinelands (New Brunswick, NJ: laws in the late 1970's, this coastal program is Rutgers University Press, 1988). UNESCO designated the likely to continue to use strong state coastal regu- 1,719 square mile (4,452 km2) "Pinelands area" and its surrounding federally-defined Pinelands National Reserve lation as its strategy throughout the 1990's. as a world Biosphere Reserve in 1988. LESSONS LEARNED 9 N.J. General Assembly, A-1825,1980. 10 New Jersey Builders Association v. New Jersey, Superior These two decades of New Jersey experience sug- Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, Docket No. A- gest five lessons for would be coastal managers and 984-80-T 1, November 30, 1982; unreported. other players in the game of coastal Program de- 11 The state coastal agency had attempted to regulate under sign: CAFRA a beachfront, motel-like bathhouse project of 130 cabanas, butwasrebuffed by the New Jersey SupremeCourt as it had not adopted a rule defining "dwelling units" to include cabanas, DEP v. Stavola, 103 N.J. 425 (1986). NJDEP then amended its rules to capture projects of 25 or more cabanas. 45 12 For an independent analysis of these problems, see Erhnd Peter Kerr, "Lasissez-Faire Legacy on Jersey Shore: How Villamore, "Coastal Disturbances, Learning from CAFRA's Not to Do It," The New York Times May8,1991,p.B-1. Mistakes," New Jerspy RMgrter November 1987, pp.20- 25. 21 See Cahill Associates, Stormwater Management in the Coastal Zone of New Jersey, report prepared for the New 13 Thomas J. Kean, Governor, State of New Jersey, "A Pro- Jersey Department.of Environmental Protection, Division posal for the Coast: The New Jersey Coastal Commission," of Coastal Resources, Trenton, New Jersey, April 1989. July 1987. 22 See Tavit 0. Najarian et al., "Development Impacts on 14 N.J. General Assembly, A-4437, "New Jersey Coastal Com- Water Quality: A Case Study," Journal of Water Resources mission Act," 1987. Planning -and Management, Vol. 112, No. 1, January 1986, pp. 20-35. 15 N.J. General Assembly, Assembly Committee Substitute 23 Lusardi v. Curtis Point PropgM Owners Association 95 for A- 122, 1988. N.J. 306 (1981). 16 Governor Byrne had used an executive order to establish 24 Anfuso v. Seelgy, 243 N.J. SMer. 349 (App. Div., 1990). strict interim regulations and pressure the Legislature to enact the Pinelands Protection Act in 1979. Governor Kean 25 See Karl F. Nordstrom, et al., Living with the New Jersa had used a similar approach to prod enactment of the Shore (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1986). Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act in 1987, New Jersey Statutes Annotated, 13:9B-1 to -30. 26 See David N. Kinsey, "Organizing a Public Participation 17 Last Chance Dev@lo=ent Partnership v. Kean 119 N.J. Program: Lessons Learned from the Development of New 425(1990). Jersey's Coastal Management Program," Coastal Zone Management Journal, Vol. 8, No. 1, 1980, pp. 85-101. 18 Long Beach Township Oceanfront Prol&M Owners Asso- ciation v. NJDEP, 245 N.J..Super 143 (App. Div., 19go). For further information and provision of key references contact: 19 N.J. Senate, Senate Committee Substitute for Senate Nos. New Jersey Department of Environmental 2849 and 2821, adopted by the State Senate Land Use Management and Regional Affairs Committee, May 13, Protection and Energy 1991. Land Use Regulation Element 20 See William J. Watson and Michael Diamond, "Assault on CN401 the Shore: The Myth of Coastal Protection," ne Press Trenton, N.J. 08625 Atlantic City, N.J,, February 17, 1991, pp. A17-A20, and 46 The American Samoa Coastal Management Program Land and Water Resource Management Within a Traditional Leadership and Communal Land Tenure System Wei Peau American Samoa consists of a group of seven islands situated in the South Pacific, 2,400 miles south of Hawaii. American Samoa's traditional values and environment have been dramatically affected by change over the last 20 years. An alarming population growth, associated with increased demands for energy, consumer goods and housing, has led to an acute shortage of land and coastal resources which traditional management and stewardship practices have not been able to resolve. American Samoa's Coastal Management Program was intended to address local needs for improved coastal management, while at the same time meeting U. S. program standards. The American Samoa Coastal Program has emphasized the regulation of coastal deveopment. After eleven years, environmental awareness is increasing, but only limited progress in resource management has been achieved. This case study describes the process through which a coastal program has been introduced into a socio-cultural environment which is now based on a mixture of traditional and borrowed values, and the challenges of making a regulatory program effective in this cultural context. The case focuses on the development and implementa- tion of an inter-agency decision-making mechanism, known as the Project Notification and Review System. INTRODUCTION American Samoa maintains close ties to its tradi- tional leadership system, the basis for which is the American Samoa, the only United States Territory extended family's chief, or "matai". A family matai south of the equator, is a group of seven islands is traditionally the steward of land and water re- with a total land area of 76 square miles and a sources claimed under the ownership of his/her combined population of 47,000 people.The largest title. A matai decides which lands will be used by island in American Samoa is Tutuila, approxi- each household within the extended family, or mately 54 square miles in area with 95% of the "aiga". Prior to the beginning of this century, the Territory's population. The small islands to the surrounding coral reefs and submerged lands were east include Manua Ofu, Olosega, Ta'u, and Rose also claimed under matai ownership and given Island (an uninhabited coral atoll and National proper stewardship accordingly. Wildlife Refuge). SwainsIsland, aprivately owned coral atoll, lies approximately 225 miles to the The impact of European contact on resource man- north (Figure 1). agement in Samoa was felt through the gradual shift which occurred from a subsistence to a cash economy. In 1900, the U.S. reached agreement Lelei Peau is currently the Manager of the American Samoa with Germany and Great Britain that its own colo- Coastal Management Program in the Government of Samoa nial administration would be limited to the eastern Economic Development Planning Authority. 47 portion of the Samoan archipelago, later to become cils for four-year terms. The judicial branch in- known as American Samoa. Today, differences cludes a High Court and five District Courts. Sa- between the politically distinct Samoas (i.e. West- moan remains the vernacular language of Ameri- ern and American Samoa) are evident in all aspects can Samoa, although the official language of gov- of their development, and especially so in the type ernment business is English. and degree of environmental degradation and ad- ministrative/social responses to such emerging The environmental problems which American Sa- problems. Nevertheless, both countries have suc- moa experiences today are exacerbated by a high ceeded in legally precluding the alienation of land population growth rate and a growing dependence by non-Samoans. on commodity and petroleum product imports. With only 54 square miles of land and the majority BACKGROUND of the population on Tutuila, the Territory's 3.7% population growth rate is indeed alarming. While The American Samoa Government is established detailed data are unavailable, some sources esti- based on an American-styled system with three mate that the groundwater supplied government branches. The Executive Branch is headed by an drinking water system is now operating at close to elected Governor. A bicameral Legislature, the 85% of sustainable capacity. 1 Although this is not Fono, has law-making authority under the Territo- meant to suggest that drinking water will be the rial Constitution. Members of the House of Repre- primary limiting factor for future development, itis sentatives are elected for two year terms and may illustrative of the struggle that infrastructure plan- include residents of all social strata. Senators are ners have in keeping up with the accelerated pace registered chiefs who are selected by County Coun- of development and infrastructure demand. ob SWAIN OFUISLAND OLOSEGA ISLAND ISLAND NORTHEAST MANU'A SHORE ISLAND @P PAGO SAND& ROSE PAGO AUNU#U ISLANDS ISLAND 0 SOUTHEAST 100 SHORE MILES TUTUILA WEST 14020'S TUTUILA + 1700-40'W pacific Ocean 1 2 3 4 i -i i i mile LAND SCALE Figure 1. American Samoa 48 PROFILE Mandate for Coastal Program In 1980 the American Samoa Coastal Management Program (ASCMP) was established by law. The purpose of the Program is to provide effective resource management by protecting, maintaining, restoring and enhancing the resources of the coastal zone. ASCMP, from the very beginning, has been a fully federally funded program. Geographic Scope The entire islands of Tutuila and Aunn'u, the Manu'a Islands, Rose Island, Swains Island, and all coastal waters and submerged lands for a distance of three nautical miles seaward in all directions are designated as the coastal zone management area of American Samoa and subject to the coastal zone management policies of the Territory. In addition Special Management Areas have been established for Pago Pago Harbor and Pola Lagoon. Management Procedures/Techniques American Samoa has an American-style state agency structure, including numerous single purpose agencies. Since establishment of the ASCMP, a land use permit is necessary for all uses, developments, or activities which impact the American Samoa coastal zone. The Economic Development Planning Office (EDPO) is vested with exclusive authority to designate uses subject to management. EDPO also approves, approves with condition, or disapproves in a timely manner all land use permit applications. The Project Notification and Review System is an interagency consultation process designed to assist the regulatory agencies to better coordinate land use decisions. Of great concern and cause for increasing social current generation of elder matai - whose own tension is the growing shortage of land available upbringing is deeply rooted in traditional custom for human use. Tutuila's steep topography limits and from a time generally free of environmental human settlements to a narrow coastal strip, with concerns - is struggling to maintain tradition and the exception of a broad, ancient lava flow known family autonomy from seemingly overwhelming as the Tafuna plain, to which the focus of new government regulatory controls. residential and industrial/commercial activity has recently shifted. Land prices have risen to as much Current wisdom of developing country resource as $20,000 per 1/4 acre and legal battles over land management would give strong support to efforts ownership are all too common. to reestablish local responsibility forresource man- agement. Indeed such efforts are continually un- And so, as American Samoa begins now to look dertaken in American Samoa within the limitation ahead to the 2 1 st century, its residents cannot deny imposed by insufficient human and financial re- visible evidence of a breakdown of its traditional sources presently experienced by most resource leadership and land tenure system. The accumula- agencies. The reality however is that traditional tion of private wealth, the increased incidence of stewardship of land and water has not kept pace transfering land registration from "communal" to with accelerated change and its associated influx of "privately held", and leased government property potentially more destructive products and tech- are all evidence of the breakdown. Meanwhile, the nologies. Simply put, even if traditional self-man- 49 agement mechanisms were now in place at the would be a monumental if questionable task, given local, village level, the traditional leadership sys- the staffing and organizational history of the pro- tem has not evolved to concern itself with issues of gram. Furthermore, the policies and regulations island-wide, longer-term significance. that were adopted to model the ASCMP are of generally "stateside" methodology; many were not CASE STUDY: Coastal Resource Management applicable to the Samoan land tenure system. Much within a traditional land tenure system work was needed to establish policies that would be acceptable to the local people, while conform- It was within this setting that the American Samoa ing to federal program guidelines. Coastal Management Program (ASCMP) was es- tablished in 1980. Like most, if not all resource Nevertheless, ASCMP managed to make signifi- management programs in the Territory, ASCMP cant progress in raising general environmental from the very beginning has been a fully federally awareness during its initial seven years. This was funded program. Despite the lack of local contribu-. accomplished through public education efforts fo- tion to the program's funding, significant effort cused on people of all ages. Limited progress was was invested in securing the understanding and made, however, toward its primary goal of provid- support from traditional and elected leaders for the ing effective land and water resource management program's policies and objectives. Indeed, the de- for the Territory, or in gaining substantial public cision to authorize the ASCMP by Executive Or- support for the program's regulatory mechanisms. der, was strictly a local, voluntary one undertaken after considerable public participation in the plan- Such limited progress was perhaps due in part to ning process. The program's jurisdictional area the aforementioned ingrained cultural oppositions was established to include all lands in the Territory to external intervention in the dispensation of na- and coastal waters seaward to the three mile teni- tive lands. They were also due in part to the ineffec- torial sea limit. tiveness and inefficiency of a land use permit review process that had two principle shortcom- ings: CHRONOLOGY OF MAJOR EVENTS - favoritism: permits were predominantly issued 1980 American Samoa Coastal Management on a "who you know" basis, undermining regula- Program (ASCMP) established by Ex- tions and policies. ecutive Order 1987 ASCUP legislation submitted to theFono. another layer of bureaucracy, requiring more ASCMP hosted the Annual Pacific CZM paper work and running around. Conference in Pago Pago 1988 ASCMP legislation resubmitted The Project Notification and Review System Executive Order (3-80) amended with new Stop Order Authority The AS CMP was in operation for eight years when, Project Notification and Review System in 1988, it initiated the establishment of a coordi- Introduced nated, interagency decision-making process for 1990 ASCMP established under statute thereview of land use permit applications. The new initiative, known as the Project Notification and Review System (PNRS), was adapted for local Although ASCMP's original planning documents needs from similar permit systems in use else- outlined a process whereby village participation in where in the insular Pacific. Three principle fea- land use decisions would be achieved through the tures of the PNRS were advocated by the ASCMP establishment of decentralized "Village CZM Pro- staff as the system's major benefits: grams", this strategy was never implemented. This 50 timely review of land use permit applications resources of the Territory, must apply for a land- by providing coordination on all aspects of regula- use permit. Depending upon the type and nature of tory requirements of the various resource manage- the structure or activity, a dredging, filling, or ment agencies represented on an interagency PNRS excavation clearance, zoning variance, building Committee. permit, and/or business license may also be re- quired. Other Federal requirements may also ap- more meaningful environmental review of ply."2 development proposals by bringing together the collective experience of some 7 or 8 professionals, Since 1988, ASCMP has worked to establish a rather than a single person as was previously the coordinated system of land use review, which case. involves several American Samoa governmental agencies, each with its own technical expertise and a reduction in expense for the public by requir- authority over various economic, social and envi- ing early review of a project proposal at the concep- ronmental planning concerns. Although responsi- tual site planning stage, rather than at the stage bility for the program and the permitting system when building blueprints were already approved rests with the entire government, ASCMP has been by the Department of Public Works. This would assigned the responsibility of overall program de- eliminate expensive modifications to architectural velopment, administration, and coordination. plans, or in the event of project denial, eliminate the expense for such plans entirely. The strength of ASCMP is thus derived from the coordinated contributions of individual govern- The PNRS was ready for implementation by mid- ment agencies whose operations and technical ex- 1988. Three goals of the implementation strategy pertise form the backbone of the Territory's per- were identified: mitting system. The new Project Notification Re- view System was established as "one-stop shop- inform the public that land use permit applica- ping" for all permits. The Coastal Management tions would be received at the Economic Develop- Program, under the umbrella of the Economic ment Planning Office (rather than at the Depart- Development Planning Office (EDPO), was desig- ment of Public Works), and that only a vicinity nated as the lead coordinating entity for the PNRS. map/site plan, and an application fully describing the proposal would be required at the application The Implementation Strategy stage. As a first step, a briefing was conducted for the Governor in August of 19 8 8 on the proposed PNRS, educate the directors and technical personnel to gain support for the revised permit process, but from the various participating agencies about their also to have the Governor initiate a cabinet (direc- new roles in the PNRS review process. tor) level briefing and training workshop. As the Governor had little knowledge of the goals and draft revisions to the program -including anew objectives of resource management planning, stop order provision - through amendment to the ASCMP provided him with a report and followed Executive Order which had established the ASCMP with a lengthy presentation on the significance of in 1980. making changes in permit processing procedures. The basis for the PNRS is that: "All persons, both As a result of the Governor's briefing, the Execu- private citizens and American Samoa Government tive Order was amended giving ASCMP the au- (ASG) representatives, proposing to build or modify thority to implement the revised PNRS. The a structure, or to conduct any activity which af- AS CMP was authorized to issue stop orders, rather fects, or may affect, the natural, cultural, or historic than continue to rely on Public Works/Building 51 Branch for that matter. Stop order authority was lowable thirty working days to issue a land use necessary to strengthen the enforcement capability permit.4 and to have better control over proposed develop- ments. ASCMP established a Permit Information Section with staff trained to assist applicants to determine A three-day workshop for government personnel which permits (local or federal), licenses, or vari- explained the permitting system, and set Novem- ances are needed for a particular project. The ber 22, 1988, as a start date for the revised PNRS. ASCMP staff coordinates an interagency review All department heads were invited to a morning of any proposed project for adherence to coastal session opened with welcoming remarks by the management policies and applicable local pro- Governor. The following two and a half days were grams, plans, and policies. In this way, the coordi- geared toward technical matters involving the vari- nated review process saves time and money, and ous PNRS review agencies. provides an earlier indication to the public of whether or not permits can be issued. Prior to the workshop, and as a critical part of the program, a consolidated land use/building permit The Early Months application was developed. The two-step process During the early months of the revised PNRS, there -land use and building permit-requires only one was significant interest at the director level in the application form, which is available along with process, indicated by their regular attendance at instructions at the EDPO. The land use permit is meetings. Much of the early debate and discussion obtained from EDPO/ASCMP, while the building took place on policy issues, a predictable result of permit is obtained from the Department of Public the limited knowledge and experience with the Works/Building Branch. The building permit is new process. only granted after the land use permit is issued by EDPO/ASCMP. Several ASCMP polices had been established eight years earlier and were as yet only vaguely under- Another step in the process is the distinction be- stood. In addition, many new laws and regulations tween minor and major cases. A "minor project" is were approved subsequent to the initial program, one that is determined to have a minimal impact on causing some confusion to the PNRS Committee the island's land and water resources, and is not members. Only after months of meeting and argu- located on or adjacent to a steep slope, a wetland ments were the PNRS policies solidly formed and area, or floodplain zone. Most minor projects are applied with some consistency. A legal counsel reviewed as a routine function of the PNRS, and was hired to assist the PNRS on legal matters require less than the ten allowable working days to involved with its decision-making. issue a land use permit, provided there are no environmental or land use planning concerns. 3 Although the various media were used to inform the public on the revised PNRS, neither the change On the other hand, a "major project" is one that is in procedures, nor the title "Project Notification determined to have significant potential impact on Review System" were readily understood. Some the coastal zone. An "impact" can result from applicants were still going to Public Works for a increased discharge of pollutants or sediments to land use/building permit application for up to a ground or surface waters, or from an overtaxing year following the changes. Furthermore, because burden on existing infrastructure. Major projects of the previously discussed communal land tenure require additional review and comment by govern- system, these revisions to the permit process were ment departments having their own particular au- an opportunity for the public to open old questions thority over planning and environmental concerns. about the involvement of government in approving Major projects generally require less than the al- development on communal land. The term "PNRS" 52 had no easy translation into Samoan, and so entered decision was made to require all reconstruction to common use without much meaning to the com- undergo the permit review process. mon citizen; even worse, its meaningless acronym perhaps signified bureaucracy. A positive message had to be made to the public. That message was that the PNRS is designed to These changes resulted in chaos among govern- reduce risk from future disasters. Onceagain,work- ment agencies as well, and prompted additional shops were held after Cyclone Ofa to explain to the public and government workshops to explain the public the environmental review process that takes new system in more detail. A brochure was devel- place in the PNRS. oped in both languages on the revised PNRS. Additional in-house training was conducted to Because of the tremendous increase in applications educate the staff on the type of information re- due to rebuilding after Cyclone Ofa, two temporary quired on the land use permit application. application centers were established in the outlying districts of Tutuila. This minimized the travel and The Administration Changeover other time delays to the applicant during the initial Four months after the revised PNRS was imple- critical months of reconstruction. Surprisingly, the mented, a new administration was swom in. As a public proved to be receptive to the need for a result, a new EDPO director was appointed, a new permit that would ensure that their homes were ASCMP manager was transferred from within the constructed with respect to regulations which por- department, and a new PNRS Coordinator was trayed public safety as a priority. appointed. The outcome was that some of the key players were people who either failed to see a need This positive image was later used by EDPO/ forresource management, or were sufficiently close ASCMP staff to lobby the American Samoa Legis- to the politics of the new administration to be able lature (Fono) to pass the "Coastal Management Act to give full support for regulations that were not of 1990", giving enabling statutory authority to the always in the best interests of the PNRS. The new ASCMP for the first time in its ten year history. PNRS coordinator was a matai, a titled chief, who viewed the land use permit process unfavorably Getting Back On Track and had little experience or understanding of plan- For a brief period after the passage of the new law, ning concepts. His decisions were based on his own the ASCMP image was again on a positive track. traditional beliefs and did not conform with the The hiring of a new PNRS Coordinator to replace spirit of the coordinated, interagency review of the the political appointee proved however to be a new PNRS. The integrity of the ASCMP was brought test for the ASCMP and the land use permit system, into question, as decisions were made against the as the new incumbent was inexperienced with program's policies to accommodate the needs of permitting systems, and lacked the general under- certain powerful individuals. This conflict was standing of and commitment to resource manage- eventually seen to be unresolvable, and a decision ment and planning needs. With no clear direction was finally made to bring in a replacement. as to the importance of consistent application of environmental laws and regulations, staff morale Meanwhile... Development Does Not Wait was unfavorably affected. In the meantime, development did not wait for government to get its act together. Much effort and The situation was essentially a repeat of what took commitment was required to improve the public place earlier during the change of administration. image of ASCMP and the PNRS. Additional pres- Politics became a growing force and influence in sure was placed on the program when, in February some of the major permit decisions. The media was 1990, Cyclone Ofa struck the Territory and re- not standing idle, however, and several obvious sulted in major destruction to the islands. A critical political scandals were brought to public knowl- 53 edge. The ASCMP had entered into a new era of Effective management of the PNRS requires the public suspicion of its overall intent and honesty, support and clear direction from higher authori- which will take time to overcome. ties, as well as the competent skill of a dedicated PNRS Coordinator. The support from all govern- Life is not as perfect as one may expect in the ment agencies as instructed under statute still tropical South Pacific. While ASCMP is trying to remains to be seen. The enforcement of specific sort out its priorities, development continues to regulations pertaining to each agency's responsi- take its course. In addition, the program has a major bilities still needs to be improved through commit- responsibility: to continue to educate the public on ment and action taken in the field. the importance of proper management in a highly vulnerable, tropical island environment. A new generation of Samoans has emerged and is frustrated with the local politics. Violations are CONCLUSIONS now made public through the use of the media. Resource management is quickly becoming a pub- The introduction of an effectiv 'e coastal manage- lic issue, and the PNRS a decision-making body ment program has presented a major challenge. that will undergo increased public scrutiny for The flexibility of the CZMA has permitted Ameri- consistency in its decisions. can Samoa to develop its own program but the need to accommodate a rapid population increase within LESSONS LEARNED a mixture of traditional and borrowed cultures, has proved to be extremely difficult. Early intentions to The ASCMP has come a long way and has learned design a program that paralleled the traditional many lessons during its first 11 years. Following village council process, were never carried out. are some of the lessons learned as we have pro- The program that was developed was successful in gressed with coastal management planning in an raising environmental awareness, but has made island setting: little progress towards effective land and water resource management, due to cultural opposition In order to make coastal management proce- and the weaknesses of the land use permit review dures like the PNRS more relevant and easily process. understood to traditional societies speaking an- other language, use simpler terminology that can The Project Notification and Review System was be easily translated. Information and workshops in designed to assist the regulatory agencies to better the local language can help facilitate public sup- coordinate land use decisions. The goal of the port for new management strategies. mechanism is to issue land use permit decisions that are consistent with each agency's rules and Administration is the critical test of regulations. Despite a number of personnel and sustainability for any management program. Inad- management constraints that have plagued the sys- equate staffing or training for proper (i.e. mean- tem since its inception in 1988, the PNRS has ingful) information management is a perpetual greatly increased the interagency communication handicap and source of "organizational anxiety". and coordination in the environmental review of Aevelopment proposals in the Territory. The event - A committeereview and decision-makingpro- of getting staff together from eight different agen- cess can be highly effective in reducing favorit- cies on a bi-monthly basis has greatly increased the ism, nepotism, and/or political persuasion. It will awareness and public acceptance of the need for take strong leadership to entirely remove these resource management in the small islands of Ameri- destructive elements. can Samoa. Devise a strategy whereby the goals, objec- tives, and methodology of resource management 54 are presented to the public and key decision mak- Notes ers on a continuing basis. Political administrations changes (every four years in the U.S. system) 1. M. Dworsky, ASPA Water Division, personal communica- requires that new leadership be educated. tion, 1991. 2. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmo- Start early to identify the political and indi- spheric Administration, Office of Coastal Zone Management, vidual personalities that will be necessary for American Samoa Coastal Manaizement Program and Final publicly stated support and commitment for re- Environmental Impact Statement. source management and its policies. These efforts 3. Economic Development Planning Office, American Samoa must include traditional leaders. Goven-tment. Land and Water Resource Management inAmeri- can Samoa. The PNRS: A User's Guide. 1989. A record of the committee's proceedings and 4. Ibid. rationale for its decisions is essential for creating References the foundation for continued, internally consistent decision-making. Consistency is perhaps the most American Samoa Code Annotated, Executive Order, 1988. critical element of all for building the long-term American Samoa Code Annotated, Executive Order, 1980. basis for public support and commitment to re- Economic Development Planning Office, American Samoa Gov- ernment, The Permit Process, 1989. source management. Economic Development Planning Office, American Samoa Statis- tical Digest Draft, 1990. Central to all components of a well-function- Public Law 21-35, the Twenty-First Legislature of American Sa- moa, 1990. ing system are individuals, each with their own U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric unique set of personal, social, and professional Administration Office of Coastal Zone Management, Ameri- needs. Human resource development should be can Samoa Coastal Management Program and Final Environ- given at least equal attention as that given to goal mental Impact Statement. setting and program development. For provision of further information and key references contact: Take advantage of every opportunity to gain Economic Development Planning Office further support of the CZM program by identify- Pago Pago, ing it with issues that are directly relevant to the American Samoa 96799 public, such as public safety. 55 I 56 A Management Plan for a Coastal Ecosystem: Rhode Island's Salt Pond Region By Stephen Olsen and Virginia Lee This case study describes the process of formulating a management plan for a coastal ecosystem comprising six coastal lagoons and their 82.4 km2 watershed in southern Rhode Island. The principal issues-deteriorating water quality, rapid sedimentation, overfishing, increased vulnerability to hurricane damage and mounting user conflicts-are all closely ,interrelated and driven by rapid residential development in the watershed. The complexity of the resource management issues is matched by the complexity of governmental authority fragmented among agencies of municipal, state and federal government. The plan required four years of scientific research to estimate the causes, linkages and significance of selected expressions of loss in environmental quality and two years of collaborative planning and negotiation with many agencies of government. During the six years following its formal adoption as an element of the Rhode Island Coastal Management Program, the plan has achieved many of its objectives but has not halted the gradual erosion of environmental quality in this beautiful and productive coastal region. INTRODUCTION petition among often incompatible activities threat- ens to overwhelm the capacity of the salt ponds to Since the Rhode Island Coastal Management Pro- absorb wastes, provide shelter for boats and ves- gram began in 197 1, concern that the environmen- sels, produce seafood and maintain the scenic quali- tal quality of the salt pond region is rapidly eroding ties that attract residents and tourists and underpin has been a major concern, both locally and for the exceptionally high value of the land. Large officials of state government. A process of rapidly areas of the salt ponds are poorly flushed, which intensifying use was spurred in the 1950s by the makes them valuable as fish and shellfish nurseries construction of highways that have made the re- but also particularly susceptible to eutrophication gion ever more accessible to commuters and a and bacterial contamination. Their ecology can be booming national economy. The number of houses drastically changed by such alterations as stabiliz- in the watersheds of the six lagoons selected as the ing the inlets that connect them to the ocean, focus for the management plan increased threefold dredging channels, and altering the quality and between 1950 and 1980 from 1,775 to 5,570 units quantity of freshwater inflow. (Figure 1). Under state and municipal land use control regulations in force in 1984, there was a BACKGROUND potential for three times more houses and seven times more residents being crowded into this small Rhode Island is the smallest of the 48 contiguous area. During summer months an additional 165,000 states and one of the most densely populated. It lies tourists pour into the south shore on a peak day. between New York City and Boston and is thus a This burgeoning population and increasing com- part of the northeast coastal megalopolis that stretches over some 130,000 km2 across ten states. Stephen Olsen is the Director, and Virginia Lee is a Program Until the mid 1970s, Rhode Island's population Manager at the Coastal Resources Center of the University of was concentrated in the northern part of the state Rhode Island. They are the co-authors of the SpecialArea around Providence, the capital city and the south- Management Planfor the Salt Ponds Region. 57 ern part of the state was rural and heavily wooded. In the late 1970s, residents of the region were Since then, a boom in residential development has galvanized by the possible siting of a nuclear decentralized the state's growing population. power plant on excess Navy property on the shores of Ninigret Pond. In a series of public hearings that A string of sandy barrier beaches and scenically accompanied the adoption of the statewide coastal beautiful coastal lagoons (known locally as "salt management plan, local residents forcefully re- ponds") that have been extremely bountiful in quested that government pay greater attention to fish, shellfish, and waterfowl, stretch along the the region, align contradictory policies and man- Atlantic coast (Figure 2). This are is the center for age environmental changes in the region more lucrative summer tourism and contains a large effectively, so that the quality of life and the proportion of the state's most valuable residential economy of the area could be sustained. property (Table 1). The state's biggest commer- cial fishing port is at the mouth of Point Judith Pond. Table 1. Selected characteristics of the lagoons and their watersheds. Area of Land and Land Use in 1981 82.4 km2 Number of houses in pond watersheds 1939-1988 Developed 27% Undeveloped 73% Conservation 12% 50W Area of the six lagoons 17 km2 Ho ging units in watersheds, 1980 5,570 QUONCHONTAUG ojected at saturation 12,400 4000 -0- POINT JUDITH/POTTER Boats at marinas, 1981 1,274 Boats at private docks, 1981 1,432 NINIGRE7/GREN HILL Fishing vessels home ported at Galilee 160 3000 WINNAPAUGMASCMUG Estimated, frqhwater inflow to lagoons 64.2 x 10.3m.5/yr Ground ater 51% Streams 34% Precipitation 12% 20W Surface Runoff 3% Estimated finfish harvest 19792 5 1,000 kg Estmyted shellfish harvest (meats) low - 1979 5,200 kg Estinyted bay scallop harvest (meats) 1979 80,000 kg 0 1930 1940 1950 1900 1970 1980 1990 1 Some 57 percent of the total stream flow enters the head of one of the six lagoons (Pt. Judith). Year 2Landings in all coastal pond fisheries are highly variable. In 1978, the bay scallop catch was approximately 160,000 kg while in 1980 it was less than 3,000 kg. American eel landinis declined from 30,000 kg in 1979 to approximate y 1,000 kg in 1982. Figure 1. Trends in Housing Development. From Olsen, 1984. 58 The Deterioration of Environmental Quality 1982; Harlin and Thorne-Miller 1981; Lee and Olsen 1985). The evidence of deteriorating environmental qual- ity can be summarized as follows: 0 Unmanaged growth threatens to overwhelm the ecosystem's capacity to assimilate waste and Fish and shellfish stocks have declined drasti- sustain potable drinking water; the farmland and cally (Crawford, 1984, 1985). woodland that give the area much of its character, beauty and sense of community are being lost. Stabilized inlets are causing rapid siltation in the lagoons: shoaling inlets no longer provide Building continues in highly hazardous coastal boats with safe access to the ocean and are chang- flood zones where property destruction and loss of ing water circulation patterns (Boothroyd 1988, life have been severe in past hurricanes (Miller, Isaji et al, 1985). 1975). Water pollution is becoming more severe and User conflicts are accelerating: competition widespread: bacterial contamination threatens to between aquaculture, recreational and commercial close shellfishing grounds and eutrophic condi- fisheries, residents and commercial interests are tions are degrading fishing habitats and the quality mounting as the number of people using the la- of the lagoons for swimming and boating (Nixon goons and their environs increases. N MA55ACHUSETTS'.. 41ID35' RHODE.t ISLAN. CONNECTICUT 419 2 5' NEW, YORK 6 41(Q3O' C E N 0 -T C L N I @o'30' POINT JUDITH 144 41925' GREEN POTTER QUONOCHONTAUG HILL NINIGRET WINNAPAUG MASCHAUG Sta.5 Sta. 3 Sta. 12 Sta. 10 41(P20' Sta. 1 9A Sta. 16A 0 6 12Km Block Island 5ound 7 10 50' 71q40' 7 1IR30' Figure 2. The Salt Ponds Region. 59 Overlying these specific concerns was a belief and ineffectual. What appeared to be most urgently among the public that government had not been required for the salt pond region was a comprehen- responsive. Agency decision-making was viewed sive management strategy or plan that would pro- as cumbersome, contradictory, time consuming, vide a common basis for policy and permit deci- PROFILE Mandate for Coastal Management The Coastal Resources Management Act enacted by the Rhode Island legislature in 197 1 states that: "...it shall be the policy of this state to preserve, protect, develop and where possible restore coastal resources for this and succeeding generations ... through comprehensive, long-range planning and management designed to produce the maximum benefit for society and that the preservation and restoration of ecological systems shall be the primary guiding principal by which alteration of coastal resources will be measured, judged and regulated." The legislation created a seventeen-member Coastal Resources Management Council (CRMC) representing various elements of state and municipal government and provided it with authority to (a) coordinate federal, state and local actions in the coastal region, (b) undertake the required long- term planning, and (c) regulate specified areas and activities through a permit program. Geographic Scope The CRMC has authority over any alteration within (a) the three-mile territorial sea, but excluding fisheries; (b) a zone extending inland 206 feet from the shoreward boundary of coastal features (e.g., cliffs, beaches, coastal wetlands) and (c) specified actions (e.g., sewage treatment facilities, petroleum processing) wherever they may occur within the state if they are found to pose a reasonable probability of damage to the environment of the coastal region. Management Procedures 0 From 1971 through 1985, planning and policy development for the CRMC was carried out, through annual contracts, by the Coastal Resources Center at The University of Rhode Island. Starting in 1986, the CRMC retained an executive director and its own policy, planning and permit staff. 0 The permit program consumes the majority of the time of the CRMC and its staff. Approximately 800 permits are processed each year. The permit process is governed by the 1983 statewide Coastal Resources Management Program, a document that sets forth CRMC policies, procedures and regulations and by a series of more detailed Special Area Management (SAM) Plans. The SAM Plans provide the CRMC with permit authority over larger areas of land than the 200 ft. permit capture zone. The CRMC relies largely upon the Department of Environmental Management to enforce its regulations. 60 sions by municipal, state and federal agencies. there was little information of a scientific nature on the resources and condition of the lagoons, the The Rhode Island Coastal Management Pro- CRC worked with an interdisciplinary team of gram research scientists to prepare an ambitious research program. Federal grants from the Sea Grant Pro- Rhode Island has been one of the pioneers in gram and the CRMC's federal funds for planning coastal management in the United States. A year and policy development, supplemented by small before passage of federal legislation, in 197 1, the grants from other governmental agencies and mu- Rhode Island General Assembly enacted ambi- nicipalities, provided the resources for a six-year tious legislation that created a 17-member Coastal research and planning process. Resources Management Council (CRMC) and granted it broad powers (see Profile Box). An initial comprehensive management program was adopted by the CRMC in 1975, but proved to be too CHRONOLOGY OF MAJOR EVENTS cumbersome for the routine permit applications that came before the CRMC during a protracted GENERAL: boom in residential development. In 1980, the 1971 Rhode Island Coastal Resources Manage- CRMC and the URI Coastal Resources Center ment Council created by state legislature agreed to work together on a new response to the 1972 Federal CZM Act enacted legislative mandate to "plan for the preservation 1975 State Coastal Zone Management Plan and restoration of ecological systems" and to rede- adopted by CRMC sign of the supporting regulatory program. The 1978 RI CRMP approved in conformance with 1980 strategy to revise the state's coastal program national CZM Act had two mutually- supporting elements: 1983 RI CRMP revised SALT POND REGION: The regulatory procedures and standards for routine permit applications would be simplified 1975 Public hearings for adoption of RICRMP and the CRMC's objectives for balancing among highlighted problems of the Salt Pond Region competing interests would be made explicit by 1979 Ecological history conducted zoning the shoreline and all state waters. The 1980-84 Multidisciplinary research project published activities to be encouraged, considered, or prohib- 1983-84 Salt Ponds Advisory Committee meetings ited would be specified within each zone. The 1984 Special Area Management Plan for the Salt revised regulatory program was formally adopted Pond Region adopted by CRMP 1985 Amendments to the plan in 1983 and continues today as the basis for all 1985-90 Further amendments in response to lessons CRMC permit decisions. of implementation 0 Recognizing that the permit program is by nature responsive and cannot address the root causes I of the complex set of problems that result in envi- ronmental degradation and conflict in some areas, CASE STUDY: A Coastal Ecosystem the second element of the strategy was a set of Management Plan "Special Area Management Plans" that would ana- lyze problems and their causes in priority geo- Estimating the Causes, Linkages and Signirl- graphically-defined areas and present a compre- cance of Priority Problems hensive strategy for their resolution. Ecological History. If it is to succeed and be The area most urgently requiring a Special Area sustained, any resource management strategy re- Management Plan was the Salt Pond Region. Since quires the active support of major segments of the 61 concerned public. In the year before funds for the Water quality problems proved to be the best research phase were secured, the Coastal Resources integrator among all the problems affecting the Center commissioned Dr. Scott Nixon and his region. The water quality problems in the salt pond associate, Virginia Lee, to prepare an ecological region range from bacterial contamination, that history that traced the changing relationship of had already closed areas of the lagoons to man with the coastal lagoons. This proved to be an shellfishing, to contamination of drinking water excellent means for involving the public at the supplies and symptoms of eutrophication. outset of the planning process. The complaints heard at public meetings suggested that the condi- A year of monitoring coliform levels (Nixon 1982) tion of the ponds had been significantly different in the lagoons demonstrated that the concentra- within living memory. Although there was very tions of these bacteria had increased markedly little formal scientific data, old records, fishing since samples had been analyzed by the state some logs, and interviews with "old timers" who had years before. Review of studies conducted else- fished the salt ponds or farmed adjacent lands, were where in the United States on the sources of bacte- examined and integrated in a booklet entitled The rial contamination and the distribution of areas of Elusive Conpromise, RhodeIslandsCoastalPonds high concentration in the lagoons led to the conclu- and Their People (Lee 1980). It became a local sion that the sources were surface runoff from best seller. It presented a convincing and appealing densely developed residential areas, particularly picture of a time when the salt ponds were in older communities where on-site sewage disposal balance with their human users. Many of the systems were failing. stories of large and productive oyster beds, abun- dant harvests of a variety of fish and shellfish, and Concern for eutrophication called for a major ef- rapid changes in the salinity regimes brought by the fort to develop nutrient input budgets for the la- construction of permanent stabilized inlets, were goons. This work has shown that by far the largest verified and documented. This was a vindication nitrogen loading to the lagoons was the nitrate in for the "old timers" who felt that for once they had groundwater. A synthesis of the research on nutri- been carefully listened to and their vast knowledge ent sources in the salt pond region combined with and insight into these systems recognized. The research conducted elsewhere, particularly on Long story made for good newspaper articles and pro- Island, New York (Koppleman, 1978), led to the vided the research team with an appreciation for conclusion that residential development, specifi- the changing character of the place. Most impor- cally on-site sewage disposal and fertilizers, was tant of all, the ecological history identified the the principal source of this anthropogenically de- salient issues that a research and management rived nitrogen. Field experiments (Harlin and strategy would need to address. Thorne-Miller, 198 1) demonstrated that additions of nitrogen in the form of nitrate and ammonia Once the major contributors to declining environ- trigger massive blooms of nuisance algae mental quality had been defined, research priori- (Enteromorpha spp., Ulva spp.) that is all too ties had to be selected. This was a complex task, apparent in several salt ponds during the summer that was led by Dr. Scott Nixon. The traditional months. An analysis of existing municipal zoning "ecological characterization" was avoided. In- plans and ordinances that determine the density stead, research was carefully focused on improv- and distribution of development had shown that the ing our understanding of a few key ecosystem development process was less than half complete processes. The perceptions of declining environ- and that under existing regulations the numbers of mental quality were simplified to three principal houses in the watersheds of the lagoons could be research topics: declining water quality, sedimen- expected to double and the resident population to tation and overfishing, each of which required a increase fourfold. Additional deterioration is un- number of research tasks. 62 avoidable. For instance, the research on the enrich- tial for what appeared in the 1970s to be a promis- ment of groundwater with nitrate raised the addi- ing small-scale oyster aquaculture industry. Eutro- tional issue of the potability of drinking water phic conditions -also are increasing areas of soft, supplies. In the United States the limit for potable highly organic bottom sediments that are virtually water is 10 mg/L of nitrate nitrogen. This level has devoid of shellfish. These areas were formerly already been attained in some areas of the SaItPond productive sandy bottoms. The effects of eu- Region, and such concentrations are expected to trophication on finfish stocks are less obvious but extend over much larger areas at saturation devel- may be equally significant. Localized fish kills that opment. may be attributed to low oxygen and high tempera- tures are known to occur and, if they become more A common response to problems such as these is to common and widespread, could have a significant build, at great expense, public water supply and impact on thejuvenile flounder that are abundant in sewage systems. A small public water supply the lagoons during the summer. system already exists to service older communities where wells are contaminated by bacteria. A One of the biggest threats of increasing water regionwide water system, however, will pose the pollution to fisheries, however, is indirect. If the enormous probleffis of securing an adequate source lagoons become more polluted by high levels of of unpolluted supply and in altering freshwater bacterial contamination and eutrophic waters, there inputs to the individual salt ponds. A public sewer will be mounting pressure to increase water circu- system will effectively eliminate major sources of lation and flushing. This could be readily accom- nitrate and bacteria to groundwater. However, plished by dredging out channels and inlets and by experience in neighboring states has shown that cutting new connections between adjoining la- such services encourage dense development. A goons and to the ocean. Research relating the large number of users is needed to defray the costs hydrography of the salt ponds to their value for of building and maintaining such services and as fisheries showed, however, that such modifica- the area becomes increasingly urban in character tions have profound implications on the conserva- the nutrients and bacteria carried by surface runoff tive qualities of the lagoons as nursery areas for become more significant. The likely end result finfish and can have major impacts on the produc- would be eutrophic salt ponds with large areas tivity of shellfish stocks as well. Such modifica- closed by bacterial contamination-a similar con- tions would also in many instances accelerate the dition to that produced by smaller populations already severe problem of rapid siltation of the without these amenities. A better strategy is, if lagoons by sand carried in the inlets by fast-flow- possible, to reduce the ultimate density of develop- ing tidal currents. Thus, eutrophication, bacterial ment and to implement a variety of measures to contamination and strategies to address their water reduce the flow of nutrients and bacteria into both quality problems have major implications for fish- groundwater and the lagoons. eries management. Fisheries. The implications of water pollution on Declines in habitat quality, however, are only one fisheries are enormous. State law requires that reason for the remarkable decline in the fisheries of areas be closed to shellfishing when coliform bac- the salt ponds in this century. Equally important is teria concentrations attain prescribed levels. The the chronic overfishing by commercial and recre- studies suggested that if the development trends ational fishermen. The research has demonstrated were to continue unchecked, areas that still support that undersized shellfish dominate in beds acces- intensive shellfishing would eventually have to be sible to fishermen. In the Ninigret and Point Judith closed. In certain coves, episodes of low oxygen lagoons it is typical for 50 percent of the quahogs limit the few remaining oyster populations to near (Mercenaria mercenaria), 75 percent of the soft- surface waters. This has greatly reduced the poten- shelled clams (Mya arenaria) and 90 percent of the 63 oysters (Crassostrea virginica) to be undersized. draulics of Point Judith salt pond were assessed. While commercial fishermen will stop fishing when Dredging other areas of this pond would provide the catch-per-unit of efforts become too low to be for more "boat habitat," and perhaps temporarily economically attractive, recreational fishermen will improve water quality in some areas, but only at the continue to work areas where hours of digging cost of increased sedimentation and the likelihood yield only a handful of undersized shellfish. The of adverse impacts on fisheries habitats and unde- planning team became convinced that in the con- sirable degradation of conservative mixing pat- text of a free and common fishery, regulations terns critical for the successful larval development alone will not solve overfishing. The fisheries of of commercially important species. the lagoons are too small to warrant the enforce- ment effort that would be needed if existing regu- lations were to be strictly applied. The research The Negotiation Process also demonstrated that the fisheries of the lagoons change rapidly from one year to another and that There were two distinct forms of negotiation and effective management must be founded on a sus- collaborative thinking required to formulate the tained and attentive monitoring program. If man- plan. The first was internal, among those con- agement is to be effective, the responses to new cerned with the policy and planning implications problems and opportunities must be rapid and of the work and the researchers. The second was based on good information. the more formal and structured process of negotia- tion among public interest groups and among gov- Sedimentation. Reports dating back to the last ernmental agencies. century document that it has long been believed that greater water exchange between the lagoons Collaborative Research. During 1980 through and the ocean will enhance fisheries, promote the 1983, it was no simple matter to create and main- use of -lagoons as safe anchorages and flush out tain the sense of a collaborative effort among the pollutants. However, that permanent artificially many principal researchers. It was also a major stabilized breachways connecting the lagoons to challenge to keep track of the research findings and the ocean have caused a rapid increase in sedimen- the initial interpretations thereof, and apply them to tation, altered the bottom habitat for fisheries, the management questions as the components of a made boating hazardous and did not solve the management strategy gradually evolved. An im- pollution problem. Detailed studies (Boothroyd, portant technique for building a common sense of 198 1) of Ninigret Pond have demonstrated that the purpose was a series of annual reviews, at which all permanent breachway built in 1952 more than major participants in the endeavor were required to doubled the annual rate of sedimentation on the spend a full two to three days to review the research tidal delta from 2,000 m3 to 5,000 m3. The findings and brainstorm on their possible implica- .accelerated rate of sedimentation, if unchecked, tions and interrelationships. The major manage- will result in the lagoon being cut in two by a sand ment questions, including what modifications to flat within thirty years. Similar problems are recommend for the breachways, what to conclude associated with the breachways of all the salt from the shellfish surveys, and how to reduce ponds. The only exception is in Point Judith Pond. nutrient inputs, served as reference points for the Because the fishing port of Galilee is just inside the discussions. Many of the ideas that later became breachway, the harbor is kept functional by the central to the management strategy first emerged in U.S. Army Corps by dredging out some 10,000 m3 these sessions. The need for a considerable number of tidal delta sediment approximately every five of mid-course corrections in the research priorities years (Friedrich 1988). Using the hydrodynamic also surfaced and were incorporated into the re- computer model (Isaji et al, 1985) the ramifications search plans of the investigators. Collaborative of making further large-scale changes to the hy- field studies and interpretation of research results 64 for management strategies also helped build an The Process of Drafting the Management appreciation for the many interrelationships among Strategy the research findings. The Coastal Resources Management Council as- Efforts to involve interested citizens into the pro- sembled an advisory committee that included mu- cess of research and understanding issues within nicipal officials, representatives of major interest the ponds were highly successful. This was orga- groups (fishermen, environmentalists, development nized around the concept of "pond watchers." interests), representatives of the Department of These were citizens who lived near the ponds and Environmental Management, and members of the who had expressed an interest in the project and CRMC. This group worked intensively over two offered to help, at earlier meetings or workshops. periods in 1983 and 1984. The first round focused A number of principal investigators used pond upon detailed syntheses of research findings on watcher observations in theirresearch results, most each of the major topics to be addressed by the plan. notably the work on waterfowl, water quality, and The second round of the Committee's delibera- documenting the magnitude of the recreational tions focused on what to do, rather than the analysis fishing catch. Such detailed coverage would have of the problems and their implications. It had been prohibitively expensive to obtain in any other emerged from the first round of meetings that way and extremely important data were produced. "non-regulatory initiatives" would be fully as im- The pond watcher program had many other ben- portant as the more traditional rules and regula- efits in that it provided a core of citizens to serve as tions of permitting agencies and much time was a conduit for information and ideas within their given to shaping actions that could be carried out communities and provide the participants with a on a voluntary basis. sense of ownership of the overall effort. The key to adoption of any new management strategy was to Once the draft plan had been approved in principle engender a philosophy of stewardship amongst the by the Committee, it was released to the press and citizenry. The overall effort could only succeed if again became the subject of another set of in-depth the citizenry itself was committed and were active and supportive newspaper articles. At the same participants in the entire research management time, the Plan was presented at a series of public planning process. workshops, which built further support. The Plan was then subject to the formal hearing process Involvement of Municipal Officials. Another required by the Rhode Island Administrative Pro- major challenge was to convince municipal offi- cedures Act. This is an often contentious and cials that they did have the power and the ability to awkward process that does not easily promote influence how the land was developed. The means negotiation among parties in conflict. It is a testa- of achieving this was by organizing dinner semi- ment to the enormous amount of work that pre- nars and inviting members of the town councils, the ceded the fon-nal hearing process that all conflicts planning boards, and the zoning boards of all three had been worked out well in advance and the towns. By bringing them together, they could get formal hearing consisted almost entirely of strong to know one another and learn the commonalties of statements in support of the strategy from a broad their problems and experience. As a result, a cross-section of government officials at both the critical mass of the local officials were convinced municipal, state and federal level, and many citi- that problems could indeed be overcome and that zens. The Plan was formally adopted by the Man- exciting new approaches to old problems were agement Council in November 1984, approximately being successfully tested elsewhere. They helped one year after formal adoption of the new statewide create a sense of common purpose and trust. regulatory coastal program. 65 A major challenge posed to those attempting to general welfare" of the resident population through structure an integrated management plan, that zoning ordinances that regulate the size of indi- once formally adopted would have the force of vidual lots and set performance standards on how law, was the fragmentation among governmental they may be developed. Changing existing zoning authority and land ownership. While the lagoons, to reduce the number of buildable lots in an area is and their associated beaches, wetlands, fisheries, an undertaking with major political implications. waterfowl and even the state-owned fishing port The strategy, therefore, was to achieve sufficient are all common property resources over which consensus among all parties as to the nature of the governmental authorities are well established, 88 problems and to then define common management percent of the watershed is privately owned and objectives. Both governmental agencies and the here the authorities of government are less strong. public must thoroughly understand the nature of Privately owned land is owned by thousands of the problems and alternative courses of action individuals the great majority of which own a before any attempt is made to mount a politically single house lot. For those owning the non-public charged new initiative. Therefore adopted a flex- portion of the undeveloped land that comprised 73 ible, iterative approach was adopted where re- percent of the watershed in 19 84, the value of their search results and their interpretation were exam- land is directly proportional to the number of ined and discussed by major stakeholders over a house lots into which it can be subdivided. protracted period. Instead of a massive report, discussion of individual topics through a newslet- Municipal governments control the density and ter, newspaper articles and public presentations. type of development for the "health, safety and The Plan that was adopted in late 1984 contains the following major features: Problems Actions Taken Through The Plan 1. A sequential permit process involving several munici- Coordinated permit review whereby major enivronmental pal and state regulatory agencies results in inefficiency, issues posed by a development proposal are identified at unnecessary expense and an unsatisfactory planning and the outset and the information and analysis requirements negotiation process. of local and state governmental agencies are shared. 2. Non-regulatory resource management initiatives are Form an Action Committee chaired by the CRMC that uncoordinated and ad hoc in nature. includes municipal and state agencies to identify annual priorities and coordinate non-regulatory initiatives. 3. The potential number of houses and resident population Three of the four municipalities have amended their land in the watershed must be reduced to reduce nutrient and use zoning plans to increase lot sizes in critical areas (from bacterial loading, to protect the qualities of the region and 1/4-acre lots to 3 and 5-acre lots). to forestall the eventual need for sewering and expanding public water systems. 4. (a) Salt pond water quality threatened by increasing For pre-existing development: upgrade and maintain bacterial contamination and eutrophication. sewage disposal systems, reduce sources of runoff so there (b) Public water supplies (groundwater) threatened by are no direct discharges to the ponds. excessive nitrate loadings from on-site sewage disposal - For new development: decrease the density of develop- and fertilizers. ment by increasing the lot sizes and in specificed areas require construction setback and undisturbed buffer zones. *Severely limit extensions to public water and sewer systems where these would encourage high density residential or commercial development. - Strong public education and incentive programs. *Promote research and implementation of denitrification technology. Establish wastewater management districts for non- sewered areas. 66 5. Stablized inlets have brought increased sedimentation, - Strictly limit further dredging. destroyed brackish water fisheries and reduced nursery - Detailed regulations for the maintenance of catchment habitats. basins in each inlet. - Proposals for tide gates where appropriate. 6. Chronic overfishing and habitat degradation have - Fisheries stewards proposed to monitor stocks, inten- severely reduced fin and shellfish populations: once sively manage selected sites to increase yields, demon- important brackish water fisheries eliminated. strate how fisheries can be improved, and enforce pre- existing regulations. - Several modifications to catch and size limits and fishing seasons recommended to R.I. Fisheries Council. 7. Hurricanes periodically devastate the region; develop- - Construction setback of 30 times the annual erosion rate ment is currently at an unprecedented level and future and more for commercial structures. destruction to property and alterations to salt pond ecology - Construction on designated undeveloped barriers will be large. prohibited. - Expansion of public utilities prohibited in high hazard areas of barrier spits. - Post storm building moratorium in high damage areas. 8. Human uses and conflicts will further intensify as - Priority sites for preservation identified. development proceeds; some further deterioration in - Recommended upgrading of public facilities and environmental quality is inevitable. infrastructure specified. CONCLUSIONS 0 The municipalities have adopted modifications to their zoning plans and ordinances that have The Special Area Management Plan has now been significantly reduced the ultimate density of devel- in effect for six years. With the benefit of hind- opment within the watersheds of the lagoons. sight, the major features of the strategy and their Opposition to some of these modifications was relative success appear to be as follows: intense and well-organized, but the Plan and con- cem forprotecting environmental quality persuaded The Plan has succeeded in providing three the majority of voters to support the changes. levels of government (municipalities, state agen- cies and federal agencies) with a common, for- The DEM has extensively reviewed the criteria mally adopted set of objectives and strategies. The by which it evaluates the potential impacts of on- sense of isolation and working at cross purposes site sewage disposal systems. State codes have between municipal and state regulatory agencies been changed to provide for more stringent siting has been largely overcome. The coordinated re- and construction standards for septic systems in the view of major development proposals that is a salt pond region. Legislation has been passed to major feature of the Plan does not occur with the allow towns to establish wastewater management formality originally envisioned, but the town re- districts for non-sewered areas. quests a review by the CRMC staff at the initial stages of formulating a proposal so that the local No large-scale proposals have been made to planning boards can benefit from technical review invest in infrastructure such as sewer systems and and may assume that proposals meet CRMC stan- public water supply systems that would ultimately dards from the beginning of the development pro- increase the density of development. Moreover, cess. public infrastructure has been prohibited from storm hazard areas and in one case public water lines have been removed from a hazardous barrier beach area. 67 @ Non-point source pollution loadings are re- The ecological history was of enormous uced by buffer strips, building setbacks, limiting value in framing the issues, providing a common the number of docks, and requiring grassy swales context for all participants, and involving major to treat road runoff. segments of the local populace. # Heightened awareness has been sustained - The Plan was negotiated on the basis of a fair among the public and governmental officials for and open process of evaluation and planning. It the costs of development in terms of both environ- was crucial that one group, the URI Coastal Re- mental quality and the public services that must be sources Center, was committed to the planning and sustained by local taxes. negotiation process and provided consistent lead- ership through the four-year period of formulating The Special Area Management Plan has served the strategy. as the model for similar linked research and plan- ning initiatives elsewhere in Rhode Island and in - The Special Area Management Plan demon- other coastal states. The major features of the Plan strates how research, planning, policy reform and have been adopted by planners for the watersheds public education can be successfully knit together abutting the original Salt Pond Region to the north into a coherent mutually supportive process. and west. LESSONS LEARNED REFERENCES Activity associated with the preparation of the Bookthroyd, J., N. Friedrich. and S. McGinn. 1985. Geology of Microtidal Coastal Lagoons: Rhode island. Marine Geol- Plan succeeded in modifying the behavior of gov- M. Vol. 63. p. 35-76. ernment and the population living within the wa- Crawford, R. 1984. Rhode Island Lagoon Fishieries; the Conse- tershed of the lagoons. The actions taken, how- quences of 100 Years of Habitat Restoration. Manage- ever, have not been sufficient to reverse or halt the ment of Coastal Lagoons, Fisheries Studies and Reviews identified trends in environmental degradation. No. 61, Vol 2. FAO, Rome, Italy. Fishery resources today are not more abundant in Crawford, R. and C. Grove-Carey. 1985. Retention of Winter the lagoons, the sedimentation process continues Flounder Larvae within a Rhode Island Salt Pond. Estu- and water quality in some areas is worse. Many aries. Vol. 8 p. 217-227. actions have been taken but the lesson appears to be Harlin, M.M. and B. Thorne-Miller. 198 1. Nutrient Enrichment of inescapable that society is not willing or able to halt Seagrass Beds in a Rhodelsland Coastal Lagoon. Marine the development process when land is fragmented Biology Vol. 65, p. 221-229. in thousands of private holdings and when the Isaji,T.,M. Spaulding, andJ. Stace. 1985. Tidal ExchangeBetween economic and social pressures are intense to con- a Coastal Lagoon and Offshore Waters. Estuaries. Vol. 8 p. tinue the transformation from a rural to a residen- 203-216. tial community. Koppelman, L. 1978. The Long Island Comprehensive Waste Treatment Management Plan. Hauppauge, N.Y., Nassau- The notable successes achieved in new re- Suffolk Regional Planning Board, 2 vols: 364p. source management initiatives and revisions to the Lee, V. 1980. An Elusive Compromise: Rhode Island's Coastal procedures and policies of government agencies Ponds and Their People. Coastal Resources Center, Univer- came because local citizens worked hard to ac- sity of Rhode Island Marine Technical Report No. 73, tively support the Plan. Without their participation Kingston R.I. the required compromises and commitments would Lee, V. and S. Olsen. 1985. Eutrophication and Management not have been made. It was very important to Initiatives for theControl of NutrientInputs to Rhodelsland formulate management strategies that actively in- Coastal Lagoons. Estuaries. Volume 8, p. 191-202. volved the interested populace in the research, monitoring and planning process. 68 Miller, H.C. 1975. -Coastal Flood Plain Management and the special Area Management Plan, Rhode Island Coastal Re- National Flood Insurance Program; A Case Study of Three sources Management Council, Adopted November 1984. Rhode Island Communities. Environmental Comment. Urban Land Institute, p. 2-14. Olsen, S. 1985. Science and Politics in the Management of Ecosystems: Some Lessons From Rhode Island.m Proceed- Nixon, S. 1982. Nutrient Dynamics, Primary Production and ings of the International Symposium on Utilization of Coastal Fisheries Yields of Lagoons. Proceedings of the Intema- Ecosystems: Planning, Pollution and Productivity, 21-27 tional Symposium on Coastal Lagoons. Bordeaux, France. November 1982, Rio Grande, Brazil, Vol. 1. September 198 1. Oceanological Acta. No. SP. State of Rhode Island. 1983. Coastal Resources Management Olsen, S. and V. Lee. 198 1. Inlet Modifications: An Example of Program. Providence, R.I. an Holistic Approach to Lagoonal Management. Proceed- ings of the International Symposium on Coastal Lagoons, For further information and provision of key Bordeaux, France, September 1981. Oceanologica Acta, references contact: 1982 No. SP. Olsen, S. 1984. A Holistic Approach to Management of Coastal The Coastal Resources Center Lagoons. Management of Coastal Lagoons, Fisheries Stud- The University of Rhode Island ies and Reviews. No. 61. Vol 2. FAO, Rome Italy. Narragansett, RI 02882 Olsen, S. and V. Lee. 1984. Rhode Island's Salt Pond Region: A 69 70 Virgin Islands National Park Efforts to Balance Marine-based Tourism with Protection of Coral Reefs and Seagrass Beds in a National Park Caroline S. Rogers The marine resources within the Virgin Islands National Park include coral reefs, seagrass beds, and the fishes and other organisms, including endangered species such as sea turtles which depend on these ecosystems. Stress on these resources come primarily from tourism and intense recreational use, overfishing, and coastal and upland development. Marine- based tourism provides the most visible evidence of change as dramatic increases in the number of people visiting the park has led to congestion and crowding of some beaches; conflicts between the different groups using the park (e.g., boaters and fishermen); breakage of corals by inexperienced snorkelers; and habitats destruction from boats'and ships running aground on shallow coral reefs and anchoring on seagrass beds and reefs. The National Park Service has attempted to minimize the adverse effects of human activity by a combination of education, research, communication and direct resource management. This case study describes the efforts of park managers to reduce anchor damage to coral reefs and seagrass beds. It highlights the need for and use of scientific information in the management process. Coral protection is one element of a strategy to manage marine based tourism, based on the clear management objectives of the National Park Service. INTRODUCTION Documentation of the damage to these valuable resources by the park research staff led to specific Efforts are being made to balance marine-based resource management actions, which are a focal tourism and preservation of marine resources within point of this case study. Unlike many Caribbean Virgin Islands National Park (VINP) on the Carib- islands seeking to increase tourism to bring in bean island of St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) much needed revenues, St. John is seeking to avoid (Figure 1). excessive use. As with all U.S. National Parks, VINP is mandated to conserve its resources while Virgin Islands National Park is now experiencing still allowing for public use. The challenge is to many adverse consequences associated with recent ensure that people can continue to enjoy the park increases in tourism. The combined resident and without causing further degradation of valuable tourist use level has more than tripled since 1976. marine resources. The impact of this number of people on the marine resources and park infrastructure has been signifi- cant. Many visitors arrive on cruise ships or charter BACKGROUND sailboats whose anchors and associated anchor chains have caused unacceptable levels of damage The marine portion of VINP was established in to coral reefs and seagrass beds inside the park. 1962, six years after the terrestrial portion. The U. S. Code of Federal Regulations prohibits destruc- Caroline Rogers is a National Park Service Research Biologist tion of marine resources in VINP, stating as fol- serving the Virgin Islands National Park. lows: "No person shall ... remove, displace, or break 71 Francis Bay Trunk Bay Hawksnest Bay ST. JOH Cruz Bay N Little Larneshur Bay Greate VL* Larneshur Bay ST. JOHN 0 1 2 --7777777M MILES Figure 1. Map of St. John and location of Virgin Islands National Park off any underwater growth and formation. Nor park, most come to enjoy swimming off the white shall any person ... injure orimpairthe natural beauty sandy beaches, snorkeling or diving on coral reefs, of the underwater scene". Also, "No watercraft and sailing. The average number of boats in park shall be operated in such a manner, nor shall waters increased from about 20 per day in 1976 to anchors or any other mooring device be cast or over 80 per day ten years later (Figure 3). About dragged or placed, soas to strike or otherwise cause 30,000 boats per year anchor in.the park. Use of damage to any underwater features". These regula- Trunk Bay, the park 7s most popular beach, rose tions have been very difficult to enforce. from less than 20,000 people in 1966 to almost 170,000 in 1986. The largest cruise ships, up to The estimated number of people visiting the park 1,000'long and carrying as many as 2,000 passen- rose from about 200,000 in 1976 to over 800,000 in gers, anchor outside park boundaries and use small 1988 (Figure 2). Visitation fell slightly in the last boats to transport passengers to shore in Cruz Bay. two years, perhaps reflecting the effects of Hurri- The park Superintendent has recently been getting cane Hugo in September 1989, concern over trav- increasing numbers of requests for permission to eling during the Persian Gulf crisis, and a de- bring groups of up to 800 people for a day on the pressed economy. Given a resident population of beach. less than 4,000, and an area of only 20 square miles, this level of visitation has resulted in substantial social and environmental pressures. While many people enjoy the hiking trails and scenery in the 72 PROFILE Mandate for Program The marine portion of the Virgin Islands National Park was established in 1962 with a mandate to the NPS "to preserve for the benefit of the public significant coral gardens, marine life and seascapes." The ultimate responsibility for decision making within the park rests with the Superintendent, who has a staff of about 60 and works closely with the US Virgin Islands Department of Planning and Natural Resources (DPNR). The Coastal Zone Management Act for the U.S. Virgin Islands became effective in 1978 and established a Coastal Zone Management Commission within DPNR. The Commission provides policy direction and leadership on coastal management issues and can promulgate regulations. The Commission consists of three Committees, one from each of the major islands, which evaluate and issue coastal zone management permits. The NPS, as afederal agency, mustconduct its activities within the coastal zone, in a manner consistent with the CZM Program. Geographic Scope I St. John is one of the U.S. Virgin Islands with an area of 20 square miles, situated in the Caribbean Sea, about 85 miles east of Puerto Rico. The Virgin Islands Coastal Zone includes the islands of St. Thomas, St. John and St. Croix, all offshore islands and cays, and the territorial sea. The VINP boundary encompasses 56% of the island of St. John and nearly 9 square miles of nearshore waters within the territorial sea (Figure 1). Management Procedures/Techniques The park's General Management Plan and Resource Management Plan provide the framework forpark management. Regulations in supportof the plans established"no boat" zones, designated and prohibited anchoring areas, and mooring areas. Proposed regulations are subject to public review and scrutiny through publication in the Federal Register and public hearings. In some cases, task forces consisting of park employees and local citizens tackle key issues and make recommendations. The Superintendent also has authority to enact emergency regulations. A number of stresses affect the marine resources in ever, it is not the intent that the park should act as VINP. The impacts from recreational activities a refuge for heavily exploited species. (see Table 1) are being superimposed on an already deteriorating environment as a result of storms, The most serious threat to the park's marine re- coral disease, and, most recently, an oil spill and sources is probably the accelerating pace of coastal subsequent cleanup operations. Hurricane Hugo and upland development over which the Park Ser- caused severe destruction to seagrass beds and vice has virtually no control. Private lands within coral reefs, primarily off the eastern and southern and outside the park boundary are being cleared shores of the island. and bulldozed to make way for condominiums, hotels, and home sites. Erosion and runoff of Fishing with traps, hand-lines, and certain types of sediment from these sites can result in reduction of nets is allowed within park boundaries, although light available for photosynthesis by marine organ- spearfishing and gill netting are not. There is evi- isms and smothering of organisms, leading to dete- dence of severe depletion of reef fishes, conchs, rioration of water quality and degradation of and lobsters within the U. S. Virgin Islands. How- nearshore ecosystems. 73 diversity of living organisms, and which took cen- PEOPLE (Thousands) turies to develop. The anchor from a large vessel can weigh several tons and is capable of doing far 800- more serious damage than the lighter anchors of smaller boats. Large anchors can actually fracture 600- the ftamework of the reef. 400- Recovery of seagrass beds and reefs is a slow 200- process. Corals grow a maximum of a few centime- ters a year. In cases where corals have been pulver- 0 ized or displaced, recovery depends on successful 1967 1960 1963 INS 1969 1972 1975 1978 1981 *84 1987 1990 YEAR recruitment of live coral fragments and settlement Figure 2. Recreational visit& to V.I. National Park. 1957-90 of coral planulae (larvae). These larvae require hard substrate for colonization. Often the anchor scar contains loose sediments and rubble which do too- AVG BOATS PER DAY not provide a suitable substrate. Recovery may be so- prevented or delayed if anchoring continues or if storms or heavy seas prevent the cementation and so- stabilization of detached coral colonies or coral rubble. Seagrass beds take decades to recover if the 40- rhizomes have been severed. In addition, the root and rhizome systems of seagrass plants stabilize 20- sand, and their destruction can increase sedimenta- 0 tion in nearby areas. 1966 1"9 t972 1975 1978 198t 1984 1987 1990 YEAR Figure 3. Boats In V.I. National Park water*, 1966-90 Table 1. Effects of recreational activities on coral reefs and scagrass beds (Adapted from Marion, 1988). Although careless development is potentially the Boating greatest threat to the park's marine resources, boat Anchor/chain damage anchors are currently causing the most immediate Damage from boats striking or grounding on reefs damage. Propeller damage Increased water turbidity Oil/gas residues Damage Associated with Anchoring Dumping of garbage, human waste, etc. Snorkeling and Diving Anchors and their attached chains can severely Damage to corals from touching or standing damage seagrasses and coral communities. In many Harassment/displacement of marine organisms cases, the chain is more detrimental than the anchor Feeding of marine organisms Collection of living marine organisms itself because it scours the bottom as the vessel shifts in the wind and currents, or else moves up Fisning - Depletion of reef fishes by spearfishing and and down, bouncing off the bottom. In VINP, hook and line anchors and their chains have pulverized hard coral - Overharvesting of marine invertebrates (lobsters, conch) colonies, ripped sponges and soft corals off the bottom, smashed and overturned small patch reefs, and flipped corals upside down. A single anchor drop can destroy reef areas, which support a high 74 1988) revealed that the average length of the suT- CHRONOLOGY OF MAJOR EVENTS veyed boats was about 45', and 46% of them were anchored in seagrass or coral communities. Severe 1956 V1 National Park established disruption of the bottom was noted in 23% of the 1962 Boundaries revised to include marine incidents. This estimate is conservative as many areas rubble and sand bottoms may have supported 1972 Federal Coastal Zone Management Act seagrass and coral communities in the past. Long- 1978 CZMA for USVI became effective time residents of St. John have expressed dismay 1979 CZM Program for USVI federally approved over the degradation of some of their favorite 1982 VI Resource Management Cooperative snorkeling sites. (VIRMC) established 1983 NPS provides research funds for VIRMC Although aware of some damage from the anchors 1983/88 Research on marine systems of "mini-cruise ships" which range in length from 1988 Coral Reef Assessment Program funded 1988 Major cruise ship damage incident about 150' to 225', attention initially was directed monitored to the numerous smaller boats because up until the mid 1980's, it was unusual for more than one or two of these mini-cruisers to anchor in park waters. The proliferation of these cruise ships in the last,5 or 6 CASE STUDY: Anchor and cable damage to years raised concern because they are capable of coral reefs and seagrass beds. entering very shallow, environmentally sensitive areas that are inaccessible to larger vessels. The The park's Research and Resource Management cruise lines were contacted and the Park Service Division consists of a Resource Management Spe- expressed its concern about environmental de- cialist, a Research Biologist and two Biological struction from anchoring. In fact, park biologists Technicians. Studies of reef damage were initiated made several dives trying to find suitable anchor because of evidence from staff observations and areas for one cruiseline which wanted permission from concerned island residents that boaters were to anchor its ships (about 225' long) close to shore running aground on reefs and inexperienced in popular bays. Each ship would have to put out snorkelers were breaking off shallow corals with three large anchors and the two bow anchors would their fins. Although the south shore of the island is have to be about 900' from the stem anchor to be getting increasing use, most boating and snorkel- effective in keeping the ship in place. No suitably ing takes place in the northern and northwestern large mud or sandy bottom could be found within bays. In 1986 and 1987, coral colonies were moni- the park. tored in Hawksnest Bay and off Windswept Reef, two of the hardest hit areas on the north shore, A dramatic incident on October 8, 1988 made it (Figure 1), for evidence of damage from natural clear that the greatest threat to the marine resources processes (e.g., coral diseases, heavy swells) and in the park, the destruction by cruise ship anchors, from human activity (e.g., snorkeling, boat ground- was not being adequately addressed. On that day, a ings). While it is often not possible to differentiate 440'cruise ship dropped its anchor on a coral reef, between natural stresses and visitor-related dam- dragging it along the reef slope which rises from a age, it was clear that boats and snorkelers caused a depth of 75' to 25' in waters west of Francis Bay considerable amount of coral breakage. In some (Figure 1). The incident could easily have gone cases, blue or red boat-bottom paint was observed undetected. However, one of the park biologists on smashed coral colonies. was out in his boat and was contacted by friends who had witnessed the plume of sediments stirred A survey of boats anchoring in northern park up by the ship's anchor and anchor chain. Divers waters from January to March 1987 (Rogers et al discovered a distinct scar, approximately 420'long 75 and 6-10' wide. Corals and other reef organisms tists and managers of the Florida Marine Sanctuar- were pulverized, overturned, and ripped from their ies who have had to deal with hundreds of ground- bases. An area of 340 sq. yards was virtually ings (Rogers et al. 1990). destroyed. The National Park Service has sued the cruise line, and the case is in litigation. It should be noted that it is not possible to accu- rately determine the amount of reef area within the The documentation of damage from this incident park which has already been degraded by boat and others led to the establishment of new regula- anchors. Many of the reefs are deep and uncharted. tions designed to provide better protection for the It is not feasible to get an overview of the damaged marine systems in the park. In the fall of 1989, the areas park-wide. Even excellent aerial photographs Superintendent established restrictions on the size only show reefs down to a maximum of 60' and do of boats which are allowed to anchor in the park. not reveal the condition of the reefs. It is often not Boats which are longer than 225' are not permitted possible to determine what caused the death of -to anchor anywhere in the park, while boats rang- coral colonies or to differentiate between damage ing from. 150' to 225' are permitted to anchor only from natural processes or human activities. The in Francis Bay in over 30'of water. Francis Bay was incidents documented in this paper arejust a few of selected as a designated anchorage for these larger those which are known to have occurred. Most vessels because it has a predominantly sandy bot- incidents go undetected. In spite of these draw- tom with few coral or seagrass communities. backs, it is known that anchors have caused and continue to cause unacceptable levels of destruc- About a year after the October 1988 anchoring tion, destruction which is superimposed on that incident, a park employee came across a glossy from all other causes. The reefs and sea grass beds magazine advertisement for cruises which stopped will never recover if these pressures continue. in St. John, including a photograph of what ap- peared to be a very large ship. No reference was Minimizing Damage to Marine Resources made to Virgin Islands National Park. The Super- intendent personally wrote a cordial letter to the A variety of reasons make it difficult to reduce the cruise line explaining the park's restrictions on damage to the park's marine resources. anchoring. In October 1990, about one year after this letter was sent, the ship which had been fea- The Park boundary. A major constraint to man- tured in the advertisement, pulled into park waters agement is the 360 degree access to park waters. and anchored. The park's Chief Ranger went out to The marine boundary is not marked with signs or the ship and explained to the captain that the ship buoys. To further complicate matters, the bound- (438' long) was too large to be anchoring in the ary appears to have been arbitrarily defined. It cuts park. The anchor site was examined by divers the through the middle of some bays and lies at varying following day. Although the anchor had landed in distances from shore. This open, unmarked bound- sand, the anchor chain had smashed and toppled ary has two major consequences. Firstly, many coral colonies on the nearby reef in 60 feet of water. people who cruise or sail into the park have no idea Park biologists have documented the damage, and that they are entering a protected area. Some sail, a case is being prepared against the cruise line. anchor, dive and snorkel in park waters but never setfooton shore. Secondly, those who do go ashore Park biologists have had to spend a considerable may never stop at the Visitor Center located in Cruz amount of time attempting. to document the dam- Bay on the western side of the island. Therefore a age caused by large ship anchors and, to a lesser special effort must be made to make people aware degree, small boat groundings. Guidelines for as- that they are in a national park with protective sessment of reef damage have been devised based legislation and to seek their cooperation. on staff experience and conversations with scien- 76 Provision of moorings. Moorings have been used The navigational charts which are available only very successfully in several marine protected areas show the shallowest reef areas. The park has bot- to eliminate or reduce the destruction caused by tom maps which show reefs and seagrass beds anchors. In VINP, it is not simply a matter of down to 60'. There are currently no maps which installing a few moorings and requiring that boat- show the deeper reefs, some of which are the best ers use them. In some other protected areas, such as developed reefs around St. John. Looe Key National Marine Sanctuary, Key Largo National Marine Sanctuary, Buck Island Reef Na- Some conflict exists between boaters and fisher- tional Monument, and Saba Marine Park, the desir- men. Out of respect for traditional activities, cer- able locations for moorings are fairly evident. All tain types of fishing are permitted within VINP. of these areas are comparatively small, with well- Some fishermen are concerned that existing and defined coral reefs and boater destinations. Most of planned "No Boat" zones will prevent them from the people who visit Looe Key National Marine netting the baitfish which school in shallow waters Sanctuary arrive in power boats to dive and snorkel in several bays. on the forereef. The people who visit Buck Island Reef National Monument arrive on sail and power Enforcement. In some cases, it is evident that boats and pick up moorings near the main attrac- anchoring has caused severe destruction of seagrass tion-the underwater snorkeling trail. At Saba, beds and coral reefs. However, it is difficult to location of moorings was based on popular dive judge what should be done in cases where an sites. People come to VINP primarily for sailing anchor topples a few coral colonies or tears up a and snorkeling in 15 bays and at a number of areas small section of a seagrass bed. These incidents scattered throughout the park. While SCUBA div- present problems for people who are trying to ing occurs in VINP, most diving goes on outside enforce protective regulations, but the emphasis park boundaries. should be on minimizing damage, not seeking compensation for damaged resources. The moorings that have been successfully used in the Florida Marine Sanctuaries and in Saba Marine The park generally has only one to four rangers on Park appear to be able to accommodate boats up to duty each day. It is not always possible to have a a maximum of 65'. Moorings which could handle ranger out patrolling park waters. Unfortunately, mini-cruise ships require heavier and more expen- recent increases in drug traffic through the park, sive hardware and other materials. In any event, the and the USVI in general, have reduced the amount chains associated with such moorings can cause of time available for dealing with environmental extensive damage to the bottom near the mooring. protection. Even with a substantially larger ranger staff, it would not be possible to adequately protect Designated anchorages. The size of the park and the marine resources without the assistance of the the patterns of use make designation of appropriate boating public. With increased awareness of park anchorages difficult. To date, the park has estab- regulations and appreciation of marine resources, lished "No Boat" zones, all of which parallel shore- enforcement becomes less difficult. lines. These "swim areas," delineated with marker buoys, reduce anchor damage to nearshore shallow Management Actions Taken to Date bottom communities and allow people to swim mostly without fear of being run over. Unfortu- The National Park Service has taken a number of nately, the increased number of people visiting the actions in an attempt to balance use of the park with park has been accompanied by increased incidence protection of the marine resources for which the of violations in the form of dramatic jet ski and park was established. These include communica- dinghy forays into the prohibited areas. tions with user groups, specific resource manage- ment actions, environmental education efforts, re- search programs and regional cooperation. 77 Communication with cruise lines and recovery of shallow seagrass beds and coral com- charterboat companies. The interests of boaters munities. and park managers are certainly not mutually ex- clusive. Damage to marine resources from recre- The park received NPS funding for further studies ational activities is notintentional. Emphasis should of the bottom areas around St. John and for instal- be on sharing information on desired uses of the lation of marker and mooring buoys. Buoys were park and on the locations of especially vulnerable installed in May 199 1. Prior to installation, the park areas. Several successful meetings were held with staff identified specific locations which were ap- boaters and owners of charterboat companies dur- propriate for mooring buoys for boats under 65'and ing development of the park's mooring plan. Dur- estimated the desirable number of buoys per bay. A ing these meetings, a number of misunderstand- Marine Mooring Plan was developed. The follow- ings were cleared up. For example, some people ing sources of information proved to be extremely feared a total ban on anchoring after installation of valuable in developing this plan: the mooring buoys. The park is not proposing such a regulation at this time. Anchoring is to be prohib- - Aerial photographs (taken in 1983) which ited only in Greater and Little Lameshur Bays, the showed presence of reefs and seagrass beds. sites of long-term research projects. 0 A comprehensive set of benthic (bottom) maps Unfortunately, it has been difficult to communi- prepared by National Park Service and other scien- cate as effectively with cruise line owners and tists (Beets et al. 1986) based on the aerial photo- operators for several reasons. All of the commer- graphs referred to above, and extensive diving and cial cruise lines are based outside the US VI, e.g., in snorkeling around the park. Seattle and Miami. It is difficult to meet with the owners or ship captains. In some cases, a new - Additional observations- by park staff and oth- captain is not informed of the regulations by the ers diving and snorkeling in the park. cruise line. The park has contacted the cruise lines in writing on several occasions, to explain regula- - Records from park ranger boat patrol logs and tions and solicit cooperation. observations on use patterns, i.e., most popular anchorages. The park staff need to work more closely with the cruise lines and other boat operators in the future to In the future, the park plans to mark the marine express concerns over marine resource damage, to boundary and to identify environmentally sensi- publicize the new boat length restrictions, and to tive areas in deeper water to assist both boaters and identify ways that people can continue to enjoy the park rangers. park without further deterioration of marine sys- tems. The park's research and resource management staff has attempted to address the increased visita- Resource management actions. Specific resource tion atTrunkBay and other popular beaches through management actions which have been taken in a draft management plan which identifies low, VINP have been based on research on the coral medium, and high density beaches. The park will reefs and seagrass beds and careful documentation be developing fairly specific guidelines for each of resource degradation. As mentioned above, the beach-for example, Trunk Bay can probably ab- Superintendent established regulations which pro- sorb between 500-800 people, while Hawksnest hibit boats over 225' long from anchoring in the Bay no more than 75. Establishment of use levels park and which require boats from 150'to 225'long will allow a range of different recreational experi- to anchor in Francis Bay. Some nearshore areas ences for residents and visitors. The Superinten- have been designated off limits to boats to allow dent recently had to deny some groups use of the 78 already crowded beaches. Heavy use of beaches on Other specific actions to improve education in- St. John is more of a social issue than an environ- clude: mental one. It is a vitally important issue that the park has just begun to address. Each of the most popular beaches has a sign which depicts coral breakage from a snorkeler's fin Environmental education. In the last three years, and asks for cooperation in protecting coral reefs. VINP, in particular the Division of Interpretation, has made exceptional progress in its environmental A video on the park addresses both cultural education program. All of these initiatives can lead and natural resources and special park programs to increased appreciation of marine resources. with a section on the coral reefs. The video is now shown on cruise ships and in the park's Visitor The park's Research and Resource Management Center. Division and the Division of Interpretation col- laborated on production of a VINP Mooring and The newly renovated visitor center has a salt- Anchoring Guide. This guide includes information water aquarium stocked with colorful reef fish and on the park's marine resources and brief descrip- corals and enhanced by a "light box" of interpretive tions of bays where moorings have been installed. photographs and legends. It also includes information on the proper way to use moorings or to anchor. Specific protective A new park brochure is being produced that regulations are listed. contains a beautiful set of illustrations which de- pict terrestrial and marine resources and identifies The park employs a full-time interpreter assigned many of the plants and animals found in the park. to Environmental Education. This person visits local schools to present slide shows on marine In the future, the park hopes to have a volunteer on systems and to discuss protection of natural re- a boat anchored in Francis Bay, one of the most sources, and leads programs such as the snorkeling popular bays. This individual will make informal trips for beginners and the seashore walk. During contact with the boating public and distribute edu- the busy season, park interpreters, biologists, and cational material related to marine recreation. others give presentations several evenings a week at the popular Cinnamon Bay campground. Research programs. The National Park Service has shown a substantial commitment to increasing The park has a support group called "Friends of our knowledge of the marine resources in Virgin Virgin Islands National Park," whose members Islands National Park and Biosphere Reserve, and contribute time and funds for special projects to Buck Island Reef National Monument, another benefit the park. For example, the Friends produce NPS site located 25 miles south in St. Croix. a newsletter on the park and a series of field Beginning in 1983, NPS provided funds to support seminars on park resources. a series of research projects by members of the Virgin Islands Resource Management Coopera- Old signs along theTrunkBay underwater snorkel- tive (VIRMC). VIRMC, established in 1982, is ing trail have been replaced with more colorful and composed of NPS staff members and 15 other informative signs. Most cruise ship passengers members, including local and federal government who visit St. John are taxied to Trunk Bay Beach. agencies, research and educational institutions This year, the Friends Group plans to install a booth based in the U.S. Virgin Islands, the British Virgin at Trunk Bay where a volunteer will talk with Islands (BVI), and Puerto Rico. Between 1983 and visitors and distribute interpretive materials. Dur- 1988, VIRMC members completed 30 projects ing the summer, park lifeguards and interpreters which emphasized baseline studies of marine sys- teach local children to swim at Trunk Bay. tems (seagrass beds, coral reefs, reef fishes), moni- 79 toring, and synthesis of information (Rogers and ods and reef fish censusing techniques. In May, Teyraud 1988). Much of the information from two VINP scientists went to the BVI for five days these VIRMC projects has provided an essential to assist with on site establishment of a reef moni- basis for resource management in the park. toring program. The results of these studies and additional observa- With the support of the NPS Office of International tions by park biologists led to concerns over the Affairs, six other individuals have visited the park environmental consequences of the increasing level to learn more about overall park management, of tourism in the park. In 1988, NPS provided interpretation, administration, and research, and to further funding to support the Coral Reef Assess- tell the park about the programs in their own ment Program for 3-5 years. The overall goal of countries. this program is to establish effective long-term research and monitoring sites at NPS units in the Anchor damage has been recognized as a serious U.S. Virgin Islands (VINP and Buck Island Reef problem around many Caribbean islands, includ- National Monument) and in Florida (Biscayne ing the British Virgin Islands, Bonaire, and the National Park, Fort Jefferson National Monument). Cayman Islands (Rogers 1985). One outcome of There are six cooperating institutions in this pro- the Reef Assessment Program will be a Manual of gram, including universities and federal and local Coral Reef Monitoring, which will be made avail- governmental agencies. Participants in this pro- able to other practitioners. Frequent requests for gram are working to standardize methods for deter- advice on monitoring of coral reefs and techniques mining long-term trends in coral reef systems. It for damage assessment are received by the NPS. should be noted that the deleterious results of marine-based tourism are superimposed on marine CONCLUSIONS resources which have been subjected to a variety of stresses from natural processes and various human The coral reefs and seagrass beds within VINP activities. have deteriorated both from natural processes and human activities, but it is not possible to apportion Regional cooperation. Virgin Islands National the causes. Elevation of sea water temperatures Park is actively cooperating with people from associated with global warming may aggravate several Caribbean islands who have established their decline. Storms and coral diseases cannot be marine protected areas or who are hoping to estab- controlled, however, these marine systems can lish them in the near future. Several of the VIRMC recover if pressures from the island's development projects referred to above focused on descriptions and tourism are effectively reduced. As part of this and mapping of marine systems in the British effort, park managers are trying to reduce anchor Virgin Islands. The research staff in VINP works damage by encouraging the use of recently in- with the Conservation Office in the BVI on com- stalled moorings and by enforcing restrictions on mon resource management problems. This joint boats entering nearshore swim areas. Anchoring is effort is particularly important because of similar still allowed except in two bays which are sites of resource management issues such as boat damage long-term research. Enforcement of the restriction and fisheries management. Also, actions which the on boats over 150' is essential. BVI take could affect resources in the USVI and vice versa. It is worth noting that some of the cruise The management strategy that is being used to ships which are no longer allowed to anchor in manage marine-based tourism in VINP is multi- VINP appear to be causing reef damage in the BVI. faceted and dynamic. It consists of environmental In March of this year, two biologists from the education, con sensus- building, research programs, Conservation Office came to St. John to receive and specific resource management actions. The training in the field in coral reef monitoring meth- carrying out of this strategy has been a park-wide 80 effort involving the Superintendent, biologists, park or other protected area without evidence that interpreters, and park rangers. such use is causing unacceptable degradation of natural resources. The Superintendent of a national No formal evaluation of this strategy has been park deals with a myriad of issues on a daily basis. carried out, and it is difficult to measure the degree He or she must rely on the park staff to assist in of success that has been achieved to date. Intan- identification of management priorities. In VINP, gibles like increased appreciation of the natural the Superintendent was able to establish critical environment are not easy to quantify. environmental regulations because he had solid evidence of degradation of marine systems in the LESSONS LEARNED park. Such evidence comes not only from biologi- cal data and assessment but information on recre- A number of valuable lessons can be learned from ational use patterns. the attempts to balance intensive use of a small marine park with protection of the fragile marine Managers will never have all the infort-nation they resources for which the park was created. need. Decisions have to be made on the best avail- able data, and the information must be objective. If Planning. Anticipation of problems such as tour- any errors are made, they should be on the side of ism development, adjacent uses and future trends is resource protection. Restrictions on visitation or an integral part of a planning process designed to use can always be relaxed if warranted. It is diffi- balance recreational use with preservation of ma- cult to revive a dead reef. It is also far easier to start rine resources. In order to diversify tourist activity off with a good set of regulations rather than add the designation of high, medium and low density them as an afterthought. Exposure and publicizing use areas may be appropriate. of the damage occurring in the park provided the momentum for a substantial amount of funding to Education. Protection of marine resources pre- address it. For example, the park received funds for sents unique challenges. As was pointed out by long-term assessment of coral reefs and for instal- Marion (Marion 1990), "Due to the alien and lation of buoys following documentation of severe hidden nature of marine resources, their protection resource destruction. is often overlooked by resource administrators and the public alike. The vastness of the sea implies an The management process. Effective manage- unlimited capacity to absorb mankind's pollution ment of marine-based tourism depends on a strat- and the side-effects of our commercial and recre- egy of consensu s- building, environmental educa- ational uses". It is essential to keep in mind that the tion, research on marine resources, and specific marine environment is only a little less familiar to resource management actions. Management is a many people than outer space. It is very difficult to dynamic process which does not stop with the get people to care about something they never see, passing of a regulation or the adoption of a resource such as a coral reef in 90 feet of water. Most people management plan. Planning and management re- will not be able to throw on SCUBA gear and quire adjustments as new conditions arise. Com- personally observe the destruction. Public educa- munication of the park's policies should not con- tion is thus a necessary ongoing process and visual sist of a few press releases which will go unnoticed aids such as still photographs and videotapes must or else be forgotten. It requires a constant effort by accompany quantitative descriptions of damage. park employees and continual communication with people using the park. Research. The value of research as a basis for management has been demonstrated. It is not rea- sonable to expect a manager to establish regula- tions which curtail recreational use of a national 81 References Rogers, C., McLain, L., and C. Tobias. 1990. Damage to marine resources in Virgin Islands National Park; often out of sight but no Beets, J., Lewand, L. and E. Zullo. 1986. Marine conununity longer out of mind. Marine Tourism Congress, Hawaii. descriptions and maps of bays within the Virgin Islands National Rogers. C., and R.Teytaud. 1988. Marine and terrestrial ecosystems park/Biosphere Reserve. Biosphere reserve research report no. 2. of the Virgin Islands National park and Biosphere Reserve. Bio- VIRMC/NPS. 118 pp. sphere reserve research report no. 29. 112 pp. Williams, S.L. 1988. Thal assia jtaWdinum productivity and grazing by green turtles in a Marion, J. 1990. Ecological impacts of nature-dependent tourism. highly disturbed seagrass bed. Mar. Biol. 98:447-455. Proc. of Twenty-First Annual Conference "Me Tourism Connec- tion: Linking Research and Marketing", Travel and Tourism Re- For further information and provision of key search Association. pp. 243-249. references contact: Rogers, C.S. 1985. Degradation of Caribbean andWestern Atlantic National Park Service coral reefs and decline of associated fisheries. Proc. Fifth Inter. Coral Reef Congress 6:491-496. Virgin Islands National Park PO Box 710 Rogers, C., McLain, L., and E. Zullo. 1988. Damage to coral reefs St. John, USVI 00830 -in Virgin Islands National Park and Biosphere Reserve from recre- ational activities. Proc. 6th Int. Coral Reef Symp. 2:405-410. 82 A Perspective on Planning in the Florida Keys Habitat-Based Land Use Planning George Garrett Monroe County, which includes the entire Florida Keys, is one of the fastest growing counties in the State of Florida. At the same time the Keys are home to a rapidly diminishing assemblage of tropical flora and temperate fauna unique in the United States. There are currently over 75 plant and animal species resident in the Florida Keys which are listed as endangered, threatened, or under other protected status. The resource management issues that are faced in the Florida Keys include: � Continued upland and wetland habitat destruction and fragmentation as a direct result of development activities � Continued declines in protected species because of habitat degradation � Degradation of nearshore marine resources as a result of legal but inadequate sewage treatment requirements, nonexistent stormwater management, marina impacts, and boater impacts � An apparent degradation of the Keys' reef complex as a result of natural and human impacts � Poorly planned and high density land subdivision in the 1950s and 1960s coupled with limited or no infrastructural improvements required in these subdivisions � High development expectations as a result subdivision lot availability, accessibility created by bridge improvements, and the convenience provided by water line im- provements � Impending capital facility decisions for highways, solid waste sites, the provision of potable water, and hurricane evacuation. Local opposition to the state's efforts to improve resource management in Monroe County led to its being declared an area of critical state concern. This exerted pressure on the county to resolve these resource management issues. The subsequent introduction of the Florida Coastal Management Program required the county to produce a comprehensive plan, which was adopted in 1986. This case study describes as the development and implementation of the comprehensive plan, with examples of how habitat based land use planning is being applied with very different results in North Key Largo and Big Pine Key. INTRODUCTION scheme. The scheme's intention is to protect the Keys'native habitats through the mandated preser- This case study is intended to illustrate creative vation of a high percentage of existing habitat areas approaches to resource protection, including the on development sites. Maintaining the character development of a habitat based land use planning and quality of the habitat as a primary component George Garrett is the Director of Environmental Resources in of the development approval process is comple- the Department ofPlanningfor Monroe County, Florida, a mented by the establishment of a transferable de- position he has heldforfive years. 83 velopment right program designed to promote den- Monroe County's population in 1991 is estimated sity restrictions, and the creation of a Land Author- to be over 82,000, with 6 1,000 additional residents ity to acquire properties deemed unsuitable for during peak season. 'Me population has increased building. at an average rate of 3.4 percent per year for the past ten years. These are substantial increases for a A number of problem issues and potential solu- county whose potable water is piped 150 miles tions are identified in the development of the Florida from the mainland of Florida, whose access is via Keys Comprehensive Plan, and examples of both a single highway connecting 36 islands, whose successful and unsuccessful planning processes in solid waste facilities are nearing capacity, and North Key Largo and Big Pine Key are described. whose hurricane evacuation plan requires 36 hours to carry out. Monroe County, encompassing the Florida Keys, provides a spectacularly beautiful setting for some Development has mirrored the rate of population -of the most challenging coastal planning issues in growth. In addition, development interests have the United States. In almost all aspects, the marine tried to provide increasing numbers of resort facili- and upland resources of the Florida Keys are unique. ties for a burgeoning touri st industry. The result has They have received an inordinately high level of been a substantial destruction of upland resources, protection and will receive more in the future. saltmarsh and mangrove habitat, and has resulted However, the impact that growth has imposed on in significant nearshore water quality degradation. those resources has been substantial. Tropical forests have been removed to be replaced FLORIDA MAINLAND THE FLORIDA KEYS KEY LARGO FLORIDA BAY GULF OF MEXICO 0 BIG PINE KEY N ATLANTIC OCEAN. KEY WEST 0 10 Miles Figure 1. The Florida Keys 84 by single family homes, while wetland areas have bestowed on the local government, Monroe County, succumbed to the bulldozer and dredge for the but the serious criticism by the State Legislation of creation of filled lots and canals. Since no location the County's failure to properly implement its land on any developed island is greater than a mile from use and environmental regulations. the shoreline water quality degradation is inevi- table on an island chain composed of extremely The purpose of the designation is as follows: porous carbonate geology, and where on-site sep- tic systems are the principal method of sewage "to provide a framework for comprehensive treatment. plans and development regulations that will preserve water quality, provide for the opti- Rapid growth rate in the Keys became an issue in mum utilization of the limited waterresources 1975 with the Keys' designation as an "Area of of the area, facilitate orderly and well-planned Critical State Concern." This was not an honor development, protect the offshore resources PROFILE Mandate for Program Monroe County was designated as an "Area of Critical State Concern" in 1975 under Florida Statute 390. This designation was based upon a decision by the State of Florida that Monroe County was not managing its resources through appropriate implementation of the development guidelines in place at the time. It required that the County adopt new and more stringent development standards. An outcome of the designation was a requirement to control development by means of a comprehen- sive plan, which was adopted by the county in 1986. The Florida Coastal Management Program was established in 1981 and is based upon a networking of existing state authorities. The Florida Program addresses regional planning, coastal hazards and disaster preparedness, submerged lands, areas of special concern, beach and shore preservation, and air and water pollution control. Currently Monroe County is updating its comprehensive plan. The required coastal management and conservation elements of the plan are intended to meet the mandates of the state and federal coastal zone management programs. Geographic Scope The entire State of Florida has been designated as the Coastal Zone. Monroe County encompasses the entire length of the Florida Keys from Soldier Key in Biscayne Bay near Miami, to Key West and the Dry Tortugas. The entire area is included in the coastal zone. The County also has authority to designate Areas of Critical County Concern, which was done for the two planning examples presented from North Key Largo and Big Pine Key. Management Procedures Under the Florida CZM Program resource management and planning issues are resolved through local government comprehensive plans and implemented through land development regulations. Monroe County is unique in its development of a plan predicated upon and driven by criteria which protect the functional and ecological integrity of remaining habitat and which promotes the voluntary reduction of allocated zoning density in environmentally sensitive areas. The County also has a local program which has been established to acquire environmentally sensitive land through purchase. The Monroe County Land Authority was established to achieve this. 85 of the Florida Keys from the adverse impacts the bank reef formations which lie parallel to the of onshore development, and protect the health, Keys and adjacent to the Straits of Florida. These welfare, safety, and 'quality of life of the waters advect into the waters of the Florida Cur- residents of the State." rent; the Gulf Stream. These goals were and are being achieved through The low nutrient character of the nearshore waters the development of a comprehensive plan and land of the Keys supports unique marine habitats and a development regulations, which were adopted in diverse variety of flora and fauna, including coral- 1986. The development and implementation of the dominated patch and bank reefs, seagrass beds, 1986 comprehensive plan is a study in itself, but hardbottom communities, and extensive fringing may best be analyzed through the on-going plan- mangrove habitats. ning processes for two areas within the County. During the development of Monroe County's com- The distinguishing feature of the marine environ- prehensive plan, particular areas were defined as ment of the Keys is the living coral reef tract and "Areas of Critical County Concern" because the associated patch reef assemblages. The coral as- environmental planning issues were too tenacious semblages and the hundreds of other invertebrates to be resolved within the scope and time frame for and fish that comprise this community are found in the completion of the comprehensive plan for the no other part of the continental United States. As County as a whole. such, these areas are particularly important eco- nomic and environmental resources. These re- Two of the critical areas in question are North Key sources are currently under strong natural and Largo, located at the northeastern end of the island anthropogenic (man-induced) stresses. Also asso- chain, and Big Pine Key which is located 30 miles ciated with the reef areas and throughout Hawks east of Key West (Figure 1). The major issues in Channel, the island passes, and Florida Bay, are both areas is the adequate and legally required expansive seagrass meadows, which are of poten- management of endangered species. While North tially even greater ecological significance than the Key Largo is characterized by large tract owner- reef system. ship and is relatively unpopulated, Big Pine Key is extensively subdivided and is receiving consider- The upland habitats of the Keys are equally unique able development pressure. in the continental United States. Tropical hard- wood forests, or "hammocks," characterize the BACKGROUND majority of the undisturbed upland resources. In addition, the lower Keys with its characteristic The Florida Keys are a 225 mile long archuate freshwater lens, also contain pineland plant com- archipelago which extends southwest from Soldier munities. The Keys represent the edge of the north- Key in Biscayne Bay near Miami, to the Dry ern limits of a tropical flora and the southern edge Tortugas and Fort Jefferson National Monument of the limits of a temperate fauna. This makes it an (Figure 1). The Keys separate the marine environ- area unique in the world for this pattern of floral ment of the Gulf of Mexico and Florida Bay from and faunal assemblage. No less than 75 endan- Hawks Channel, the Straits of Florida, and the gered, threatened, or commercially exploited spe- Atlantic Ocean. There are numerous tidal passes cies of flora and fauna exist within Monroe County, between the islands, particularly in the lower Keys, as defined by the State and Federal government. In which provide for water exchange between these addition, experts in the field feel that many other waterbodies. Typically the net flow of water is plant species should be listed. from Bay to Ocean in a south westerly direction. Thus, water from the Bay moves through the tidal The tropical ecosystems of the Keys are naturally channels between islands to Hawks Channel and subject to the stresses of wind and water damage 86 from tropical storms and hurricanes. It is the addi- Efforts to preserve the quality of this resource and tional man-made encroachments, however, that heritage are evident in the existence of four Federal may contribute to future ecological imbalances in wildlife refuges, two national parks, one national the form of water quality degradation, loss of monument, three national marine sanctuaries, three native habitat, and extinction of endemic species. state aquatic preserves, one state geologic site, four state parks, and two state botanical sites. The seriousness of the perceived necessity for protect- CHRONOLOGY OF MAJOR EVENTS ing the natural areas in Monroe County gained its ultimate strength in. 1990, with the federal designa- 1950-70 Extensive and excessive subdivision of tion of all waters surrounding the Keys as the' land within Monroe County largest national marine sanctuary in the nation. 1973 Development and implementation of a Without question, the reason for the many levels of comprehensive Zoning Code protection afforded much of Monroe County, is the 1975 Designation of the County as an "Area of state and nationwide perception that government at Critical State Concern" a local level has failed to protect the resources. 1981 Florida Coastal ManagementProgram fed- Development Patterns erally approved During the years of the 1950s through the early 1984 Initiation of the planning process to create 1970s, Florida was experiencing a massive expan- and adopt the Florida Keys Comprehen- sion in its subdivided lands. Large tracts were sive Plan as required under the County's bought from the state or the federal government status as an Areaof Critical StateConcern and divided for sale by real estate interests. Most of 1984 Initiation of the Governor's Study Com- these areas were designed for residential use. The mittee for development of the North Key Florida Keys were not exempt from this activity Largo Habitat Conservation Plan nor from the problems often associated with it. 1986 Adoption and implementation of the Platting of land was not well regulated or moni- Florida Keys Comprehensive Plan, in- cluding the establishment of BigPine Key tored during these periods and, as a result, the and North Key Largo as "Areas of Critical subdivisions that were created were not well County Concern" planned. Local and state governments frequently 1986 Presentationof theNorth KeyLxgoHabi- did not require assurances that roads or utilities tat Conservation Plan Study Committee's would be provided by subdivision developers, or report for later inclusion into the Florida that other needed infrastructure would be available Keys Comprehensive Plan to those interested in buying lots. Thus, the poten- tial for growth in these subdivided lands was not 1986 Initiation of the Big Pine Key community balanced by local public expenditure to accommo- planning process date their development. On the other hand, some 1990 Initiation of the process for Florida Keys types of infrastructure improvements were made Comprehensive Plan update beyond the immediate need. In the late 1970s and 1990 Designation of the waters surrounding the early 1980s, a rather treacherous bridge system Florida Keys as the largest National Ma- connecting the islands was replaced and improved. rine Sanctuary in the country In the same time period the potable water supply was improved through a major expansion of the 1991 Completion of the Big Pine Community pipeline leading from the mainland. At that point, Plan process for later inclusion into the a changed perception of accessibility and conve- comprehensive plan nience spurred development expectations in con- 87 cert with the ready availability of platted and semi- State Concern designation was to place legislative improved lands. pressure on Monroe County to take special plan- ning measures to ensure protection of its resources Within Monroe County, the early 1970s to the mid and provide that approved new development pro- 1980s were the years of the "major development" posals were and are compatible with regulatory project. Under the County's major development protection efforts. ordinance (now repealed), large parcels of land were rezoned for high intensity resort, condo- However, in the opinion of the author, the problem minium, residential, and commercial uses. As in was not the lack of regulation, but the lack of other areas of Florida, such projects were required political interest and desire to enforce the existing to assess their impacts on capital facilities and laws. The Governor of the State had the authority, infrastructure (roads, solid waste capacity, and if not the justification, to remove the County Com- potable water), but were not required to pay the mission from office and reappoint its members. price for their improvement. The value of such This had been done once in Monroe County in projects to the immediate economy was seen as actions involving the Florida Keys Aqueduct Au- more important than the resource areas that were thority Board. The political expedient, however, affected by their completion. was to direct the enactment of more comprehen- sive regulations. Since the time of designation, the Though there were multiple steps leading to the County Commission and state have been locked in approval of such major development projects, lo- a clash of wills, but after the 1990 election of a cal planning review was limited by the competency professed conservationist majority, the relation- and depth of available staff, More importantly, ship may be improving. approvals were virtually assured in a system politi- cally "greased" to issue permits. Monroe County, It is important to understand the impact of the Area an area infamous for its history of pirating and of Critical State Concern designation on Monroe shipwrecking, was following what appeared to be County, both legislatively and politically. The state, its destiny with little regard for the consequences. through this legislative designation, maintains oversite responsibility for all development review Area of Critical State Concern in Monroe County. The state has the right to appeal In 1975 the State of Florida recognized the con- any development order (building permit) issued by flicts between resource protection and an acceler- Monroe County which, in its legal opinion, does ating growth trend in the Florida Keys. In that year not comply with adopted local Land Development the Keys were designated as an Area of Critical Regulations. The state also maintains authority to State Concern. During the years of the mid-seven- approve or deny, through the Governor and Cabi- ties, Monroe County government frequently yielded net, any amendments to the law, based on the State to local special and/or personal interests with a Statutes and the local comprehensive plan. Thus, in profit motivation. Commissioners and/or friends a County which is known for its fierce indepen-' may have been the limited benefactors of County dence, and with a County Board which, over a state Commission actions in the approval of some sub- drug interdiction policy voted to secede from the divisions and other large development projects. union to become "The Conch Republic," this state The losers in this decision making process were; oversite authority has not been well accepted. the environment, through permitted destruction of upland and wetland habitats, and the tax payers CASE STUDY: Environmental Planning in the who are now beginning to feel the burden of the Florida Keys development expectations created through past unchecked subdivision and other development ac- Comprehensive Plan Implementation tivity. Thus, the purpose of the Area of Critical Based on the Area of Critical State Concern man- 88 date and subsequent adoption of the Florida Coastal future has sparked the interest of many public and Management Program, the Florida Keys Compre- private conservation initiatives. The same growth hensive Plan was completed in 1986 and provided "panics" that have spurred individuals and devel- sweeping changes to development regulations in opers to build, have prompted conservation entities the County. It occurred through the continual threat to buy. In 199 1, there are one federal, two state, and of sanctions from the state and with the reluctance one local government agency actively acquiring of the Monroe County Commissioners that ap- land in the Florida Keys. In addition, three non proved it. Meanwhile, concern over the content of profit conservation groups are a part of this pro- the Plan spurred a three fold development increase cess. One pla'y)s a major role in assisting each of in the year prior to its adoption. Since the Plan's these government agencies in their efforts. adoption additional development "panics" have occurred when it was publicly perceived that de- Concern has been raised in the Keys over the effect velopment in certain areas would cease until capi- of the many land acquisition programs on the tal facility or infrastructure deficits were rectified. county tax base. Generally, acquisition is seen as a Rapid and uncontrolled development was some- positive step toward protecting the Keys. It is thing implementation of the Plan was intended to believed, as well, thatreduction of potential buildout manage, but to date it has not succeeded. On the density may reduce the proportionate cost of future other hand, new and clearer environmental regula- infrastructure needs. The concerns of many resi- tory restrictions were adopted for proposed new dents may be allayed through an analysis of the development. These regulations, which control the current and future cost of infrastructure and capital degree of habitat destruction allowed, have been in outlay when compared to the cost of acquisition. place since the 1986 Plan was adopted. Though Acquisition may well prove to be less expensive. they are not perfect, they have provided a more definitive basis than previous regulations for what Environmental Standards is allowed. As time passes, the components of the 1986 com- prehensive plan and expected revisions that "drive" The 1986 comprehensive plan also provided a the planning process will not be environmentally mechanisn-i--the Monroe County Land Author- based, but driven by capital facilities issues. This ity-for preserving environmentally sensitive lands, has resulted because reasonably sound environ- buying lands made unbuildable by the new regula- mental standards are in place today. These stan- tions, and acquiring lands for needed public facility dards will be refined and better enforced, but are improvements or additions. Although the program not likely to become much more restrictive. Devel- seemed desirable and quite straight forward, initial opment approval with attached environmental de- implementation was not easy. sign standards and mitigation are and will continue to be the appropriate burden born by all developers. To date the Land Authority has bought property Land acquisition, through the Land Authority, the valued at over $2.4 million through this acquisition state or other non-profit conservation entities will process, has loaned nearly $3 million to the Mon- be the only alternative. roe County and a local land trust for public facili- ties and environmentally sensitive lands respec- Environmental standards for development were tively, and has received hundreds of acres of land established with two assumptions: in donations. This has resulted in a direct benefit to the overall effort to preserve remaining forested - that development was going to occur lands in the Florida Keys. * that environmental protection had to be provided in such a manner as to protect the biological and Interestingly, the attention paid Monroe County functional integrity of the Keys' resources. through its long effort to plan for the County's 89 There are two essential components of the 1986 tions, on site assessments are required of potential Comprehensive Plan that establish development developers and are reviewed by Monroe County criteria; the Land Use District (zoning), and the biologists and planners for accuracy. From an environmental character of the parcel proposed for environmental perspective, the purpose of this re- development. Through the land use district cat- quirement is to define the least sensitive portions of egory, allocated densities and uses are established a parcel and to confine development to concise on a per acre basis. Through the Monroe County clustered locations within these areas. The benefit Existing Conditions Maps and on site review, habi- of this on site refinement is to avoid destruction of tat character is established. more sensitive or pristine areas on a parcel and to maintain a maximum contiguous habitat area. The comprehensive plan was written with environ- mental protection in mind. Thus, lower density One further component of the 1986 Comprehen- land use districts typically reflect areas of native sive Plan provides a mechanism for transferring character. Based on habitat character, Environ- allocated density from one parcel to another. Allo- mental Design Criteria established in the Monroe cated densities, termed "development rights," are County Land Development Regulations are ap- provided to all Land Use Districts on a per acre plied to proposed development. Attached to these basis. Since allocated density, as defined, is dis- Environmental Design Criteria are "open space" crete and measurable based on the size of a parcel, requirements which define what percentage of it is possible to transfer the allocated units as each habitat type may be cleared for development. "Transferable Development Rights." The rules for Theopen space and Environmental Design Criteria transfer are established based on environmental were developed through a process of scientific peer standards. Density may be transferred from native review established to determine the sensitivities habitat areas to more suburban or urban areas and and impact potential of each habitat. Additionally, from areas of higher habitat quality and sensitivity open space standards were established, based on to areas of lower habitat value. The intent of these the best data available at the time, for the minimum regulations is to provide an owner with a reason- habitat required to maintain the functional and able use of his/her land, but to provide the incentive biological integrity of each habitat type in the to transfer the development rights away from envi- Keys. By definition, open space must be main- ronmentally valuable areas. Transferable Devel- tained in its natural state. opment Rights are provided on the market for sale and are managed in a manner similar to real prop- In addition to the development of open space eny sales. standards, the County has established a habitat sensitivity matrix. The creation of this matrix was Environmental Planning Examples designed to provide a mechanism to allow county Two examples of environmental planning in the biologists to direct development away from habi- Keys are relevant: the Planning processes for the tats considered to be more sensitive to the penurba- North Key Largo and Big Pine Key Areas of tions of development. The process of determining Critical County Concern. Understanding the plan- habitat sensitivity and developing the matrix was ning experience for either area lends an additional also left to the expertise of the peer group of perspective on the environmental issues in the scientists noted above. In the development of this Keys. Issues in both areas have provided conten- matrix as later formulated in the Land Develop- tious environmental planning problems. The plan- ment Regulations, habitats requiring greater open ning process in combination with an active acqui- space are considered to be "more sensitive." sition program for North Key Largo has been successful, while the planning process for Big Pine In order to fine tune the open space and density Key has largely been a failure. There are several requirements of the Land Development Regula- reasons for these outcomes as will be discussed briefly below. 90 stellar example of remaining contiguous tropical hardwood forest in the Florida Keys. FLORIDA MAINLAND North Key Largo has strategic environmental im- portance for two reasons. It is the remaining com- ponentin aplan soughtby some to connect publicly OCEAN owned preservation lands and waters from the REEF CLUB Florida Everglades to the Key Largo National Marine Sanctuary (now encompassed by the larger Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary). It is also the home of six endangered fauna species: the North American crocodile, the Key Largo woodrat and cotton mouse, Schaus' swallowtail butterfly, BARNES SOUND 4@ the Eastern Indigo snake, and the Miami Black- N @r headed snake. It was for the endangered crocodile t NORTH KEY LARGO that the Crocodile Lake National Wildlife Refuge was created in 1982 on the northwest side of 2 highway 905. Miles If the 3,000 people that currently live on North LOCATION Key Largo create an appearance of quiet serenity, MAP development activities of the mid 1970s and early 1980s show a marked contrast. In 1982, 23,485 units of residential and resort development had Figure 2. North Key Largo been approved or were in various stages of receiv- ing final approval. However, the listing of the species noted above, particularly the crocodile, North Key Largo severely limited the ability of the development North Key Largo lies at the northeastern terminus community tocomplete theirprojects. In the 1980s, of the connected islands of the Florida Keys (Fig- the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wrote a "jeop- ure 2). It is connected to the Florida mainland at ardy opinion" stating that planned development in either end by two roads, U.S. Highway I and the the refuge would "jeopardize" (a legal term of art Card Sound Road. U.S. Highway I also connects for "threaten") the continued existence of the spe- North Key Largo to the rest of the Keys. The two cies. The legal impact of this assessment was the roads are connected to one another by highway 905 required cessation of Federal funding or backing which bisects the long axis of the island. for government or private activities which could limit the recovery of the species. Technically this Historically, North Key Largo was settled by home- includes funds for utility projects or federally in- steaders who cleared areas within the native hard- sured loans for development projects, either of wood forests in order to raise tomato and pineapple which would have been required in order to com- crops. Although life was difficult, settlers were plete approved development at that time. able to subsist and even to export their produce to areas as far away as the Carolinas. With the excep- The incumbent Florida Governor appointed a North tion of the posh residential and resort community Key Largo Habitat Conservation Plan Study Com- of Ocean Reef Club and several small subdivi- mittee to complete a planning effort for the area. sions, the previously fanned lands have returned to Through a test of wills, and yet a great deal of native forested land. From one end to the other, cooperative effort, the conflicting issues of prop- approximately 12 miles, North Key Largo is the erty rights and the continued survival of the six 91 listed species were resolved. As a planning pro- Deer, adirninutive subspecies of the Virginia White- cess, the resolutions did not meet with the approval tailed Deer. It exists in the lower Florida Keys and of all participants and could be classified as a the core of its range is Big Pine Key. It has never failure in terms of implementation. In fact, all been particularly numerous, but hunting activities involved agreed that acquisition of all land in the of the 1950s led to its near extinction. Through the area would satisfy the goal of protecting habitat 1960s and 1970s the deer herd returned to a sem- and the endangered species, while justly compen- blance of its historic stature, but in the 1980s and sa ting land owners. The planning process itself can early 1990s, the deer has been in a state of decline. best be characterized as a mechanism which pro- The principal issues surrounding the deer's contin- vided a level of comfort to developers until a land ued viability are mortality on the island's roads, acquisition program could be completed. The plan- continuing habitat loss, and resulting habitat frag- ning process established the importance and value mentation. of the development potential which guaranteed a reasonable, if not high return, in the acquisition The planning effort for Big Pine Key has been less process. than successful. Environmental groups, both local and national, have become pitted against property Today, nearly 100 percent of the land in the Croco- owners who have both a financial and personal dile Refuge has been acquired by the Federal investment in their land. Land is being acquired by Government. The state has similarly bought ap- the Federal and State governments and by one non- proximately 60 percent of the land on the opposite profit conservation group. However, the salient side of highway 905 as a botanical site and as buffer lands for the National Marine Sanctuary. The state is continuing to buy. Big Pine Key LOCATION MAP Big Pine Key lies in the lower Florida Keys, ap- proximately 30 mile east of Key West. U.S. High- p. way 1 connects the Key to the islands lying to the east and west of it. Big Pine Key is approximately seven miles long with its length axis oriented in a NO NAME north-south direction (Figure 3). U.S. Highway 1 KEY bisects the island in a roughly east-weFt direction. The early history of Big Pine Key is similar to that of North Key Largo. It was settled by homesteaders BIG PINE KEY who were generally farmers and lived a reasonable, if modest life style. They traveled by sail to the City RT 1 of Key West to obtain provisions, a days journey at N that time. Otherwise, these islanders were quite isolated. During the years of the 1950s and 1960s, t Big Pine Key was witness to an era of considerable RT 1 land subdivision. Over 40 separate subdivisions 0 1 were ultimately created, establishing more than Miles 9,000 new lots which ranged in size from 5,000 square feet to one acre. Figure 3. Big Pine Key During the same era and extending into the 1970s, considerable attention was being paid to the Key 92 question that remains is; "Will acquisition of 'green establish specified dates for implementation and space' be enough?" On an island with a population compliance. Topics which received little serious of 5,000 which is projected to double within the attention in the past must now be addressed. Ex- next 20 years; an island which will see increased amples include the establishment of a sewage treat- traffic generation, and which still contains 3,800 ment master plan, development and implementa- developable lots, the question is a difficult one to tion of a hurricane evacuation plan, a stormwater answer. management plan, and a potable water manage- ment plan. As a coastal county, in a state that The principal differences between the two plan- receives funding under the Federal Coastal Zone ning processes involve the "nature of the beasts" Management Act (CZMA), the updated Compre- requiring protection, the ownership pattern of the hensive Plan will also have to meet CZMA criteria. land, and the character of that ownership. First, the Issues relating to wetlands protection, stormwater Key Deer is a much more mobile animal and management, sewage treatment, marina siting cri- requires a much greater range to subsist. It fre- teria, and water dependant recreation will be Para- quently comes into contact with people. Second, mount issues. And finally, under the tenets of the ownership pattern in Big Pine Key is one of "concurrence management," defined in the Florida single family residential and commercial subdivi- Comprehensive Planning Act, development will sions in single lot ownership. In North Key Largo only be allowed if necessary capital facilities and land is largely undivided, remaining in acreage infrastructure are available. tracts. Third, the character of the ownership on Big Pine Key is one of personal interest, while, in North Concurrent with this process, although not in legal Key Largo the interests are investment based. These terms, will be the development of a management three points have served to make planning efforts plan which includes a water quality protection plan for Big Pine Key substantially more contentious for the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. and intractable. 'ne immediate and daily impact of This planning process will focus attention on the development and human habitation on the deer protection Qf the marine resources surrounding the creates an immediate need for acquisition of neces- Florida Keys. It will also assess the impacts of sary lands. The large number of small lots on the Monroe County's existing development and future island makes land assembly through acquisition a growth on the marine environment. Maintenance literal nightmare. Finally, it is frequently much of water quality, boater impacts on the resource, easier to negotiate land acquisition with a devel- commercial fishing, sport diving, tropical fish col- oper whose motives are profit oriented. Single lot lecting, and marine salvage, will be important owners, whose lives and livelihoods may be tied to issues. a single residential lot, tend to have a far more proprietary interest and are, therefore, much more Monroe County in 1991, appears to want to effec- difficult to negotiate with. tively and appropriately manage these issues. The federal government certainly will expect results Florida Comprehensive Planning Act and the and is looking to Monroe County as a cooperative Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and enthusiastic local partner. The future stands before Monroe County and the Florida Keys. The County will complete an up- CONCLUSIONS dated Comprehensive Plan encompassing a broader range of issues, early in 1992. The guidelines The Planning process in Monroe County has been governing the adoption of this revised Plan are long, arduous, and is beginning to meet with some more definitively stated than for any previous Plan. success. Evidence of success includes the follow- For each element, adopted goals, objectives, and ing: policies will outline measurable outcomes and 93 Increasingly the issue of planning for the future, voters. These facts have a profound impact on the for coordinated, rational, and responsible growth, types of planning decisions made by the County has become an acceptable practice and less a point Commission, who's members are elected officials. of contention between the county and the state. The effort to protect North Key Largo, its habitat, Through the Florida Comprehensive Planning and endangered species has been successful. Ef- Act, administered at the state level, all counties and forts to acquire land in Big Pine have also met with municipalities in the State of Florida must produce success, but the effort to plan for the inevitable a comprehensive plan in accordance with certain interaction of an increased human population with standards. This has made the planning process in the Key Deer, and to appropriately plan for and Monroe County more acceptable. direct growth, has failed to date. The Commission- ers have not been willing to act against a growth Environmental protection in the Florida Keys is oriented local constituency. The issue, again comes being achieved in a much more thorough and down to the fact that substantially too many lots consistent fashion through the 1986 Comprehen- were allowed to be platted during the 1950s through sive Plan than previously. Additional improve- the 1970s. The cost to our unique natural resources ments will be made through the 1992 update. of allowing continued growth may be too high. Paralleling this concern is a suggestion that the cost Environmental planning in the the Keys is more of growth in needed infrastructure and capital firmly based on the best available resource data facilities may be too high as well. In view of these than it has been in the past. The development concerns, the county will need to assess the impacts review process is more objective and less subject to of future growth against its natural resources and political pressures. its ability to pay for needed capital facilities and infrastructure. Throughout the 1980s and early 1990s, the County has committed resources to increase staffing levels So that the County does not fail in its continuing and provide the salaries required to hirie competent planning efforts, the following must be assessed: professionals. The County has at times been reluc- tant to do this and it is to the state's credit that they - the costs of additional development in relation to have been willing to financially assist the County the cost of paying for required capital improve- in its planning efforts. To complete such a planning ments process requires financial commitment and ad- - the costs of new commitments, such as a sewage equate staff. treatment master plan or a stormwater master plan, for existing development and future growth The negative side of the Monroe County experi- - the cumulative impacts of future growth and ence can be related to a comparison of the North existing development on the natural resource base Key Largo and Big Pine Key efforts. In North Key - the impact of additional development on quality Largo, the irreversible commitment of subdivision of life issues (community character and the reasons approval had not been made prior to the planning that people have come to reside in the Keys) effort, whereas it had been in Big Pine Key. Land - the cost of acquiring vacant residential and com- holdings in North Key Largo were held by corpo- mercial property against the cost of permitting its rations whose interests were investment based. development. Further, and very importantly, most of the partners in these corporations lived outside of Monroe LESSONS LEARNED County and thus had no local vote. In contrast, ownership of land in Big Pine was principally in With hindsight, the planning process in Monroe single lots and the 'owners were residents and County has been carried out in less than ideal 94 circumstances. Since designation as an Area of ronmental resource protection if economic costs Critical State Concern, Monroe County has been are too high. As planners and biologists dealing looking over its shoulder, concerned about the with resources issues, learn to lead with economic state's scrutiny, rather than making rational deci- arguments. Enviromentalism is not always popu- sions based on the issues that are attendant to an lar. Concern over one's pocketbook gets attention area like the Florida Keys. Lessons to be taken readily. from the Monroe County experience are: In conclusion, six years ago the author would have Planning is affected by the structure of the politi- felt a kindred spirit with a favorite childhood char- cal system and the decision making process. acter, Don Quixote. Tilting at windn-fills was some- - As stated in a recent article (Pattison, Carolina thing well practiced by the seven Planning Direc- Planning, Vol. 16, No. 1), "Do not take credit for tors holding that position in Monroe County over developing a land use plan. Until it has been adopted the last 10 years. The situation is improving and the and implemented in a political arena, you have not author is optimistic. done very much." The political arena that the author referred to was Monroe County. The object References lesson is that commitment to comprehensive plan DeGrove, J.M. 1984. Chapter 4. Florida: Harmonizing Growth and implementation is essential. the Environment. In, "Land Growth and Polifics." Plan- - In an inherently democratic system, successful ners Press. American Planning Association. 454 pp. implementation of a comprehensive plan can only Pattison, C.G. 1990. Fear and Loathing in the Planning Profession: be accomplished with the support of a public con- Ten Comments on the Political Factor. Carolina Planning (Spring 1990) 16(l): 12-16. stituency. Seek it at all costs. Siemon, C.L. 1989. Carrying Capacity Planning: Rx for the Future. - The "Political factor" is not one of the elements In, "Implementation of the 1985 Growth Management of traditional or theoretical planning training. In Act: From Planning to Land Development Regulations." Edited by Barbara C. Brumback and M.J. Marvin. FAU/ reality it is the principal element. Embrace it, make FIO Joint Center for Environmental and Urban Problems. it a friend, it is a part of life as an environmental Monograph #89-1. planner. Florida Statutes and Administrative Codes: - From the perspective of environmental protec- Florida Statute 163 tion, outside political influences can help establish Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code a more -balanced arena for local decision making. Florida Statute 380 (380.0552 & 380.0663) Chapter 2717-8, Florida Administrative Code (Principles The influences of the many national non-profit for Guiding Development in the Florida Keys Area of conservation entities have helped immeasurably, Critical State Concern (later amended)) particularly in the areas of land acquisition and Chapter 87-170, Florida Administrative Code endangered species protection. (Land Authority) - Concurrent management of growth and neces- Monroe County Law: sary infrastructure and capital facility improve- Florida Keys Comprehensive Plan (1986) Volume 1: Background Data Element ments is essential to the rational functioning of Volume II: Policy Element increasingly densely populated societies. Monroe County Comprehensive Plan (1991) - Protection of natural resources is vital to quality Technical Document of life, to the protection of resource based indus- Policy Document tries and, particularly, tourism economies. Map Document - The economics of growth related to needed capi- Monroe County Code tal improvements may work to the benefit of envi- Chapter 9.5: Land Development Regulations 95 For further information and provision of key references contact: Monroe County Growth Management Division 5100 Junior College Road Key West, Florida, USA 33040 96 Development in Hawaii: Management of a Major Resort Development (Kaanapali) Philip Ohta The island of Maui, like the remainder of the Hawaiian chain, has witnessed an extraordi- nary increase in tourism-related development over the past thirty years. Although some early projects were thought to be environmentally progressive, during the 1970s reduced beach access and parking, increased shoreline use, decreasing visual quality and degrading coastal resources, slowly emerged as problems that required resolution. Hawaii's Coastal Zone Management Program (HCZMP) was approved in 1978 and provided an extra level of protection that had not been available earlier. The establishment of Special Management Areas and associated Use-Permits enabled local authorities to resolve many of these emerging societal concerns for sensitive development. This case study describes a major resort development, the Royal Kaanapali Beach Resort on Maui. It compares how development proceeded before and after establishment of the HCZMP and describes the Special Management Area regulatory procedures that provided the means to control aspects of resort development. INTRODUCTION public was allowed access to the beach. As devel- This case study addresses management of a major opment progressed, it became evident to the public resort development, the Royal Kaanapali Beach that clear access and parking areas adjacent to the Resort, in Lahaina on the island of Maui. beach were diminishing, shorelines were being encroached by buildings, views to the ocean were This study describes the development of the resort becoming obscured, and coastal resources began to before and after the establishment of the Coastal lose their attractiveness. The Coastal Zone Man- Zone Management (CZM) Program in the State Of agement Program provided a tool to address these Hawaii and developments after Hawaii's adoption unforeseen problems. of the CZM Program in 1978. A comparison is made of the differences and effects that the resort has incurred since the CZM Program, such as BACKGROUND beach access, protection of coastal resources, and building design criteria. The Royal Kaanapali Beach Resort is in Lahaina on the western side of the island of Maui (Figure 1) Prior to the development of this resort, the Kaanapali which is the second largest in the Hawaiian chain. area provided open and unobscured access to the In Hawaiian, the words "Ka' Ana Pali" mean "the beach. Although the land was privately owned, the rolling cliffs" a reference to the wide, open ridges behind the Royal Kaanapali Beach Resort that Philip Ohta is the Planner and Coastal Zone Management sweep upward to Pu' u Kukui, the highest moun- Administrator in the Planning Department in the County of tain peak on West Maui. Maui, Hawaii. 97 PROFILE Mandate for Program The objectives of the Hawaii CZMA are: � provide for and protect recreational resources � protect and restore historic and cultural resources � improve scenic and open space areas � protect coastal ecosystems � provide for coastal-dependent economic uses � reduce coastal hazards � improve the process for managing development � provide for public participation Geographic Scope The Hawaii coastal zone includes the state's waters and all land areas except the state forest reserves. In addition Special Management Areas (SMAs) are designated around the shoreline of each island. In the county of Maui the SMA surrounds the entire island but is predominantly located on the ocean side of the major coastal highway. It includes most of the Kaanapali Resort area. Management Procedures/Techniques The lead state agency for the Hawaii coastal management program is the Department of Planning and Economic Development. Policies are implemented through a network of existing legal authorities, a number of state agencies and the four county governments, one of which is Maui. The coastal management program has a statewide Advisory Committee, which includes repre- sentatives from state and local government agencies, and interest groups. The HCZMP gives authority to county governments in designated Special Management Areas. Within SMAs, local governments administer SMA Use Permit programs to control a number of aspects of development, including public access, parking and visual design qualities. In Maui County an Urban Design Review Board advises the local Planning Commission, which reviews SMA Use Permit applications. In ancient times, Hawaiian fishing villages were can Factors, Ltd., which was shortened to Amfac, built in the Kaanapali area. In the early eighteenth Inc. in 1966. century, a major battle was fought at Kaanapali between two half-brothers and their warriors for In 1956, American Factors decided to develop a control of Maui. The battle lasted for four days and planned resort on a substantial section of unprofit- because the slaughter was great on both sides, the able plantation scrubland along two sandy beaches, battle was given a fitting name, Koko-o-na-moku, stretching approximately 3 miles, at Kaanapali. A which means "Blood-of-the-Islands". Master Plan was drawn up for the development of the Royal Kaanapali Beach Resort. The first incre- From the mid-nineteenth century to mid-twentieth ment included a 500-acre section of land. Owner- century, the land at Kaanapali was put to various ship of the land remained with Amfac, Inc. which uses related to sugar production. During this time, gave stockholders additional return on their invest- the sugar plantation became the property of Ameri- ment from appreciating property values. It was also 98 N i 1 h a u Kauai Molokai Oahu . r,'@ Maui LanaisqwQ., Hawaii Kapalua Kean e Kaanapali Kahului La aina Maui Hana- ....Maalae Haleakala National Park O'heo Falls:., Kihei Wallea Figure 1. The Hawaiian Islands with Maui inset. CHRONOLOGY OF MAJOR EVENTS believed that a single owner could best control the density and type of structure built, balancing prof- 1957-61 Preparation of Master Plan and building itability against an open-spaced design to please of preliminary infrastructure residents and draw vacationers back year after 1962 Royal Lahaina Beach Club and golf year. course completed Royal Kaanapali Beach Resort offi- cially opened One problem that the proposed resort development 1963-75 Nine individual development projects faced was that the highway along Kaanapali was completed (Table 1) located along the coastline. Together with the 1978 Hawaii's Coastal Zone Program County, Arnfac obtained federal funds to move the approved 1980-82 Four additional development projects old highway inland to its present location. This completed (Table 2) project was completed by 1957, which freed 1984-88 Additional beach parking and access beachfront land for hotel, condominium and golf required for renovation of existing course sites. structures 1990 Kaanapali Beach Hotel Special Management Area Use Permit approved for renovation and additions, including beach access and parking 99 CASE STUDY: Development of the Kaanapali development progressed. The need to address these Resort issues slowly became apparent. Hawaii's CZM Program became the tool that was needed to ad- Between 1957 and 1961 progress on the new resort dress these issues. consisted of building a water supply system, grad- ing hotel sites, constructing a golf course, con- Table 2 lists the developments which were con- structing underground electrical systems, utilities- structed afterHawaii's establishmentof the Coastal access roads, a sewage treatment plant and a la- Zone Management Program. goon. The official opening date of the Royal Kaanapali Table 2. Post CZM Program Development Beach Resort was December, 1962. At that time Project Size (acres) Dam Beds/Units the infrastructure, golf course and the private Royal Hyatt Regency Maui 18.5* 1980 815 Kaanapali Royal 7 1980 107 units -Lahaina Beach Club were completed. The Royal Maui Marriott 15* 1981 757 Lahaina Beach Club comprised 31 two-story indi- Kaanapah Alii 8* 1982 264 units vidually owned cottages each containing 6 holiday Westin Maui units, all situated along Kaanapali's upper beach I(formerly Maui Suro 12* 1987 762 1 and golf course. *Note: public beach access and parking provided. After the opening of the Royal Kaanapali Beach Resort, other development followed. Table I lists The Coastal Zone Management Program the developments which were constructed in the resort before the Hawaii Coastal Zone Manage- In 1978 the State of Hawaii's Coastal Zone Man- ment Program agement Program was approved by the U.S. Secre- tary of Commerce. This made the state eligible for Table 1. Pre-CZM Program Development federal funding support under the Federal Coastal Project Size (acres) Date Beds[Units Zone Management Act. Chapter 205A of the Re- vised Hawaii Statutes legislation sets forth the Sheraton-Maui 23 January 1963 503 procedures governing the implementation of the Kaanapali Beach Hotel 10.5 February 1964 430 Hawaii Coastal Zone Management Program. This International Colony legislation contains special controls on develop- Club 11.0 1964 44 cottages Royal Lahaina Hotel 38 September 1966 724 ments within an area along the shoreline where Maui Eldorado 10 1970 204 units deemed necessary to avoid permanent loss of valu- Kaanapali Plantation and South Golf Course 10 1970 62 units able resources and the foreclosure of management Maui Surf 12 December 1971 556 options. The legislation requires adequate access Whalers Village Complex 8.5 May 1971 The Whaler on by dedication or other means to publicly owned or I Kaanapah Beach 7 1975 36 units used beaches, recreation areas, and natural area The majority of these developments were con- reserves. The legislature declares that it is the state structed along the shoreline and were all part of the policy to preserve, protect, and where possible, to MasterPlan's firstincrement, which located devel- restore the natural resources of the coastal zone of opment on the southern portion of Kaanapali. Hawaii. To ensure that this policy was imple- mented, Special Management Areas were estab- This first phase of the Royal Kaanapali Beach lished within the shorelines of the state. Resort Plan was thought to be very progressive at the time. Problems relating to decreasing public Special Management Area access and parking, increasing shoreline use and Special Management Area authority was given to reduced visual quality were gradually perceived as the four counties (Maui, Kauai, Oahu and Hawaii) 100 of the State. Each county established their Special Board submits a recommendation to the Commis- Management Area Rules and Regulations and iden- sion, but may on occasion also defer its report to tified their Special Management Area boundaries allow the applicant to correct concerns raised by on maps. In the case of this study, the Special the Board. Management Area for the County of Maui is a continuous strip of coastline surrounding the entire Special Management Area Use Permit island, mainly located on the ocean side of the The Special Management Area Use Permit is the major highway. Most of the Kaanapali Resort area essential tool used by the counties to assure confor- is located within the SMA. mity with the policies, objectives and guidelines of the Hawaii Coastal Zone Management Program. The legislation requires that no development be An environmental assessment is required by Maui allowed in any county within the Special Manage- County as part of all applications. ment Area without a Special Management Area Use Permit. The Maui and Molokai Planning Com- The environmental assessment provides general missions have the authority to grant these permits information on the property to be developed (loca- within the County of Maui. tion, ownership, description, surrounding uses, infrastructural services, access, etc.) and includes: Urban Design Review Board To gain professional views of the design and qual- a biological survey to ensure that no rare, ity of proposed developments, the Special Man- threatened or endangered species of flora or agement Area Rules and Regulations of the County fauna exists on the project site or will be af- ofMaui established an Urban Design Review Board. fected by the development The Board consists of seven regular members and four alternates, all of whom are registered archi- an archaeological survey to ensure that no tects, landscape architects, engineers or persons significant archaeological features are present with interest or experience in urban planning, fine arts, conservation or historic preservation. The a project description of the proposed project, Board is advisory to the Planning Commission and including the schematic drawings presented to reviews, recommends and comments on all appli- the Urban Design Review Board cations within the SMA which could potentially affect the overall quality of the coastal zone envi- an assessment addressing conformance with ronment. Their recommendations and comments the objectives, policies and guidelines set forth consider the maintenance, restoration, and enhance- in the Special Management Area Rules and ment of the Special Management Area consistent Regulations of the County of Maui. with the objectives, policies, and guidelines of the Special Management Area Rules and Regulations. Depending on the type and size of the develop- ment, the permit application may also include a Before a Special Management Area Use Permit preliminary drainage plan, a certified shoreline application is scheduled for public hearing with the survey, (if the proposed development is located Planning Commission, the proposed development along the shoreline) and a traffic study. Also re- is reviewed by the Urban Design Review Board. quired is a list of the tax map showing the names Schematic drawings, plans (site plan, floor plan, and addresses of all owners and lessees, and a map elevations, landscape planting and irrigation plans, clearly defining the 500-foot boundary around the lighting plans, etc.) and the project's description development; within which the owners of all par- are presented by the applicant. The Board basically cels must be notified. examines the size, design, and conformity of the proposal with the County's building codes. The 101 The application, environmental assessment and Zone Management Program, Maui County has other submittals are transmitted to agencies that developed Shoreline Setback Rules and Regula- may be affected by the development. Their com- tions and Special Accessory Use Permits to restrict ments and/or recommendations are used as part of certain types of development and uses along the the findings for the permit report to the Commis- shoreline. sion. Such comments and/or recommendations may impose requirements on the applicant. Shoreline Setback Rules and Regulations of the County of Maui. After the agencies have responded and the pro- Increasing demands for utilization of the beach and posed development has been reviewed by the Ur- ocean resources has made it imperative that: ban Design Review Board, the Planning Depart- ment will determine from this input whether the public use and enjoyment of the shoreline development will incur any special problems. area be insured for the public to the fullest Where such problems are found to be present, the extent possible applicantwill needtoresolve thernwith the agency. Once such problems are resolved, a Planning Com- the natural shoreline environment be pre- mission public hearing date is scheduled. served A public hearing notice is published in both a local * man-made features in the shoreline area be county and a statewide newspaper. This notifica- limited to features compatible with the shore- tion, as well as notification to the surrounding line area owners and lessees of property within a 500-foot radius of the project site, are submitted no less than the natural movement of the shoreline be 25 days prior to the public hearing. This allows the protected from development. public time to seek more information and offer written testimony on the proposed development. Such policies are necessary because development and other man-made innovations have resulted in At the public hearing the Planning Department encroachment of structures near the shoreline, and presents a report on the proposed development. in numerous instances, erosion and other distur- Their report includes: information obtained in the bances affecting the natural movement of the shore- environmental assessment; the project's schematic line. These rules are also necessary because the drawings; agency inputs; written public inputs; and Hawaiian Islands are subject to tsunamis and high an analysis of the project's relationship to the wave action that pose hazards to residences and objectives, policies and guidelines of the Special other structures near the shoreline. Consequently, Management Area Rules and Regulations. Oral the purpose of these rules and regulations is to and written testimony are then presented to the establish shoreline areas within which the use and Commission. activities are regulated in order to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public. Conditions may be attached to a permit stipulating: a time period for initiation of construction of the The setback rules and regulations require that all project; conformance with agency recommenda- lots which abut the shoreline shall have a shoreline tions; mitigating measures during construction; setback line of 40 feet, with certain exceptions, provision of beach right-of-ways and public beach depending on lot depth and buildable area. Struc- parking; and if needed, a self-enforcing provision. tures are prohibited in the shoreline area without a, Shoreline Setback Variance unless it is determined Although the Special Management Area Use Per- by the Director of Planning to be a minor structure mit is the key tool for implementing the Coastal which does not affect beach processes, does not 102 artificially fix the shoreline, and does not interfere Commission approval of a Special Accessory Use with public access or public views to and along the Permit is required. This process helps to control shoreline. Some examples of minor structures are these uses within the shoreline area. landscaping features or irrigation designed to sta- bilize and enhance the buildings, paved lanais, Impact of the Management Program swimming pools, beach use facilities, and paved walkways for public access. A public hearing and The Special Management Area Use Permit has Planning Commission approval are required for a been the major tool in the preservation of natural, Shoreline Setback Variance. The processing and cultural and coastal resources and environmentally review of the variance request is similar to the sensitive areas within the Royal Kaanapali Beach Special Management Area Use Permit. A variance Resort. Through the Special Management Area may be granted for a structure or activity; if the Use Permit, open space quality has been main- Commission finds that the proposed development tained at the Hyatt Regency, Maui Marriott and is necessary for or ancillary to cultivation of crops, Kaanapali Alii. View corridors to the ocean have aquaculture, landscaping, drainage, boating, mari- also been maintained. Kaanapali Alii is a prime time or water sports recreational facilities, public example of maintaining view corridors. This de- facilities or improvements, private facilities, or velopment includes four towers which are spaced improvements that are clearly in the public interest. apart to allow views to the ocean. The rules and regulations further state that no variance will be granted unless appropriate condi- Landscaping, including shade trees, are required tions are imposed: for parking areas and additional landscaping has always been recommended for areas within the to maintain safe lateral access to and along hotel grounds to soften impacts from the continuity the shoreline or adequately compensate for its of building structures. Natural vegetation along the loss shoreline has been preserved to distinguish the hotel boundaries with the beach. to minimize risk of adverse impacts on beach processes Any changes or modifications to existing struc- tures, landscaping, etc. are required to be reviewed to minimize risk of structures falling and and processed by the Planning Department by way becoming loose rocks or rubble on public prop- of a Special Management Area Use or Minor erty Permit. Because of this, continuity of building design, color, etc. can be maintained. The Whalers to minimize adverse impacts on public Village Complex, through the years, has had its views to, from, and along the shoreline. floor space expanded. The owners have not ex- panded outside of the original complex but have Special Accessory Use Permit developed within. A continuity of design and color All of the parcels located along the shoreline of the has always been required through the Special Man- Kaanapali Beach Resort are hotel zoned with the agement Area permits. exception of the Whalers Village Complex, which is zoned resort commercial. The County of Maui's Conformance with these requirements has also hotel zoning ordinance provides a limited amount been established through the Urban Design Re- of permitted uses (related to services provided for view Board. In 1988, Whalers Village applied for the hotel guests) within this district. Other uses, not a permit to provide a new structure for their whale specifically listed as a permitted use, that are hotel skeleton display. The Board considered that the guest oriented are considered to be accessory uses. proposed structure was too large and not within the In order to establish this accessory use, Planning original framework of the complex. The Board 103 recommended that a slimmed down display be been developed. This walkway is available for designed to coincide with the existing structures. hotel guest and public use. Conditions of these permits have prohibited any construction of im- The Board has also recommended that landscaping provements, except landscaping, on the ocean side be implemented in certain areas of a proposed of this walkway. The result of this provision is an project to soften the visual impacts of the project. unobstructed view to the ocean. Lighting features for parking areas and walkways are also reviewed by the Board to ensure height, Uses that have required Special Accessory Use safety, direction and brightness are within their Permit approval and which may create potential guidelines. impacts along the beach, are beach activity centers. Various services are offered within these centers, Another of the major problems that the Royal 'such as rental of beach equipment (snorkel equip- Kaanapali Beach Resort Master Plan did not ad- ment, air mattresses, boogie boards, etc.), kayaks, dress is the provision of public beach access. At the wind surfing equipment; and sales of ocean excur- time the Plan was adopted, access to beaches at sions, snorkeling expeditions, and other activities. Kaanapali and Maui in general was not a problem due to sparse development along the coastline. But as development progressed along the Kaanapali LAHAINA coastline, the public realized that it was becoming difficult to access the beach and also to find avail- OLD KAANAPALI able areas to park their cars. AIRPORT The Special Management Area Use Permit has been the key element in establishing public beach access and parking within the Kaanapali Resort. 7 T Developers were required to provide and construct > 74 Z _J ROYAL KAANAPALI > 41 0 improved public beach rights-of-way and parking GOLF COURSE IZ 0 Z Z along their projects by way of easements to the 0 Z X County as conditions of the permit. Presently, a total of 7 public beach rights-of-way and 150 0 public parking places have been created between the Hyatt Regency in the south and the Royal HANAKAO'O BEACH PARK Lahaina Resort to the north (Figure 2). All beach WAHIKULI BEACH PARK right-of-ways and parking stalls are for public use only and provided 24-hours a day. Through condi- Shoreline Access tions of the Special Management Area permits, the Hyatt (DKasnapall Airport Paved access;dt access: Marriott-Hyatt sandy ?)each: roadside access and parking lot providers are required to parking: AD !Ficiiiiiiis: AIII-Marrlott swiMM,ng.1pICnICking. monitor the use and prohibit all non-public beach Paved accesses off of Honeakai Drive: sandy be.th, parking: Wahikull Beach Park users, such as commercial vehicles or hotel em- swimming Paved access. sandy beach@ Westin-Aill Park ' r"'r - ions. s@ ployees, from utilizing these facilities. This strat- "*' @ Whaler-Westin swimining,'plenicking. egy has been very successful. Sheraton Hanakaoo Beach Park Paved accesses off of Paved access: sandy harich: Kaenapall Dfive. sandy carting. restroom, shower$. beat ; parking (only for PIC, ic tables. pavilions, life Westh i: swimming. luards, swimmingipicnicking. Through the Special Management Area permit and in Shoreline Setback process, a concrete public walk- way, starting from the southernmost boundary of Kaanapali (Hyatt Regency Maui) to its northern- most developed boundary (Royal Lahaina), has Figure 2. Shoreline Access 104 Conditions of this permit approval restricts the sale end with restrooms, showers, picnic and paved of these services within the activity center and parking facilities and landscape planting prohibits solicitation on the beach. Beach equip- ment is also required to be stored on the hotel provision of a shoreline open space area for property. Public beach accesses and parking may public use with a paved shoreline walkway not be used by those involved in this commercial setback approximately 30 feet from the ocean activity. side property boundary. Future Expansion This open space area would be established for The Kaanapali North Beach Joint Venture (Amfac public use with emphasis on maintaining the exist- Property Investment Corporation and Tobishima ing natural shoreline character and topography, Pacific, Inc.) is planning to develop 95 acres of including abundant tree cover, and providing a ocean front property directly north of the existing defined and usable public space separate from the Royal Kaanapali Beach Resort. The joint venture hotel grounds. This walkway would connect the has received Special Management Area Use Per- north and south public beach parks and span the mit approval for the subdivision of this property. A entire length of the 3,200 foot long beach. Shower total of eleven lots, which may be consolidated into poles would be provided at appropriate intervals a maximum of six hotel sites and two park sites, had along this walkway, and a public restroom facility been created. There is also the possibility that is planned for a central location. fewer but larger hotel sites will be developed. In addition, each hotel developer is required to Conditions of this Special Management Area Use provide employee housing units for their staff to Permit approval include: meet the affordable housing shortages on the is- land. This policy requires that the developer pro- height restrictions for the hotels, depend- vide @Dne affordable housing unit to its hotel staff ing on their appropriate zoning for every five hotel rooms constructed. These units are constructed on separate property within the a minimum shoreline setback of 80 feet, hotel's region. which may be increased by the Planning Com- mission CONCLUSIONS 0 the establishment of a transportation man- The first phase of the Royal Kaanapali Beach agement plan dealing with employee and guest Resort was essentially completed before the estab- traffic lishment of the Hawaii Coastal Zone Management Program. Although the Kaanapali plan was a very a limitation on the total number of hotel and progressive concept at that time, there were short- condominium rooms to not exceed 3200 for a falls that were not originally perceived; such as period of ten years after the start of operation of reduced public beach access and parking, increas- the initial project ing shoreline use and deterioration of visual qual- ity. Through the adoption of the Hawaii Coastal a prohibition on construction of the initial Zone Management Area Program, Maui County project until the Lahaina Bypass Highway has was given the tools to redress these shortfalls been implemented through Special Management Area permits, Shore- line Setback Rules and Regulations, and Special provision of a 5.0 acre improved public Accessory Use Permit procedures. beach park on the extreme north end and a 3.0 acre improved public beach park on the south 105 With future proposed developments at the north Development should be limited to the ex- end of Kaanapali, Maui County has taken steps to isting infrastructure capacity. require the developer to address and resolve shore- line concerns before initial development. it is evi- References dent that this could not have been achieved without County of Maui, Special Management Area Rules and Regula- the Coastal Zone Management Program, upon tions of the County of Maui. which Maui County has relied heavily to provide for and protect shoreline uses from the impact of Kaanapali Beach Operators Association, Facilities Guide, development. Kaanapali, Maui. State of Hawaii, 1978. Coastal Zone Management Program. LESSONS LEARNED Kaanapali Beach Resort Master Plan. Archer, J. 1988. Coastal Management in the United States: A The successful control of large scale devel- Selective Review and Summary, Technical Report@ Series opmentrequires aconstraining framework such TR-D-1, Coastal Resources Center, University of Rhode Island. as the Coastal Zone Management Program. For further information and provision of key The permit process can be used effectively references contact: to achieve preservation of desired values. Plans and Coastal Zone Management The permit process can be an important Administration tool to persuade existing development to come Maui Planning Department into line with new policies, when applying for County of Maui a retrofit or expansion. 250 South High Street Waikuku, Maui, HaWaii 96793 Intelligent zoning is effective in limiting development. 106 Coastal Resources Management in South Carolina Private Development of Hilton Head and Daufuskie Islands Melvin Goodwin, Margaret Davidson and Shirley Conner This comparative study examines resource management issues related to the private development of two sea islands on the South Carolina coast. The primary issues involved are water quality, wetlands protection, protection of beaches and dunes, public access to common property resources, and protection of unique cultural resources. Development on one of the islands studied occurred in the 1950s prior to the introduction of the State's Coastal Zone Management Plan (CZMP). Decisions about how development would occur were made by private developers. Initial Hilton Head developments were widely hailed as environmentally sound and were used as an example of a place where both profit and environmental objectives were met. Subsequently unregulated developments on Hilton Head were not so enlightened and led to significant adverse impacts on coastal resources. In the second example, Daufuskie Island was developed after the State CZMP and other regulatory programs were put in place. The environmental impact of develop- ment to date on Daufuskie Island appears less severe. The reason for the latter circum- stance is due to a combination of the introduction of government regulation and an awareness among developers and resource managers of the negative aspects of previous development activities. Residents of both islands have experienced significant cultural impacts that have not been addressed either by existing coastal zone management processes or the private developer. INTRODUCTION while environmental concerns on Hilton Head Is- land were left largely to the conscience of develop- The focus of this case study is the private develop- ers, development on Daufuskie Island has been ment of two sea islands on the coast of South subject to a formal process of coastal zone manage- Carolina, and the successes and failures of two ment through the Federal Coastal Zone Manage- different approaches to coastal zone management. ment Act and the South Carolina Coastal Zone Resort development on Hilton Head Island in the Management Act. 1950's was led by pioneers in the field of environ- mentally sensitive development. Unfortunately, In 1949, the Hilton Head Company (HHC) was these early developers were followed by others organized to purchase 19,000 acres on Hilton Head who were less conscientious. In the 1980's, devel- Island, which represented approximately 70% of opment on Daufuskie Island began with great con- the total land area. Six years later, the Sea Pines cern among residents over the probable impact of project began, a 4,500 acre planned community development on their island's environment. But that set new standards for environmentally sensi- tive development. Serious commitment of Sea Pines developers to conservation of the natural beauty of The authors are associated with South Carolina Sea Grant and Hilton Head Island resulted in coastal,communities collectively have extensive experience ofeconomic development and coastal resource issues, as well as ongoing involvement with that were unique for the 1960's. However, the coastal development impacts upon natural and cultural re- absence of environmental protection regulations or sources. 107 guidelines, coupled with the temptation to produce Development ofplanned communities on Daufuskie quick profits resulted in other projects that caused began in the mid 1980's amid concerns that it significant degradation of natural resources. In would repeat the experience of Hilton Head Island. 1982, it was estimated that 33% of all freshwater Daufuskie residents were mainly low-income blacks wetlands on the island had been eliminated and whose families had owned property on the island another 20% had been seriously altered by devel- since the end of the Civil War, and they did not opment activities on their periphery, that affected want to be forced to, move or see their island the natural drainage patterns. destroyed. Long-time residents wanted improved services and employment opportunities while still The predominantly black population that existed maintaining the unique charm and character of on Hilton Head Island in the mid 1950's had little Daufuskie. The local planning commission finally impact on the decision making process. In the early decided to formulate a. land use plan in 1983 after 1970's they reorganized the local National Asso- several developers requested approval for con- ciation for the Advancement of Colored People struction projects. Unlike the process on Hilton (NAACP) in an attempt to make their voices heard, Head island, Daufuskie landowners were involved but funding for the project failed to materialize. in the initial planning and have even been con- Later, many whites also became dissatisfied with sulted by at least one developer. development practices. The only agency with ap- plicable regulatory authority (the Beaufort County Joint Planning Commission) appeared unable or BACKGROUND uninterested in controlling the aesthetics of con- struction projects. In 1983, Hilton Head residents In 1977, the South Carolina Coastal Zone Manage- incorporated as a municipality to achieve some ment Act (SCCZMA) created the South Carolina control over development in their community. Coastal Council (S CCC) as the official state agency PROFILE Mandate for Program The South Carolina Coastal Zone Management Act was enacted in 1977 and created the South Carolina Coastal Council (SCCC), with responsibility for directing the state's coastal program. The primary goal of the program is to achieve a rational balance between economic develop- ment and conservation of the coastal zone's natural resources. Geographic Scope The coastal zone is comprised of eight coastal counties containing "critical areas;" which consist of tidelands, beaches, primary oceanfront dunes and coastal waters. Both Hilton Head and Daufuskie Islands are within the coastal zone. Management Procedures/Techniques Regulations allow SCCC to have direct permitting authority for activities which take place in critical areas, and indirect influence in non-designated areas. Decisions on permit applications are based upon evaluation of the economic importance of the proposed activity, the dependence of the activity upon a coastal/critical area location, and the probable impact of the proposed activity upon coastal waters. A Special Area Management Plan has been prepared for Hilton Head. 108 to implement the CZMA.. The SCCC has two tailed site plans including: potentially conflicting mandates: -Delineation of wetlands and other critical areas -Aerial and/or topographical surveys � To protect the quality of the coastal environment *Soil analyses � To promote the economic and social improve- -Archaeological surveys ment of the coastal zone and of all the people of the oStormwater runoff plans state -Diagrams and proposals for roads and utilities The primary goal of the SCCC management pro- Adequate review of proposed coastal development gram. is to achieve a rational balance between must address the problems of land-use and carry- economic development and conservation of the ing capacity in a comprehensive manner. Ideally, coastal zone's natural resources. Another goal is to the entire project is submitted and reviewed as a promote intergovernmental coordination and pub- whole, because the opportunity for environmental lic participation in the development and implemen- degradation is increased when individual compo- tation of the coastal managcment program for the nents of a project are considered separately. state. Activities in critical areas (beaches, primary sand dunes, tidelands and coastal waters) are con- trolled by a permit system. Though seemingly comprehensive, these mandates and goals do not give the SCCC total control over coastal develop- ment. A variety of other federal and state agencies CHRONOLOGY OF MAJOR EVENTS are also involved. The Beaufort County Joint Plan- ning Commission, the Hilton Head Planning Com- 1949 Hilton Head Company organized mission, and the Low Country Health District are 1955 Sea Pines development begins on three of the most important local agencies involved Hilton Head Island with coastal zone management in the area of this 1957 Bridge constructed to connect Hilton Head Island with mainland case study. 1957-74 Hilton Head Company master plan prepared and revised The coastal management program encourages pub- 1959 Oyster industry on Daufuskie Island lic involvement in several ways: collapses due to pollution 1972 Federal Coastal Zone Management Act enacted Complete files for each permit application are 1977 South Carolina Coastal Zone Manage- available for inspection by the general public ment Act enacted - The SCCC is required to hold a public hearing for 1981 Preliminary approval granted for 2330 any application if twenty or more citizens of the acre development on Daufuskie Island affected county request such a hearing 1982 Special Area Management Plan prepared for Hilton Head Island Permit applications must be accompanied by a 1983 Hilton Head Island incorporated as a copy of a newspaper advertisement giving public municipality notice of the application 1985 Daufuskie L -and Use plan adopted by Beaufort County Joint Planning If a developer believes that a project might gener- Commission 1988 Beach Management Act adopted for ate a great deal of controversy, a special review can South Carolina be requested from the SCCC. A less detailed appli- 1990 Zoning and Development Standards cation is submitted than is required for a regular Ordinance adopted in Beaufort County review so that less money need be invested in a project that might not be approved. Final approval is granted after appropriate agencies review de- 109 THE CASE STUDY: Hilton Head and Daufuskie development of the previously sparsely populated Islands island. Hilton Head Island The individuals who first envisioned and then Hilton Head Island is a sea island located between developed a resort community on Hilton Head Port Royal Sound to the north and Daufuskie Island Island believed that this area had the potential to to the south (Figure 1). The two islands are sepa- become an important resort location where people rated by Calibogue Sound while a narrow band of and nature could coexist. With no previous ex- marsh and creek separates Hilton Head Island from amples to follow, these early developers invested a the mainland. The island is 11.5 miles in length and great deal of effort and money into turning their 6.8 miles wide, including both high ground and original concepts into reality. Sea Pines Plantation marsh. A sandy beachfront runs the length of the was started in the late 1950's well before the island, and elevations range from sea level to 21 existence of the CZNIA or state and/or local man- feet. In 1971, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers agement programs. The goal of the Hilton Head estimated the annual rate of erosion to be 6.2 feet. Company was 'protection of the Island's natural Construction of a bridge in 1957 connected Hilton beauty and character.' As a first step, boundaries Head Island to the mainland, permitting large scale were delineated forconservation areas: salt marshes, 0 0 SOUTH 190 0 CAROLINA ATLANTIC OCEAN Hilton Head Island Daufuskie Island South Carolina GEORGIA Figure 1. Hilton Head and Daufuskie Islands 110 bird rookeries and selected forest areas. Next, a plans to build traditional brick houses and seek preeminent environmental scientist was retained to architectural assistance to create a totally new type determine which areas should remain undeveloped of dwelling. This blending with nature makes Sea and protected, establish guidelines for ecological Pines feel more sparsely populated than aerial planning and protection of the conservation zones, photography would indicate. It is a concept that has and review the final detailed site plan for each endured the test of time. development. These plans preserved individual stately trees and even left a particularly attractive It was not, unfortunately, a concept shared by all pine tree in the center of a golf fairway. The plans developers. As the potential for resort develop- also contained recommendations concerning wa- ment on Hilton Head Island became increasingly terfront setbacks, buffer zones, storm water runoff, clear, other projects were started whose overriding discharge into marshes and the use of effluent for concern was rapid generation of maximum profit. golf course irrigation. This commitment to the This resulted in the creation of structures designed environment was based on the developer's desire to accommodate large numbers of tourists, with to produce an environmentally sensitive develop- little regard for the impact of the structures or their ment; there were no governmental mandates to occupants on the surrounding natural environment. control development. The absence of an enforceable policy to protect natural and cultural resources made it possible for The master plan prepared for the HHC yields an these resources to be degraded by inappropriate interesting look at a state-of-the-art development development; the profits to be made from such plan from the early 1970's. The plan examined the development made degradation a virtual certainty. whole island and addressed among other things t 'he topics of traffic congestion, low-income housing In 1982, the resident population of 14,000 periodi- for support personnel, conservation of natural re- cally swelled to more than 40,000 by visitor influx. sources, saltwater intrusion and the need for a The prevailing development trend at that time single Public Service District (PSD) to supply suggested that these numbers would eventually water, sewage and fire protection services. In 1972 increase to 70,000 and 150,000 respectively. Dis- there were three PSDs, and many homes still relied charge of treated sewage and storm water ' runoff on wells and septic tanks. The Sea Pines Company had already resulted in significant trouble spots reserved the right to continuously revise its master that were expected to expand and change from plan for unimproved land to incorporate experi- short-term occurrences to long-term or permanent ences gained during the development process; nine problems. Pressure was steadily increasing for district master plans were prepared between 1957 filling of wetlands to accommodate buildout or for and 1974. Creation of pioneering land-use cov- dredging to allow marina construction. Later enants and 1,280 acres of parks and forest pre- projects built ever closer to beaches and dunes, serves were two of the developer's most important often removing secondary dunes and maritime contributions to the nature of coastal zone develop- forests that had provided some. protection from ment. It is important to point out that, though the erosion. Proliferation of private resorts steadily plan is impressive and innovative, today's stan- reduced public access to recreational areas. That dards would require a much more intensive soil year, 'concern over long-term implications for the survey, as well as attention to archaeological or natural environment, public resources and the sta- cultural resources which were not considered at all. bility of its economy' prompted the SCCC to develop a Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) Sea Pines gained considerable recognition as a for Hilton Head Island. In 1983, the island's resi- pioneer in the field of environmentally sensitive dents incorporated as a municipality to better regu- development. Extensive covenants were created to late continued construction of unsightly utility preserve the dream of harmonious coexistence. buildings that had been erected in large numbers. Many property owners were forced to abandon The apparent disregard of many developers for the 950 of which are saltmarsh. Elevations range from interests of the long-term blackresidents has caused sea level to 30 feet. Compared to other shorelines a great deal of animosity. In 1950, most Hilton in the area, the shoreline of Daufuskie Island is Head Island residents were black; but today, whites relatively stable (Figure 1). outnumber them by at least 8 to 1. Before Sea Pines was completed, blacks owned one-third of the Daufuskie Island is much more isolated than Hilton Island. As land values and property taxes increased, Head Island. The absence of a bridge to connect it the black population began to sell their land to the to the mainland and its smaller size have prevented developers. An acre of land that used to sell for the large scale development that has occurred on $100 now brings $100,000. High prices caused Hilton Head Island. The population of Daufuskie some to sell voluntarily, but many others were reached a peak of approximately 1000 in the early living on limited incomes and simply could not 1900's before cotton crops were destroyed by the afford to pay increased property taxes. boll weevil and oyster beds were closed because of pollution from a neighboring state. With extremely Those blacks desiring to develop their own prop- limited employment opportunities, residents were erty have been stopped by the lack of public sewer forced to leave the island to support their families. and water services. The large planned communi- By the time construction of exclusive develop- ties like Sea Pines helped establish a Public Service ments began on the old plantations in the mid District to provide water and/or sewage service for 1980's the population had dwindled to fewer than their residents. Small landowners are not allowed 200. Those that remained were generally the eld- to tie into this system and cannot afford to install erly with limited incomes. their own facilities. The only option is to sell their property to a developer who can obtain these nec- Even before developers showed serious interest in essary services. Daufuskie, long-time residents were concerned that it might turn into another Hilton Head Island. Developments on Hilton Head Island that attempted Although they welcomed the prospect of increased to build in harmony with nature have been used as employment opportunities, better health care ser- models by agencies with mandates to assist in vices, and improved county services, they feared environmentally sensitive development. People like that development would destroy the special charm the Sea Pines developers were invaluable in the of Daufuskie. The prospect of large compounds creation of agency programs to protect the environ- surrounded by fences and guarded gates (common ment. Unfortunately, advice concerning island- on Hilton Head Island) that would prevent them wide planning for roads, utilities and low-income from visiting the cemeteries of their ancestors, was housing was not as readily accepted. Today, Hilton especially distasteful. Residents voiced their con- Head as a whole suffers from lack of initial com- cerns through the Daufuskie Island Community prehensive planning and either incomplete under- Improvement Club (DICIC), an organization standing or blatant disregard for the protection of founded in 1966 to represent the islanders' inter- the natural environment on the part of many devel- ests to the county goverament. opers. In 198 1, the Daufuskie Island Land Trust (Interna- Daufuskie Island tional Paper) appeared before the Beaufort County Daufuskie Island is separated from Hilton Head Joint Planning Commission (JPQ seeking prelimi- Island by Calibogue Sound and from the mainland nary approval for a 2,330 acre development. Al- by a broad expanse (14 miles) of saltmarsh. It is 2.7 though the JPC expressed concerns about solid miles wide, including both high ground and marsh, waste disposal, hurricane evacuation, domestic and 5.0 miles long with 3.0 miles of sandy water, sewage disposal, public beach access and beachfront. There are approximately 6,100 acres, transportation, preliminary approval was granted 112 within one month. When final approval for a twenty little to help individual property owners retain title six lot subdivision was requested in 1983, the JPC to their land. voted to "draft a plan which would recommend appropriate governmental actions for community To some extent, Daufuskie Island is benefitting services, transportation and land use." from the thirty years of experience gained from development on Hilton Head. That experience pro- The JPC met with the DICIC as part of the planning vides a vivid demonstration of the adverse impacts process to discuss the problems that might occur of uncontrolled growth, not only upon local resi- because of development. All property owners also dents and natural resources, but also upon visitors received a questionnaire that contained three mul- and investors. The same experience illustrates the tiple choice questions and one which asked for any importance of public involvement in charting the other actions the property owner would like gov- course of development. Some lessons learned from ernment agencies to take to achieve orderly growth Hilton Head Island are reflected in regulations that or a desirable development pattern on Daufuskie. prohibit at least some of the detrimental activities In addition to the concerns voiced earlier by the that characterized that island's development. Ex- JPC, respondents expressed the desire to protect amples are the need for adequate infrastructure and low income property owners from tax increases preservation of wetlands. and showed an overwhelming concern to prevent Daufuskie from becoming another Hilton Head It is unlikely that development on Daufuskie Island Island. After reviewing the questionnaires, land will replicate the Hilton Head experience. Absence surveys, recommendations of the Low Country of a bridge to the mainland will not only prevent the Health District and the implications of the CZMA, traffic congestion seen on Hilton Head Island, but the staff prepared the Daufuskie Island Plan which will also provide the impetus for adequate trans- was adopted by the JPC in 1985. The result was a portation for workers and residents after they ar- land-use plan that addressed all of the previously rive. Cars are prohibited within Haig Point and mentioned concerns except the property tax issue. Melrose, two exclusive communities that operate But the plan is only a recommendation, and much their own ferries. International Paper Reality Corp. of the island is now owned by different develop- of SC, developer of Haig Point Plantation, and the ment companies. Melrose Corp. currently control approximately 50% of the land on Daufuskie. Developers have indi- At least one Daufuskie Island developer has been cated a strong desire to produce environmentally willing to negotiate with residents outside the sound developments, but the need for effective planned communities. The developer of the Melrose regulatory control is demonstrated by the construc- Plantation has hosted cook-outs and public meet- tion of a long sea wall to protect a golf course in one ings to discuss his plans with residents before of the developments. At the time of construction, seeking agency approval. When residents expressed the SCCC was only able to regulate to seaward of concem that another cemetery would be behind the primary oceanfront sand dune and the wall was plantation fences, he agreed to change his plans and built three feet behind it. That wall could not be permit unrestricted access. This type of give-and- built today, because tht Beachfront Management take did not occur on Hilton Head Island where the Act of 1988 requires implementation of a forty year JPC and developers generally ignored the resi- retreat policy and long-range beach management dents' desire to be involved in the planning pro- plans, which would not permit such a structure. cess. This lack of concern may hav%.. caused resi- Conscientious development of remaining land can dents to bring in national human rights organiza- only be ensured if all of the agencies involved tions to champion their cause. One such organiza- adopt binding land-use plans, zoning ordinances, tion involved with Daufuskie Island residents has and environmental protection policies for the en- generated considerable controversy, but has done tire island. 113 But while the impact of development on natural saltmarsh, dune systems and wetlands were not resources of Daufuskie Island may be better con- fully understood and many developers were not trolled than was the case on Hilton Head Island, able to resist the temptation to turn a quick profit. there are few formal mechanisms to control the If customers wanted a beach house, the dunes were impact on local cultural resources. While more often replaced by homes. Development in environ- black residents have returned to Daufuskie as de- mentally sensitive areas was able to.command the velopment created new jobs, availability of em- highest prices and many developers were more ployment in menial capacities on Hilton Head has than willing to accommodate the demand. One of been accompanied by an increased school dropout the Sea Pines visionaries still remembers com- rate among children who leave school forjobs that ments from fellow developers advising him to require -little education. A tradition of self-suffi- flatten the dunes and build expensive homes be- ciency among Daufuskie islanders is being gradu- cause that was his most "valuable" property. ally eroded as more and more of the island is contained within private resorts, separating resi- Coastal zone management on Hilton Head Island dents from what were once common property re- evolved in a reactionary and piecemeal fashion. sources. While historic and prehistoric resources Residents did not organize to develop zoning ordi- are of concern to current coastal zone management nances until they were dissatisfied with existing programs, living cultural resources are highly vul- construction projects. Even then, each project was nerable. The processes of cultural degradation can viewed as if it were an isolated community. The be insidious; many black sea island residents are infrastructure demands of the island as a whole unhappy that new enclosed developments on Hilton were not examined until it was too late to achieve Head Island and Daufuskie Island are called 'plan- significant improvements. The importance of in- tations'. They realize that development is inevi- corporating road and utility systems into initial table and even welcome the improved employment planning became clear when the difficulty and opportunities, but feel that these new plantations extreme expense of retrofitting were realized. offer little more than those during slavery times: low paying jobs with little or no chance for ad- The progression of development activities on vancement or reasonable benefits and no real secu- Daufuskie Island suggests that coastal zone man- rity. agement goals have a greater chance of being achieved than was the case on Hilton Head Island. CONCLUSIONS Daufuskie Island is benefitting from the experi- ence of Hilton Head, as well as the existence of In one sense, all development on both Hilton Head enforceable regulationsthat are intended to protect Island and Daufuskie Island has been successful in coastal resources. While a few dedicated visionar- achieving some goals. The goals achieved, how- ies have developed communities that protect the ever, have not all been those that reflect concern for environment on theirown initiative, hindsight shows coastal resource management. The Sea Pines de- that more traditional, compelling, and formal in- velopment on Hilton Head Island has been widely centives are required. recognized as a model for environmentally sensi- tive development, indicating that the goals of those LESSONS LEARNED developers were achieved. Those goals were not shared by other developers who achieved their own Given the virtual absence of regulatory mandates goals related to economic profits, but did so to the for environmental protection in the 1950's, the detriment of goals related to sound environmental management strategy used by the developers of management. Sea Pines on Hilton Head Island seems entirely .suitable. But while this strategy was certainly suit- In the early years of development on Hilton Head, able for those who chose to pursue it, the absence the long-term effects of altering or destroying of a regulatory mandate for its use limited the 114 impact of this strategy on the island as a whole. If cessful projects and experience tremendous pres- one were an omnipotent, environmentally sensi- sure to perpetuate practices that may cause envi- tive developer in the 1950's one could improve the ronmental degradation. The temptation to discount Sea Pines strategy by forcing uniform compliance environmental sensitivity in favor of profit is not with its provisions by all developers. Because such confined to developers alone. One Sea Pines devel- legal mandates are beyond the capability of single oper believes that when the development began, individuals, the only improvements that might have "stakeholders and the public would have preferred been made relate to broadening the scope of envi- an approach similar to that employed at Myrtle ronmental assessments (e.g., by including histori- Beach as a model for Hilton Head." The approach cal and cultural resources). referred to, resulted in an extremely dense, high rise strip development on the beachfront, designed The management strategy being employed on for the benefit of high density tourism and paying Daufuskie Island has the potential to build on the little attention to environmental protection. He positive aspects of the Hilton Head experience. But suggests that it was the private land owners rather the equivalent of a Sea Pines visionary has not than the public officials, who wanted a radically emerged on Daufuskie. While some developers improved, environmental approach on Hilton Head appear to be pursuing a more responsible approach and Daufuskie Islands. than is evident in the problematic areas of Hilton Head Island, the extent to which environmentally - Environmentally sensitive development re- sensitive development is achieved still depends quires substantial capital investment. Resource very much upon the discretion of the developer. surveys, special construction techniques and the The legal instruments to better ensure such devel- potential presence of large critical areas combine opment are largely in place. The most significant to greatly increase the developer's initial costs. If improvement that might be made would be more he is not financially secure enough to carry these substantial public support to require adherence to cost (sometimes for several years), the project may planning recommendations. fail and cause other developers to abandon their plans to develop land in the resort area. One of the Several general lessons emerge from the experi- developers on Daufuskie Island determined that ence of Hilton Head and Daufuskie Islands: his development would require approximately three years to break even. Losses for those first three Cultural resources are not adequately addressed years totaled six million dollars. Unless they re- in existing coastal zone management programs. ceive substantial government incentives or work as While some degree of cultural impact from devel- subcontractors for larger companies, small devel- opment is probably inevitable, the character and op&s will not be able to participate in environmen- extent of such impact is much less well-defined and tally sensitive coastal development. While the gen- receive much less formal consideration than is the eral consensus of those interviewed is that the most case for impacts on the natural environment. This desirable developments are large planned commu- deficiency should receive particular consideration nities, the same effect could result from compre- in coastal zone management programs intended for hensive land-use planning. use in developing countries. * The Hilton Head Island experience underscores Agencies involved in coastal zone manage- the importance of ensuring adequate infrastruc- ment must have the authority to restrict harmful ture. A comprehensive approach to planning could practices and a mandate to propose, encourage and have examined the important question of carrying regulate innovative approaches to protect the envi- capacity of the area (how much can it reasonably ronment. Because of the large sums of money accommodate?) Without the answer, planners can involved, developers tend to-imitate previous suc- not hope to achieve an environmentally sensitive 115 development. Thorough resource surveys (natural view of the development process and the desired and social) are necessary before agencies begin to outcomes. develop land-use plans and zoning ordinances. If this had occurred on Hilton Head Island, the road Perhaps most important is the pivotal role of system could have been designed to adequately public involvement. A primary motivation for en- handle the heavy traffic demands and the freshwa- acting the Coastal Zone Management Act was ter supplies could have been more wisely manag ed. public concern. Concerned citizens on both Hilton Today, long-time residents forced to ration water Head Island and Daufuskie Island have been re- harbor great resentment toward developers who sponsible for importantinitiatives to improve coastal built golf courses and hundreds of housing units resource management and environmentally sensi- with apparently no thought toward the water re- tive development. An informed and active con- quirements of the island. stituency is probably the best assurance that agency mandates to protect the environment will actually Somewhat similar is the problem of worker be carried out. In sum, the case studies reported availability. Resort employees generally receive here suggest that environmentally sensitive devel- rather low salaries and can not afford to live close opment requires a dedicated and innovative effort to their place of employment. Planners need to by a constituency sufficiently powerful to achieve develop zoning that incorporates affordable hous- its objectives. This constituency may be a small ing units into the area and creates communities. A group of dedicated developers, environmental regu- logical solution is to encourage construction of latory agencies, or the local residents. The power retail businesses (restaurants, gift shops, etc.) with may come from financial capability, legislative apartments on the upper floors. mandate, or significant numbers of voters. Unless such a power base is established, the case studies An obvious deficiency of the South Carolina reported here suggest that environmentally inap- system is fragmentation of responsibilities. There propriate decisions and actions. are likely to be are six natural resource agencies possessing regu- taken by individuals who seek to maximize per- latory/management authority; some activities are sonal profit regardless of the cost to society or managed by several agencies while others are not subsequent generations. managed at all. Developers are forced to deal with a multiplicity of agencies to obtain final approval REFERENCES for development projects. Consulting and negoti- ating with more than one agency can be time Blockson, C.L., Sea Change In the Sea Islands: "Nowhere to Lay Down Weary Head", National Geographic, pg. 734-763. consuming and frustrating but are critical to final December 1987. project approval. Developers need to cultivate good Campbell, E.S. Historical Sketch of Daufuskie Island. 1988. working relationships with the agencies in order to Cerruti, J., Sea Islands: Adventuring Along the South's Surprising achieve timely completion schedules. Improve- Cur, ing Coast. National Geographic, pg. 366-393. March, 1971. n ham, M.G., The Implementation of Policy; Coastal Zone ment could take several forms. One of the first Management Symposium on Coastal Water Resources- should be to ensure that agencies involved in coastal America Water Resources Association. May, 1988.* zone management have a clearly understood man- Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Clemson University, Community Development Needs of date to protect the environment. Similarly, each Daufuskic Island, South Carolina. 1974. component of the development process should be Departmentof Commerce, SouthCarolina's Coast: A State-Federal Partnership in the Management of Coastal and Marine assigned to a specific agency. This is not meant to Resources. Department of Commerce. 1983. negate the value of checks and balances, but to Fraser, C.E. (1988). Hilton Head Island Revisited: A Unique and ensure that nothing is overlooked or "falls between Unexpected Foundation Stoneof the SouthCarolinaLow Country Economy. the cracks." With this type of system, interagency Goodwin, M.H. & Prioleau, E., A Citizen's Guide to the Regulation relationships are critical. Agencies need specific and Management of Coastal Resources in South Carolina. coordinating mechanisms, regardless of the num- Charleston Harbor Estuary Committee. ber of agencies involved, and a clear and accurate Hilton Head Company. Master Plan For Hilton Head Island. 116 Skidmore, Owings & Merrell, Washington. June 1972. South Carolina Coastal Council, Guidelines and Policies of the Hoge, P.,Wright.N., Rivera, C.L., andLeonard, F.S.,TheDaufuskie South Carolina Coastal Management Program. NOAA. Island Plan: An Element of the Beaufort County Compre- South Carolina Coastal Council, Special Area Management Plan for hensive Plan. Beaufort County Joint Planning Commis- Hilton Head Island, South Carolina Coastal Council. sion. 1985. 1982. King, K.S., Daufaskie Island, South Carolina: An Ecological Char- South Carolina Coastal Council. Rules and Regulations for Permit- acterization and an Analysis of the Impending Develop- ting in the Critical Areas of the Coastal Zone. South ment, Master's Thesis, University of Oregon, 1983. Carolina Coastal Council. 1990. Mattews, T.D., Stapor, F.W., Jr., Richter, C.R., Miglarese, J.V., South Carolina Coastal Council. Storm Water Management Guide- McKenzie, M. D., and Barclay, L.A., Eds.; Ecological lines. South Carolina Coastal Council. 1988. Characterization of the Sea Island Coastal Region of South Carolina Coastal Council. Geographic Areas of Particular SouthCarolina andGeorgia, Volume I: Physical Features Concern: as defined by the State of South Carolina Coastal of the Characterization Area. U.S. Government Printing Management Program and Final Environmental Impact Office, Washington, D.C., 1980. Statement. South Carolina Coastal Council. McKenzie, M.D., Miglarese, J.V., Anderson, B.S., and Barclay, South Carolina Coastal Council/U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. L.A., Eds., Ecological Characterization of the Sea Island Developer's Handbook for Freshwater Wetlands. South Coastal Region of South Carolina and Georgia, Volume Carolina Coastal Council. II: Socioeconomic Features of the Characterization Area. South Carolina Coastal Council. Rules and Regulations for Permit- U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., ting in the Critical Areas of the Coastal Zone. South 1980. Carolina Coastal Council. 1990. McPhee, J. Encounters With The Archdruid. Farrau, Straus and Stuck, W.M. (1980). Soil Survey of Beaufort and Jasper Countries, Giroufl New York. 1971. South Carolina. U.S. Department of Agriculture Rozin, S., Time Catches Up with a Special Island, Audobon, pg. 60- 69. September, 1981. For further information and provision of key Sandifer. P.A., Miglarese, J.V., Calder, D.R., Manzi, J.J., and Barclay, L.A., Eds. Ecological Characterization of the references contact: Sea Island Coastal Region of South Carolina and Georgia, SCCC, 4130 Faber Place, Volume III: Biological Features of the Characterization Suite 300, Area. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 1980. Charleston, SC 29405, USA. 117 AT F- D Ll 3 66-68 ODOOO 0234