WORKSHOP I - PROCEEDINGS AND UPDATE ON THE PROJECT (May 18, 2009)

Developing Adaptive Policy to Climate Disturbance in
Santa Barbara County

When: APRIL 18 2009 10AM - 1PM

Location: Flying A Studios, UCEN, University of California Santa Barbara

Workshop Sponsor: UCSB’s Ocean and Coastal Policy Center (OCPC)
http://ocpc.msi.ucsb.edu/

Proceedings by Wendy Su, ESM and Graduate Research Fellow, OCPC

Guest presenter, Dr. David Revelle, managed and was a contributor to The Pacific Institute’s report, The Impacts of Sea-Level Rise on the California Coast. The report, released March 2009, concluded that sea-level rise will inevitably change the character of the California coast. Adaption strategies must be evaluated, tested and implemented if the risks identified in the report are to be reduced and avoided. Funded by the California Energy Commission, California Department of Transportation, and the Ocean Protection Council, the report focuses on human infrastructure, changes to human habitats and wetland impacts although impacts on coastal marine biodiversity will also be significant. The discussion following Dr. Revelle’s presentation discussed the report and further explored policy tools to protect coastal marine biodiversity.

Climate change impacts on biodiversity will be difficult to quantify for many areas due to a lack of an existing baseline. Many at the table agreed that research will have to continue and will need to be supported. Complicating matters further, the sea level rise zero baseline is shifting due to the 19-year tidal gauge update.

Meanwhile, suggestions include implementing interim protection policies until more site specific information is available to make sound management decisions, basically using a precautionary multi-disciplinary approach which translates the science of climate change into zoning and other local policies as needed. Restoration projects along coastal areas are of particular concern especially when it comes to projects that may be severely impacted by climate change in the form of sea-level rise. The existence of restored areas provides refuge for species which may become more vulnerable due to the habitat threats posed by climate threats, and also becomes a source in situations where repopulation may be necessary. Along with this concern for restoration projects, there also appeared some positive opportunities for creating and restoring wetlands. This is particularly true in areas where infrastructures are not built up right to the edge of wetland ecosystems, where zoning can be altered to accommodate future climate threats or marine reserves implemented. Restoration of watersheds will protect water systems which may be threatened by salt water inundation from sea-level rise. There is a lack of a system of incentives to promote restoration as a buffer against climate change.

Climate change provides opportunities to combine conservation with planning. For example, an assessment of the economic impacts of not providing a climate buffer around infrastructure or biodiversity hotspots melds these two disciplines. While a biodiversity focus in conservation planning for climate change is admirable, broadening the scope to include ecosystem services and functions is the key to ensuring ecosystem resiliency. For planning, it will be imperative to create a list of species and habitats at risk. There is still quite a bit that humans do not know about some species. In these cases, it will be necessary to make predictions based on the best available science while regional and local vulnerability assessments are developed. Another option to consider is wildlife corridors which can be used not just over space but also over time as climate changes, thus climate corridors. In this way, not just wildlife but habitat can migrate over time as habitats adjust to climate change. These linkages will be an important tool in protecting the ecosystem particularly in fragmented areas. Maintaining ecosystem processes allows ecosystem resiliency. Again there should be incentives in place to promote preserving ecosystem services and planning for resiliency. To account for all the benefits that these natural systems provide, natural capital evaluation methods need to improve.

In the process of conservation planning for climate change impacts on biodiversity, there are many hurdles. For one, many regulatory agencies are involved. The overlap in jurisdiction, as well as unclear agency goals, results in delay after delay in the permitting process. Some roundtable members offered the idea of using legitimate state interest clauses to implement policy although there are inter-jurisdictional differences in the interpretation of “legitimate state interest.” Others discussed the idea of expanding California’s coastal zone designation to include areas that will be in the coastal zone in the future so the California Coastal Commission would gain more funding under the Coastal Zone Management Act. Additionally, a gap exists between policy and science. Whereas science offers long-term predictions, policy focuses on the short-term. There exists an inherent conservatism in the scientific community as well which needs to be recognized when creating policy based on scientific information. For example, when planning for 2050 use 2100 predictions for sea-level rise and realize that it may occur well before 2100. Lastly, the implementation of the AB 32 statutory requirement at the local city and county level will result in fewer resources dedicated to sea level rise and biodiversity-focused policies.

Several possible responses to these hurdles were suggested. Increased public communication and community involvement will raise awareness of the challenges that the environment is facing. Education may help to raise additional funds for projects. The University of Washington’s Local Climate Adaptation template plan provides an example of a plan that incorporates climate change. A LEED-like system which adds value to ecosystem restoration and preservation for property-owners would encourage conservation. Giving the general voting population power to amend the General Plan would avoid specific interest-related amendments. Further participation in the Coastal Commission Adaptation Process would ensure that biodiversity issues remain on the table. The CZMA renewal this year by Congress will ensure the continuance of coastal planning processes. Additionally, it was mentioned that since the Coastal Commission and local governments have little political capital, most agencies are looking towards a California Supreme Court decision on public trust doctrine before taking action on climate change responses.

In closing, the discussion members agreed that climate change impacts on biodiversity are uncertain and that further research as well as a precautionary approach would be the best management decision until local or regional ecosystem and biodiversity assessments are carried out.


_____________

Update on the Project, May 18, 2009
by Dr. Michael V. McGinnis, Project Manager

At the March 2009 Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors hearing on the long-range planning effort to develop a Climate Action Strategy, the supervisors voted in favor of including in the Strategy biodiversity protection measures. This represents an important step toward biodiversity protection at the county level; it may represent the first such effort in coastal cities and counties to address the climate-related pressures and expected impacts on biodiversity.

In late June 2009, the Ocean and Coastal Policy Center at UCSB will be publishing on the web, and producing hard copies of a report. This report will include a broad survey of the various pressures on coastal marine biodiversity in the region, including anthropogenic climate change. The report will also include a characterization of a range of policy tools that are needed to respond to these pressures.

Below, a number of general planning tools for the County and City are recommended. These recommendations were based on the discussion of participants in Workshop 1, held on 18 April at UCSB. Additional measures by state and federal authorities will also be required. Ideally, new partnership across political, economic and administrative jurisdictions that include non-governmental organizations and the private sector should be developed to address the transboundary pressures of climate change. Additional adaptive strategies, policies and actions in support of the protection of coastal marine biodiversity and other land-use issues at the local level are available in Appendix 2 and 3 of this report.

1) Vulnerability analysis should establish the type and extent of potential climate changes such as sea level rise, storm surges, and changing ocean conditions and how these changes will impact coastal infrastructure and development, human populations, economy, and natural habitats and species. The vulnerability analysis should be used as one foundation to develop coastal adaptation strategies (both overarching and specific) to both protect coastal marine biodiversity, and address risks or hazards associated with coastal development and land-use. As much as possible, each adaptive strategy should be accompanied by case studies that elucidate that strategy and guidance on how it should be implemented. For example, changes in buffer areas and other adaptive strategies that are needed to protect sensitive habitat areas should be incorporated in the County’s Thresholds and Guidelines Manual.

2) Form An Interagency and Public Working Group representing government and non-governmental organizations, e.g. state parks, and the private sector to discuss and recommend adoption of policies to protect coastal biodiversity. Such a Working Group could also include the use of a Scientific Advisory Panel to assist in the development of guiding principles to protect coastal marine biodiversity. A number of guiding principles should be emphasized in the Climate Action Strategy to support biodiversity protection, including:
o Maintain healthy, connected, genetically diverse populations
o Improve resiliency of existing habitats in order to maintain existing or new assemblages of species
o Reduce non-climate stressors on ecosystems (i.e. invasive species)
o Protect coastal wetlands and accommodate sea level rise
o Consider climate change models as well as historical data when making projections
o Employ monitoring and adaptive management
o Adopt adaptation approaches that reduce risks to species and habitats and provide time for species evolution and development.


3) Precautionary Principle must be employed to buffer against uncertainty. There are synergistic effects and positive feedback loops of human-induced climate change, other human impacts, and natural disturbances which make decisions about policy solutions difficult. We can only control the human impacts. Therefore the precautionary principle should be employed.

4) Increase and preserve future wetlands and buffers. The County and City should establish new buffer zones to allow the migration of wetland ecosystems. Planners should develop new policies that restrict land-use activities and new development near future wetlands by establishing specific language in the County’s plans.

5) Increase Coastal Setbacks. Current County policy requires a 75-yr bluff setback for new development. New information regarding sea level rise and resulting bluff erosion should be used to develop new policies that translate into much larger coastal setback distances in the County. The 75-yr. policy should be increased pursuant to Precautionary Principle and because many structures would last over 75 years, possibly leading to future demands for sea walls.

6) Implement Rolling Easement Policy. Rolling easements are a special type of easement placed along the shoreline to prevent property owners from holding back the sea but allow any other type of use and activity on the land. As the sea advances, the easement automatically moves or "rolls" landward. Because shoreline stabilization structures cannot be erected, sediment transport remains undisturbed and wetlands and other important tidal habitat can migrate naturally. Similarly, there will always be dry or intertidal land for the public to walk along, preserving lateral public access to the shore. Unlike setbacks, which prohibit development near the shore and can often result in "takings" claims if a property is deemed undevelopable due to the setback line, rolling easements place no restrictions on development. They allow the landowner to build anywhere on their property with the understanding that they will not be able to prevent shoreline erosion by armoring the shore, or the public from walking along the shore—no matter how close the shoreline gets to their structure. If erosion threatens the structure, the owner will have to relocate the building or allow it to succumb to the encroaching sea. State and local governments, as well as federal agencies and environmental organizations, purchase "rolling easements". Under these arrangements, which can come in a variety of different forms, private landowners on the oceanfront could continue to use and develop their properties as long as they refrain from armoring the shoreline. Often property owners can receive tax benefits for placing a conservation easement on their property. Rolling easements help maintain natural shoreline processes. The figure below depicts an example of a rolling easement.

7) Implement Managed Retreat Policies. Jurisdictions must plan to retreat existing development (structures, utilities, roads, rails, airports, power plants, sewage plants, etc.) from inundation zones and wave run up zones.

8) Identify and preserve Habitat Migration Corridors. Climate disturbance will continue to cause plant communities and species’ ranges to shift. Corridors of continuous habitat must be preserved to enable future shifts in ranges and resiliency in ecosystems. Routes containing viable native habitats for plant pollination vectors (wind and insect) and which connect existing and predicted future habitat areas can be mapped and protected. With this in mind, the Conception Coast Regional Conservation Strategy (2005) should be revised to include ecological information and data on the pressures and associated impacts from climate change.




_________________________________BACKGROUND FOR WORKSHOP

by Dr. Michael V. McGinnis