Washington: City in the Woods

Washington:
City in the Woods





Prepared for the Joint Ventures Conference: Partners in Stewardship, Los Angeles, CA



November 18, 2003
By J. Glenn Eugster, Assistant Regional Director, Partnerships Office, National Park Service, National Capital Region, Washington, D.C.












































Introduction

Many quotes come to mind that are appropriate to share as part of a description of green infrastructure. One that seems right to begin with is from former President Richard Nixon from his 1st State of the Union Address.

“Clear air, clean-water, and open spaces should be the birthright of every American”, President Former President Richard M. Nixon’s

Then as now, many of us believe that the “other infrastructure” is essential to the environmental, cultural and economic health of our communities and landscapes.

In May 1953 the Audubon Society of Washington, DC presented an exhibit titled “Washington-City in the Woods” in the National Museum in Washington, D.C. Its aim was to:

“Show the unique and priceless heritage the District of Columbia possesses in its remaining natural areas, and to delineate the dangers now threatening many of the cherished woodlands, meadows, marshes and waterways”.

The hope was “to raise some questions and give some new insights to help others share our heightened appreciation of these areas, and our grave concern for the future”.

The exhibit indicated that until 1940 the natural and unspoiled countryside still reached into the center of the city through every major section. It also noted that “now a decade of boom-town growth, pushing the city far beyond its original boundaries, menaces all of the remaining natural areas, even those included in established parks”.

The article summarized the situation saying, “A careless public, unaware of the natural values to be preserved, may awaken too late to save what remains from ruin”.

In hindsight, the exhibit and the article proved to be an accurate forecast of what was to happen to the green space of metropolitan Washington, DC.

Key messages

h Metropolitan Washington DC will lose 28 acres of open space everyday from 1997 to 2020.

h Normal metropolitan growth does not provide open space although land is abundant. Parks, open space and recreation areas are often the residual product of the development process.

h Experience reveals that parks, open space and recreation area planning, protection, management and use should emphasize the total green space system, rather than individual isolated parks, natural areas, greenways, trails and recreation areas.

h A green infrastructure approach to parks, open space and recreation areas is a way to recognize land for it’s ecological, recreational, cultural, economic, and conservation values and functions. It seeks to prevent, rather than ameliorate, the degradation of natural lands, air, water, the countryside, parks, recreation areas, farms and forests. Green infrastructure can be used to clean land, water, and air, replenish the human spirit, and help to sustain and regenerate the economy.


II. Summary

There is an opportunity and a need to look at how we plan, manage, use, and regenerate communities and ecologies by looking at green space as a form of essential infrastructure like roads, water lines, or sewers. When we talk about green infrastructure in the metropolitan Washington, D.C. region, we talk about everything from window boxes, to our largest park and in between: it’s urban gardens, street trees, residential landscaping, pocket parks, landscaped portions of a development parcel, linear parks, riparian buffers, street trees, parkways, working forests and farms, large parks and reserves.

As the region continues to lose more open space land than it protects a network of government officials, community leaders and private sector interests are collaborating to take action. Public and private leaders are using a seamless approach for dealing with green infrastructure issues and opportunities that cut across jurisdictional, policy, programs, technical, and sector lines. Using Geographic Information System (GIS) data, technical information, improved communication and partnerships, metropolitan leaders are changing the way the region looks at its parks, open space and recreation areas.

III. Background

A. Where did green infrastructure come from?

Robert Moses, the former New York City Parks Commissioner said,
“As long as you’re on the side of parks, you’re on the side of angels. You can’t lose”.

Green infrastructure visions, projects and approaches have always been inspired works. The following is a selected history of green infrastructure. The following examples recognize some of the most significant parts of this movement.

Moses and “The Book of Leviticus”:
The ancient idea of an agricultural belt around communities is mentioned in the Book of Numbers and can be traced to the days of Moses.

Sir Thomas Moore’s 1516 “Utopia”
described towns surrounded by country belts, which made a permanent boundary preventing the town from extending over the greenbelt.

Queen Elizabeth’s “Royal Proclamation of
1580” was the first attempt at establishing a greenbelt in Britain. It was to ensure cheap food and to minimize the effects of the plague.

With the establish of the District of
Columbia in 1790 came the concept of setting aside public reservations for parks. The L’Enfant Plan, in 1791, first laid out a city with 17 park reservations, including the Mall, the President’s Park and urban squares, circles and triangles distributed throughout the Plan’s baroque street system. The City of Trees as Washington has been dubbed has been defined as much by its natural values as by its national purpose.

Frederick Law Olmsted work on Boston Back
Bay Fens in the late 1800’s linked a number of public projects together in a regional design scheme that created the first regional park system in the U.S. Olmsted developed a way to simultaneously accomplish drainage, runoff, health, recreation, beautification, and education projects. The result was a system of large and medium sized parks, smaller landscaped areas with ponds for recreation, and linear parkland for pleasure drives, riding and hiking. The effort eventually described as the “Emerald Necklace” created precedents for future park system planning.

Later Olmsted, Daniel Burnham, Augustus Saint-Gaudens, and others advised the McMillian Commission on a new set of plans for Washington, DC in 1901-02. The commission had been asked to study and report on a park system for the capital, but before it had finished a comprehensive city plan, with a system of connected parks, was the result.

Benton MacKaye’s 1921 article “An
Appalachian Trail: A Project in Regional Planning” outlined the possibility of combining the various efforts of trail-building to effect a continuous footpath from Maine to Georgia. The trail was, and is, conceived as a backbone on which to build a series of public forests, parks and open ways.

Ebenezer Howard’s proposal for “Garden
Cities of Tomorrow” published 1945 called for a green belt of some 5,00 acres, outside of cities to separate houses from industry.

Starting in the 1950’s climatologists,
city planners, landscape architects and architects have worked together to help alleviate air quality problem in Stuttgart, Germany. The planners of Stuttgart have guided the location of industries, highways, residential districts and green space to direct airflow through the city to benefit air quality and climate. Stuttgart’s innovative work has been a model for U.S. cities such as Dayton, OH.

Phil Lewis’ concept of “environmental
corridors” in the 1960’s came out of a concern about people, the land and landscape resources upon which people depend. He was most interested in ways in which they can begin to take steps toward a less destructive state of equilibrium between people and their life support system. He saw these corridors as areas relatively free of human use and impact that would be protected and developed wisely.

In 1961 Congress took green space action
against “a rapid expansion of the Nation’s urban areas” and passed Public Law 87-80 “the Housing Act of 1961”. The Act included Title VII-Open Space Land, which recognized the loss of valuable open space. The purpose of this provision was to assist State and local governments “preserve open space land which is essential to proper long-range development and welfare of the Nation’s urban areas”. This legislation was different from other important laws, such as the Land & Water Conservation Fund, in that it was linked to an agency dedicated to providing housing and urban development and in response to growth and development pressures.

From 1961 to 1971 Congress, through the Department of Housing & Urban Development, helped to acquire 380,000 acres of open space and provided $561 million in grants. Funds were used for acquisition, easements, planning, and demonstration projects. This program, and others, were terminated in 1975 and folded into the Community Development Block Grant Program.

Ian McHarg’s work in the 1960-70’s, from
a ecological planning and project
perspective, articulated a view that science and applied ecology can help decision-makers understand the consequences of different actions.

From an over-arching perspective McHarg's belief was that in order to understand a region, watershed or site, one must understand the place, its inhabitants and all of the areas physical, biological and cultural history. "Planning is a means to address social issues and a device to confront the future. Such confrontation requires that human values be explicit and when these values are clarified and linked to the environment, they have considerably more influence on planning than any amount of data”.

From a site-specific perspective McHarg, his colleagues, and their teams of
interdisciplinary planners, applied the principles of natural drainage to land development projects. Pioneering some of the first green infrastructure development projects in America, McHarg demonstrated in the Woodlands of TX and on Amelia Island in FL ways to incorporate natural drainage into developments without adversely affecting natural systems.

In 1970 William H. Roberts, of Wallace,
McHarg, Roberts and Todd wrote in a book called “Metropolitan Open Space and Natural Process”, “While traditional approaches to the location of open space in metropolitan areas have preserved many major stream valleys and areas important to natural process, more often open space has been conceived as a residual to a desired development pattern itself. Design for open space should start with a pattern of open space and limitations for development based on the maximum preservation of natural processes and amenity”.

The Philadelphia Horticultural Society
has worked for nearly thirty-years greening the City of Philadelphia. Through community beautification and the “Green City Strategy” the Society has lead a community-based effort to convert urban vacant land into a neighborhood resource that is a part of a larger system of green space.
(http://www.pennsylvaniahorticulturalsociety.com/phlgreen/)

In the late 1970’s and early 80’s
development and fish and wildlife interests came together to wrestle with a proposal for 8,500 residential units and 2 million square feet of office and commercial space on San Bruno Mountain in CA. The mountain was already habitat for several species of rare butterflies and many other living resources and both interests sought some mechanism that would permit development on the mountain to proceed while ensuring long-term protection.

The situation resulted in the preparation of a habitat conservation plan for San Bruno Mountain. The plan was prepared in 1982 and resulted in a reduced size development project, and protection for living resources. The process was hailed as a way to resolve urban development and endangered species conflicts. As a result, in 1982 the Endangered Species Act was amended to permit the preparation of such plans.

In 1995 the Toronto Waterfront
Regeneration Trust, lead by the work of Beth Benson and Michael Hough, published ”Greening the Toronto Portlands”. The report outlines a framework for a regional green infrastructure system that includes a hierarchy of green space that recognizes the various types of green infrastructure, their functions and design requirements.

The Green Infrastructure initiative
emerged from the work of the President’s Council for Sustainable Development, and the implementation of the Rural and Metropolitan Strategies Task Force recommendations by the US Forest Service in 1999. (http://www.greeninfrastructure.net/)


B.Pockets of Innovation

There has been a significant evolution in the planning, protection, and regeneration of green space systems at all levels of the government and in the private sector. These innovations, some of which are highlighted, have demonstrated the effectiveness of this approach and the public support for it.

International examples of innovation
include Planty Park, in Karkow, Poland (http://www.krakow-info.com/planty.htm) and Emscher Park in the Rhur Valley of Germany(http://www.georgewright.org/37labell.pdf).

National innovations in the U.S. include
the Appalachian Trail, Golden Gate National Park, CA; and Pinelands National Reserve.

At the State government level the most
significant innovations are in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Florida and Maryland.

Local innovations, such West Eugene,OR
(http://www.ci.eugene.or.us/wewetlands/Annual-Report97.htm), are examples of communities changing the way green space is used and managed in a larger land use context.

Interestingly, some of the most
innovative work has gone on in private sector by developers and land trusts. Green infrastructure projects such as Amelia Is., in FL, the Woodlands in TX, and the Fields of St. Croix, St. Elmo, MN. are examples of enlightened development approaches.

These developments, and other land conservation projects pioneered by the Natural Lands Trust, and other land conservancy organizations, reflect changes in the management and use of private lands to meet economic and conservation needs.

C. Policy Responses to Community-based Initiatives

Ruth McWilliams, U.S. Forest Service once said, “The best national policy is that which reflects, and supports, positive state, local and community behavior that we as a society are seeking to replicate”.

Two recent federal initiatives have brought considerable attention and support to the idea of a systems approach to parks, open space and recreation areas. These initiatives have evolved from state and locally based actions that have been occurring across America.

In 1998 the President’s Council on Sustainable Development recognized the importance of state, local and private sector green infrastructure approaches and issued a policy, with very modest federal government assistance supporting these efforts. The policy, described in the Council’s “Metropolitan and Rural Strategies Report” recognizes the importance of environmental values in sustainable communities and landscapes. It also builds upon the innovative green infrastructure work that is being advanced by States, local governments, land trusts, and private developers.

At the National Town Meeting for a Sustainable America in May 1999, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), through the Forest Service, agreed to organize and help support the design of a Green Infrastructure Training Program for local governments and private organizations in
collaboration with a wide range of partners.

This enabling approach to federal assistance, supported by The Conservation Fund, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, State of MD and others, is based on a philosophy of helping people to help themselves.

Over several years the leaders of NPS, as well as other government agencies and private groups, has embraced the term, “a seamless national network of parks, places, and open spaces”. The “seamless system” term, a regular part of the vocabulary for education, substance care, transportation, and surveillance activities, is being used to encourage the protection and understanding of America’s heritage and resources. It also advocates using these lands and waters to provide recreational opportunities for all.

Director Fran Mainella of the NPS describes this seamless network or system as an approach rather than a new program. It emphasizes action, through existing programs and authorities that focus on
organizational networks (i.e. partnerships, etc.), informational and programmatic networks (i.e.sharing tools, technology, distance learning, etc.) and physical networks (i.e. connected lands and waters).

Both initiatives reflect a convergence of thinking about a systems approach to parks, open space and recreation areas that has been going on at all levels of the government and in the private sector since Moses, Thomas Moore, Queen Elizabeth, and others first brought attention to this idea.


IV.Definition: The Other Infrastructure—Green Infrastructure!

A colleague once said, “Definitions are not an insignificant matter. If we come up with some good terms we will pass them on”. In DC that is a polite way of saying we don’t agree with your definition. Many green space practitioners either love the term green infrastructure or hate it.

For example Dick Lahn, a grass-roots advocate, who has worked for the Department of Justice and the Sierra Club, leads something called, The Chesapeake Bay String of Pearls Project. He once asked, “Is the title, Green Infrastructure, squiggling like a worm through the surface structure?”

A spokesperson for General Motors provided
comments on the PCSD’s Metropolitan and Rural Strategies Task Force Report. They said that “GM wants the adjective green dropped in a green infrastructure. GM has no problem with the concepts or the descriptions in the text of the
chapter, just the terminology. They believed that the “adjective green is politically loaded and divisive”.

Mary Pat Rowan, a landscape architect and advocate for the MD Native Plant Society, said in a message titled, Subject: "Green Infrastructure is an ugly term”. Ms. Rowan said, “The term “infrastructure” has been and will continue to be appropriated for any purpose and therefore loses meaning. The term suggests something manufactured, designed and put in place by modern man. The forests, rivers, lakes and other natural features of our world cannot be referred to with this term”.

In “Engineering the City: How Infrastructure Works, Projects & Principles for Beginners” infrastructure is described as “the basic installations needed by a community such as water supply, sewage and garbage disposal, gas and electric power, communications and media connections, and transportation networks such as roads, railroads, and airports”.

Unfortunately this common view of infrastructure, does not recognize natural values and functions, and integrate them with other important economic and cultural objectives. As the leaders of our Nation have wrestled with the formula for creating healthy communities and landscapes there has been considerable ongoing interest in revisiting how we define infrastructure.

PCSD Definition

The President’s Council on Sustainable Development, in the mid-to-late 90’s, created a public platform for public and private leaders to re-examine the formula for healthy communities and landscapes. Dialogue created by the Council provided the opportunity to suggest innovative ideas for smart growth, environmental equity, civic engagement, and green infrastructure.

Chapter Four, of the Metropolitan and Rural Strategies Report of the President’s Council on Sustainable Development Report of 1999 said that:

“Green Infrastructure is a network of open space, airsheds, watersheds, woodlands, wildlife habitat, parks, and other natural areas, which provide many vital services that sustain life and enrich quality of life”.


V. How does this idea work?

The three foundations of a green infrastructure approach are:
Values and functions
A linked system of green spaces
A linked network of people, governments, organizations and businesses

The first foundation of a green infrastructure approach is the recognition of ecological, cultural and economic values and functions of these systems.

Michael Hough, in “Cities and Natural Process” wrote, “we need to create a new design symbolism for water and urban natural systems as a whole, that reflects the hydrological processes of the city; and urban design language that re-establishes its identity with life processes”.

Some examples of values and functions include:

Building materials: Upper Delaware River, NY-PA.
Food and fiber: Connecticut River Valley, New England, Cooper River, SC
Food: City Green, Philadelphia, PA; Northern VA Plant-A-Row
Groundwater protection: VA Eastern Shore Sole Source Aquifer Designation
Water quality and quantity: Catskill Mountains, NY; VA Eastern Shore Sole Source Aquifer
Water quality protection and restoration; and biological productivity: Chesapeake SAV
Habitat protection: San Bruno Mountain, CA
Flood loss reduction: Charles River, MA; Platte River, CO.
Recreation and scenic area protection: Appalachian National Scenic Trail
Regional regeneration: Lackawanna Valley, PA; Emscher Park, Germany
Community revitalization: Planty Garden Ring, Krakow, Poland, Blackstone River, RI, MA.
Economic: Ameila Island, FL; Woodlands, TX
Conservation: Upper Delaware, PA Limited Development Plan
Air quantity and quality protection: Stuttgart, Germany; Dayton, OH

The second foundation of a green infrastructure approach is a vision that all parks, open space and recreation area spaces are, or can be, part of a green space system.
Greening the Toronto Port Lands, prepared by Beth Benson and Michael Hough, and others, for the Waterfront Regeneration Trust, describes a “Hierarchy of Green Space”. It suggests an overall long-term vision for green infrastructure that recognizes a variety of values, scale, and design approaches. A variation of Toronto’s hierarchy, developed for the metropolitan Washington, DC region includes:

Personal space (window boxes, private gardens residential plantings, green roofs, rainwater gardens)

Development spaces (plantings, greenroofs, rainwater gardens, water’s edge promenades)

Residential spaces
Private land holdings (Stewardship areas-
private Landowner Master Planning)
Woodlots
Residential Commons (“Shared parks in
urban blocks”, Alley-ways, Right-of-ways, Community gardens, Dedicated green space)

Community spaces
Community gardens
Street Trees
Local government jurisdictions (land use efforts)
Arboretums, semi-public and public gardens)
Neighborhood parks
Public Commons (Squares, Major commons such as the National Mall)

Regional spaces
Linear green corridors: Greenways, trail corridors, parkways
Linear Corridors (Right-of-ways, Lands under restricted easement)
Protected stream corridors and riparian areas
Major parks and recreation areas
Working Land Reserves (farm and forest reserves)
Managed Watersheds ( Charles River, MA;
Catskill-NYC Water Supply Lands)
Airsheds (Stuttgart, Germany; Dayton, OH)
Regional Corridors (Appalachian Trail)
Metropolitan systems (Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN; Chicago, IL;, NY Regional Plan)
Private Working Lands (Farms, grazing lands, nurseries, orchards, public and private forests)

Statewide spaces
Statewide systems (Florida,
Wisconsin, Maryland)

Multi-state spaces/ mega-region
Multi-state systems (Chesapeake Bay
Riparian and Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Corridors)

Multi-national spaces/ global regions
Multi-country systems (Paseo Pantera,
“The Path of the Panther”, Central America; Atlantic Flyway Migratory Bird Corridor; Y 2 Y Yellowstone to the Yukon, US-Canada)

The third foundation of a green infrastructure approach is a network of people who understand the vision; its value and who are committed to achieving it.

Green infrastructure approaches are people-dependent and the way the work is conducted is crucially important. The process needs to be fair, equitable, and open. Dialogue provides an exchange of ideas, reflecting the experience and point of view of all involved. Trust and credibility are key and are established and maintained through action, not just words.

Successful strategies acknowledge that all conservation partners, and both local and outside experts, are important. A vision for the future is built upon special knowledge of the landscapes and communities.

Green infrastructure approaches require good civics, as well as good information.

The current generation of green space advocates work to integrate good information with good civics. Park, open space and recreation system thought and practice requires better understanding of the values of a community and its ecological, cultural and economical context. The green infrastructure process is locally led, open to public discourse, interdisciplinary, and inclusive. Dialogue, relying on story, skill and experience, is used to exchange ideas and move the discussion beyond individual opinions and points of view.

Deciding what action to take to protect or restore green infrastructure requires a process--an equation, to decide what actions should be taken; why, by whom, and how? The process is consensus-based and agreement is secured at the beginning, and at every major decision point.

Parks, open spaces and recreation areas and the green infrastructure business are extraordinarily complex. A framework to manage these places and activities involves cooperation with a complex array of stakeholders from all levels of the government and the private sector; strong communication; crossing traditional areas of responsibility; respect for other values and perspectives; and the spirit of "getting to yes."

Anne Swanson, in “Chesapeake Bay: Managing an Ecosystem” wrote about the difficulties encountered in place-based efforts including “…defining management units, understanding the biological, physical, economic, and cultural factors at play, and structuring a management framework that properly integrates all the component parts.” Ultimately, integration of programs, interests and points of view is essential to ensure the success of landscape conservation.


VI.Why is green infrastructure important?

We are losing more green space than we are
protecting: “Green, More or Less” an article
published in the Washington Post in 1996 indicates that 28 acres of open space is lost to development each and every day in the metro-Washington region.

Although more than 311,036 acres of open space will be developed between 1990 and 2020 there is no major public and private green space protection initiative in the region. Despite a visionary heritage and a plethora of leaders there is no up-to-date “big visions” for green infrastructure in the region.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/library/growth/front.htm

Green space is being lost because of the
“Tyranny of Small Decisions”: Most green space protection efforts are site-specific in focus, opportunity-based and frequently duplicative or inefficient. All too often government and private sector programs are not landscape focused or integrated across organizational or jurisdictional boundaries. Although each independent effort is well-intentioned and creates some positive contribution to green infrastructure the overall net effect is one that is fragmented, dis-connected and does not often address priority needs. Single purpose approaches often result in a “tyranny of small solutions”.

Increased growth and development is
creating a larger development footprint and increasing the amount of money that is being spent on gray infrastructure: Author Tim Palmer said recently, “Because of the rate of growth, what we don’t protect will be lost”. Despite an increasing commitment to “smarter growth” the development infrastructure continues to outpace green infrastructure. For example, in research done by Swati Sheladia of the EPA Office of Sustainable Ecosystems and Communities, it was revealed that of all the Federal Expenditures that were invested in U.S. infrastructure in FY 1997, 93% went for gray infrastructure and 7% went for green infrastructure.

More growth and development, due in part
to immigration, is increasing population size, density and its impact. More and more people are using existing green space and the quality of these areas is being degraded: Population growth, projected to the year 2050, is 80% based on immigration and immigrant childbirth. As more and more people live in our neighborhoods, communities, watersheds and regions, they will place increased pressure on our current parks, open space and recreational areas. As population growth continues to outpace green space protection, existing parks and recreation areas will exhibit increased use. This increase in use is coming at a time when budgets for new land acquisition have been trimmed and money for land and recreation management is being reduced.

There is a continuing need, in a socio-
political climate that is development
friendly, to improve decisions and increase regulatory predictability: Ed McMahon of The Conservation Foundation has written that, “Green infrastructure plans can even reduce opposition to new development by assuring civic groups and environmental organizations that growth will occur only within a framework of expanded open space and conservation lands. Such as system helps to level the regulatory playing field so that the development community has a better idea of where the most attractive areas are to build or revitalize. It fosters a community-based voluntary systems approach, rather than a piece-meal regulatory decision-making”.

As America faces the problems of obesity,
neighborhood, community and regional green space system can be part of a way to achieve a healthy community: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicates that nearly 40 million American adults are obese. Their research revealed that more than half of Americans--56.4 percent are overweight. The report notes that obesity is on the increase and is linked to diabetes.

The Centers research attributes the decade-long increase in obesity to a modern lifestyle that relies on long commutes, fast food and sedentary entertainment such as television. It also notes the serious public health implications, in terms of disease and health-care costs, and urges a variety of ways for Americans to improve their diet and exercise.

Specifically, the research encourages communities to provide safe, well-lit areas for physical activity, and urges fast-food restaurants to offer alternatives to fatty, high calorie foods.
Green infrastructure can provide close-to-home opportunities for recreation and exercise and healthier foods.

Recent natural disasters such as floods,
tornadoes, fires, and aquatic diseases threaten human, economic, and environmental and create havoc with government budgets. Green infrastructure can help to reduce the adverse impacts of these disasters: Phil

Lewis of the University of Wisconsin wrote in “Earth Aid Program” that, “If people and their development are not in harmony with dominant environmental patterns, such as weather, floods, earthquakes, fire, disease, etc., disaster often ensues”. Hurricane and river flooding, tornadoes, forest fires and water-borne diseases such as Pfiesteria Piscicida illustrate the challenges of managing the interface between development and nature and call-out for a more systems approach to hazard reduction.

For example, nearly 4.5 million homes and buildings nationwide are covered by federal flood insurance. Just 48,000 of those are “high-risk” structures that have accounted for more than 20% of all payouts over the last decade, according to the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

According to a recent report in the Philadelphia Inquirer, Representative Earl Blumenauer of the US Congress believes that if we could prevent even a fraction of those losses, by forcing people to move to higher ground or make repairs that reduce the risk of flood damage, we could save more than $100 million a year in insurance premiums.

As metro and micropolitan regions
continue to grow there is a need to determine how many acres of natural resources are needed to help provide food, fiber and water for residents. Green infrastructure can help manage essential life support systems by helping to ensure a supply of drinking water, clean air, and agricultural and forest products.

In 1970 Eugene Odum attempted to determine the total environmental requirements for an individual as a basis for estimating the optimum population density for man. Using the State of Georgia as an input-output model for estimating the per capital acreage requirements, Dr.. Odum found that the minimum per capita acreage requirements, per person, for a quality environment are:
1.5 acres of food producing land (crops, grazing and orchard land, etc.)
1.0 acres of fiber producing land (paper, lumber, cotton, etc.)
2.0 acres of natural use areas (watersheds, airsheds, tertiary treatment of wastes, recreation and park areas, etc.)
0.5 acres of urban-industrial systems (highways, living, urban and industrial space, etc.)

Planning that emphasizes meeting local food, water and fiber needs using close-to-home resources supports local economies, saves energy, and supports conservation.

VII.Green infrastructure is a different approach

Inherent in the term green infrastructure is a different way of looking at green space—parks, open space and recreation areas. Why is it different?

1.Green infrastructure recognizes that sometimes what you can’t see makes all the difference. Many green space values and functions are often unrecognized and undervalued.

“By better understanding the things we can’t see in a familiar environment, such as a city, we can learn to appreciate the array of unseen structures and systems, both manmade and natural, which surround us wherever we go. These amazing and often indispensable systems work so well and so quietly that we tend to be unaware of their existence. David MacCauley, “Underground”

2. Green infrastructure recognizes that context is essential. It’s the system, not just the site! Park, open space and recreation leaders could benefit from looking closely at the system approaches and lessons learned from gray infrastructure and ecology efforts.

“Highway Engineers believe that model transportation planning emphasizes the total transportation system, rather than one or more isolated facilities”. “Divided Highway”, Public Broadcasting System

Eugene P. Odum and Howard T. Odum, in their paper “Natural Areas As Necessary Components of Man’s Total Environment” said that “The true value of man’s total environment is determined by the diversity interaction between the ‘developed’ and ‘natural’ environment and not only by the worth of each as a separate component. ”

3. Green infrastructure is grounded in ecology and ecological planning approaches.
Odum and Odum also said, “Cities need the protection of an adequate life support system, many elements of which natural environments provide free of charge”.

In the Charles River watershed of MA, the US Army Corps of Engineers proposed, and implemented, “The case for Natural Storage”. They said, “…Nature has already provided the least cost solution to future flooding in the form of extensive wetlands which moderate extreme highs and lows in stream flow. Rather than attempt to improve on this natural mechanism, it is both prudent and economical to leave the hydrologic regime established over the millennia undisturbed..."

4. Green infrastructure must recognize the other kind of ecology—human ecology! It is grounded in the idea that multi-values and functions are essential. Every park, open space and recreation area is part of a human community. Every human community is part of the natural environment. The connections between natural values and cultural values needs to be recognized, understood and used in a positive way to protect, manage,and enjoy these areas.

5. Green infrastructure must recognize and strive to influence budget approaches. Until our budget process for parks, open spaces and recreation areas is redesigned green space will more often be a priority if money is available.“Just as we must carefully plan for and invest in our capital infrastructure—our roads, bridges and water lines, we must invest in our environment or green infrastructure—our forests, wetlands, streams and rivers. Just as we must carefully plan for and invest in our human infrastructure—education, health services, care for the elderly and disabled—we also must invest in our green infrastructure”. Maryland Governor Glendening’s Inaugural Address of January 20, 1999.

“We must be able to differentiate between the things we need to do because they are required by law; the things we need to do because they are essential for environmental or human health and safety; and the things we need to do because they are nice to do if we have money”. Ralph Regula, former Chairman of the House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee.

6. Green infrastructure recognizes that size does matter and all sizes are important. Green infrastructure advocates must realize that to be relevant it must reflect a variety of different sized areas that meet different needs. Green infrastructure includes all green spaces, not just public park and recreation areas.

7. Green infrastructure is increasingly recognized by leaders in communities, cities, and regions as an essential to achieve balance and sustainability
Healthful and healthy communities require a compatible relationship between people, their environment and their economy. The desire to achieve this balance has moved communities toward a concern for quality of space as an essential part of a community, region or landscape. Author Samuel P. Hays writes, “While the concern for pollution focuses on environmental repair, the open space perspective seeks to prevent environmental damage in the first place. It finds common ground, therefore, with many other groups that seek preventive rather than ameliorative action, that are concerned with wilderness and natural space, with air and water nondedegradation, with pastoral landscapes, and with population and consumption problems”.

8. Green infrastructure recognizes that a systems approach is a way to level the regulatory playing field.In September 2000 the 12,000 member PA Builders Association was lobbying the PA legislature to weaken land preservation laws. The Association has been working to limit the land acquisition power of local governments. Contending that local open space preservation is haphazard, the builders want to bar municipal land acquisitions unless they are included in a recreation and open space plan that provides “some compelling rationale” for saving the ground.

Green infrastructure planning enhances regulatory predictability. Often regulatory decisions are made without knowing which and to what extent natural resources might be impacted. Again, the result is costly resource protection attributed to change in regulations. Private and public entities undergo loss in the form of foregone expenditures in planning of development that is not allowed to occur.

For example, a large housing development at Chapman’s Landing on the edge of the Southern Maryland shore of the Potomac River demonstrates the costs and conflict of regulatory uncertainty. State and local governments initially supported the housing development, until it met opposition by the community and environmental organizations. The conflict between southern Maryland economic development plans and Potomac River and Chesapeake Bay living resource protection was time consuming, expensive, unproductive and pitted development interests against environmental organizations in a win-lose situation. The situation could have been avoided if housing development was supported elsewhere based on such information that would be available in a green infrastructure plan.


VIII. Case Study: Metropolitan Washington Green Infrastructure Demonstration Project

As we look at our region, watershed, city or community, and the condition of our parks, open spaces and recreation areas, we need to ask yourself these four questions.

1. What is the current park, open space and recreation area situation? (i.e. How much green infrastructure is your metropolitan, or micropolitan, region losing per day?)

What alternatives are possible?

What can cities and other government
agencies and private sector organizations do to protect, manage and use parks, open space, recreation areas and sustainable practices?

4. Most importantly, what are we, as individuals, prepared to do about the current situation?

In metropolitan Washington, DC Congress, the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, NPS-National Capital Region, and others, decided to create a “Green Infrastructure Demonstration Project” to respond to the situation, explore alternatives and take action. (http://www.mwcog.org/committee/committee/)

Project Goals

· Move the parks, open space and recreation areas--the green infrastructure of the Washington metropolitan area to the forefront of their neighbors consciousness when they think of recreational, environmental leadership, superior education, cultural preservation, stewardship, natural resources, ecosystem management--the myriad of elements that contribute to an excellent quality of life.

Build a lasting public constituency to create a model public and private partnership for a metropolitan region system of park, open space and recreation areas that addresses the needs of people, landscapes and nature.

Achieve a metropolitan region that has a balance between the built environment and green space, sustained by natural processes able to support and enhance the quality of life for its people and communities.

Objectives

Improve communication to the residents of the Washington metropolitan area about the extensive park, open space and recreation resources that exist and that have a direct impact on their quality of life.
Educate and motivate the public to help ensure long-term protection of park and open space resources.
Improve the public’s awareness of the park; open space and recreation area land management efforts in the region.

Partnering & Civic Engagement

The demonstration project is based on a series of partnerships and an over-arching collaborative approach to doing business. Several organizations are helping to provide “quiet enabling leadership” for the effort. Key to the approach is the idea of building a platform that people can use to share information, discuss issues and interests, and build consensus for future action. Each of these organizations has different responsibilities that are being linked together to provide for improved communication, efficiency, and innovation.

For example:
The DC Department of Parks and Recreation and
National Capital Region of NPS are primarily government land base agencies responsible for recreation services and planning.
The Metropolitan Washington Council of
Governments (COG), is a non-profit organization that represents 17 major units of local governments. COG provides information, planning and regional coordination.
Washington Parks and People is a non-profit
organization that serves as an advocacy group for the idea of a system of parks, open space and recreation areas in the region. They provide information, planning, technical assistance and volunteers.
A variety of other groups, such as the Casey
Tree Endowment, Greater Washington National Parks Fund, The Wilderness Society, Friends of the Potomac, Chesapeake Chapter of the American Horticultural Therapy Association, and others, are actively engaged in a variety of the specific project tasks.

A diversity of projects, activities, events, and interests has brought these groups together historically, and is what keeps them working together at present. Areas of past and present common ground include:

Past:
Mutual interest in land management, recreation services, funding and governance.
Ecology—the groups are within the Potomac River watershed.
Problems such as chemical spills, stormwater, combined sewer overflows, nutrients, etc.
Disconnects between people and their parks.
Individual perspectives and working alone

Present:
A desire to improve efficiency and quality of management of our operations through interagency collaboration, cooperative projects, and joint ventures.
A desire to improve quality of services to the residents/ visitors we serve.
The need to improve communication.
Interest in sharing data
A desire to demonstrate the seamless system approach to parks, open space and recreation areas through experimental sharing of personnel, programs, facilities, and public parklands through the city wherever proximity, similarity of function, or achieving efficiencies or economies of scale make sense.
Interest in identifying and implementing opportunities around the city for the active engagement of public involvement in park operations and maintenance through cooperative agreements, public-private partnerships, public-private cost-sharing, community-based shared management, and operational partnerships between the two public agencies and community-based organizations.

The partnership has involved seven primary organizations and more than 600 representatives from various local, states, regional, and federal government agencies and private groups and businesses. It uses a variety of forums, workshops, technical assistance, and status reports to share information and communicate.

It has also created mechanisms to improve communication, coordination and decision-making including a DC - NPS Roundtable of senior agency leaders and staff, as well as other partners, that meets periodically to discuss common interests and issues. The Rountable has also agreed to work together on a:
DC-NPS Recreation use management plan
Watts Branch Plan National Seamless System Demonstration Project
Panel presentation at the Joint Ventures Conference in November 2003.
GIS information to overlay DC and NPS parks to assess opportunities for collaboration.
Citywide inventory of street trees being led by Casey Trees.
Green Infrastructure 2004 Conference

Other key partners are assuming leadership through creative approaches to re-connect people and parks by assisting:
Tours of the Fort Circle Parks by the Committee of 100 for the Federal City.
Two-day Washington Ridge Crossing Hikes led by Washington Parks & People.

Project Work Program

The general project purpose of this effort is to
map forest cover in the Metropolitan Washington Region for purposes of improving forest cover conservation and watershed restoration efforts for our local rivers and the Chesapeake Bay and to promote green infrastructure approaches through dialogue, technical workshops and publications.

This purpose is being accomplished using the following approaches.

a. Mapping Forum: COG and NPS has catalogued existing mapping efforts as identified in the region. COG and NPS is working with existing member governments, regional federal and state agencies and private groups, through a workgroup and Green Mapping Forums, to obtain and catalogue regional data sets. This is being accomplished through partnership opportunities with other interested parties.

On October 18, 2002 a Green Infrastructure Mapping Forum was held and included the following presentations.

Tim Aiken, Office of US Congressman Jim Moran, 8th District of VA
Robert Dietz, US Geological Survey
Kim Finch, Prince George’s County, MD
Margaret Maizel, ONEIMAGE, LLC.
Gary Moll, American Forests
Andrew Zimba, Casey Tree Endowment Fund

In addition, in September 2003, COG, the Casey Tree Endowment and NPS, and other partners, agreed to form a workgroup to explore ways to prepare a comprehensive green infrastructure map for the District of Columbia.

b. Forest Cover / Land Cover Map: COG has created a Green Infrastructure / Forest Cover Map of park, recreation and open space lands in the Washington D.C. metro area in collaboration with similar initiatives such as the Chesapeake Bay Program, Chesapeake Bay Foundation, USGS, Casey Tree Endowment, State of MD, and others.

COG created a general high-altitude regional forest cover / land cover map from the latest Land-Sat data in collaboration with the University of MD. The map includes 12 different land cover types such as, deciduous / coniferous, scrub / shrub, meadow, grassland, wetland, agricultural, and barren land, etc. on public and private land from highly urbanized to countryside areas.

From the mapping forums, based on the general map referenced above and overall feasibility, COG is completing a pilot project of a detailed scale (the level of which contingent upon data availability and cost) in the Anacostia River watershed. This project will be done in cooperation with COG’s partnership network with the Anacostia River Watershed Restoration Committee.

c. Green Infrastructure Directory: COG and NPS are creating a printable version of a Green Infrastructure Directory. The directory is a “Who’s Who?” guide for regional community parks, green space and recreational opportunities, agencies and organizations that may also be accessible on COG’s website through a download format.

The directory lists the names, addresses, telephone, tele-fax and e-mail contact information numbers of the most important green infrastructure contacts in the project area. The directory is indexed by green infrastructure categories.

d. Green Space Forums & Workshops: NPS and COG have established and maintains a “Green Infrastructure Forum” series to highlight and disseminate technical information on issues pertaining to green infrastructure programs, initiatives and innovations both nationally and internationally. This series supplements the activities of COG’s Urban Forest Forum, the Community Forestry Network. The forums act as an information exchange on topics pertaining to open space, parks and recreation areas to:

1) Present its cooperators and collaborators with accurate informative, educational and understandable information on the natural, physical, biological, cultural and economic aspects of green infrastructure.

2) Share outstanding local, regional, national, and international examples of protection, regeneration, management and recreation activities and strategies.

3) Create opportunities for peer networking.
4) Provide opportunities for dialogue between different government and private sector interests.

Some of the speakers that have participated in the forum series include:
Nanine Bilski, America the Beautiful Fund, Washington, DC
Blaine Bonham, PA Horticulture Society, Philadelphia, PA
Dr. John Bruce, Moses Urban Gardening, Washington, DC
David Burke, MD Department of Natural Resources, Annapolis, MD
Mark Buscanio, formerly of the DC Department of Public Works, Washington, DC
Steve Coleman, Washington Parks & People, Washington, DC
Christine Gilday, Virginia “Plant-A-Row”
Peggy Harwood, USDA, Forest Service, Washington, DC
Shelia Hogan, formerly of the Casey Tree Endowment Fund, Washington, DC
Andy Lipkis, Tree People, Los Angeles, CA
Mari Lou Livingood, formerly of the Alexandria Seaport Foundation, Alexandria, VA
Daniel Martin, International Communities for the Renewal of the Earth, NJ
Greg Moore, Golden Gate Park Association, San Francisco, CA
Neil Owens, Metropolitan Police Department Boys & Girls Club, Washington, DC
Brian O’Neill, Golden Gate National Recreation Area, San Francisco, CA
Leslie Sauer, formerly of Andropoggon Associates, Hunterdon County, NJ
Gerri Spilka, OMG Center for Collaborative Learning, Philadelphia, PA
Anne Whiston Spirn, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA
Nancy Sturm, formerly of the National Park Foundation, Washington, DC
Bob Sutton, Greater Washington National Parks Fund, Manassas, VA
Joan Thomas, DC Ward 4 Beautification, Washington, DC
Robert Yaro, Regional Plan Association, NY

Workshops have been held, or are being scheduled, for:

Harmony Hall, MD: A two-day workshop, lead by Michael Clarke, formerly of the Natural Lands Trust, was held in July 2003 to advise NPS leaders on what to do to conserve the NPS-owned Harmony Hall property and buildings. The session focused on ways for NPS to make the economics of conservation and preservation successful.

A report was prepared for NPS park managers that outlines alternatives for property and building management.

Potomac Access: A workshop, lead by Ellen Cull, Management & Organizational Consultant, was held to discuss ways to improve access to the Potomac River, from Great Falls to the confluence with Occoquan Creek. The meeting collected input from 35 interested stakeholders on:
· A listing of current high quality access to the Potomac – physical, informational, educational, visual and recreational
· Major concerns, issues and problems with current access to the Potomac
· Major areas of opportunity for improving access to the Potomac

A report was prepared summarizing the discussions.

Dialogue: A workshop, lead by Daniel Martin of International Communities for Renewal of the Earth and Anne Pearson of Sustainable Communities, was held to provide metro green space leaders with additional skills in dialogue.

The focus of the workshop was to discuss and demonstrate skills that allow people of differing viewpoints to value each other’s perspectives and experience and develop common purpose, mutual understanding, mutual ownership, and trust. The session stressed that dialogue is the communication tool, the glue that will hold together and enrich the green infrastructure process of interaction.

Participants were provided skills in “Appreciative Inquiry”, a communication technique that enables the participants to access their own collective wisdom
using an interview technique that encourages new perspectives to surface, a creative exchange to
occur. These skills and tools will also enable participants in the workshops to expand the process
of working together on local and regional green infrastructure projects after the workshop by sharing ideas with the people and perspectives they represent so that all stakeholders own the process.

Green Infrastructure Asset Accounting: NPS and COG, with the assistance of The Center for Neighborhood Technology and Urban Logic, Inc. is planning three workshops on Green Infrastructure Asset Accounting for local governments.

The Center and Urban Logic are developing tools to benchmark the local and regional economic benefits of the urban forest and other types of green infrastructure, and suggest how the bond markets can take these values explicitly into account in underwriting, portfolio and project finance settings.

The Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) is a private, non-profit, accounting standards organization, which develops objective accounting and financial reporting standards for government (www.gasb.org).

In 1999, the GASB issued Statement No. 34: Basic Financial Statements—and Management's Discussion and Analysis (GASB-34), requiring governments to provide a comprehensive view of their overall economic resources and long-term requirements, including the “wear and tear” and expense of capital assets over their useful lives. Infrastructure building and maintenance (roads, bridges, stadiums, schools, etc.) represents more than half of most state and local government budgets. Parks, wetlands and other natural infrastructures are not specifically mentioned but are covered by the rule.

The Center and Urban Logic believe that the capital represented by our natural environment is a critical asset that is methodically ignored or assumed to be priced at zero dollars (free). A new government accounting rule can help capture many of the previously “hidden” assets provided by the natural environment, such as natural systems for flood mitigation and stormwater runoff control, and incorporate them into city and state financial statements.

The Center will publish a 10-page paper outlining best practices and how to use GASB-34 to account for green infrastructure. This paper will be posted on the websites of NPS, the Center, and Urban Logic.

e. Exchange Best Green Infrastructure Management Practices: The National Park Service, in cooperation with EPA's Office of International Activities, the Department of Housing & Urban Development, and the Glynwood Center sponsored a two-year exchange between local, national and international experts from the metro-region and Germany. The exchange focused on urban watershed management and included green urbanism, stormwater management, roof-top and rain gardens, riparian buffers, and other ways to protect and restore water and air quality within the Potomac River watershed.

NPS and EPA worked with the Potomac Urban River Watershed Management Regional Steering Committee to participate in the exchange and to identify off-the-shelf "Best Green Infrastructure Management Practices". A report, “Potomac International Urban Watershed Management Exchange”, which describes these techniques was published by the Glynwood Center.

On Tuesday January 28, 2003 the Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany in Washington, DC hosted a daylong forum and reception to share the results of the collaborative effort to exchange best management practices. “The Potomac International Urban Watershed Management: Lessons Learned Forum” brought together 150 public and private leaders from the metropolitan Washington region, including various U.S.-based organizations serving Germany. These leaders listened to presentations by a team of government and private sector leaders from the Potomac who visited Germany to learn about watershed Restoration and Reconstruction, Urban Watershed Retrofit Strategies, and Large Scale Redevelopment.

Presentations were made by:
Katrin Scholz-Barth, formerly of the HOK Planning Group, Washington, DC
Sheila Besse, Nonpoint Source Management Branch, DC Department of Health, Washington, DC
Elizabeth Berry, DC Office of the Mayor, Washington, DC
Uwe Brandes, DC Office of Planning, Washington, DC
Timothy J. Carney, Allegany County Economic Development, Cumberland, MD
Herbert Driesietl, Atelier Dreiseitl, Uberlingen, Germany
Marc Gibb, Northern Virginia, Regional Planning Commission, Annandale, VA
Dale Medearis, U.S. EPA, Office of International Activities, currently Potomac River Navigator, Alexandria, VA
Judith LaBelle, Glynwood Center, Cold Spring, NY
Judy Guse-Noritake, Alexandria, VA Park and Recreation Commission/The Wilderness Society, Alexandria, VA
Michael Packshies, City of Eckernfoerde, Germany

f. Messaging: NPS has completed icons for twelve Greater Washington National Parks as part of a communication messaging and branding system for all parks, open space and recreation areas. The initial icons are being used to reach agreement on an image and visual communication style for all National Parks in the region. The icons serve as examples for other state, regional, local, and private sector organizations to consider using for their communication efforts. The Supon Design Group of Washington, D.C., the National Park Foundation, and a team of NPS park managers assisted this task.

g. Tree Plantings and Endowments: NPS contributed $100,000, to help restore the green infrastructure of the Greater Washington National Parks. Funds were used, through the NPS “Tree & Shrub Replacement Endowment Fund” to replace and plant new trees at Central (East Potomac Park, Tidal Basin, Monumental Core), White House (President’s Park, the Ellipse, Layfatte, 1st Division, Pennsylvania Ave.), George Washington Memorial Parkway, Anacostia Park, and Rock Creek. Plantings are scheduled for this fall and next spring.

In addition, NPS has created the Cherry Tree Replacement Fund, and is working with the National Cherry Blossom Festival and the Washington Rotary Club, to plant Cherry trees in the District, around the Tidal Basin, and along the Potomac River.

h. Technical Assistance: COG, NPS and various partners, have responded to requests from private groups and government agencies for technical assistance and information on green infrastructure approaches. Project assistance was provided to:

Great Falls National Park, VA.: NPS managers at
Great Falls requested assistance to explore alternatives for incorporating green infrastructure into the existing visitor center. Katrin Scholz-Barth helped park managers look at alternatives for green roofs, bio-retention ponds, riparian buffers and rainwater gardens. NPS staff also assisted the park with ideas for incorporating the “story of water” into interpretive programs at the visitor center.

City of Alexandria, VA.: COG, NPS and Katrin
Scholz-Barth provided information and advise to the City’s Planning Office and a nearby community association to help identify alternatives for incorporating green infrastructure into a commercial development along Slater’s Lane.

Center for Urban Ecology, DC: NPS and Katrin
Scholz-Barth are providing assistance to NPS’s Center for Urban Ecology and the Dewberry Design Group to help design a green roof on a building on MacArthur Blvd. in DC.

i. Research Information: The Center for Neighborhood Technology is assisting COG and NPS to prepare an annotated Green Infrastructure Bibliography. This list of “cutting-edge” publications provides the following information on each reference: A summary; what is different about the source?; a critique of the source; the best three examples in the document; and organization contact information.

j. 2004 Green Infrastructure Conference: COG and
NPS, in collaboration with twenty-five government
agencies and private groups, are organizing a
Green Infrastructure Conference for September 2004. Metro-leaders are developing plans for a 2-day conference to be held in the metropolitan Washington area that will provide presentations and technical work sessions on green infrastructure approaches and techniques.

The conference will be used as a forum to complete
and share the results of the Green Infrastructure
Demonstration Project to date and highlight key
issues covered during the two-year project period.

This seminar will showcase innovative park, open
space and recreation area projects, local efforts
to improve urban green spaces; environmental
health and quality of life issues that illustrates
green infrastructure principles.

IX. Contacts

J. Glenn Eugster, Assistant Regional Director
National Park Service, National Capital Region
Partnerships Office, 1100 Ohio Drive, SW, Room 350
Washington, DC 20242
(202) 619-7492 telephone
(202) 619-7220 fax
glenn_eugster@nps.gov

Brian M. LeCouteur, Environmental Planner / Urban Forester
Department of Environmental Programs
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments
777 North Capitol Street, NE, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20002-4239
(202) 962-3393 telephone
(202) 962-3203 fax
blecouteur@mwcog.org




Appendix I. Selected Bibliography

Greening the North: A Post Industrial Blueprint for Ecology and Equity, Wolgang Sachs, Richard Loske, Mansfred Linz, et al, Zed Books, NY and London, 1998 ¤¤

Underground, David MacCaulay, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA. 1976

Sustainability & Acceptability in Infrastructure Development, The Institute of Civil Engineers, Telford Publishing, London, 1996

The Once and Future Park, Herbert Muschamp, et al, Princeton Architectural Press, NY, 1993

Infrastructure in Transition: Urban Networks, Buildings, Plans, Simon Guy, Simon Marvin, and Timothy Moss, Earthscan, London, 2001

Cities and Natural Process, Michael Hough, Routledge, London and NY 1995¤¤

Greening the Toronto Port Lands, Waterfront regeneration Trust, Toronto, Canada 1997¤¤

Invisible New York: The Hidden Infrastructure of the City, Stanley Greenberg and Thomas Garver, John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD and London, 1998

Engineering Within Ecological Constraints, National Academy of Engineering, National Academy Press, Washington, DC 1996¤¤

Waterworks: A Photographic Journey through New York’s Hidden Water System, Stanley Greenberg, Princeton Architectural Press, New York, 2003¤¤

Technologies of Landscape: From Reaping to Recycling, David Nye, University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst, MA 1999

Futures by Design: The Practice of Ecological Planning, David Suzuki and Doug Aberley, New Society Publishers, Philadelphia, PA 1994

Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems, By Gretchen Daly, et al, Island Press, Washington, DC 1997¤¤

Lewis Mumford and the Ecological region: The Politics of Planning, Mark Luccarelli, Guilford Press, New York and London, 1995¤¤

Recovering Landscape: Essays in Contemporary Landscape Architecture, James Coirner, et al, Princeton Architectural Press, New York 1999

Green Urbanism: Learning from European Cities, Tim Beatley, Island Press, New York, 2000
Design Outlaws on the Ecological Frontier, Chris Zelov, et al, Knossus Publishing, Philadelphia, PA 1997¤¤

Old Cities/ Green Cities: Communities Transform Unmanaged Land, Blaine Bonham, Jr., Gerri Spilka, Darl Rastorfer, American Planning Association, Washington, DC, Undated

Landscape Ecology Principles in Landscape Architecture and Land-Use Planning, Wenche Dramstad, James Olson, and Richard Forman, Island Press, NY 1996

Suggestions for the Sanitary Drainage of Washington, DC, George Waring, Jr., The Toner Lectures, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 1880

Green Cities: Ecologically Sound Approaches to Urban Space, David Gordon, Black Rose Books, Montreal, 1990¤¤

Downview Park Toronto, Julia Czerniak, Harvard Design School, Prestel Verlag, New York, 2001

Landscape Architecture and Town Planning in the Netherlands, Stitchting Jaarboek landschapsarchitectuur en stedebow en Uitgeveri, 1998

Garden Art, Michael Kasiske and Thies Schroder, Potsdam National Horticultural Show, Birkhauser-Publishers for Architecture, Basel, Boston, and Berlin, 2001

Modern Landscape Landscape Ecology: Patterns of Infrastructure, Patterns of Ecostructure, Visions of a Gentler Way, Peter Warshall,et al, Whole Earth: Access to Tools, Ideas and Practices, San Rafael, CA, Summer 1998¤¤

Me, Myself and Infrastructure: Private Lives and Public Works in America, Gregory Dreicer, American Society of Civil Engineers, Washington, DC, 2002¤¤

Regenerative Design for Sustainable Development, John Tillman Lyle, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1994

Sustainable Landscape Construction: A Guide to Green Building Outdoors, J. William Thompson and Kim Sorvig, Island Press, Washington, DC 2000

Compas and Gyroscope: Integrating Science and Politics for the Environment, Kai Lee, Island Press, Washington, DC 1993


Appendix II. "Green Infrastructure Lessons and Conclusions...as Identified by Forum Participants”, March 17-18, 1999

A group of government and private sector leaders convened a forum and work session in Washington, D.C. in 1999 to discuss green infrastructure and prepare for a green infrastructure presentation the group agreed to make at the National Town Meeting for Sustainable America. The following lessons and conclusions came from that work session and serve to guide green infrastructure efforts.

"Concept exists and is being refined through
use at all levels of government and by the private sector as part of development and to improve quality of life. Brings people and land together. It’s a worldwide phenomenon...crossing b\
boundaries (jurisdictions, watersheds, nations). Many candles need to be lit. Should listen to our colleagues overseas.

"There is an emerging groundswell for putting
"green infrastructure" into practice and building a language for "green infrastructure" that conveys its necessity. "Infrastructure" is the key word. Terminology (e.g., green, natural, living
infrastructure) is really important. Use language people can relate to and understand. Must translate and make relevant to different professions (e.g., public safety, crime prevention, community-economic revitalization)."

"Moving from thinking about "green
infrastructure only as greenway planning of rails, trails, and corridors to "network" of interconnected open space. It is broader, more ecologically based, focusing on multiple uses and providing a whole spectrum of values, services, and function. It’s a "life support system". Policy is moving from sectoral to systems approaches."

"Green infrastructure is a marriage of art and
science, focusing on the ecological structures which allows the natural system to do work for us. Contains a strong design element tied to personal connections with land, water, and place. Scientific data gives us insights and indicators of how we are doing."

"Reflects sound thinking and serious beliefs
about the essential elements of sustainability; and offers a framework for local action. The social, economic, and ecological context is important. Decisions influence water, plants, wildlife, people, budgets, quality of life, prosperity."

"Success depends upon demonstration,
demonstration, demonstration. Strong project focus gives us a chance to work it out on the ground. Learn by doing. Offers people the opportunity to take responsibility. Takes a long time to shift the way things are done."

“Through practice, principles include providing
multi-functional framework for development and creating linkages. Need to foster agreement on the principles."

"Good public awareness is critical, especially
for statewide efforts, of the lessons learned and benefits of "green infrastructure. ”Separation of State and local initiatives is a problem. States can help connect the "large concepts" to local efforts. Often don't know what is going on in other states."

"Helps bring together interests, including
conservationists, recreationists, engineers, and others to collaborate and identify strategic investments. Helps organize people to work on behalf of their environment. Build partnerships. Local government managers are pivotal."

"Beginning to think about a system of funding
for “green infrastructure" like infrastructure funding for highways and transportation. Understanding the economic values of "green infrastructure" is important. Don't have to find new money, already sitting on money for water, water supply, and infrastructure, for instance. Also includes multiple ownership options for managing lands."

"Many cities were built without understanding
nature. People have lost the ability to read the world and their landscape. Provides education opportunities. Relevant for existing cities and places...not just new towns or resort developments."

"Data, technology, and tools are
available...including natural resource tools which are often missing. Disciplinary experts can help communities and local experts by preparing data, using technology, and providing tools. Geographic Information Systems help give community vision."

"We lose track of our best practices. Need
information exchange and a tool box. Interest in "green infrastructure" training exists. Develop a curriculum. Kids should be involved. It's doable."