STATE OF GEORGIA ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING CRITERIA DATABASE

Transcription

1 STATE F GERGIA ENVIRNMENTAL PLANNING RITERIA DATABASE Jaes Frederick AUTHRS: ffice of oordinated Planning, Georgia Departent of ounity Affairs, 1 Peachtree St. N.W., Atlanta, GA 333. REFERENE: Proceedings of the 1995 Georgia Water Resources onference, held April 11 and 12, 1995, at The University of Georgia, Kathryn J. Hatcher, Editor, arl Vinson Institute of Governent, The University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia. Abstract. The Environental Planning riteria Database keeps records on those jurisdictions that have had coprehensive plans approved by the Departent of ounity Affairs (DA). The database lists the recoended protection easures, as outlined in the Environental Planning riteria (Georgia Departent of Natural Resources), that the jurisdictions have coitted to ipleent at soe point in order to address environental resource protection. The results of the database show that only 18 % of all jurisdictions with water supply watersheds, 19% of jurisdictions with groundwater recharge areas and just 9% of those with river corridors have stated that they would ipleent all of the recoended protection easures. The nubers are larger for those jurisdictions choosing to ipleent soe portion of the easures: 51% of those with water supply watersheds, 38% with groundwater recharge areas, and 65% with river corridors. 1% of those jurisdictions with water supply watersheds, 14% with groundwater recharge areas, and 1% with river corridors have stated that they intend to ipleent none of the recoended protection easures. Introduction The Environental Planning riteria database of the Georgia Departent of ounity Affairs (DA) was developed in the Suer of 1994 in an effort to evaluate environental policies at the local governent level. The database provides inforation on environental protection policies of local governents as stated in their coprehensive plan prepared in accordance with the Georgia Planning Act of Under the Planning Act, in order to receive "Qualified Local Governent" (QLG) status, local governents ust prepare a coprehensive plan that coplies with the Miniu Planning Standards as established by DA. Included in the Miniu Planning Standards are the Environental Planning riteria, which establish a iniu level of consideration for local policy aking for the protection of "water supply watersheds," "groundwater recharge areas," "wetlands," and "river corridors." These criteria were established pursuant to Part V of the Georgia Planning Act and the Mountain and River orridor Protection Act. The criteria were developed jointly by DA and the Georgia Departent of Natural Resources (DNR). To satisfy the Environental Planning riteria, local governents ust identify whether any of these environentally sensitive areas are located within the local governent's jurisdiction and, if so, assess whether all or part of the protection easures identified in the iniu criteria should be ipleented locally. ne part of the criteria outline the definitions for each of the environentally sensitive areas so that local governents can ake a decision as to whether the resource exists within their jurisdiction. nce it is deterined by the local governent that any or all of the natural resources are located within their jurisdiction, then stateents of policy ust be included in the coprehensive plan which address the ethods by which the local governent will act to protect the identified resource(s). The Environental Planning riteria database docuents whether or not a resource has been identified in a given jurisdiction and the proposed protection easures of the jurisdiction as stated in its approved coprehensive plan. The database includes all jurisdictions that had approved plans as of June 1, There are over 45 local governents included in this group. In addition to identifying whether a resource is located in a given jurisdiction and what the proposed protection easures are, the database also lists the current protection easures that the jurisdiction already has in place. History Governor Joe Frank Harris, in his second tea of office, appointed the Growth Strategies oission to "develop a sound and realistic blueprint for the future of Georgia." The 35-eber coission was appointed by Governor Harris in June of Efforts were ade to include over a hundred public and private interest groups, as well as citizens into the process to provide coent on iportant issues considered by the coission. All eetings of the coission were open to the press and the public. The Growth Strategies oission assued that several conditions would need to be considered when establishing recoendations, including: The aintenance of hoe rule and local autonoy over local atters while also recognizing the need for regional cooperation and planning 25

2 The iportance of aintaining a "pro business" cliate that supports and expands private sector investent in the state. That all strategies should accoodate the different econoic, geographic, and other variations of a locality by providing flexibility in the syste to accoodate these differences. The Growth Strategies oission, after eighteen onths of eetings, proposed two overall goals for the state and a nine-point strategy for attaining these goals. The two goals that were identified by the coission include: To accoodate the inevitable growth of the future without allowing a deterioration in the quality of life To upgrade the quality of life in low-growth areas through realistic and innovative econoic developent progras The nine-point strategy that was identified to achieve these goals included provisions and action steps to address huan needs, to build the capacity for growth, to safeguard the environent, to strengthen local counities, and to coordinate state and local efforts. ne of the points to evolve out of the Growth Strategies oission was to enhance protection of natural and historic resources by aending erosion control procedures and iproving enforceent; and by establishing a database, staffing, and iniu standards to address freshwater wetlands, critical watersheds, groundwater recharge areas; and to support ountain protection. Another point to coe out of the oission was the establishent of a three-tiered parership for planning This was achieved by reconstituting and epowering DA for state level planning; and by reorganizing regional planning The recoendations of the Growth Strategies oission established the fraework for which state-level planning occurs today. As a result of the Governor's Growth Strategies oission final report, House Bill 215 was introduced by Governor Harris to put the strategies into action. The bill, known as the Georgia Planning Act, passed resoundingly in the state legislature and becae law in The Act essentially put into place the recoendations to coe out of the Growth Strategies oission fal report. Basically, the Act affected the way planning was to be conducted in the state in two ways: The creation of the RD syste to replace the APD syste Gave ore focused responsibilities to the regional planning agencies; provided stronger links to local governents through boards coposed priarily of locally elected officials; required that all local governents be a eber of an RD; and provided additional state funding to supply technical assistance to local governents. The authorization of the Departent of ounity Affair's ffice of oordinated Planning to set up the coordinated planning syste locally and regionally Including the preparation of Miniu Planning Standards and Procedures for local governents. Georgia's Three-Tiered Planning Process The ain provision of the Georgia Planning Act was the establishent of a three-tiered "botto-up" planning process to involve local governents, regional developent centers, and the Departent of ounity Affairs. New responsibilities were created out of the provisions of the act for each of these three levels of governent. The three ain responsibilities that evolved out of the Georgia Planning Act required the Departent of ounity Affairs to: develop, proote, and establish standards and procedures for coordinated and coprehensive planning; assist local governents in participating in an orderly process of planning, and to assist local governents in preparing and ipleenting their coprehensive plans; and to also serve as the principal departent in the executive branch of state governent for local governent affairs. Regional Developent enters (RDs) are directed by the Planning Act to provide technical assistance to local governents in the preparation of coprehensive plans, and to also review and coent on local plans in accordance with the Miniu Planning Standards before the plan is subitted to DA for approval. Local governents are encouraged to develop coprehensive plans that confor to the Miniu Planning Standards, and are required to be ebers of the regional developent center which includes the unicipality or county. In order for a local plan to be approved, it ust confor to the Miniu Planning Standards and Procedures as they are established by DA. The requireents of the Miniu Planning Standards include citizen involveent and subittal procedures. Along with these procedural requireents, local governents ust also provide a iniu level of inforation in their plan that deals with the six planning eleents. The ethod by which plans are reviewed at DA follow explicit guidelines as to the substance of these eleents. The six eleents include: Population Econoic Developent Natural and Historic Resources including the Environental Planning riteria ounity Facilities Housing Land Use Three basic sections or steps are required for each eleent, including: An Inventory and Assessent A Stateent of Needs and Goals The Forulation of an Ipleentation Strategy 251

3 A delineation of the ipleentation strategy for each required eleent ust include a "five-year short-teen work progra" (STWP). The STWP outlines the ways that each decision will be ipleented over at least the first five years (after plan approval). In order for a local plan to be approved by DA, all of the sections and eleents ust be included in the plan and these ust confor to the Miniu Planning Standards. nce a plan is approved by DA and adopted by the local governents, the governent then is extended Qualified Local Governent (QLG) status. QLG status is necessary for the local governent to receive certain state funds which are adinistered by DA. The Environental Planning riteria Local jurisdictions subitting a coprehensive plan are required to state the easures, if any, that will be taken to protect each of the environentally sensitive areas that are identified within their boundaries. There are recoended protection easures for each type of area identified. Recoended protection easures for' water supply watersheds include: Natural vegetative buffers along strea corridors; Liits on the aount of ipervious surface peritted in developent along strea corridors; Hazardous waste treatent and disposal facility restrictions. Recoended protection easures for groundwater recharge areas include: Septic tank and septic tank drainfield restrictions; Sanitary landfill restrictions; Hazardous waste treatent and disposal facility restrictions; Storwater and wastewater treatent infiltration basin restrictions. Recoended protection easures for river corridors include: Restrictions on the densities of residential developent along protected rivers; Natural vegetative buffer requireents along protected river corridors. The Environnetal Planning riteria Database The Environental Planning riteria database was created in the Suer of 1994 by two Georgia Tech, Masters of ity Planning students (Newton and Rye, 1994). Their task was to exaine every coprehensive plan that had been approved by DA prior to June 1, The students searched the plans for policy stateents pertaining to the environentally sensitive areas as defined by the standards. ver 45 jurisdictions are represented in the database. The ethodology used by the students included reviewing the natural and historic resource eleent, the goals and objectives section, and the five-year STWP for stateents related to protecting the environentally sensitive areas. Twelve categories were created in the database to group the policy decisions of the local governents: Resource not located in jurisdiction A resource as defined does not exist within the boundaries of the jurisdiction. Resource not threatened Protection easures are not deeed necessary by the jurisdiction. Lack of adinistrative capacity The jurisdiction feels that it does not have adequate staff to ipleent protection easures. Existing protection easures adequate The jurisdiction feels that protection easures that are already in place are adequate to protect the resource. Encouraging appropriate practices or educating the public The jurisdiction wants to engage in an educational progra to encourage and infor its residents about appropriate practices. Iprove enforceent of existing easures The jurisdiction feels that adequate protection easures exist but, that better enforceent can be achieved through alternative eans. Directing developent elsewhere: land use or infrastructure policy The jurisdiction feels that protection is best achieved by steering developent away fro resource areas through land use policies. Ipleenting, as of yet, undefined protection easures The jurisdiction wants to study the proble and ipleent easures of soe kind at a later date. Ipleenting soe part of the protection easures The jurisdiction chooses to ipleent a portion of the easures. Ipleenting all of the recoended protection easures Exceeding recoended protection easures The jurisdiction chooses to ipleent all of the protection easures in addition to ipleenting other additional easures. No apparent decision Usually indicates that the plan was approved prior to the current iniu standards taking effect. Additional inforation is provided in the database including a description of the protection easures that are currently in place, and the year in which the selected policy easures will be ipleented. The results of the database entries can be seen in Table 1. The results show that ost local governents are reluctant to fully ipleent all of the recoended protection easures. nly 18 % of all jurisdictions with water supply watersheds, 19% of jurisdictions with groundwater recharge areas and just 9% of those with river corridors have stated that they would ipleent all recoended protection 252

4 - < ;1 be o be Nace,* Eg 2e, * n* o - U) o* NaR D ) ) ) ag,* * _ge * NQ * cr) * ne,* * * N c) ae * 1- * * * NN 1-ae R 3)'- o 2 = 2U 2 c as Eo." 5o c we a.= se a 4 To fts ce g a r.-* * * * * -. N 4 ae R c e oae.l, (* g o ul g g c) g * N* M* * N* r* 7T8e ci* 82 * -,u ) N * * p* N - c) Tr*,ae 11'3 - BR,ag Eg gg Vg 2,4 pc zg 3 a u, ai,g e * ag 9g L.94 n* c) g 'g - g g Rg g gg `1, c) ae r) - 5; co W at 4 r". 8R g RE - * n* 7r * ng g ng 2 ng e ' D D 3 42 D 3 e 7. cn 8 " 1. V > 7.- a I3 co) 17, (.7 tri a. as 711 a) la aai w - ) r a. MW. W cw 4- ca2 c. - - o al r., f) Al 4...:,.-7. 7= a= Z o. o a) c c Z. "R a) b. o8 a) t a) 2 t> w w o og "5 To. -5,., r 2 W, 5 2. g 4,7), t Ey,,_:,. 6_. E oli E :.E) w 3 --E c iii c ci.. _. oe -% a.4 -"` :c s), a, -,- G.- w' as. 8 2 a w o a W M 15 of BE ). > coll w w,... e e > w c't oc o c W cri._ cw c c.-c c o 72c :a c -.2c r 1, M (P.- 27) ce c c E-r, c.. F, w E we E2 2 co 45 = =1= p= o ot. 5 -c ETJ E EE 21.5 a....;, = 2 c_v co = Ew E w o w W ct ---' 'Y'- '" M M - G. 2,... G o z W w 2 w w.- c E 1: E 1-,L... Z re ' I- I- I- c)- al.- - _.- 253

5 easures. The nubers are larger for those jurisdictions choosing to ipleent soe portion of the recoended easures: 51% of those with water supply watersheds, 38% with groundwater recharge areas, and 65% with river corridors. 1% of those jurisdictions with water supply watersheds, 14% with groundwater recharge areas, and 1% with river corridors have stated that they intend on doing nothing at all. Literature ited Newton, Willia B, and Tracy Rye, Georgia Tech Masters of ity Planning Students, The Environental Planning riteria Database, for the ffice of oordinated Planning, Georgia Departent of ounity Affairs. Suer o-op Project. 254