WFGIP Community Implementation Guidebook

Making
the Vision a Reality: A Community Guidebook to Implemen;ng Green

Infrastructure in the Wasatch Front
9.1 An Effec+ve Planning Approach
9.2 The Wasatch Front’s Green Infrastructure Framework
9.3 Sustainability in the Wasatch Front

9.3.1 Defining Sustainability
9.3.2 The Need for a Sustainability Model in the Wasatch Front
9.3.3 Using the Green Infrastructure Framework as a Model for Sustainable
Development
9.3.4 The Economics of Green Infrastructure in Utah
9.3.5 Sustainability in the Wasatch Front through a Green Infrastructure Framework
9.4 The 5 Coun+es of the Wasatch Front

9.4.1 Weber County Green Infrastructure Maps
9.4.2 Davis County Green Infrastructure Maps
9.4.3 Morgan County Green Infrastructure Maps
9.4.4 Salt Lake County Green Infrastructure Maps
9.4.5 Tooele County Green Infrastructure Maps
9.4.6 Green Infrastructure Stakeholders in the 5 Coun+es of the Wasatch Front
9.4.6.1 Public Land Stakeholders
9.4.6.2 Private Land Stakeholders
9.4.6.3 Educa=onal Ins=tu=ons
9.5 Urban Green Infrastructure
9.5.1 Valuing GI in Urban Communi+es
9.5.2 The Urban Corridor of the Wasatch Front
9.6 Municipal and Community Implementa+on Strategies – An Overview
9.6.1 Green Infrastructure Implementa+on Strategies
9.6.1.1 Ecological Green Infrastructure Implementa+on Strategies
9.6.1.2 Hydrological Green Infrastructure Implementa+on Strategies
9.6.1.3 Recrea+onal Green Infrastructure Implementa+on Strategies
9.6.1.4 Working Lands Green Infrastructure Implementa+on Strategies
9.6.1.5 Community Green Infrastructure Implementa+on Strategies
9.6.2 The Importance of Policy Updates in a Green Infrastructure Framework
9.6.2.1 Guidelines for Upda+ng Policy
9.7 Municipal Green Infrastructure Implementa+on Strategies in Detail

9.7.1 Adopt a Municipal-‐Level Green Infrastructure Map
9.7.1.1 How to Map a Green Infrastructure Network in your Municipality
9.7.1.2 Tips for Mapping Green Infrastructure in your Municipality
9.7.1.3 The Benefits of Shared Green Infrastructure Maps
A Community Guidebook for Implemen5ng (re)connect -‐ The Wasatch Front Green Infrastructure Plan 1
DRAFT – 2/2012
9.7.2 Design Strategies for Increasing Community Sustainability
9.7.2.1 Green Infrastructure Subdivisions
9.7.2.1.1 How can Wasatch Front municipali+es implement green
infrastructure subdivisions?
9.7.2.1.2 The Economic Benefits of Conserva+on Subdivisions
9.7.2.2 Transit-‐Oriented Developments
9.7.2.3 Mixed-‐Use Developments
9.7.2.4 Urban Infill
9.7.2.4.1 The Economic Benefits of Urban Infill
9.7.2.5 Urban Forestry
9.7.2.6 Greenways
9.7.3 Planning Tools for Facilita+ng GI in Your Community

9.7.3.1 Conserva+on Easements
9.7.3.1.1 The Benefits of Conserva+on Easements
9.7.3.2 Conservancy Lots
9.7.3.3 Transfer of Development Rights (TDR’s)
9.7.3.3.1 Benefits of a TDR Program
9.7.3.3.2 Implemen+ng a TDR Program
9.7.3.4 Purchase of Development Rights (PDR’s)
9.7.3.5 Performance Zoning
9.7.3.6 Exclusive Use Zoning
9.7.3.7 Limited Development
9.7.3.8 Community Preserva+on
9.7.3.9 Heritage Based Rural Development
9.7.3.10 De-‐Annexa+on
9.7.3.11 Decommission
9.7.3.12 Service Transfer
9.7.3.13 Mi+ga+on
9.7.3.14 Hillside Zoning
9.7.3.15 Permeable Pavement
9.7.3.16 Culvert Replacement
9.7.3.17 Revegeta+on

9.8 Funding Green Infrastructure in Your Community
9.8.1 Four Phases of Funding Green Infrastructure in your Community
9.8.1.1 Phase 1 -‐ Exhibit Visionary Leadership
9.8.1.2 Phase 2 -‐ Reconstruct Frameworks and Policies
9.8.1.3 Phase 3 -‐ Leverage Exis+ng Assets
9.8.1.4 Phase 4 -‐ Obtain new Funding Sources
9.8.2 Green Infrastructure Funding -‐ A Shic in Perspec+ve
9.9 Maximizing Green Infrastructure Funding Opportuni+es and Funding Strategies

9.9.1 Federal Green Infrastructure Funding Opportuni+es
DRAFT – 2/20/12
9.9.2 State Green Infrastructure Funding Opportuni+es
9.9.3 State, Regional, and Municipal Green Infrastructure Funding Strategies
9.9.4 Priva+zed Green Infrastructure Funding Opportuni+es
9.9.5 Federal and State Green Infrastructure Funding Opportuni+es in Detail
in Detail
9.9.7 Focused Green Infrastructure and Sustainability Funding Opportuni+es
9.10 The Importance of U+lizing Indicators in Implemen+ng Green Infrastructure in your
Municipality
9.10.1 The Purposes of Indicators
9.10.2 Developing Indicators
9.10.3 Monitoring Indicators
9.10.4 Green Infrastructure Indicators -‐ Evolving an Effec+ve Metric
9.11 Municipal and Community Green Infrastructure Implementa+on Summary
DRAFT – 2/2012
9.1 An Effec=ve Planning Approach
Between now and 2040, the Wasatch Front is es5mated to grow by nearly 1.5 million people.
Without good planning, this growth could strain the region’s infrastructure, consume its natural
resources, and overwhelm its social systems. But if we plan effec5vely as a region, the
addi5onal people and jobs can strengthen our communi5es and contribute to a thriving
economy. Successful management of regional growth will depend on proac5ve planning efforts
concerning both grey and green infrastructure.
The composite effects of reac5ve land-‐use decisions and management strategies will have
las5ng nega5ve impacts on traffic conges5on, air quality, water availability and quality, and the
environment. The planning framework presented in (re)connect: The Wasatch Front Green
Infrastructure Plan provides a strategy to absorb growth and the demands on the region’s
resources through the comprehensive management of natural and social systems.
9.2 The Wasatch Front’s Green Infrastructure Framework

(re)connect’s green infrastructure framework acknowledges that development and growth are
inevitable and necessary in the Wasatch Front, but that the paKern of that growth, its loca5on,
form and intensity can be directed and managed to reduce nega5ve impacts. (re)connect’s
land-‐use planning approach strives to work with development paKerns and to be integrated
into upfront planning ini5a5ves by iden5fying the highest value areas along with strategies to
incorporate these lands into an overall green infrastructure network.
(re)connect’s green infrastructure framework provides a means to structure a land planning
approach to the complex issues facing the Wasatch Front. Central to this framework is the idea
that green infrastructure is not a luxury or an amenity – it is a cri5cal component of our
community that needs to be planned for, invested in, and maintained with the same level of
priority and urgency as the “gray” infrastructure of our roads, bridges, buildings and u5li5es.
SIDEBAR
Most gray infrastructure has a single func5on. Take supersized stormwater pipes, for
instance: their sole purpose is to move excess rainfall from urban areas. Green
Infrastructure, by contrast, is mul5-‐func5onal. It offers a working landscape and a
sustainable alterna5ve to tradi5onal engineering: living roofs, trees, landscaped areas, and
porous pavement to absorb heavy rainfall; a network of street swales and unculverted
streams which can safely manage large volumes of water.
IMAGE :
MAKING THE SHIFT, LOCALLY -‐ GRAY TO GREEN
Figures produced by PricewaterhouseCoopers show how a shiQ in spending from
grey to green of just 0.5 per cent could increase investment in urban green space by
141 per cent.
DRAFT – 2/20/12
(re)connect is a beginning, not an end. It is a first modest step in what will need to be a
concerted effort at regional collabora5on over the next decade. During this process, we as a
region of individual communi5es will need to:
•Refine our vision of regional green infrastructure priori5es to increasingly specific
levels useful to local implementa5on efforts.
•Commit significant resources (financial, poli5cal, and technical) to building the capacity
of our local units of government to plan for their future open space needs.
•Create a permanent regional infrastructure for land use planning, including regional
coali5ons and analy5cal capacity.
•Advocate for changes in state and federal policy that support our regional vision.
•Dedicate financial resources from current and future revenue streams to pay for the
protec5on of our open space assets, whether through acquisi5on or other means such
as conserva5on easements.
SIDEBAR : WFRC is dedicated to fostering a coopera5ve effort in resolving problems, and
developing policies and plans that are common to two or more coun5es or are regional in
nature.
The Wasatch Front Regional Council strives to be a catalyst for regional collabora5on. The
Wasatch Front Regional Council can help focus the energy of our region on important priori5es.
It cannot, however, do the work that is required to act on those priori5es. The regional agenda
must be adopted by organiza5ons and individuals in the government, private and ins5tu5onal
sectors who have day-‐to-‐day responsibility for these issues.
SIDEBAR :
Across America and Europe, progressive ci@es are taking the idea of green infrastructure from
something that is ‘nice to have’ to something that is fundamental to the way we prosper and
develop. Green infrastructure is being widely recognized as providing the environmental
founda@on that that underpins the func@on, health and character of urban communi@es. It is
emerging as a new way of designing, planning, and managing the land. (CABE)
Thinking in terms of green infrastructure will mean change. A change in thinking about our
environment, a change in investment strategies, and a change in culture. Each change depends
upon the other. Green infrastructure in the Wasatch Front needs to be championed at all levels,
from federal to municipal. It demands fresh thinking, refined technical skills, and a visionary
poli5cal commitment. It requires the adop5on of a fundamental planning paradigm based on
stewardship of the region’s resources and landscapes.
For too long, a shortage of commiKed champions and leaders has meant the benefits of green
infrastructure have been rou5nely undervalued. (re)connect asserts that every local authority
DRAFT – 2/2012
should aim to weave func5onal green infrastructure throughout its services, from educa5on to
development and from transporta5on to public health. (re)connect will help to deliver the vast
majority of Wasatch Choice for 2040 and Wasatch Front’s Long Range Transporta5on Plan’s
goals and performance indicators. And, just as important, it will create the kind of places where
people love to live.
SIDEBAR Leadership
One of the most vital efforts to facilita@ng green infrastructure in your community will be to
emphasize and empower leadership. A leader is a person who can take single steps to achieve
big impacts. A leader does not have to be a decision maker or have formal authority. A leader is
someone who can socially influence others to accomplish the common goals of (re)connect.
Leaders come in various shapes and flavors. Leaders are simply messengers of new ways of
thinking, enabling transi@oning processes, or they are simply suppor@ve of new ideas or concept
development. Leaders oUen are mentors. Leaders engage. Leaders share, guide and facilitate
accomplishments.
Some freeze when they hear the word leader. Others think it is too much trouble, and they are
already busy enough at work to add one more thing to their plates. Leadership will build a
strong green infrastructure community in the Wasatch Front, and create other leaders.
Leadership starts with involvement, and addressing and solving issues one step at a @me. The
Wasatch Front’s future will require leadership as well as collabora@on, par@cipa@on and
understanding towards common goals.
9.3 Sustainability in the Wasatch Front
9.3.1 Defining Sustainability

Land planning ac5vi5es which encourage the stewardship of the Wasatch Front’s natural and
social systems are essen5al to achieving regional sustainability. Though sustainability can have
many different meanings (Massachio, 2009), most green infrastructure and ecological
defini5ons highlight the desire to maintain resilience, integrity, and the capacity for renewal in
environmental and social systems by mee5ng a diverse range of interconnected environmental,
social, and economic goals (Swart et al). (re)connect has demonstrated the reciprocal
rela5onship between natural and social systems leading to stewardship of environmental
resources and the con5nued procurement of ecosystem services, but economic considera5ons
must be included in this model to promote dialogue regarding sustainability. Most
sustainability models illustrate a posi5ve, balanced rela5onship between the environment,
society, and the economy, and (re)connect’s green infrastructure framework provides an ideal
founda5on for advancing the sustainability dialogue.
9.3.2 The Need for a Sustainability Model in the Wasatch Front
The Wasatch Front’s development over the last several decades has resulted in many land use
paKerns that are not sustainable. The region’s development has included outward expansion,
DRAFT – 2/20/12
which consumed large amounts of land and required investments in municipal service and
transporta5on infrastructure.
In order for the Wasatch Front to pursue sustainable approaches to development, a common
barrier must be overcome: the belief that community prosperity requires endless economic
expansion. (endnote -‐ sustainability)
SIDEBAR
Time Magazine,in its March 24, 2008 ar@cle en@tled “10 Ideas that are Changing the World”
iden@fied sustainable development as the #1 idea for the next 100 years. The ar@cle
acknowledged the significant challenge in achieving that ideal being poor solu@ons and problem-‐
solving at a micro-‐scale, partly as a result of ‘outdated ins@tu@on’. The ar@cle went on to assert
that, ‘undertaken coopera@vely (we) can harness new technologies’ that will help facilitate more
sustainable development.
DRAFT – 2/2012
SIDEBAR -‐ A study of land use in Maryland over the three years prior to the enactment of the state’s
green infrastructure program found that “development .... Occurred without much aaen@on to
ecological func@ons,” that “development is proceeding at a rate greater than that forecast”, and
that “the Green Infrastructure Program (GreenPrint) seems to have great poten@al to protect
Maryland’s green infrastructure”.
Economic growth, which all can agree is important for the Wasatch Front, has different
meanings depending upon the context. Economists Herman Daly and John Cobb (1994)
describe how growth as expansion involves gecng bigger, increasing the number of people,
buildings, subdivisions, outlet stores, and general community size. Growth as development,
however, is an increase in quality and diversity of community, and involves more income, more
jobs, and more savings. Both scenarios have benefits, but these benefits must be evaluated
further. Many communi5es expand and subdivide in an aKempt to increase the tax base.
However, studies indicate that subdivisions cost more than they bring in from taxes, before
environmental and quality of life costs are even considered (Daly & Cobb 1994).
The economic development of the Wasatch Front should focus on quality development rather
than expansive growth as the founda5on for a stronger regional economy. Expansive growth
has led to an imbalance of social, environmental and economic considera5ons in the region
(Berik and Gaddis 2011). Such development paKerns have contributed to many of the
challenges discussed herein (air and water quality, habitat fragmenta5on, loss of agricultural
lands), affec5ng the quality of life of our residents. New and improved land use paKerns which
recognize the importance of balancing environmental, social and economic values are required
to improve regional sustainability.
9.3.3 Using the Green Infrastructure Framework as a Model for Sustainable Development
(re)connect’s green infrastructure framework inherently embodies the sustainability model,
which illustrates a posi5ve, balanced rela5onship between the environment, society, and the
economy. This approach promotes
1. The procurement of ecosystem services
2. The stewardship of regional resources and
3. The increased economic stability of the Wasatch Front.

DRAFT – 2/20/12
Green infrastructure systems provide social, environmental and economic benefits to the
Wasatch Front. These systems are inherently connected, and the benefits provided by each are
dependent upon the health and integrity of the others.
(re)connect’s green infrastructure planning framework promotes the awareness that the three
5ers of sustainability – environment, society and economy – should be given equal weight.
U5lizing this green infrastructure approach will foster cleaner, healthier, and less expensive
communi5es that are more self reliant in terms of energy, food and economic security than
they are now. In this way, the green infrastructure approach can be viewed as a strategy for
the advancement of regional sustainability, nurturing economic stability, environmental health
and overall quality of life (ENDNOTE – QUALITY OF LIFE MEASUREMENT).
DRAFT – 2/2012

DRAFT – 2/20/12
DRAFT – 2/2012
DRAFT – 2/20/12
9.3.4 The Economics of Green Infrastructure in Utah
Economic valua5ons of green infrastructure are typically measured in terms of ecosystem
services. Though seKling on a “pricetag” for nature’s services may be difficult or even
controversial, the economic valua5on of ecosystem services can be useful to land managers by
helping them jus5fy expenditures or set priori5es for ecosystem protec5on or restora5on.
According to a study undertaken by the Utah Popula5on and Environment Coali5on, Utah’s
ecosystems provided $25 billion in goods and services in 2007 (Berik and Gaddis 2011).
Wetland services, including water quan5ty and quality regula5on, flood protec5on and wildlife
habitat provision, were calculated at $8.6 billion. Forest ecosystems provided $11.7 billion in
services that year, including erosion control, carbon sequestra5on, recrea5on, and provision of
wildlife habitat, 5mber and rangelands. The value of desert grasslands and scrublands was
calculated at $4.5 billion for 2007, with services including dust regula5on, caKle range, wildlife
habitat and recrea5on. While these calcula5ons are eye-‐opening, there are other ways of
assessing the economic value of green infrastructure as well.
Recrea5onal opportuni5es provided by green infrastructure brought 20.4 million visitors and
$7.1 billion to Utah in 2008, crea5ng an es5mated 113,030 jobs (Trendlines 2009). Recrea5onal
ac5vi5es enjoyed by residents also contribute significantly to Utah’s annual economy.
Produc5on agriculture and the agricultural processing sector in Utah accounted for $15.2 billion
in total economic output in 2008, nearly 14% of the total state output (Ward et al 2010). One
must also consider the green infrastructure benefits that are impossible to measure in
economic terms, such as spiritual, social and cultural values, regional iden5ty, and sense of
place.
SIDEBAR:
(Re) Connect asserts that the Wasatch Front should reconsider the land use trends that have
prevailed over the past several decades, advoca@ng instead for sustainable development
paaerns that reconnect the fractured rela@onship between social and natural systems, thereby
promo@ng community livability.
9.3.5 Sustainability in the Wasatch Front through a Green Infrastructure Framework
The green infrastructure planning approach is the appropriate strategy for giving social and
natural resources the aKen5on and investment they require. Future planning in the Wasatch
Front will directly impact the sustainability of the region.
A green infrastructure approach couples the economic benefits of tradi5onal infrastructure
with the suppor5ng environmental and social benefits that can be gained from planning,
designing and managing the green infrastructure network. This approach offers a solid fiscal
investment for coun5es and municipali5es seeking cost-‐effec5ve development programs and
striving to maintain economic compe55veness.
DRAFT – 2/2012
9.4 The Five Coun=es of the Wasatch Front
The Wasatch Front’s five coun5es are as diverse as the region’s landscapes – each possessing a
unique history, culture and outlook. Yet, each county is faced with the similar challenge of
planning, designing and managing their green infrastructure resources in the face of popula5on
increase and land use demands.
DRAFT – 2/20/12
As the diagrams show, Morgan and Tooele Coun5es will have the highest percentage of
projected popula5on increase, but Salt Lake County will receive the greatest number of new
residents (over 450,000) by 2030.
Regional planning strategies ooen look to “growth impacts” as an indicator for proposed
ac5ons. However, these ooen assume there will be a similar mix of types of residents, visitors,
and business as have been experienced previously. The Wasatch Front has changed
drama5cally and will con5nue to do so, rendering such indicators outdated. Futhermore, local
governmental department service costs differ depending on the popula5on groups being
served or the par5cular economic strengths of their loca5on.
Each of the five coun5es in the Wasatch Front has not only unique landscapes but unique
poli5cal climates and community priori5es as well. (re)connect recognizes those differences
DRAFT – 2/2012
and provides diverse planning strategies to draw from to achieve each county’s goals within the
larger context of the regional green infrastructure framework.
The challenge to our coun5es is to retain a high quality of life in the face of con5nued pressures
for growth, homogeneity, and change. Without well-‐designed and publicly supported
strategies to preserve the green infrastructure assets which make up their character, our
coun5es and communi5es risk undermining the very assets responsible for their economic
vitality and future poten5al (SOURCE : howe mcmahon and propst, 1997)
9.4.1 Weber County Green Infrastructure Maps

9.4.2 Davis County Green Infrastructure Maps
9.4.3 Morgan County Green Infrastructure Maps
9.4.4 Salt Lake County Green Infrastructure Maps
9.4.5 Tooele County Green Infrastructure Maps
9.4.6 Green Infrastructure Stakeholders in the 5 Coun+es of the Wasatch Front
Green infrastructure is the physical environment within and between our ci5es, towns and
neighborhoods. It is the network of resources or assets that brings many social, economic and
environmental benefits to local people and communi5es. Green infrastructure spans
administra5ve and poli5cal boundaries. It is publically and privately owned, semi-‐natural and
man-‐made. And it may not always look green in color. Green infrastructure is central to local
dis5nc5veness. It is of vast regional and municipal importance.
IMAGE
The Wasatch Front’s coun5es each play an important part in the region’s con5nued health,
welfare, and produc5vity. Specifically, each county’s public lands and associated stakeholders
will be responsible for many of the con5nued social, economic and environmental benefits
provided to individuals and communi5es.
9.4.6.1 Public Land Stakeholders

(re)connect shows that over 50% of the region’s lands are considered public lands (x.x.x). Of
these 3.2 million acres, over 80% are in Tooele County alone. Most of Tooele’s public land is
owned and managed by the BLM, however, other coun5es have valuable green infrastructure
public land stakeholder assets within their boundaries.
For instance, Davis County possesses over 150,000 acres of public land. This is only 10% of the
total public land in the region, but public lands comprise over 75% of that county’s
landholdings. Similarly, Morgan County has less than 1% of the region’s public lands within its
boundaries, but these serve to construe almost 10% of its landscape and can serve important
purposes such as corridors to enhance the overall green infrastructure network.
DRAFT – 2/20/12
DRAFT – 2/2012
IMAGE SIDEBAR -‐ Though 75% of Davis County’s lands are considered public lands, Tooele County will
require the con@nued stewardship of the largest amount of publicly managed lands, over 2.5 million
acres.
The Wasatch Front’s coun5es are comprised of mul5farious governmental organiza5ons. Their
responsibili5es go beyond green infrastructure to include criminal jus5ce, educa5on, waste
management and more. The efforts and expenditure put into land use planning will vary.
Councils of Governments (COGs) are membership organiza5ons of local governments and help
convene municipal leaders and decision makers. The Wasatch Front’s COGs provide
opportuni5es to discuss common issues, share ideas and successful strategies, deliberate state
or federal ini5a5ves, and organize funding pools. COGs will be beneficial in communica5ng and
implemen5ng (re)connect, and will facilitate communica=on, coopera=on and collabora=on
(x.x.x) and partnerships for mutual benefits.
9.4.6.2 Private Land Stakeholders

Private landholdings encompass 1.6 million acres or 25% of Wasatch Front. Over 1.3 million
acres of private lands are within both the green infrastructure networks (x.x.x). The
preserva5on and conserva5on of privately-‐owned land is a necessary part of achieving
(re)connect’s goals and planning objec5ves. It is also an important component of sustainable
development. (Source -‐ wright and czerniak 2000).
The biggest challenge to promo5ng green infrastructure will be to promote and support
strategies that are non-‐regulatory, voluntary or incen5ve-‐based. Public-‐private partnerships
are worthy strategies to explore in the Wasatch Front, where property rights protec5on has
stalled the conserva5on and protec5on of open spaces and other green infrastructure assets,
and also where acquisi5ons are expensive due to the large size of land parcels. Successful
programs in the West include those providing matching grants to local governments in
partnership with nonprofit groups, further emphasizing localized private land stewardship.
9.4.6.3 Educa=onal Ins=tu=ons

The University of Utah, Weber State and other smaller colleges and universi5es are significant
landowners of property with green infrastructure value. The University of Utah owns
thousands of acres outside of its core campus land holdings. Utah’s higher educa5onal
ins5tu5ons can u5lize the green infrastructure network maps to update their management
strategies or projected land uses. In addi5on, regional land trusts such as the Trust for Public
Land can work with these ins5tu5ons to bring in new gios for the benefit of both organiza5ons
and the overall green infrastructure network. Many university alumni have conserva5on and
charitable interests, but they may be uncomfortable in coordina5ng with these ins5tu5ons as
they ooen sell holdings for real estate interests as a way of raising overall funds.

Urban green infrastructure is an important subset of green infrastructure planning, as it
typically provides greater benefits to a greater number of people due to inherent popula5on
density. Urban green infrastructure is cost efficient for individuals, homes, and businesses and
for municipali5es. (source – Time Save standards for Urban Design).
DRAFT – 2/20/12
SIDEBAR -‐ Urban Landscape “Indeed a spa@al solu@on is emerging. But we must plan and
manage the urban landscape as only one of several linked landscapes that must be considered
together in an approach that demands a willingness to address all environmental and human
issues in one comprehensive planning process.” Richard Foreman, Harvard University

The economic, environmental and social benefits of green infrastructure have direct dollar
value to individuals and municipali5es. To calculate economic gain, transla5on can be direct:
green roofs reduce energy consump5on, lowering energy costs. Green streets reduce strain on
water infrastructure, reducing maintenance costs. Other gains are more indirect: accessible
and safe open spaces or parklands can improve the aKrac5veness of a neighborhood, thereby
increasing property values in surrounding communi5es.
9.5.1 Valuing Green Infrastructure in Urban Communi+es

Vegeta5on reduces air pollu5on as it filters dust par5cles and pollutants aKached to them. The
Chicago Urban Forest Climate Project, a study of the cleansing func5on of Chicago’s forest,
found that the forest ‘removed an es5mated 17 tons of carbon monoxide, 93 tons of sulfur
dioxide, 98 tons of nitrogen dioxide, 210 tons of ozone, and 223 tons of fine par5culate
maKer” (source 1993 chicago urban forest climate project). In the Wasatch Front, urban
forestry (x.x.x) will play a cri5cal role in providing green infrastructure benefits.
Non porous urban surfaces absorb and hold heat during warm weather, contribu5ng to the
‘heat island effect’, wherein temperatures can be between 8 -‐ 10% hoKer than the surrounding
countryside (source – 5me saver standards). Rela5vely minor ‘green’ or ‘green-‐retrofit’ projects
can make a significant difference in both pollu5on control and heat reduc5on and provide
significant energy savings as well as less smog. The greater a city’s ‘green coverage’, i.e. green
roofs, urban forest, porous pavements, the greater the benefits.
One of the most important green infrastructure improvements is the naturalizing of the
hydrologic cycle in ci5es. The hard surfaces of the Wasatch Front’s urban landscape increase
the intensity of the runoff and the amount of pollutants in urban waters. Instead of water
soaking into the ground and being cleansed naturally before entering our aquifers for later use,
it travels quickly into storm drainage systems that then flow into rivers and streams, causing
increased flooding, sedimenta5on, erosion and pollu5on (source – 5me saver standards).
Green infrastructure planning and design techniques improve water quality, an important goal
in the Wasatch Front, and these techniques are cost effec5ve, requiring no structural or gray
infrastructure improvements.
The areas most affected by growth and development are those surrounding urban popula5on
centers -‐ the same land where 86% of the fruit and vegetables and 63% of the dairy products in
the US are produced (source – Farming on the edge -‐ american farmland trust 2003). One-‐third
DRAFT – 2/2012
of US agricultural products depend on pollinators such as birds, bats, bees and other insects.
The pollina5on services bees provide are worth up to more than 100 5mes the value of their
honey (source -‐ Damage to nature now causing widespread ‘natural’ disasters, Worldwatch
ins5tute sept 2003). Es5mates of the benefit of na5ve, wild pollinators to US agriculture lie in
the range of $5.7 to 13.4 billion per year ( source -‐ Pollina5on -‐ an essen5al ecosystem service -‐
ecological society of america and the union for concerned scien5sts -‐ Hdp:// www.esa.org/
ecoservices/poll/bodt.poll.fact.html).
SIDEBAR
Green Infrastructure can reduce our energy consump@on, create jobs, and promote
environmental stewardship and long-‐term economic development
-‐ US House of Representa@ve, 4th District, Donna F Edwards.
The urban communi5es of the Wasatch Front are home to more than just popula5ons of
humans. A variety of wildlife, including birds, mammals, pollinators, and other species, is an
indicator of biodiversity (x.x.x) and a healthy environment. Urban wildlife moves through
riparian corridors along rivers and streams and large parks that have areas of na5ve vegeta5on.
Urban wildlife will also use residen5al landscapes, par5cularly if these landscapes have been
designed to aKract wildlife. The health of these habitats, however, depends to a large degree
on their size and connec5vity (x.x.x). Urban green infrastructure provides important wildlife
habitat within the towns and ci5es of the Wasatch Front; large, connected areas of urban green
infrastructure are even healthier and more resilient, aKrac5ng addi5onal wildlife species.
9.5.2 The Urban Corridor of the Wasatch Front
The Wasatch Front’s ci5es and urbanized areas are a complex interac5on of natural and built
elements. Efforts to minimize impacts upon environmental systems have been introduced
through engineered systems and gray infrastructure. However, many of these engineered
systems are an5quated and unable to fully provide the needed responses to our urban systems.
Grey infrastructure disrupts hydrologic paKerns, typically leading to higher peak runoff rates,
increased flooding and soil erosion, and intensified transport of contaminants. (source -‐
Enhancing sustainability by spinning green into grey infrastructure. Shafer, Scod. NCER Research
project, 2006). These engineered systems support an automobile-‐based society in which roads
dissect natural areas, fragmen5ng habitats and separa5ng neighborhoods and families from
each other and from the city or urban center. The Wasatch Front’s ubiquitous gray
infrastructure inhibits walking, cross-‐country skiing, and bicycling, both for recrea5onal
enjoyment and transporta5on. Loss of these forms of exercise as parts of daily life can lead to
the gradual deteriora5on of the region’s public health and well being.
Urbanizing ci5es along the Wasatch Front are facing new and increasing pressures. By 2020, an
es5mated 143 square miles of irrigated agriculture will likely change to urbanized uses in the
DRAFT – 2/20/12
Greater Wasatch Area (QGET Technical CommiKee). Growth along the Wasatch Front’s urban
corridor has and will con5nue to put strains on municipal services, road capacity, and the
environment. It will be important for the exis5ng green infrastructure resources of the
Wasatch Front to con5nue to provide the high level of services and benefits in the face of
increasing popula5on and density.
Much of the exis5ng green infrastructure within the urban corridor is undervalued and is
delivering socio-‐economic and environmental benefits well below its poten5al. Built
development in the Wasatch Front should be matched by improvements to the environment,
including the provision of diverse and well-‐managed green infrastructure throughout, and
extending beyond, the urban corridor.
The maintenance, improvement and connec5vity of the Wasatch Front’s green infrastructure
networks can be translated into monetary gain for residents and municipali5es. Green
infrastructure is a good dollar-‐for-‐dollar investment, par5cularly in the urban and urbanizing
communi5es struggling to balance economic, environmental and social concerns. A proac5ve
planning approach based on (re)connect’s green infrastructure framework must be adopted by
these municipali5es to promote healthy, sustainable, livable communi5es.
SIDEBAR
Economic Benefits to Designing Green Infrastructure into your Community
Open space makes higher density development more attractive to potential buyers.
Homes located within clustered developments like those encouraged in green space design often
appreciate faster than those in conventional subdivisions.
New homes don’t always pay. Sprawl development consumes more land and requires more tax-
supported infrastructure and services, including roads, schools, fire services and sewer lines. In
many instances, the taxes generated by new development did not cover the costs of sprawl.
People will pay a premium for a community that is environmentally well thought out. Developing
green infrastructure in such a way makes good marketing sense.
Undeveloped land is the best tax break a town has.
Land conservation is often less expensive than suburban style development for local
governments.
Development can be a tax liability. Schools need to be built, services need to be provided – so
property taxes go up.
Employers move to areas in which substantial open space contributes to quality of life for their
employees. Maintaining open spaces keeps attractive employers in the area. Communities
need to remain distinct, separated by open space buffers.
Long term economic advantage belongs to those communities that guide growth and focus on
sustainable communities and avoid the expense and lower quality of life that characterize
cities that have fallen prey to unchecked sprawl.
It is predicted that real estate values will rise fastest in areas that have been planned to be
pedestrian friendly & integrates residential and commercial districts in concentrated areas.
Greenways and open spaces tend to raise property values of the surrounding community;
increased property values result in higher property taxes, which more than pay for the green
space themselves.
Green space pays and pays; it is an investment that yields dividends for communities that make it a
permanent part of the landscape.
A higher quality of life is not just an amenity; it is increasingly a determinant in attracting
employees for key industries.
Parks and greenways contribute to the rise of adjacent property values, offsetting park
DRAFT – 2/2012
maintenance and improvement costs.
Preserving green spaces and green infrastructure encourages tourism and recreation, a leading
source of revenue for many local economies. Preserving what people come to an area to see
and enjoy maintains local economic health & sustainability of such areas.
Farms are often the most stable part of a local economy. Highly productive farmland is an
irreplaceable asset. Geologic & climatic factors cannot be reproduced elsewhere.
It is almost always cheaper to keep water clean than to build and maintain facilities to clean it up.
Protecting watersheds from development reduces filtration costs.
9.6 Municipal and Community Implementa=on Strategies – An Overview
(re)connect has iden5fied the Wasatch Front’s green infrastructure networks, yet the
implementa5on of measures to maintain, improve, and connect these networks are needed to
accomplish the Plan’s goals and objec5ves. The following sec5on is dedicated as a prac5cal
toolbox that municipal decision makers and planners can customize for the planning, design
and management of their respec5ve green infrastructure assets.
The following strategies are not fully comprehensive and there are many other op5ons or
modifica5ons which have been u5lized successfully elsewhere. The Wasatch Front Regional
Council is a source of ideas and materials on various implementa5on strategies for mee5ng
planning objec5ves.
9.6.1 Green Infrastructure Implementa=on Strategies
Though there are many tools and mechanisms available to promote the planning, design,
management and implementa5on of reconnect’s green infrastructure goals and objec5ves, it is
important that the correct tool be used in the proper place. Many of these tools operate within
a spectrum of government par5cipa5on, and some can be voluntary or temporary
arrangements while others can be permanent. Each tool must fit the desired outcome of the
landowner or stakeholder and the public. Private property rights are a conten5ous issue in the
Wasatch Front, and green infrastructure strategies should adequately address this.
(re)connect’s implementa5on strategies will be more successful if implemented at the local
level with local support.
In addi5on to implementa5on gaps or disconnects between policy and ‘on-‐the-‐ground’
construc5on, there is ooen a gap in the delivery of the green infrastructure approach to
strategic land use planning. This delivery gap largely occurs at the level of local authori5es and
decision makers who do not have appropriately skilled and resourced teams to deliver ‘on-‐the-‐
ground’ implementa5on. City councils and municipali5es will need to first establish a strong
leadership, second, to provide sufficient professional coordina5on and skills, and third, to
engage local people in the design and delivery of green infrastructure.
(re)connect’s green infrastructure policy recommenda5ons include not only municipal

regula5ons but also voluntary instruments, expenditures and partnerships, and incen5ves. The
green infrastructure planning tools, implementa5on strategies and resources provided in
(re)connect may be most helpful when implemented at the appropriate 5me and used with
DRAFT – 2/20/12
other planning tools and strategies. The Wasatch Front municipali5es should consider how
mul5ple tools might work together and which ones will work best together given each unique
situa5on.
(re)connect has consistently viewed the Wasatch Front’s resources from an asset-‐based
perspec5ve. The five asset categories are again used to give structure to local and municipal
implementa5on strategies.
The five asset networks (4.6) must be understood as self-‐suppor5ng, yet interconnected
systems. The regional asset network planning objec5ves (x.x) will not only posi5vely affect the
integrity of each asset network, they will also increase the overall health, func5on and
resilience of the natural and social green infrastructure networks (5.5 and 5.4).
9.6.1.1 Ecological Green Infrastructure Implementa=on Strategies
Ecological green infrastructure implementa5on should focus on integrated and connected green
infrastructure lands which create or facilitate mul5-‐func5onal spaces, especially in the urban corridor
where land is in demand. Municipal planners must maximize the uses and benefits of every parcel in
many loca5ons.
1. U@lize the Green Infrastructure Network Maps and the Ecological Asset Network Map to
iden@fy priority areas for land planning ac@ons such as the restora@on, management, and
conserva@on of local resources and assets.
The GI Network Maps and Ecological Asset Network Map can be reviewed to target
maintenance and enhancement projects for greenways and wildlife corridors,
including acquisi5on priori5es.
Implement stand density reduc5on and fuel treatments in the forested areas where
fire suppression has led to dense, uniformly-‐aged stands with a high fuel load. Early
investments facilita5ng these ac5ons will increase forest health and resilience and
reduce risk of wildfire in wildland-‐urban interface areas.
Limit expansive development in large areas of unfragmented plant and wildlife
habitat.
Coordinate investments to create a connected county-‐wide or city-‐wide ecological

network.
Include ecological network connec5vity into open space grant programs and
acquisi5on funds.
2. Engage local stakeholders and work with the private sector and non-‐profit conserva@on
organiza@ons to focus efforts and Best Management Prac@ces (BMPs) to improve the
municipali@es’ GI network lands and ecological assets.
Educate regional stakeholders and private landowners on the value of healthy
forests, open space, biodiversity and invasive species management.
DRAFT – 2/2012
Establish incen5ves to private landowners to encourage them to manage their lands
in ecologically beneficial ways.
Advance alterna5ves to large block or concrete retaining walls such as vegetated
surface walls, gabion or mesh walls, and cell walls.
3. UDOT and other agencies should use sensi@ve design techniques to protect GI assets in
transporta@on corridors iden@fied in Wasatch Choices 2040. These design techniques
include:
a. Eco-‐bridges such as wildlife overpasses, viaducts, amphibian and underpass

tunnels, and habitat culverts to minimize wildlife / human impacts.
b. Raised pylons and elevated transporta5on corridors on green infrastructure

network lands.
c. Designing transporta5on corridors around wetland areas and (when necessary)

concentra5ng mi5ga5on into green infrastructure core network areas (WETLAND
MITIGATION ENDNOTE).
4. Protect and expand the urban forest canopy
Con5nue to support the maintenance, restora5on and improvement of urban forest
ecosystems through programs like the Forest Service’s Urban and Community
Forestry (UCF) program.
Establish city canopy targets; priori5ze improvements.
Enhance tree preserva5on and landscape ordinance requirements and incen5ves.
Encourage revegeta5on in urbanized areas.
Maximize the tree canopy on streets ROWs.
Consider including developer contribu5ons to street tree plan5ng in zoning
requirements though a Street Tree Escrow Fund.
Develop context-‐based tree plan5ng guidelines (spacing, size, diversity).
Update tree plan5ng standards to reflect con5nuous trench structures. Do not
promote raised bed or container tree plan5ng techniques.
9.6.1.2 Hydrological Green Infrastructure Implementa=on Strategies
Hydrological green infrastructure implementa5on strategies seek to maintain, improve and enhance the
quality and quan5ty of water in the Wasatch Front. Important principles reflected in the strategies
include managing water both at the source and at the surface. This is achieved through affec5ng the
rate and quality of water immediately, before the burden is felt further ‘downstream’ in the subsequent
pipe, basin or treatment facility. Design techniques which reduce or eradicate the need for piping will
reduce municipal fees (clogging, freeze damage, etc). Overland conveyance of water resources is easier
to maintain, easier to install, and provides the opportunity for evapora5on, absorp5on and infiltra5on.
DRAFT – 2/20/12
This natural approach to hydrological assets can also slow runoff and reduce erosion, thereby saving tax
payer dollars for services and maintenance. This approach, ooen exemplified in ‘green streets’, brings
beauty to the neighborhood and urban areas. Green streets also create safer pedestrian crossings and
tax revenue through real estate value (SOURCE).
1. U@lize the GI Network Maps and the Hydrological Asset Network map to guide development
away from sensi@ve water resources and recharge areas, and focus on land planning ac@ons
such as the management, restora@on, and conserva@on of hydrological assets.
a. The GI Network Maps and the Hydrological Asset Map (4.6.2), when used as
overlays, iden5fy areas (surface and groundwater resources) where sensi5ve design
and water resource management prac5ces such as LIDs, BMPs and others should be
u5lized.
b. Pursue river and stream restora5on and day-‐ligh5ng projects.
c. Localized sub-‐watershed planning and management should be encouraged.
d. Urban and community forest programs ini5ated by coun5es and municipali5es
should encourage sustainable water resource management prac5ces.
e. Protect areas where natural stream and river channels persist. Employ restora5on
efforts to return stream segments to natural, unconstrained condi5ons.
f. Preserve or restore riparian buffers where possible to reduce nutrient and chemical
loads, provide wildlife habitat, and maintain stream integrity.
g. Integrate water improvement ac5ons and restora5on projects with the green
infrastructure framework.
h. Increase the width of required riparian buffers.
i. Ini5ate “Adopt-‐a-‐Stream” programs.
j. Consider establishing a stormwater u5lity fee ((BELOW)) to help fund improvements
and retrofits.
LID – Low Impact Development techniques include, for example, reducing impervious
surfaces, incorpora@ng na@ve landscaping, and capturing and cleaning runoff on-‐
site.
((A stormwater u@lity establishes user fees based on the volume of stormwater
runoff a property generates. Fees are usually based on the property’s percentage of
impervious area, and credits can be provided for measures taken to reduce runoff
volume and improve water quality. Fee revenues are used to implement stormwater
management improvements.))
DRAFT – 2/2012
2. Engage local stakeholders and work with the private sector and non-‐profit conserva@on
organiza@ons to focus efforts and Best Management Prac@ces (BMPs) to improve the
municipali@es GI network lands and hydrological assets.
Provide model ordinances rela5ng to water resource management ac5vi5es.
Iden5fy and priori5ze opportuni5es for joint stormwater management facili5es.
Incen5vize BMPs and LIDs, especially natural infiltra5on, in all private
developments.
Reduce impervious surfaces in all development and infill projects through
techniques such as rain gardens, vegetated swales, green roofs, and bio-‐filtra5on.
Minimize potable water use for irriga5on through rainwater collec5on/re-‐use.
Educate and encourage landowners to implement water-‐wise landscaping and

proper irriga5on techniques (WATER CONSUMPTION ENDNOTE).
Educate developers and others on appropriate storm water management

techniques.
Increase public educa5on and awareness of invasive species (floral and faunal). This
can increase the likelihood of early detec5on, rapid response, and the subsequent
preven5on of invasive spread and colony establishment.
Require on-‐site deten5on basins and infiltra5on swales to minimize impacts of
stormwater and costs on conven5onal storm sewer systems.
Incen5vize porous paving surfaces in all development and redevelopment.
Include deten5on/reten5on basins in street and traffic-‐calming techniques such as
roundabouts, medians and shoulders.
3. Develop and finance a water retrofit program to update stormwater infrastructure retrofits,
u@lizing watershed plans as an iden@fica@on tool for loca@ons requiring restora@on and
enhancement.
County leaders should assist in the implementa5on of retrofit programs and provide
technical assistance including model codes and ordinances as well as audits,
providing updates to regula5ons.
Financing for these programs can be facilitated through local governments’
stormwater u5lity fees.
BMPs and LIDs should be incen5vized for private landowners.
Update landscape irriga5on and maintenance ordinances and standards to reflect
‘water-‐wise’ techniques.
DRAFT – 2/20/12
9.6.1.3 Recrea=onal Green Infrastructure Implementa=on Strategies
1. U@lize the GI Network Maps and the Recrea@onal Asset Network Map to iden@fy and focus land
planning ac@ons such as the enhancement, management and conserva@on of recrea@onal
assets.
a. Adopt a regional management approach to recrea5on in the Wasatch Front to limit
recrea5onal conflicts, overuse, and degrada5on.
b. Coordinate park acquisi5on, design and programming within green infrastructure

frameworks.
c. Foster awareness, use and stewardship of public parks and open spaces.
d. Adopt a policy requiring deed restric5ons guaranteeing the preserva5on of parks,
open spaces, and trail connec5ons in considering the sale or transfer of any exis5ng
city-‐owned property.
1. Provide increased and improved access to recrea@onal assets such as parks and ‘open space’,
especially in developed or urban areas.
a. Foster coopera5on between parks districts and school districts to share use of
recrea5onal assets.
b. Finance recrea5onal assets through redevelopment and code or policy modifica5ons.
c. Conserva5on easements should directly access or connect recrea5onal cores.
d. Focus on greenways to connect both ecological and recrea5onal assets networks.
e. Incorporate greenways and trails into housing developments. Promote loop-‐trails
where possible.
f. Require conserva5on subdivision style designs in private real estate development.
g. Transporta5on development and construc5on should have equal support for trail
development and construc5on.
h. Evaluate the feasibility of obtaining public access easements and crea5ng trail
connec5ons.
i. Design trails and greenways to protect green infrastructure resources, improve
stormwater management and water quality, provide habitat corridors, and provide
bicycle and pedestrian connec5ons.
9.6.1.4 Working Lands Green Infrastructure Implementa=on Strategies
Wasatch Front stakeholders and management agencies are encouraged to look at agricultural and
working lands preserva5on as a means to promote green infrastructure network conserva5on, and as a
way for providing con5nuing services to the region. While farmland preserva5on has its own merits in
many ways – especially as smaller-‐scale, near-‐market farms, and local food produc5on – agricultural and
working lands can be interim links (corridors) or hubs in the Wasatch Front’s natural green infrastructure
network. For instance, ac5vely farming agricultural land will tend to limit the spread of noxious weeds
rela5ve to leaving it in an unmanaged fallow state.
Ranchers and farmers in the Wasatch Front must be aware of how their prac5ces affect the region’s
comprehensive resources, including water quality, public health, and wildlife habitat. The planning and
management of the Wasatch Front’s working lands are cri5cal to the integrity of the overall green
DRAFT – 2/2012
infrastructure network. A woodlot owned by a rancher may be part of a core area. A core wetland may
border a farmer’s field. Maintaining working land produc5vity and green infrastructure health requires a
mul5-‐faceted approach.
Local working lands produce food and livestock which support local and regional economies as well as
provide a rural lifestyle and heritage. Yet working lands are ooen the main source of new developable
lands (SOURCE -‐ American farmland trust). Farmland is desirable to residen5al and commercial
developers because it is inexpensive to acquire and develop. Green infrastructure planning efforts in
the Wasatch Front must protect and conserve these working lands.
1. U@lize the GI Network maps and the Working Lands Asset Network Map to iden@fy and focus
land planning ac@ons such as the conserva@on, enhancement, restora@on and management of
working land assets.
a. Farm resource agencies and local conserva5on districts should review the Working
Lands Asset Network and Green Infrastructure Network Maps to iden5fy working lands
that have the largest impact on natural network health. They should work with farmers
and ranchers to manage these lands appropriately.
b. Update and monitor the UDAF’s Grazing Improvement Program to reflect green
infrastructure strategies and goals.
c. Concentrate development away from exis5ng farm and ranch lands to minimize conflict
and preserve working landscapes.
2. Local conserva@on districts and governments should consider incen@ve programs, which
promote working land preserva@on, BMPs, environmental restora@on ac@vi@es, and wildlife
benefits of working landscapes.
a. Where applicable, promote the upgrade of agricultural drainage ditches to two-‐stage
drains with vegetated buffers.
b. Focus on greenways to connect both ecological and working lands asset networks.
c. Promote regional farmland preserva5on through federal and state easement programs.
d. Encourage regenera5ve agriculture efforts.
3. Raise the understanding and awareness of agricultural produc@on in the region and increase
access to local food.
a. Regional leaders and county councils should support local food produc5on, tradi5onal
agricultural manufacturing and urban agriculture.
b. Policy updates include expanding farmland protec5on programs, revising federal and
state policies to support local food produc5on and provide agricultural financing.
c. Support urban agriculture and community gardens as a local source of food through
policy changes and ordinance revisions.
d. Encourage revisions to federal policy (USDA) to accommodate small and local farms and
re-‐align federal incen5ves.
e. Allow transfer of city-‐owned vacant lots to community gardening non-‐profits.
DRAFT – 2/20/12
f. Consider subsidizing water connec5ons and use fees to community gardens.
g. Modify nuisance ordinances (plant height, compos5ng, rain barrels) to remove barriers
to community gardening.
h. Allow roof-‐top gardening. Facilitate the pilo5ng of smaller, temporary farmer’s markets.
9.6.1.5 Community Infrastructure Implementa=on Strategies
One of the goals of (re)connect is to make the region a beKer place to live. By defini5on, livable
communi5es aim to maintain and improve quality of life for residents. Livability is primarily generated at
the local or municipal level, though planning and development decisions are made by county and city
councils and other civic districts. While (re)connect helps federal and state governments address the
green infrastructure network so they may make beneficial decisions at a regional scale, important
development decisions, which affect the quality of life in the Wasatch Front’s communi5es, will con5nue
to be made locally and at a county and city level.
1. U@lize the GI Network maps and the Community Asset Network Map to iden@fy and focus
land planning ac@ons such as the enhancement, conserva@on and management of
community assets.
a. Improve community livability through more frequent local and municipal ordinance
updates.
b. Promote sustainable development through BMPs and LIDs.
c. Employ smart growth strategies such as transit-‐oriented development and mixed-‐
use development to reduce pressures on air and water quality, preserve green
infrastructure network resources, and improve community livability.
d. Encourage compact, clustered development paKerns to preserve green

infrastructure landscapes.
e. Adopt development standards and policy which protect green infrastructure

resources.
f. Design, maintain and operate streets to enable safe and beneficial access for all
users which maximize allocated funding.
g. U5lize inac5ve/abandoned transporta5on ROW’s as well as u5lity corridors to link
all city neighborhoods to the regional trail systems.
h. Capitalize on the Wasatch Front’s GI network lands (cores) as assets for economic
development and quality of life by encouraging a change in land use along these
core areas to more appropriate zoning such as open space and/or mixed use.
DRAFT – 2/2012
i. Enact loca5on-‐variable impact fees to offset infrastructure development costs for
outlying proper5es. Consider upda5ng adequate public facility ordinances (APFO’s)
to limit infrastructure costs ini5ated by ci5es.
j. Modify design guidelines to reflect pavement reduc5on goals and porous pavement
alterna5ves. Include planted islands, bio-‐swales, deten5on/reten5on basins, and
grass or unit pavers to roundabout areas, turnarounds and parking areas
k. Set impervious surface limits to development, including paved and roof areas,
exis5ng and new. Provide incen5ve programs for retrofits.
l. Legislate street width limits to enable narrower streets and provide incen5ve
programs for retrofits.
9.6.2 The Importance of Policy Updates in a Green Infrastructure Framework
The emerging principles of (re)connect will mostly be implemented through a range of public
policy themes and implementa5on ac5ons. (re)connect’s framework enables regional and local
decision makers to work together to meet the needs of the region’s communi5es, economies,
and environment. A green infrastructure policy theme should be employed to ensure that
(re)connect’s green infrastructure priori5es and objec5ves are given as much policy aKen5on
as the social and economic agendas. (re)connect recommends hiring a technical specialist with
green infrastructure awareness and skills to ensure the green infrastructure benefits and
framework are embedded across all policy ( the policy theme). This is essen5al for sustainable
growth and the future prosperity of the Wasatch Front.
SIDEBAR -‐ Typical landscape codes include design-‐based ‘prescrip@ve codes’ that set performance
goals and provide specific technical standards that must be followed. ‘Performance based’ codes
use a conserva@ve point system that must be met in development requirements. Point-‐based codes
are being used more and more by communi@es, but are in no way common. LEED and similar
landscape-‐based regula@ons are largely voluntary. These types of Land Development Regula@ons
(LDR’s) affect land-‐use and, significantly, land altera@on, or land clearing regula@ons. These
regula@ons should be reviewed and updated to reflect green infrastructure assets and ecosystem-‐
service providing lands or features.
Many communi5es in the Wasatch Front have begun to update their public policy to reflect
environmental conserva5on and quality of life concerns. (re)connect promotes similar
concepts, however, those similari5es do not indicate that effec5ve green infrastructure public
policy has been executed in those municipali5es. Many municipali5es’ environmental or ‘open-‐
space’ standards do not sufficiently recognize the full range of green infrastructure resources at
the neighborhood and community levels. It is important that ci5es iden5fy areas of green
infrastructure that have not tradi5onally been considered as resources. These may include
vacated railroad lines, drainage channels, u5lity rights-‐of-‐way, and small pocket parks.
DRAFT – 2/20/12
Addi5onally, public policy which results in conserved physical acreage (subdivision and zoning
regula5ons, easements, etc.) does not necessarily reflect (re)connect’s green infrastructure
approach to strategic land use planning and the iden5fica5on of the highest quality exis5ng
green infrastructure resources.
There are significant gaps or discrepancies found within many of the region’s municipal general
plans and their public policy documents related to environmental quality and conserva5on (s.
swaner). Furthermore, inconsistent policy within and between municipali5es affects regional
coordina5on, coopera5on, and shared ecosystem services. Though there also exist gaps in
green infrastructure ac5on planning, funding and delivery, the emerging opportuni5es outlined
in (re)connect encourage municipali5es to take the ini5a5ve in proac5ve measures for their
communi5es.
SIDEBAR
The Implementa5on Gap
Review most community comprehensive or general plans and you read descrip@ons of the future
that sound like the return of the Garden of Eden. Colorful language conjures a mental image of
beauty, cohesiveness and harmony. Such plans are adopted, and then planners and residents are
perplexed about the ugliness cropping up around them, about the sense of loss they feel as
treasured spaces succumb to sprawling suburban subdivisions. What is wrong here? The plan or
vision is beau@ful, but it seems to have no impact.
In most cases, a review of that same community’s subdivision and zoning codes provide an
explana@on, for they usually tell a different story. These codes oUen allow the kinds of
development that may be unwanted, for they lack provisions for open space protec@on and
provide few alterna@ves, incen@ves and op@ons for developers that want to be sensi@ve to a
community’s sense of place and iden@ty. In fact, many of these codes actually require “bad”
development, encouraging consump@ve land use prac@ces and promo@ng housing op@ons that
don’t meet residents’ needs. The gap, or disconnect between a community’s comprehensive plans
and its subdivision and zoning regula@ons, makes implementa@on of a more sustainable
development plan nearly impossible.
Using the mapping and strategies outlined in (re)connect keeps the focus of a planning effort set
on its ul@mate goal: implementa@on. Green infrastructure mapping allows community residents
and leaders to understand early on that some changes will be necessary if their desired future is to
come to frui@on. By preparing a community for change from the beginning of the process, the
actual implementa@on effort becomes broadly supported, poli@cally acceptable and economical to
achieve. Update public policy documents so that they are ready to adopt, and with their adop@on,
the disconnect or gap between planning policy and a community’s hopes for the future disappears.
A community is able to set a course that will bring about the future that residents have envisioned.
Most importantly, this implementa@on method aaacks the core problem – the disconnect – at its
source (unlike expensive stand alone land purchase programs, moratoria, or zoning changes). By
correc@ng exis@ng planning documents, a community an@cipates and dissolves problems that
could otherwise have affected future development and conserva@on efforts. This method of
implementa@on is less costly than many other alterna@ves, and it brings clarity to all par@es
involved in future growth and land-‐use decisions, from concerned ci@zens to developers and city
DRAFT – 2/2012
staff. For the first @me, a community’s comprehensive plan and subdivision and zoning ordinances
support one another, allowing for a future that is created upon sustainable design principles.
9.6.2.1 Guidelines for Upda+ng Policy

(re)connect recommends a perfunctory review and analysis of the general/comprehensive plan
first to iden5fy significant disconnects between (re)connect and the community’s goals,
objec5ves and policies. Updates and revisions to the general plan and comprehensive plan
should be made to demonstrate a green infrastructure planning approach and specific green
infrastructure network language. (re)connect recommends municipali5es adopt the Green
Infrastructure Network Maps (x.x.x) as overlay maps to assist in land-‐use decision making
considera5ons. This review, analysis and update should be followed by ordinance updates
(subdivision and zoning policies) which then reflect the general plan and/or comprehensive
plan. Though most updates will affect new development and infill or redevelopment projects, it
is an important step in managing growth. New policy sec5ons may be adopted as needed to
clarify and support the intent of a green infrastructure planning approach.
Per5nent guidelines include:
• Must be more than “guidance language” in your comprehensive land use plans
• Should be part of, or at least agree with, a green infrastructure approach that includes county
government and other municipali5es and townships in the county, or, if applicable, watershed
• Must have clearly defined boundaries and development rules which define what can be done
within and adjacent to those boundaries, both public
• Must address both public and private lands and exis5ng developed areas as well as land that is
yet to be developed
• Must be communicated to exis5ng landowners so that they know what they can do to
protect/restore/ehnance exis5ng natural green infrastructure on their property and how their
efforts relate to the overall sustainable community.
• Must be given to land developers as early as possible in the development process
9.7 Municipal Green Infrastructure Implementa+on Strategies in Detail

This sec5on provides addi5onal context and informa5on on the recommended strategies that
can help implement (re)connect. (re)connect does not provide specific targeted
recommenda5ons for “who should do what” but it does describe suppor5ng ac5ons.
(re)connect provides a variety of planning tools that can be used to facilitate discussions of
green infrastructure poten5al. These toolkits and implementa5on strategies can be used by
local officials, planners, developers, and residents to help iden5fy important characteris5cs of
green infrastructure in communi5es and choose the most appropriate planning strategies.
DRAFT – 2/20/12
9.7.1 Adopt a Municipal-‐Level Green Infrastructure Map
(re)connect has iden5fied the green infrastructure network lands on a regional and county scale. As a
next step, each municipality should undertake a more detailed inventory and analysis of green
infrastructure features within their community. This is one of the best ways to iden5fy what is valuable
to a community and to begin to maintain, improve and connect those valuable green infrastructure
resources. Each municipality should develop its own green infrastructure network map or maps,
u5lizing the framework and process outlined in (re)connect while accoun5ng for specific criteria unique
to that municipality.
At the moment, adop5ng a green infrastructure approach may be difficult and hard to fully comprehend
or use because it isn’t mapped. There is no record of urban and suburban green infrastructure in The
Wasatch Front -‐ specifically where they are, who owns them or what condi5on they are in.
A municipal-‐level green infrastructure map iden5fies the types and loca5ons of green infrastructure
resources or assets that are valued by a community and its residents and warrant special considera5on
in the planning, designing and management of its lands. Much like a zoning map guides development, a
green infrastructure network map guides the conserva=on, restora=on, preserva=on, acquisi=on,
maintenance and enhancement of beneficial lands and the establishment of a community’s permanent
green infrastructure network.
When a municipality adopts a green infrastructure network map, all par5es involved in land use
decisions can have a clear understanding of land use expecta5ons, and a community can avoid
inconsistencies as it grants approvals and makes other types of land use decisions. As a community
builds out, developers understand where development is most appropriate, as the community has
already iden5fied its green infrastructure resource priori5es. As development occurs, the municipality’s
green infrastructure system is realized.
The regional and county green infrastructure network maps developed in (re)connect provide a solid
framework for maintaining, improving and connec=ng the region’s green infrastructure resources.
Some ci5es could choose to adopt these green infrastructure network maps, though most will want to
add some detail, as (re)connect focuses more heavily on regional green infrastructure resources and
criteria than on local ones. Each community’s municipal staff should host an inexpensive event modeled
on a visioning workshop to glean addi5onal layers of detail for its network map or maps.
9.7.1.1 How to Map a GI Network in your Municipality
Crea5ng a green Infrastructure network map is based on an easily understood approach. This approach,
presented in (re)connect, helps a community understand, locate and evaluate its green infrastructure
resources. (re)connect has already iden5fied the regional resource categories commonly found and
valued in Wasatch Front communi5es: ecological, hydrological, agricultural and recrea5onal, and
community. There may be other layers or asset categories which each municipality may wish to u5lize,
or further refine the criteria (See Annex X) outlined in the Plan.
DRAFT – 2/2012
SIDEBAR -‐ The Regional Open Space Planning Study
In 2003, the WFRC along with many partners including CGID completed The Regional Open Space
Planning Study which iden@fied lands and priori@es within the five coun@es of the Wasatch Front
related to open space. Open space is an integral component of green infrastructure, and the
findings from the 2003 study should be recognized by Wasatch Front municipali@es in the
development and refinement of a municipal-‐level GI network map.
The report concludes that there is a strong preference toward offering high quality lifestyles
through diverse open lands. The region’s inhabitants are primarily concerned with protec@ng
communi@es from hazards and have a strong desire to protect as many different resources as
possible.
The three most “important” or valued landscapes to the region’s communi@es include:
1. Mountains and foothills (preserving views and access)
2. Rivers and streams (recrea@on and con@nued clean water availability)
3. Great Salt Lake and its shoreline (recrea@on, wetlands, and agricultural lands)
(re)connect’s green infrastructure mapping approach allows a community to understand, locate and
evaluate its unique green infrastructure resources in terms of ecological, hydrological, agricultural,
recrea5onal and community or cultural characteris5cs. Using an inclusive method to land assessment,
(re)connect’s approach truly addresses all types of landscape resources, because every landscape falls
within one or more of these green infrastructure asset typologies. When a community determines which
of its green infrastructure resources are important for ecological, hydrological, agricultural, recrea5onal
and community or cultural reasons, a community gains valuable insight into the legacy it wants to
preserve for future genera5ons.
Dozens of specific types of green infrastructure fall within these five categories. For example, ecological
green infrastructure includes slopes, drainages, geological features, wildlife habitat, vegeta5on, and
ecological corridors. A par5cular community may exhibit all or some of these green infrastructure asset
types, and some communi5es may want to add or further define green infrastructure asset types.
Image – Conceptual GI City-Level Map
DRAFT – 2/20/12
9.7.1.2 Tips for Mapping Green Infrastructure in your Municipality
Be realistic – growth is coming, it will have to go somewhere. Know how much you can handle and why.
Be idealistic – don’t settle for second best. Both green infrastructure and development must be considered
completely, comprehensively, and with the highest standards.
Get everyone behind a common vision - for both how the landscape can change and how it should remain. This
means consensus of ideals.
Find champions – Get people to carry the cause.
Put your money where your mouth is – Conserving land and planning for growth SAVES so much money, the
savings should be reinvested back into the programs that protect it. Leverage your dollars, too. Find other
sources to match your money for open space.
Go beyond green infrastructure – Work toward the overall goals of the community with this basic catalyst.
GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE SHOULD:
Identify resource values – Cover the five (5) green infrastructure resource categories to get all stakeholders
involved. Participants should start to see the common ground.
Reveal the importance of strategic land-use planning – Economic, ecological, quality of life issues will all emerge.
Emphasize the multiple benefits a single solution offers.
Capitalize on a community’s character – Many times benefits are qualitative, not quantitative. Numbers can’t sell
a project, passion can. Community character often comes full circle to a measurable benefit, but how pleased
citizens are with their community is a true asset.
Agreement on what to conserve, how, & why – Not everything can be protected or is worth protecting. Choose
parcels and strategies that optimize the different values inherent in that landscape.
Understand tradeoffs – Green infrastructure can only be planned, designed and managed by a willingness to put
the development somewhere else, often at a higher density. Sometimes it will cost money, too, if it is important
enough. Understand the savings and benefits as well as the costs (maintenance, lower taxes).
Commitment to realizing the network map – Implementation should be foremost while crafting the process.
Time must be committed to keeping the plan alive. Finding champions for the cause takes this burden off the
consultant or staff. Patience is also a virtue. Change takes time and the map will change with refinements, but the
spirit should remain intact.
SIDEBAR
The Importance of Green Infrastructure Corridors
The five green infrastructure resource categories (ecological, hydrological, agricultural,
recreational and community) in a municipality can be thought of as jewels in a necklace
— jewels which must not only be identified, planned, designed and managed, but must
also be linked. Connecting corridors, sometimes called "greenways," complete the
necklace. They are critical to a true green infrastructure network, which is an
interlinked system of landscapes and connecting corridors in and around a community
that has been legally and permanently preserved. Without the element of connectivity,
green infrastructure lands are merely a series of unrelated lands rather than an
integrated, interconnected system. Once the connections are made and permanently
preserved, a community has actualized a green infrastructure system.
Corridors typically make excellent walking, hiking, biking and running paths, as well as
wildlife thruways. They allow people to move from one green infrastructure asset to
another without leaving the network and should provide community members with
convenient access to the many surrounding diverse landscapes.
DRAFT – 2/2012
9.7.1.3 The Benefits of Shared Green Infrastructure Maps
(re)econnect’s GI network maps have fulfilled the goal for a regional and county level green
infrastructure network assessment and mapping process. But there is much green
infrastructure asset informa5on missing as they are virtually invisible in the Plan’s regional data
collec5on process and, in many cases, are non-‐existent. This absence of basic, cri5cal
informa5on about green infrastructure makes it impossible to plan and manage this resource to
its full poten5al. Without this municipal level green infrastructure asset and network
informa5on it is extremely difficult to maintain a strategic land-‐use planning view, coordinate
and document the full suite of benefits provided, an5cipate future needs and make decisions
which benefit the quality of life for now and future genera5ons.
The Wasatch Front will need a shared, comprehensive provision for green infrastructure so that
regional and local government can support the beKer planning, design, management and
maintenance of their assets and resources. This in turn will improve quality of life and many of
the goals in (re)connect. A shared green infrastructure ‘atlas’ or map will inform decisions
about investment, quan5fy the impact of spending by green infrastructure type, and allow
beKer assessment of provision and benefits overall. This coopera5ve resource will provide the
informa5on required to adapt beKer to changing environmental and social needs. And it will
provide the necessary data to track improvements over 5me and facilitate coordinated
responses.
9.7.2 Design Strategies for Increasing Community Sustainability
Historically, the community development process in the Wasatch Front has been linear, star5ng
with land acquisi5on, market analysis, engineering, and poli5cal constraints, and followed by
conceptual planning, and detailed drawings and construc5on. At each step of this process,
plans are compared with market and financial parameters and appropriate adjustments are
made.
The difficulty with this approach is that there is no analysis, documenta5on or exploita5on of
the interrela5onships among systems, neither built, natural nor social. Nature is not linear – it
is cyclical and interconnected. Any impact on land form, soils, sunlight, hydrology, flora or fauna
undulates through the others, ooen with unforeseen consequences. (SOURCE – Kellenberg,
Stephen – ULI book = developing sustainable planned communi5es) Progressive community
designs today are incorpora5ng high-‐performance standards (x.x.x), low impact development
(LID) prac5ces (x.x.x), green streets, reduced water and efficient irriga5on systems, and energy
conserva5on and genera5on, achieving savings and environmental benefits from each system.
These strategies improve environmental health, economic stability and quality of life, all of
which contribute to overall community sustainability.
Wasatch Front communi5es can project green infrastructure framework and inherent
sustainable values into the future through their planning documents. A city’s general plans and
comprehensive plans embody their values. These public policy documents make statements
DRAFT – 2/20/12
about themselves and their desired future. Wasatch Front municipali5es should strive for Place-‐
Based Policy Improvements. Place based policies are unique to each community and can
directly meet their specific goals and community needs.
In August 2009 a White House memorandum offered policy guidelines for interagency
collabora5on in support of place based policies:
“effec@ve place-‐based policies can influence how rural and metropolitan areas
develop, how well they func@on as places to live, work, operate a business, preserve
heritage and more”
(re)connect’s green infrastructure framework will trickle-‐down from regional and federal
agencies to local municipali5es and governments. Incremental changes over 5me, enabled by
renewed conversa5ons about sustainability and conserva5on and a commitment to asset-‐
based land use planning, will facilitate the implementa5on strategies herein.
Below are some recommended community development strategies.
9.7.2.1 Green Infrastructure Subdivisions

A green infrastructure subdivision is very similar to conserva5on subdivisions and an alterna5ve
to conven5onal subdivision development paKerns, which typically produce only house lots and
streets. A green infrastructure subdivision is informed by valued green infrastructure resources
present on the site, and the size and loca5on of these valued green infrastructure network
lands become the central organizing element when designing the subdivision.
While the overall “yield”, or number of lots developed, remains the same, the lots are
configured in a manner that conserve lands valued by a community as green infrastructure
assets. Green infrastructure subdivisions can be seen as the building blocks of a community’s
green infrastructure network, as each subdivision can be informed by the overall municipal
green infrastructure network map or maps. When green infrastructure subdivisions serve as
building blocks of a community’s green infrastructure network, the purpose for establishing a
system of interconnected, benefit-‐providing lands within a development becomes clear, and a
community can realize its system without being dependent on expensive acquisi5on programs.
SIDEBAR QUOTE – Green infrastructure subdivisions are aarac@ve to developers as they offer lower
development-‐related expenses with a high-‐quality, marketable product as the end result.
9.7.2.1.1 How can Wasatch Front municipali+es implement green infrastructure subdivisions?
Adopt the regional natural and social green infrastructure network maps.
The regional green infrastructure maps developed as a part of (re)connect provide illustra5ons
for green infrastructure planning, design and management goals. To forward the goal of
establishing a regional plan and to acquire the support of all local municipali5es, each
DRAFT – 2/2012
municipality in the Wasatch Front should adopt the regional natural and social green
infrastructure maps.
Adopt a municipal-‐level green infrastructure map
As discussed in 9.7.1, each municipality should develop their own green infrastructure network
map or maps – u5lizing the framework and process outlined in (re)connect while accoun5ng for
specific criteria unique to that municipality.
Adopt clear standards to guide the conserva5on subdivision process.
The green infrastructure subdivision style of development could be used to guide some or all
future residen5al, commercial and retail development in a municipality, but a process to guide
the design process should be adopted. There is more detail in the supplemental materials
provided with this document and in general reviews of planning documents distributed at an
earlier date, but to summarize, the usual planning process should be reversed. Developers
should:
a. Iden5fy green infrastructure network lands.

b. Respec5ng these valuable green infrastructure network lands, iden5fy poten5al areas
for development and locate house sites.
c. Align streets and trails.
d. Draw in the lot lines, without concern for uniform lot size.
This sequence will enable developers to build the same number of house lots that zoning
permits, and it establishes a means for open space conserva5on to occur u5lizing simple design
guidelines.
INSERT IMAGES of SUCCESSFUL SUBDIVISIONS
Note: Communi5es should make sure that their green infrastructure values are reflected in both
their general plans and subdivision regula5ons. While general plans usually do account for these
beneficial lands, a means iden5fying them and designing around them are not usually present in
subdivision regula5ons. The four-‐step design process highlighted above brings consistency to a
community’s planning documents.
SIDEBAR -‐ What developers need is not a list of things they need to do but methods,
costs, realis5c life-‐cycle es5mates, and detailed research and explana5ons that they can
use to obtain financing and u5lize as workable marke5ng tools. And importantly, they
need professional design consultants and builders who are willing to do things
differently. (SOURCE -‐ tony wernke, Woner, xxxxx Development Today)
DRAFT – 2/20/12
9.7.2.1.2 The Economic Benefits of Green Infrastructure and Conserva+on Subdivisions
Conserva5on subdivisions are a type of green infrastructure subdivision focusing on the
conserva5on of green infrastructure features within a development. Conserva5on subdivisions
preserve 50-‐70% of the buildable land, while s5ll allowing the same maximum number of
home sites as conven5onal subdivision development. Home sites are strategically placed for
maximum views of green infrastructure lands.
Homeowners can enjoy the walking trails among the wildlife and natural lands. Conserva5on
subdivisions provide an alterna5ve to the destruc5on of the land from conven5onal grid style
subdivision developments.
According to an ar5cle on conserva5on subdivisions in Big Builder magazine (May 1, 2006),
"Leaving land in its natural state or building trails through it is cheaper than building
infrastructure or golf courses. The results show that lots in conserva5on subdivisions carry a
premium, are less expensive to build, and sell more quickly than lots in conven5onal
subdivisions.
"Together, the results show that conserva?on subdivisions are more profitable to developers
than conven@onal subdivisions.
"That lots in conserva?on subdivisions sold in about half the ?me as lots in conven@onal
subdivisions must be advantageous to the cash flow of developers.
"These numbers translate into premiums for lots in conserva?on subdivisions ranging from
$13,000 to $18,000 per acre over lots in conven@onal subdivisions."
Green infrastructure based, high-‐density developments are more cost effec5ve to develop. 1 In
terms of investment, a 1974 es5mate found high-‐density investment fell 44 percent below that
needed for low-‐density, sprawl development (Real Estate Research Corp., 1974). More recently,
an analysis completed by Robert Burchell and others at Rutgers University for the State of New
Jersey compared typical development with a "planned development" alterna5ve that would
include a range of densi5es and housing types similar to green infrastructure approach
development paKerns (Gersh, 1996). Projec5ng from 1990 to 2010, the analysis concluded that
planned development could save taxpayers $9.3 billion in avoided capital, opera5on, and
maintenance costs for roads, schools, and u5li5es. Meanwhile, 175,000 acres of land would
also be saved.
Many studies have compared the costs associated with various development paKerns. The
South Carolina Coastal Conserva5on League (SCCCL), assisted by the Westvaco Development
Corpora5on, compared the costs of developing a 96-‐acre parcel in a conven5onal paKern to the
cost of developing the parcel using a high-‐density development paKern. The conven5onal
development consisted of 242 single family homes on quarter-‐acre lots, a density of four units
per acre, the highest density allowed in most residen5al zones (SCCL, 1993). The high-‐density
plan consisted of 333 homes with a mix of single family, duplex, quadriplex, and single-‐family
DRAFT – 2/2012
homes built on third-‐acre lots, crea5ng an average density of 6.5 units per acre. In the high-‐
density development, 240 residences were placed within walking distance of a bus line,
thoughwul planning considering that bus service is considered workable when density reaches 6
or 7 units per acre.
The study found that the costs of developing the conven5onal plan would be $26,000 per lot,
compared to $16,000 per lot for the high-‐density plan. The cost savings in the high-‐ density
development are primarily aKributed to savings in per-‐lot land costs and site prepara5on costs
such as excava5ng, landscaping, grading, and paving. These cost-‐ savings would be passed on to
buyers. A homebuyer looking to purchase a 1,500 square-‐ foot home in the conven5onal
development would pay $95,000, while a home of the same size and quality would cost
$82,000 in the high-‐density plan, a savings of 14 percent.
In general, there are three main components of residen5al development infrastructure: 1)
roadbuilding; 2) storm drainage; and 3) water and sewer service (Schueler, 1995). This
infrastructure cons5tutes approximately half the cost of residen5al subdivision construc5on.
High density development typically reduces infrastructure demands. For example, road length
can be cut by 50 to 75 percent. In addi5on, narrower road widths reduce road surface area by
25 to 35 percent.
1
The Benefits of Green Development. “Green Development Literature Search: Summary and Benefits Associated
with Alterna@ve Development Approaches.” Located at the Smart Growth Network webpage,
www.smartgrowth.org.
Considering that each linear foot of road constructed costs an average of $100, high-‐density
development paKerns can produce significant cost savings. Table 1 provides examples of the
unit cost for development infrastructure (Schueler, 1995).
Table 1.Unit costs of subdivision development
Subdivision Improvement Unit Cost

Roads, Grading $22.00 per linear foot
Roads, Paving (26-foot width) $71.50 per linear foot
$12.50 per linear foot
Roads, Curb, and Gutter
Sidewalks (4 feet wide) $10.00 per linear foot

Storm Sewer (24-inch) $23.50 per linear foot
Driveway Aprons $500 per apron
$1,100 per parking space ($2.75/sf)
Parking Spaces
Clearing (forest) $4,000 per acre

Sediment Control $800 per acre
Stormwater Management $300 per lot (variable)
$5,000 per lot (variable)
Water/Sewer
DRAFT – 2/20/12
Well/Septic $5,000 per lot (variable)
$2.00 per linear foot
Street Lights
Street Trees $2.50 per linear foot
Adapted from Site Planning for Urban Stream Protection, December 1995, prepared by Tom Schueler of
the Center for Watershed Protection for the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments.
References: FOR END
Gersh, Jeff. 1996. Subdivide and Conquer: Concrete, Condos, and the Second Conquest of the American
West. The Amicus Journal. (Fall):14-20.
Real Estate Research Corporation. 1974. The Costs of sprawl. Executive summary of the report The Costs
of Sprawl: Detailed Cost Analysis, for the Council on Environmental Quality; the Office of Policy
Development and Research, Department of Housing and Urban Development; the Office of Planning and
Management, Environmental Protection Agency. April.
Schueler, T.R. 1995. Environmental Land Planning Series: Site Planning for Urban Stream Protection.
Department of Environmental Programs, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, 777 N.
Capitol Street, Suite 300, Washington, D.C. 20002.
South Carolina Coastal Conservation League. 1993. Living the American dream: Density and home
ownership. SCCL Land Development Bulletin. No. 3, March.
SIDEBAR
Conserva+on Subdivision Case Studies in the Intermountain West
Sundance Springs Bozeman, Montana
Summit View Big Sky, Montana
Nava Ade Santa Fe, New Mexico
Rancho Viejo Santa Fe, New Mexico
Mesa del Sol Albuquerque, New Mexico
High Desert Albuquerque, New MexicoRiver Valley Ranch Carbondale, Colorado
Catamount Ranch Steamboat Springs, Colorado
Lambert Ranch Douglas County, Colorado
Highlands Ranch Highlands Ranch, Colorado
Hidden Springs Boise, Idaho
Civano Tucson, Arizona
McDowell Mt. Ranch
Scottsdale, Arizona
Canyon Ridge Cave Creek, ArizonaSanta Fe Springs Prescott, Arizona
Commercial Corner Flagstaff, Arizona
Colonia Solana Tucson, Arizona
Caughlin Ranch Reno, Nevada
Blackhawk Station Park City, Utah
Kayenta Ivins, Utah
DRAFT – 2/2012

IMAGES of above
9.7.2.2 Transit-‐Oriented Development

Wasatch Choice for 2040 and the Wasatch Front’s LRTP strongly advocate for the development
and redevelopment of transit facili5es and transit-‐oriented developments (TODs). TODs
assemble commercial and residen5al hubs around transit facili5es, decreasing resident reliance
upon personal automobiles. TODs are usually accompanied by a decrease in pollu5on and
other nega5ve effects associated with sprawl and an increase in physical health associated with
walking, biking and other ac5vi5es (Fenton 2005).
Much of the Wasatch Front’s growth in the past several decades has occurred on former
agricultural land. Ooen, residen5al development occurs first, and then the demand for more
roads, schools and other services follows. Low density development in the WF’s rural and
suburban communi5es reduces the economic viability of public transporta5on and residents
predominantly rely on single-‐occupancy vehicles for transporta5on. Increased vehicle use
reduces air quality. Wasatch front municipali5es must look for ways to increase density and
decrease distance of communi5es from exis5ng infrastructure.
9.7.2.3 Mixed-‐Use Development

Mixed-‐use development allows for mul5ple uses within a neighborhood and its buildings.
Many mixed-‐use developments include a combina5on of residen5al, retail and office spaces.
Current zoning in many Wasatch Front communi5es prohibit a mix of uses, favoring instead
separate residen5al and commercial zones. This Euclidean zoning leads to a decrease in
community walkability, an increased reliance on personal vehicles, and a tendency toward
sprawling, inefficient development. A mix of uses in a single developed area results in compact
development that makes more efficient use of infrastructure and transit opportuni5es,
increasing walkability and improving sense of community.
9.7.2.4 Urban Infill

Urban infill is the process of developing vacant and underu5lized land in areas that are already
covered by municipal services and gray infrastructure. Vacant proper5es have great
development poten5al. When leo undeveloped, they are a threat to any community, straining
the local economy by their mere existence. As noted by the Na5onal Vacant Proper5es
Campaign in Vacant Proper5es: The True Cost to Communi5es (2005):
“Vacant proper5es strain the resources of local police, fire, building, and health
departments, depreciate property values, reduce property tax revenue, adract crime, and
degrade the quality of life of remaining residents.”
Urban infill is a widely popular planning strategy because it addresses these problems while
helping to protect agricultural land and green infrastructure by redirec5ng growth into more
centralized cores. Infill development will serve to protect the Wasatch Front’s outlying farms
and forests and reduce the impacts of sprawl on lakes, streams, climate and air. Infill
development can range from a single parcel to a large-‐scale development project; it can include
recrea5onal resources, employment centers, and residen5al development. Reinves5ng in
exis5ng communi5es and u5lizing exis5ng resources benefits the en5re region.
DRAFT – 2/20/12
There are many land use planning terms ooen associated with infill development which also
meet the goals of reconnect and a green infrastructure framework. These include:
Brownfield–Formerly industrial or commercial proper5es that are contaminated, or

perceived to be contaminated, in some way and would require special clean-‐up before
development can occur.
Greenfield–Undeveloped open space or agricultural land.
Greyfield–Commercial or retail proper5es that have become old, obsolete or abandoned
(i.e. abandoned ‘big box’ stores and strip malls).
Improvement/Land Value Ra5o (I/L Ra5o)–The value of a parcel’s improvements

(buildings or other structures) divided by the value of the land. This ra5o helps
determine the economic u5lity of the parcel.
Land Suitable for Infill–All vacant, par5ally-‐used, and underu5lized land within
populated places that is zoned commercial, industrial, or residen5al that is not for public
use and is not restricted by other factors (such as environmental concerns).
Par5ally-‐used Land–Parcels of land that are occupied by a use consistent with zoning,
but which contain enough land to subdivide into more parcels.
Recyclable Land–Developed and improved parcels that are economically underu5lized.
Underu5lized Land–Parcels of land that are zoned for more intensive use than that
which currently occupies the property, as determined by the Improvement to Land
Value Ra5o (I/L Ra5o).
Vacant Parcels–Parcels of land that may be publicly-‐or privately-‐owned, have no
structures, or have structures of very liKle value, and are not designated open space or
agricultural land. The structures may be abandoned, boarded up, or par5ally destroyed.
9.7.2.4.1 The Economic Benefits of Urban Infill

Without considering the public and social costs, sprawl makes more economic sense than infill
redevelopment. One es5mate conducted for the Bay Area in California suggests that the costs
of sprawl to the developer are on the order of $100-‐132 per square foot, while infill
redevelopment costs come in at around $163-‐191 per square foot -‐-‐ about 50% more (Bragado,
et al., 1995). The savings are associated with lower land, construc5on, and parking costs and
lower permicng and design fees for developments in outlying areas (see Table 1). However,
experience over the last 30 years, has shown that the social costs of sprawl are significant -‐-‐
primarily from loss of ecosystem-‐service providing lands and agricultural lands, greater reliance
on vehicles, bligh5ng of urban centers, higher resource consump5on (i.e. energy and water),
greater infrastructure costs, and higher costs of services. (SOURCE – see end)
DRAFT – 2/2012
Table 1: Development Costs -- Sprawl versus Infill Development1993 Estimates for Bay
Area, California$/square foot
Infill Development Sprawl Development

Land $15-$20 $8-12
Site Preparation $5-10 $5-10
Construction $60-65 $45-55
Parking (sprawl in construction) $15-18 $0
Soft Costs(permits, fees, etc.) $32-37 $20-26
Contingency 5% $6-7 $4-5

Subtotal $133-157 $82-108
Profit 15% $20-23 $12-16
Marketing $10-11 $6-8
Total Cost $163-191 $100-132
Source: Bragado, et al., 1995.
Loss of Open Space and Agricultural Lands

With decentraliza5on and sprawl development, the West’s farmland is rapidly disappearing. A
study by the American Farmland Trust has es5mated that the U.S. is losing about 50 acres an
hour to sprawling developments. If this trend con5nues, the Trust es5mates that 13% of prime
U.S. farmland could be redeveloped by 2050 (Longman, 1998). The consequences of this trend
have been hotly debated. With increases in produc5vity, the U.S. has been able to grow more
crops with less land and labor (Gordon, 1998). Part of the problem, however, is what land is
being lost. Between 1982 and 1987, the Central Valley—California’s leading agricultural region
—lost almost a half-‐million acres of produc5ve farmland (Bank of America, 1996). Some of this
land can be replaced by bringing new land into agricultural produc5on, but ooen at high
economic and environmental cost. In addi5on, loss of agricultural land in close proximity to
urban centers represents a loss in efficiency and a loss in ability for small farmers to easily sell
their fruits and vegetables in local markets. Out of a total of about 250 million acres of
cul5vated farmland in the U.S. only 48 million areas are within 50 miles of the 100 largest
urbanized areas (Nelson, 1992b).
Greater Reliance on Vehicles

Sprawl leads to an increase in vehicle dependence, which has both social and private costs.
( SOURCE-‐ see end) Since 1970, popula5on density has been steadily declining in the U.S. With
this decline in density, has come a greater reliance on the automobile. From 1970 to 1996, the
mileage people drive has grown four 5mes as fast as the popula5on, and twice as fast as
licensed drivers. The number of cars has also outgrown the popula5on. During the same 5me
period, the number of cars grew by more than 97 million, while the popula5on increased only
61 million. (USA Today, January 16, 1998).
DRAFT – 2/20/12
Table 2: Increase in population, vehicles,drivers
and miles driven 1970-1996
1996 Total % increase from 1970
Miles Driven 2.5 trillion +123%
Vehicles 205.4 +90%
million
Drivers 179.5 +61%
million
Population 265.3 +30%
million
Source: USA Today (1/16/98)
The U.S. is currently one of the most car dependent na5ons in the world, with private
ownership rates about twice those of Western Europe. The cost of owning a car can be a
financial burden on families. Owning and opera5ng a car costs about $3600 a year (Durning,
1996), which translates to about 16-‐20% of total household expenditures (Young, 1995). Put
another way, a median income family would spend 27 hours a month working to pay for the 32
hours a month they spend on average in a car (Durning, 1996).
Living in the suburbs does not necessarily translate into more driving. With many industries and
companies loca5ng themselves in suburbs, most commu5ng now takes place suburb-‐to-‐suburb
(Gordon, 1998). Nonetheless, studies show as much as a doubling of vehicles miles traveled
(VMT) per capita for people living in sprawl-‐like development compared to older transit-‐
oriented development (Calthorp, 1993). In addi5on, uses of other modes of transporta5on (i.e.
biking, walking, using the bus or other forms of public transit), are significantly less in sprawl
development. Some would argue this simply reflects that cars are a superior choice of
transporta5on – neglec5ng the fact that more than 32% of the U.S. popula5on can’t drive (10%
excluding children under 16) (LiKman, 1998). Sprawl development can be designed to be more
pedestrian, bike and public transit friendly, recognizing, however, that the viability of these
alternate modes of transporta5on (beyond recrea5onal uses) is highly affected by density, or
the lack thereof.
Driving also has costs associated with loss of habitat, conges5on, resource consump5on, and a
decline in air quality. The social costs of the increased reliance on the automobile in the U.S.
have been es5mated to be as much as $184 billion a year (Cobb, 1998), which does not even
include produc5vity losses from conges5on or tax revenue losses from land used for roads.
Cobb’s es5mate of damages includes $36 billion in uncompensated damages from accidents,
$40 billion in road maintenance costs not covered by tolls and user fees, $19 billion for
defending oil supplies, and $89 billion in environmental damages (see Table 3). Of the total
environmental damages, $62 billion are es5mated to be from health effects, visibility loss, and
crop damage resul5ng from air pollu5on. Traffic conges5on is also costly in terms of fuel loss
and 5me loss. The average worker now spends about 9 hours per week, or more than a full
working day, traveling in a car due to increased commu5ng 5mes and conges5on.
DRAFT – 2/2012
Table 3: U.S. Subsidies for Driving ($billions)
Direct Subsidies Indirect Subsidies
Highway $31 Accidents $36
construction, (uncompensated
maintenance and deaths, injuries, and
services (less user medical expenses)
fees and tolls)
Local streets and $9 Air pollution $62
services
Strategic Petroleum $1 Water pollution $6
Reserve
Military protection $18 Noise pollution $8
of oil supplies
Total Direct Costs $59 Global warming $13
TOTAL COSTS $184 Total Indirect $125
Costs
Source: Cobb, 1998
Bligh=ng of Urban Centers

The movement away from urban cores also has costs. Downs (1988) makes a strong argument
for how government policies and peripheral growth have directly exacerbated problems of
intensive concentra5ons of poor households in central por5ons of our metropolitan areas.
Unlimited sprawl removes new jobs from accessibility by unemployed inner-‐core residents;
fragmented controls over land use permit exclusionary zoning policies; and ci5es designed for
cars deprive poor people and non-‐drivers of mobility (Downs, 1998). Urban disinvestment
translates into lost sales and property tax revenues. Empty urban lots are also targets for arson,
graffi5, and other types of crime. Surrounding businesses and proper5es ooen lose value due to
the crime and s5gma associated with vacant lots. Today, its not just an issue of movement away
from the urban core, many metropolitan areas are now seeing problems of blight and
abandonment in areas of what policy experts call the inner-‐ring suburbs – suburbs developed
20-‐30 years ago now surrounded by new development. Lacking the newness of suburban
development on the outside, and without the quality of housing stock and cultural ameni5es
that help fuel downtown revitaliza5on, experts fear some of these areas could become islands
of urban decay (Anton, 1998).

Higher Resource Consump=on
Energy consump5on is affected by the size of homes and business spaces, as well as what is
called the "shared-‐wall" phenomenon where townhomes and apartments can enjoy much
lower hea5ng bills than freestanding homes. Per capita water consump5on, par5cularly in arid
climates, goes up drama5cally for homes with larger lots and lawns that need watering.
A recent study by the City of San Jose, California tried to es5mate the savings associated with
implemen5ng growth restric5ons to limit sprawl. If the city had not implemented an urban
growth boundary, an es5mated 3,000 homes would have been built in outlying areas. These
homes would have resulted in 200,000 addi5onal vehicle miles by commuters, 3 million
addi5onal gallons of water and 40% greater energy use for hea5ng and cooling each day (Allen
et al., 1996).

DRAFT – 2/20/12
Higher Infrastructure Costs and Costs of Services
The cost of providing infrastructure and municipal services is higher with sprawl or non-‐
compact development. Studies in California and Florida have shown these extra costs to be on
the order of $20,000 per residen5al unit (Nicholas, et al., 1991 as cited, p. 1). Similarly, study by
Rutgers University comparing a sprawl development in New Jersey with a more compact infill
development found a differen5al of about $25,000 per residence (Bragado, et al., 1995).
Another study, looking specifically at sewer hookups cost found that in Tallahassee, Florida,
sewer hookups cost $11,433 in suburban areas compared to $4,447 for the mostly black,
center-‐city neighborhoods nearest the sewage treatment plant. Despite this nearly $7,000
difference in real cost, all households pay the same price of about $6,000 for sewer connection. The urban
residents paid $2,000 extra in hookup costs, while suburban homes received a subsidy of $5,000
(Longman, 1998).
Costs of services to different areas of a municipality are also influenced by loca5on. Simply put,
the further away developments are from the service centers that serve them, the more costly it
usually is to provide those services. Another cri5cal issue facing communi5es is whether new
development occurs in areas where exis5ng facili5es, namely schools, libraries, parks and police
sta5ons can absorb capacity. Ci5es witnessing both rapid suburban growth and urban
disinvestment at the same 5me can have situa5ons where taxpayers are paying for new
facili5es while other facili5es are being underu5lized. Between 1970 and 1995, the number of
public-‐school students in Maine declined by 27,000, yet the state spent more than $338 million
building new schools in fast-‐growing suburban towns (Longman, 1998).
Finally, street connec5vity and route distance can be more influen5al than physical proximity.
The maze-‐like effect of cul-‐de-‐sac development, for example, makes it more 5me consuming
and expensive for police to watch neighborhoods on the beat. Rarely, however, do
communi5es try to quan5fy these differences and make different areas pay appropriately.
SOURCE : Paying the Costs of Sprawl: Using Fair-Share Costing to Control Sprawl
By Ken Snyder and Lori Bird, December 1998
9.7.2.5 Urban Forestry

The benefits of trees are becoming beKer known. Trees provide clean air and water, provide
shade which cools roads, parking lots and buildings, mi5gate storm water runoff effects,
provide biodiversity and wildlife benefits, and increase real estate values. Urban forests help
break up a landscape of impervious cover RICK TO WRITE MORE ..... (Might want to men5on
the USFS Urban and Community Forestry Program.)
SIDEBAR Customers spend 12% more in shops on streets lined with trees than those
without trees “ Souce TPL
Urban and suburban tree canopy coverage rates vary between each of the ci5es of the Wasatch
Front and even between neighborhoods within a city. The American Forests na5onal forest
advocacy group recommends that suburban residen5al areas have at least 50% canopy
coverage rates, while urban residen5al areas have 25% coverage and urban downtowns have
15% coverage. This issue of urban forest canopy coverage is an important component of the
DRAFT – 2/2012
ability of urban corridors to provide connec5ons between a municipality’s and the region’s
green infrastructure network core and hub areas.
9.7.2.6 Greenways
Greenways, and blueways or ‘esplanade reserves’, are an effec5ve method to provide
mul5func5onal use and mul5ple benefits to the Wasatch Front’s communi5es. A greenway, in
the context of (re)connect, is defined as “linear open spaces or parks along rivers, streams,
ridgelines, or historic infrastructure corridors such as canals or railroads that shape urban form
and connect people with places” (source, Urban Greenways (per photo email -‐ Lindsay, Wilson,
Yang and Alexa-‐)).
9.7.3 Planning Tools for Facilita+ng GI in Your Community
There are many types of planning and policy mechanisms which can be u5lized by
municipali5es to plan, design and manage their networks of green infrastructure resources.

9.7.3.1 Conserva+on Easements
A conserva5on easement is a permanent restric5on placed on a piece of property to protect
the resources or func5ons – natural or manmade – associated with the parcel. In the case of
green infrastructure, the easement precludes future real estate development and iden5fies
permiKed and prohibited uses.
A conserva5on easement is a legally binding, voluntary agreement on the part of a landowner
that prevents development and limits certain uses while preserving the property’s green
infrastructure values in perpetuity. Conserva5on easements ooen provide landowners with tax
benefits while allowing them to retain many private property rights and to live on or use their
land. Easements can be individually tailored to meet a landowner’s needs, providing benefits
to all par5es involved as well as the environment.
IMAGES OF CONSVE EASEMENTS
9.7.3.1.1 The Benefits of Conserva+on Easements

• A legacy building tool
-‐ Over 5me, 50% of remaining lands would be conserved
• Great assurance for homebuyers that open land will remain open
-‐ We know that the “swing” areas will be at least half green
• Great for landowners desirous of conserving their lifestyle
-‐ Working landscapes get the acreage they need
-‐ Charitable tax treatment provides advantages
9.7.3.2 Conservancy Lots

A conservancy lot is a large, privately owned lot that encompasses part of an area iden5fied as
a green infrastructure asset. The purpose of the conservancy lot is to provide surrounding
DRAFT – 2/20/12
residents with visual access to green infrastructure lands while keeping the land under private
ownership and maintenance. Only a small, delineated por5on of such lots may be developed;
the remainder must be protected through conserva5on easements and used in conformance
with the municipality’s standards for green infrastructure resources.
CONSR LOT IMAGES
9.7.3.3 Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs)
Transfer of development rights (TDR) programs are attracting increasing attention throughout
the United States, particularly in the West. Many Western communities are growing rapidly
and are looking for ways to balance resource and open space protection with concern over
property rights.
When designed correctly, TDR programs, which seek to shift permissible development
densities from unsuitable development areas to more appropriate sites, can be an effective
growth management tool. By creating off-site “receiving area” markets for the sale of unused
development rights, TDR programs encourage the maintenance of low density land uses (like
farming), valued green infrastructure, and sensitive features of designated “sending areas.”
When a landowner in a sending area sells development rights to another landowner in a
receiving area, the purchaser thereby augments his development rights in excess of his
otherwise permissible limits. In this manner, local governments can protect a variety of
sensitive features while providing a mechanism to help offset any perceived diminution in
land development potential.
SIDEBAR -‐ A transfer of development rights is the process of transferring the right to
develop one parcel of land to a different parcel of land in order to protect natural or
agricultural adributes of the first parcel. The parcel where the rights originate is known
as the “sending” parcel, and the parcel to which the rights are transferred is called the
“receiving” parcel. AQer the TDR is completed, all or part of the sending parcel becomes
protected by a conserva5on easement, and the owner of the receiving parcel is oQen
allowed to develop at a higher density than typically allowed by the base zoning.
9.7.3.3.1 Benefits of a TDR Program

A TDR program provides a mechanism to conserve valued green infrastructure lands while
making sure that landowners maintain the right to benefit financially from the development
rights that they have per current zoning. Landowners would simply “send” their development
DRAFT – 2/2012
rights from their property to an appropriate receiving zone, gaining an opportunity to “cash
in” where development is needed and wanted. They would continue to own their land, but a
conservation easement would be placed on it in exchange for the right to develop at a slightly
greater density in a designated receiving area. Appropriate receiving zones seem to be the
cities and more populated “nodes” within the unincorporated county.
Since there is not a lot of density associated with the lands people want to conserve, the
impact on the cities and nodes would be minimal but could serve to benefit the revitalization
and development goals of some locales. Conversely, the resulting conservation of agricultural
uses and green infrastructure in the county would be substantial, as removing even small
amounts of density would ensure the viability of agricultural and other green infrastructure
systems.
SIDEBAR- Image and text
TDR programs permit a landowner to separate and sell the right to develop to a third party
(i.e. transfer this right to another).
Realize economic value of land (often viewed as a landowner’s 401K...)
Allow land to be assessed at a lower tax rate, decreasing property and inheritance
taxes on the land
Maintain current use of land
9.7.3.3.2 Implementing a TDR Program

A TDR program could be implemented in a number of ways. One possible scenario follows:
The county enters into inter-local agreements with interested municipalities.

The county downzones county lands identified on the regional green infrastructure maps adjacent
to participating municipalities, creating incentive to move development off of these lands.
These lands become the sending areas.
Determine the number of TDRs available. Landowners in the sending areas maintain their
development rights in the form of TDRs. The number of TDRs each landowner could equal the
number of development units held prior to the downzone.
Note that minor subdivisions for family estates should still be accommodated. Families should have
the right to plan whatever lots they anticipate needing for family homes in a single plan. Once
this plan is completed, the rest of the land should be placed in an agricultural conservation
easement or other easement designation. This enables families to provide for anticipated
housing needs but does not allow for multiple subdivisions of property, as this erodes
DRAFT – 2/20/12
agricultural, for instance, use over time.
Participating cities or population nodes become the receiving area for all TDRs associated with
their adjacent lands. Cities will know where development should occur within their city limits
based on their green space design. Areas identified as green infrastructure network areas and
areas designated for conventional style development can become receiving areas.
Participating cities must restrict zoning changes until TDRs are exhausted, so that there is incentive
for developers within the city to purchase TDRs.
A system of TDR exchange ought to be set up among participating municipalities and the county, so
that areas desiring/needing more growth can acquire TDRs from areas that do not.
TDR ordinances for residen5al development have proven to be extremely difficult to implement in most
locali5es for several reasons. When the size of local governmental units administering land use
regula5ons is rela5vely small, the ability of those local governments to designate sufficient low density
“sending districts” and high-‐density "receiving districts" in loca5ons appropriate in terms of physical
infrastructure, environmental limita5ons, and poli5cal acceptability is severely constrained. The result is
a very small market in which to buy and sell the development rights.
A second reason for the general difficulty of implemen5ng TDR systems is that, when most urban-‐fringe
lands are already zoned at rela5vely low densi5es, the number of poten5al new dwellings that would
need to be accommodated within TDR "receiving districts" becomes extremely high, unless only a small
part of the rural area were to be protected in this manner. The experience of TDR systems typically is
that the "sending districts" (to be preserved) should be rela5vely modest in scale so that they will not
overwhelm the "receiving districts" with more dwelling units than they can reasonably handle. For this
reason, TDRs are inherently limited to playing only a par5al role in preserving a community's
undeveloped lands, and they should therefore be viewed as a tool for only occasional use. Experience
suggests that TDRs work best at a countywide or equivalent level, or where rural zoning densi5es are
typically much lower (e.g., 20 or more acres per dwelling) than those in nearby built-‐up areas.
The logic of transferring development rights from an area in need of protec5on to one more desiring
development remains strong. Yet real-‐world problems have hindered municipali5es to even adopt these
policies in the WF. Though this strategy is best suited for large land-‐holding developers, and the market
demand must be present, TDR’s offer a viable opportunity for municipali5es to maintain, improve, and
connect their economically produc5ve and quality of life beneficng GI network landscapes.
9.7.3.4 Purchase of Development Rights (PDRs)
Local government purchase of development rights is inherently limited as an area-‐wide open space
preserva5on tool by municipal budgets already straining to provide basic services. However, PDRs
provide an excellent way for a municipality to conserve an en5re high-‐priority parcel or vital connec5ng
link in the community’s green infrastructure on an occasional basis, and for this reason they can play a
cri5cal suppor5ng role in protec5ng individual proper5es of great local significance. Some communi5es
have found widespread public support for proac5ve open space preserva5on and have established
special property tax levies or sales tax surcharges earmarked for acquisi5on.
9.7.3.5 Performance Zoning

Performance zoning is based on the concept of providing a level of performance that developers must
show evidence that they can meet prior to approval of their project. Tied directly to green infrastructure
implementa5on strategies such as permeable pavers, green streets and reten5on basins, a developer is
awarded ‘points’ for green infrastructure network planning and design efforts which can lead to density
bonuses or other bonuses.
DRAFT – 2/2012
Performance zoning is not cluster-‐zoning -‐ performance zoning establishes qualita5ve performance
standards (e.g. on-‐site reten5on targets, impervious surface square footage) and developers are given
flexibility in how they address and meet these standards.
9.7.3.6 Exclusive Use Zoning

Typically u5lized in agricultural zoning regula5ons, exclusive use zoning places restric5ons on the land.
Much of the Wasatch Front’s urban corridor overlays prime agricultural soils (x.x.x). Though down
zoning from residen5al to agricultural use is poli5cally challenging, voluntary decisions by landowners,
encouraged through incen5ves (tax) and partnerships (non-‐profit land managers), will promote
important diversity in municipali5es.
9.7.3.7 Limited Development

In this strategy, a developer’s unit density is limited to protect important green infrastructure resources.
This strategy will require the use of updated planning and zoning tools. Limited development will work
best in the Wasatch Front if there are subsidies from municipali5es or non-‐profit organiza5ons to truly
ensure a ‘limited’ outcome.
9.7.3.8 Community Preserva?on

As a legisla5ve act, a Community Preserva5on Act would allow communi5es to establish a local real-‐
estate surcharge to set aside money for green infrastructure land-‐use planning ac5ons (x.x.x). This must
be enacted by the State and will provide matching funds to communi5es through recording fees at a
county level.
9.7.3.9 Heritage Based Rural Development

Helps build sustainable communi5es and strengthen regional economies though the conserva5on, use,
and promo5on of historic and cultural assets. These assets may include buildings, structures, ar5facts,
districts, Main Streets, farmsteads and landscapes, as well as regional arts, craos, music, food, and
events. (Forum Journal, Winter 2010)
The Wasatch Front will need to draw on regional assets, including natural, heritage and cultural assets,
to uncover innova5ve and unique sources of compe55ve advantage. Rural development has been aided
in other regions by strong leaders and a sense of entrepreneurship. Successful strategies include
historic building renova5ons, agricultural-‐tourism, heritage place-‐mapping, historical tourism, and a
strong heritage-‐based marke5ng and incen5ve programs.
9.7.3.10 De-‐Annexa?on
This strategy includes readjus5ng municipal boundaries to shrink infrastructure service areas and reduce
costs.
9.7.3.11 Decommission
A beneficial strategy as it will remove surplus public infrastructure and limit municipal services. This
reduces costs for maintaining infrastructure and providing services to developments that have been
abandoned.
9.7.3.12 Service Transfer

Transfer service responsibility to private en55es such as homeowner associa5ons. This puts the burden
of municipal services to the private sector to reduce municipal costs.
DRAFT – 2/20/12
9.7.3.13 Mi?ga?on
(re)connect’s framework and green infrastructure network maps can help ci5es and agencies achieve
tangible benefits from ecosystem services. The Plan has iden5fied the highest quality green
infrastructure lands where these are areas where environmental, social and economic impacts could be
offset.
Should mi5ga5on be a land-‐use planning op5on, (re)connect offers a mi5ga5on selec5on process which
will comply with regulatory requirements, but will also yield the greatest benefit for the overall green
infrastructure networks while remaining economically prudent given the proposed impacts from
poten5al developments.
Mi5ga5on can be project-‐specific or mul5ple project-‐based and can include ‘land banking’ strategies.
(re)connect does not recommend in-‐lieu fee or off-‐site mi5ga5on, especially for exis5ng wetlands or
aquifer recharge/discharge areas.
9.7.3.14 Hillside Zoning

If residen5al development should occur on hillsides, the density should be 5 acre minimum parcel size.
This retains visible viewsheds and reduces erosion impacts from tree removal.
9.7.3.15 Permeable Pavement

Permeable pavement comes in four forms: permeable concrete, permeable asphalt, permeable
interlocking concrete pavers, and grid pavers. Permeable concrete and asphalt are similar to their
impervious counterparts but are open graded or have reduced fines and typically have a special binder
added. Methods for pouring, secng, and curing these permeable pavements also differ from the
impervious versions. The concrete and grid pavers are modular systems. Concrete pavers are installed
with gaps between them that allow water to pass through to the base. Grid pavers are typically a
durable plas5c matrix that can be filled with gravel or vegeta5on. All of the permeable pavement
systems have an aggregate base in common which provides structural support, runoff storage, and
pollutant removal through filtering and adsorp5on. Aside from a rougher unfinished surface, permeable
concrete and asphalt look very similar to their impervious versions. Permeable concrete and asphalt and
certain permeable concrete pavers are ADA compliant.
Of all the green streets prac5ces, municipal DOTs have been arguably most cau5ous about
implemen5ng permeable pavements, though it should be noted that some DOTs have, for decades,
specified open-‐graded asphalt for low use roadways because of lower cost; to minimize vehicle
hydroplaning; and to reduce road noise. The re5cence to implement on a large-‐ scale, however, is
understandable given the lack of predictability and experience behind impervious pavements. However,
improved technology, new and ongoing research, and a growing number of pilot projects are dispelling
common myths about permeable pavements.
SIDEBAR
Permeable pavement roadways oUen raise concerns of safety, maintenance, and durability.
Municipali@es can replace impervious surfaces in other non-‐cri@cal areas such as sidewalks,
alleys, and municipal parking lots. These types of applica@ons help municipali@es build
experience and a market for the technology.
The greatest concern among DOT staff seems to be a perceived lack of long-‐term performance and
maintenance data. Universi5es and DOTs began experimen5ng with permeable pavements in parking
lots, maintenance yards, and pedestrian areas as early as twenty years ago in the U.S., even earlier in
DRAFT – 2/2012
Europe. There is now a wealth of data on permeable pavements successfully used for these purposes in
nearly every climate region of the country. In recent years, the ci5es of Portland, OR, SeaKle, WA, and
Waterford, CT and several private developments have constructed permeable pavement pilots within
the roadway with posi5ve results. SOURCE EPA Managing Wet Weather with Green Infrastructure
Municipal Handbook, EPA GREEN STREETS
Freeze/thaw and snow plows are the major concerns for permeable pavements in cold climate
communi5es. However, these concerns have proven to be generally unwarranted when appropriate
design and maintenance prac5ces are employed. A well designed permeable pavement structure will
always drain and never freeze solid. The air voids in the pavement allow plenty of space for moisture to
freeze and ice crystals to expand. Also, rapid drainage through the pavement eliminates the occurrence
of freezing puddles and black ice. Cold climate municipali5es will need to make adjustments to snow
plowing and deicing programs for permeable pavement areas. Snow plow blades must be raised enough
to prevent scraping the surface of permeable pavements, par5cularly paver systems. Also, sand should
not be applied.
Costs vary depending on material use, soil type, and size of the paved area. The some5mes higher cost
of construc5on is offset by the avoided costs of maintenance and sewer improvements that would have
been needed if the alleys were redesigned and resurfaced with impermeable pavement. In addi5on, the
cost of alterna5ve paving materials is decreasing as they become more common. The 2008 cost of
permeable concrete in Chicago is about $100 less per cubic yard than it was when the program began in
2006. Center for American Progress, It’s Easy Being Green: Chicago’s Alleys Get a Makeover, April
23,2008, available at hKp://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/04/green_alleys.html,
As residents experience environmental improvements in their neighborhood, awareness increases. In
addi5on, exposure to stormwater management increases the likelihood that residents will consider the
use of other complementary prac5ces such as rain barrels and rain gardens on their proper5es.
Enable a Permeable Pavement Retrofit Policy and Incen@ve Program

With so many paved surfaces in the urban environment, there are plenty of opportuni5es to retrofit
sidewalks, driveways, parking lots, plazas, roads, and alleys with permeable materials. Paved surfaces
fall into two categories from a retrofit policy perspec5ve: paved surfaces on private property and
publicly owned paved surfaces.
Publicly owned paved surfaces account for a large por5on of the impermeable cover in urban areas. The
City of Chicago, for example, has over 1,900 miles of alleys. Because many of these alleys were not built
with connec5ons to the combined or storm sewer system, stormwater pools on paved surfaces, ooen
flooding nearby garages and basements. Conscious Choice: Chicago’s Green Alley Program, March 2008,
available at hKp://www.consciouschoice.com/2008/03/commish0803.html,
Retrofit policies can gain greater community support when they directly address local needs or
concerns. For example, if water supply is a local concern, the infiltra5on capacity of green infrastructure
prac5ces to recharge groundwater and/or the benefits of rainwater harves5ng in conserving potable
water sources should be emphasized. If energy costs are a local concern, energy savings associated with
green roofs should be clearly communicated.
To date, green infrastructure retrofit policies have largely been driven by municipali5es’ immediate
regulatory concerns with CSOs and stormwater runoff. However, future programs to encourage retrofits
should capitalize more fully on the mul5ple benefits provided by green infrastructure. Each jurisdic5on
DRAFT – 2/20/12
has its own set of unique challenges and opportuni5es, and successful green infrastructure retrofit
policies capitalize on those opportuni5es to develop crea5ve and sustainable solu5ons.
9.7.3.16 Culvert Replacement

Many old culverts under roads don't allow migra5ng fish to pass through, and can cause flooding and
erosion during heavy rains. Replacing them with culverts designed to allow fish to pass through makes
more habitat accessible to na5ve fish It also restores a more natural stream flow that helps the
ecosystem and protects property.
9.7.3.17 Revegeta?on
Restoring na5ve plants and trees in natural areas and open spaces provides healthy habitat and beKer
water filtra5on. Revegeta5on makes urban forests more fire-‐resistant and beKer able to adapt to
climate changes. Regular natural area maintenance costs less than restoring degraded land, and creates
healthy natural areas for future genera5ons.
9.8 Funding Green Infrastructure in your Community

(re)connect has created a framework for advancing green infrastructure. But (re)connect’s
goals and the Wasatch Choice for 2040 ambi5ous objec5ves cannot and will not be
accomplished through occasional measures. What is needed now is a focused policy discussion
about implementa5on strategies equal to the scale of the proposed public investments.
(re)connect is a vital planning tool, not only to the region’s green infrastructure approach,
conserva5on efforts, and strategic land-‐use planning, but in the support of the other plans,
reports, and studies completed or currently underway. Yet in the Wasatch Front and other
regions of the United States, many projects do not get implemented. Despite well-‐researched
plans, clear economic, environmental, and social benefits, and growing public consensus,
stakeholders have failed to develop a consistent method for implementa5on.
Funding green infrastructure is a common obstacle. Though the lack of resources is a direct
indicator, inefficient collabora5on amongst myopic stakeholders poses the greatest threat to
green infrastructure funding and advancement. Plans, whether environmental, land-‐use, real-‐
estate or mul5-‐jurisdic5onal have focused on project needs rather than broader municipal and
regional objec5ves. As a result, projects have moved forward in a sporadic, disconnected way,
and many have languished for lack of funding.
IMAGE -‐ SIDEBAR___ “Recognizing the public benefits of green infrastructure is an important first
step in providing adequate funding” (from Land Conserva@on Financing, by McQueen & McMahon
pg. 143).
Securing adequate, sustainable sources of funding for green infrastructure presents a significant
challenge for towns and ci5es across the United States, and financial constraints frequently
hinder the implementa5on of effec5ve programs and prac5ces at the local level. This situa5on
is ooen especially true for green infrastructure approaches, not necessarily because they are
more expensive than tradi5onal management approaches (in fact ooen they are less
DRAFT – 2/2012
expensive), but because they do not necessarily fit exis5ng funding frameworks. In many cases,
green infrastructure is simply another item on the community “to-‐do” list that cannot be
addressed without developing alterna5ve funding mechanisms.
SIDEBAR “Engineered wetlands and other restora@on projects oUen fail to func@on as well as
their natural counterparts over the long term. Because green infrastructure provides
communi@es with an ecological framework, it is essen@al to iden@fy and protect cri@cal
ecological hubs and linkages in advance of development” ((from Land Conserva@on Financing, by
McQueen & McMahon p. 140).
Fortunately, a growing number of communi5es have overcome financial barriers with funding
strategies that are sustainable and effec5ve. Many communi5es pay for green infrastructure
projects by drawing from general funds, while others set up new fees, taxes and other directed
charges to help pay for public infrastructure repairs and improvements. Ooen, these fees are
applied to new development and other land use altera5ons and may appear as plan review and
permicng fees, or special assessment fees that discourage building in par5cular loca5ons – like
green fields – by exac5ng an addi5onal charge for projects located in sensi5ve areas. Some
communi5es are charging private proper5es a “fee-‐ in-‐lieu” of on-‐site water quality treatment,
wherein developers no longer implement on-‐site water quality treatment prac5ces, but instead
pay into a fund that the municipality can use to finance green infrastructure projects in priority
areas. Capital cost recovery fees, impact fees, and real estate taxes are further examples of the
many different ways that local governments are genera5ng reliable funding for green
infrastructure prac5ces that will result not only in beKer stormwater management, but in a
wide range of addi5onal community benefits as well.
SIDEBAR “Benefit for the public” is the best framework for conserva@on.” Fairbank, Maslin,
Maullin, Metz and Associates.
9.8.1 Four Phases of Funding Green Infrastructure in your Community
Funding green infrastructure in the Wasatch Front’s diverse municipali5es will require new
tools, new strategies and new sources of funding. Chapter 8 and the diagram below (RJL insert
diagram) outline a comprehensive strategy for funding green infrastructure, yet this topic is
worthy of further discussion. Specifically, municipal green infrastructure funding should follow
the diagram but also be separated into 4 dis5nct phases:
Phase 1 -‐ Exhibit Visionary Leadership

Coordinate internal capacity
Demonstrate public benefits
Promote external partnerships
Phase 2 -‐ Reconstruct Frameworks and Policies

Expand exis5ng conserva5on programs
DRAFT – 2/20/12
Realign developer incen5ves
Address fundamental barriers to green infrastructure
Phase 3 -‐ Leverage Exis5ng Assets

Reallocate capital resources
Strategically manage publicly-‐owned land and parklands
Rethink citywide ‘open space’ and lands
Phase 4 -‐ Obtain new Funding Sources

Leverage state and federal resources
Dedicate future city tax revenues
Embrace funding at a regional scale
9.8.1.1 Phase 1 -‐ Exhibit Visionary Leadership (Immediate Ac=on Required)

Coordinate Internal Capacity
Green infrastructure is a complex, interdisciplinary approach to development and
redevelopment that demands integrated, yet flexible decision-‐making capacity. (re)connect has
created a comprehensive framework for ac5on and a coordina5ng en5ty in the WFRC. This new
capacity should be leveraged to promote a green infrastructure agenda across relevant
departments, offices, and organiza5ons. Mul5ple city agencies have a stake in the (re)connect
green infrastructure agenda, and they must work together to meet its ambi5ous targets.
Linkages are essen5al, not only between green infrastructure hubs and cores, but also between
different agencies, community groups, and various stakeholders at various scales (state,
regional, community, parcel). For example, the na5on’s transporta5on system is conceived in a
holis5c, “systems thinking” approach, and is funded and maintained by various organiza5ons at
different scales—green infrastructure must have the same approach and support system.
Partnerships are key, as is linking the green infrastructure approach to on-‐going community
ini5a5ves.” (((from Land Conserva5on Financing, by McQueen & McMahon p. 140).
Demonstrate public benefits

Internal capacity-‐ building and external partnerships are means to an end; ul5mately,
they must produce tangible outcomes in the form of new community assets. (re)connect clearly
ar5culates public benefits. City leaders should make an effort to track cost-‐effec5veness and
catalog benefits of these investments, priori5zing projects with high-‐ profile and quan5fiable
returns in strategically targeted areas. Projects that provide recrea5onal opportuni5es are a
plus, contribu5ng addi5onal returns to civic life and helping to build grass roots, community-‐
level support for more widespread green infrastructure investment.
DRAFT – 2/2012
SIDEBAR Strategic placement of green infrastructure reduces the need for some grey infrastructure,
freeing up public funds for other community needs. For example, in the 1990s New York City avoided
the need to spend between $6 billion and $8 billion on new water filtra@on and treatment plants by
instead purchasing and protec@ng watershed land in the Catskill Mountains for about $1.5 billion
(from Land Conserva5on Financing, by McQueen & McMahon pg. 143).
Promote external partnerships

Funding rarely comes from one source. Leveraging an array of poten5ally available
external resources will require internal capacity-‐ building to be coupled with stronger linkages
with external stakeholders – State, quasi-‐ governmental, not-‐for-‐profit, philanthropic, private,
and community organiza5ons. Cobbling together such mul5-‐ins5tu5onal, cross-‐sector
partnerships takes 5me – sufficient aKen5on and resources should be devoted to the
rela5onship-‐ building process. The Wasatch Front’s ci5es can play many roles in this process:
advocate, catalyst, cajoler, facilitator, and funder. Ooen, all a project needs is an imprimatur of
public support. In any case, the mutual trust that can be built is a new form of capital with
las5ng benefits.
Collabora5ve planning efforts around the country have shown great poten5al for posi5ve
outcomes for all en55es. (re)connect provides a framework to integrate municipal policy
updates, long-‐range transporta5on planning, strategic land-‐use decision making, and
environmental conserva5on. The tradi5onal approach to these planning ac5ons ooen invites
conflict and lawsuits at the back end because there is not enough up-‐front planning to address
issues before a par5cular project or course of ac5on has been selected. (Source -‐ the funders
network -‐ Ways that funders can make a difference).
Not only does the tradi5onal project-‐by-‐project approval process slow down delivery, it also
results in a piecemeal approach to environmental conserva5on that does not address the
cumula5ve impacts of projects and contributes liKle to the overall green infrastructure
network. An integrated mapping and comprehensive planning effort involving all stakeholders
is the key to con5nued quality of life and benefits provided by the Wasatch Front’s green
infrastructure networks. It will be important that municipali5es iden5fy and contact
counterparts in federal agencies to not only learn about their projects and efforts, but to also
develop an understanding of their knowledge and exper5se.
9.8.1.2 Phase 2 -‐ Reconstruct Frameworks and Policies (Ac=on Required in 6 months -‐ 1 year)
City policies set the tone for future development. Best prac5ces across the na5on use zoning
and tax codes as cri5cal tools to spur private investment. Yet many of the Wasatch Front
municipali5es’ zoning codes and tax assessments are labyrinthine, burdensome, and out of line
with 21st century standards. Reforming the structures within which future development will
occur is a prerequisite for achieving (re)connect and Wasatch Choices for 2040 targets, and an
essen5al step in promo5ng future economic compe55veness.
DRAFT – 2/20/12
Progress is being made. For example, the ongoing work of the Zoning Code Commission and
Task Force on Tax Policy and Economic Compe55veness promises to clear a path for reform.
But more must be done to restructure other uncompe55ve policies and programs that, as
presently cons5tuted, are impediments to implemen5ng green infrastructure and ensuring its
development is incorporated into broader city objec5ves.
City leaders should work to iden5fy these ongoing impediments and target opportuni5es to:
Expand exis5ng conserva5on programs
Exis5ng green incen5ve programs are ooen liKle known, limited in scope, and easily
subverted. For example, a common mechanism is the “Street Tree Fund” -‐ an in-‐lieu fee
imposed on developers based on a predetermined schedule of street trees to be planted for a
par5cular project. For every tree actually planted, a por5on of the fee is refunded. Forfeited
funds are then used to support other public tree plan5ng ini5a5ves. In the short term, city
leaders should consider scaling up these types of programs and evalua5ng its pay schedule to
determine whether it is providing an adequate private incen5ve. Over 5me, ci5es also could
consider a broader developer exac5on to create an addi5onal resource for green infrastructure
ini5a5ves.
Realign developer incen5ves

The Zoning Code Commission’s work is well underway, and green infrastructure
objec5ves will be represented in its final recommenda5ons. Although private real estate
markets already demand green development, City leaders should evaluate poten5al benefits of
new incen5ves, such as expanding the property tax abatement with addi5onal years for
mee5ng green building standards, and modest floor area ra5o bonuses for green infrastructure
elements that exceed current prac5ce. The new code should also promote green infrastructure
in the non-‐built environment, through incen5ves for the crea5on of green infrastructure
network lands conserva5on or trails, local food access and produc5on, and street tree plan5ng,
while removing exis5ng requirements for impervious surfaces. Finally, the new code should
reflect “above code” guidelines that instruct the long-‐ term trajectory of green infrastructure
investments.
SIDEBAR -‐ “Funding for green infrastructure should be included in a government’s annual budget,
as are roads, sewers, and other public works. Many states and communi@es have begun using
conven@onal mechanisms to finance green infrastructure projects—including bond referenda, real
estate transfer taxes, dedicated development fees, and direct budgetary line items” (from Land
Conserva5on Financing, by McQueen & McMahon pg. 135).
Address fundamental barriers to green infrastructure

For good reason, Wasatch Front leaders have been slow to embrace tax-‐increment
financing (TIF) for public infrastructure. Sporadic and unreliable assessment prac5ces limit
incremental growth of a city’s property tax base and therefore the capitaliza5on of a TIF fund.
As a result, TIF has primarily been used on a project-‐by-‐project basis. But the district-‐based
approach has many poten5al benefits, and has been employed by other ci5es, such as Chicago,
to fund a variety of green infrastructure projects. City leaders should embrace the district-‐based
approach and address fundamental public policy impediments.
DRAFT – 2/2012
9.8.1.3 Phase 3 -‐ Leverage Exis=ng Assets (ac=on required in 1 year to 2 years)
Visionary leadership and structural reforms will pave the way for more strategic u5liza5on of a
city’s exis5ng monetary and non-‐monetary assets. Granted, the impediments are significant:
capital funds are spread thin by vast need and limited by a likely already high debt burden,
while the value of infrastructure has depreciated due to a general state of disrepair.
And yet, strategic opportuni5es do exist. Ci5es spend millions each year on infrastructure
repair. Millions more go unspent. Short of new funding, city leaders should evaluate
opportuni5es to piggyback off Water Department ini5a5ves to reposi5on public assets as green
infrastructure, which has been shown elsewhere to be a more cost-‐effec5ve alterna5ve for
redevelopment.
Specifically, City leaders should begin planning now for opportuni5es to:
Reallocate capital resources

Capital resources are understandably scarce, but could be used more prudently.
Non-‐allocated capital funds are par5ally directed to regional districts. However, a por5on goes
unspent each year. City leaders should act now to end this prac5ce of “hoarding” capital
resources, which unnecessarily limits annual capital investment, and require that resources be
invested within a predetermined 5me period. Unspent capital funds should be recycled back
into the capital budget process, with (re)connect’s green infrastructure network as a strategic
framework for realloca5on.
Strategically manage publicly-‐owned land and parklands

The proposed stormwater alloca5on fee, while revenue neutral to the municipal Water
Department, promises to incen5vize one of the largest investments ever in greening the
Wasatch Front’s privately owned impervious surfaces. But large swaths of underu5lized and
impervious publicly owned land will be unaffected by this change. City leaders should work to
ensure green infrastructure objec5ves are reflected in new plans, and partner with their Water
Department to incorporate its green infrastructure ini5a5ves wherever appropriate.
Rethink citywide ‘open space’ and lands

A city’s Department of Parks and Recrea5on or similar may be able to recognize and
leverage the array of poten5al green infrastructure assets already under public control. City
leaders should use this opportunity to evaluate the revenue-‐genera5ng poten5al of the
Wasatch Front’s widespread landscape, including appropriately structured user fees on golf
courses, parking, and other facili5es. Mee5ng this aggressive goal will require municipal leaders
to find efficiencies among its exis5ng assets to provide new community assets without
expensive parcel acquisi5on – for example, through a partnership with the School District to
green schoolyards.
9.8.1.4 Phase 4 -‐ Obtain new Funding Sources (ac=on required in 2 years to 5 years)
True reorganiza5on ul5mately will require new resources. Especially in the prevailing economic
climate, dedica5ng taxes and expanding pools of funding for green infrastructure would be
imprac5cal and inappropriate. But of course, economic condi5ons will improve, and new
funding opportuni5es will emerge. In the mean5me, City leaders should focus on its sources of
DRAFT – 2/20/12
leverage, while keeping an eye towards future windows of opportunity to develop a new local
and regional funding base for green infrastructure.
Specifically, City leaders should be looking ahead for opportuni5es to:
Leverage State and Federal Resources
If nothing else, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) illustrates the
value of proac5ve prepara5on at a local level. The legisla5on’s general “shovel-‐ready” criterion
requires swio implementa5on, rewarding proac5ve ci5es with ready-‐to-‐go projects and
punishing reac5ve ci5es that waited for funding to materialize. With ARRA as a lesson, City
leaders should begin working now to prepare for increasingly likely future federal and state
policy developments, including those specific to green infrastructure. At the federal level, cap-‐
and-‐trade, carbon markets, and infrastructure banks could provide powerful new incen5ves
and funding for green infrastructure. At the state level, diverse agendas will provide a new
round of dedicated funding for green infrastructure, and an impetus for ac5on to protect
regional green infrastructure assets. Fully leveraging these opportuni5es will require local
resources, in the form of planning, ready-‐to-‐go projects and, in some cases, matching funds. In
the end, those that are prepared will reap the benefits – those that wait will lose out.
Dedicate future city tax revenues
Rather than subject important civic objec5ves to the regular budget appropria5on
process, many ci5es with a green infrastructure agenda have elected to create a dedicated
funding stream. The advantages of this approach are two-‐fold: 1) While this funding stream
remains subject to economic cycles, it effec5vely becomes removed from the vagaries of
poli5cal decision-‐making, thereby crea5ng a more reliable revenue source; and 2) The resul5ng
predictability allows leaders to plan projects and leverage other funding sources accordingly.
Prevailing economic condi5ons may preclude such an immediate investment, yet economic
condi5ons will improve. Wasatch Front ci5es should begin planning now for an inevitable
period of renewed economic strength, and look towards (re)connect’s funding strategies and
planning objec5ves as models for crea5ng a pool of dedicated funding.
Embrace funding at a regional scale
Watersheds, greenways, parks, and open space are not just city assets. They benefit
en5re regions, irrespec5ve of jurisdic5onal boundaries. In recogni5on of this reality, many
regions, such as the region surrounding St. Louis, have approved mul5-‐city and county funding
sources to implement regional green infrastructure ini5a5ves. In the past, struggles with
fragmented governance have constrained such an approach in the Wasatch Front. But leaders
are beginning to understand the value of collabora5ng towards shared regional objec5ves.
Ul5mately, ins5tu5onalizing regional collabora5on may require shared funding. To this end,
City leaders should con5nue to promote regional collabora5on and advocate for state-‐enabling
legisla5on to create mul5-‐jurisdic5onal funding authori5es. Such “regional districts” would
allow for new investments in regional assets. Of course, buying into such a shared funding
model would require significant poli5cal will. Wasatch Front ci5es could provide leadership and
coax par5cipa5on by seeding a regional asset district with dedicated funds, and allow
surrounding coun5es to buy into the district with funds of their own.
DRAFT – 2/2012
9.8.2 Green Infrastructure Funding -‐ A Shib in Perspec=ve
Poten5al economic, environmental, and social benefits have not compelled a fundamental shio in how
most ci5es invest in their infrastructure (SORUCE TPL). New projects rely on tradi5onal gray approaches
and treat green design as aKrac5ve but superfluous. For this reason, green infrastructure projects are
addressed sporadically and in an ad hoc way. For the Wasatch Front, it is one thing to develop “green”
plans – it is another to implement them. The achievement of (re)connect’s goals will require a change in
mindset that establishes green infrastructure development as a core goal for ci5es. Investments must be
ins5tu5onalized in the same way as tradi5onal gray infrastructure. Funding for green infrastructure
cannot be the excep5on – it must become part of the rule.
9.9 Maximizing Green Infrastructure Funding Opportuni=es and Funding Strategies

Achieving (re)connect’s green infrastructure goals will require an expanded pool of resources.
In an era of increasing fiscal constraint, this will be a challenge. With en5tlements such as
pension costs and impera5ves such as public safety swallowing a larger por5on of its budget, a
city’s capacity to devote significant resources towards the environment is limited.
Tradi5onal financing mechanisms will be insufficient to achieve (re)connect’s planning
objec5ves. More widespread implementa5on will require crea5ve approaches that link limited
exis5ng funds with innova5ve financing techniques to create new and expanded pools of
funding. These revenue streams must be incorporated into a rou5ne investment strategy
designed to meet ongoing funding needs.
The Wasatch Front’s municipali5es must play a central role in this process, although the city’s
posi5on need not always be as funder. In many cases, the city can facilitate or incen5vize
private investments. Doing so requires the ability to be an ac5ve and effec5ve collaborator with
private interests. The first step is to assert green infrastructure as a top priority across all
relevant agencies and throughout the development process.
While private support can fill a void, public resources cannot be replaced. There are three
general ways for a city to tap into its powers and resources to create and expand pools of public
funding:
Broaden use of public funding sources

Leverage access to low-‐cost capital
Tap market incen5ves
The most straighworward way to generate addi5onal resources is to tap into new streams of
public funding. Tradi5onally, addi5onal funds have been made available through
intergovernmental transfers (grants) or increased local taxes and fees. In a fiscally constrained
environment, the availability of tradi5onal funding mechanisms will be limited. Grant programs
are increasingly compe55ve, and taxes and fees promise to be poli5cally unpopular. Innova5ve
alterna5ves offer another way.
The following list outlines tradi5onal and new, innova5ve public funding resources and tools to
plan and implement green infrastructure in your community:
DRAFT – 2/20/12
9.9.1 Federal Green Infrastructure Funding Opportuni+es
Conserva5on Reserve Program (CRP)
Forest Legacy Program
Na5onal Park Service Rivers, Trails & Conserva5on Assistance (Rivers & Trails)
Partners for Fish and Wildlife
Forest Land Enhancement Program and the Stewardship Incen5ves Program (SIP)
Transporta5on Equity Act for the 21st Century, (TEA 21)
Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act
Community Development Block Grants (CDBG)
The Na5onal Resources Conserva5on Service (NRCS)
Conserva@on of Private Grazing Land Ini@a@ve (CPGL)
Conserva@on Reserve Program (CRP)
Conserva@on Technical Assistance (CTA)
Environmental Quality Incen@ves Program (EQIP)
EPA Center for Environmental Finance (CEF)
Farmland Protec@on Program (FPP) and Farmland Protec@on Policy Act (FPPA)
Flood Risk Reduc@on Program (FRR)
Forestry Incen@ves Program (FIP)
Resource Conserva@on & Development Program (RC&D)
Reforesta@on Tax Credit
Rural Abandoned Mine Program (RAMP)
Watershed Surveys and Planning
Watersheds Opera@ons -‐-‐Small Watershed Program and Flood Preven@on Program
Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP)
Wildlife Habitat Incen@ves Program (WHIP)
9.9.2 State Green Infrastructure Funding Opportuni+es

Agricultural Protec5on Areas
The Agriculture Resource Development Loan (ARDL)
Ducks Unlimited Wetland Ini5a5ve
LeRay McAllister Cri5cal Land Conserva5on Fund
Non-‐point Source implementa5on Grants, Sec5on 319 (319 Program)
Riverway Enhancement Matching Grants
Transporta5on Enhancement Funds
Utah DWR Urban Fisheries
Utah Reclama5on Mi5ga5on and Conserva5on Commission
Water Conserva5on Field Services Program
DRAFT – 2/2012
Wetland Mi5ga5on Banking
Wetlands Program Development Grants Sec5on 104(b)(3)

Land Banks
Water Fund
Tax Increment Financing (e.g. Roll-‐Back Taxes, Green Infrastructure Sales Tax)
Rededica5ng Future Tax Revenues
Impact Fees
Development Fees
Conserva@on Fees
Stormwater Fees
Real Estate Transfer Fee
Special Assessment Fees
Green Infrastructure Bonds and Mini-‐Bonds
Fee-‐in-‐Lieu Program
State Revolving Fund Loan Program (SRF) per DEQ
Green Infrastructure Incen5ve Programs (e.g. Street Tree or Green Street Fund)
Green Infrastructure Tax Benefits
Special Service Districts???
Municipal Budget Revisions
Land Dona5on Programs

9.9.4 Priva+zed Green Infrastructure Funding Opportuni+es
Charitable founda5ons and philanthropic organiza5ons
The Nature Conservancy, The Trust for Public land, The Conserva@on Fund, Land Trusts ,
Trout Unlimited, The Rocky Mountain Elk Founda@on, Utah Open Lands, Ducks Unlimited,
Rails to Trails Conservancy, Utah Partners for Conserva@on and Development
The George S. and Dolores Doré Eccles Founda5on

Preserva@on and Conserva@on Ini@a@ve
Utah Green Infrastructure Communi5es Ini5a5ve per CGID
Local Corpora5on Partnerships and Dona5ons
9.9.5 Federal and State Green Infrastructure Funding Opportuni+es in Detail
FEDERAL PROGRAMS
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)

CRP, a federal Farm Bill program, encourages farmers to convert highly erodible cropland or other
environmentally sensi5ve acreage to vegeta5ve cover, such as na5ve grasses and wildlife plan5ngs.
DRAFT – 2/20/12
Farmers receive an annual rental payment for the term of the mul5-‐year contract. Cost sharing is
provided to establish the na5ve vegeta5ve cover prac5ces. CRP is administered by the USDA Farm
Service Agency.
Continuous CRP Sign-up

The con5nuous CRP Sign-‐up, a federal Farm Bill program, helps landowners install conserva5on buffers
along streams and waterways. The program applies to cropland, as well as overgrazed, eroded pasture
along streams, lakes, and permanent wetlands. The program offers cost-‐sharing for conserva5on
prac5ce installa5on and annual rental payment. The program is administered by the USDA Farm Service
Agency.
Forest Legacy Program (State and Federal)

Managed by the Forest Service's State and Private Forestry Office, the Forest Legacy Program is
intended to iden5fy and protect environmentally important forest lands that are threatened by present
and future conversion to non-‐forest uses, such as residen5al subdivisions, commercial development,
pasture, cul5vated farmland, and mining. To assure that both the tradi5onal uses of private land and the
public values of America's forest resources are protected for future genera5ons, the Forest Legacy
Program assists with the purchase of conserva5on easements and, in limited cases, fee 5tle acquisi5ons
which allow private forest landowners to maintain their lands as "working forests."
National Park Service Rivers, Trails & Conservation Assistance (Rivers & Trails)
Each year, Rivers & Trails helps local groups with over 200 locally-‐led conserva5on projects-‐ like
developing trails and greenways or protec5ng rivers and open space -‐-‐ across the country. RTCA can
provide staff for short consulta5ons or longer assistance programs-‐-‐Typically, working with local groups
for one to three years, just long enough to build momentum so that the local groups can finish the
project on their own. This past year, they helped Riverton develop an eight-‐mile greenway along the
Jordan River. Website: hKp://www.ncrc.nps.gov/index.html
Partners for Fish and Wildlife

Partners for Fish and Wildlife provides cost-‐share dollars to farmers and ranchers interested in
increasing produc5on while improving wildlife habitat, This private lands program provides funding
through cost-‐share agreements for 10-‐30 years for both uplands and wetlands. Projects can include
fencing, water development, re-‐establishment of riparian habitat, installa5on of water control
structures and others. The program is administered by the US Fish and Wildlife Service.
Stewardship Incentives Program (SIP)

The Stewardship Incen5ve Program of the US Forest Service provides technical and financial assistance
to encourage non-‐industrial private forest landowners to keep their lands and natural resources
produc5ve and healthy. Qualifying land includes rural lands with exis5ng tree cover or land suitable for
growing trees and which is owned by a private individual, group, associa5on, corpora5on, Indian tribe,
or other legal private en5ty. Eligible landowners must have an approved Forest Stewardship Plan and
own 1,000 or fewer acres of qualifying land. Authoriza5ons may be obtained for excep5ons of up to
5,000 acres.
NOTE : This program was consolidated into the Forest Land Enhancement Program.
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, (TEA 21)

Transporta5on enhancements (TE) are transporta5on-‐related ac5vi5es that are designed to strengthen
the cultural, aesthe5c, and environmental aspects of our na5on’s intermodal transporta5on system. The
TEA-‐21 (formerly ISTEA) program provides for the implementa5on of a variety of non-‐tradi5onal
projects but requires that ac5vi5es must relate to surface transporta5on. The expanded defini5on of
DRAFT – 2/2012
transporta5on enhancements eligibili5es includes safety and educa5onal ac5vi5es for pedestrians and
bicyclists; scenic or historic highway programs; environmental mi5ga5on to address water pollu5on due
to highway runoff; reducing vehicle-‐caused wild-‐life mortality while maintaining habitat connec5vity;
establishment of transporta5on museums Encourages use of qualified youth conserva5on or service
corps to perform appropriate TE ac5vi5es. Website: hKp://www.•wa.dot.gov/tea21/index.htm
Wetland Mitigation Banking

Wetland Mi5ga5on Banking is allowed under the Clean Water Act (Environmental Protec5on Agency,
EPA and Army Corps of Engineers, ACOE). Federal law requires that unavoidable impacts to wetlands
from development must be mi5gated. Mi5ga5on Banking allows a developer who impacts a wetland to
buy "credits" from a mi5ga5on bank. A mi5ga5on bank has the advantage of consolida5ng numerous,
fragmented wetlands projects into one large con5guous site. Mi5ga5on Banking can bring together
financial, planning, and scien5fic resources to increase the poten5al for successful establishment and
long-‐term management of mi5ga5on that will maximize biodiversity and watershed func5ons.
Florida is perhaps the most advanced of any state in its use and encouragement of wetland mi5ga5on
banking and has allowed similar projects for years. The state's water management districts administer
the program.
Salt Lake County completed the first Advance Iden5fica5on of Wetlands in EPA's Region VIII in 1986.
About 2,000 acres of wetlands were iden5fied along the Jordan River between 2100 South and the Utah
County boundary. Subsequently, the County was able to include these wetlands in the CUP
Reauthoriza5on Act for future acquisi5on. Of the acreage iden5fied, about 1,000 acres possess
func5onal values considered cri5cal enough to merit acquisi5on for long term conserva5on.
FEDERAL PROGRAMS -‐ THE NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE (NRCS)
Conservation of Private Grazing Land Initiative (CPGL)

Contact: USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service
The Conserva5on of Private Grazing Land ini5a5ve will ensure that technical, educa5onal, and related
assistance is provided to those who own private grazing lands. It is not a cost share program. This
technical assistance will offer opportuni5es for: beKer grazing land management; protec5ng soil from
erosive wind and water; using more energy-‐efficient ways to produce food and fiber; conserving water;
providing habitat for wildlife; sustaining forage and grazing plants; using plants to sequester greenhouse
gases and increase soil organic maKer; and using grazing lands as a source of biomass energy and raw
materials for industrial products. More informa5on can be found at the Grazing Lands Technology
Ins5tute.
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)

Contact: USDA, Farm Service Agency
The Conserva5on Reserve Program reduces soil erosion, protects the Na5on's ability to produce food
and fiber, reduces sedimenta5on in streams and lakes, improves water quality, establishes wildlife
habitat, and enhances forest and wetland resources. It encourages farmers to convert highly erodible
cropland or other environmentally sensi5ve acreage to vegeta5ve cover, such as tame or na5ve grasses,
wildlife plan5ngs, trees, filterstrips, or riparian buffers. Farmers receive an annual rental payment for
the term of the mul5-‐year contract. Cost sharing is provided to establish the vegeta5ve cover prac5ces.
Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA)

DRAFT – 2/20/12
The purpose of the program is to assist land-‐users, communi5es, units of state and local government,
and other Federal agencies in planning and implemen5ng conserva5on systems. The purpose of the
conserva5on systems are to reduce erosion, improve soil and water quality, improve and conserve
wetlands, enhance fish and wildlife habitat, improve air quality, improve pasture and range condi5on,
reduce upstream flooding, and improve woodlands.
Objec5ves of the program are to:

1. Assist individual land users, communi5es, conserva5on districts, and other units of State and local
government and Federal agencies to meet their goals for resource stewardship and assist individuals to
comply with State and local requirements. NRCS assistance to individuals is provided through
conserva5on districts in accordance with the memorandum of understanding signed by the Secretary of
Agriculture, the governor of the state, and the conserva5on district. Assistance is provided to land users
voluntarily applying conserva5on and to those who must comply with local or State laws and
regula5ons.
2. Assist agricultural producers to comply with the highly erodible land (HEL) and wetland
(Swampbuster) provisions of the 1985 Food Security Act as amended by the Food, Agriculture,
Conserva5on and Trade Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 3801 et. seq.) and the Federal Agriculture Improvement
and Reform Act of 1996 and wetlands requirements of Sec5on 404 of the Clean Water Act. NRCS makes
HEL and wetland determina5ons and helps land users develop and implement conserva5on plans to
comply with the law.
3. Provide technical assistance to par5cipants in USDA cost-‐share and conserva5on incen5ve programs.
(Assistance is funded on a reimbursable basis from the CCC.)
4. Collect, analyze, interpret, display, and disseminate informa5on about the condi5on and trends of the
Na5on’s soil and other natural resources so that people can make good decisions about resource use
and about public policies for resource conserva5on.
5. Develop effec5ve science-‐based technologies for natural resource assessment, management, and
conserva5on.
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)

The Environmental Quality Incen5ves Program provides technical, educa5onal, and financial assistance
to eligible farmers and ranchers to address soil, water, and related natural resource concerns on their
lands in an environmentally beneficial and cost-‐effec5ve manner. The program provides assistance to
farmers and ranchers in complying with Federal, State, and tribal environmental laws, and encourages
environmental enhancement. The program is funded through the Commodity Credit Corpora5on. The
purposes of the program are achieved through the implementa5on of a conserva5on plan which
includes structural, vegeta5ve, and land management prac5ces on eligible land. Five-‐ to ten-‐year
contracts are made with eligible producers. Cost-‐share payments may be made to implement one or
more eligible structural or vegeta5ve prac5ces, such as animal waste management facili5es, terraces,
filter strips, tree plan5ng, and permanent wildlife habitat. Incen5ve payments can be made to
implement one or more land management prac5ces, such as nutrient management, pest management,
and grazing land management.
Fioy percent of the funding available for the program will be targeted at natural resource concerns
rela5ng to livestock produc5on. The program is carried-‐out primarily in priority areas that may be
DRAFT – 2/2012
watersheds, regions, or mul5-‐state areas, and for significant statewide natural resource concerns that
are outside of geographic priority areas.
Farmland Protection Program (FPP)

The Farmland Protec5on Program provides funds to help purchase development rights to keep
produc5ve farmland in agricultural uses. Working through exis5ng programs, USDA joins with State,
tribal, or local governments to acquire conserva5on easements or other interests from landowners.
USDA provides up to 50 percent of the fair market easement value. To qualify, farmland must: be part of
a pending offer from a State, tribe, or local farmland protec5on program; be privately owned; have a
conserva5on plan; be large enough to sustain agricultural produc5on; be accessible to markets for what
the land produces; have adequate infrastructure and agricultural support services; and have
surrounding parcels of land that can support long-‐term agricultural produc5on. Depending on funding
availability, proposals must be submiKed by the government en55es to the appropriate NRCS State
Office during the applica5on window.For addi5onal informa5on, see our Farm Bill page.
Flood Risk Reduction Program (FRR)

Contact: USDA, Farm Service Agency, NRCS
The Flood Risk Reduc5on Program was established to allow farmers who voluntarily enter into contracts
to receive payments on lands with high flood poten5al. In return, par5cipants agree to forego certain
USDA program benefits. These contract payments provide incen5ves to move farming opera5ons from
frequently flooded land.
Forestry Incentives Program (FIP)

The Forestry Incen5ves Program (FIP) supports good forest management prac5ces on privately owned,
non-‐industrial forest lands na5onwide. FIP is designed to benefit the environment while mee5ng future
demands for wood products. Eligible prac5ces are tree plan5ng, 5mber stand improvement, site
prepara5on for natural regenera5on, and other related ac5vi5es. FIP is available in coun5es designated
by a Forest Service survey of eligible private 5mber acreage.
Resource Conservation & Development Program (RC&D)

The purpose of the Resource Conserva5on and Development (RC&D) program is to accelerate the
conserva5on, development and u5liza5on of natural resources, improve the general level of economic
ac5vity, and to enhance the environment and standard of living in authorized RC&D areas. It improves
the capability of State, tribal and local units of government and local nonprofit organiza5ons in rural
areas to plan, develop and carry out programs for resource conserva5on and development. The program
also establishes or improves coordina5on systems in rural areas. Current program objec5ves focus on
improvement of quality of life achieved through natural resources conserva5on and community
development which leads to sustainable communi5es, prudent use (development), and the
management and conserva5on of natural resources. Authorized RC&D areas are locally sponsored areas
designated by the Secretary of Agriculture for RC&D technical and financial assistance program funds.
NRCS can provide grants for land conserva5on, water management, community development, and
environmental needs in authorized RC&D areas.
Rural Abandoned Mine Program (RAMP)

RAMP is authorized by Sec5on 406 of the Surface Mining Control and Reclama5on Act (SMCRA) of 1977
as amended by the "Abandoned Mine Reclama5on Act of 1991" as sub5tled under the Budget
DRAFT – 2/20/12
Reconcilia5on Act (PL-‐101-‐508). It is authorized for the purpose of reclaiming the soil and water
resources of rural lands adversely affected by past coal mining prac5ces. There were approximately 1.1
million acres of abandoned coal-‐mined land needing reclama5on in 1977. The U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conserva5on Service (NRCS), formally the Soil Conserva5on
Service (SCS) administers the program, and funding is provided from money deposited in the Abandoned
Mine Reclama5on Fund. The program provides technical and financial assistance to land users who
voluntarily enter into 5-‐ to 10-‐year contracts for reclama5on of up to 320 acres of eligible abandoned
coal-‐mined lands and waters. The land user with NRCS technical assistance involved prepares a
reclama5on plan.
All ac5ve coal mining operators pay into the Abandoned Mine Reclama5on fund at a rate of 35 cents per
ton of coal produced from surface mining and 15 cents per ton of coal produced by underground
mining. The fees are deposited in the interest-‐bearing fund, which is used to pay reclama5on costs of
AML projects. Expenditures from the fund are authorized through the regular congressional budgetary
and appropria5ons process.
Watershed Surveys and Planning

The Watershed and Flood Preven5on Act, P.L. 83-‐566, August 4, 1954, (16 U.S.C. 1001-‐1008) authorized
this program. Prior to fiscal year 1996, small watershed planning ac5vi5es and the coopera5ve river
basin surveys and inves5ga5ons authorized by Sec5on 6 of the Act were operated as separate programs.
The 1996 appropria5ons act combined the ac5vi5es into a single program en5tled the Watershed
Surveys and Planning program. Ac5vi5es under both programs are con5nuing under this authority.
The purpose of the program is to assist Federal, State, and local agencies and tribal governments to
protect watersheds from damage caused by erosion, floodwater, and sediment and to conserve and
develop water and land resources. Resource concerns addressed by the program include water quality,
opportuni5es for water conserva5on, wetland and water storage capacity, agricultural drought
problems, rural development, municipal and industrial water needs, upstream flood damages, and
water needs for fish, wildlife, and forest-‐based industries.
Types of surveys and plans include watershed plans, river basin surveys and studies, flood hazard
analyses, and flood plain management assistance. The focus of these plans is to iden5fy solu5ons that
use land treatment and nonstructural measures to solve resource problems.
Watersheds Operations --Small Watershed Program and Flood Prevention Program (WF 08
or FP 03)
The Small Watershed Program works through local government sponsors and helps par5cipants solve
natural resource and related economic problems on a watershed basis. Projects include watershed
protec5on, flood preven5on, erosion and sediment control, water supply, water quality, fish and wildlife
habitat enhancement, wetlands crea5on and restora5on, and public recrea5on in watersheds of
250,000 or fewer acres. Both technical and financial assistance are available.
Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP)
The Wetlands Reserve Program is a voluntary program to restore wetlands. Par5cipa5ng landowners
can establish conserva5on easements of either permanent or 30-‐year dura5on, or can enter into
restora5on cost-‐share agreements where no easement is involved. In exchange for establishing a
permanent easement, the landowner receives payment up to the agricultural value of the land and 100
percent of the restora5on costs for restoring the wetlands The 30-‐year easement payment is 75 percent
DRAFT – 2/2012
of what would be provided for a permanent easement on the same site and 75 percent of the
restora5on cost. The voluntary agreements are for a minimum 10-‐year dura5on and provide for 75
percent of the cost of restoring the involved wetlands. Easements and restora5on cost-‐share
agreements establish wetland protec5on and restora5on as the primary land use for the dura5on of the
easement or agreement. In all instances, landowners con5nue to control access to their land.
Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP)

The Wildlife Habitat Incen5ves Program provides financial incen5ves to develop habitat for fish and
wildlife on private lands. Par5cipants agree to implement a wildlife habitat development plan and USDA
agrees to provide cost-‐share assistance for the ini5al implementa5on of wildlife habitat development
prac5ces. USDA and program par5cipants enter into a cost-‐share agreement for wildlife habitat
development. This agreement generally lasts a minimum of 10 years from the date that the contract is
signed.For addi5onal informa5on, see our Farm Bill page.
STATE OF UTAH and REGIONAL PROGRAMS
Agricultural Protection Areas

Utah Statute allows for the establishment of Agricultural Protec5on areas under 17-‐41-‐101. An
Agricultural Protec5on Area (APA) is formed when a group of agricultural producers in a con5guous
geographic area pe55on county government to create the area. The benefits of placing land in an
agricultural protec5on area include relieving farmers of nuisance complaints from surrounding
development.
The Agriculture Resource Development Loan (ARDL)

The Agriculture Resource Development Loan (ARDL) is a $27 million revolving fund that provides low
interest (3 percent) loans for projects with a conserva5on benefit. The goal of this state program is to
help landowners conserve soil and water, increase yields, maintain and improve water quality, conserve
and improve wildlife habitat, prevent flooding, develop on-‐farm energy projects and mi5gate damages
caused by natural disasters. A one-‐5me 4 percent administra5ve fee is charged.

Managed by the Forest Service's State and Private Forestry Office, the Forest Legacy Program is
intended to iden5fy and protect environmentally important forest lands that are threatened by present
and future conversion to non-‐forest uses, such as residen5al subdivisions, commercial development,
pasture, cul5vated farmland, and mining. To assure that both the tradi5onal uses of private land and the
public values of America's forest resources are protected for future genera5ons, the Forest Legacy
Program assists with the purchase of conserva5on easements and, in limited cases, fee 5tle acquisi5ons
which allow private forest landowners to maintain their lands as "working forests."
Land and Water Conserva=on Fund (LWCF)

The LWCF Program provides matching grants to States and local governments for the acquisi5on and
development of public outdoor recrea5on areas and facili5es (as well as funding for shared federal land
acquisi5on and conserva5on strategies). The program is intended to create and maintain a na5onwide
legacy of high quality recrea5on areas and facili5es and to s5mulate non-‐federal investments in the
protec5on and maintenance of recrea5on resources across the United States.
LeRay McAllister Critical Land Conservation Fund
DRAFT – 2/20/12
This fund, administered by the by the Utah Quality Commission provides close to $2 million yearly to
preserve or restore cri5cal lands and agricultural lands. Applicants must provide matching funds equal to
or greater than the amount of money received from the Fund and purchases of fee 5tle to land may not
exceed 20 acres, but purchases of conserva5on easements or restora5on projects are exempt from this
restric5on. Website: www.governor.state.ut.us/quality/Funding/Land_Conserva5on/
land_conserva5on.htm
The Nature Conservancy

The Nature Conservancy of Utah helps conserve private and public lands of significant o preserve the
plants, animals and natural communi5es by protec5ng the lands and waters they need to survive
Working primarily with conserva5on easements on a willing buyer-‐willing seller basis, they seek parcels
of outstanding ecological values for preserva5on or restora5on. TNC’s Utah Chapter has focused
extensively on the Great Salt Lake Ecosystem, including the lake and all its tributaries (including the
Jordan River) and their associated wetlands. Website: www.nature.org
Non-point Source implementation Grants, Section 319 (319 Program)

The 319 Program provides formula grants to the states to implement non-‐point projects and programs
in accordance with Sec5on 319 of the Clean Water Act. Formula grants are awarded to a lead agency in
each state. States and local organiza5ons are required to provide 40 percent of the total project or
program cost. This EPA program is administered by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality.
Rails to Trails Conservancy

Through its Trail Conservancy program, this organiza5on has the ability to actually acquire and own
corridors or acquire corridors on behalf of third par5es. The goal of the Trail Conservancy is to rescue
excep5onal tracts of railroad corridor before they are broken up and lost permanently to the public. The
Trail Conservancy operates by serving as a short-‐term intermediary between railroad companies and
trail groups or public agencies. For most purposes, "short-‐term intermediary" is considered as a project
with a comple5on 5me of four years or less. Rail corridors can be preserved through line buys, dona5on
financing, government agency acquisi5on, direct loans, or a combina5on of one or more of these
techniques. Website: www.railtrails.org
Riverway Enhancement Matching Grants

River parkways provide for development of parks, trails and other recrea5on ameni5es and at the same
5me protect open space, wetlands and the natural environment. This program provides protec5on for
river and stream corridors in areas that impacted by high-‐density popula5ons or that are prone to
flooding with special recogni5on of such values as recrea5on, flood control, water conserva5on and
wildlife resources. These 50/50 matching grants are administered by the Utah Department of Natural
Resources Parks and Recrea5on. Website: hKp://www.parks.state.ut.us/parks/riverway.htm
The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation

The Rocky Mountain Elk Founda5on (RMEF) works to ensure the future of elk, other wildlife and their
habitat. The primary focus is Habitat Conserva5on. The RMEF also promotes conserva5on educa5on and
hun5ng heritage. The RMEF administers an extensive habitat lands conserva5on program that includes
acquisi5on and management of lands, acquisi5on of conserva5on easements, and acceptance of
dona5ons. The RMEF also fosters coopera5on between landowners and government agencies, helping
to nego5ate complex land deals. RMEF also provides seed money to set key projects in mo5on that help
to conserve cri5cal elk habitat. www.rmef.org
DRAFT – 2/2012
The Trust for Public Land
TPL helps conserve land for recrea5on and spiritual nourishment and to improve the health and quality
of life of American communi5es. TPL's legal and real estate specialists work with landowners,
government agencies, and community groups to: create urban parks, gardens, greenways, and
riverways ; build livable communi5es by secng aside open space in the path of growth; conserve land
for watershed protec5on, scenic beauty, and close-‐to-‐home recrea5on; and safeguard the character of
communi5es by preserving historic landmarks and landscapes. They work extensively with conserva5on
buyers and conserva5on easements and ooen use limited developments to make a project pencil. They
are recently gecng more involved in promo5ng development projects that have substan5al public
benefit, such as open space or affordable housing. Website: www.tpl.org
Trout Unlimited
Trout Unlimited’s mission is to conserve, protect and restore North America’s trout and salmon fisheries
and their watersheds. The organiza5on relies on an extensive and dedicated volunteer network. and
works at the na5onal, state, and local levels. On a local level they work to resolve issues such as in-‐
stream flows, damming, angler access, and contribute restora5on guidance and work.. Website:
www.tu.org
Utah DWR Urban Fisheries

The Division of Wildlife Resources works through partnerships with local governments and communi5es
to enhance, develop and construct urban fishing sites. Ci5zen involvement is key to this part of the
Urban Fishing program. Public support for urban fisheries is indispensable, par5cularly in the early or
developmental stages of building or revitalizing local waters. Communi5es wishing to develop or
enhance local angling opportuni5es can voice this desire to their city council. Addi5onally, federal
assistance is available to local communi5es on a limited basis.
Utah Open Lands

Utah Open Lands is a non-‐profit organiza5on whose mission is to assist landowners in protec5ng the
scenic, wildlife, historic, agricultural, and recrea5onal values of open land. UOL is a non-‐governmental,
non-‐poli5cal community based organiza5on that uses educa5onal outreach, dona5ons of land and
conserva5on easements, acquisi5ons of land and easements, and conserva5on buyers and investors to
accomplish its goals of tangible land protec5on. As an easement restricts the development rights of the
property, the fair market value is reduced, which consequently lowers the estate taxes. Addi5onally,
donors of conserva5on easements may receive a charitable deduc5on for their contribu5on and,
therefore, income tax benefits. As the easement holder, Utah Open Lands assures that the terms of the
agreement are followed in perpetuity. Utah Open Lands was involved in protec5ng the Wheadon Farm
in Draper. Website: www.uol.org
Utah Partners for Conservation and Development

The Utah Partners for Conserva5on and Development has iden5fied agricultural sustainability and land
use as strategic state priori5es. This local, state, and federal government partnership is working together
to provide community based resource informa5on and technical assistance to improve the quality of life
in Utah. Their mission is to, "provide unified leadership to achieve a more produc5ve Utah in harmony
with a sustainable quality environment for Utah ci5zens." The partnership includes the Utah Associa5on
of Conserva5on Districts, Utah Department of Agriculture, Utah Department of Environmental Quality,
Natural Resources Conserva5on Service, Farm Services Agency and Utah State University Extension
Service.
Contact: Gordon Younker, 1860 N. 100 E., Logan, UT 84341, (801) 753-‐6029 email:
gyounker@ext.usu.edu
DRAFT – 2/20/12
Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission
The Utah Reclama5on Mi5ga5on and Conserva5on Commission (Mi5ga5on Commission) is a Federal
Execu5ve branch agency established in July 1994. The five member Mi5ga5on Commission, appointed
by the President, is responsible for coordina5ng the implementa5on of fish, wildlife, and recrea5on
mi5ga5on for the Central Utah Project and other federal reclama5on projects in Utah. The Commission
receives annual appropria5ons from Congress to conduct such mi5ga5on concurrently with construc5on
of water development features.
The Commissions' ac5ons are guided by a comprehensive plan that is developed through an extensive
public planning process each year. Under the first five-‐year plan the Commission's work is concentrated
in the Bonneville Basin and includes wetland and stream habitat restora5on projects around Utah Lake,
the Great Salt Lake, the Jordan River, the Provo River and in Diamond Fork Canyon and the Duchesne
and Strawberry Watersheds. The Commission is also involved with acquisi5on of angler access along
major rivers and streams. All mi5ga5on projects are implemented through contracts with other federal,
state, and local natural resource agencies and non-‐profit conserva5on organiza5ons in accordance with
strict statutory standards and regula5ons requiring restora5on and conserva5on of ecosystems.
Contact: Michael Weland Execu5ve Director (801) 524-‐3146
Water Conservation Field Services Program

Water Conserva5on Field Services Program provides financial assistance for water conserva5on
ac5vi5es in the form of grants or cost-‐shared funding. The program is aimed at funding wriKen water
management and conserva5on plans, new or unfamiliar water management technologies and prac5ces,
and promo5on of good water use prac5ces and principles. The program is administered by the Bureau
of Reclama5on.
Wetland Mitigation Banking

Wetland Mi5ga5on Banking is allowed under the Clean Water Act (Environmental Protec5on Agency,
EPA and Army Corps of Engineers, ACOE). Federal law requires that unavoidable impacts to wetlands
from development must be mi5gated. Mi5ga5on Banking allows a developer who impacts a wetland to
buy "credits" from a mi5ga5on bank. A mi5ga5on bank has the advantage of consolida5ng numerous,
fragmented wetlands projects into one large con5guous site. Mi5ga5on Banking can bring together
financial, planning, and scien5fic resources to increase the poten5al for successful establishment and
long-‐term management of mi5ga5on that will maximize biodiversity and watershed func5ons.
Recently, wetland mi5ga5on banking has become a commercial venture in Utah. Diversified Habitats, a
Salt Lake City firm, is currently buying mi5ga5on credits and restoring wetlands for profit. UDOT is
currently buying wetlands as well, mi5ga5ng for the Legacy Highway. Salt Lake County completed the
first Advance Iden5fica5on of Wetlands in EPA's Region VIII in 1986. About 2,000 acres of wetlands were
iden5fied along the Jordan River between 2100 South and the Utah County boundary. Subsequently, the
County was able to include these wetlands in the CUP Reauthoriza5on Act for future acquisi5on. Of the
acreage iden5fied, about 1,000 acres possess func5onal values considered cri5cal enough to merit
acquisi5on for long-‐term
A wetland acquisi5on plan is now being prepared by Salt Lake County in coordina5on with the Division
of Wildlife Resources, Parks and Recrea5on, and the U.S. Department of Interior. The County has also
completed an advance iden5fica5on in Albion Basin. This project, funded by EPA Region VIII and the
town of Alta, iden5fied approximately 200 acres of subalpine wetlands between the eleva5ons of
8,000-‐11,000 feet.
DRAFT – 2/2012
To obtain a copy of Wetland Program Summaries, a comprehensive overview of all the federal, state and
local programs to conserve wetlands, contact Nancy Keate, Governor's Office of Planning and Budget,
(801) 538-‐1548.
Wetlands Program Development Grants Section 104(b)(3)

The EPA Wetlands Program Development Grants program provides financial assistance to states,
federally recognized Indian tribes and local governments to support wetlands development or
augmenta5on and enhancement of exis5ng programs. Project grants are used to fund individual
projects. States or tribes must provide a 25 percent match of the total cost of the project. This EPA
program is administered by the Utah Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget.
9.9.6 Regional and Municipal Green Infrastructure Funding Strategies in Detail
1. Stormwater Fees
Stormwater fees cons5tute one of the most common strategies municipali5es in the US have
been able to u5lize to fund and implement green infrastructure strategies. Stormwater fees are
used to generate a revenue stream to address the increasing investment most communi5es will
have to make to control both combined sewer overflows and stormwater runoff. Some
municipali5es require addi5onal funding for the new infrastructure required to meet the
demands of growth and development, while other, ooen older communi5es need extra
revenue to repair and maintain exis5ng storm sewer systems. ‘Smart growth’ planning and
updated development codes can help offset the financial impact of new infrastructure costs,
but most municipali5es have extensive off-‐site stormwater systems that require ever increasing
public investment.
Stormwater user fees are ooen considered a fair, equitable method for charging the people
that benefit from stormwater infrastructure. ( source -‐Managing Wet Weather with Green
Infrastructure Municipal Handbook, epa 2008) Tradi5onally, the cost of stormwater
management was paid for through general tax funds (such as a property tax) or was included as
a line-‐item on monthly water bills. However, stormwater user fees are increasingly used to
direct the costs for stormwater management towards those proper5es that generate the most
runoff.
In addi5on to becoming more equitable, stormwater fees are also becoming easier for
municipali5es to set-‐up and implement. In many communi5es, new taxes require a vote of
approval by the public, while a fee is a charge that municipali5es have the authority to leverage
for the services they provide. Also, many proper5es can be exempt from taxes. In Washington
DC, for example, the federal government contributes to 35% of the District’s overall impervious
surfaces. These proper5es are exempt from paying a stormwater tax, but could be required to
pay a fee for stormwater management services, just as they pay for electricity and water.
IMAGES
DRAFT – 2/20/12
Fee Collec5on
As a community decides to create a stormwater user fee, it is important to determine which
en5ty will be responsible for collec5ng and managing the funds that are generated. Most
municipali5es set up a new stormwater u5lity to manage the billing process and incoming
revenue. The u5lity may be managed through an enterprise fund or special account separate
from general funds. If an independent en5ty is not created, exis5ng departments, such as a
department of environment or department of public works, are ooen tasked with the
responsibility of managing fee collec5on and spending. For ease of collec5on, the stormwater
fee can be added to water, sewer or u5lity bills; however a few ci5es charge the user fee as a
monthly or annual tax.
An increasingly common method for calcula5ng a stormwater user fee is an impervious surface
based billing system. Because runoff from impervious areas is the primary contributor to the
storm sewer system, this is seen as a more equitable determina5on for fees than a meter-‐
based fee, which charges by water consump5on. For example, a parking lot uses no potable
water but creates significantly more runoff than a small restaurant that consumes a large
amount of potable water.
Fee Discounts and Credits
When incen5ves are 5ed to stormwater fees, they encourage retrofits of exis5ng proper5es
and implementa5on of green infrastructure in new developments. Fee discounts and credits
provide an opportunity for property owners to reduce the cost of their stormwater fees by
using green infrastructure techniques that limit impervious cover and reduce the amount of
runoff generated. The public system clearly benefits when property owners manage
stormwater runoff on site. If less water enters the sewer system, less money needs to be spent
on treatment, maintenance, and opera5on expenditures. Further, discounts and credits
support the fee-‐for-‐service system because property owners can reduce the amount they pay
by reducing the service they receive.
Under this new fee system, stormwater costs will be spread out and shared over a larger
customer base, and calcula5ons show that the majority of customers will see a reduc5on in the
stormwater component of their water and sewer bills. For those customers that experience a
no5ceable increase in their fees, a city’s Water Department can provide site-‐design
recommenda5ons that will decrease the amount of impervious area on their proper5es and
thus decrease their stormwater fees.
There are a number of op5ons for reducing fees, but there must be a balance between the base
charge and the type of incen5ve that is used. The fee must be costly enough to encourage
avoidance, while credit standards must be reasonable enough that owners want to seek the
credit in lieu of paying the fee in full.
DRAFT – 2/2012
Philadelphia offers a stormwater fee discount for customers who reduce impervious cover
using green infrastructure prac5ces, including rain gardens, infiltra5on trenches, porous
pavements, vegetated swales, and green roofs. If a property is retrofiKed with any of these
features, the Water Department will re-‐calculate that property’s stormwater fee based on the
80/20 impervious/gross area formula.
Drawbacks and Limita5ons
Stormwater fees can be a fair, efficient way for communi5es to recover the cost of maintaining
and improving stormwater infrastructure. However, to be an effec5ve and sustainable source of
funding, stormwater fees must be thoroughly planned and thoughwully implemented. When
new fees are has5ly imposed, they can lead to unexpected consequences that ooen cause more
harm than good.
When charging the people that use and benefit from stormwater infrastructure, it is cri5cal that
the greatest costs are directed towards those who create the most runoff. Following this logic,
most stormwater fees should be structured so that proper5es with the large amounts of
impervious area – such as commercial and industrial facili5es – pay higher fees than residen5al
and other small-‐meter proper5es which generally have less impervious cover.
When too much of the cost burden is placed on residen5al customers, stormwater fees can
quickly lose trac5on and support. In Detroit, for example, an increase in residen5al stormwater
fees leo many of the city’s low-‐income families unable to pay their monthly water bill. As a
result, many of these residents had their water turned off. This was clearly not the intent of the
city’s stormwater fee, but it serves as an example of what can happen when the cost alloca5on
of stormwater fees is not carefully thought out. To address this problem, ci5es have developed
a variety of assistance programs to help low-‐ income customers pay their stormwater bills. The
City of Portland, Oregon, for example, offers bill discounts, crisis vouchers (good for up to
$150), and zero interest loans for qualified customers.
In addi5on to ensuring a fair cost alloca5on, stormwater fees must also provide enough capital
to maintain and enhance exis5ng stormwater infrastructure. On the one hand, a stormwater
fee that is too high will likely meet opposi5on from overburdened customers. On the other
hand, a stormwater fee that is too low is virtually useless. The District of Columbia, for example,
charges a $7 annual stormwater fee to all single-‐ family homes – a charge that covers only a
frac5on of the District’s actual infrastructure costs. It is important to remember that
stormwater fees are designed to offset the costs of infrastructure expenditures. To be truly
effec5ve, these fees must therefore generate enough funds to pay for infrastructure
maintenance and upgrades.
DRAFT – 2/20/12
2. Water Funds
Users and agencies voluntarily invest money in a trust fund, and the revenue (interest and
some5mes part of the principal) from it is used to finance improvement projects in the
watershed. Impact fees can also be directed to this water fund. Watershed improvements will
enhance farm/ranch produc5vity through the produc5on of on-‐farm ecosystem services such as
soil stabiliza5on and enhanced soil fer5lity.
SIDEBAR NOTE: Green infrastructure’s value as a municipal or private investment depends in part on its
effects beyond water management, the most common green infrastructure indicator. It depends on a
community’s ability to model and measure the many discussed addi@onal values, not all of which are able to
be quan@ta@vely evaluated. Green infrastructure planning is s@ll a rela@vely new approach. Throughout the
development of this report, and the intense research conducted, defining and measuring the extent of green
infrastructure’s mul@ple benefits has remained a challenge. While a handful of ci@es have begun to explore
green infrastructure within their own municipal infrastructure programs, no general method for es@ma@ng
or documen@ng such benefits has yet emerged.
3. Land Banks
Land banks are different from redevelopment authori5es; land banks are typically
governmental or quasi-‐public en55es that can convert vacant, abandoned, and tax-‐delinquent
proper5es to produc5ve reuse (SOURCE -‐ alexander f.s , 2005 -‐ land bank authori5es: a guide
for the crea5on and opera5on of local land banks. New York Local ini5a5ves support
corpora5on). Land banks can assemble and hold mul5ple proper5es, eventually transferring
legal right to responsible non-‐profit and private developers. By taking the risk of preparing land
in weak real estate markets, land banks can encourage private investment and ini5ate
neighborhood revitaliza5on and urban greening ini5a5ves.
Many vacant and neglected proper5es along the Wasatch Front may provide opportuni5es to
increase the livability and aKrac5veness of the region, even increasing revenue from tax-‐
foreclosed proper5es. A land bank ins5tu5on could play an ac5ve role in improving
neighborhoods by renova5ng, ren5ng, developing, selling and encouraging community-‐based
care, gardening and cleanup of abandoned proper5es through low-‐cost maintenance and
improvements. (Source -‐ vancant property noa nd tomorrow, Joan Nassaur U of Michigan -‐ via
email picture). Land bank ac5vi5es can transform these idle sites into community assets that
will improve the appearance of neighborhoods while increasing the economic and
environmental value of land over 5me.
Legisla5on must enable these types of land bank programs in areas where they are not
currently authorized. Financing the start of a land bank and its opera5ons may be challenging
for ci5es with weak fiscal capacity as land banks typically receive funds from a combina5on of
bonds, founda5on grants, local funds, and some federal or state programs.
DRAFT – 2/2012
If a city has a significant amount of proper5es which could fit the land bank program profile, the
city should confirm that these lands are valuable to the green infrastructure networks before
ini5a5ng discussions.
SIDEBAR “Recessions can create great bargains and conserva@on opportuni@es -‐ if money can be
found to complete the efforts,” says Tim Ahern, the Trust for Public Land’s senior director. “It is a
very good investment. Although land values are dropping right now in many places across the
country, they’ll go up again. In 25 years, when we’re looking back on this @me, the prices we paid
will look like a bargain, and I think the average voter gets that.”
Tax Increments:
Roll-‐Back Taxes: Roll-‐Back Taxes are applied when property that has been receiving the Use Value
classifica@on and the use of a por@on or all of the property has changed. The majority of the use
changes involve new houses. The appraiser must determine the amount of the property that must be
changed and then roll-‐back taxes are applied for up to five years. Roll-‐back taxes are the difference in the
value of the property at use value and the property’s market value. The difference is mul@plied by the
millage rate in the appropriate district and that results in the amount of tax due.
Green Infrastructure Sales Tax: This program should be established to fund green infrastructure network
acquisi@on, management, and maintenance. Lands obtained with sales tax funding should be placed
under conserva@on easements, with accompanying land management plans.
Impact Fees :
Development Impact Fees
????
Bonds: Each municipality should generate funding for the purchase of land or easements in the city’s
green infrastructure network, preferably cores. A municipality’s use of bond measurements will also
provide leveraging with federal and state conserva5on and green infrastructure programs.
Conserva=on Fee: A conserva5on fee should be implemented for the establishment of a fund that will
allow for the purchase of land or easements in the city’s green infrastructure network, preferably cores.
This fee may be applied as a means to increase density beyond a parcel’s base level, but only in areas
where intensive development is desirable, such as infill districts.
Fee-‐in-‐Lieu Program: This program should be implemented for the establishment of a fund that will
allow for the development of public facili5es for a community benefit such as trails or conserva5on area.
This fee may be applied as a means to increase density beyond a parcel’s base level, but only in areas
where intensive development is desirable, such as infill districts.
Special Service Districts: These are created to offset and manage the con5nuing costs of maintaining
conserved open space or other lands under county ownership (e.g. costs such as maintaining public
parks and trails, mowing meadows, removing invasive vegeta5on, paying insurance premiums and local
taxes), including costs associated with ac5ve or passive recrea5on facili5es.
Land Dona=on Program: This program should be established to encourage a property owner or
developer to preserve green infrastructure network resources for current inhabitants or future
genera5ons. Tax benefits are available for the donor. Lands obtained through this program should be
placed under conserva5on easements, with accompanying land management plans.
Real Estate Transfer Fee: A Transfer Fee should be implemented with each sale or transfer of property
ownership. Such fees have the poten5al to create significant ongoing funding for green infrastructure
network goals.
Municipal Budget Revisions: A city should analyze its opera5ng budget for direct budgetary line items
DRAFT – 2/20/12
which can be reduced or eliminated or even bundled together to promote green infrastructure goals.
Summary -‐ The Wasatch Front spends tens of millions of dollars a year on our gray infrastructure of
roads, bridges, public buildings, sewers, parking lots and sidewalks. Green infrastructure needs are
significantly less than this -‐ but they are tangible. To advance (re)connect’s vision, goals and planning
objec5ves, every significant parcel does not need to be purchased and protected. There are many
different ways to manage, improve and connect the region’s green infrastructure network. However,
the resources invested into the Wasatch Front’s green infrastructure network must increase.
Fee Simple Acquisi5on _ Fee-‐simple acquisi5on involves obtaining the full bundle of rights associated
with a parcel. With respect to local sustainability and reconnect, land acquisi5on may have several
func5ons. The first is to secure for the public benefit certain lands, especially those that are green
infrastructure network cores or hubs.
9.9.7 Focused Green Infrastructure and Sustainability Funding Opportuni=es
INTRO PARAGRAPH ... TBD by RJL
Green Communi5es Program per EPA -‐ more info
EPA Center for Environmental Finance (CEF)
Promotes cost-‐effec5ve investment in environmental protec5on, EPA's Center for Environmental
Finance (CEF) provides assistance in finding crea5ve ways to fund environmental programs, projects,
and ac5vi5es. CEF also provides outreach and educa5onal services to EPA and public and private
organiza5ons.
Environmental Center Finance Center Network (EFCN)
EPA provides grant funding to 10 university-‐based environmental finance centers, linked through their
coordina5ng network, the Environmental Finance Center Network (EFCN). By sharing and integra5ng
informa5on, tools and techniques, the Environmental Finance Centers (EFCs) work together and with
the public and private sectors to solve funding challenges for environmental programs and promote a
sustainable environment.
The Green Infrastructure for Clean Water Act

Signed in December 2009 $300 Million (2009)
Supports green infrastructure planning and implementa5on efforts.
America’s Great Outdoors Ini5a5ve
Signed in April 2010 $TBD
Promotes and supports community efforts to conserve outdoor spaces for genera5ons to come and
reconnect Americans to the outdoors.
Regional Centers of Excellence in Green Infrastructure
Supported by the USFS and NARC $Varies
Advances green infrastructure knowledge to regional planning commissions and provides mul5ple
resources.
Energy Efficiency and Conserva5on Block Grants
DRAFT – 2/2012
Supported by DOE $64 Million (2010)
General Innova5on Fund Programs from these grants contribute to the reduc5on of energy use in the
public and private sectors.
EDA Global Climate Change Mi5ga5on Incen5ve Fund
Supported by EDA $31 Million (2009)
Strengthens linkages between economic development and environmental quality.
Na5onal Urban & Community Forest Grant Program
Supported by the USFS $900,000 (2011)
Seeks to establish sustainable communi5es and urban forests by encouraging communi5es of all sizes to
manage and protect their natural resources.
Partnership for Sustainable Communi5es Program
Supported by HUD/EPA/FHA $100 Million (2010)
Assists state, local and metropolitan planning organiza5ons in the development and execu5on of
regional plans that incorporate housing, transporta5on and environmental protec5on together.
A Strategic Agenda to Protect Waters and Build More Livable Communi5es through Green Infrastructure
2011, Supported by EPA $TBD
Strengthens linkages between economic development and environmental quality.
Eco-‐Logical Grant Program
Supported by the FHA $1.4 Million (2010)
Funding towards projects which establish or assist in efforts to conduct an integrated planning effort
while developing ecosystem-‐based approaches for transporta5on projects.
Community Ac5on for a Renewed Environment (CARE) Grants
2011, Supported by EPA $2 Million (2010)
Offers an innova5ve way for a community to organize and take ac5on to reduce toxic pollu5on in its
local environment.
Targeted Watersheds Implementa5on Grants
Supported by the EPA $37 Million since 2003
A compe55ve grant program that provides funding to community-‐driven, environmental results-‐
oriented watershed projects.
Transporta5on Investment Genera5ng Economic Recovery (TIGER)
Signed in 2011, US DOT $511 Million (2010)
New Green Infrastructure sec5on to support transporta5on projects aimed at promo5ng “livability”.
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)
2011, Supported by American Rivers $Varies
U5lizes SRF monies for green infrastructure, water efficiency, energy efficiency and environmental
innova5on.
Na5onal Park Service Rivers, Trails & Conserva5on Assistance (RTCA)
Supported by NPS $12 Million (2009)
RTCA assists groups with over 200 locally-‐led conserva5on projects such as developing trails and
greenways and protec5ng rivers and open space.
DRAFT – 2/20/12
9.10 The Importance of U=lizing Indicators in Implemen=ng Green Infrastructure in your
Municipality
An indicator is a measurable sign of change towards the achievement of results. Contribu5ons
towards the achievement of (re)connect’s goals and planning objec5ves should be
acknowledged by both regional stakeholders (x.x.x) and municipali5es, and green infrastructure
indicators can assist in the measurement of these contribu5ons.
SIDEBAR
“What gets measured tends to get done. If you don’t measure results, you can’t tell success from failure. If
you can’t recognize success, you can’t reward it. If you can’t recognize failure, you can’t learn from
it” (Souce -‐ Osborne and Gaebler)
There are generally three (3) levels of indicators stakeholders and municipali5es can u5lize:
Baseline Indicators
Baseline indicators should come from officially recognized sources of informa5on (EPA, HUD,
research). Baseline indicators should be specific to each municipality, which should refine
(re)connect’s goals and planning objec5ves within the context of each municipality’s needs and
values.
Impact Indicators
Impact indicators are linked to objec5ves and are expected to be achieved in the medium to
long term. They measure the achievement of the planning objec5ves outlined in Chapter 7
(7.x.x) and should represent the economic, social and environmental concerns of (re)connect.
Output Indicators or Performance Indicators
These indicators complement impact indicators and are linked to results. They measure
performance towards the achievement of a municipali5es’ goals that can be quan5fied or
qualified and readily revisited with a foreseen 5me frame. They monitor immediate products
and services (x.x.x) delivered to improve the green infrastructure network and can be used to
jus5fy short-‐term resource alloca5ons decisions.
9.10.1 The Purposes of Indicators
The indicators or system of indicators chosen should reflect the overall green infrastructure
framework within the municipality’s policy and give con5nuity to them without trying to
formulate a ‘new’ or ‘beKer’ framework. The indicators must also be as flexible as the green
infrastructure network itself. The informa5on u5lized must be updated, and the network
changes must be tracked over 5me (e.g. total acres of green infrastructure network lands). The
goals and objec5ves presented by (re)connect establish a vision for meaningful decision
making, and the indicators or indicator systems should communicate these.
DRAFT – 2/2012
9.10.2 Developing Indicators
The indicators developed should reflect the current priori5es and issues of the municipality
within (re)connect’s green infrastructure framework. They should also be at the appropriate
scale and hierarchy. Indicators should be based on standardized or consistent measurements
to enable comparison wherever possible.
It is important to note that metrics which measure sustainability are lacking. Most federal
indicators such as the EPA focus on environmental performance (e.g. water quality and
quan5ty, air quality) and fail to recognize the importance of comprehensive, interconnected
networks (x.x.x). The social dimension of green infrastructure required by (re)connect, and
land use in par5cular, lacks a clear and coherent ra5ng or measurement system. ENDNOTE
SOCIAL CAPITAL
There are numerous indicators which a community can u5lize to monitor changes in a green
infrastructure network. These should reflect (re)connect’s goals in earlier chapters. Site specific
and project-‐based strategies are necessary to facilitate green infrastructure improvements and
regional improvements. Such strategies can be successfully measured using indicators such as
the number of conserva5on subdivisions approved, acres of prime farmland soil lost to
development, miles of green streets, total area of impervious surface, and many others.
Most indicators tend to focus on one issue. (re)connect: The Wasatch Front Green
Infrastructure Plan, in order to achieve full success, requires an indicator structure that which
will integrate mul5ple resources -‐ mul5ple resources administered by mul5ple organiza5ons
and agencies. Placing the Wasatch Front’s indicators in a holis5c structure will allow the
objec5ves of (re)connect to be achieved and the goals to be viewed and understood beyond
jurisdic5onal boundaries and land ownership concerns.
For example, a series of indicators that measure the overall health of the green infrastructure
network would be appropriate, as would one determining the square feet of permeable
pavement in aquifer recharge/discharge areas. Furthermore, a key concept of green
infrastructure is connec5vity, as cores and hubs work together, and hubs support the integrity
and benefits provided by cores. It would be prudent to document and monitor the green
infrastructure network cores and hubs in private land ownership that are adjacent to green
infrastructure network cores and hubs in (protected) public lands. Privately owned green
infrastructure network lands typically will have no permanent protec5on measures or
management guidelines. As agencies and municipali5es look to conserve, restore, preserve,
acquire, maintain or enhance (.x.x) their landholdings, these private lands can be monitored
and documented.
The effec5veness of indicators can be increased by placing them in a suitable structure which
makes intui5ve sense, captures the rela5ve importance of varied indicators, and demonstrates
DRAFT – 2/20/12
their interconnected rela5onship (Source -‐ meadows, 1997). Indicator structures include:
1. Target levels and endpoint schemes

2. Basic sa5sfac5on schemes
3. Short and long term schemes
4. Performance schemes
5. Vulnerability schemes
9.10.3 Monitoring Indicators
Indicators are a dynamic tool. As men5oned in Chapter 8, gross and net acreage numbers and
targets used to assess the progress or success of reconnect are not appropriate as the Plan
values the quality of network lands over the quality.
REGIONAL INDICATORS -‐ LANIECE -‐ DO WE WANT TO SHOW/DISCUSS THIS ...
Prior to the WFRC’s next LRTP update, a review of green infrastructure network land data will
be conducted, but this provides only a cursory review of the wf’s overall health, and is not
considered of significant benefit. This land data will include :
Indicator 2010 2020
Total GI Network Lands in Project Area (acres)

Total GI netowrk cores
Total GI netowrk ubs
Total GI network core sin public lands
Total ginetowrk cores in non-‐public lands
Total GI network hubs sin public lands
Total ginetowrk hubs in non-‐public lands
Total gi netowrk corridors (miles)
9.10.4 Green Infrastructure Indicators -‐ Evolving an Effec+ve Metric

Green infrastructure is a public service to which everyone has a right. It is The region’s green
infrastructure makes crowded urban and suburban areas livable and the Wasatch Front’s
communi5es environmentally, economically and socially viable. Research has shown the link
between high quality green infrastructure lands and improving health and well being. Yet green
infrastructure is too ooen seen as a burden on the public purse and not as an asset that needs
investment and skilled management.
More -‐ how using $ is good ... Sidebar quote ...
It should be acknowledged that while some indicators men5oned and exemplified in this
chapter have been tested and u5lized in other projects, and even accepted as standards, others
DRAFT – 2/2012
are s5ll evolving and need further defini5on and field tes5ng. Furthermore, efforts to combine
measures and metrics are underway but are in their early stages of refinement. The need for
reliable indicators is apparent. Such indicators will be essen5al to complete realiza5on of the
no5on of sustainability and community livability in the Wasatch Front.
9.11 Municipal and Community Green Infrastructure Implementa+on Summary
Green infrastructure and sustainable community design involves connec5ng upfront with the
larger social, environmental and economic context of a project. If a municipality is not
prepared to nurture and augment a new addi5on to its community, (re)connect
recommenda5ons, including LID’s and other innova5ve strategies, will go unheralded, and
green infrastructure services and benefits may deteriorate. Future development in the
Wasatch Front should seriously consider site selec5on and loca5on. A development next to a
transit corridor will generate less pollu5on. Loca5ng housing close to jobs will reduce vehicle
miles traveled. A green infrastructure approach to land-‐use planning understands and
op5mizes the rela5onship of a development to its surroundings.
A green infrastructure approach is enabled by many of the implementa5on strategies in this
chapter, which include ecological enhancements (source-‐ making the case for ecological
enhancements – a white paper, jan 2004, ITRC). These enhancements increase the natural and
social green infrastructure network resources while protec5ng human health. It is important to
remember that these implementa5on strategies are not ‘one size fits all’, and site-‐specific
considera5ons as well as comprehensive evalua5ons must be objec5vely studied.
Green infrastructure and sustainable communi5es will require collabora5on between mul5ple
disciplines and stakeholders, especially during the ini5al stages of planning. Designers and
developers will be challenged within (re)connect’s strategic framework to consider new
strategies, systems, and products that beKer support sustainable outcomes and lead to a
produc5ve and beneficial rela5onship between communi5es and their natural and social green
infrastructure systems.
BIG SIDEBAR -‐ The Wasatch Front must recognize the economic value of its green
infrastructure networks by strengthening exis@ng communi@es and encouraging new
development and redevelopment that supports the integra@on of social, environmental and
economic concerns.
Green infrastructure planning will require a shio in the mindset of municipali5es. (re)connect’s
many benefits can only be realized if both regional and local decision makers are open to a
slightly different view of the Wasatch Front’s resources, one where interconnec5vity and
cause/effect are part of every decision. If this adjustment does not occur, the developer and
their design team will abandon performance prac5ces and new, efficient technologies in the
face of schedule constraints, budgetary restric5ons (SOURCE – Kellenberg, Stephen – ULI book =
developing sustainable planned communi5es), and the opposing actudes and outdated
misconcep5ons of others.
DRAFT – 2/20/12
As discussed in Chapter 7, this mindset must occur at the top with our regional public land
agency stakeholders; otherwise municipali5es will not be empowered to make tough and
unfamiliar, yet beneficial, decisions. Together, partners can work to implement reconnect’s
green infrastructure approach to projects, development and conserva5on. In doing so,
substan5ve contribu5on to water quality, livability and ecosystem health and recovery can be
made that are some5mes missed when regula5ons are administered on a project-‐by-‐project
basis. Although reconnect’s green infrastructure approach can have significant and tangible
benefits to the environment and the public, and has the poten5al to promote improved
interagency coordina5on, it cannot completely eliminate conflict. Instead, (re)connect’s green
infrastructure approach should viewed as a tool to assist partners in developing acceptable
solu5ons that complement their goals.
SIDEBAR: “Planning alone is not the final answer. But without wise and far-‐sighted planning, there
can be no answers. How wisely, or wastefully, we use the heritage of our land, is not solely the
responsibility of the planner, the developer, the builder, the community official. It is the
responsibility of all of us, who are the American community” -‐ Urban Land Ins@tute
Municipali5es are important to the success of (re)connect because of their role in land use
decisions, which ul5mately influence the livability of communi5es and quality of life for their
residents. Proac5ve planning will be essen5al to (re)connect’s municipal implementa5on
success. Localized planning strategies in the Wasatch Front’s communi5es must cease to be
reac5onary. A willingness to embrace change involves taking risks, but there are ways to
mi5gate those risks; the best is to get involved in the process.
SIDEBAR
Many state and local green infrastructure projects throughout the United States, although rela@vely
new, have already enjoyed wide success engaging public and private partners as well as the general
public. (www.serconline.org/grInfrastructure/fact.html) From 1998 to 2001, voters across the US
passed nearly 400 measures funding conserva@on programs -‐ some 85% of all local and statewide
conserva@on measures placed on ballots. Green infrastructure’s conserva@on measures, which
provide direct economic benefits to individuals, cons@tute successful conserva@on ini@a@ves.
Growth over the next 30 years in the Wasatch Front must proceed in a different direc5on from
that of the last 30 years. This new direc5on will be made possible by the recogni5on that the
green infrastructure systems of the Wasatch Front are held together by more than just a series
of infrastructure projects – that these systems truly form the connec5ve 5ssue that sustains life
and health for the region and its communi5es.
(re)connect: The Wasatch Front Green Infrastructure Plan is not just about today; it is about
ins5lling the framework and vision for a healthy landscape, both built and natural, that we can
move toward progressively and sustainably. We must remember our history and reconnect
with the strategies and the land ethic that worked well for our ancestors. We must embrace
new technology, while retaining an understanding of natural systems and processes and
cul5va5ng the stewardship of our valuable landscapes.
Green infrastructure design, planning and management principles must not be an aoerthought.
(re)connect’s success will require proac5ve individuals, policy, incen5ves, and funding which
DRAFT – 2/2012
address the land-‐use decision making process in rela5on to the broader ecological,
infrastructural and social processes and systems that cons5tute our landscape. The ability of
reconnect’s implementa5on strategies to deliver mul5ple environmental, social and economic
benefits makes (re)connect a valuable planning tool for promo5ng community health, quality of
life, and sustainability.
END
DRAFT – 2/20/12
ENDNOTES
ENDNOTE:
Tradi@onally, Utah’s quality of life has been measured using economic indicators. In fact, Utah’s
gross domes@c product (GDP), which measures economic growth exclusively, has oUen been
used as a measurement of well-‐being, though this was never its intended use. Recently, a new
framework for quality of life measurements was developed by the Utah Popula@on and
Environment Coali@on. This is the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI), which reflects economic,
environmental, and social values and costs in monetary terms. This study examined quality of
life trends between 1990 and 2007 and found that the economic components of GPI increased
during this @me, while the value of both environmental and social components declined.
Although the overall GPI increased over this 17 year period, “the study shows that social and
environmental factors affec@ng quality of life might require aaen@on and investment” (Berik and
Gaddis 2011).
ENDNOTE: Compensatory wetland mi@ga@on required under federal law should occur within the
Wasatch Front’s green infrastructure network core areas, and par@cularly within the aquifer recharge
zones. (Re) Connect recommends that stakeholders in the Wasatch Front abstain from further natural
wetland impacts rather than relying on compensatory mi@ga@on to balance land uses and wetland
resources. A moratorium should be placed on wetland destruc@on un@l green infrastructure data can be
beaer integrated into reports, studies and maps.
Wetland mi@ga@on and banking is not a “silver bullet” for hydrological resource health and func@on in
the Wasatch Front. Studies show that about 50% of wetland mi@ga@on projects fail (Society for
Ecological Restora@on). Another study found that only 3% of wetland mi@ga@ons in King County,
Washington provide the benefits of the natural wetland destroyed (King County).
ENDNOTE: Water conserva@on is not as difficult as it might seem. Over 60% of our per capita water use
goes toward landscape irriga@on (hap://www.xeriscapedesign.com/Utah_Water_Use.html), and the
majority of landowners over-‐irrigate their residen@al landscapes by up to 30% (hap://
conservewater.utah.gov). Water-‐wise landscaping techniques can decrease residen@al irriga@on use by
up to 50% (hap://region8water.colostate.edu/PDFs/waterwis.pdf).
ENDNOTE -‐ SUSTAINABILITY

The term sustainability is oUen derided as ambiguous and interpreted in many ways, oUen contradictory.
Furthermore, the terms ‘sustainable development’, ‘sustainable growth’ and ‘sustainable use’ are oUen
used interchangeably, which they should not be. For instance, sustainable growth is a contradic@on in
terms; nothing physical can grow indefinitely (reseland, 1998). Sustainable use is applicable only to
renewable resources -‐ it means using them at rates within their capacity for renewal (IUCN, 1991).
ENDNOTE -‐ SOCIAL CAPITOL

A new term, social capital, developed by Robert Putnam at Harvard University, aKempts to measure
happiness, iden5ty, and sense of belonging along with the typical social metrics of safety and health.
DRAFT – 2/2012
Putnam defines social capitol as “features of social organiza5on such as networks, norms, and trust, that
facilitate coordina5on and coopera5on for mutual benefit”. Overall, reconnect feels this indicator is not
appropriate for WF municipali5es as it does not truly measure ‘quality of life’ but rather a measurement
of the features of social organiza5on within a community of individuals.
Furthermore, natural capital, another oo used term in sustainability discussions, par5cularly as it relates
to the economic benefits of nature, is not recommended as this term is more sociological based than
economic or environmental. There are seven (7) types of capitol which make up assets in a community
and it is not prudent to look at only a few to provide proper assessment. These seven types of capitol
which engender communi5es are natural, social, cultural, human. Poli5cal, financial and built. (SOURCE
Rural Communities: Legacy + Change by Cornelia Butler Flora and Jan L. Floraß)
DRAFT – 2/20/12

WFGIP Community Implementation Guidebook

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

WFGIP Community Implementation Guidebook

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Making

the Vision a Reality: A Community Guidebook to Implemen;ng Green

9.1 An Eﬀec+ve Planning Approach

9.2 The Wasatch Front’s Green Infrastructure Framework

9.3 Sustainability in the Wasatch Front

9.4 The 5 Coun+es of the Wasatch Front

9.7 Municipal Green Infrastructure Implementa+on Strategies in Detail

9.7.3 Planning Tools for Facilita+ng GI in Your Community

9.9 Maximizing Green Infrastructure Funding Opportuni+es and Funding Strategies

9.11 Municipal and Community Green Infrastructure Implementa+on Summary

9.2 The Wasatch Front’s Green Infrastructure Framework

9.3 Sustainability in the Wasatch Front

9.3.1 Deﬁning Sustainability

9.4.1 Weber County Green Infrastructure Maps

9.4.6.1 Public Land Stakeholders

9.4.6.2 Private Land Stakeholders

9.4.6.3 Educa=onal Ins=tu=ons

9.5 Urban Green Infrastructure

9.5 Urban Green Infrastructure

9.5.1 Valuing Green Infrastructure in Urban Communi+es

-­‐ US House of Representa@ve, 4th District, Donna F Edwards.

9.5.2 The Urban Corridor of the Wasatch Front

9.6 Municipal and Community Implementa=on Strategies – An Overview

9.6.1 Green Infrastructure Implementa=on Strategies

(re)connect’s green infrastructure policy recommenda5ons include not only municipal

9.6.1.1 Ecological Green Infrastructure Implementa=on Strategies

Coordinate investments to create a connected county-­‐wide or city-­‐wide ecological

a. Eco-­‐bridges such as wildlife overpasses, viaducts, amphibian and underpass

b. Raised pylons and elevated transporta5on corridors on green infrastructure

c. Designing transporta5on corridors around wetland areas and (when necessary)

4. Protect and expand the urban forest canopy

Establish city canopy targets; priori5ze improvements.

Enhance tree preserva5on and landscape ordinance requirements and incen5ves.

Encourage revegeta5on in urbanized areas.

Maximize the tree canopy on streets ROWs.

Develop context-­‐based tree plan5ng guidelines (spacing, size, diversity).

9.6.1.2 Hydrological Green Infrastructure Implementa=on Strategies

b. Pursue river and stream restora5on and day-­‐ligh5ng projects.

c. Localized sub-­‐watershed planning and management should be encouraged.

h. Increase the width of required riparian buﬀers.

i. Ini5ate “Adopt-­‐a-­‐Stream” programs.

Provide model ordinances rela5ng to water resource management ac5vi5es.

Iden5fy and priori5ze opportuni5es for joint stormwater management facili5es.

Minimize potable water use for irriga5on through rainwater collec5on/re-­‐use.

Educate and encourage landowners to implement water-­‐wise landscaping and

Educate developers and others on appropriate storm water management

Incen5vize porous paving surfaces in all development and redevelopment.

BMPs and LIDs should be incen5vized for private landowners.

b. Coordinate park acquisi5on, design and programming within green infrastructure

9.6.1.4 Working Lands Green Infrastructure Implementa=on Strategies

9.6.1.5 Community Infrastructure Implementa=on Strategies

b. Promote sustainable development through BMPs and LIDs.

d. Encourage compact, clustered development paKerns to preserve green

e. Adopt development standards and policy which protect green infrastructure

9.6.2.1 Guidelines for Upda+ng Policy

Per5nent guidelines include:

9.7 Municipal Green Infrastructure Implementa+on Strategies in Detail

9.7.1.1 How to Map a GI Network in your Municipality

Image – Conceptual GI City-Level Map

Find champions – Get people to carry the cause.

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE SHOULD:

9.7.2 Design Strategies for Increasing Community Sustainability

Below are some recommended community development strategies.

9.7.2.1 Green Infrastructure Subdivisions

-‐ US House of Representa@ve, 4th District, Donna F Edwards.

Coordinate investments to create a connected county-‐wide or city-‐wide ecological

a. Eco-‐bridges such as wildlife overpasses, viaducts, amphibian and underpass

Develop context-‐based tree plan5ng guidelines (spacing, size, diversity).

b. Pursue river and stream restora5on and day-‐ligh5ng projects.

c. Localized sub-‐watershed planning and management should be encouraged.

i. Ini5ate “Adopt-‐a-‐Stream” programs.

Minimize potable water use for irriga5on through rainwater collec5on/re-‐use.

Educate and encourage landowners to implement water-‐wise landscaping and

Adopt a municipal-‐level green infrastructure map

9.7.2.2 Transit-‐Oriented Development

9.7.2.3 Mixed-‐Use Development

Phase 1 -‐ Exhibit Visionary Leadership

Phase 2 -‐ Reconstruct Frameworks and Policies

Phase 3 -‐ Leverage Exis5ng Assets

Phase 4 -‐ Obtain new Funding Sources

9.8.1.1 Phase 1 -‐ Exhibit Visionary Leadership (Immediate Ac=on Required)

Strategically manage publicly-‐owned land and parklands