Alternatives for Coastal Development

Alternatives for Coastal Development Coastal Services Center Nancy Cofer-Shabica, David dosReis, Shan Burkhalter, Jeff Adkins North Inlet-Winyah Bay NERR Coastal Training Program December 8, 2005 NOAA Coastal Services Center Local in approach, national in scope Mission To build capacity for informed decision making about our coasts NOAA Coastal Services Center Capabilities and Activities - Training and education - Data and information - Tools and techniques - Communication and coordination Partners State and local coastal resource managers, coastal planners, educators, regulatory agencies, fish and wildlife agencies, estuarine reserves, sea grant programs, nongovernmental and nonprofit organizations Overview Balancing environmental, community, and economic factors in decision making about the use, development, and conservation of coastal lands and resources. Overview Factors facing coastal communities Sprawl fragments forest, wetlands, and coastal habitat Impervious surfaces degrade water quality Tourism can lead to overuse of sensitive areas Coastal development increases community vulnerability to hazards Overview 2000 Overview Partners: Georgia Coastal Program Georgia Conservancy Coastal Services Center City of St. Marys, Georgia Overview Open Space the Scenarios Why Protect and Preserve Open bpace? What Can Do? References and Resources Key components: • Maps of three scenario designs • 3-D views • Indicator comparisons across the scenarios • Project methodology • Wealth of background information www. csc. noaa. gov/alternatives Overview Conventional Conservation New Urbanist Conventional Site Plan Overview acres • 85 acres reserved as open space • Total floor area at build-out ~2,293,650 ft2 : 200 4oo oulToo: meters • 857 single-family residential units • 100 multifamily residential units • Average single-family residential lot size ~0.61 Conservation Site Plan Overview • 720 single-family residential units • Average residential lot size ~0.2 acres • 469 acres preserved as open space meters WATERSRONT RESTAURANT • Total floor area at build-out ~1,079,750 ft2 New Urbanist Site Plan Overview • 867 single-family residential units • 70 multifamily residential units • Average single-family residential lot size ~0.18 acres • 445 acres reserved as open space ' ■ \ I fy ■ uOl1 meters • Total floor area at build-out ~1,596,125 ft2 Overview Estimated Potential Net Revenue $48,000,000 $46,000,000 $44,000,000 $42,000,000 $40,000,000 $38,000,000 $36,000,000 Conventional Conservation New Urbanist $34,000,000 Overview Alternatives for Coastal Development: One Site, Three Scenarios Indicator Open Space Indicator Information Open S|> ace Percent ot Site Total Acres Natural acres Managed acres In the Scenarios I Why Protect and Preserve Open Space? I What Can I Do? I References and Resources Related Indicator Information ► Open Space ► Vegetated Buffers ► Clearing Costs ► Runoff ► Walkabilitv ► Impervious Surface ► Water Consumption ► Net Revenue Calculation In the Scenarios Open space is any piece of land that has been set aside to remain undeveloped Open space exists in a variety of forms including preserved forests and marshfront areas as well as managed natural areas such as playgrounds, ball fields, and parks. In the scenarios, the open space indicator measures three things: total open space, natural open space, and managed open space. "Natural” refers to the open space in each scenario that is preserved in its undisturbed or natural state. Conversely, "managed" refers to open space whose existing vegetation has been altered or cleared Why Protect and Preserve Open Space? Open space protection is a growing concern in American society. The US Department of Housing and Urban Development reports that, "Land is being developed at twice the rate of population growth ” As land is developed, open space near existing jurisdictions and towns is consumed. Perhaps the most obvious benefit of open space is that it improves people's quality of life by providing recreational opportunities. Open space frequently preserves natural, scenic landscapes while enhancing community charm and character. Surveys have shown that quality of life attracts businesses to communities. In fact, quality of life was rated the third most important factor by chief executive officers in deciding where to locate their businesses (NPS 1995). Studies have also shown that open space can increase property values. The Trust for Public Lands (TPL) and National Park Service provide many examples of communities whose property values increased due to their proximity to open space. For example, a cluster development in New York that preserved 97 acres of natural wooded environment is benefiting from its open space. One developer commented, "'It may not be the woods that bring (buyers) to us initially, but it seems to make all the difference when they see what it's like” (NPS 1995). • Partner workshops Methodology • Import to GIS • Indicator development in CommunityViz • Pollutant runoff with SGIndex SG Water Module • 3-D views in Visual Nature Studio • Expert consultation and review • Base maps Methodology • Scenario drawings File Edit View Insert Selection Tools Window Help Methodology Parcel Layout + □ Docks - 0 Docks - 0 Project Boundary □ Conventional Parcel Layout - -'E Lorrre-i'a: I I Community Facility Future Development • ar na ra Marsh I I Open Space - Natural Open Space - Park lH Parking - Unpaved I I Residential Roads ’Water Digitized drawings georeferenced and viewed in ESRI ArcView software - 0 landcover land cover nar time rarest maritime forest edge maritime forest hammock land cover palustrine forest palustrine forest ■a--::o', e- W'alking Trails Conservation Parcel Layout - 0 B -:e -'at" - 0 Roads - 0 Walking Trails + 0 subset_pointpeter.tif Display Source -rarer.: _ Iol _ ■ eta-: GIS Tools ESRI ArcView in conjunction with: • SGIndex SG Water Module • Visual Nature Studio • CommunityViz SG WATER Smart Growth Water Assessment Tool for Estimating Runoff version 1.0 (Beta) A product of United States Environmental Protection Agency Development, Community, and Environment (1808T) Washington, DC 20460 Prepared by Hi assodi on with GKY and Associates, Inc. Fairfax, Virginia Sprmgneld, Virginia GIS Tools VISUAL- NATURE S i LTOTO bib 12 ESRI ArcView in conjunction with: • SGIndex SG Water Module • Visual Nature Studio • CommunityViz - ArcViewGIS 3.3 Indicator Development File Edit View Jheme Analysis Surface Image Analysis Graphics CommunifyViz Window Help iw»nj,--rtai®iQioigT7ra^ mapjzi - Scenario newurb Scenario conventional VI 25 ft Buffer Docks 100ft. Buffer Newroads_v2 _| New Urbanist Parcel Trails ** Newparcels_v Commercial Community Fa Marina ^ Marsh [~H Open Space -1 ■ Open Space -1 | Residential I I Roads FEMA Flood Zone - Vi Pp_naturalcolor.img Vl Docks 100 ft Buffer 25 ft. Buffer Parcels_cs | Commercial I Community Fac ■ Marina ^ Marsh ~~| Open Space - h ■ Open Space - F ^ Parking - Pavec I Residential ■ Roads ■ Water Parking Unpa Docks_cm 25 ft Buffer 100 ft Buffer FEMA Flood Zone - 1 Trials Roads Trails Roads Pp_naturalcolor.img Parcels - conventic Commercial Community Fac ■ Marina ^ Marsh ~~| Open Space - N ■ Open Space - P ^ Parking - Pavec I Residential ■ Roads | | Water Conventional Parcels Pp_naturalcolor.img Indicator Development Tools Used: •ESRI ArcMap 9 (ArcInfo) •CommunityViz 9.X Scenario 360 Indicator: •Calculated value that represents the impacts and outcomes of scenario Need to specify a series of values: •User inputs •Indicator formulas New Urbanist BE® File Edit View Insert Selection Tools Window Help Topology * 1:24,000 Spatial Analyst - Jpti Base Scenario + 0 New Urbanist Parcels 0 Roads + 0 Trails + 0 Docks + 0 Point Peter i-Active Scenario | Base Scenario Modify Assumptions Start Edit Attributes View Visualize Reports Diagram Present Compare Saved Views Scenarios 360 Analysis Selection Drawing ■r [TO •» B I II A ■> 449336.59 3401749.33 Meters Alternativesfor Coastal Development Model Inputs • Values used as input to an analysis • Expression of subjective input (weighting) •Apply to entire scenario Alternativesfor Coastal Development Indicator Development •Developed through Formula Wizard •Combines user inputs and attribute values from geographic information system (GIS) files Variable Source Economic Indicators Description of Methods Formula Algebraic Description Community Viz Rural 3-D Visualization Scenario Comparison ’ Village Village Active Scenario Modify Assumptions Start Edit Attributes Indicators Charts _ Visualize Village Village View Reports Diagram Saved Views Compare Scenarios ■' '' ' Conventional Design 3-D Visualization Conservation Approach New Urbanist Design •'A — V Still Image * Waterfront ▼ Comparison Project Site Environmental Environmental Indicator Open Space (percent of site) Vegetated Buffer Docks Paths, Trails, and Sidewalks 0 Project Boundary 0 Landcover - Sensitive Resources maritime forest palustrine forest 5a Water Consumption Impervious Surface Percentage (of total site) Pollutant Runoff Indicator Development Open Space Indicator Data Layer: Parcels Parcels Attributes: • Land Use “Open Space - Natural” “Open Space - Managed Conventional Conservation New Urbanist • Acres (number of) Indicator Development Docks as an Indicator Data Layer: Docks - Total # Dock Attributes: • Length (linear ft.) • Area (sq. ft.) Conventional Conservation New Urbanist Indicator Conventional Conservation New Urbanist Description Docks ftotal number/DU) Total number of docks 104/957 4/720 4/937 per dwelling units Indicator Conventional Conservation New Urbanist Total dock length {feet) Total linear feet of all docks in each scenario and total area covered by docks. Total dock area (feet2) *Impervious surface coefficients for varying land uses/densities from literature Indicator Development Vegetated Buffer Indicator Data layer: Water bodies or proxy Data layer: Parcels Parcels attributes: • Land use Conventional Conservation “Open space - Natural” “Open space - Managed” New Urbanist Indicator Development Paths, Trails, and Sidewalks Indicator Data layer: Paths and Trails Path and Trail layer attributes: • Length • Width • Surface type “Asphalt” “Concrete” Conventional Conservation New Urbanist “Mulch” Indicator Conventional Conservation New Urbanist Description Paths, Trails, and Sidewalks Total (linear feet) Impervious Pervious 32.159 32.159 0 78,846 26,946 51,900 127,134 78,859 48,275 Total length of trails found in each scenario with the total broken into total pervious and impervious lengths Indicator Development Conventional Conservation New Urbanist Impervious Surface Indicator Data layer: Parcels Parcels attributes: • Land use • Acres Conventional Conservation New Urbanist Percentage of Total Site 26% 12% 18% Total Impervious Acres 169 82 119 Indicator Development @ Alternatives For Coastal Development: One Site, Three Scenarios: Impervious Surface Values and Sources - Netscape Impervious Surface Values and Sources Land Use Percent Impervious Cover Source Forest Center for Watershed Protection 1998 (p.6-3) Urban/Suburban Open Land Center for Watershed Protection 1998 (p.6-3) Low Density Residential (0.5 umts/acre) NRCS - USDA 1986 as reported in Center for Watershed Protection 1998 (p. 6-7) Low Density Residential (1 umts/acre) NRCS - USDA 1986 as reported in Center for Watershed Protection 1998 (p. 6-7) Medium Density Residential (2 umts/acre) Medium Density Residential (3 umts/acre) Medium Density Residential (4 umts/acre) High Density Residential (5-7 umts/acre) Multifamily Townhouse (>7 units per acre) NRCS - USDA 1986 as reported in Center for Watershed Protection 1998 (p. 6-7) NRCS - USDA 1986 as reported in Center for Watershed Protection 1998 (p. 6-7) NRCS - USDA 1986 as reported in Center for Watershed Protection 1998 (p. 6-7) Puget Sound - AquaTerra 1994 as reported in Center for Watershed Protection 1998 (p. 6-7) NRCS - USDA 1986 as reported in Center for Watershed Protection 1998 (p. 6-7) Commercial NRCS - USDA 1986 as reported in Center for Watershed Protection 1998 (p. 6-7) Parking - Unpaved expert opinion of Lee Sutton, Georgia NEMO Roads/Paved Parking expert opinion of Lee Sutton, Georgia NEMO Center for Watershed Protection. 1998. Rapid Watershed Planning Handbook Total Economic Value Total Economic Value Direct Indirect Option Existence Bequest Use Use Value Value Value Use Value Nonuse Value Total Economic Value Total Economic Value Use Value Nonuse Value Direct Use Indirect Use Option Value Existence Value Bequest Value Development Total Economic Value Total Economic Value Use Value Nonuse Value Direct Use Indirect Use Option Value Existence Value Bequest Value Greenspace for recreation Total Economic Value Total Economic Value Use Value Nonuse Value Direct Use Indirect Use Option Value Existence Value Bequest Value Held for future use by self Total Economic Value Direct Indirect Option Existence Bequest Use Use Value Value Value Use Value Nonuse Value Held for future use by others Total Economic Value Total Economic Value Direct Indirect Option Existence Bequest Use Use Value Value Value Use Value Nonuse Value Conserving unique natural assets Total Economic Value Total Economic Value Maximizing Value Direct Indirect Option Existence Bequest Use Use Value Value Value Use Value Nonuse Value Capturing Value “It's really pretty up here.” “...earlier this year, recognized by the National Wildlife Federation recognized The Refuge as a certified wildlife habitat.” “.the trees, the history behind it.” “We fell in love with it.” Economic Analysis Revenues - Costs ^ Profits Feature Effect: “All Other Things Equal” Revenues Costs Profit More efficient infrastructure Y Y Less land to be cleared Y Y Human use of green space Y Y Identity: good stewards Y Y Profit margin Reduction in infrastructure costs Economic Analysis Reduction in clearing costs Market premiums Economic Analysis Reduction in clearing costs Market premiums • Profit margin • Reduction in infrastructure costs Indicator Conventional Conservation New Urbanist Description Cost to Develop Roads $4,894,062 ($5,113.96/DU*) $3,297,842 ($4,580.34/DU*) $5,102,438 ($5,445.50/DU*) Total road cost in each scenario based on widths and lengths of streets and a standard cost per square foot. Cost to Develou Sewei $2,162,780 ($2,259.96/DU*) $1,858,892 ($2,581,79/DU*) $1,995,763 ($2,129.95/DU*) Total sewer cost of sewers in each scenario based on length of pipe estimated from road layout and a standard cost per linear foot. Cost to Develou Water Lines $1,853,811 ($1,937.11/DU*) $1,593,336 ($2,212.97/DU*) $1,710,654 ($1,825.67/DU*) Total water line cost in each scenario based on length of pipe estimated from road layout and a standard cost per linear foot. Economic Analysis • Profit margin • Reduction in clearing costs • Reduction in infrastructure costs • Market premiums Indicator Conventional Conservation New Urbanist Description Cost of Land Cleaiina $697,801 $292,222 $344,068 Total clearing costs in each scenario based on varying amounts of land cleared for different lot sizes and types and a standard cost to clear per acre. Profit margin Reduction in infrastructure costs Economic Analysis 1 Reduction in clearing costs ' Market premiums Economic Analysis From gross sales revenue to potential net revenue, considering the following: Reduction in clearing costs Market premiums Profit margin Reduction in infrastructure costs Conventional Conservation New Urbanist Potential Net Revenue $38,986,928 $44,128,913 $46,111,922 Questions? www.csc.noaa.gov/alternatives