Philly Recieves Approval for Green Infrastructure Plan

3 06 2011

Philadelphia’s Green City, Clean Waters Plan ,submitted to the EPA last September, has been signed by the PA Department of the Environmental Protection (PADEP) and the Philadelphia Water Department (PWD). According to PDW’s press release, it happened on June 1st. The approval of the plan is a big step in furthering green infrastructure’s legitimacy as a tool to address stormwater issues. The following are links to past post about the plan:

Triple Bottom Line of Green Infrastructure

Philadelphia Green Infrastructure Video

-Brian Phelps





Quantifying the Financial Value of the Soft Benefits of Green Roofs

6 05 2011

Steven Peck, Hon. ASLA, and Founder and President of Green Roofs for Healthy Cities was recently interviewed by The DIRT while in Washington D.C. for the Living Architecture Symposium, (“Despite the Economy, Green Roofs Bloom“). In the interview, Mr. Peck quoted a recent survey of the green roof industry  which reported that 8-9 million square feet of green roofs were built last year. This figure represented a 30% increase in market growth. Most of this expansion was focused in cities that have public policies in place that encourage and support green roof installation. The most intriguing statements in the article are those that helped quantify the economic impact of green roofs.

The post included some assertions that quantified the financial value of some of the soft benefits of green roofs. These included

“…average stormwater mitigation benefit is $4.26/sf” and  a view of a green roof improves property values of nearby buildings by 11%”

These figures are based on research by Smart Cities Research Services, Montreal.  “The Monetary Value of the Soft Benefits of Green Roofs” report prepared by Ray Tomalty, Ph.D. and Bartek Komorowski, MUP with the assistance of Dany Doiron, published last year. The report includes research on developing heuristic methods for quantifying seven soft benefits of green roofs: including: change in property values, marketing benefits, food production and food security, sound attenuation, stormwater retention, air quality, and green house gas (GHG) sequestration. The following is a summary of their findings:

I did not include the marketing figures in the table above, due the complexity of their findings.

Since there is little to no research specific to green roofs, the heuristic methods described in the report rely on other related research. Examples include:

Supply and demand play a critical role in determining one values and this is not any different for green infrastructure. For urban areas that may incorporate little to no green infrastructure (i.e. parks, green roofs, street trees) and are predominantly unsightly parking lots and roofs, projects that include green roofs should be more valuable and those properties surrounding it should benefit in some way as well. The report provides a great starting point for financially quantifying the soft benefits of green roofs. Over time, data specific to green roofs will eventually become available and we will be able to more accurately quantify their specific benefits.

-Brian Phelps





NYC’s Green Infrastructure Plan

18 11 2010

Last week, the Economist in an articled titled “Trees grow in Brooklyn” reported on U.S. cities implementing green infrastructure strategies to address the pollution of their waterways from storm water runoff. The article focused primarily on New York City and Philadelphia.

According to the article nearly 27 billion gallons of untreated water overflows into the New York harbor each year. NYC’s recently released green infrastructure plan seeks to address run-off from 10% of the impervious surfaces in the City with green infrastructure storm water strategies that range from rain barrels to pervious pavements to green roofs.

The plan estimates that on average the cost per gallon of Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) avoided ranges between $1 to $2 per gallon. In addition, the City calculates that over a twenty-year period, it will receive between $139 million and $418 million in additional triple-bottom line benefits (i.e. energy savings, increase in property values, health) from the green infrastructure.

While NYC’s strategy is also employing grey infrastructure, they see the combination of the two costing less than a grey only approach. The cost of the green-grey strategy is approximately $5.3 billion of which $2.4 billion makes up the cost of the green infrastructure. This is $1.5 billion less than the grey only solution.

Chris Strickland, a deputy commissioner with the New York’s Department of Environmental Protection sums it up in the article saying that this (green infrastructure plan) is a way of achieving more than one thing with tax dollars.

Link to NYC Green Infrastructure Plan

-Brian Phelps





Philadelphia Green Infrastructure Video

7 09 2010

I recently came across this video covering Philadelphia’s Green Infrastructure Efforts. It was created by GreenTreks, an award-winning Philadelphia-based non profit communications organization dedicated to educating people about the interconnectedness of environmental, societal, economic, and individual health. For more information and links to other resources on Philadelphia’s triple bottom line green infrastructure strategy  see our past post  Triple Bottom Line of Green Infrastructure.

Brian Phelps





Metro Green Infrastructure Master Plan Now On-line

1 09 2010

Metropolitan Nashville-Davidson County’s Green Infrastructure Master Plan is now available on Metro Water Services’ website. The plan was prepared by amec, Hawkins Partners, Urban Blueprint, and the Low Impact Development Center. The plan includes the following:

  • Green Infrastructure Practice – Overview of Green Infrastructure and descriptions of various practices.
  • Technical Analysis of Green Infrastructure – Analysis of the CSS area with respect to green roofs, three kinds of infiltration practices, tree planting, and rainfall harvesting (cisterns and rain barrels) and its potential impacts on the CSS.
  • Green Infrastructure Projects – Brief overview of the preliminary design concepts for six projects.
  • Green Infrastructure Incentives and Financing – Summary of various potentially applicable incentive practices that have been applied in other cities to encourage the use of Green Infrastructure.

Click here to download the entire plan in PDF format





Ecological Importance of Southeastern Rivers

10 03 2010

Interpretive signs for an upcoming project near the Harpeth River in Williamson County will highlight the ecological significance of the waters of the southeastern United States. If you didn’t know, the rivers and streams of middle Tennessee are part of the most unique and diverse freshwater ecosystem in the entire world. This has to do with a couple things, namely the temperate climate combined with the fact that much of the area was unglaciated, or it as been more geologically stable than other parts of the U.S.

Just to give you an idea the area is home to more than 250 species of crayfish (70% of all the species in the entire U.S.), more than 300 species of mussels (over 1/3 of these live in Tennessee), and more than half the freshwater fish species in the U.S. Because of this great diversity, Tennessee has more freshwater fish that are at-risk than any other state. These species are at-risk largely due to pressures from development practices, which allow sediments and pollutants to wash into our rivers and streams. This and other topics concerning protection of critical watersheds can be found in, Rivers of Life or States of the Union: Ranking America’s Biodiversity, just some of the publications found on the NatureServe’s website.

Graphic from 'Rivers of Life', published by NatureServe

As mentioned in an earlier post, the implementation of ‘green street’ practices on Deaderick Street in downtown Nashville will divert approximately 1.2 million gallons of stormwater a year from the Cumberland River. This is water that would have otherwise run unabated into the river carrying all of the pollutants and sediments from the street. Understanding the significance of the region’s biodiversity is a good reminder of what we are trying to protect when implementing green infrastructure planning and strategies –and why this is especially important here in the Southeast and Middle Tennessee.

-Sara Putney





Updated Tree Carbon Calculator

18 01 2010

I know as landscape architects it seems like we are always talking about trees, but there are just too many good reasons not to, especially in urban scenarios. On our Deaderick “green street” project we made the focus of one of our environmental education signs on the importance of urban trees. The Center for Urban Forest Research, run by the US Forest Service provided a wealth of facts and resources for us to include on the Deaderick Street sign.

One of the Signs from Deaderick Street

Recently, the Forest Service has updated their Tree Carbon Calculator so that it works nationally instead of just for California. You can find the updated version in their Climate Change Resource Center. The calculator runs off an excel platform and allows you to input data for a single tree. Based on your region, tree species, distance for the building, and a number of other factors it will give a basic idea of how much annual energy, emissions and stored carbon you can expect. I used it to see the effects for a couple of trees I have outside my house. Even a small 6” tree has the potential to sequester over 65lbs of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere per year and that big 30” oak tree in my back yard, over 1000lbs per year, not to mention all the energy reductions too.

This is another useful tool to help prove the value trees. It is projected that over the next 50 years climate change will actually cause the southeast region to become warmer and drier, which would reduce the amount of forest growth. While the best option for managing this in the future is to keep forest as forest (per a publication from the US Forest Service titled ‘Forest and Carbon Storage‘), it can’t hurt by incorporating as much urban tree growth into new developments as possible, every little bit makes a difference.

-Sara Putney





Invasive Species in the News

15 01 2010

When we plan and design for projects, within our trade, we try to use native species whenever possible. This is especially important when designing green infrastructure projects that tie so closely to our natural resources, in particular our waterways. Oftentimes people wonder why this is so important and how can it really affect them anyway? Whether it’s plant materials or animals, all invasive species are eventually extremely damaging to our native ecosystems. And also extremely costly; “The UN Convention on Biological Diversity says the spread of invasives costs 1.4 trillion dollars a year globally in damages and control measures. The U.S. alone loses 138 billion dollars a year in the fight.”

Image from ‘The Dirt’ website.

In ASLA’s blog ‘The Dirt’, a recent posts highlights the efforts for the State of Michigan to protect Lake Michigan and the entire Great Lakes Region from the Asian Carp. Like all invasive species these fish take over an ecosystem by consuming resources that would otherwise be used by the native species. Michigan is suing the State of Illinois in order that they shut down the waterways leading into Lake Michigan. According to the New York Times article Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Indiana are all in support. This came to light due to recent evidence of the carp within 6 miles of Lake Michigan in the Chicago area waterway system that links the Mississippi River to the Great Lakes. And while the City of Chicago realizes that the carp overtaking Lake Michigan would be devastating they are wrestling with their own economic concerns over what closing the waterways would really mean. There is more detailed information in ‘The Dirt’ post and the New York Times Article.

Another item in the light recently is the efforts of the Chicago Botanic Garden and the Morton Arboretum to gather native seeds from around the Midwest. “Scientists from the botanic garden are sending teams out across the Midwest and West to the Rocky Mountains and Great Basin to collect seeds from different populations of 1,500 prairie species by 2010, and from 3,000 species by 2020. The goal is to preserve the species and, depending on changes in climate, perhaps even help species that generally grow near one another to migrate to a new range.” The idea is to catalogue, store and preserve native plants in the event that climate change or invasive species may require the migration of native plant materials to other areas. There is still much debate about the project and more detailed information can be found in the New York Times article.

These are just two examples in a long list of invasive species problems that continue to threaten the ecosystems of the US. Not only do invasives disrupt plants, animals and other natural resources, but as noted above they also can have huge negative economic impacts. This coming on the tails of National Invasive Species Awareness Week, (January 10-14th), to learn more visit the National Invasive Species Information Center’s website.

– Sara Putney





Sustainability Resource Guides from ASLA

14 12 2009

The website for ASLA (American Society of Landscape Architects) has a fairly new section devoted to resources for sustainable design and planning. If you haven’t wandered across it already you should take a minute to see what it has to offer. It is aimed at national and local policymakers, government agencies, design professionals, planners and students. Resources include hundreds of project case studies, research papers, organizations and other government resources on sustainable design.

The following description of the five resource categories is taken from an announcement by ASLA, they include:

  • Green Infrastructure (www.asla.org/greeninfrastructure) covers park systems, wildlife habitat and corridors, urban forestry and green roofs.
  • Sustainable Transportation (www.asla.org/sustainabletransport) covers sustainable transportation planning, siting sustainable transportation infrastructure, designing safe and visually appealing transportation infrastructure, green streets and reducing the urban heat island effect.
  • Sustainable Urban Development (www.asla.org/sustainableurban) covers fighting sprawl, sustainable zoning, reusing brownfields, investing in downtowns, open spaces and sustainable urban design.
  • Livable Communities (www.asla.org/livable) covers sustainable land use, place making, green schools, sustainable housing, sustainable employment growth and health, safety and security.
  • Combating Climate Change with Landscape Architecture (www.asla.org/climatechange) covers site planning, open spaces, plant selection, stormwater management and other areas.

While the site is a little hard to navigate, (if you like what you see, I suggest you bookmark the above links to be able to find them again) this is a good resource that pulls a lot of varied information together into one area. It has potential to be not only helpful for designers, planners and people who speak the sustainability language, but also to be useful to vastly wider audience. I understand they are also always looking for new projects, research, case studies, etc. to highlight, if you want to contribute you can contact ASLA @ info@alsa.org

-Sara Putney





Trees Please

11 12 2009

Street Trees at Hill Center Green Hills

This year many cities in the Southeast have already exceeded their average rainfall by over 20%. As a result, we’ve heard many stories about flooding and 500 year flood events in the Atlanta area and elsewhere. I wondered about the ability of tree planting to affect stormwater. I have seen various reports referring to the benefits of trees based on their ability to reduce stormwater through evaporation of rainwater which lands on its leaves and branches back into the atmosphere, and through the infiltration of rainwater into the ground reducing the total amount of runoff and also affecting the peak flows by making slight reductions to the volume of stormwater runoff.

Over the past few decades, American Forests has developed an analysis that they refer to as an Urban Ecosystem Analysis (UEA) in over 40 metro areas in the U.S. These reports quantify a number of benefits provided by trees especially relating to stormwater benefits , air pollution reduction and carbon sequestration. The assessment is based on specific GIS modeling of tree canopy for regional and site specific areas within each municipality it studies. The GIS studies also show that impervious surfaces have increased by 20% over the past 2 decades in urban areas. American Forests has developed tree canopy goals for various areas in the United States, with the following recommended generally for cities east of the Mississippi.

AMERICAN FORESTS’ General Tree Canopy Goals
40% tree canopy overall
50% tree canopy in suburban residential
25% tree canopy in urban residential
15% tree canopy in central business districts

I noted that several southeastern cities had had an Urban Ecosystem Analysis including nearby Chattanooga and Knoxville. I also found some data for Charlotte/Mecklenburg County. One of the critical items that the UEA measures is loss of tree canopy. Some of the losses noted are staggering.

Between 1984 and 2001, Mecklenburg County (Charlotte, NC) lost over 22% of its tree cover and 22% of its open space. Over that same time period, the county’s impervious surfaces increased by 127%. By comparison between 1974 to 1996 Chattanooga and its nearby neighbor, Atlanta, both lost 17% of its regional tree cover.

Even with the dramatic percentage of loss noted in Mecklenburg Co, the 2002 UEA still noted that Charlotte, whose city limits are within Mecklenburg County, still exceeds the Tree Canopy Goals mentioned above at 49% Tree Canopy. The city’s tree canopy is valued of $398 million dollars based on a total stormwater retention capacity of Charlotte’s existing urban forest of more than 199 million cubic feet. This translates into a value of approximately $398 million dollars (based on construction costs estimated at $2 per cubic foot to build equivalent retention facilities). Chattanooga comparatively achieved a Tree Canopy Goal of 22.5%.

In a ten year period from 1989 to 1999, Knox County (Knoxville, TN) lost a less dramatic 2.2% of its regional tree cover. Knoxville’s tree canopy measured at 40% of the total land area just met the 40% American Forest Tree Canopy Goal. This was assessed by the UEA to have a value equal to $280 million dollars.. This value is based on a total stormwater retention capacity and related construction costs to build equivalent retention facilities noted in the above Charlotte example. UEA also quantified that the tree cover in Knoxville sequesters more than 2.3 million pounds of pollutants from the air, with a value of more than $5.9 million.

As we consider the goal of increasing our Tree Canopy cover and, especially, the American Forests recommendation of 15% Tree Canopy cover for central business districts, consider that the Knoxville UEA study and The Green Build-out Model: Quantifying the Stormwater Benefits of Trees and Green Roofs in Washington, D.C . completed in 2007, noted a difference in a tree’s stormwater benefit based on whether it was over a pervious or impervious surface. The D.C. report modeled that trees over impervious areas, such as a sidewalk or parking lot, provided a stormwater benefit that was over 5 times that of a tree over a pervious surface such as grass or planting beds. The Knoxville report further noted that it requires ten or more newly planted trees to equal a single large mature tree’s ecological value.

-Kim Hawkins