This report discusses progress made during the past five years toward implementing the 1994 report of the North Carolina Coastal Futures Committee, as reviewed at the State of the Coast Summit held in Wilmington on October 8, 1999. It compares the recommendations from Charting a Course for Our Coast with accomplishments to date, pointing out some dangerous shoals

Godschalk, David R.

Carolina Digital Repository

Progress Report on Charting a Course forOur Coast: Not All Smooth SailingDavid R. GodschalkThis report discusses progress made duringthe past five years toward implementing the 1 994report of the North Carolina Coastal FuturesCommittee, as reviewed at the State of the CoastSummit held in Wilmington on October 8, 1999.It compares the recommendations from Chartinga Course for Our Coast with accomplishments todate, pointing out some dangerous shoals.Year ofthe Coast Marks Two Decades ofCoastal ManagementThe 1994 National Conference onInnovations in Coastal Management, held inWilmington, was an upbeat event. The conferencewas the culminating step in a well-publicizedyearlong effort entitled The Year ofthe Coast thatcelebrated the 20"1 anniversary of the enactmentof the 1974 North Carolina Coastal AreaManagement Act (CAM A). Those of usattending the conference believed the time hadfinally come to complete the actions necessary foran effective intergovernmental coastalmanagement program, two decades after theadoption of the original cautious and limitedimplementation approach.The printed conference program began withoptimistic quotes from state leaders (NC CoastalFutures Committee 1994b). Governor James Huntsaid: "We have a moral responsibility to do theright thing-for our people and for the land." Thegovernor gave a rousing speech about the needDavid R. Godschalk is the Stephen BaxterProfessor ofCity and Regional Planning at theUniversity ofNorth Carolina at Chapel Hill.for wise land use planning, hearkening back to hisfather's work with the land as an agriculturalagent.Jonathan Howes, then Secretary of the NCDepartment of Environment, Health and NaturalResources, stated: "We must plan now to ensure asound future for coastal North Carolina. We mustlearn from both our mistakes and our triumphs toplan for tomorrow." Richardson Preyer, formercongressman, federal judge, and chair of theCoastal Futures Committee, stated: "Protectingour coast means protecting our rich and diversecultural and environmental heritage. Ifwe worktogether, we can sustain this wonderful resourcefor future generations."A number of distinguished conferencespeakers addressed topics such as Putting Scienceto Work in Coastal Management, The U.S.Congress and Our Coasts, Innovative StateApproaches to Coastal Zone Management,Sustainable Development Through QualityGrowth Management, Coastal Water QualityProtection, Planning for the Big Storm: StayingOut of Harm's Way, and Program Implementationand Enforcement. It seemed that North Carolinacoastal management was not only going toshoulder its full responsibilities, but also waspoised to regain its position as a national leader ininnovative coastal planning.Charting a Coursefor Our CoastThe high point of the 1994 conference wasthe presentation to the governor of the FinalReport of the N.C. Coastal Futures Committee—Charting a Course for Our Coast (NC CoastalFutures Committee 1994a). The 15-membercommittee was charged by the governor to reviewCAMA's accomplishments and shortcomings, andooXCO>Oo><aXCDOaCOox>chart a new course of action for the next 20 years • Supporting environmentally sound develop-and beyond. The committee's report ment, including aquaculture. marie ulture andacknowledges the achievements under the 1974 ecotourism.CAMA. including banning sea walls and other • Strengthening and enforcing laws to controlbeach-destroying structures, protecting ecological nonpoint source pollution, such as runoffsystems, preserving public beach access, and from cities and farms.adopting land use plans by all local governments • Applying a special classification, Use Resto-in the 20 coastal counties. ration Waters, to areas such as the SouthHowever, the 1994 report points out that River where chronic pollution problems exist.explosive population growth and unexpected • Expanding the coastal reserve program toenvironmental dangers continue to threaten the conserve environmental systems such ascoast. It describes the closing of shellfish waters riverine and estuarine fish nurseries andand the damage to wetlands, maritime forests and maritime forests, and securing permanentfish habitats. The report also notes that the funding for beach access, coastal reserve, andquality of land use planning has been uneven. other acquisition programs.while local input can be lost because CAMA does • Restoring fish habitats through improved landnot require that adopted plans be implemented. use planning, stricter water quality controls,The report calls for a plan that will protect the mapping of aquatic resources, and limitingregion's natural resources, accommodate damaging activities such as fishing, boating.sustainable development, and preserve its and dredging.oo character and natural beauty. • Enacting a freshwater wetlands protectionThe report's new vision offers approximately statute, similar to the saltwater wetlands£ 200 recommendations to strengthen land use statute, that provides conservation incentives2planning, protect water quality and public trust to private landowners.rights, conserve natural areas, improve CAMA • Simplifying the CAMA permit process toCD regulations, promote environmental education. make it more user-friendly, and raising fees2and support economic development while for major development to cover administra-2addressing environmental protection. tive costs.Among the most important recommendations • Developing a comprehensive environmental2 identified by the report drafters are: education and outreach program that beginsin pre-school and goes through college and3 • Strengthening land use planning, includingproviding adequate technical assistance andbeyond.financial support and basing local eligibility To reach its vision, the report calls for strongfor CAMA development permits and state commitment and leadership from citizens andfunding for water and sewer projects, public officials. While it does not attempt to costhighway improvements, community out its recommendations, the report states thatdevelopment and tourism on the successful substantial new funding for state environmentalimplementation of land use plans by local programs will be required, and urges that newgovernments. revenue sources be sought. The report leaves no• Planning on a regional basis for water quality doubt that its drafters believe that the time hasprotection, economic development, transpor- come to move forward well beyond the activitiestation, and waste disposal, dealing with entire of the CAMA program's first two decades.river basins and improving water quality Following up in 1995, Governor Huntstandards to protect shellfish beds and fish announced his Coastal Agenda, based onnurseries from shoreline development. recommendations from the Coastal Futures• Analyzing cumulative and secondary impacts Report, as well as the Albemarle-Pamlicoof growth on communities, water quality and Estuarine Study. The agenda set goals ofwater supply, in local land use plans. protecting and improving water quality.protecting and restoring natural areas and vitalhabitats, strengthening state and local partnershipto improve coastal management, and protectingand restoring marine fisheries.Responses to the Coastal Futures ReportCount}- Commissioners ResolutionThe first response to the Coastal Futuresreport signaled that there would not be unanimoussupport for its recommendations. The NorthCarolina Association of County Commissionerspassed a resolution objecting to the report's draftrecommendations in August 1994, before the finalreport was presented in September. Calling them"serious intrusions on the traditional andconstitutional rights of local governments togovern," the Association resolution objected toprovisions that required reporting of participationby local elected officials in planning; inclusion ofimplementation, including zoning, in land useplans; performance audits to determine adequacyof implementation; and tying of eligibility forgrowth-related state and federal grants to planimplementation. It demanded the rejection of anyrecommendations that allow the state to "intrude"in local land use planning, give state employeesthe power to withhold state or federal fundingbased on implementation, and permit the state toimpose mandatory zoning on select counties.The County Commissioners , resolutionshowed that, despite 20 years of efforts by thestate to collaborate with the coastal iocalgovernments, there remained a perception of "usversus them" that threatened to frustrate effectiveland use planning and implementation. Theprovisions that raised the ire of the CountyCommissioners are not radical. The idea thatzoning should be tied to a comprehensive planhas been accepted across the country for fiftyyears. 1 The idea that plans should beimplemented, rather than being paper exercises, isa requirement of state law in many states, as is thetying of state grants to adequacy of local plans.However, the exercise of local land use planningin the coastal area of North Carolina appears to beviewed as an onerous state mandate, rather thanan opportunity to develop and carry forward ashared local vision about the future of thecommunity.State ofthe Coast SummitFive years after the 1994 Coastal FuturesCommittee issued its report, the North CarolinaCoastal Federation brought coastal interest groupstogether to assess progress made toward thereport's goals. It should not be surprising that theassessment of progress by speakers at the October1999 State of the Coast Summit in Wilmingtonwas not all that encouraging-for either local landuse planning or for state agency performance.One after another, the speakers pointed out theenvironmental and planning failures of recentyears.The North Carolina Coastal Federationpresented their 1 999 State ofthe Coast report,which assigned the Hunt Administration a gradeof D+ and called on the governor to make goodon his Coastal Agenda of 1995 and other longpromised coastal reforms. It bemoaned therelaxation of environmental standards to permitthe construction of the Nucor steel mill on theChowan River, and the six month delay inenforcement of wetland protection rules (due tolack of state staff) that allowed the 1998-99ditching of 10,000 acres of coastal wetlands. Atthe same time, the report also acknowledgedpositive progress in the Coastal ResourceCommission's moratorium on approval ofCAMAland use plans to give time to study ways tostrengthen the planning process, and the proposednon-point source rules for the Tar-Pamlico RiverBasin.The conference program listed a "reunion" ofthe Coastal Futures Committee, suggesting thatthere would be an active debate and discussion ofprogress made toward carrying out itsrecommendations. Unfortunately, no formaldiscussion took place. Instead, the committeemembers made short comments, there was a briefappearance by a staff member from theDepartment of Environment and NaturalResources (DENR), and a question and answerperiod was held where the Committee membersresponded to audience queries.Audience members asked why manyrecommendations had not been implemented.Were local land use plans now addressingcarrying capacity and cumulative and sccondaiyimpacts of growth'? Were local land useo>OoCO>QOoXIaoDCOOI>ordinances now required to be consistent withapproved CAMA plans? Were state and federalgrants now tied to adoption of land use plans andimplementation programs that comply withminimum Coastal Resource Commission (CRC)standards'? Few answers were forthcoming.DCMs Progress ReportRather than debating progress at the CoastalSummit, the NC Division of Coastal Management(DCM) distributed a printed report: A ProgressReport on the Coastal Futures Committee sRecommendationsfor Coastal Management (NCDCM 1999). The report states that manyrecommendations have been enacted successfullyor are currently being reviewed by the CoastalResources Commission. Using aRecommendation/Result format, the DCM reportreviews systematically by topic the actions takenby the state since 1994, and appends a list of 39recommendations that have not yet beenaccomplished. Its tone is positive and its reviewshows that many recommendations have beenfollowed.Since 1995, another planning position andadditional state funding for local planning weresecured and GIS database packages of planninginformation including watershed boundaries wereissued. Also, the land use planning guidelineswere revised to require analysis of communityservices and inclusion of implementationstrategies and time lines in land use plans. DENRnow offers bonus points toward wastewatertreatment plant funding for acceptable land useplans and those that list implementationstrategies. The CRC initiated a one-year land useplan moratorium, and appointed a Land UsePlanning Review Team in 1998 to suggestimprovements in the planning guidelines. TheTeam will consider the Coastal Futuresrecommendations and report to the CRC in mid-2000.Setting a Collaborative Coursefor Coastal PlanningMy own estimate of progress towardachieving the primary goal of the Coastal Futuresreport-a sustainable coastal region-is not assanguine as that of the Division of CoastalManagement's progress report. Especially interms of land use planning, serious progress isstill hard to discern.On the plus side, as the DCM progress reportpoints out, are a number of useful actions. Theseinclude the increase in technical and financialassistance for local planning, the provision of GISdatabase packages, the requirement thatimplementation strategies and time lines beincluded in plans, the bonus points for acceptableland use plans and implementation strategies, andthe funding for regional planning projects.On the minus side, it does not appear thatclear guidelines have been given for conductingcarrying capacity analyses or cumulative impactassessments. The DCM report states that the ballhas been passed to the Land Use Plan ReviewTeam to consider the level of analysis that shouldbe conducted by local governments. The progressreport also acknowledges that no progress hasbeen made toward making eligibility for fundingcontingent upon involvement of elected officials,or toward requiring that all local ordinances beconsistent with the local land use plan.However, the largest obstacle to planning fora sustainable coastal region-a crisis of confidencein the core concept of collaboration between thestate and the coastal local governments-appearsto remain. Coastal planners tell me that the stateland use planning guidelines are a patchwork ofhard to understand "shalls" and "shoulds." It isnot clear that the bonus points approach willgenerate better plans, as both local and stateplanners are frustrated by the system. The twoyear moratorium on land use plans signals that theold approach had not worked, but the outlines of anew workable approach have yet to emerge fromthe Land Use Plan Review Team. Meanwhile, thestate's own actions appear to be at odds with asustainable future, leaving us to wonder whathappened to the 1 994 state commitment to "dothe right thing.":What is needed at this point to turn land useplanning from an unpopular state mandate to apositive collaborative activity. Planning needs tobe seen as a way for the local communities todefine and realize their own visions, whilecontributing to the overall goal of a sustainable10coastal region and being supported by the actionsof state agencies. 1 That will not be an easy task,given the history of intergovernmentalrelationships to date. But if we don't figure outhow to do it, the course for our coast may well beheading for the rocks. (35*NotesI . However, the North Carolina courts have not heldthat zoning needs to conform to a master plan, and theoriginal CAMA legislation did not include thisrequirement.2. Some attribute the decrease in state efforts to reformCAMA to a change in the political winds, when one ofthe potential reform leaders. Representative KarenGottovi of Wilmington, was defeated for re-election,and the Republicans took control of the state Houseafter the Coastal Futures Committee report had beenissued.3. For some of my own thoughts on how to accomplishthis turnaround, see my essay, "Coastal North Caro-lina: Planning for a Sustainable Future," in Eye oftheStorm: Essays in the Aftermath (Coastal CarolinaPress, forthcoming).ReferencesNorth Carolina Coastal Federation. 1999. State oftheCoast Report, a special edition of the CoastalReview, vol. I 7, no. 4.North Carolina Coastal Futures Committee. 1994a.Charting a Coursefor Our Coast: A Report tothe Governor. Raleigh: North CarolinaDivision of Coastal Management.North Carolina Coastal Futures Committee. 1994b.National Conference on Innovations inCoastal Management Program. Wilmington.NC: September 7-9, 1994.North Carolina Division of Coastal Management. 1999.A Progress Report on the Coastal FuturesCommittee's Recommendations for CoastalManagement. Raleigh: North CarolinaDivision of Coastal Management.ooICO>zQ1D3JaoocooI>V,

Progress Report on Charting a Course for Our Coast: Not All Smooth Sailing

http://cdr.lib.unc.edu/downloads/c247dt65r

Progress Report on Charting a Course for Our Coast: Not All Smooth Sailing

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Carolina Digital Repository