NSDI Community Demonstration Project Shaping Dane’s Future

1. NSDI Community Demonstration ProjectShaping Dane’s Future Planning for Sensible Growth in the City and Town of Verona, Wisconsin

2. City and Town of Verona, Wisconsin Dane County United States of America City and Town of Verona, Wisconsin State of Wisconsin

3. Community Partners • Town of Verona Land-Use Planning Task Force • City of Verona • Dane County Executive Office • Dane County Planning and Development • Dane County Land Information Office • Land Information and Computer Graphics Facility • Federal Geographic Data Committee • Natural Resource Conservation Service • Environmental Systems Research Institute

4. Background “Dane County citizens are smart, hard-working, and committed to having better communities. The better information they can have about their communities’ future, the better choices they’ll make.”

5. Action Plan “DESIGN Dane” Falk calls for: “Join with the UW-Madison to offer local communities a citizen-based, technology- linked land use decision-making approach (to) evaluate the impacts of proposed development, visualize alternative developments, and combine with county ordinances.” (Falk et al, DESIGN Dane, p. 53)

6. Our Task Prototype a Land Use Planning Toolkit which facilitates citizen-based involvement.

7. Objectives of this Presentation • Describe toolkit elements and functions. • Provide context. • Describe some lessons learned.

8. Context

9. The Local Context • Land use planning is value laden and inherently political process. • Access to information, including spatial information, is not sufficient in itself to result in sound land use decisions. • The GIS learning curve is steep. Citizen planners, at this point in time, appear to be more comfortable directing technicians to conduct specific GIS analyses. • Local residents are most familiar with public meetings and expressing their views in these forums, but new internet technologies hold the promise of expanding the scope of citizen involvement. • Local units of government face significant financial and technical challenges to acquire hardware, software, data and maintenance, and hire professional staffing.

10. Toolkit Functions • Explore • Analyze • Allocate • Evaluate

11. P l a n n i n g P r o c e s s : $ $ D e t e r m i n e G o a l s / V a l u e s $ $ I n v e n t o r y C u r r e n t C o n d i t i o n s $ $ A n a l y z e T r e n d s / P r o j e c t i o n s $ F o r m P l a n n i n g O p t i o n s $ $ $ A s s e s s I m p a c t s $ $ D e v e l o p F i n a l P l a n $ $ I m p l e m e n t P l a n $ E v a l u a t e / M o n i t o r $ $ U p d a t e P l a n $ P L A N N I N G A N A L Y S T C I T I Z E N E N G A G E M E N T P l a n n i n g $ $ F u n c t i o n s : $ $ E X P L O R E A N A L Y Z E A L L O C A T E E V A L U A T E $ $ $ $ L e s s M o r e $ $ P R O F E S S I O N A L S U P P O R T Planning Tools: $ $ $ $ C y b e r C i v i c $ $ A r c I m s $ $ A r c E x p l o r e r $ $ A r c V i e w $ $ A r c I n f o $ $ S p a t i a l A n a l y s t $ $ M o d e l B u i l d e r $ $ W h a t I f ? $ $ P l a c e I t ! $ $ C o m m u n i t y V i z $ $ $ $ 3 D A n a l y s t $ $ $ $ W o r l d C o n s t r u c t i o n S e t $ $ $ $ T e r r e x $ $ $ $ E S R a p i d S i t e

12. EXPLORE • Example questions with policy implications • How much land has been urbanized? • Where is urbanization occurring? • How has urban density changed over time?

13. ANALYZE Town Chair of the Land Use Planning Task Force Asks: • Where are important natural features located?

14. Applying Phil Lewis’ Environmental Corridor Model

15. ALLOCATE Using “Place It,” citizen planners determine where growth should occur:

16. “Place It” Allocation and Feedback

17. EVALUATE “On-the-fly” GIS and planning work session

18. EVALUATE 8 Citizen-generated residential questions 1.How many residential lots do not have any improvement values? How many acres? What is their average size? 2. How many residential lots > 0.25 acres but < 2 acres do not have any improvement values? How many acres? 3.  How many residential lots are located on slopes > 12.5%? 4.  Which residential lots are located on sites greater than 1000feet in elevation. 5.  Which residential lots are sited on woodands? 6.  How many woodlands do not have a residential parcel on it? 7.  Where are homes located in wetlands or floodplains? 8.  Where are the floodplains and wetlands? (Places that you can not or should not build on?)

19. EVALUATE 10 Citizen-generated agricultural questions 1.  What is the difference between the two soil models? Where do they differ? 2.  Where are single ag-land owners located in contiguous tracts? 3.  Where are parcels farmed by a single operator including rented lands? 4.  What parcels are currently assessed in agriculture? 5.  What parcels receive tax credits for agriculture? 6.  Where are the dairy farms located? 7.  What agricultural parcels intersect with good quality soils? 8.  Two FPZ scenarios were constructed. Where do these FPZs differ? How many acres do they differ? 9.  What agricultural lands include forested cover? 10. What agricultural lands include environmental corridors?

20. EVALUATE Response to question 8: How much difference is there, in acres and location, between the farmland protection scenarios of different taskforce groups within the town?

21. Only 70 Acres Difference!

22. Some Lessons Learned

23. Lesson #1: Usefulness of NSDI In respect to “Smart Growth” in Wisconsin and the role of the NSDI A comparison between the NSDI Framework Data and the actual data used in the Verona case study resulted in the following findings.

24. NSDI Useful but Limited • NSDI Framework: • 45 data sets would have been applicable, of which • 18 (40%) are from the cadastral (ownership) data • set. • Wisconsin Land Information Program and locally produced data: • 87 data sets were applicable and incorporated into • the database, of which 32 (37%) are from the parcel • (ownership/tax parcel) data set.

25. Lesson #2: Attribution Requirements For the NSDI Framework to be useful for land use planning, significant local attribution of the Framework Data will be necessary (e.g. local tax assessors data with property parcel boundary data).

26. Lesson #3: Resolution Limitations Resolution of Federally derived orthoimagery and resultant elevation data limits usefulness (e.g. local units of government area independently developing orthoimages of higher resolution).

27. Lesson #4: Unfunded Federal Priorities Need to provide local units of government with funding support for the development of more accurate, up to date data. (e.g. FEMA and the Cooperative Technical Communities Program – provide the appropriate level of funding and not just more responsibility).

28. Lesson #5: Missing Data Sets The absence of essential Federal data sets from the NSDI Framework remains a major impediment for “Smart Growth” planning in Wisconsin (e.g. Department of Commerce Census data; Department of Housing & Urban Development Housing Stock data; U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service National Wetland Data; Federal Emergency Management Agency Floodway and Flood Fringe Data; U.S. Department of Agriculture Ag Census, “Swampbuster” data; National Resource Inventory Data and SSURGO Certified modern soils data).

29. Lesson #6: Citizen-planner response: Usefulness of GIS Question 1: How useful are the computer-based information technologies you have seen demonstrated for your task of updating the town plan? “Very useful. They enable us as citizen-planners to visualize a number of geographic and other database attributes simultaneously. Using selected criteria in “what-if” scenarios, we are able to better understand and appreciate our Town resources as we view maps and tables. Land use policy and implementation are more easily accomplished with this interactive GIS support.” Professor Emeritus, Ted Peterson

30. Lesson #6: Citizen-planner response: Role of GIS Question 2: What role(s) do you see GIS and the ability to visualize options have as your task force defines its land use policies for the Town? “Mostly as a “what-if” answer to 2 potential choices.” Farmer, Laura Dreger

31. Lesson #6: Citizen-planner response: GIS and Planning Process Question 3: Now that you know about some of the capacities and limitations of GIS, visualization, and impact analysis – If you you were to start the planning process over from the beginning, would you do anything differently? What specifically? “I would start with a GIS blitz. Look at all of its potentials and shortfalls to better guide us through the discussions.” Town Chair, Steve Sheets

32. To Learn More about the Project • Visit our booth in the Map Gallery • LICGF web site – www.lic.wisc.edu • Shaping Dane’s Future Website – • www.lic.wisc.edu/shapingdane

33. All of us want to thank the Federal Geographic Data Committee for sponsoring this opportunity!

34. Majid Allan - Dane County Planning

35. Math Heinzel - GIS Functionality

36. Fred Iausly - Database development and maintenance

37. Phil Lewis - Environmental Corridor Planner

38. Tom McClintock - Planning Analyst Training

39. Doug Miskowiak - Farmland Preservation & Environmental Corridor Applications

40. Sue Niemann - Parcel Database Development

41. Ted Peterson – Citizen Planner