Encouraging sustainable development in a coastal community: New Hanover County, North Carolina's exceptional design zoning district

While New Hanover County is the second smallest county in North Carolina, it is also the second most densely populated with approximately 850 people per square mile. Nestled between the Cape Fear River and Atlantic Ocean with surrounding barrier island beach communities, the County’s geographic location provides a prime vacation destination, as well as an ideal location for residents who wish to live at the water’s edge. Wilmington is the largest city in the County with a population just under 200,000. Most of the Wilmington metropolitan area is developed, creating intense development pressures for the remaining undeveloped land in the unincorporated County. In order to provide development opportunities for mixed use or high density projects within unincorporated New Hanover County where appropriate urban features are in place to support such projects without the negative effects of urban sprawl, County Planning Staff recently developed an Exceptional Design Zoning District (EDZD). Largely based on the LEED for Neighborhood Development program, the EDZD standards were scaled to fit the unique conditions of the County with the goal of encouraging sustainable development while providing density incentives to entice the use of the voluntary district. The incentive for the voluntary zoning district is increased density in areas where the density may not be allowed under normal circumstances. The rationale behind allowing for higher density projects is that development can be concentrated in areas where appropriate urban features are in place to support such projects, and the tendency toward urban sprawl can be minimized. With water quality being of high importance, it is perceived that higher density development will better protect water quality then lower density projects. (PDF contains 4 pages)

Chemical Treatment Methods Pilot (CTMP) System for Treatment of Urban Runoff – Phase I. Feasibility and Design

(pdf contains 418 pages)

Habitat enhancing marine structures: Creating habitat in urban waters

Although maritime regions support a large portion of the world’s human population, their value as habitat for other species is overlooked. Urban structures that are built in the marine environment are not designed or managed for the habitat they provide, and are built without considering the communities of marine organisms that could colonize them (Clynick et al., 2008). However, the urban waterfront may be capable of supporting a significant proportion of regional aquatic biodiversity (Duffy-Anderson et al., 2003). While urban shorelines will never return to their original condition, some scientists think that the habitat quality of urban waterfronts could be significantly improved through further research and some design modifications, and that many opportunities exist to make these modifications (Russel et al., 1983, Goff, 2008). Habitat enhancing marine structures (or HEMS) are a potentially promising approach to address the impact of cities on marine organisms including habitat fragmentation and degradation. HEMS are a type of habitat improvement project that are ecologically engineered to improve the habitat quality of urban marine structures such as bulkheads and docks for marine organisms. More specifically, HEMS attempt to improve or enhance the physical habitat that organisms depend on for survival in the inter- and sub-tidal waterfronts of densely populated areas. HEMS projects are targeted at areas where human-made structures cannot be significantly altered or removed. While these techniques can be used in suburban or rural areas restoration or removal is preferred in these settings, and HEMS are resorted to only if removal of the human-made structure is not an option. Recent research supports the use of HEMS projects. Researchers have examined the communities found on urban structures including docks, bulkheads, and breakwaters. Complete community shifts have been observed where the natural shoreline was sandy, silty, or muddy. There is also evidence of declines in community composition, ecosystem functioning, and increases in non-native species abundances in assemblages on urban marine structures. Researchers have identified two key differences between these substrates including the slope (seawalls are vertical; rocky shores contain multiple slopes) and microhabitat availability (seawalls have very little; rocky shores contain many different types). In response, researchers have suggested designing and building seawalls with gentler slopes or a combination of horizontal and vertical surfaces. Researchers have also suggested incorporating microhabitat, including cavities designed to retain water during low tide, crevices, and other analogous features (Chapman, 2003; Moreira et al., 2006) (PDF contains 4 pages)

The quest for temperature records in California free of urban heat island effects [abstract, figures, and tables]

EXTRACT (SEE PDF FOR FULL ABSTRACT): The data of this paper differ from the Jones and Bradley papers [of 1982-1986] in that it represents an attempt to select thermal pollution free records rather than to include all available records. The specific long-term trends that this paper is trying to avoid are those illustrated by the heat islands of fast growing urban locations. One other major difference in this paper is that all of the records reported of this study are complete for the entire study period.