Is urbanism threatening our coastal and marine resources? A NOAA report suggests the need for more sophisticated planning.
In the on-again, off-again debate about global warming, predictions of future catastrophe along our nation’s coasts have deflected attention from the existing effects of development. But even anecdotal evidence suggests that from Cape Cod to Oregon, our coastal areas are being settled in densities that strain existing public service infrastructure and affect the well-being of the nation’s coastal and marine environments.
Jan Boyd, director of coastal ecology for the Mississippi Department of Marine Resources, the state agency charged with protecting coastal resources, aptly describes the dilemma. People in coastal areas, he says, have “run out of places to live.”
One factor that has confounded a cumulative view of what’s happening along our coasts is that we tend to think of our coastal regions as individually unique. New England is staid and sparsely settled. In California, life’s a (densely populated) beach while the Oregon the coast is empty and wild. Recreation is often the window through which we view our coasts, a vantage point that obscures the consideration that New York City and Chicago are both coastal cities.
As a recent report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) suggests, demographics are a more accurate filter for evaluating what’s going on in the nation’s coastal communities. Since 1990, researchers in the Special Projects office of the NOAA’s National Ocean Service have been taking the temperature of coastal settlement in the United States with the objective of aiding coastal managers and resource protection agencies. The most recent report, issued in 2004, examines population trends from 1980 through 2008. And it’s an eye-opener.
Although Americans have long gravitated toward coastal living, since the 1970s the number of us who have opted to live near water has been increasing, to the extent that in some areas we have slipped toward the tipping point where growth is outstripping infrastructure and the ability of natural resources to adapt. The NOAA’s data suggests that without better planning, we run the risk of habitat loss and fragmentation and the attendant degradation of our water resources. In its own report on interactions between land use and environmental quality, the EPA notes that construction of impervious surfaces nationwide has led to alternations in natural water hydrology, which in turn has reduced groundwater recharge, stream sedimentation, and water acidity. Urban runoff is a major culprit, responsible for 55 % of the nation’s environmentally impaired ocean shoreline, 46 % of our impaired estuary miles, and 21 % of impaired lake miles.
As of 2003, 153 million Americans called the country’s coastal counties home, 33 million more than in 1980. Fifty-three percent of us are settled on only 17 % of the nation’s land. Of our 25 most populated counties nationwide, 23 sprawl out from the edge of a large body of water. This trend toward coastal living is expected to continue with the addition of another 7 million residents by 2008; add another 12 million by 2015. The issue, say the NOAA researchers, is density: too many people in too confined a space. Bob Bailey, manager of the Oregon Coastal Management Program, calls this trend toward “skinny streets, narrow lots, and multiple units in one building” Oregon’s New Urbanism. Density in coastal counties averaged 300 persons per square mile in 2003, compared to 95 people per square mile in the remainder of the country. As of 2003, the counties of New York, Bronx, and Queens (which admittedly most of us don’t think of as coastal) averaged 39,000 persons per square mile.
Emphasizing what they consider the critical relationship between our coastal and upland landscapes, the NOAA’s demographers define as coastal any county wherein a minimum of 15 % of its area is located within a coastal watershed. Applying this definition, inland Riverside and San Bernardino counties, which are not directly contiguous to the southern California coast, are considered coastal, and Washington, DC can also be defined as a coastal city.
As of 2000, 52 % of the nation’s total housing supply was located in coastal communities. California, Florida, and New York State accounted for 41 % of the housing total. Between 1999 and 2003, 2.8 million single-family building permits were issued in the nation’s coastal counties (43 % of the national total for that year), along with 1 million permits for multifamily units. California and Florida alone accounted for 37 % of single-family home permits. Los Angeles County had the largest number of housing units, 3.3 million, double the total for any other coastal county except the 2.1 million units in Cook County, IL, on the southwest shore of Lake Michigan. As of 2000, 2.1 million seasonal homes were identified in coastal counties, an important contributor to regional density. Florida had the largest number of vacation homes, followed by Michigan, California, and New York.
In terms of effects on both infrastructure and the ability of the natural environment to function, however, housing doesn’t tell the whole story. Intense commercial, hotel, and recreational construction contributes significantly to the overall effects of growth. To accommodate this level of development, the coastal counties are losing 1,997 acres of farmland per day, which is approximately 2 % faster than non-coastal counties. On average, coastal counties have a 17 % higher median household income than non-coastal communities, which suggests that residents may expect a higher level of amenities than in non-coastal areas. Seasonal populations add an additional strain on local infrastructure. Ocean City, MD, for example, accommodated almost 4 million seasonal visitors between Memorial Day and Labor Day 2003.
In light of these trends NOAA researchers suggest the challenge for public policy makers and coastal managers will be striking a balance between the economic benefits of growth and mitigating the associated negative effects on the environment, an effort they note is bound to require more complex and sophisticated planning than is currently being undertaken. Bailey describes the trend as it’s playing out in Oregon as providing the urban amenities people want “while protecting the raw, wild places that make our coastal environment such a unique place.” But while Oregon law protects forests and property where soil is suitable for agriculture, state regulations do not address habitat loss and fragmentation caused by urban intrusion into undeveloped areas, nor the effect of development on water quality.
The NOAA report divides the country’s 30 coastal states into five geographical regions. The Northeast is the country’s most populated coast, extending from northern Maine south to the tidewaters of Virginia. Thirty-four percent of the country’s coastal population lives in these 180 coastal counties, 53 million people, which amounts to 77 % of the Northeast’s total population situated on only 40 % of its land. Of the nation’s 10 largest metropolitan areas, four are located along the Northeast coast: New York, Washington, DC/Baltimore, Philadelphia, and Boston.
Population density in the NOAA’s Northeast coastal region increased from 543 people per square mile in 1980 to 641 per square mile in 2003 and is expected to jump to 661 people per square mile by 2008. Of the 25 most densely populated coastal counties in the country, 21 are in the Northeast. Of the 474 counties nationwide, which the EPA defines as failing to meet the eight-hour ozone test, or causing a county downwind to fail, 197 are found in the Northeast and Great Lakes regions.
The Great Lakes coastal region extends from New York State’s northeastern-most counties west toward Minnesota and includes the coastlines of eight states along Lake Ontario, Lake Huron, Lake Erie, Lake Michigan, and Lake Superior. These coastal counties occupy 28 % of the region’s land area and account for 33 % of its population, a more reasonable ratio than in the Northeast. Density in the Great Lakes region is 238 people per square mile, up from 226 in 1980, and expected to climb to 244 by 2008. Due south down the center of the continent, the Gulf of Mexico is the country’s fourth most populated coastal region with 19.1 million residents, accounting for 13 % of the nation’s coastal total. The Gulf Coast region extends from the Florida Keys to the southern tip of Texas and includes the coastline of six states. People in these coastal counties live 164 persons per square mile, which is up from sparse 113 people per square mile in 1980. Currently, the Gulf Coast is the country’s least densely populated coastal area, although this may change with post–Hurricane Katrina redevelopment.
The coastal counties of the Pacific region, California, Oregon, Washington, Alaska, and Hawaii, occupy 57 % of this region’s total land area and are home to 26 % of the nation’s total coastal population, 39.4 million people. In fact, the majority of the population in these five states is settled in 88 coastal counties. The average density is 303 people per square mile (which puts it second behind the Northeast), up from 207 in 1980 and headed for 320 people per square mile in 2008. The Pacific region uses 9.6 billion gallons of water per day, more than double that of any other coastal region except the Gulf of Mexico, which consumes 6 billion gallons a day.
The Southeast coastal region, which extends from the Outer Banks of North Carolina to the southern tip of Florida, is the least populated in the country, with only 14 million residents or a meager 9 % of the nation’s coastal population. Density is higher than along the Gulf Coast, with 224 people per square mile, up from 142 in 1980 and expected to reach 241 by 2008. If projections are accurate, the Southeast will see the largest percent population increase between 2003 and 2008. In fact, the US Census Bureau reports the highest level of immigration in this country in the five years between 1995 and 2000 was into the Southeast and Gulf of Mexico coastal regions, particularly Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina. A telling statistic for Florida planners is that the largest state-to-state migration between 1995 and 2000 was from New York to Florida.
Undoubtedly the warm weather coasts are growth magnets. Between 1995 and 2000 California’s coastal population increased by 9.9 million, an increase of 1,179 people a day and over twice that of any other state except Florida. The NOAA researchers project that San Diego, CA, will lead the coastal counties in population increase between 2003 and 2008. Along with Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside counties, San Diego will account for 12 % of the increase in the country’s total coastal population. Florida will also see major growth in the same period in Broward, Palm Beach, Orange, and Miami-Dade counties. Ditto for Harris County in southeast Texas.
Of the 10 coastal counties that experienced the greatest increases in population between 1980 and 2003, six are in California, three in Florida, and one in Texas. The combined increased in population in these 10 counties accounts for 30 % of the coastal population growth during the study period. Los Angeles County had the highest growth overall, followed by Harris County, TX, and Riverside County, CA.
Not everyone goes to the coast for the same reason. Some people looking for work. Some people go to retire. The Southeast, for example, has increasingly become a magnet for retirees. And although there was no overall change in the 65 and older population living in coastal counties during the NOAA study period, the researchers made note of the significant number of Americans who will enter the 65-plus age group in the next decades. Many are likely to find our coasts attractive.
Bailey notes the retiree effect is already evident in Oregon. Building permits are up, but the population has stayed the same in many jurisdictions, circumstances he concludes are the result of what he describes as the “fleshing out” of small coastal towns and outlying rural areas where larger lots, formerly single-family properties, are being subdivided into two households. Bailey also suggests this increase in density is at least partly a byproduct of Oregon’s urban growth boundaries (UGBs). Communities statewide are required to project their land-use needs for the next 20 years and identify these areas within UGBs. Developers gravitate to these areas where they know their projects are likely to be approved and they can count on public infrastructure.
Although the jury is still out, one potential downside of funneling development into restricted areas is increased density, which can lead eventually to public health and safety challenges and negative environmental effects. Bailey’s agency advises communities on land-use planning, but local jurisdictions hold permit power. Furthermore, Oregon has no comprehensive planning agency such as the California Coastal Commission to watchdog the standards of local jurisdictions. Although a gubernatorial oversight commission certifies that a municipality’s comprehensive plan meets statewide guidelines and planning goals, once this has been established, local jurisdictions are on their own.
Both water and wastewater management are already issues in Oregon’s coastal areas where even communities of 1,000 to 2,000 people must develop UGBs. Bailey reports most coastal jurisdictions rely on rainwater or rain-fed aquifers for potable water and most make no provision for collecting and storing supplies for dry-month use. The result is that already low-flowing coastal steams can be drawn down during August through October, creating a potentially threatening situation for aquatic species such as Oregon’s endangered salmon. In addition, much of existing coastal housing depends on onsite septic systems. Since much of this housing stock dates back to the 1960s, many of these onsite systems are failing, creating the potential for groundwater contamination, especially in sandy coastal areas or where a perched water table sits on a marine terrace.
Across the county in Rhode Island, a similar tradition of local government got its muscle from 1992 legislation that grants towns land-use decision-making power as long as they develop a comprehensive land-use plan and update it no more than every five years. The plans are required to contain a description of the community’s goals and policies regarding land use, housing, economic development and services, and facilities. Subsequent legislation requires towns to bring their zoning in compliance with their plans, and Lorraine Joubert, coordinator of the University of Rhode Island’s Cooperative Extension’s Nonpoint Education for Municipal Officials program (NEMO), notes that a positive effect of the legislation has been to cause towns to bring their sewer boundaries in line with what they have established as their growth boundaries.
On Block Island, as in many Rhode Island coastal communities, development outside sewered areas relies on septic systems. Buildable land is becoming scarce, which has forced development onto marginal lots. To protect groundwater and natural resources, the Town of New Shoreham has turned to alternative and innovative onsite (I/A) technology. But as a planner for Jamestown on neighboring Conanicut Island points out, these regulations can backfire. In Jamestown, the development of standards for I/A technology has opened up marginal lots that would otherwise be not be developable.
On Cape Cod alternative onsite technology is also being used to protect groundwater and safeguard coastal ponds and embayments. The Cape’s wastewater management has not kept pace with the 20 % population increase that has occurred over the last 10 years. Only four of 15 towns have centralized wastewater treatment plants, which leaves 85 % of Cape Cod relying on onsite systems. The situation is complicated by the fact that towns have supplemented state standards for I/A technology with their own individualized requirements, which has made monitoring and maintenance compliance a challenge. Susan Rask, environmental health specialist for the Barnstable County Department of Health and the Environment, thinks the eventual answer will be sewers. “If we had bad soils here and the wastewater didn’t go away so quietly,” says Rask, “we would have sewered years ago, which is probably what we should have done had we been able to predict how densely built the Cape would become.”
Sewers are on the docket for five of the six Mississippi coastal counties online to receive post–Hurricane Katrina Housing and Urban Development funds. The state legislation has created five utility companies with broad powers over water, wastewater, and stormwater infrastructure. According to the state’s department of marine resources, one goal of the legislation is to replace aging septic systems with centralized treatment plants. A potential challenge will be Mississippi’s floating casinos, which the governor has approved to move on shore and will likely expand their existing hotel and recreation operations. Another complication may be that while the redevelopment effort will be centrally managed, local cities and counties will retain permit approval authority.
The NOAA’s planners emphasize the utility of a watershed-wide approach for coastal planning, a strategy that Joubert and her colleagues have utilized with good success in Rhode Island. The NOAA report recommends that an area’s natural hydrology is “a sensible foundation” for assessing coastal growth and managing coastal and marine resources. In fact, applying watershed rather than regional boundaries decreases both the area that must be considered in planning and the number of residents and the amount of commercial development, which must be regulated. In 2000, the year the agency’s watershed research was completed, applying watersheds as the defining boundary, the total population of the nation’s coastal areas amounted to 127 million, or 45 % of our total population, as opposed to 53 % identified using regional analysis. Population in these areas has increased by 24 million people since 1980, rather than the 33 million identified when regions were used as the unit of analysis.
Five of the country’s 10 most populated watersheds are located along the nation’s northeast coast from southern Virginia to New England. The Hudson River/Raritan Bay Watershed and the Chesapeake Bay Watershed are the country’s most populated, with 23 million and 10 million people respectively. When it comes to density, however, San Pedro Bay, which includes Los Angeles and Long Beach harbors, is the nation’s most densely populated watershed with 4,634 people per square mile. Population change during the time of the study was greatest in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, which grew by over 2 million, followed by San Francisco Bay, which grew by 1.8 million, and San Pedro Bay, which added 1.7 million. Not surprisingly, of the 10 most populated coastal watersheds, the greatest percent population changes were found in the Southeast and Pacific regions. The populations of St. Johns River and Cape Canaveral, FL, and Santa Ana, CA, each grew by over 70 %.
Substantiating the NOAA recommendations, the US Commission on Ocean Policy has recommended that management of coastal resources be undertaken on a watershed-wide basis. In the 2004 report, the NOAA’s demographers suggest that this shift in management is already taking place, as planners move away from political boundaries toward an ecosystem-based approach. To get a better idea of what’s happening, and to put a face on the NOAA’s statistics, future issues of Water Efficiency will examine how planning is being undertaken in a number of the country’s coastal regions. Our first stop will be Mississippi, where a massive effort to rebuild the coast’s potable water, wastewater, and stormwater infrastructure is under way.