You are on page 1of 89

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

A  Community  Guidebook  for  Implemen5ng  (re)connect  -­‐  The  Wasatch  Front  Green  Infrastructure  Plan                    2
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
9.9.6  State,  Regional,  and  Municipal  Green  Infrastructure  Funding  Strategies  
        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

A  Community  Guidebook  for  Implemen5ng  (re)connect  -­‐  The  Wasatch  Front  Green  Infrastructure  Plan                    3
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.

A  Community  Guidebook  for  Implemen5ng  (re)connect  -­‐  The  Wasatch  Front  Green  Infrastructure  Plan                    4
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  

A  Community  Guidebook  for  Implemen5ng  (re)connect  -­‐  The  Wasatch  Front  Green  Infrastructure  Plan                    5
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,  
A  Community  Guidebook  for  Implemen5ng  (re)connect  -­‐  The  Wasatch  Front  Green  Infrastructure  Plan                    6
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.  

A  Community  Guidebook  for  Implemen5ng  (re)connect  -­‐  The  Wasatch  Front  Green  Infrastructure  Plan                    7
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.
 

A  Community  Guidebook  for  Implemen5ng  (re)connect  -­‐  The  Wasatch  Front  Green  Infrastructure  Plan                    8
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).  

A  Community  Guidebook  for  Implemen5ng  (re)connect  -­‐  The  Wasatch  Front  Green  Infrastructure  Plan                    9
DRAFT  –  2/2012
   

A  Community  Guidebook  for  Implemen5ng  (re)connect  -­‐  The  Wasatch  Front  Green  Infrastructure  Plan                    10
DRAFT  –  2/20/12
A  Community  Guidebook  for  Implemen5ng  (re)connect  -­‐  The  Wasatch  Front  Green  Infrastructure  Plan                    11
DRAFT  –  2/2012
A  Community  Guidebook  for  Implemen5ng  (re)connect  -­‐  The  Wasatch  Front  Green  Infrastructure  Plan                    12
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.
A  Community  Guidebook  for  Implemen5ng  (re)connect  -­‐  The  Wasatch  Front  Green  Infrastructure  Plan                    13
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.

A  Community  Guidebook  for  Implemen5ng  (re)connect  -­‐  The  Wasatch  Front  Green  Infrastructure  Plan                    14
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  

A  Community  Guidebook  for  Implemen5ng  (re)connect  -­‐  The  Wasatch  Front  Green  Infrastructure  Plan                    15
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.

A  Community  Guidebook  for  Implemen5ng  (re)connect  -­‐  The  Wasatch  Front  Green  Infrastructure  Plan                    16
DRAFT  –  2/20/12
A  Community  Guidebook  for  Implemen5ng  (re)connect  -­‐  The  Wasatch  Front  Green  Infrastructure  Plan                    17
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.

9.5  Urban  Green  Infrastructure


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).      

A  Community  Guidebook  for  Implemen5ng  (re)connect  -­‐  The  Wasatch  Front  Green  Infrastructure  Plan                    18
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

9.5  Urban  Green  Infrastructure  


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  
A  Community  Guidebook  for  Implemen5ng  (re)connect  -­‐  The  Wasatch  Front  Green  Infrastructure  Plan                    19
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  

A  Community  Guidebook  for  Implemen5ng  (re)connect  -­‐  The  Wasatch  Front  Green  Infrastructure  Plan                    20
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

A  Community  Guidebook  for  Implemen5ng  (re)connect  -­‐  The  Wasatch  Front  Green  Infrastructure  Plan                    21
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  

A  Community  Guidebook  for  Implemen5ng  (re)connect  -­‐  The  Wasatch  Front  Green  Infrastructure  Plan                    22
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.

A  Community  Guidebook  for  Implemen5ng  (re)connect  -­‐  The  Wasatch  Front  Green  Infrastructure  Plan                    23
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.  

A  Community  Guidebook  for  Implemen5ng  (re)connect  -­‐  The  Wasatch  Front  Green  Infrastructure  Plan                    24
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.))

A  Community  Guidebook  for  Implemen5ng  (re)connect  -­‐  The  Wasatch  Front  Green  Infrastructure  Plan                    25
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.

A  Community  Guidebook  for  Implemen5ng  (re)connect  -­‐  The  Wasatch  Front  Green  Infrastructure  Plan                    26
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  

A  Community  Guidebook  for  Implemen5ng  (re)connect  -­‐  The  Wasatch  Front  Green  Infrastructure  Plan                    27
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.

A  Community  Guidebook  for  Implemen5ng  (re)connect  -­‐  The  Wasatch  Front  Green  Infrastructure  Plan                    28
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.

A  Community  Guidebook  for  Implemen5ng  (re)connect  -­‐  The  Wasatch  Front  Green  Infrastructure  Plan                    29
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.  

A  Community  Guidebook  for  Implemen5ng  (re)connect  -­‐  The  Wasatch  Front  Green  Infrastructure  Plan                    30
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  

A  Community  Guidebook  for  Implemen5ng  (re)connect  -­‐  The  Wasatch  Front  Green  Infrastructure  Plan                    31
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.    

A  Community  Guidebook  for  Implemen5ng  (re)connect  -­‐  The  Wasatch  Front  Green  Infrastructure  Plan                    32
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.

A  Community  Guidebook  for  Implemen5ng  (re)connect  -­‐  The  Wasatch  Front  Green  Infrastructure  Plan                    33
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

A  Community  Guidebook  for  Implemen5ng  (re)connect  -­‐  The  Wasatch  Front  Green  Infrastructure  Plan                    34
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.

A  Community  Guidebook  for  Implemen5ng  (re)connect  -­‐  The  Wasatch  Front  Green  Infrastructure  Plan                    35
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  

A  Community  Guidebook  for  Implemen5ng  (re)connect  -­‐  The  Wasatch  Front  Green  Infrastructure  Plan                    36
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  

A  Community  Guidebook  for  Implemen5ng  (re)connect  -­‐  The  Wasatch  Front  Green  Infrastructure  Plan                    37
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)

A  Community  Guidebook  for  Implemen5ng  (re)connect  -­‐  The  Wasatch  Front  Green  Infrastructure  Plan                    38
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  

A  Community  Guidebook  for  Implemen5ng  (re)connect  -­‐  The  Wasatch  Front  Green  Infrastructure  Plan                    39
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

A  Community  Guidebook  for  Implemen5ng  (re)connect  -­‐  The  Wasatch  Front  Green  Infrastructure  Plan                    40
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

A  Community  Guidebook  for  Implemen5ng  (re)connect  -­‐  The  Wasatch  Front  Green  Infrastructure  Plan                    41
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.

A  Community  Guidebook  for  Implemen5ng  (re)connect  -­‐  The  Wasatch  Front  Green  Infrastructure  Plan                    42
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)

A  Community  Guidebook  for  Implemen5ng  (re)connect  -­‐  The  Wasatch  Front  Green  Infrastructure  Plan                    43
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).  

A  Community  Guidebook  for  Implemen5ng  (re)connect  -­‐  The  Wasatch  Front  Green  Infrastructure  Plan                    44
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.  

A  Community  Guidebook  for  Implemen5ng  (re)connect  -­‐  The  Wasatch  Front  Green  Infrastructure  Plan                    45
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).  
 

A  Community  Guidebook  for  Implemen5ng  (re)connect  -­‐  The  Wasatch  Front  Green  Infrastructure  Plan                    46
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  

A  Community  Guidebook  for  Implemen5ng  (re)connect  -­‐  The  Wasatch  Front  Green  Infrastructure  Plan                    47
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  

A  Community  Guidebook  for  Implemen5ng  (re)connect  -­‐  The  Wasatch  Front  Green  Infrastructure  Plan                    48
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
A  Community  Guidebook  for  Implemen5ng  (re)connect  -­‐  The  Wasatch  Front  Green  Infrastructure  Plan                    49
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

A  Community  Guidebook  for  Implemen5ng  (re)connect  -­‐  The  Wasatch  Front  Green  Infrastructure  Plan                    50
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.    

A  Community  Guidebook  for  Implemen5ng  (re)connect  -­‐  The  Wasatch  Front  Green  Infrastructure  Plan                    51
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.

A  Community  Guidebook  for  Implemen5ng  (re)connect  -­‐  The  Wasatch  Front  Green  Infrastructure  Plan                    52
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  

A  Community  Guidebook  for  Implemen5ng  (re)connect  -­‐  The  Wasatch  Front  Green  Infrastructure  Plan                    53
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  

A  Community  Guidebook  for  Implemen5ng  (re)connect  -­‐  The  Wasatch  Front  Green  Infrastructure  Plan                    54
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  

A  Community  Guidebook  for  Implemen5ng  (re)connect  -­‐  The  Wasatch  Front  Green  Infrastructure  Plan                    55
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

A  Community  Guidebook  for  Implemen5ng  (re)connect  -­‐  The  Wasatch  Front  Green  Infrastructure  Plan                    56
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.  

A  Community  Guidebook  for  Implemen5ng  (re)connect  -­‐  The  Wasatch  Front  Green  Infrastructure  Plan                    57
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.

A  Community  Guidebook  for  Implemen5ng  (re)connect  -­‐  The  Wasatch  Front  Green  Infrastructure  Plan                    58
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.

A  Community  Guidebook  for  Implemen5ng  (re)connect  -­‐  The  Wasatch  Front  Green  Infrastructure  Plan                    59
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  

A  Community  Guidebook  for  Implemen5ng  (re)connect  -­‐  The  Wasatch  Front  Green  Infrastructure  Plan                    60
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.

A  Community  Guidebook  for  Implemen5ng  (re)connect  -­‐  The  Wasatch  Front  Green  Infrastructure  Plan                    61
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:

A  Community  Guidebook  for  Implemen5ng  (re)connect  -­‐  The  Wasatch  Front  Green  Infrastructure  Plan                    62
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
Forest  Legacy  Program    
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

A  Community  Guidebook  for  Implemen5ng  (re)connect  -­‐  The  Wasatch  Front  Green  Infrastructure  Plan                    63
DRAFT  –  2/2012
Wetland  Mi5ga5on  Banking  
Wetlands  Program  Development  Grants  Sec5on  104(b)(3)

9.9.3  State,  Regional,  and  Municipal  Green  Infrastructure  Funding  Strategies


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.  

A  Community  Guidebook  for  Implemen5ng  (re)connect  -­‐  The  Wasatch  Front  Green  Infrastructure  Plan                    64
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  

A  Community  Guidebook  for  Implemen5ng  (re)connect  -­‐  The  Wasatch  Front  Green  Infrastructure  Plan                    65
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)


Contact: USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service

A  Community  Guidebook  for  Implemen5ng  (re)connect  -­‐  The  Wasatch  Front  Green  Infrastructure  Plan                    66
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)


Contact: USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service
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  

A  Community  Guidebook  for  Implemen5ng  (re)connect  -­‐  The  Wasatch  Front  Green  Infrastructure  Plan                    67
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)


Contact: USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service
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)


Contact: USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service
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)


Contact: USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service
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)


Contact: USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service
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  

A  Community  Guidebook  for  Implemen5ng  (re)connect  -­‐  The  Wasatch  Front  Green  Infrastructure  Plan                    68
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


Contact: USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service
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)
Contact: USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service
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)
Contact: USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service
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  

A  Community  Guidebook  for  Implemen5ng  (re)connect  -­‐  The  Wasatch  Front  Green  Infrastructure  Plan                    69
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)


Contact: USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service

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.  

Forest Legacy Program


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

A  Community  Guidebook  for  Implemen5ng  (re)connect  -­‐  The  Wasatch  Front  Green  Infrastructure  Plan                    70
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  

A  Community  Guidebook  for  Implemen5ng  (re)connect  -­‐  The  Wasatch  Front  Green  Infrastructure  Plan                    71
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

A  Community  Guidebook  for  Implemen5ng  (re)connect  -­‐  The  Wasatch  Front  Green  Infrastructure  Plan                    72
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.  

A  Community  Guidebook  for  Implemen5ng  (re)connect  -­‐  The  Wasatch  Front  Green  Infrastructure  Plan                    73
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

A  Community  Guidebook  for  Implemen5ng  (re)connect  -­‐  The  Wasatch  Front  Green  Infrastructure  Plan                    74
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.

A  Community  Guidebook  for  Implemen5ng  (re)connect  -­‐  The  Wasatch  Front  Green  Infrastructure  Plan                    75
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.

A  Community  Guidebook  for  Implemen5ng  (re)connect  -­‐  The  Wasatch  Front  Green  Infrastructure  Plan                    76
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.

A  Community  Guidebook  for  Implemen5ng  (re)connect  -­‐  The  Wasatch  Front  Green  Infrastructure  Plan                    77
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  

A  Community  Guidebook  for  Implemen5ng  (re)connect  -­‐  The  Wasatch  Front  Green  Infrastructure  Plan                    78
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

A  Community  Guidebook  for  Implemen5ng  (re)connect  -­‐  The  Wasatch  Front  Green  Infrastructure  Plan                    79
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.

A  Community  Guidebook  for  Implemen5ng  (re)connect  -­‐  The  Wasatch  Front  Green  Infrastructure  Plan                    80
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.

A  Community  Guidebook  for  Implemen5ng  (re)connect  -­‐  The  Wasatch  Front  Green  Infrastructure  Plan                    81
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  

A  Community  Guidebook  for  Implemen5ng  (re)connect  -­‐  The  Wasatch  Front  Green  Infrastructure  Plan                    82
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  

A  Community  Guidebook  for  Implemen5ng  (re)connect  -­‐  The  Wasatch  Front  Green  Infrastructure  Plan                    83
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.  

A  Community  Guidebook  for  Implemen5ng  (re)connect  -­‐  The  Wasatch  Front  Green  Infrastructure  Plan                    84
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  

A  Community  Guidebook  for  Implemen5ng  (re)connect  -­‐  The  Wasatch  Front  Green  Infrastructure  Plan                    85
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

A  Community  Guidebook  for  Implemen5ng  (re)connect  -­‐  The  Wasatch  Front  Green  Infrastructure  Plan                    86
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.  

A  Community  Guidebook  for  Implemen5ng  (re)connect  -­‐  The  Wasatch  Front  Green  Infrastructure  Plan                    87
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)

A  Community  Guidebook  for  Implemen5ng  (re)connect  -­‐  The  Wasatch  Front  Green  Infrastructure  Plan                    88
DRAFT  –  2/20/12