Wendy Kellogg, Ph.D. Ohio APA Annual Conference Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio September 25, 2009

1. A Collaborative Governance Network for Land Use Decision Making in Lake Erie’s Tributary Rivers: The Ohio Balanced Growth Program Wendy Kellogg, Ph.D. Ohio APA Annual Conference Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio September 25, 2009

2. Presentation Outline • Landscape planning and management in Ohio to improve Lake Erie watershed • Collaborative Governance Networks (CGN) • Study methodology • Balanced Growth Program as CGN • Inter-organizational relationships • Program structure and function • Evaluation of process and outcomes

3. Balanced Growth Program OLEC Lake Erie Protection and Restoration Plan 2000 Balanced Growth Taskforce and Workgroups 2001-2004 Indicators Committee and Process Linking Land Use Watershed Planning Framework Balanced Growth Strategy State Agency Policies and Incentives Linking Land Use Best Local Land Use Practices Joyce Foundation Grant to EcoCity Cleveland Suitability GIS Decision Support University Analysis of State Policies and Incentives Four Watershed Balanced Growth Pilot Plans OLEC Interagency Taskforce Best Practices Training Program

4. Collaborative Landscape Planning for Ohio • Ohio’s institutional setting for planning • no land planning support from the state level • no requirement for comprehensive plans • no vertical or horizontal consistency requirements • Collaborative, voluntary approach to change practices is most feasible

5. Impetus for Collaboration • Legalistic • Required by legislation or administrative rules • Instrumental • Increase resources (money) • Expand knowledge base/expertise to more effectively solve problems (key to address complex ecological/social challenges) • Decrease external risks to organization • Political • Demands for more inclusive decision making from public and non-governmental organizations • Resolution of highly contested problems

6. Collaborative Governance Network • Co-production of the structures and mechanisms for development and implementation of public policy, plans and administrative programs • Characterized by multiple organizations across public, nonprofit and private sectors • Which voluntarily co-create and maintain a network of mutually-beneficial interactions and relationshipsover time

7. Policies and Mechanisms to Support Collaborative Watershed Planning • Shared vision, values and goals • Process that builds trust • Process that creates value or capacity (intellectual and social) • Jointly-created and freely distributed knowledge base for decision making • Access to technical assistance from network for process and implementation • Access to resources to support change

8. Methodology • Interactive research through participation in Balanced Growth Program for 8 years • Review of published documents and plans, including meeting minutes & reports • Formal review of research on land urbanization control policies • Interviews and survey of participants in pilot watershed planning processes

9. Pilot Watershed Projects as Collaborative Governance Network • Regional Planning Workgroup • Subgroup of taskforce plus other participants representing state agencies, MPOs, environmental advocacy group, university, municipal league, county planning, etc. • Identified most likely ecologically effective landscape planning framework and politically and institutionally feasible implementation mechanisms that would work in Ohio

10. Collaboratively Constructed Knowledgebase for Planning • What planning unit or territory most appropriate in terms of scale, scientific basis, and political acceptability? • How should the planning process be organized? • What landscape pattern best suited to protect tributary rivers and streams? • By whom and how should the plan be implemented? • Using what policies and mechanisms?

11. Watershed Planning Pilot Processes • 4 pilot watershed plans to test planning framework • through collaborative planning process, local governments identify • Priority development areas (PDAs) • Priority conservation areas (PCAs) • Priority agriculture areas (PAAs) (in some cases) • Local governments to adopt into their own zoning and operations to implement • State agencies will not contravene these areas in its permitting or funding, and will provide incentive package and extra technical assistance for jurisdictions in BGP watersheds

12. Watershed Partnership for Balanced Growth Plan Changes to Watershed Landscape Balanced Growth Planning Framework Implementation Mechanisms Local: plans, zoning, capital spending Local governments with land use authority Regional Landscape Goals Reflecting Lake Erie Protection and Restoration Plan and BGP Changed development and conservation actions PDAs and PCAs State and other entities: education, training, and technical assistance Stakeholders and regional public sector organizations State and federal agencies (ex officio members) State: direct agency actions and investments and incentives Regional landscape: settlement location and size, infrastructure, green infrastructure, etc.

13. Proposed Incentives Package • Local governments/communities as participants in endorsed BGP • Extra points on applications for loans and grants • Lower interest rates on loans • Technical assistance/coordinated review of permit processes for development/conservation projects in community • Targeted state spending in PDA and PCAs in watershed with endorsed BGP

14. Evaluation of Pilot Projects • Conducted by Office of Coastal Management for OLEC • Web-based questionnaire • N=39 who participated in WPP • Elected officials (10); local govt staff (17); NGO (6); business (3); consultants (3); SWCD (1); not identified (3) • Interviews with WPP managers • Questions • Motivation to participate • Decision support from OLEC • State incentives package and needs • Implementation challenges • Best/worst aspects

15. Motivation to Participate in WPPs • Top motivation • To address stormwater/flooding concerns (20) • To protect areas suitable for conservation (20) • To encourage more efficient infrastructure (17) • Elected officials: assure BGP conform to community plans (7/10)

16. Motivation to Participate in WPPs • Not availability of incentives from state • 55% answered “no”; 70% of elected officials answered “no” • Only 16% of respondents planned to apply for existing incentives • Open-ended question: confusion about incentives mentioned by 5 respondents

17. Support for Planning • Most respondents were satisfied or very satisfied (average response was 4.0 out of 5) with how the pilot program was configured in terms of • watershed size, WPP organization function, time allowed and resources allocated (from the state grant) • Highest positive responses were from the Chagrin project; • responses suggest this is because of the trust that participants already had with each other

18. Support for Planning • Technical information • Some concerns about GIS mapping process (many people unfamiliar with technical aspects and data) • Very different perspectives about relative balance of basing decisions on GIS mapping results vs. local preferences and existing plans when designating PDAs, PCAs and PAAs

19. State Incentives Package • What else could the state offer to local governments to encourage development and implementation of plans? • Fully fund and affirm existing programs and realign them to support BGP (NPDES, wetland mitigation, regulatory programs) • Require consideration of BGP participation for any state funding to align across agency programs • Money/funding benefits to jurisdictions through grants • Discounted interest rates for infrastructure, higher points fro grants in Clean Ohio Fund, , etc. • Requirement to do local plans with BGP principles • Change law to allow and support Transfer Development Rights for unincorporated communities and across jurisdictions in watershed

20. State Incentives Package • What else could the state offer to the private sector and land owners to encourage participation in the implementation of plans? • Reduce hurdles to development approval • Investment tax credits to developers who voluntarily follow BGP guidelines

21. Implementation Challenges • Diverging interests of communities in the watersheds in terms of land use, lot size, sewer and water • Not enough knowledge about BGP and its benefits at local level; need more outreach • Fear that land use options will be restricted • Cost of monitoring implementation • Land use output of plans (PDAs/PCAs) might not lead to measurable change in the resource because negotiation went too far from GIS results

22. Benefits from Collaboration • Public value: • enhanced capacity through creation of a learning network across state agencies and other stakeholder organizations • Continuing governance network • Technical advisory committee with representatives from across sectors • Watershed planning partnerships created & strengthened • Interagency taskforce • State agencies in OLEC examining their programs and funding streams to coordinate support of BGP

23. Remaining Challenges • Expansion of BGP to entire state beginning in summer 2009 • Maintaining the network of local governments that developed the watershed plans and supporting implementation • Maintaining and enhancing networks through decision support and technical assistance to move project statewide • Building on interagency taskforce as a node to support changes in agency programs