A COST-BENEFIT APPROACH TO COASTAL ADAPTATION

Similar documents
MARK TWAIN LAKE MASTER PLAN CLARENCE CANNON DAM AND MARK TWAIN LAKE MONROE CITY, MISSOURI

IRS FORM 8283 SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT DONATION OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT

The cost of increasing social and affordable housing supply in New South Wales

A Fiscal Analysis of Shifting Inlets and Terminal Groins in North Carolina

METROPOLITAN COUNCIL 390 North Robert Street, St. Paul, MN Phone (651) TDD (651)

Queanbeyan Local Environmental Plan (South Tralee) 2012

ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA. County Board Agenda Item Meeting of June 17, 2017

Some Social and Policy Implications of Shore Erosion. James G. Titus U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

The Maryland Puritan Tiger Beetle Habitat Conservation Program

Muskoka k Regional Centre Opportunities Assessment and Optimal Use Study

Community Development Committee

Evaluating Coastal Real Estate Value vs. Risk in the Wake of Sea Level Rise

Hudson Valley Foie Gras

COASTAL CONSERVANCY. Staff Recommendation August 2, 2012 HARE CREEK BEACH COASTAL ACCESS TRAIL. Project No Project Manager: Lisa Ames

ZANDER ASSOCIATES. Environmental Consultants. June 6, Owen Lawlor Moss Beach Associates 612 Spring Street Santa Cruz, CA 95060

Benefit Transfer and Visitor Use Estimating Toolkit for Wildlife Recreation, Species and Habitat

Legal Risk Analysis for Sea Level Rise Adaptation Strategies in San Diego EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Biodiversity Planning Policy and Guidelines for (LEP) Rezoning Proposals

TRIUMPH GULF COAST, INC. PRE-APPLICATION FORM

Auckland Council Rates Remission and Postponement Policy Consultation Submission

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Township of Tay Official Plan

Introduction to INRMP Implementation Options

Woollahra Local Environmental Plan 2014

Crown Lands Act, the MOU with AMSA & NSW Men s Sheds

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Conservation Easement Stewardship

50 Humberwood Boulevard - Zoning By-law Amendment Application - Preliminary Report

Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund 2018 Request for Proposals (RFP)

Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund Request for Proposals (RFP)

Letter of Intent May 2017 (Revised November 2017)

SENATE, No STATE OF NEW JERSEY. 217th LEGISLATURE INTRODUCED SEPTEMBER 8, 2016

Kiama Local Environmental Plan 2011

Application Procedures for Easements or Rights of Way on City of Fort Collins Natural Areas and Conserved Lands March 2012

TransNet Environmental Mitigation Program: Land Acquisition and Restoration Process and Criteria

Martin Correctional Institution and Work Camp

Greater Taree Local Environmental Plan 2010

Moree Plains Local Environmental Plan 2011

APPENDIX U UNDERSTANDING THE COSTS AND BENEFITS OF SHORELINE CHANGE

GWINNETT COUNTY CSO CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION OVERLAY DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS

Town of Gorham Development Transfer Fee Program SECTION XVIII DEVELOPMENT TRANSFER OVERLAY DISTRICT

About St. Edward Seminary Proposed Project February 4, 2016

V. Economic Assessment

CHAPTER 12. BE IT ENACTED by the Senate and General Assembly of the State of New Jersey:

CITY UTILITIES DESIGN STANDARDS MANUAL

Conservation of Coastal Alabama A Land Conservation Presentation

Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012

ARVIAT COMMUNITY PLAN - TABLE OF CONTENTS -

Division 5 Residential Low Density Zone: Assessment Criteria and Assessment Tables

HOUSING ELEMENT GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES

TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR) ORDINANCE Revised November 2013

TOWN OF PELHAM, NEW HAMPSHIRE

SALE OF PUBLIC LAND IN ALBERTA RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVING REGULATION, POLICY AND PROCEDURES

Transfer of Development Rights. February 13, 2017

FLOOD HAZARD AREA LAND USE MANAGEMENT

TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL M E M O R A N D U M. To: Council Members AGENDA ITEM 9D

Required and optional elements of comprehensive plan; studies and surveys.

Regular Board Meeting of the Captiva Erosion Prevention District

Blacktown Local Environmental Plan 2015

SPECIAL PUBLIC NOTICE

3.9. MARYLAND % 11.2% Adaptations Status IncorporaType Impact Standard Costs Funding Source

AT THE INTERSECTION OF LAND CONSERVATION AND RESILIENCE. THE ELIZABETH RIVER S URBAN LAND TRUST

Report Date: March 25, 2011 Contact: Michael Flanigan Contact No.: RTS No.: 9150 VanRIMS No.: Meeting Date: April 19, 2011

CHAPTER Committee Substitute for Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 2188

Town of Middleborough Conservation Commission 2014 Policy

SERVICE & IMPROVEMENT PLAN AND ASSESSMENT PLAN:

COMMUNITY PLAN PLANNING & URBAN DESIGN

SUBCHAPTER 59F CONSERVATION RESERVE ENHANCEMENY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM (CREP) STATE PORTION OF THE PROGRAM

** If your lot does not meet the requirements above, please read Sec below

Botany Bay Local Environmental Plan 2013

Richmond Valley Local Environmental Plan 2012

Disappearing Idaho Farmland:

Capital Regional District. Regional Parks Land Acquisition Strategy 2015 to 2017

Greater Hume Local Environmental Plan 2012

Alfred J. Malefatto & Keri Ann C. Baker Lewis, Longman & Walker, P.A. Tyler Chappell The Chappell Group, Inc.

Flinders Avenue, Lara Planning Scheme Amendment Combined Application for Rezoning and Multi-Lot Subdivision Reference : Decembe

Implementation Tools for Local Government

PLANNING SUBMISSION & CLAUSE 56 ASSESSMENT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF LAND 1525 POUND ROAD, CLYDE NORTH (LOT 2 PS F, SIENNA PARK ESTATE)

Housing Characteristics

E38. Subdivision - Urban

Jabiru Social Impact Assessment

Density Bonus and Community Benefits Policy

Kennedy Surveying REGISTERED PROJECT SURVEYORS. Company Profile

H5. Residential Mixed Housing Urban Zone

H5. Residential Mixed Housing Urban Zone

H6 Residential Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings Zone

Metro Vancouver Purpose-Built Rental Housing Inventory and Risk Analysis. Profile for the District of West Vancouver

Village of Queen Charlotte OCP and Bylaw Review Open House April 29, 2017 Highlights, Policy Directions, and Choices

State Environmental Planning Policy No 53 Metropolitan Residential Development

411 Acres, Two Coastal California Ranches, Estero Bay - Morro Bay, CA

Preserving Farms and Forests in Sussex County, Delaware: Public Value

Land Use Application

CHARLOTTE COUNTY, FLORIDA MANASOTA KEY BEACH RENOURISHMENT PROJECT INITIAL ASSESSMENT RESOLUTION RESOLUTION NUMBER 18-

REPORT ON: VALUATION APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY FOR SPECIALISED AIRFIELD ASSETS (RUNWAY, TAXIWAYS AND APRONS) BY PROFESSOR TERRY BOYD 3 AUGUST 2001

National Rental Affordability Scheme. Economic and Taxation Impact Study

COASTAL CONSERVANCY. Staff Recommendation September HARE CREEK BEACH ACQUISITION. File No Project Manager: Liza Riddle

Dungog Local Environmental Plan 2014

Wetland Mitigation Bank Settlement Agreement Fact Sheet

Using ESV for Planning, Policy, and Management of DE s Tidal Wetlands

Financial Analysis of Urban Development Opportunities in the Fairfield and Gonzales Communities, Victoria BC

Transcription:

A COST-BENEFIT APPROACH TO COASTAL ADAPTATION New Orleans June 15, 2015 By: The Balmoral Group Craig Diamond

Outline 2 Micro-Introduction to The Balmoral Group Project Background -- Context Project Objectives Technical Approach & Results Data & Analysis Outcomes & Implementation

Project Background 3 Client = New South Wales (AU) Office of Environment & Heritage (OEH) ~ 15 Verified Coastal Hotspots for Erosion and Shoreline Recession Until 2014, State Policy Opposed to Retreat and in Favor of Armoring State Confronted with Significant Engineering and Other Costs (including land)

Project Background 4 Might there be another way? What are the real and more complete costs (and benefits) of coastal management alternatives?

Project Background (Old Bar, NSW) 5 Old Bar Test Case

Project Background (Old Bar, NSW) 6

Project Background (Old Bar, NSW) 7

Project Objectives 8 Include Non-Market and Community Economic Considerations Reflect Risk Associated with Three Hazard Lines Consider Two Infill / Development & Redevelopment Intensity Scenarios Examine both 20 year and 60 year (life of project) Economic Horizons Address Treasury Guidelines for Sensitivity Analysis (Three Discount Rates)

Technical Approach 9 Data Collection Community Socioeconomic Profile; Engineering Cost & Technical Information; Real Property Data; Council Services, Infrastructure and Utility Information Willingness to Pay Literature Hazard Lines (Affirm Probabilities) Analysis GIS Overlays of Risk Lines Calculate Rates of Property Loss Identify Direct, Indirect and Non-Market Costs Classify and Tabulate Non-Market Benefits (i.e., Environmental, Community, Recreational) Conclusions Cost Benefit Analysis Relative Rankings of Alternatives Informed Choices for Council and State

Technical Approach 10

Technical Approach 11

Technical Approach 12 Summary of Options Considered in Cost Benefit Analysis Option 1 Base Case or Business as Usual Option 2(a) Stage 1 Wall (Lewis Street) with Current Development Controls Stage 1 Wall (Lewis Street) with a Development Scenario Midpoint between Option 2(b) Options 2a and 2c Option 2(c) Stage 1 Wall (Lewis Street) with No Development Controls Stage 1 Wall (Lewis Street) and Stage 2 Wall (Pacific Parade) with Current Option 3(a) Development Controls Stage 1 Wall (Lewis Street) and Stage 2 Wall (Pacific Parade) with Option 3(b) Development Scenario Midpoint between Options 3a and 3c Option 3(c) Stage 1 Wall (Lewis Street) with No Development Controls Option 4(a) Planned Retreat Option 4(b) Planned Retreat with Easements

Data Collection 13 Impact Assignment Table Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4(a) Option 4(b) Base Case: Business as Usual Stage 1 Wall (Lewis Street) Stage 1 & 2 Wall (Lewis Street & Pacific Parade) Planned Retreat Planned Retreat with Easement Treatment Construction Costs X X X Property Acquisition Costs X X X X Demolition & Restoration Costs X X X Maintenance & Repair Costs X X X X X Foregone Rate Revenue X X X X Avoided Costs of Municipal Services Administrative Costs X X X Value of Protected Properties X X X X Beach-related Economic values (Non-property) Recreational Value: Surf X X X X X Amenity Value: Ecological Protection X X X X X X Amenity Value: Beach X X X X X AWRA Salvage Summer Value Specialty Conference 2015; Climate X Change Adaptation X X X

Data Collection / Analysis 14 Example of Non-Market Data Benefit Loss of Stream Habitat Direct Loss of Coastal Forest Due to Displacement Loss of Dune Vegetation at Ends of Revetment Due to Scouring WTP Value of Beach Habitat/Listed Species Loss of Listed Species Value of Protected Infrastructure Unit Per Household Per Household Per Household Per Household Per Household Base Year Value Per Year CPI Local Conversion Conversion Factor Factor 20-Year NPV 2004 $1.96 1.29 $2.48 $2.48 2009 $5.40 1.12 $5.90 $5.90 1990 $1.45 1.79 $2.53 $2.53 2006 $1.10 1.22 $1.31 $1.31 2004 $0.87 1.29 $1.10 $1.10 Per Lot 2014 $8,819 1.00 $8,618 $126,951 Source; Basis for Calculation Morrison & Bennett (2004) ranges from $1.96 to $2.61 per household for Riverine Habitat, NSW North Coast, acreage not specified; One-time Payment Productivity Commission, (reference to Gillespie, 2009), WTP per household per ha to avoid damage to native vegetation; Coastal dune vegetation in project area measured as ~6 ha; One-time Payment Productivity Commission, 2006 data, healthy forests worth between $1.45 to $3.29 per household; One time payment Productivity Commission, 2006 data per "unit increase" (undefined) waterbirds worth between $1.10 to $3.89 per household; One-time Payment Morrison & Bennett, 2004 data, pooled value for NSW for added faunal species; One-time Payment Alternative Approach to Utility Assets: Based on annual value of typical usage and rates for water and sewer (Midcoast), electricity and gas (Energy Australia). See Cost of Services below. Factored by 1.5 to account for roads

Example of Benefit Cost Summary Benefit:Cost Analysis Summary Business As Usual; 7%; Almost Certain Hazard Line 20 Year Horizon Cost One Time/ Annual Cost Total Cost 60 Year Horizon Cost One Time/ Annual Cost Total Cost Direct Costs Units Quantity Comments 20% of One Staff Members time @$32.50 hourly, with Staff Costs: Professional Per Hour 384 $12,480 $183,850 $12,480 $301,166 salary & benefits, 20 year Maintenance costs related to and lost capital value of Maintenance, Repair, Demolition costs for infrastructure 15 $126,951 $1,904,262 $207,959 $3,119,381 sewerage pipes, roads, etc. using proxy values of foregone utilities revenue over 20 years for protected properties Direct Cost Sub-Total: $2,088,113 $3,420,547 Cost Cost One Time/ One Time/ Indirect Costs Units Quantity Annual Cost Total Cost Annual Cost Total Cost Comments Lost Revenues of Municipal / Utility Services Per Household 15 $91,140 $1,367,106 $149,298 $2,239,463 Based on Annual Utility Costs per Household Values of properties expected to be lost Per Lot 15 $15,193,527 $15,193,527 Property values for properties within design life Value of lost Council Rate Per Lot 15 $574,691 $8,466,116 $574,691 $13,868,383 NPV of Rate Value of Beach-Related Commerce (with multipliers) $9,998,932 $20,145,309 Assumes displacement of activity after 5 years Net economic contribution of displaced properties Per Household 15 $1,369,823 $10,714,118 $2,243,913 Lose residents from directly affected houses and their expenditures; larger effect with economic impact multiplier; $17,550,844 based on reported income of $889/wk (from Profile), NPV over 20 years Indirect Cost Sub-Total: $45,739,799 $68,997,526 Cost Cost One Time/ One Time/ Non-Market Costs Units Quantity Annual Cost Total Cost Annual Cost Total Cost Comments Loss of Streamside Habitat Per Household 3,983 $2.48 $9,865 $4.17 $16,618 Impacts to terminus of Racecourse Creek Predicted Loss of Listed Species Per Household 3,983 $5.90 $23,491 $9.93 $39,570 Habitat Value for Listed Species Direct Loss of Coastal Forest Per Household 3,983 $1.31 $5,211 $2.20 $8,777 Displacement of dune ecosystem Willingness-to-Pay for Beach Amenity (Resident Non-Surfing) Per Household 3,983 $752 $2,994,383 $1,515 $6,032,922 Displacement of beach activity after 5 years Displacement of activity after 5 years; per Greater Taree Willingness-to-Pay for Beach Amenity (Visitor Non-Surfing) $21,410,990 $43,137,707 beach visitor data direct expenditure Non-Market Cost Sub-Total: Costs Total: $24,443,939 $72,271,850 Benefit Total Unit Price Benefit $49,235,594 $121,653,667 Benefit Total Unit Price Benefit Community Benefits Units Quantity Comments None Assumed Change in Community Benefits Sub-Total: $0 $0 Benefit Benefit Recreational / Aesthetic Benefits Units Quantity Unit Price Total Benefit Unit Price Total Benefit Comments Willingness-to-Pay for Surfing Per Surfer 100 $22,802 $1,710,127 $37,352 $2,801,366 Displacement of 25% beach activity Recreational / Aesthetic Benefits Sub-Total: $1,710,127 $2,801,366 Benefit Benefit Total Total Environmental Benefits Units Quantity Unit Price Benefit Unit Price Benefit Comments None Assumed - $0 $0 Environmental Benefits Sub-Total: $0 $0 Benefits Total: $1,710,127 $2,801,366 15 Results AWRA Summer Specialty Conference 2015; Net Benefits: Climate Change -$70,561,724 Adaptation -$118,852,301 Benefit:Cost Ratio: 0.02 0.02

Analysis 16 Example Detail of Benefit Cost Table (Costs) Indirect Costs Units Quantity Cost One Time/ Annual Cost Total Cost Comments Lost Revenues of Municipal / Utility Per Services Household 15 $91,140 $1,367,106 Foregone revenue Value of Lost Council Rate Per Lot 15 $372,863 Foregone revenue Lose residents and their expenditures; Economic contribution of displaced Per effect with economic impact multiplier; 15 $1,369,823 $18,807,370.45 properties Household Non-Market Costs Units Quantity Indirect Cost Sub-Total: $20,547,340 Cost One Time/ Annual Cost Total Cost None Assumed; Non-market values retained Non-Market Cost Sub-Total: $0 Costs Total: $33,881,657 assumes twice median income of $889/wk for shorefront properties Comments

Analysis 17 Example Detail of Benefit Cost Table (Benefits) Community Benefits Units Quantity Value of Beach-Related Commerce (with multipliers) Benefit Unit Price Total Benefit $15,899,081 Retains Beach Value Comments Proxy for replacement costs of sewerage Values of protected public pipes, roads, etc. using foregone utilities Per Lot 15 $126,951 $1,904,262 infrastructure revenue over 20 years for protected properties Value of continued municipal Per Protected revenue streams for council 15 $91,140 $1,367,106 services Household services Value of continued council rate (less Rates from protected properties less those Per Year 15 $24,696 that for easements) acquired Blue line properties, less properties Value of Protected Properties 15 $525,083 acquired Change in Community Benefits Sub-Total: $19,720,229 Recreational / Aesthetic Benefits Units Quantity Benefit Unit Price Total Benefit Comments Willingness-to-Pay for Surfing Per Surfer 100 $22,802 $2,280,169 Retains Surf Value Willingness-to-Pay for Beach Amenity (Resident Non-Surfing) 3,983 $1,195 $4,761,302 Retains Beach Value Willingness-to-Pay for Beach Amenity (Visitor Non-Surfing) $34,045,142 Retains Beach Value Recreational / Aesthetic Benefits Sub-Total: $41,086,613

Results 18 Table 8. Example of Option Rankings OPTION Net Benefit Millions Benefit/Cost Ratio Planned Retreat w/ Easement 34.6 2.49 Planned Retreat 28.6 1.98 Sea Wall Stage I (c) -9.0 0.83 Sea Wall Stage I (b) -11.5 0.77 Sea Wall Stage I (a) -14.1 0.70 Sea Wall Stages I & II (c) -44.8 0.50 Sea Wall Stages I & II (b) -47.3 0.46 Sea Wall Stages I & II (a) -49.9 0.41 Base Case: Business as Usual -70.6 0.02

Outcomes 19 Results were Contentious and Newsworthy Results were Adopted Lawmakers considering non-capital projects for funding Allows implementation on non-construction projects for coastal communities http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/coasts/costbenefit-coast.htm

Outcomes 20 Results were Contentious and Newsworthy

Outcomes 21

Outcomes 22

Outcomes 23 Results were Adopted

Outcomes 24 Situation not identical throughout New South Wales

Questions? 25 Thank you!