The Sustainable City: Report on Roundtable on
Download The Sustainable City: Report on Roundtable on...
Wharton GIS Lab Working Paper The Sustainable City: Report on Roundtable on Science, Urban Ecosystem Services, and Green Infrastructure
Credit: Photo by R. Kennedy for Visit Philadelphia™
Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................... 3 I. Science, Urban Ecosystem Services, and Green Infrastructure ........................................................ 5 II. Key Challenges and Opportunities in the Use of Green Infrastructure ... Error! Bookmark not defined. III. Perspectives on Green Infrastructure and Urban Sustainability .................................................... 6 1. Michael Nutter, City of Philadelphia .....................................................................................................................6 2. Shawn Garvin, U.S. EPA .......................................................................................................................................7 3. Michael DiBerardinis, City of Philadelphia ...........................................................................................................8 4. Katherine Gajewski, City of Philadelphia ........................................................................................................... 10
IV. Panel on Best Practices from Leading Cities ................................................................................. 11 1. Denver, CO .......................................................................................................................................................... 11 2. New York City, NY ............................................................................................................................................. 12 3. Portland, OR ........................................................................................................................................................ 13 4. Seattle, WA .......................................................................................................................................................... 14 5. Washington, DC .................................................................................................................................................. 14 6. Philadelphia, PA .................................................................................................................................................. 16
V. Sustainable Urbanization: How Cities Can Save (or Wreck) the Planet ..................................... 18 VI. Federal and Local Partnerships for Science: Afternoon Keynote ........... Error! Bookmark not defined. VII. Discussion Sessions ......................................................................................................................... 19 1. Green Infrastructure and Urban Ecosystem Services: What Works? .................................................................. 19 2. The Role of Incentives and Regulatory Mechanisms .......................................................................................... 22 3. Directions in Research and Practice Going Forward ........................................................................................... 24
Appendices ................................................................................................................................................ 28 Appendix A: Agenda ............................................................................................................................................... 28
Appendix B: Speaker Biographies ........................................................................................................................... 30 Appendix C: List of Participants ............................................................................................................................. 37
Executive Summary The Wharton GIS Lab of the University of Pennsylvania, convened a one-day symposium, The Sustainable City: Roundtable on Science, Urban Ecosystem Services, and Green Infrastructure, on May 19, 2015, at the University of Pennsylvania. The roundtable brought together policymakers, practitioners, and researchers from across disciplines to discuss best practices in the design, implementation, and management of green infrastructure (GI) for urban stormwater management, and, more broadly, to develop a research agenda to advance the use of GI and urban ecosystem services (ES). The event served to highlight best practices in cities that are applying GI1 to help achieve sustainability goals, specifically for stormwater management2. There is growing attention to the efficacy of GI as a solution for urban infrastructure challenges across cities in America3. The use of GI is still at an early stage, thus it is important to share information across cities that are pioneering their implementation. In general, Roundtable participants discussed challenges and
Green infrastructure (GI) makes use of natural processes and is considered a low-impact alternative to conventional grey infrastructure. GI may provide a cost-effective and regenerative approach to supplying services, such as stormwater management. 2 Green stormwater infrastructure (GSI) is designed to mitigate stormwater surge events, reduce combined sewer overflows, and lower pollutant loads in urban waterways. GSI can also reduce flood risk and recharge the ground water supply. GSI has valuable social and economic co-benefits: among these, increased green space, cleaner water, and reduced air and noise pollution. Economic benefits also include increased property values. These benefits are ecosystem services; that is, the benefits received from natural systems by society. 3 Cities have unique challenges in use of GI. Older cities that have lost population need to reduce blight, increase green space, and cost effectively replace old infrastructure. In cities that are growing, there is a need to counter the negative effects of development, recover ecosystems services, and restore ecological systems through the implementation of GI projects that employ natural processes and provide associated ES benefits. The ecological costs of development include disturbed watershed function and ecosystem stability. Drastic changes to the natural landscape from loss of vegetation, land grading, and replacement of pervious with impervious surfaces, lead to decreased ability of watersheds to retain rainfall and elevates the production and transport of sediment, nutrients, and other pollutants during storm events
opportunities in the use of GI, ways to disseminate lessons learned and share solutions, and how to advance future research towards more effective use of the technology. Perspectives of local, regional, and federal leaders provided background on the implementation of local and regional programs, and an understanding of the roles of federal and local partnerships toward advancing an ecosystems framework for environmental resources management. City panelists provided experience on the use of local policy strategies in the implementation of GI in urban areas across the country. A discussion was held on the potential for a new systems science to further the understanding of the global environmental impacts of urbanization. The Roundtable concluded with a specific discussion of: (1) what works in the use of GI for urban stormwater management; (2) the role of incentives and regulatory mechanisms; and (3) future directions in research.
I. Science, Urban Ecosystem Services, and Green Infrastructure: Critical Directions in Policy and Research Carl Shapiro, Director of the USGS Science and Decisions Center, stated that improving our ability to use GI effectively and enhance the ability of natural and managed systems to produce ecosystem services in urban areas is a critical issue at the interface between science and decision-making. Shapiro highlighted the importance of examining the impact of green and hybrid solutions for stormwater management on nature’s ability to produce ecosystem services, particularly in urban areas, where the majority of the Nation’s population resides. He explained that the decisions we make on the use of green and hybrid infrastructure have great impacts on nature as well as societal well-being, and that it is critical that we develop effective methods to evaluate these impacts so that our decisions maximize environmental, social, and economic benefits. Shapiro identified four key questions that merit special consideration: How can we improve, better understand, and characterize the hydrological effectiveness of GI? How can we better understand and measure the ecosystem services produced from GI approaches? How can we better evaluate the short- and long-term impacts of GI, hybrid solutions, and traditional approaches? What are the critical biophysical and socioeconomic science needs for making informed decisions?
II. Key Challenges and Opportunities in the Use of Green Infrastructure Suzette Kimball, Acting Director, U.S. Geological Survey 4 (*Approved comments from USGS will be available shortly)
III. Perspectives on Green Infrastructure and Urban Sustainability 1. Michael Nutter, City of Philadelphia Michael Nutter described his first mayoral election as a pivotal turning point for the City’s use of GI, during which a variety of disparate political and community stakeholders converged to embrace a “green” and sustainable agenda. The Mayor noted that shortly after winning the Democratic primary, he traveled to Chicago, where then-Mayor Richard Daley voiced further support for such an agenda, encouraging the Mayor to work toward city sustainability, establish cost-savings, and simultaneously beautify the city while making neighborhoods more livable for residents. Shortly after that, at his January 2008 inauguration, the Mayor proclaimed that Philadelphia would be the “#1 greenest city” in the country. Admitting, in hindsight, the boldness of the statement, he pointed to the resulting Greenworks Plan, a program developed by the administration in that first year which has served as the backbone of the city’s sustainability efforts. He also celebrated the establishment of the Mayor’s Office of Sustainability (MOS), led by Katherine Gajewski, which, just this year, became permanent by public vote. The Mayor described Greenworks and the Green City, Clean Waters Initiative (discussed below), noting that every government department has a role to playing energy conservation, water management, recycling, and building retrofits. Turning to stormwater and GI
Dr. Suzette Kimball was unable to attend the Roundtable in person due to illness; Dr. Carl Shapiro delivered her remarks on her behalf.
specifically, he described the pioneering agreement with EPA (discussed below), as well as the challenge of implementing this agreement with programs to retrofit the sewer system, expand the urban tree canopy, install residential rain gardens, and expand public awareness and engagement. He emphasized the importance of engaging community groups as well as youth and school programs. He addressed the issue of continuity, noting that while his eight-year term in office helped to establish the necessary groundwork, long-term these efforts will only be successful if a culture of sustainability is maintained across administrations - a task both within and outside of government.
2. Shawn Garvin, U.S. EPA Shawn Garvin, Regional Administrator, EPA Mid-Atlantic Region commended Philadelphia and urban communities across the Mid-Atlantic region and across the nation that have been leading the way in advancing GI. He discussed the importance of leveraging cobenefits associated with GI, explaining how sustainable GI projects help with stormwater management while also improving the quality of life for local residents, and ultimately helping to drive neighborhood revitalization. He pointed to the historic partnership between the City of Philadelphia and the U.S. EPA, the 2012 agreement to support the City’s “Green City, Clean Waters” initiative5 , and noted recently awarded EPA STAR research grants that evaluate the costs and benefits of GI practices in Philadelphia and inform efforts across the country6.
The Green City, Clean Waters initiative is Philadelphia's 25-year plan to protect and enhance its watersheds by managing stormwater with Green Infrastructure. The Philadelphia Water Department developed Green City, Clean Waters to provide a clear pathway to a sustainable future while strengthening the utility of infrastructure services in the city, broadening its mission, and complying with environmental laws and regulations. See the Hogan et al.(2013) report , Urban Ecosystem Services and Decision-Making: A Green Philadelphia for more details. 6 The STAR program funds research grants in numerous environmental science and engineering disciplines through a competitive selection process. At present, STAR is focusing on the health effects of particulate matter, drinking water, water quality, global change, ecosystem assessment and restoration, and human health risk assessment. Susan
He went on to describe the objective of providing cleaner water at lower cost; a universal goal achievable through input from multiple levels of government, public and private stakeholders, and academic and not-for-profit institutions. As an example, he noted the partnerships in “Soak It Up Adoption7”, a grant program of the Philadelphia Water Department, which engages the private sector’s design and engineering communities to leverage sustainable urban design. Federal partnerships include work connected with the Urban Waters Federal Partnership (UWFP)8, for which the Delaware River Watershed is a designated location. He also pointed to the newly created, federally sponsored, Water Infrastructure and Resiliency Finance Center9 and described the importance of public-private partnerships for innovative financing solutions to maintain an improved water infrastructure. Leveraging public resources to bring the private sector to the table would be essential to maximize the effect of every federal dollar spent. Referencing projects in big cities and small towns alike, he explained that communities are adopting cheaper, faster and greener approaches to supply more efficiently public goods and services to residents.
3. Michael DiBerardinis, City of Philadelphia Michael DiBerardinis addressed the question of how to advance the use of science and to promote investment in GI and ecosystem services in future local decision making. In the future, cities will play a major role in advancing GI, and in order to bring the necessary stakeholders to the table, it is critical that the economic, social, and environmental reasons for Wachter leads a grant under the STAR program exploring these issues for the City of Philadelphia at the University of Pennsylvania. 7 http://www.phillywatersheds.org/soak-it-adoption 8 The UWFP is a partnership of 14 Federal agencies, led by the EPA, the Department of the Interior (DOI), and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USFA) Forest Services. The program involves a broad scope of project partners across multiple agencies, working to address economic, ecological and public health challenges connected with the river region and watershed. 9 http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/waterfinancecenter.cfm
investing in GI are made clear. He spoke about renewed interest in urban downtowns as revitalized places where people want to come to work and raise their families, and the importance of environmental factors to the improved quality of life in these places. He cited recent growth in Philadelphia, which for the first time in half a century is gaining population. Cities are continuing to grow as major population centers, and are therefore important places to address issues of sustainability and climate change.
Reviewing successful strategies for embracing change and facilitating action, he noted the importance of good leadership, political commitment, and coordinated and collaborative action and pointed to the importance of vision and sound science in informing strategy. There are many areas of overlap and collaboration such as the Department of Parks and Recreation and the Water Department with the dual function of open space, parks, and trees for providing neighborhood assets while helping to manage stormwater. He identified ways that the City engages with the community to get citizens involved, such as through tree planting programs. He reiterated comments from the Mayor about building a constituency to accelerate progress and ensure the long-term success of these programs, and pointed to the importance of enabling stakeholders to see underlying value in the multiple benefits of GI and the received ecosystem services. He restated the need for a deep political commitment to drive programs forward, and the necessity to hold those programs accountable to scientifically backed standards. Along with building a strong political base comes ensuring equitable and accessible resources for all neighborhoods and communities across the city.
4. Katherine Gajewski, City of Philadelphia Katherine Gajewski underlined the Mayor’s point that operationalizing and institutionalizing sustainability initiatives to bridge administrations are key to creating the continuity and stability necessary for public and private investors to buy in. She put Philadelphia’s recent progress in a broader perspective by discussing the newly established Urban Sustainability Directors Network (USDN)10. The USDN is a network across cities that serves to connect sustainability offices, transfer information and success stories, and support the accelerated uptake of green ideas. The network has an international span, and may help local governments establish a framework for how cities will collectively address climate change. Local level actions are central to addressing global climate and broader scale social and environmental challenges. She identified that the primary task at hand is to effectively share best practices, and Philadelphia is actively investing in knowledge transfer and dissemination of lessons learned. The next phases of sustainability work in Philadelphia and elsewhere are moving toward establishing a systems change for making decisions on accounting for environmental impact in urban planning and governance. This requires a fundamental shift in how we approach budgeting, zoning, land use management, and how we bring this work to regional, national, and global scales. In closing, she reflected on the role of cities in driving environmental change and opined that change should come from cities since they are the population and economic centers, and are primed for testing and experimenting with innovative ideas and designs.
More information regarding the USDN can be found at http://usdn.org/home.html?returnUrl=%2findex.html.
IV. Panel on Best Practices from Leading Cities 1. Denver, CO Jerry Tinianow, Chief Sustainability Officer, Office of Sustainability, City of Denver presented Denver’s sustainability vision, describing how public input led the city to place civic engagement at the core of that vision, noting that “community is the most important renewable resource.” He also acknowledged the necessity of scientific research to advise and inform decision making for Denver’s Office of Sustainability. Tinianow noted the progress of the sustainability movement in Denver in recent years and the programmatic and funding success allowing for the increasing complexity of issues addressed. He described the contemporary challenges of “green on green” conflicts, in which the use of GI can interfere with one another if efforts are not appropriately coordinated across departments11. He described how these conflicts and tradeoffs are bound to arise in the process of working toward sustainability while attempting to maximize ecosystem services; successful management to balance these complexities will require interdisciplinary research and collaboration. Tinianow went on to identify challenges to sustainable water management, noting that much of the land in Denver is privately owned. Public action alone, for which support is gathering, is not enough. Developers tend to be unaware of GI for stormwater management, resulting in missed opportunities to promote the benefits of urban ecosystem services to purchasers. He stated that removing barriers is not about creating new programs, but rather about increasing awareness and visibility of existing practices, and appropriately valuing those options
He cited examples of independently beneficial practices conflicting with each other: an irrigation system from a community garden shorting out an adjacent bike-share kiosk; competition for sunlight between trees and solar panels; conflict between hydroelectric dams producing clean power while harming fisheries; clean wind turbines killing birds; and, raising water levels behind dams to enhance downstream river flow at the cost of losing wildlife habitat upstream.
for private interests. He cited the stormwater incentive programs used in Philadelphia and Washington, D.C. (see below for a discussion of both) as best practice models for effectively engaging the private real estate sector. Tinianow concluded by describing efforts to improve water quality through the development of a water quality assessment scorecard that Denver’s Public Works Department has used to rank and benchmark the quality of regional watersheds12. Measurement (i.e., monitoring) and the use of explicit goals as a commitment device are important for future administrations, and as a way to maintain public programmatic support - the City has set itself the goal of raising each ranking by at least one grade within the next five years.
2. New York City, NY Margot Walker, Director of Capital Planning and Partnerships, Office of Green Infrastructure, City of New York, presented New York City’s efforts to improve existing water infrastructure and the strategic plan to expand the quantity of public GI projects. Citing recent investments of $10 billion spent on infrastructure improvements in the past decade, Walker noted the improvements that water quality in the city is the best it has been in over 100 years of testing. Going forward, schoolyards and playgrounds, public housing, parkland, and parking lots, “Right of Way” projects13 aim to saturate areas with the heaviest sewer overflow with installation of permeable pavers and turf field with storage to increase rates of bio-retention. Other public property retrofits include drainpipe sewer disconnect/diversion (to direct water from the roof to ground infiltration or rain gardens rather than the sewer). Walker also discussed their
Denver’s 2014 water quality report can be found at: http://www.denvergov.org/content/dam/denvergov/Portals/771/documents/WQ_Docs/Water Quality Report 2014 web.pdf 13 Right–of-way projects use the public area public area between the two property lines along the street that includes sidewalks and paved roadway.
cost-benefit assessment tool14, which is being beta-tested to evaluate pilot projects and estimate lifecycle value of the different projects the city is undertaking. This tool will be used to consider the multiple co-benefits of GI across public health, environmental and economic sectors.
3. Portland, OR Michelle
Sustainability, City of Portland, began by noting that both natural and engineered facilities can provide protection and support for natural systems while benefiting society through the ecosystem services (ES) they produce. She discussed Portland’s transition from conventional wastewater utility services to an environmentally conscious approach to infrastructure management that utilizes GI.
Two core values form the basis for the City’s strategic
sustainability planning goals: (1) to guide development to environmentally less sensitive areas, and (2) to reduce pressure from development on existing green infrastructure and natural resources. Portland targets opportunity areas or regions for development that can accommodate urban growth without negative impact on the watershed. In addition, promoting the use of GI helps the City “weave nature back into the city.” Working in partnership with the Bureau of Transportation and Portland’s Bureau of Environmental Services, the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability is developing a Green Assets Report.15 This includes a citywide framework and baseline inventory of GI, an assessment of the financial contributions to infrastructure and ecosystem services, and a set of guidelines for next steps to improve management of the city’s GI systems and wildlife habitats. 16
NYC Green Infrastructure Cost Benefit Comparison Tool. A link for Green Assets Report can be found at http://www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/article/532125. 16 See Susan M. Wachter, J. Leo Penne, and Arthur C. Nelson, eds. 2000. Bridging the Divide: Making Regions Work. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, DC for a discussion of Portland’s greenbelt. 15
4. Seattle, WA Tracy Tackett, Green Stormwater Infrastructure Program Manager, Seattle Public Utilities, City of Seattle, described recent progress toward sustainability in Seattle. Specifically, she mentioned successful initiatives to increase recycling, expanded water efficiency and conservation efforts, and growing support for climate neutrality. Seattle’s green stormwater infrastructure program focuses primarily on managing runoff through increasing the bioretention ability of city blocks by distributing green space. Tackett also discussed the transformation of impervious surfaces on residential and commercial property. Tackett gave an overview of already established GI projects and reviewed strategic plans for continuing to move the program forward. Efforts to accelerate GI application include: (1) overhauling relevant code requirements to eliminate conflicts and loopholes in land use language, and require GI in all new developments; (2) using utility incentives to encourage residents to pursue GI independently; and (3) making capital investments in larger-scale GI projects in public areas. Going forward, establishing methods of assessing and valuing green assets is important for informing the design of incentives and future implementation and expansion of GI.
5. Washington, DC Tommy Wells, Director, District Department of the Environment, Washington DC, presented the District’s goals for restoring its waterways to a swimmable and fishable quality. Wells described the efforts of the District Department of the Environment (DDOE) to decrease existing contaminants and incoming runoff and overflow. In the District, the Potomac River, the Anacostia River, and Rock Creek provide habitat for fish and wildlife and are enjoyed
recreationally by residents and visitors, but have been subject to decades of pollution and are threatened by regional urban development. To realize the vision of the District’s comprehensive sustainability plan, numerous initiatives are being developed. These include cleaning up contaminated sediments17 , eliminating combined sewer overflows18, and reducing stormwater runoff. The District has a three-pronged approach to curbing stormwater runoff: (1) direct investment in GI to capture and retain runoff, (2) incentive programs that reward homeowners and commercial properties for voluntarily managing impervious surfaces with GI, and (3) new stormwater regulations that require development projects to use green practices to retain runoff on-site. In addition, Washington DC has developed an innovative stormwater retention credit (SRC) trading market that allows regulated projects to meet up to 50% of their stormwater retention obligations by purchasing SRCs from properties that voluntarily install runoff-reducing GI. The District also works closely with neighboring jurisdictions to encourage them to mirror the District’s efforts upstream through a comprehensive, regional plan to protect and restore entire watersheds. Wells concluded by describing the value that DC sees in collaborations and opportunities to learn from others. George Hawkins, Chief Operating Officer and General Manager, DC Water provided specifics on the efforts to eliminate combined sewer overflows in Washington DC. He reviewed the DC Clean Rivers Project, which in accordance with a federal consent decree will invest $2.6 billion dollar in stormwater management infrastructure19. The project is estimated to reduce combined sewer demand by close to 3 billion gallons a year (~96 percent of current 17
DDOE is currently assessing the extent of pollution by testing river sediment and fish for a variety of hazardous chemicals and will identify actions for remediation 18 DC Water’s Clean Rivers Project is a large scale infrastructure and support program to reduce combined sewer overflows by capturing and cleaning water during heavy rainfalls 19 This is similar to the consent decree that Philadelphia has with EPA. See Footnote 5 above.
volume). Hawkins discussed the anticipated water quality benefits of the storage tunnels that the District plans for the project but also elaborated on efforts to incorporate GI into the broader solution. He explained that while the tunnels are primarily useful during the heaviest rains, GI features, including rain gardens and green roofs, serve to support natural habitats and enhance public space while collecting, infiltrating, and diverting surface runoff across the District. In May 2015, DC Water signed an update to this agreement with the U.S. EPA, U.S. Department of Justice and the District of Columbia to modify the existing consent decree to incorporate these components of GI.20 Hawkins detailed challenges; including making the case that GI can deliver the same performance as grey infrastructure for reducing overflows to the rivers. He also described the coordination between multiple agencies, organizations and private property owners necessary to implement these projects. DC Water is accountable for meeting the water quality targets of the consent decree, but since it does not own the land in the areas where it will implement GI, it is necessary to coordinate with other government offices, such as the Department of Transportation and the Department of Environment. Hawkins concluded with goals and strategies for long-term success of the program, which he stated will hinge on on-going maintenance. While the tunnels require minimal maintenance over their 100-year life span, GI requires more frequent care to ensure performance. Thus, building an understanding of the life-cycle cost efficacy as well as the ecosystem cobenefits of these programs will be important.
6. Philadelphia, PA Howard Neukrug, Water Commissioner, Philadelphia Water Department, City of Philadelphia, discussed the historical importance in the development of cities of the provision of
For more information on this agreement, see https://www.dcwater.com/green.
safe drinking water. He then reflected on the City of Philadelphia’s efforts over the last 20 years to improve the quality of its rivers, to make them fishable, swimmable, attractive, and accessible to the public. He described that GI, in combination with grey infrastructure, is the key to ensuring safe and abundant water resources. Moreover GI can be the mechanism to link many urban sustainability initiatives. Neukrug expressed that it is essential to have the support of mayors, councilors and other members of local government, but the reality is that these issues compete for attention and funding with other pressing civic concerns related to housing, crime, transportation, education, and taxes. Thus, highlighting the economic benefits and multiple social and public health cobenefits of GI are a necessary approach to building political and public support. He described challenges of promoting GI, and investments in infrastructure, acknowledging that the Philadelphia Water Department (PWD) wants to provide clean and healthy water services to as many Philadelphians as possible, but faces the reality of finite funding sources. Neukrug summarized the history of PWD and how the city came to be involved with GI. The City first began to look at long-term watershed management planning in 1997 following the introduction of the Combined Sewer Overflow Control Policy of 1994. Inter-city agency collaboration is vital to facilitate the support, ownership, and the institutionalization of design and innovation. He concluded by expressing his gratitude for the pioneering joint agreement between Philadelphia and EPA; much will be learned going forward on the use of GI to avoid the costs of replacing grey infrastructure while gaining quality of life improvements, which he hopes will be useful for cities across the country.21
See Hogan, D.M., Shapiro, C.D., Karp, D.N., and Wachter, S.M., 2014, Urban ecosystem services and decision making for a green Philadelphia: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2014–1155, 21 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20141155.
V. Sustainable Urbanization: How Cities Can Save (or Wreck) the Planet Karen Seto, Professor of Geography and Urbanization and Associate Dean of Research at Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies addressed the challenges resulting from rapid urbanization and economic development. She pointed to the need to rethink our approach to urbanization so that urban forms can be made more sustainable while increasing human well-being. She proposed that urbanization can be a solution to increasing sustainability challenges but that it requires a radical rethinking of our approach to urbanization and development to capture more efficiently existing energies and resources and prevent extreme events such as sea level rise, sinking deltas and extreme climatic events from annihilating the welfare gains associated with urbanization. She highlighted two challenges to developing an urban systems science able to capture and guide contemporary urbanization processes. The first challenge is the need to transition from single sector solutions based on a deep understanding of individual components of cities to integrated solutions that incorporate the complexities, dynamics and interdependencies of the relationships between different components of cities such as transport, buildings and infrastructure. This transition to accounting for linkages between components will enable us to identify where and how to achieve sustainability gains. The second challenge is to incorporate planetary limits on resources and non-local impacts to the development of cities. This is necessary to ensure that localized increases in urbanization and income do not translate in a dramatic global increase in air and water pollution, loss of biodiversity and accelerated climate change. Taking into account the unprecedented scope of urbanization and development is necessary to develop urbanization strategies commensurate to the scale of the challenges. For
example, over the next forty year, more infrastructure will be built than currently exists. Seto suggested that how and where these infrastructures are developed would have important consequences on whether urbanization mitigates rather than contributes to existing sustainability challenges. Failure to decrease the environmental impact of urbanization would have a large negative global impact. According to Seto, the development of an integrated urban system science that takes into account the linkages between sectors and between local and global scales can contribute to ensure that that does not happen.
VI. Federal and Local Partnerships for Science: Afternoon Keynote Bill Werkheiser, USGS Associate Director for Water, (*Approved comments from USGS will be available shortly)
VII. Discussion Sessions 1. Green Infrastructure and Urban Ecosystem Services: What Works? Moderated by Dianna Hogan, SILUS Co-director, the first roundtable session featured presentations from scientists working in environmental research, protection, and conservation. The session’s three panelists were Aditi Bhaskar, National Science Foundation Postdoctoral Research Fellow at USGS, Dominique Lueckenhoff, Deputy Director of EPA Region 3, Water Protection Division, and Julie Ulrich, Director of Urban Conservation at The Nature Conservancy. The subsequent discussion focused on four key questions: 1. What is the state of the use of GI for urban stormwater management, and what types of monitoring (e.g. hydrologic) exists regarding the efficacy of the practice? 2. How is scientific information applied to inform and evaluate urban decision-making?
3. What metrics are being (or may be) used to measure hydrologic or environmental "success" of the implementation of GI? 4. What direct ecosystem services and co-benefits (in addition to stormwater management) do cities and communities receive through the use of GI (e.g., services related to recreation, aesthetics, micro-climate regulation, etc.)? Aditi Bhaskar discussed the underlying goals that municipalities consider when deciding on the implementation of GI and water management, and how cities evaluate successful implementation. Her discussion highlighted that a municipality’s goals often include the use of GI for: (1) preservation of, or restoration to pre-development watershed hydrologic conditions; (2) improvement of ecosystem functions; (3) saving money while meeting regulatory standards; and, (4) realizing secondary benefits, such as reducing urban heat island effects, increasing access to green space, and improving air quality. Bhaskar considered whether or not we are meeting these goals collectively as a Nation, and offered recommendations for evaluating these questions. To assess whether we are adequately restoring our watersheds to pre-development hydrological standards, she encouraged scientists and policy-makers to specify what aspects of hydrology they are aiming to improve (e.g., preventing flooding during small frequent storms, preserving low flows in urban streams, or restoration of the entire hydrologic cycle). Bhaskar noted that that reform in urban water systems go beyond what local GI initiatives can address. Bhaskar recommended defining the geographical scale of the ecosystem, to include upstream water bodies. She emphasized the need to meet regulatory standards and to consider upfront, ongoing and future restoration costs. The use of life cycle analyses and the cost benefit of green as compared to grey infrastructure over time will allow evaluation of the potential cost
savings of GI. To conclude, Bhaskar recommended monitoring the outcomes of GI to inform strategies for maximizing co-benefits. Dominique Lueckenhoff discussed how successful implementation of GI is about systems thinking and the management of rainwater as a resource. She reviewed the importance of taking full advantage of GI, describing barriers we must overcome and the opportunities to do so. Lueckenhoff stated that stormwater is a large and growing source of water pollution causing beach closures, water body impairments, and a rise in urban flooding, stream bank erosion, and loss of aquatic habitat. She noted that billions of dollars are spent annually on stormwater quality and control in the form of retrofits and water-related infrastructure in the U.S. She proposed that by using more robust, performance-based design standards, promoting public-private partnerships, and accessing federal and state grants for monetary and in-kind support, GI can become a leading technology of future urban planning. In addition, consideration of an ecosystems approach will promote making important upstream and downstream connections to allow working at a watershed, rather than jurisdictional, scale. She advocated for a focus on three strategies for achieving progress. These include: (1) improving technical and financial support to assist communities with growing regulatory mandates to accelerate implementation of stormwater control measures; (2) striving to meet quality and quantity goals at lower costs by leveraging efforts in other sectors such as transportation and energy; and (3) searching for greener solutions including design, building, and long-term commitments to maintenance. Julie Ulrich focused on the state of the science on ecosystem services that communities may receive through the adoption of GI. Ulrich noted that many of the current GI design approaches are similar to ones that were experimented with 20 years ago, but that the distribution and use of the technology has increased dramatically. However, she noted gaps in the use of GI,
specifically, the necessity for a watershed-scale approach, the necessity of analyzing opportunities for strategic placement of GI, and a need for new thinking about GI design. Many agree that GI provides co-benefits. However, Ulrich urged the consideration of several related issues that are not resolved. These include: (1) the need for data to estimate the impact of GI; (2) research on how to bundle ES strategically to deliver maximum value; (3) how this information makes a difference to decision makers and other audiences; and, (4) which organizations can assist municipalities in maximizing ecosystem services, and in what ways.
2. The Role of Incentives and Regulatory Mechanisms Susan Wachter, SILUS Co-director, moderated the second roundtable session and included presentations from researchers and practitioners who discussed the role of partnerships, and incentives and regulation in the local and regional implementation of GI. The session’s four panelists were Lisa Pelstring, Department of Interior (DOI) Lead for the Urban Waters Federal Partnership (UWFP), Patrick Coady, Senior Director, Seale & Associates, Todd Doley, Environmental Economist, EPA, Mark Alan-Hughes, Professor of Practice, University of Pennsylvania School of Design. Pelstring presented on the Urban Waters Federal Partnership (UWFP) and its vision: to protect and restore America’s urban waters and the lands that surround them while also reconnecting communities, especially economically distressed ones, to those waters. The UWFP has grown to include 14 Federal agencies and 28 NGOs around the country to construct and maintain a better regional GI network. She described the UWFP’s progress in tapping outside partners, generating revenue and designing projects that address community needs.
Coady presented on the involvement of private capital institutions in producing urban ecosystem services and GI. He identified three priorities that the public sector should address in considering the role of the private sector in the effective implementation of GI. These include: (1) increasing the scale of funding for GI and sustainability programs to put them at the level of other highly-prioritized government programs; (2) incentivizing the private sector to revitalize urban areas while incorporating GI; and, (3) securing places in urban and suburban areas for green growth. Citing examples of exemplary programs, he described the Milwaukee Watershed preservation initiative, Philadelphia’s pay-for-performance strategy and Washington DC’s credit trading and green bonds program22. He concluded by explaining that in moving forward, governments would do well to consider private capital transaction costs, regulatory stability and project development costs. Doley discussed federal environmental regulatory mechanisms and their use in reaching ecological objectives. He specifically addressed the EPA’s Phase 1 & 2 Stormwater Rules, which require all large cities (and smaller cities within urban areas) to develop stormwater management programs. Abiding by these regulations, cities are expected to develop stormwater requirements to control post-construction discharge from newly developed sites. Doley conveyed what the EPA has learned from programs already in place. He noted that one size does not fill all when protecting the environment – a project must be flexible and adaptable to the place and situation. He stated that incentives play a large role in persuading decision-makers to act decisively, and in both local and state governments. Doley referenced cities such as Portland and Philadelphia (as described above) as having exemplary incentive programs, and noted that for many cities and states, the EPA can serve a significant role in helping to identify priorities and paths forward for
See above for discussion of Philadelphia and Washington, DC’s programs.
managing stormwater and toward promoting innovative technology, such as GI, while removing institutional barriers to implementation. Hughes pointed to the importance of the terms ‘incentives’ and ‘regulatory mechanisms’ by referencing Anthony Downs’ essay “Alternative Futures for the American Ghetto.” Using this text as a point of reference, Hughes moved on to discuss how vision is also important in informing effective long-term policy designs and emphasized the concepts of capacity, scale and jurisdiction. Regarding capacity in terms of ecosystem services and sustainability, he described “non-declining welfare” over generations, building on the idea of a return to environmental equilibrium in cities, acknowledging that achieving this goal is not just a question of resource allocation, but also allocation of risk and liability, particularly in being able to respond to emergent environmental challenges. He moved on to discuss the challenge of scale, and acknowledged the importance of a systems approach as a way of improving the metrics we use to assess ecosystem and environmental health. In addressing jurisdiction, he outlined how the notions of increased capacity and scale create pressures on jurisdiction and asked the question, who has the jurisdictional ability to recognize the benefits of ecosystem services? He concluded by asserting the importance of drawing perimeters around capacity, scale and jurisdiction, in order to address the difficulty of putting effective regulatory programs in place.
3. Directions in Research and Practice Going Forward Carl Shapiro, USGS Science and Decisions Center Director moderated the concluding panel, which included comments from leading researchers and practitioners in areas of sustainability science. The session’s four panelists were Pierre Glynn, Eastern Region Chief, National Water Research Program, USGS, David Hsu, Assistant Professor of Planning,
University of Pennsylvania School of Design, Margaret Walls, Research Director and Senior Fellow, Resources for the Future, and Katya Wowk, Senior Social Scientist, NOAA Office of Program Planning and Integration. Shapiro began the discussion with four foundational questions: 1. What critical research directions are needed to advance efforts to use green and hybrid infrastructure for stormwater management, and to evaluate their effectiveness? 2. How can we identify and inventory state-of-the-art practices that should be studied, reproduced, and highlighted for use in future settings? 3. How can we learn through implementation so that the state-of-the-art advances, and so that we improve our ability to monitor and evaluate the use of green and hybrid solutions? 4. What are the fundamental research questions that we need to consider going forward? Glynn discussed the importance of connecting the biological and physical sciences with the behavioral sciences. How do we conduct environmental scientific research when humans are part of the experiments, and the experiments are policy-based? Glynn also pointed out that because science teaches us to be skeptical; we need to consider the benefits, costs, negatives, and side-effects of alternatives. Even good solutions have costs that need to be considered. Glynn concluded his remarks by suggesting that we must remember that people are a part of nature, not separate from the natural environment. Hsu raised the issue of scale, asking, how effective is GI at larger scales? Hsu pointed out that much research is conducted for small areas and there is not much research on the impact of GI in larger watersheds. Hsu echoed Glynn’s interest in the behavioral sciences and identified a key question: How much money do we have to spend and what should we spend it on? Hsu
argued that these are challenging questions because we do not have good information on the cost efficacy questions even for the short run and yet must plan for the long run. Walls identified a series of key points relating to economics. She pointed out the need to understand better the effectiveness of GI. She asked, how do we document and evaluate the ecosystem services resulting from GI? She explained that economists have sophisticated techniques for valuing ecosystem services, but there are a variety of methods and it is uncertain which approaches should be used. She discussed the need to develop priorities and assess tradeoffs, explaining that economics teaches us that there is no such thing as a free lunch and we need to understand the costs and benefits of alternative solutions. Addressing the issue of finance, she asked, how can money be raised and how can creative zoning and development strategies be implemented? The final issue she dealt with was behavioral research. Walls joined Glynn and Hsu in highlighting the importance of behavioral science research, and asked, how can incentives be developed to encourage behavior consistent with societal goals? Wowk identified key areas of research for moving forward: (1) metrics, (2) ecosystem service evaluation, (3) ecological production functions, and (4) societal impacts. Wowk emphasized the need to link environmental health with socio-economic needs. Wowk also highlighted the importance of partnerships and collaboration. She joined Walls, Hsu, and Glynn in discussing the importance of behavioral science as a research direction and the connection with developing incentives.
Conclusion The use of urban GI is increasing even as a comprehensive understanding and accounting of the services provided by GI (in addition to stormwater management) are not fully established.
There is growing attention to the efficacy of GI as a solution for urban water-related infrastructure challenges. This roundtable provided a forum for the exchange of ideas on current best practices, lessons learned from those practices, identification of information needs, and how GI and resultant urban ES could better be incorporated into urban decision making and planning. Bringing together practitioners, policymakers, and researchers from across disciplines, the roundtable offered the opportunity to discuss challenges and opportunities, and to envision an agenda to advance and better inform the use of GI and urban ES. Speakers and participants emphasized a number of points:
Green infrastructure can produce multifunctional landscapes that serve stormwater management goals, but also provide recreational space and a host of indirect benefits (including air quality, temperature control, real estate value, and psychological benefits). Properly understanding and accounting for these services is key for incentivizing and financing the efficient production of urban ecosystem services.
Partnerships across local, state, and federal government agencies are important to advance the optimal use of GI for cost efficiency and provision of urban ES. Integrating these lessons learned and experiences from leaders in the use of GI helps to
translate and extend the available information, advancing towards more effective use of the technology. It is hoped that results from the day’s program will help to inform efforts in local and national planning and decision making toward the efficient use of GI, an understanding and accounting of the urban ES provided by GI, and provide guidance for the Urban Waters Federal Partnership (UWFP) and other organizations.
Appendices Appendix A: Agenda The Sustainable City: Roundtable on Science, Urban Ecosystem Services, and Green Infrastructure - An Invite-only Roundtable – University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA May 19, 2015 – 9:00am – 5:00pm Registration: 8:30AM – 9:00AM Introduction: 9:00AM – 9:05AM (Introduction and Welcome) Susan Wachter, University of Pennsylvania, Co-director: Penn IUR, SILUS Dianna Hogan, Research Physical Scientist, USGS, Co-director SILUS Science, Urban Ecosystem Services, and Green Infrastructure – Critical Directions: 9:05AM – 9:15AM Carl Shapiro, Director, USGS Science and Decisions Center Opening Keynotes: 9:15AM – 10:00AM Michael Nutter, Mayor of the City of Philadelphia Suzette Kimball, Acting Director, U.S. Geological Survey Shawn M. Garvin, Regional Administrator, EPA Mid-Atlantic Region Green Infrastructure and Urban Sustainability: 10:00AM – 10:20AM (Introductory Presentations) Michael DiBerardinis, Deputy Mayor, Environmental and Community Resources, City of Philadelphia Katherine Gajewski, Director, Mayor’s Office of Sustainability, City of Philadelphia BREAK: 10:20AM – 10:35 AM Lessons Learned from Leading Cities (Panel Presentations): 10:35AM – 12:25PM George S. Hawkins, CEO & General Manager, DC Water and Sewer Authority Michelle Kunec-North, Program Coordinator, Bureau of Planning and Sustainability, City of Portland Howard Neukrug, Water Commissioner, City of Philadelphia Tracy Tackett, Green Stormwater Infrastructure Program Manager, Seattle Public Utilities Jerry Tinianow, Chief Sustainability Officer, City and County of Denver Margot Walker, Director, Capital Planning and Partnerships, Office of Green Infrastructure, City of New York Tommy Wells, Director, District Department of the Environment, Washington DC
Lunch: 12:25PM – 1:40PM (Luncheon Speaker 12:40-1:20pm) “Sustainable Urbanization: How Cities Can Save (or Wreck) the Planet” Introduction by Richard Weller, University of Pennsylvania, School of Design Karen C. Seto, Associate Dean of Research, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies Federal and Local Partnerships for Science: 1:40PM-1:55PM William Guertal, Deputy Associate Director for Water, USGS Green Infrastructure and Urban Ecosystem Services: What Works? 1:55PM – 2:50PM Panelists Aditi Bhaskar, National Science Foundation Postdoctoral Research Fellow, USGS Dominique Lueckenhoff, Deputy Director, Water Protection Division, EPA Region 3 Julie Ulrich, Watershed Restoration Coordinator, The Nature Conservancy (Roundtable Discussion, moderator – Dianna Hogan) BREAK: 2:50PM – 3:05PM The Role of Incentives and Regulatory Mechanisms: 3:05PM – 4:00PM Panelists Patrick Coady, Senior Director, Seale & Associates Todd Doley, Environmental Economist, EPA Mark Alan Hughes, Professor of Practice, University of Pennsylvania, School of Design Lisa Pelstring, DOI Lead, Urban Waters Federal Partnership, U.S. Department of Interior (Roundtable Discussion, Moderator – Susan Wachter) Directions in Research and Practice Going Forward: 4:00PM – 4:55PM Panelists Pierre Glynn, Eastern Branch Chief, National Water Research Program, USGS David Hsu, Assistant Professor of Planning, University of Pennsylvania, School of Design Margaret Walls, Research Director and Senior Fellow, Resources for the Future Katya Wowk, Senior Social Scientist, NOAA Office of Program Planning and Integration (Roundtable Discussion, Moderator – Carl Shapiro) Closing Remarks 5:00PM Dianna Hogan, Research Physical Scientist, USGS, Co-director SILUS Susan Wachter, University of Pennsylvania, Co-director: Penn IUR, SILUS
Appendix B: Speaker Biographies -SpeakersMichael DiBerardinis, Deputy Mayor, Environmental and Community Resources, City of Philadelphia: As Deputy Mayor for Environmental and Community Resources , Michael DiBerardinis provides leadership for over 10,000 acres of land, 150 recreation centers and playgrounds, 150 neighborhood and regional parks, 54 library branches and thousands of programs and events throughout Philadelphia. Since his 2009 appointment as Commissioner of the Department of Parks and Recreation, DiBerardinis has raised over $34 million in government grants, philanthropic funding and private partnerships; overseen the merger of the Fairmount Park Commission and the Department of Recreation; renovated City-owned ice skating rinks; restored swimming season at public pools and expanded outdoor recreation offerings.
Katherine Gajewski, Chief Officer of Sustainability, Office of the Mayor, City of Philadelphia: Katherine is the Director of Sustainability for the City of Philadelphia. Katherine leads the Mayor's Office of
Sustainability and oversees the citywide implementation of Greenworks, Philadelphia’s sustainability plan. In this role, she works across government and with external stakeholders to advance progress on fifteen targeted goals, covering a wide array of initiatives. Greenworks has received broad support within Philadelphia, garnered national and international attention, and positioned Philadelphia as a leader in urban sustainability. She is active nationally as co-chair of the Urban Sustainability Directors Network, a professional network of local government sustainability professionals working in cities across North America.
Michael Nutter, Mayor, Office of the Mayor, City of Philadelphia: Sworn in for a second term in January 2012, Michael A. Nutter has set an aggressive agenda for America’s fifth largest city –improving high school graduation and college attainment rates, vowing to strengthen community policing through Philly Rising, a unique partnership between vulnerable neighborhoods and the City, and continuing to implement the nationally recognized GreenWorks Philadelphia initiative that is helping to make the City of Philadelphia become the greenest city in America. Born in Philadelphia and educated at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, Michael Nutter has been committed to public service since his youth in West Philadelphia.
-PanelistsGeorge Hawkins, CEO, DC Water and Sewer Authority: George Hawkins serves as General Manager of the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority (DC Water). On his arrival in 2009, Mr. Hawkins launched an ambitious agenda to transform DC Water into a customer-oriented enterprise that is driving innovation and delivering improved value to its ratepayers. The core goal is to improve aging infrastructure while complying with stringent regulatory requirements. DC Water is implementing the $2.6 billion Clean Rivers Project to nearly eliminate overflows of sewage and stormwater to the Anacostia and Potomac rivers and Rock Creek. DC Water has invested $950 million to achieve the next level of nutrient reductions to help restore the Chesapeake Bay. DC Water is also nearing completion of a $470 million waste-to-energy program to help manage solids being removed from reclaimed water while generating 13 megawatts of green power. Finally, he tripled the rate of DC Water's program to replace water and sewer infrastructure. Michelle Kunec-North, Program Coordinator, Bureau of Planning and Sustainability, City of Portland Michelle Kunec-North works for the City of Portland’s Bureau of Planning & Sustainability on projects to ensure Portland is an equitable, healthy, resilient, and prosperous community. Her work focuses on interdisciplinary projects that address inequities and improve health outcomes
through innovative infrastructure and community planning. Michelle led the development of the Portland Plan’s Healthy Connected City Strategy to create complete, active and green communities. Her current work includes the development of a Green Infrastructure Assets Report and updates to the City’s Comprehensive Plan and public facilities plans, which will guide future development and infrastructure investments. Michelle holds Bachelor degrees in Environmental Science and Urban and Regional Planning from the University of Virginia and a Masters in Community and Regional Planning from the University of Oregon.
Howard Neukrug, Water Commissioner, Philadelphia Water Department: As Commissioner and CEO of Philadelphia Water, Mr. Neukrug is responsible for the operation and management of one of the nation’s oldest, most integrated and largest public water utilities. With an annual operating / capital budget of $1 billion, this utility of 2000 employees serves over 2 million people in every aspect of water service - drinking water treatment and distribution, wastewater and stormwater management, flood control, river/stream protection and enhancement, and wetlands and source water protection. Mr. Neukrug is a local and national leader in the water industry, serving on numerous boards and advisory groups and currently teaches two classes at the University of Pennsylvania: “The Water, Science and Politics of the Green City, Clean Water Program” and “The US Water Industry in the 21st Century”.
Tracy Tackett, Green Infrastructure Program Manager, Seattle Public Utilities: Tracy Tackett, PE is the Green Stormwater Infrastructure (GSI) Program Manager for Seattle Public Utilities. She is responsible for the management, direction and decision making for capital improvement projects and significant programs focused on using green infrastructure to reduce the effects of Seattle’s urban stormwater runoff on our receiving water bodies. She has designed innovative projects, directed design standards for GSI in Seattle’s street rights-of-ways, and developed GSI requirements for City of Seattle stormwater code. She directs evaluation of GSI solutions as part of capital improvement projects to achieve multiple stormwater goals, as well as working to integrate GSI with other City sustainability goals. Mrs. Tackett holds a Master’s of Science degree in Civil and Environmental Engineering from the University of Washington.
Jerry Tinianow, Chief Sustainability Officer, Denver Office of Sustainability: As Denver’s Chief Sustainability Officer since 2012, Jerry Tinianow works to ensure that critical natural and human resources are available and affordable to everyone in Denver, now and tomorrow. His work is organized around the City’s 2020 Sustainability Goals, which are among the most ambitious of any American city. Jerry previously
served as a national officer of both the Sierra Club and the National Audubon Society, and practiced law for over two decades with two of Ohio’s largest law firms. The Sierra Club designated him as a national “Environmental Hero,” and the President of the National Audubon Society called him a “star performer.” Jerry received his undergraduate and law degrees from George Washington University.
Margot Walker, Director, Capital Planning and Partnerships, New York City Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Sustainability, Office of Green Infrastructure: Margot Walker has worked in environmental and stormwater management planning at the NYC Department of Environmental Protection since 2008 and with DEP’s Office of Green Infrastructure since its inception in January 2011. Previously, she worked on stormwater related projects at the Pratt Center for Community Development while attending graduate school at Pratt Institute. She is currently the Director of Capital Planning and Partnerships in the Office of Green Infrastructure, which is responsible for implementing the NYC Green Infrastructure Program.
Tommy Wells, Director, Stormwater Management Division, District Department of the Environment, Washington, DC: Tommy Wells is the director of the District Department of the Environment (DDOE). Appointed January 2015, he is chiefly responsible for protecting the environment and conserving the
natural resources of the District of Columbia. Tommy’s team is comprised of approximately 300 environmental professionals collectively working to improve the quality of life for residents and the natural inhabitants of the Nation’s Capital. Most recently, Tommy served as the DC Councilmember representing Ward 6—a position he held since 2006. During his time on Council, he garnered broad support for his efforts to make the District livable and walkable for all. Tommy worked with the City’s leadership and, in particular, residents of Ward 6 to create a shared and respected place where drivers,
cyclists, pedestrians, and exercise enthusiasts can coexist safely. Known for his neighborhood-focused development, Tommy championed efforts to ensure availability of public transit, including the construction of new streetcar lines and the expansion of the DC Circulator. As Chair of the DC Council Committee on Transportation and the Environment, he worked to double the city’s Capital Bikeshare program.
-Luncheon SpeakerKaren Seto, Associate Dean of Research, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies: Karen Seto is Associate Dean of Research and Professor of Geography and Urbanization at the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies. Prior to joining Yale in 2008, she was faculty at Stanford University for eight years. She is an expert in urbanization and global environmental change, urban mitigation of climate change, and satellite remote sensing. Professor Seto has pioneered methods to reconstruct historical landuse with satellite data and has developed novel empirical methods to forecast the expansion of urban areas. She has conducted urbanization research in China for twenty years and in India for ten. She was one of the two Coordinating Lead Authors for the urban chapter of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. She has served on many U.S. National Research Council Committees, including the current NRC Committee on Pathways to Urban Sustainability. She is a founder and co-chair of the international project on Urbanization and Global Environmental Change (UGEC), a core science project of the Future Earth initiative. She is Executive Producer of “10,000 Shovels: Rapid Urban Growth in China,” a documentary film that examines urban changes in China.
-Discussion StartersAditi Bhaskar: National Science Foundation Postdoctor al Fellow, USGS: Aditi Bhaskar is a postdoctoral researcher at USGS Eastern Geographic Science Center funded by a National Science Foundation Earth Sciences Postdoctoral Fellowship. Her research focuses on urban hydrology and presently on base flow and groundwater recharge changes associated with urbanization using green infrastructure in Clarksburg, Maryland. Aditi received her Ph.D. in Environmental Engineering at University of Maryland, Baltimore County where she was a trainee in the “Water in the Urban Environment” interdisciplinary graduate program (NSFIGERT). Bhaskar received her undergraduate degree from Brown University in Geology-Physics/Math. Dominique Lueckenhoff, Associate Director, Water Protection Division, EPA Region III: Dominique Lueckenhoff has over 20 years of diverse programmatic and geographic experience with US EPA, having served in several Regions and the Administrator’s Office. She currently serves as Deputy Director of the EPA Region 3 Water Protection Division. In this capacity, she supports and shares with the Division Director in the administration and management of all division activities, and water protection and state grant programs for the Mid-Atlantic (PA, DE, MD, VA, WVA, DC) totaling several billion dollars. She also serves as EPA’s management point of contact on the Green Infrastructure (GI) and Urban Waters/Federal Partnership Initiatives in the MidAtlantic, in addition to participating in a number of related internal and external national and regional work groups.
Julie Ulrich, Director of Urban Conservation, The Nature Conservancy: Julie Ulrich is the Director of Urban Conservation for The Nature Conservancy. She has extensive experience in sustainable planning and design and has worked at the intersection of cities and ecology for over ten years. Working as a Sustainability Specialist for the City of Portland, OR, she contributed to the development and implementation of numerous green infrastructure projects. Focusing on ecological and social resiliency in cities such as New Orleans, Toronto, and Stockholm, she is passionate about reenvisioning the relationship between cities, communities, and nature. She received her Masters of Urban Planning and Design from the University of Virginia’s School of Architecture and is a Senior Fellow with The Environmental Leadership Program. She also serves on the faculty of Philadelphia University’s sustainability program. Pat Coady, Senior Director, Seale & Associates: Pat Coady has a lifelong career in investment banking. He is currently Senior Director at Seale & Associates, Washington DC. Between 1989 and 1993, Pat was U.S. Executive Director of the World Bank. He has had stints as Chief Financial Officer at such diverse companies as a billion dollar financial services company as well as a start-up rocket development enterprise. Pat contributed to the book From Walden to Wall Street and organized a 2007 Conservation Finance Workshop in New York City. Pat is a senior fellow at Conservation International. In 1994, Pat co-founded and is
currently Chairman of the Northern Virginia Conservation Trust. Pat is a graduate of Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Harvard Business School. He resides in Washington, DC. Todd Doley, Environmental Economist, EPA: Todd Doley is an economist with the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Water. His work on stormwater issues began with the Phase II National Stormwater Rule promulgated in 1999. He was the lead economist for the construction and development of Effluent Limitation Guidelines initially promulgated in 2009. More recently, he was the lead economist on a comprehensive analysis of possible revisions to the national Stormwater Regulations. Currently he is working on improvements to the methods used for estimating the economic benefits associated with improvements in water quality and with the use of green infrastructure. Mark Alan Hughes, Professor of Practice, University of Pennsylvania, School of Design: Hughes is the founding director of the Kleinman Center for Energy Policy at Penn, where he has taught since 1999. In 2008-09, he was the founding Director of Sustainability and Chief Policy Adviser to the Mayor of Philadelphia. He was a weekly opinion columnist for the Philadelphia Daily News from 2001-2007. He has been a senior fellow at Brookings and the Urban Institute, a program officer at the Ford Foundation, a professor at Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School. He has a BA from Swarthmore and a PhD from Penn.
Lisa Pelstring, Advisor, Urban Environmental Issues, Office of Water and Science and Office of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, U.S. Department of Interior: Lisa has worked in the environmental field for the last twenty years in the nongovernment and government sectors. In 2011, Lisa was hired to work for former Interior Deputy Secretary David J. Hayes on urban environmental issues. She is currently an Advisor reporting to the Assistant Secretary for Water and Science and the Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks at the Department of the Interior. In this role, Pelstring is working across the Bureaus to spearhead an Administration initiative launched in 2011, the Urban Waters Federal Partnership (UWFP)—a collaborative effort among 14 federal agencies working at the intersection of economic revitalization and environmental restoration in underserved communities. Pierre Glynn, Eastern Branch Chief, USGS: Pierre oversees a broad diversity of science in areas such as numerical modeling of water flow and solute transport, environmental isotope forensics and characterization, groundwater dating, water and sediment contamination problems, nutrient cycling, ecological habitats, geomorphic processes, and the application of molecular and other techniques to the study of microbial processes. His current interests include integrated environmental modeling, Citizen Science, watershed research and monitoring programs, and the behavioral biogeosciences. Some of Pierre's recent accomplishments include (1) leading a review of the USA National Phenology Network (USGS Circular provisionally approved), (2) publishing two papers on human biases and human challenges in the construction and use of integrated environmental models (http://www.iemss.org/sites/iemss2014/papers/iemss2
014_submission_113.pdf; 2nd paper coming out soon at http://sp.lyellcollection.org/online-first/408), and (3) contributing to a review and synthesis paper on Participatory Modeling (just submitted to the journal Environmental Modeling and Software).
David Hsu, Assistant Professor, University of Pennsylvania, Department of City and Regional Planning: David Hsu is an Assistant Professor in the Department of City & Regional Planning at the University of Pennsylvania. His main area of research is urban environmental policy. Topics of particular interest include efficiency in energy and water networks; policies to encourage green buildings; and data analysis. Current projects include studies of how information affects investment in energy efficiency in the real estate market, funded by the US Department of Energy; digital tools for green infrastructure planning, funded by the US Environmental Protection Agency; and smart stormwater management, funded by the National Science Foundation. He will join the faculty at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Department of Urban Studies and Planning as an Assistant Professor in July 2015.
faculty of the School of Economics and Finance of Victoria University in Wellington, New Zealand. She has a PhD in economics from the University of California – Santa Barbara. Dr. Kateryna Wowk, Senior Social Scientist to the NOAA Chief Economist: Kateryna (Katya) Wowk is an expert in using multidisciplinary approaches to achieve sustainable management of human impacts on coastal and marine areas, with a focus on ecosystem services, climate change and coastal hazards and resilience. Prior to her current position, Katya served as Senior Policy Official to the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Conservation and Management, where she led NOAA and interagency efforts related to Sandy Recovery, National Ocean Policy, and the National Drought Resilience Partnership. Katya also worked for a private company conducting federal contracting services to NOAA, and as a Consultant for the Global Forum on Oceans, Coasts and Islands. Katya holds a PhD in International Marine Policy from the University of Delaware and a Masters of Public Administration from Columbia University.
Margaret Walls, Research Director and Senior Fellow, Resources for the Future: Margaret Walls is Research Director and Senior Fellow at resources for the Future, an independent research organization in Washington, DC. Dr. Walls has conducted research and policy analysis on a range of environmental and natural resource issues. Her current work focuses on land use and urban development, climate resilience, and building energy efficiency. Her work has appeared in a number of peer-reviewed journals and she is the author of 18 book chapters. Dr. Walls was previously on the
Appendix C: List of Participants Jen Adkins, Executive Director, Partnership for the Delaware Estuary Greg Arthaud, Acting National Program Leader Economics Research, US Forest Service Aditi Bhaskar, National Science Foundation Postdoctoral Research Fellow, USGS Jim Campbell, Director, USGS Pennsylvania Water Science Center Frank Casey, Theme Lead, USGS Science and Decisions Center, USGS Patrick Coady, Senior Director, Seale & Associates Christopher Crockett, Deputy Water Commissioner, Philadelphia Water Department Tom Daniels, Professor of City and Regional Planning, University of Pennsylvania, School of Design Alex Demas, Public Affairs Specialist, Energy Resources and Environmental Health, USGS Michael DiBerardinis, Deputy Mayor, Environmental and Community Resources, City of Philadelphia Todd Doley, Environmental Economist, EPA Theodore Eisenman, Penn IUR Ira Feldman, President and Senior Council, Greentrack Michael Focazio, Toxic Substances Hydrology Program Coordinator, Environmental Health Mission Area USGS Tera L. Fong, Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President, Stormwater Management Expert Katherine Gajewski, Director, Mayor’s Office of Sustainability, City of Philadelphia Shawn M. Garvin, Regional Administrator, EPA Mid-Atlantic Region Pierre Glynn, Eastern Branch Chief, National Water Research Program, USGS William Guertal, Deputy Associate Director for Water, USGS George S. Hawkins, CEO & General Manager, DC Water and Sewer Authority
Brian Hazelwood, Conservation Associate, American Rivers Stuart Hean, Research Coordinator, The Wharton School, Penn IUR Ken Hendrickson, Green Infrastructure Lead Office of State and Watershed Partnerships, Water Protection Division, EPA Region 3 Dianna Hogan, Research Physical Scientist, USGS, Co-director SILUS David Hsu, Assistant Professor of Planning, University of Pennsylvania, School of Design Mark Alan Hughes, Professor of Practice, University of Pennsylvania, School of Design Stephanie Johnson, Senior Program Officer, Water Science and Technology Board, National Research Council Jeffrey Knowles, Regional Advisor, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Bureau of Recreation and Conservation John Landis, Crossways Professor of City & Regional Planning, University of Pennsylvania, School of Design Suzette Kimball, Acting Director, U.S. Geological Survey Michelle Kunec-North, Program Coordinator, Bureau of Planning and Sustainability, City of Portland David Lange, Chief, Conservation and Recreation Assistance Division Michael Leff, Ambassador, Urban Waters Federal Partnership - Delaware River Watershed, The Davey Institute, USDA Forest Service Theo Lim, PhD Candidate, University of Pennsylvania, School of Design Chris Linn, Manage, Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission Noam Lior, Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Applied Mechanics, University of Pennsylvania Sarah Low, Coordinator, Philadelphia Field Station, US Forest Service Dominique Lueckenhoff, Deputy Director, Water Protection Division, EPA Region 3 Matt Nicholson, EPA, Office of Environmental Information and Analysis, Environmental Assessment and Innovation Division
Melissa Monsalve, USGS Michael Miller, OLIN Howard Neukrug, Water Commissioner, City of Philadelphia Michael Nutter, Mayor of the City of Philadelphia Eric Orts, Director, Initiative for Global Environmental Leadership, University of Pennsylvania Emily Pindilli, Economist, USGS Lisa Pelstring, DOI Lead, Urban Waters Federal Partnership, U.S. Department of Interior Karen C. Seto, Associate Dean of Research, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies Carl Shapiro, Director, USGS Science and Decisions Center Guy Sheets, Vice President, AMO Environmental Decisions Noel Soto, Conservationist, USDA Tracy Tackett, Green Stormwater Infrastructure Program Manager, Seattle Public Utilities Jerry Tinianow, Chief Sustainability Officer, City and County of Denver Niel Trenk, Transportation Planner, HNTB Infrastructure Solutions Julie Ulrich, Watershed Restoration Coordinator, The Nature Conservancy Susan Wachter, Co-director: Penn IUR, SILUS, University of Pennsylvania Margot Walker, Director, Capital Planning and Partnerships, Office of Green Infrastructure, City of New York Margaret Walls, Research Director and Senior Fellow Resources for the Future Richard Weller, University of Pennsylvania, School of Design Tommy Wells, Director, District Department of the Environment, Washington DC Katya Wowk, Senior Social Scientist, NOAA Office of Program Planning and Integration Paul Young, Associate Director – Energy and Minerals and Environmental Health, USG