10. PRSR 06 09 2004Item #: 10
iii ~ti- MEMORANDUM
EZiver
i3o6s ocono earkway TO: Park and Recreation Commission
Elk River, Mtv' 55330 ~
FROM: Michele McPherson; Director of Planning
DATE: June 9, 2004
SUBJECT: Informational/Update Items for June 9, 2004
B. Park/Trail Developments
7. Park Dedication Fund Balance
Attached please find the May 2004 balance sheet that shows a balance of $1,651,600.14.
2. Hillnde City Park Donations
Donations to date tota1784.57.
Phone: 763.6351000
Fax: 763.~35.109a
www.ci.elk-rivecmaus
BALANCESHEE'~
MAY 31, 2004 Page: 1
6/1/Z004
CITY OF ELK RIVER 323 pm
As of: 5/31/2004 Balances
Fund Type: 11 Special revenue funds
Fund: 225 -PARK DEDICA170N
Assets
Acct Class: ] 000 Current Assets
] O10 Cash 1,650,523.14
]012 Fair Value-Investments -3,282.00
1380 Interest Receivable 4,359.00
Acct Class: 1000 Current Assets 1,65 ],600.14
Total Assets 1,651,600.14
Reserves/Balances
Acct Class: 2400 Fund Equity
2400 Fund Balance 1,16Q638.43
2600 Chanee In Fund Balance 490,96].71
Acct Class: ?400 Fund Equity 1,651,600.14
Tota] Reserves/Balances 1,651,600.14
Total Liabilities & Balances 1,6~ 1,600.14
Hillside Revenues and Expenditures
~f!i'."°,.v
_
4/16/2004 t[ ii a
~~f , ~ .;~.
Dail Pass ~=rvP
. Mkt E
$23.00 ~ ~
a~~~ i i ~ ~ X14 i,r
§, ~~....,~~,~.:;:~
4/26/2004 Dail Pass $126.70
4/29/2004 Dail Pass $92.25
5/3/2004 Dail Pass $187.62
5/10/2004 Dail Pass $252.00
5/17/2004 Dail Pass $76.00
5/21/2004 Dail Pass $27.00
Total $784.57
Expense Tracking
C~
CJl
0
7
w
^~
•o •o o~ c o ~ .rte ~ ~,s4.5 ~ >~~.5
U ~~++
U O N •U O~ a Y D td ~ O ~ Q N N R1
ono ro o b a ?: o >' wba °'
~u'~o~ o ~' «5~ o•5ro'~°
^ N
~d d ,4. «
N o I D.~a m ~•y~ °.5 ~ o o[[ 7 h
a•o c-'b5 a 5b ° N.
~~°~apO~mebHSc~-~'~'- Nti ..
o.noo,Cu « DUDCp' vdaai ~, ,^5. a~
U 3 3 3 N~ v 5 D,o ro 5>•o m o ~ E
~ >,~ ~~ 3 y o o °b o end ~ ~ o ~ ~ M N ~ U c ° >'c ~ o a~,o D ~~a aNi nn C d
'~ .. v o " ~ ai .D v L~'•C •~ « en « L'' v :-~ .. _°,' .,. w o c.
C b~°. .°~ D~ D EF O ~ 3.$ «~~SJ N m cpj v d 4b. a'n ;~b « ~ ~' y .. '~" 0~ 70'0
0 0 0 ~ eqn °' U c N ~ ~b .. m t° •o 0 o a"i ;; ~ .5 ~a o'S .~ as ° .M .°'~ C ~ •~' °' 3 m ,N, ~ y N
N~d 3'En'~~~~ d>.v~`°°'~a a~5a•-$d-o yU,aNi "o~~pa..~°' ~° oxw°q.~ ~~
d enN«o bo•o53m vroA~U>p C b ~ o~ 5°.
~'•' D a'7 '~ UNV,OU 7 N ~n iyyA y.O'~ 5a'7y 'b UUw ~UOL~'•C '~ OU Uy
Cx U U n7 p ~ m O o 'o N y U .. [L• U.: ..• v c'n ~L
p,y.~ °L.C C o bn a"' d S5 7 v~ aki h"o.~ yxw C~ ~ ~-~ ~ N OA y ~ ~~ o o d 3... O C~O yy >
v~[ a,n`~>5o~ 0,,`#7.5".SN~; ~b"aa-.D ;ow a.~-[hd°5y'o ~E•~°~c~.n~`°,~g~
°[' ~ ~ " `° $ « °° ~ °' ~ ;ob a ~ a~i ~ ~ ~°, o „",' a 5 en [ ~ [ ~ o c ° 5 z° ~ .`~' '~' ~ c ~ 6b c •~ ~ ~ V o a~ ~ °°
317 N ~ ~ p o ~ °o d cL q ~ •m 5 :"c •a'S v c'o'o ~ :~ ° ~ ~ « ~ d o ti. x 5 :c m d 6b ~ az o'u U > ro ~ °N' ~ a .o
N'S 0. m 09 ., w N o en 3 m~ v .°, C a -[ a y y C °' S^ o •o °° m m~ •5 ~ o" D b ~.5
~Na~~.c «° ~F° d~ 3 ^•n°. .: ~ c c°o°' ~_i°..°C 5 ~ " a'~~ ra0.i h c5 ~p 5 aw:o'°,: o o~~ .". ro ~ `~ ,o, N
cod ~ m'^ o~ ~ ,^y~~ p~z'S m'o °' ono="~~ °o ~ ~ ~~ ~,F4 a_~ ~ p~~ o ^ro ~ ° a~ ° ~ ?- ~~ ~w Y u v ~~ h
C O C U o v~ o ~d b° k 5 m ~ E .y'' o '~ ~ ° ~y `~ .y'' ~ ° " id U N A on a>i ~ id ~ ;° a'S ~4 •,~7 c~ia' a~i
do}n 5•n c o u~ .5 m N ub~ v >. y•o ~ ao GZ ~ ~.n °•N ~ [~a ~'° ° a~ ~~3a ~ °•~3
`~
~~
'~•~
Z ~ ~"~
Y ~ Q
O ~'
ii
~... ~-..
O
O
V
Y
m
C
7
a,
Q
m
~ °
~ o
N C ~ ~ (/1
tOa in m Y ~ 3
~0 a~0i d°Yi~
.N. ~F~o N
~ ~ G ~~ U
°m~~84.wm
N«~~` O ~
d ~ d $ c 3
e~$N=~
N C p 41 U
d ~
N > d ~ O d
NLa ~CY
T O
(0
LL N C N E y
C
y.F
~~
r
~ a A •o ~,
n7
0
d Z
Q
~
;~ ~
R ~
x N•d Y
N h U 7 0~
5
~:
+ '
•D
~
d o
~
a
i c
COQ m~ ~$ " U
ern ro e ..
~,
.+
a
a
i o
C
m~.ay7-'~~ o «' A C
E m o~ ' a«.- C d m V v~ 3 3
'~
>
O
~
~
A7
,
~ ~ ~
8
~
' N d 5 N
D +
tl «
t
.
~
.
n O U Y. U rn d~ S' 4)
U
'
66,
',
g
1 ~m
X ~„~'~.
D°
°> S' '~" °' d'~:d N
m U R.7
~~.~
~A
v'aw
C
6,
96,
~cg '.. ,
aNib1a ':~~a O
~
w
~'+~.db C ° a°•
~
~
6
SsG ~ ~ ' ~ m b y 3 '
c
on ~'o ~ ~ ~ D ~'
,
l " ~
o ~ ~
6
Q
U
O y
5a 6
'n o
op:~~ 3.9
H n,
D'O ~ ~',~ '~ w W b d ," w b 'O n>+:" ~ "-' N C C ~„. id fC U N w r.-i
~~ ~ ~ ro ~' ~ m ~ °~ p~ c~ .`°. ~ `° m °y o•^ o on« °'~ d.5 `° °o u~ 5 5 `~'°~'
3o~a•ov~ o:xen~o 35 «o •~ ~NN~'nc'^° ..n•ob ~ro ~.:• air.
o y d ° w 3.5~ 3 ~°_ 'o m ob a'S~ ~•o c•h m N ~,.~ ro U d« ca a ° m~ NF"
ti 5 d px ~ N m ° N ~• Nb o id r. `° o 0 odx ~e •o eu
°~°'pp_°c,~" ud ~~ :D~m~ ~'ro~7d'tiv~5atdooora~° rte. «T•o orn
'~o.~e~n;"~~ °S~yb >" .A ~: Co~y~enm°o .s~.,°;e.o~~ c°'i `°'bp rS~Epop~
ttl ~' Y U N N T..-. O> 0 1: G C. '_' m ttl O N. U ~.,. 7 7 td x« O >`
Nb~•~~~ ~x ~,«o, y pa ~ o.~ °o °'m « ~ o:~ S.F°~~ r5 ~ c.'o o ~ •o ox ~ c « ~ ~
m 0 .'O N m_ `,.-1 ... N " N bA U 0. pp ~ C g O m~ d y U p N 0 .~ i°. 'n .D W U~ a~ .C
~tl D U- N .: C: ° O eArj D x ~ CL ~ N .; O 3' N
3A° ~aiiey°GOmu~";oo~aGOO •nyy ~'S°5~.5~ ends«N5- 5~en~
3 o dG ~° ,~p.c«« Nc«N3
° '~ m o a~ ~ D•~ oa 5 ° 5 0.5'~ °>,ma ~ d o~j,b c o•O b ewn:2 ro d ~ 7° o `~~°'. "
~coa~iC~~3~•~r'q'SG~Cov•o~o 5~.~~«oo~,h5•o5o~°~5au~>°.G~Q~a~o
F., ~o °'' °`~" u~ d wy ya~Q'~"5 3.N. .~ o N~~ h.~ 0.° o o N gvia~~~ o ° ~ C•~ o ~
' o ~-y°•v~ v a' oo,~ ~nqo oN.d N ~'uv• 'oo m
a>i ~ etdn•p ~ ~ ~ ~~ m~ y o ~~ °~ '~ ~ ~ ~ ara ~n 3'~a~~a ~p a~ .oo a~~~~~ as
CC$
~~
•~
'~ Q
0
w. p p
N C D~ O O G) > D O'D.y~ q{ ~ 7 k ~ w•~ d y
m ~eQ Coda '"~3~d.a ° ~U° ~~o!"~~ ~ yy~
~ etl . Y7 A O d ~ ,p ~b0 U .L+ d ~ ~ y ~ ~ ,~.~ ~ ,~Y'
.. ° x °'
c d aN ~ y~~ 5 d,yg 5 q~ m m~ c,d ~0 5~ ~ off,
No~s~o y+''a~ t'i'm,~~~v v°'°qv~ r
5 ~~o'nC~~o'"°°~:o'aaNUU x= cn n,„ .c
Fi N W U H O •y
E,3 ~ '~i5~°c5po•n,en'~°ad'~'~°>sm dv~•noGn~~ y~v~~
y `°' iat°o~~fdcxibom~~~, ~`dYpttl.n~ °~:r'GpO~ e3..9e~
a~ ° •5i~3 m~ m~..~. 5 w y N [ ~ ~ ~a ^ :°. 0~5 ~°, a~.o ~ r a ~
a,~ x >w'Sr ~ ~'~ o.. N~ D ~•~.5w c'° ° 'h 6 0¢`~ c ~ ~ ~o r
A.~p ~ o Y 5 U..N. .~ ^•p~ O a"i ~a 7 ~ 5 p''~' ^~ O « N r"'A 1J C O"Y
"C m d B o o N ~.~ sn ~d.o G c b9~aa ~,.N eoD «~ bra m o~ = 5 c,
fF a,y~aNi~.Sna`°3>,~aC$q°d~°.gyO°~5~3o~gdna ~o~` ti
>,y` H 7~~ a5 °':~~ ~ 5 w 7 °' ~ vv6 030.x' ~-°[ ~ ~°N~ a ~ro °~
min o ro•o~aw a~nw.•ora ca 5•va ~, 3'o c U ~ m ~ I
Green Infrastructure:
Smart Conservation for the 21St Century
Mark A. Benedict and Edward T. McMahon
Introduction
"Green infrastructure" is a term be-
coming more commonly used among
natural resource professionals. While
it means different things to different
people, depending on the context in
which it is used, for the purposes of
this article, green infrastructure is an
interconnected network of green space
that conserves natural ecosystem val-
ues and functions attd provides ossoci-
ated benefits to human populations.
Green infrastructure is the ecological
Mark A. Benedict is director of the
Conservation Leadership Network, TTte
Conservation Fund. Edward T.
McMahon is vice president and
director of Land Use Programs, The
Conservation Fund.
This article is based on a monograph
published ire February 2002 by the
Sprawl Watch Clearinghouse. Copies
of the monograph can be obtained by
contacting the Sprawl Watch Clearing-
house (1400 L6'" Street NW, Washing-
ton, D.C., 20035. 202-332-7000) or by
downloading the PDF file from the
Clearinghouse's website (wwwsprawl
warch.org). The authors thank the
Surdna Foundation, Tucker Fomtda-
tion, Jackson Hole Preserve, /nc., Vir-
ginia Environmental Endowment, and
USDA Forest Service that have sup-
ported The Conservation Fund's green
infrastructure program.
framework needed for environmental,
social and economic sustainability-
our nation's nantral life support sys-
tem. Planning utilizing green infra-
structure differs from conventional
open space planning because it looks
at conservation values in concert with
land development, growth management
and built infrastructure planning.
This article introduces green infra-
structure as a strategic approach [o land
conservation that addresses the eco-
logical and sociat impacts of sprawl
and the acceterated consumption and
fragmentation of open land. I[ describes
the concept and value of green infra-
structure and presents seven principles
for successful green infrastructure ini-
tiatives.
What Is Green Infrastructure?
Webster's New World Dictionary
defines infrastructure as "the substruc-
ture or underlying foundation, espe-
cially the basic installations and facili-
ties on which the continuance and
growth of a community depends." Most
people think of infrastructure as roads,
sewers and utility lines-gray infra-
structurer or as hospitals, schools and
prisons-social infrastructure. Taken
together, these are often referred to as
built infrastructure. Today, many
people and organizations are talking
about another type of infrastructure
critical to the continuance and growth
of a community-green infrastructure.
In 1999, The Conservation Fund and
the USDA Forest Service formed a
working group of government agencies
and non-governmental organizations to
develop a program that would help
make green infrastructure an integral
part of local, regional and state plans
and policies. This Green Infrastructure
Work Group developed the following
definition for green infrastructure:
"Green infrastructure is our nation's
natural life support system-an inter-
connected network of waterways, wet-
lands, woodlands, wildlife habitats and
other natural areas; greenways, parks
and other conservation ]ands; working
farms, ranches and forests; and wilder-
ness and other open spaces that sup-
port native species, maintain natural
ecoiogica] processes, sustain air and
water resources and contribute [o [he
health and quality oflife forAmerica's
communities and people."
Green infrastructure's components
include a variety of natural and restored
ecosystems and landscape features that
make up a system of "hubs" and
"links." Hubs anchor green infrastruc-
ture networks, providing origins and
destinations for the wildlife and eco-
logical processes moving to or through
them. Links are the connections tying
the system together and enabling green
infrastucture networks to work. Hubs
and links range in size, function and
ownership. In order to be successful,
these elements need long-term protec-
tion through long-range planning and
AUTUMN 2002 RENEWABLE RESOURCES JOURNAL 12
management, as well as an ongoing
commitment.
Green Infrastructure's Origins
Green infrastructure is a new term,
but not a new idea. It has roots in plan-
ning and conservation efforts that
started 150 years ago. The concept
evolved from two important prece-
dents: (1) the linking of parks and other
green spaces for the benefit of people,
and (2) the linking of natural areas to
benefit biodiversity and counter habi-
tat fragmentation.
In 1903, landscape architect
Frederick Law Olmsted stated that, "no
single pazk, no matter how large and
how well designed, would provide the
citizens with the beneficial influences
of nature." Instead, parks needed "to
be linked to one another and to sur-
rounding residential neighborhoods."'
This idea of ]inking pazks for the bene-
fit ofpeople sparked the modem green-
ways movement.
Additionally, wildlife biologists and
ecologists have long recognized that
the best way to preserve biological di-
versity and ecological processes is [o
create an integrated conservation sys-
tem to counter habitat fragmentation.
Creating and restoring connections
between parks, preserves and other
important ecological azeas isa key con-
cept for the science of conservation
biology and the practice of ecosystem
management.
The President's Council on Sustain-
able Development identified green in-
frastmcture as one of five strategic az-
eas that provide a comprehensive ap-
proach for sustainable community
development. The Council's 1999 re-
port stated, "Green infrastmcture sttat-
egies actively seek to understand, le-
verage, and value the different ecologi-
cal, social, and economic functions
provided by namral systems in order
to guide more efficient and sustainable
land use and development patterns as
well as protect ecosystems.."Z This re-
port, along with innovative projects at
the state, regional and local levels, has
led to a rapid increase in the use of the
term "green infrastructure" and the
application of its concepts and values.
The modern greenways movement
also has influenced green infrastructure
planning and implementation. Al-
though green infrastructure and green-
ways share a common origin, green
infrastructure differs from greenways
in a[ least three major ways:
Ecology vs. Recreation-Green in-
frastructure emphasizes ecology, not
recreation.
Bigger vs. Smaller-Green infra-
structure includes large, ecologically
important hubs, as well as key land-
scape linkages.
Framework for Growth-Green
infrastructure can shape urban form and
provide a framework for growth. It
works best when the framework pre-
identifies both ecologically significant
lands and suitable development azeas.
Why Do We Need to Plan and
Protect Green Infrastructure?
Land is being developed faster than
ever. The accelerated consumption
and fragmentation of open land is
America's primary conservation chal-
lenge. The following statistics illustrate
the problem:
According to the December 2000
update of the Natural Resource Con-
servation Service's National Resources
Inventory, over the 15-year period from
1982 to 1997, the total acreage of de-
veloped land in the United States in-
creased by 34 percent (25 million
acres). From 1982 to 1992, land was
converted at 1.4 million acres per year;
from 1992 to 1997, land was converted
at 2.2 million acres a year. This rate is
more than 1.5 times the previous 10-
year rate.3
The 1997 American Housing Survey
conducted by the Census Bureau and
HUD found that between 1993 and
1997, 2.3 million acres of open space
were converted to new single-family.
homes each year. Almost 90 percent of
this conversion occurred where lots
were one acre or larger. These lots were
purchased by only 33 percent of new
homebuyers.^
According to a July 2001 report by
the Center on Urban & Metropolitan
Policy at The Brookings Institution,
"between 1982 and 1997, the amount
of urbanized land in the United States
increased by 47 percent... During this
same period, the nation's population
grew by only 17 percent (See Table
1~„5
In many major metropolitan azeas,
green space is rapidly disappearing.
The Atlanta metropolitan area has lost
25 percent of its tree cover since 1973,
nearly 350,000 acres. This loss equals
nearly 50 acres of trees every day.b
From 1970 to 1990, metropolitan Chi-
cago experienced a 35 percent increase
in developed land, but a population
increase of only four percent., Some
of our most threatened ]ands are in ur-
ban fringe counties, which produce
nearly 80 percent ofAmerica's fruit and
vegetables and more than half of its
dairy products. Many coral communi-
ties also are rapidly developing.s
'U.S.
Hegian Change in
Popalation Change in -
, Urhanizad
Land
Midw¢st 7.06% 32.23%
Northeast 6.91% 39.10%
South 22.23% 59.61%
Wesi 32.21% 48.94%
U.S. 17.02% 47.14%
Table I. Population Growth versus Land
Development, 1981-1997. (From: !;,[Liam
Fulton, Ralj Penda[[, Mai Nguyen and
Alicia Flarr[san, Who Sprawls Most?
How Growth Patterns Differ Across the
U.S., The Brookings Institution, Survey
Series, July 2001.
AUTUMN 2002 RENEWABLE RESOURCES JOURNAL 13
Consequences of
Haphazard Development
Over the past several decades,
growth has leapfrogged cities and older
suburbs into many once rural areas.
Development is overtaking farms and
forests a[ an increasingly rapid rate.
This expansion often occurs without
well-designed land-use plans, resulting
in urban sprawl, which fragments natu-
ral areas, isolates productive farmland
and disrupts ecological functions. This
has led to the:
Loss of Natural Areas-For ex-
ample, about 25,000 acres of wetlands
continue to be lost each year to sprawl.
As natural areas are diminished, so is
habitat diversity. The result is a decline
in the number of species and in the
number of individuals of those species
that survive.
Fragmentation of Open Spaces-
As we convert land, it is fragmented
into isolated patches of open space,
greatly altering the function of its natu-
ral systems by increasing edge habi-
tats and isolating patches, reducing
both the number and diversity of na-
tive species.
Degradation of Water Resources-
Developing wetlands and riparian
zones reduces their capacity to control
floods, trap sediments, filter out tox-
ins and excess nutrients, and support
wildlife and plant species.
Decreased Ability for Nature to
Respond to Change-Development
has hindered nature's ability to respond
to climate change and has reduced the
viability of wildlife populations by lim-
iting genetic diversity and wildlife
movement.
Loss of "Free" Natural Services-
Namral systems provide important ser-
vices such as flood control, stormwater
management and pollution filtration.
The loss of these services increases the
risk of floods and natural disasters.
costing communities billions in miti-
gation and disaster relief efforts.
AUTUMN 2002
Increased Costs of Public Ser-
vices-Haphazard development often
requires huge investments in roads,
sewers, schools and other public infra-
structure. As new communities are
built, new infrastructure needs to ex-
pand to accommodate them.
Increased Taxes-Many studies
show that farming and forestry gener-
ate more revenue than they require in
public services. Haphazard residential
development has the opposite effect. It
forces communities to provide services
across a larger geographic area, stretch-
ing municipal services and resulting in
increased infrastructure costs that lead
to higher taxes.
Smart Growth
The United States grows by 2.7 mil-
lion people every year, requiring an
annual increase of at least 1 million
new housing units. To conuol how and
where this growth will occur, many
communities have started smart growth
initiatives.
Smart growth has been defined as
development that is economically
sound, environmentally friendly and
supponive of community livability-
growththat enhances our quality of life.
A recent study by Rutgers University
found that the annual operating and
maintenance costs for roads and other
public facilities in New Jersey could
be reduced by $400 million a year by
developing in a more compact manner.
Additional studies by the Brookings
Institution and others show that the
pace of land development far exceeds
the rate of population growth in
America. This suggests the problem is
not growth itself, but the pattern of
growth.
Simply put, some places are better
for development than others. The first
principle of better development is de-
terminingwhere not to develop. Green
infrastructure planning can help com-
munities figure this out. Communities
need to make better use of existing in-
frastruciure to encourage more com-
pact, walkable communities and to
develop a framework for shaping where
growth will go.
Smart Conservation
Smart growth programs are designed
to address the problems of haphazard
development and sprawl. Likewise, we
need smart conservation programs to
strategically direct conservation prac-
tices. Smart conservation promotes re-
sourceplanning and protection in a way
that is proactive not reactive; system-
atic not haphazazd; holistic not piece-
meal; multifunctional not single pur-
pose; multi-jurisdictional not single
jurisdictional; and multiple scale not
single scale.
Green Infrastructure
Functions and Benefits
Green infrastructure systems help
protect and restore naturally function-
ing ecosystems by providing a frame-
work for future development that fos-
ters adiversity of ecological, social,
and economic benefits. These include
enriched habitat and biodiversity;
maintenance of natural landscape pro-
cesses; cleaner air and water; increased
recreational opportunities; improved
health; and better connection to nature
and sense of place. Green space also
increases property values and can de-
crease the costs of public infrastruc-
ture and services such as, flood con-
trol, water treatment systems and storm
water management.
Investing in green infrastructure is
often more cost effective than devel-
oping conventional public works
projects. For example, in the 1990s,
New York City saved spending $4-6
billion on new water filtration and
treatment plants by purchasing and pro-
tecting watershed land in the Catskill
Mountains for about $1.5 billion Like-
wise, Arnold, Missouri. has dramati-
RENEWABLE RESOURCES JOURNAL 14
tally reduced [he need for costly di-
saster relief and flood damage repair
efforts by purchasing threatened flood
plain properties and replacing them
with greenways.
Trends Influencing the Shift
to Green Infrastructure
In the past, many communities con-
sidered open space to be unutilized
land. The legal and philosophical
framework of our land use system as-
sumed land was a commodity to be
consumed. Communities that did plan
for open space focused almost exclu-
sively on preserving land for parks,
which were viewed as a community
amenity. Most open space preservation
efforts were site-specific and were
rarely coordinated with local land-use
planning. However, shifts in the way
government officials think about green
space, and a growing awareness among
states and iocalities of the need to plan
for green infrastructure, have resulted
from a number of positive trends in-
cluding:
• Increased recognition of the prob-
lems associated with urban sprawl
and landscape fragmentation;
• Federal water quality mandates;
• Endangered species protection,
particularly the emphasis on habi-
tat conservation plans that protect
multiple species and link isolated
preserves;
• Increased marketability and resale
value of homes near open space,
parks and greenways;
• Community revitalization empha-
sizing the value of urban natural
areas;
• Smart growth policies and pro-
grams at the state, regional and
community levels;
• Green development practices de-
signed to promote environmental
and economic sustainability.
Green Infrastructure
Planning Approaches
Like our transportation system,
green infrastructure should be carefully
planned, designed, and expanded as
communities grow. Green infrastruc-
ture planning should be the first step
in developing land-use plans, and
should be coordinated with planning
roads, sewers, water lines, and other
essential gray infrastructure. Integrated
planning and design should connect
green and gray in a more effective, eco-
nomic and sustainable network. Open
space planners should use approaches
similar to those of transportation plan-
ners. Green infrastructure should be:
Designed Holistically-Green in-
frastructure should be designed to link
elements into a system that functions
as a whole, rather than as sepaza[e, un-
related parts.
Planned Comprehensively-Our
green space systems need to be planned
to include ecological, social and eco-
nomic benefits, functions and values.
Laid Out Strategically-Green
space systems need to be laid out stra-
tegically to cross multiple jurisdictions
and incorporate green space elements
at each level of government.
Planned and Implemented Pub-
licly-Green infrastructure systems
should be planned and implemented
with input from the public, including
community organizations and private
landowners.
Grounded in the Principles and
Practices of Diverse Professions-
Green space systems should be based
on sound science and should build on
the knowledge of professional disci-
plines such as landscape ecology, ur-
ban and regional planning, and land-
scape architecture.
Funded Up-Front-Like other in-
frastructure systems, our green space
systems need to be funded as primary
public investments rather than with
money left over after al] other services
have been provided.
Benefits of Integrating
Green Infrastructure Into
the Land Planning Process
There are many benefits to utilizing
a green infrastructure approach to con-
servation and development planning.
Green infrastructure planning:
• Recognizes and addresses the
needs of people and nature;
• Provides a mechanism to balance
environmental and economic fac-
tors;
• Providesaframework for integrat-
ing diverse natural resource and
growth management activities in
a holistic, ecosystem-based ap-
proach;
• Ensures that both green space and
development are placed where
they are most appropriate;
• Identifies vi[a] ecological areas
prior to development;
• Identifies opportunities for the res-
toration and enhancement of natu-
rally functioning systems in urban
areas;
• Provides a unifying vision for the
future;
• Enables communities to create a
system that is greater than the sum
of its parts;
• Provides communities and devel-
opers with predictability and cer-
tainty; and
• Enables conservation and develop-
ment to be planned cooperatively.
Green Infrastructure Principles
Across America, states, communi-
ties, private landowners, public agen-
cies and conservation organizations are
working to conserve and restore our
country's natural life sustaining sys-
tem.Although these projects are called
different names (greenway planning,
ecosystem management, watershed
protection, conservation development,
habitat restoration, greenprints, etc.),
successful initiatives are based on com-
mon principles and strategies.
AUTUMN 2002 RENEWABLE RESOURCES JOURNAL l5
The following principles are criti-
cal to the success of green infrastruc-
ture initiatives. They provide a strate-
gic approach and a framework for con-
servation that can advance sustainable
use of land while benefiting people,
wildlife and the economy.
This approach includes design, plan-
ning, acquisition and decision-making
guidance for agencies and organiza-
tions. It is our hope that public offi-
cials and private citizens will use these
principles as benchmarks for incorpo-
rating agreen infrastructure approach
into land use and economic develop-
ment plans and policies.
Principle l: Green infrastructure
should function as the framework
far conservation and development.
Most of our nation's land conserva-
tion programs have focused on pro[ect-
ingindividual pazks, preserves, or other
isolated areas with important natural
or cultural resources. Yet, conservation
biology teaches us that, because wild-
life populations cannot flourish and
ecological processes cannot function if
natural connections aze severed, these
"islands" are unlikely to meet their
conservation objectives. By contrast,
the roads and highways upon which
America depends-and which provide
a framework for future growth and de-
velopment-are planned, built, and
maintained as a system of intercon-
nected parts.
By making green infrastructure the
framework for conservation, commu-
nities can plan for interconnected,
green space systems. Where isolated
"islands" of nature exist, green infra-
structure planning can help identify
opportunities to restore the vital eco-
logical connections that will maintain
those protected areas. Green int}astruc-
ture planning also minimizes the ad-
verse impacts of rapid growth on eco-
system functions and services, such as
the disruption of wildlife migration
corridors or the loss of riparian areas
that absorb nutrients, recharge ground
AUTUMN 2002
water supplies and reduce stotmwater
runoff.
Principle 2: Design and plan green
infrastructure before development.
Restoring natural systems is far more
expensive than protecting undeveloped
land, and man-made wetlands and
other restoration projects often fail to
function as well as their natural coun-
terparts over the long term. Because
green infrastructure provides commu-
nities with an ecological framework,
it is essential to identify and protect
critical ecological hubs and linkages
in advance of development. Central
Park could not be created today nor
could Cook County, Illinois', Forest
Preserve System or many other of the
nation's best parks and preserves. Pro-
tecting green infrastructure up front
ensures [hat existing open spaces and
working lands are seen as essential
community assets and not left vulner-
able to development.
In situations where development has
already occurred, it is still important
to assess where restoring green infra-
structure would beneSt people and na-
ture. Green infrastructure plans should
set acquisition and restoration priori-
ties and help communities identify op-
portunities to reconnect isolated habi-
tat islands as redevelopment opportu-
nities occur.
Principle 3: Linkage is key.
The desired outcome for all green
infrastructure initiatives is a green
space "network" that functions as an
ecological whole. A strategic connec-
tion of system components-parks,
preserves, riparian areas, wetlands, and
other green spaces-is critical to main-
taining vital ecological processes and
services (e.g., stormwater runoff,
cleaning fresh water, etc.) and to main-
taining the health of wildlife popula-
tions. In addition, green infrastructure
requires linkages between different
agencies, nongovernmental organiza-
tions, and the private sector.
The nation's federal, state, and ]o-
cal highway networks holistically cre-
ate afunctional transponation system
funded and supported by different lev-
els of government. Why not design
green infrastructure in the same way,
taking advantage of natural stream net-
works and terrain features to create
physicaliy connected green space sys-
tems that protect and restore vital eco-
logical functions and linkages?
Principle 4: Green infrastructure
functions across jurisdictions and at
different scales.
We need to design green infrastruc-
ture systems to connect across urban,
suburban, rural and wilderness land-
scapes and to incorporate green space
elements at the state, regional, com-
munity and parcel scales. Green infra-
structure strategies can be used for ini-
tiatives of any size or scale, including:
• Individual parcels of land or within
single real estate developments;
• The community and regional
scale, including park, recreation
and other open-space projects;
• The landscape scale, encompass-
ing statewide and national conser-
vation and open space resources.
Green infrastructure may be most
successful when it functions at multiple
scales in concert. For example,
Toronto's "Greening the Portlands"
project focuses on regional parks,
neighborhood parks, wide habitat
corridors, narrow trail corridors, and
greenspace within developments.
It is important to note that green in-
frastructure systems do not require, or
even imply, public ownership of al]
land in the system. Clearly, privately
owned land, particularly working farms
and forests, can play an important role
in any green space system.
Principle 5: Green infrastructure is
grounded in sound science and land-
use planning theories and practices
Conservation biology, landscape
ecology, urban and regional planning
RENEWABLE RESOURCES iOURNAL 16
landscape architecture, geography and
civil engineering contribute to the suc-
cessful design and planning of green
infrastructure systems. Initiatives
should therefore engage and incorpo-
rate the expertise of professionals from
al] relevant disciplines and should be
based on sound science and up to date
information.
Principle 6: Green infrastructure is
a critical public investment.
Interconnected green space systems
benefit people, wildlife and the
economy. More importantly, strategic
placement of green infrastructure re-
duces the need for gray infrastructure,
freeing public funds for other commu-
nity needs. Green infrastructure also
reduces a community's susceptibility
to floods, fires, and other natural di-
sasters. Documenting these public ben-
efits is an important first step towazd
providing adequate funding. We need
to actively promote green infrastruc-
ture systems to secure the funding [o
build and maintain green space sys-
tems.
Green infrastructure should be
funded in the same way as our nation's
built infrastructure-as primary bud-
getary items to spread the costs of con-
struction and maintenance across a
large pool of users and to ensure that
all parrs connect to achieve maximum
functionality. While not funded at the
same level as public works, states and
communities have begun using conven-
tional mechanisms to finance green in-
frastructure projects-including bond
referenda, real estate transfer taxes, lot-
tery proceeds, dedicated development
fees, direct appropriationsand other
mechanisms.
Principle 7: Green infrastructure
engages key partners and involves
diverse stakeholders.
Green infrastructure stakeholders
have diverse backgrounds and needs.
Therefore, successful efforts forge al-
liances and relationships between pub-
lic and private organizations. A few
examples of how diverse organizations
have come together include:
• Chicago Wilderness, a grassroots
collaboration of over 100 organi-
zations representing al] sectors
with an interest in the region.
• Keep America Growing, designed
to create partnerships to balance
the demands for growth and devel-
opment with the protection of vi-
tal working lands.
• The Cooper River Wildlife Con•i-
dor Initiative in South Carolina,
which uses an agreement for com-
mon land management practices
with DuPont, Amoco, Medway
Plantations, Cypress Gardens, and
[he Francis Marion National For-
est.
Conclusion
Every state and local government
has along-range transportation plan.
Growing communities also have de-
tailed plans for improving their air-
ports, sewage treatment plants, tele-
communications facilities and other
public infrastructure. Just as these com-
munities need to upgrade and expand
their gray infrastructure, they need
plans to upgrade and expand their green
infrastructure.
Green infrastructure plans provide a
blueprint for conservation in the same
way that long-range transportation
plans provide a blueprint for future
roads or transit lines. Green infraswc-
ture plans can create a framework for
future growth while ensuring that sig-
nificant natural resources will be pre-
servedfor future generations. They can
even reduce opposition to new devel-
opment by assuring civic groups and
environmental organizations that
growth will occur only within a frame-
work of expanded conservation and
open space lands.
Savvy states and communities are
starting to think about green space in a
more thoughtful and systematic way.
They realize that green infrastructure
is not a frill-it is smart conservation
for the twenty-first century.
Endnotes
' Charles E. Little, Greenways for
America, The Johns Hopkins Uni-
versity Press, Baltimore and Lon-
don,1989.
~ The President's Council on Sustain-
ableDevelopment, Towards a Sus-
tainable America-Advancing
Prosperity, Opportunity, and a
Healthy Environment for the 21"
Century, U.S. Govemmen[ Print-
ing Office, 1999.
' United Slates Department of Agriwl-
ture, Namra] Resource Conserva-
tion Service, National Resources
Inventory, revised December 2000
(available at www.nres.usda.gov/
technical/NRI/1997/
summary_repoNindex. html).
° United States Census Bureau and
Department of Health and Urban
Development, American Housing
Survey, 1997.
William Fulton, Rolf Pendal1, Mai
Nguyen and Alicia Harrison, Who
Sprawls Most? How Crowth Pat-
terns Differ Across the U.S., The
Brookings Institution, Survey Se-
ries, July 2001 (available at
www. brook.edu/dybdocroot/ur-
ban/fulton-pendall. htm).
c Fen Montaigne. "There Goes the
Neighborhood,"Audubon, Mazch-
April 2000.
'Chicago Wilderness, Summary of the
Biodiversity Recovery Plan, 1999
(available at http://
www.chicagowilderness.org/
index.cfm).
s American Farmland Trust, see
ww w. keepamericagro w i ng, org.
AUTUMN 2002 RENEWABLE RESOURCES JOURNAL 17
LOOKING AROUND
oes your community
Green Infrastructure
by Edward T. McMahon
have a
long-range transportation plan?
How about a plan to upgrade and
expand the airport, sewage treatment
plant, storm water facilities, fiber optics
cables, or other community utilities? Most
growing communities have such plans,
but many of these same communities
have no plan to preserve their essential
life sustaining natural infrastructure.
Webster's New World Dictionary
defines infrastructure as "the substructure
or underlying foundation, especially the
basic installations and facilities on which
the continuance and growth of a commu-
nity depends."
Just as growing communities need to
upgrade and expand their gray infrastruc-
ture (i.e. roads, sewers, utilities), so too,
they need to upgrade and expand their
"green" infrastructure -the network of
open space, woodlands, wildlife habitat,
parks and other natural areas, which sus-
tain clean air, water, and natural resources
and enrich their citizens' quality of life.
According to Charles Little, author of
Greenways for America, the concept of
green infrastructure began 130 years ago
with Frederick Law Olmsted, Sr., the
designer of New York's Central Park as
well as Boston's Emerald Necklace.'~"9
"No single park," Olmsted believed,
"would provide people with all the benefi-
cial influences of nature." Instead, parks
should be linked to one another and to
surrounding residential neighborhoods.
Likewise, more than 60 years ago the
South African Wildlife Society recognized
the importance of connections to main-
taining the continent's wildlife. By the
1960's, U.S. ecologists had become believ-
ers in the need to create an "integrated
conservation system" that protects
wildlife while maintaining natural land-
scape processes.
Both of these concepts - Olmsted's
linking chains of parks, and ecologists'
linking conservation areas to counter
habitat fragmentation-have come togeth-
er in planning for systems of green space.
In recent years, there has been a grow-
ing awareness by local and state govern-
ments of the need to plan for green infra-
structure. In his Inaugural Address in
January 1999, Maryland Governor Paris
Glendening said, "Just as we must care-
fully plan for and invest in our capital
infrastructure -our roads, bridges and
waterlines, we must also invest in our
environmental or green infrastructure -
our forests, woodlands, 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 must also invest
in our green infrastructure."
The concept of green infrastructure
represents a dramatic shift in the way
local and state governments chink about
green space. In the past, many communi-
ties assumed that open space was land
that had simply not been developed yet,
because no one had filed a subdivision
plan for it. This view was reinforced by
the legal and philosophical framework of
our land use system which assumed that
land was a commodity to be consumed.
Communities that planned for open
space primarily thought about preserving
land for parks. And these parks were often
viewed as a community amenity, an extra,
even a Trill. Likewise, until recent years,
most open space preservation efforts were
site-specific in their orientation: develop a
park here, protect a natural area there.
Today, however, a growing number of
communities are recognizing notjust that
green space is a basic community necessi-
ty, but that it should be planned and
developed as an integrated system.'
TRENDS INFLUENCING THE PROCESS
What are some of the trends that are
causing this shift to a systematic, green
infrastructure approach to open space
planning?
• Landscape Fragmentation -Increased
urban sprawl has caused the rapid frag-
mentation of land, particularly on the
fringes of major metropolitan areas. Citi-
zens have reacted to this trend by
demanding that policymakers take steps
m preserve open space and channel
growth.'
• Federal Water Quality Mandates -
Clean water standards mean that natural
drainage systems have become more
important as urban waterways and wet-
lands are protected.
1 In 1991, the Nadonal Recrea¢on and Park Associa-
tion Joined (owes with the American Academy for
Park and Recreation Administration to puhlish Park,
Recreation, Open Space and Greenway Guidelines. The
report noted [ha[ economic, demographic technolog-
icaland development trends over the past decade had
profound imphcadons (or open space punning -and
required a change in "our entire philosophy of plan-
ning for parks and open space" to encompass a "sys-
terttsapproach."
2 Aeeocding to the U5. Department of dgriculmres
recently released 1997 National Resources tnvenlory,
the loss of farmland and other open space m develop-
ment has more then doubled in recent years. Between
1992 and 1997, [he rate o[ loss grew «> 3 ~ million
aces a year.
PLANNING C O M M I S S I O N P R S JOURNAL / NUMBER } 7 / WINTER 1 0 0 0
~ .
~ z
7 _
m ,
Greenways can give hids a safe place to walk or
ride a bihe
• Endangered Species Protection -
Conservationists originally focused on
preserving individual species and their
habitat. Today, there is an emphasis on
habitat conservation areas that protect
multiple species and link isolated pre-
serves.
• Public Health Concerns -More than
50 percent of U.S. adults are overweight
and nearly 18 percent are obese. The
Centers (or Disease Control and Preven-
tion have recommended more places to
walk and bicycle as an antidote to inac-
tive lifestyles.'
• "Close-to-Home" Green Space -
Mote homebuyers today favor housing
developments that include green space,
biking and pedestrian paths, and natural
areas. Editor's Note: For mare on this, see
the section on green space as a residential
amenity in McMahon's "Smart Growth
Trends" coitunn in PCJ u33 (Winter 1999).
• Urban Revitalization -Strategies for
revitalizing urban cores are increasingly
emphasizing the value of natural areas
within the city such as waterways, parks,
and other green corridors.
• Sustainable Development -Growing
public interest in so-called "green" or
sustainable development is reflected in
emphasis on multi-modal transportation
planning, support for bicycle and pedes-
trian facilities, and other policies aimed
at reducing fossil fuel consumption.
The systems planning approach
focuses on creating a comprehensive and
interrelated system of parks, recreation
areas, open spaces, and greenways that:
respond to locally-based needs, values,
and conditions; provide an appealing and
harmonious environment; and protect
the integrity and quality of surrounding
natural systems.
This approach is now being consid-
ered by local governments all over the
country. For example, Montgomery
County, Maryland has just proposed a 10
year, $100 million initiative to complete a
county-wide network of open space com-
prised of protected farmland, stream val-
ley parks, ecological reserves, trail
corridors, and greenspace preserves.
Likewise, Cleveland Metroparks is com-
posed of 14 largely undeveloped wood-
land reservations totaling almost 20,000
acres, linked by a network of parkways,
bike trials, and streamcorridors. This
system accommodates over 40 million
visitors a year and is often referred to as
Cleveland's Emerald Necklace. Similar
open space systems are being developed
in big and small communities nation-
wide.
WHAT DOES GREEN
INFRASTRUCTURE LOOK LIKE?
Dr. Mark Benedict of the National
Conservation Training Center in Shep-
herdstown, West Virginia (and former
Director of the Florida Greenways Pro-
gram) says green infrastructure encom-
passes awide variety of natural and
restored native ecosystems and landscape
features that make up a system of "hubs"
and "links."
Hubs
Green infrastructure hubs come in all
shapes and sizes and serve different pur-
poses. For example:
• Reserves -Large protected areas,
such as national wildlife refuges or state
parks, serve as primary sites for conserv-
ing biological diversity and natural
3 Centers (or Disease Control research, published in
the Oc[. 13 1999 issue of the Journal of the American
Medical Association, Eound [hat obesity (defined as j~i"
being over 30 percent above ideal body weight) 'W
accoun[s Eor more than 300,000 premature deaths ~W
each year in the U.S., second only to tobacco-related
deaths. The proportion of the population classified as
obese increased from 12 percent in 1991 to V.9 per-
cent in 1998. According to le(frey P. Koplau, Direttor
of the CDC, "obesity is an epidemic and should be -
[aken seriously ., urban policymakers must provide
more sidewalks, bike paths, and other al[ernadves m
cars Iasi resmring physical activity to our daily rou-
tlnes is cnd<al "
resources such as fisheries and fresh
water. Reserves can also protect impottant
historical and cultural sites, and provide
nature-based recreation opportunities.
• Managed Native Landscapes -Large
publicly owned lands, such as our system
of National and State Forests, managed for
resource extraction as well as natural and
recreational values.
• Agricultural Preservation Districts -
A number of states have recognized the
importance of protecting large blocks of
contiguous working farmland. This mini-
mizes conflicts between farmers and
suburban homeowners while providing
farm machinery and seed dealers with
the critical mass of farmland they need to
stay in business.
continued on Page 6
BOSt011'S
~Em¢rald
Necklace
Boston's "EmeraldNecklace,"
a systempf interoonnected parks,.namral.
areas; drives, and. promenades, was
designed by Frederick Law Olmsted, one
o(Amedca's earliesq and most prominent,
landscape architects. The greenbelt
extends in a nine-mile long semi-circle.
around the heart of Boston. For. over one
hundred yeazs it has provided residents
andvisitors relief from the pollution,
noise; and stress of city life. The Emerald
Necklace, and its cousins in other cifies
across the country, continue to demon- -
suate Ihelong-term benefits that planned
green infrasttucmre can provide Eor met-
ropolitan areas.
~~ .~,
+n;. ... Vim"
..-..
3y
~ti
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL / NUMBER 37 / WINTER 2000
c
Green Infrastructure
continued from page 5
• Regional Parks and Preserves -Less
extensive hubs of regional significance,
like the forest preserve system in Cook
County, Illinois, provide ecological bene-
fits and conserve biological diversity as
well as offer important compatible
resource-based recreational opportunities.
• CulturaVHistoric/Recreational5ites-
Community parks or culturaVhistorical
sites that provide recreational opportuni-
ties, help protect and interpret a com-
munity's heritage, and can often serve as
an origin or destination for a recreational
trail.
• Trailheads -Selected ecological,
recreational, or culturaVhistoric sites with
appropriate visitor services that serve as
points of origin or destination linked by
trail corridors. Trailheads can occur with-
in rural natural areas and working land-
scapes or within urban areas ranging from
large metropolitan areas to small commu-
nities. Trailheads serve as human hubs
within greenways systems.
Links
Many different types of landscape
links can go into creating a system of
green space. For example:
• Landscape Linkages -Large protected
natural areas that connect existing parks,
preserves or natural areas and provide suf-
ficientspace for native plants and animals
to flourish while serving as corridors con-
nectingecosystems and landscapes. Land-
scape linkages can also provide space for
the protection of historic sites and oppor-
tunities for human use like homing, fish-
ing, canoeing, and hiking.
• Conservation Corridors -Less exten-
sive linear protected areas, such as river
and stream corridors, serve as biological
conduits for wildlife and, in many cases,
also provide opportunities for compatible
outdoor, resource-based recreational
activities.
• Greenbelts -Protected natural lands
or working landscapes, such as the one
around Boulder Colorado, serve as a
framework for development while also
preserving native ecosystems and/or pro-
ductive farms or ranchland and directing
urban and suburban growth.
• Trail Corridors -Designated routes,
such as rail-trails and greenways, provide
access to and appreciation of [he values of
natural areas and ocher green spaces,
present diverse resource-based outdoor
recreational opportunities, and enhance
the understanding of historical sites and
cultural diversity frail corridors include
linear urban open spaces that accommo-
date moderate to intense recreational use
for residents and visitors.
• Utilitarian Corridors -Linear fea-
tures, such as powerline and pipeline
rights-of-way and canals, can provide a
way of connecting recreational, cultural or
natural system features. Addison Texas,
for example, has created an outstanding
park system using utility rights oC way,
while communities in New York have
used the Erie Canal as the backbone for a
series of linear park and recreation areas.
WHAT ARE IHE BENEFITS OF
A GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN?
Green infrastructure initiatives pro-
vide ablueprint for conservation the same
way long-range transportation plans pro-
vide ablueprint for future roads or transit
lines. Green infrastructure plans can cre-
ate aframework for future growth while
also ensuring that significant natural and
cultural resources will be preserved for
future generations. 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.
Investing in green infrastructure can
also be much more cost effective than
building conventional public works pro-
jects. Consider flood control. The U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers estimates that
flood damage in the United States aver-
ages more than $4 billion a year. Despite
massive investments in dike and levee sys-
tems, many communities have learned the
limitations of structural approaches to
flood control. In fact, it is Far less expen-
sive to buy or otherwise protect tloodplain
land. Arnold, Missouri, for example, has
dramatically reduced the cost m taxpayers
of disaster relief and repairing flood dam-
age by purchasing threatened properties
and creating a greenway in the flood plain.
Similarly, green infrastructure can pro-
vide ales costly way of assuring safe
drinking water. New York City, for exam-
ple, avoided the need to spend between $6
and $8 billion on new water filtration and
treatment plants by instead purchasing
P L d A N I N G C O M M I S S I O N E R S J O U R N d L / V U M 8 E R 3 7 / W I N T E R 2 0 0 0
t
t
Boil[ between 1828 and 1850, the 185 mile long CErO Canal runs from Washington, D.C_
m Curnberlnnd, Maryland.
and protecting watershed land in the
Catskill Mountains for about 51.5 billion.
HOW CAN A COMMUNITY CREATE
GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE?
Green infrastructure is being created
at all scales: state, regional, metropolitan
area, and local community Green infra-
structure networks can be divided into
three separate but interrelated compo-
nents: ecological networks, working
landscapes, and outdoor recreation and
trail networks. Florida's statewide green-
ways plan uses an integrated landscape
approach to identify an ecological net-
work oC natural hubs, Linkages, river cor-
ridors, and coastlines - as well as a
recreational/trail system connecting
parks, urban areas, and cultural sites.
Maryland, the state which the Sierra
Club ranks first in open space protection,
has developed a "green infrastructure
assessment system" to help identify and
prioritize areas for conservation and
restoration. The goal of this system is to
target areas of greatest statewide ecologi-
cal importance as well as areas under the
most intense development pressure. The
state has also established a Rural Legacy
Program that is working to create strate-
gic open space reserves with an emphasis
on greenways, greenbelts, and agricultur-
alpreservation districts.
At the local level, different communi-
ties have taken different approaches to
green space protection. The town of
Pittsford, New York, population 25,000,
provides a good illustration of how a
small community can create a network of
green space. Pittsford, a 24 square mile
suburb o[ Rochester, has implemented an
award winning green infrastructure plan
that grew out of a concern with [he loss
of its agricultural and green space
resources.
Pittsford's "Greenprint" plan began
with a community visioning process that
identified the working agricultural and
natural landscapes that were an essential
part of the town's character. In 1993,
Pittsford commissioned a fiscal analysis
of the revenues and expenses associated
with existing and potential land uses.
The analysis demonstrated that it would
be less expensive to implement a new
land use plan rather than continue the
current zoning policy
The proposed plan targeted 2,000
acres of land for permanent protection
while also creating several enhanced eco-
nomic development sites for commercial
and light industrial expansion. The com-
munity supported the plan, recognizing
that protection of open space, including
purchase of development rights, would
cost taxpayers less per year than full build
out of the town. Landowners supported
the plan because they were compensated
for the loss of their development rights.
Pittsford's plan is one model for small
communities on the metropolitan fringe.
But savvy communities of all sizes are
starting to think systematically and long
term about green space. They realize that
green space is not afrill - it is a basic com-
munity building block.
Edward McMahon is a ~,,1 ; !^^°
land use planner, attorney, ;i,~ir ,
and director of The Con
nervation Fund's °Amert
can Greenways Program."
He is Jormer president of
Scenic America, a national
non-profit organization
devoted to protecting
America's scenic landscapes. McMahoni column
appears regularly in the PCJ.
Resources:
~Greenways for America by
Charles Litde. John Hop-
kins Press, 1990, 1995. The First compre-
hensive book on greenways. Discusses
their origins and history. Details their
benefits. Describes model projects from
coast-to-coast riparian greenways, paths
and trails, wildlife movement corridors,
heritage corridors, and meuopoBtan
greenway systems.
Geenways: AGuide to Planning
Design, Design, and Development by
Chuck Flink, Loring Schwarz, and Robert
Seams. Island Press, 1993. A "soup-to-
nuts" guide to the practical issues
involved m planning and designing
greenways and trails. Offers guidance on
the overall process of greenway creation
while detailing each step along the way
Haw Geenways Worh: A Handbooh on
Ecology by Jonathan Labaree. National
Park Setvice and the Athmtic Center for
the Environment, 1993. This handbook
inuoduces readers to the ecological
dimensions of green infrastructure, Din-
cusses the ecological impacts of land
development and thefuncuons of cord-
dors.
Landscape Ecology Principles in Land-
scope Architecture and Land Use Planning,
by Wenche Dramstead;]ames Olson, and
Richard Forman. Island Press, 1996. This-
book stunmarizes principles of landscape.:
ecology and planning over a range of spa-
riot scales.
AB of these publications are available
from The Conservation Fund§, American
Greenwayss Frogtam, 1800 N. Kent Street,
Suite 1120, Arlington, VA 22209, 703-
525-6300. The Fund, in partnetship with
the U.S. Forest Service, is also developing
a pflot course on Green In&astmcmre
for elected officials and natural resource
professionals to be offered at the National
Conservation Training Center (NCTC)
in Shepherdstown, West Puginia next
Winter. For more in(ormadon contact
Dc Mark Benedict a[ [he NCTC,
304-876-7461.
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL / NUMBER 37 / WINTER 2000
Building a greenway in GeorgiaY Amicalola Falls
State Parh off the Appalachian Trail.
Mav 27, 2004
Rose Ann Boehll;e
7 3231 182°`' T ane 1VW
Elk River, MN 55330
Dear Ms. Boehlke,
We received a call ftom our Street and Parks Department that you have been illegally
dwnping sod, landscape rock, brick edging, mulched leaves and several piles of concrete in
the park adjacent to your property.
Citj staff visited the park in the afternoon of Map 27, 2004 and took photos of the above
mentioned materials and also noted the wheel barrel tracks across your lawn to the park
where the materials were dumped.
I have included the park policy for Eneroachmentr and Ill gal Dum~ina for your review, which
was mailed to all property owners adjacent to the park in November of 200.1. You need to
remove all the above mentioned materials by June 4, 2004 ar city staff will undertake the
clean-up and bill you accordingly.
If you have an5~ questions, please feel Exec to contact myself or Michele McPherson, Director
of Planning, at 763635-1000. Thank fou fox you cooperation.
Sincerely,
~~ ~~~~i
Chris Leesebeig
City of Elk River
Planning Depar~nent
env:
cc: Parks and Recreation Commission
Phone: 763.635.1600
Fa_c %6~.G~S.IPjO
w~~etccl. elk-river mn. us
1306> Orono Parkway
Ei~ i2ive,, \~IN „ 3>0
Park Policy: Encroachments and Illegal Dumping
Approved ~pxIl 14, 2003
"The Cirn of Elk Ricer will be responsible fox the installation and
maintenance of landscaping and structures in city parks. Landscaping and
shuctures a=ill be appropriate to the use and type of park. Residents mac
only landscape citp parks upon the approval of flee Park and Recreation
Comnv Sion and only if approval has been granted prior to the landscape
installation or vegetation removal. Fox those landscapes that encroach into
park areas, residents shall be notified in waiting and given one near to restore
the park to its original condition, including replanting vegetation that has
been removed without prior approval. In instances where the landscaping
includes items such as retaining walls, the encroachment will be evaluated to
determine if there ie benefit to the park sy=stem if it is allowed to remain. City
staff shall make the evaluation of the encroachment and make a
reconmzendation to the Paxk and Recreation Comnussion regarding a
solution fox the encroachment Residents map not place structures within
city parks, and structures on adjacent private property must comply with
setback requirements.
Trash, grass clippings, brush, woodpiles, dog feces, ox other such snnilar
materials illegally dumped, placed ox deposited upon or within city parks shall
be removed irnmediately by the responsible resident
S:\PLANNING\Michele McPherson\PARKNREC1Parks Encroachment Policy.doc