Development- What We Have Done to This Point and What We Can Do in the Future Kevin Nunnery, Ph.D.

1. COLT 04/03/2008 Development- What We Have Done to This Point and What We Can Do in the Future Kevin Nunnery, Ph.D. Biohabitats, Inc. March 19, 2008

2. COLT 04/03/2008 • Resources Lost • (fromhttp://amphibiaweb.org/declines/HabFrag.html) • Wetland Habitat Losses: • 1,131,000 ac of wetlands lost per year between mid-1950s and 1997 • 69% of pocosins of Atlantic Coastal Plain destroyed by 1980 • • 50% loss of Everglades ecosystem by the early 1990s; • the remainder greatly altered. • • 50 to 60% loss of wetlands in Alabama between 1780 and 1980 • • 91% loss of vernal pools and wetlands gone from California.

3. COLT 04/03/2008 Stream and River Habitat Losses • 98% of the original 3.2 million miles of streams in the continental United States have been seriously affected • 91% of river lengths in lower 48 US states developed by 1988 • 33% of hydrological basins in northeastern United States affected by toxics: 63% by excess nutrients • 66% of the riparian forest in the United States has been destroyed • 85 to 98% of riparian forest in Arizona and New Mexico have been destroyed or severely degraded.

4. COLT 04/03/2008 Terrestrial Habitat Losses • 85 to 98% loss of old-growth forest in Blue Ridge and Cumberland Plateau provinces of Tennessee • 0.01% of native grasslands remain in pre-European contact condition • 69% of Illinois forests present in 1820 are gone today. • 60% of old-growth forest on Olympic Peninsula, Washington is in patches of 40 h or less • 85% of coastal redwood forest reduced in California • 0.2% of original forest remains in Puerto Rico • Forest covers only 13% of Cuba, 10% of the Dominican Rep., 5% of Jamaica and less than 1% of Haiti because of deforestation.

5. COLT 04/03/2008 • Development Rates • Restricting urban sprawl will not solve the problem: • Theobald (2001, Geographical Review 91:544-564) stated that exurban • (low-density residential) development is the fastest growing type of land • use in the U.S. • Results in non-unified scattering of homes on large parcels • (1 unit/ 1-40 acres along rural roads, often private well and sewer) • 10x the amount of land was converted to exurban use than urban use in • 2000 • Estimates suggest: • Exurban development = 37% of US population, 14% of land area • Urban development = 55% of US population, 1.7% of land area • Rural areas = 8% of US population, 84% of land area

6. COLT 04/03/2008 Homework Problem to be Solved: Given: Population Will Continue to Grow, and an Increasing Land Area Will Be Developed to Support That Growth Prove: There Are Ways to Help Decrease Environmental Resource Loss, Protect/Improve Water Quality andPrevent Habitat Fragmentation So That Our Children Will Have a Better World??? The Good News Is- Increasing Numbers of Local Governments, Institutions and Developers Are Showing Interest In Preserving Ecological/Environmental Resources By Promoting LID and Conservation Development practices These practices have been shown to be environmentally beneficial AND potentially cost-effective (Finally…) Some research and case-study information you may be interested in

7. COLT 04/03/2008 Findings from several publications- The Economics of Conservation Subdivisions-Price Premiums, Improvement Costs, and Absorption Rates. 2006. Rayman Mohamed, Wayne State University The Economic Benefits of Protecting Virginia’s Streams, Lakes, and Wetlands and the Economic Benefits of Better Site Design in Virginia. 2001. Center for Watershed Protection, 8391 Main Street Ellicott City, Maryland 21043. Changing Cost Perceptions: An Analysis of Conservation Development. 2005. Conservation Research Institute

8. COLT 04/03/2008 Wayne State University Research Data Answers to 3 Questions Investigated: 1. Is there is a price premium for lots in conservation versus conventional subdivisions ?. Although the natural and social features of conservation subdivisions are appreciated by residents (Kaplan, Austin, and Kaplan 2004), higher-density development is viewed negatively by most Americans (Danielsen, Lang, and Fulton 1999). 2. Are lots in conservation subdivisions less expensive to build than lots in conventional subdivisions? Although smaller lot sizes reduce infrastructure costs, requirements to build around the natural features of a parcel might increase the overall cost of conservation subdivisions, offsetting any lot premiums. 3. Third, what is the absorption rate for lots in conservation versus conventional subdivisions, do conservation lots sell at the same rate as conventional lots?

9. COLT 04/03/2008

10. COLT 04/03/2008

11. COLT 04/03/2008

12. COLT 04/03/2008 Center For Watershed Protection Research Data

13. COLT 04/03/2008

14. COLT 04/03/2008 Properties located near preserved natural areas have higher real estate values, may appreciate at a faster rate, or have higher than normal resident retention rates. Studies show that people are often willing to pay more to live or work near parks or open space, and lots with trees or near a park tend to sell at a faster rate than typical lots. On average, property values have been found to increase by 5 to 33% when located near a park or greenbelt. The following studies document these findings. • The results of a Maryland survey show almost half the respondents said they would be inclined to move if existing open space in their community were lost (CBP, 1998). • According to a Bank of America survey, real estate agents say that homes with treed lots are 20% more saleable (CBP, 1998). • A land developer donated a 50 foot wide, seven mile easement to provide a critical link for the Big Blue Trail in Front Royal, Virginia. The trail ran along the perimeter of a subdivision, and the developer advertised that the trail would cross 50 parcels, all of which sold within four months (American Hiking Society, 1990).

15. COLT 04/03/2008 • 1294-acre Pennypack Park in Philadelphia was found to account for 33% of the • land value of properties located 40 feet from the park, compared to 9% of • properties located 1000 feet away (CBF, 1996b; Hammer, et al., 1974). • • In Boulder, Colorado, the average value of property adjacent to a greenbelt was • 32% greater than properties 3200 feet away (Correll, et al., 1978). • • In Salem, Oregon, urban land adjacent to a greenbelt was worth $1200 more per • acre than urban land 1000 feet away (Nelson, 1986). • • An analysis of property surrounding four parks in Worcester, Massachusetts found • That homes located 20 feet away sold for $2,675 more than similar homes located • 2000 feet away from the park. (More, et al., 1982). • • In the Whetstone Park area of Columbus, Ohio, a nearby park and river accounted • For 7.5% of the selling prices of residential homes (Kimmel, 1985). • • Two regional economic surveys document that conserving forests on residential • And commercial sites can enhance property values by an average of 6 to 15% and • Increases the rate at which units are sold or leased (Morales, 1980; Weyerhaeuser, • 1989).

16. COLT 04/03/2008 Conservation Research Institute Research Data

17. COLT 04/03/2008

18. COLT 04/03/2008 Bielinski Homes – 3 subdivisions: Auburn Hills, Laurel Springs and Prairie Glen Cost estimate for conventional development compared to actual Conservation development cost for each subdivision.

19. COLT 04/03/2008

20. COLT 04/03/2008

21. COLT 04/03/2008 • Conclusions • Potential Financial Conservation Development Design Benefits: • Reduction of construction costs • Higher lot premiums • Lots sell just as quickly • Potential Environmental and Ecological Benefits: • Reduction in stormwater quantity • Improvement in stormwater water quality (reduction in pollutants) • Preservation, restoration or creation of wildlife habitat • Opportunities for stream and wetland restoration • Creation or preservation of greenspace where passive recreation is • possible • Potentially permanently protecting valuable green infrastructure with • conservation easements

22. COLT 04/03/2008