Wharton GIS Lab Working Paper
The Sustainable City: Report on Roundtable on Science, Urban Ecosystem
Services, and Green Infrastructure
Credit: Photo by R. Kennedy for Visit Philadelphia™
1
Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................... 3
I. Science, Urban Ecosystem Services, and Green Infrastructure ........................................................ 5
II. Key Challenges and Opportunities in the Use of Green Infrastructure ... Error! Bookmark not
defined.
III. Perspectives on Green Infrastructure and Urban Sustainability .................................................... 6
1. Michael Nutter, City of Philadelphia .....................................................................................................................6
2. Shawn Garvin, U.S. EPA .......................................................................................................................................7
3. Michael DiBerardinis, City of Philadelphia ...........................................................................................................8
4. Katherine Gajewski, City of Philadelphia ........................................................................................................... 10
IV. Panel on Best Practices from Leading Cities ................................................................................. 11
1. Denver, CO .......................................................................................................................................................... 11
2. New York City, NY ............................................................................................................................................. 12
3. Portland, OR ........................................................................................................................................................ 13
4. Seattle, WA .......................................................................................................................................................... 14
5. Washington, DC .................................................................................................................................................. 14
6. Philadelphia, PA .................................................................................................................................................. 16
V. Sustainable Urbanization: How Cities Can Save (or Wreck) the Planet ..................................... 18
VI. Federal and Local Partnerships for Science: Afternoon Keynote ........... Error! Bookmark not
defined.
VII. Discussion Sessions ......................................................................................................................... 19
1. Green Infrastructure and Urban Ecosystem Services: What Works? .................................................................. 19
2. The Role of Incentives and Regulatory Mechanisms .......................................................................................... 22
3. Directions in Research and Practice Going Forward ........................................................................................... 24
Appendices ................................................................................................................................................ 28
Appendix A: Agenda ............................................................................................................................................... 28
2
Appendix B: Speaker Biographies ........................................................................................................................... 30
Appendix C: List of Participants ............................................................................................................................. 37
Executive Summary
The Wharton GIS Lab of the University of Pennsylvania, convened a one-day
symposium, The Sustainable City: Roundtable on Science, Urban Ecosystem Services, and
Green Infrastructure, on May 19, 2015, at the University of Pennsylvania. The roundtable
brought together policymakers, practitioners, and researchers from across disciplines to discuss
best practices in the design, implementation, and management of green infrastructure (GI) for
urban stormwater management, and, more broadly, to develop a research agenda to advance the
use of GI and urban ecosystem services (ES).
The event served to highlight best practices in cities that are applying GI1 to help achieve
sustainability goals, specifically for stormwater management2. There is growing attention to the
efficacy of GI as a solution for urban infrastructure challenges across cities in America3. The use
of GI is still at an early stage, thus it is important to share information across cities that are
pioneering their implementation. In general, Roundtable participants discussed challenges and
1
Green infrastructure (GI) makes use of natural processes and is considered a low-impact alternative to
conventional grey infrastructure. GI may provide a cost-effective and regenerative approach to supplying services,
such as stormwater management.
2
Green stormwater infrastructure (GSI) is designed to mitigate stormwater surge events, reduce combined sewer
overflows, and lower pollutant loads in urban waterways. GSI can also reduce flood risk and recharge the ground
water supply. GSI has valuable social and economic co-benefits: among these, increased green space, cleaner water,
and reduced air and noise pollution. Economic benefits also include increased property values. These benefits are
ecosystem services; that is, the benefits received from natural systems by society.
3
Cities have unique challenges in use of GI. Older cities that have lost population need to reduce blight, increase
green space, and cost effectively replace old infrastructure. In cities that are growing, there is a need to counter the
negative effects of development, recover ecosystems services, and restore ecological systems through the
implementation of GI projects that employ natural processes and provide associated ES benefits. The ecological
costs of development include disturbed watershed function and ecosystem stability. Drastic changes to the natural
landscape from loss of vegetation, land grading, and replacement of pervious with impervious surfaces, lead to
decreased ability of watersheds to retain rainfall and elevates the production and transport of sediment, nutrients,
and other pollutants during storm events
3
opportunities in the use of GI, ways to disseminate lessons learned and share solutions, and how
to advance future research towards more effective use of the technology. Perspectives of local,
regional, and federal leaders provided background on the implementation of local and regional
programs, and an understanding of the roles of federal and local partnerships toward advancing
an ecosystems framework for environmental resources management. City panelists provided
experience on the use of local policy strategies in the implementation of GI in urban areas across
the country. A discussion was held on the potential for a new systems science to further the
understanding of the global environmental impacts of urbanization. The Roundtable concluded
with a specific discussion of: (1) what works in the use of GI for urban stormwater management;
(2) the role of incentives and regulatory mechanisms; and (3) future directions in research.
4
I. Science, Urban Ecosystem Services, and Green Infrastructure:
Critical Directions in Policy and Research
Carl Shapiro, Director of the USGS Science and Decisions Center, stated that
improving our ability to use GI effectively and enhance the ability of natural and managed
systems to produce ecosystem services in urban areas is a critical issue at the interface between
science and decision-making. Shapiro highlighted the importance of examining the impact of
green and hybrid solutions for stormwater management on nature’s ability to produce ecosystem
services, particularly in urban areas, where the majority of the Nation’s population resides. He
explained that the decisions we make on the use of green and hybrid infrastructure have great
impacts on nature as well as societal well-being, and that it is critical that we develop effective
methods to evaluate these impacts so that our decisions maximize environmental, social, and
economic benefits.
Shapiro identified four key questions that merit special consideration:
How can we improve, better understand, and characterize the hydrological effectiveness
of GI?
How can we better understand and measure the ecosystem services produced from GI
approaches?
How can we better evaluate the short- and long-term impacts of GI, hybrid solutions, and
traditional approaches?
What are the critical biophysical and socioeconomic science needs for making informed
decisions?
5
II. Key Challenges and Opportunities in the Use of Green
Infrastructure
Suzette Kimball, Acting Director, U.S. Geological Survey 4 (*Approved comments
from USGS will be available shortly)
III. Perspectives on Green Infrastructure and Urban Sustainability
1. Michael Nutter, City of Philadelphia
Michael Nutter described his first mayoral election as a pivotal turning point for the
City’s use of GI, during which a variety of disparate political and community stakeholders
converged to embrace a “green” and sustainable agenda. The Mayor noted that shortly after
winning the Democratic primary, he traveled to Chicago, where then-Mayor Richard Daley
voiced further support for such an agenda, encouraging the Mayor to work toward city
sustainability, establish cost-savings, and simultaneously beautify the city while making
neighborhoods more livable for residents. Shortly after that, at his January 2008 inauguration, the
Mayor proclaimed that Philadelphia would be the “#1 greenest city” in the country. Admitting, in
hindsight, the boldness of the statement, he pointed to the resulting Greenworks Plan, a program
developed by the administration in that first year which has served as the backbone of the city’s
sustainability efforts. He also celebrated the establishment of the Mayor’s Office of
Sustainability (MOS), led by Katherine Gajewski, which, just this year, became permanent by
public vote. The Mayor described Greenworks and the Green City, Clean Waters Initiative
(discussed below), noting that every government department has a role to playing energy
conservation, water management, recycling, and building retrofits. Turning to stormwater and GI
4
Dr. Suzette Kimball was unable to attend the Roundtable in person due to illness; Dr. Carl Shapiro delivered her
remarks on her behalf.
6
specifically, he described the pioneering agreement with EPA (discussed below), as well as the
challenge of implementing this agreement with programs to retrofit the sewer system, expand the
urban tree canopy, install residential rain gardens, and expand public awareness and engagement.
He emphasized the importance of engaging community groups as well as youth and school
programs. He addressed the issue of continuity, noting that while his eight-year term in office
helped to establish the necessary groundwork, long-term these efforts will only be successful if a
culture of sustainability is maintained across administrations - a task both within and outside of
government.
2. Shawn Garvin, U.S. EPA
Shawn Garvin, Regional Administrator, EPA Mid-Atlantic Region commended
Philadelphia and urban communities across the Mid-Atlantic region and across the nation that
have been leading the way in advancing GI. He discussed the importance of leveraging cobenefits associated with GI, explaining how sustainable GI projects help with stormwater
management while also improving the quality of life for local residents, and ultimately helping to
drive neighborhood revitalization. He pointed to the historic partnership between the City of
Philadelphia and the U.S. EPA, the 2012 agreement to support the City’s “Green City, Clean
Waters” initiative5 , and noted recently awarded EPA STAR research grants that evaluate the
costs and benefits of GI practices in Philadelphia and inform efforts across the country6.
5
The Green City, Clean Waters initiative is Philadelphia's 25-year plan to protect and enhance its watersheds by
managing stormwater with Green Infrastructure. The Philadelphia Water Department developed Green City, Clean
Waters to provide a clear pathway to a sustainable future while strengthening the utility of infrastructure services in
the city, broadening its mission, and complying with environmental laws and regulations. See the Hogan et al.(2013)
report , Urban Ecosystem Services and Decision-Making: A Green Philadelphia for more details.
6
The STAR program funds research grants in numerous environmental science and engineering disciplines through
a competitive selection process. At present, STAR is focusing on the health effects of particulate matter, drinking
water, water quality, global change, ecosystem assessment and restoration, and human health risk assessment. Susan
7
He went on to describe the objective of providing cleaner water at lower cost; a universal
goal achievable through input from multiple levels of government, public and private
stakeholders, and academic and not-for-profit institutions. As an example, he noted the
partnerships in “Soak It Up Adoption7”, a grant program of the Philadelphia Water Department,
which engages the private sector’s design and engineering communities to leverage sustainable
urban design. Federal partnerships include work connected with the Urban Waters Federal
Partnership (UWFP)8, for which the Delaware River Watershed is a designated location. He also
pointed to the newly created, federally sponsored, Water Infrastructure and Resiliency Finance
Center9 and described the importance of public-private partnerships for innovative financing
solutions to maintain an improved water infrastructure. Leveraging public resources to bring the
private sector to the table would be essential to maximize the effect of every federal dollar spent.
Referencing projects in big cities and small towns alike, he explained that communities are
adopting cheaper, faster and greener approaches to supply more efficiently public goods and
services to residents.
3. Michael DiBerardinis, City of Philadelphia
Michael DiBerardinis addressed the question of how to advance the use of science and
to promote investment in GI and ecosystem services in future local decision making. In the
future, cities will play a major role in advancing GI, and in order to bring the necessary
stakeholders to the table, it is critical that the economic, social, and environmental reasons for
Wachter leads a grant under the STAR program exploring these issues for the City of Philadelphia at the University
of Pennsylvania.
7
http://www.phillywatersheds.org/soak-it-adoption
8
The UWFP is a partnership of 14 Federal agencies, led by the EPA, the Department of the Interior (DOI), and the
U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USFA) Forest Services. The program involves a broad scope of project partners
across multiple agencies, working to address economic, ecological and public health challenges connected with the
river region and watershed.
9
http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/waterfinancecenter.cfm
8
investing in GI are made clear. He spoke about renewed interest in urban downtowns as
revitalized places where people want to come to work and raise their families, and the
importance of environmental factors to the improved quality of life in these places. He cited
recent growth in Philadelphia, which for the first time in half a century is gaining population.
Cities are continuing to grow as major population centers, and are therefore important places to
address issues of sustainability and climate change.
Reviewing successful strategies for embracing change and facilitating action, he noted
the importance of good leadership, political commitment, and coordinated and collaborative
action and pointed to the importance of vision and sound science in informing strategy. There
are many areas of overlap and collaboration such as the Department of Parks and Recreation and
the Water Department with the dual function of open space, parks, and trees for providing
neighborhood assets while helping to manage stormwater. He identified ways that the City
engages with the community to get citizens involved, such as through tree planting programs. He
reiterated comments from the Mayor about building a constituency to accelerate progress and
ensure the long-term success of these programs, and pointed to the importance of enabling
stakeholders to see underlying value in the multiple benefits of GI and the received ecosystem
services. He restated the need for a deep political commitment to drive programs forward, and
the necessity to hold those programs accountable to scientifically backed standards. Along with
building a strong political base comes ensuring equitable and accessible resources for all
neighborhoods and communities across the city.
9
4. Katherine Gajewski, City of Philadelphia
Katherine Gajewski underlined the Mayor’s point that operationalizing and
institutionalizing sustainability initiatives to bridge administrations are key to creating the
continuity and stability necessary for public and private investors to buy in. She put
Philadelphia’s recent progress in a broader perspective by discussing the newly established
Urban Sustainability Directors Network (USDN)10. The USDN is a network across cities that
serves to connect sustainability offices, transfer information and success stories, and support the
accelerated uptake of green ideas. The network has an international span, and may help local
governments establish a framework for how cities will collectively address climate change.
Local level actions are central to addressing global climate and broader scale social and
environmental challenges. She identified that the primary task at hand is to effectively share best
practices, and Philadelphia is actively investing in knowledge transfer and dissemination of
lessons learned. The next phases of sustainability work in Philadelphia and elsewhere are moving
toward establishing a systems change for making decisions on accounting for environmental
impact in urban planning and governance. This requires a fundamental shift in how we approach
budgeting, zoning, land use management, and how we bring this work to regional, national, and
global scales. In closing, she reflected on the role of cities in driving environmental change and
opined that change should come from cities since they are the population and economic centers,
and are primed for testing and experimenting with innovative ideas and designs.
10
More information regarding the USDN can be found at http://usdn.org/home.html?returnUrl=%2findex.html.
10
IV. Panel on Best Practices from Leading Cities
1. Denver, CO
Jerry Tinianow, Chief Sustainability Officer, Office of Sustainability, City of
Denver presented Denver’s sustainability vision, describing how public input led the city to
place civic engagement at the core of that vision, noting that “community is the most important
renewable resource.” He also acknowledged the necessity of scientific research to advise and
inform decision making for Denver’s Office of Sustainability. Tinianow noted the progress of the
sustainability movement in Denver in recent years and the programmatic and funding success
allowing for the increasing complexity of issues addressed. He described the contemporary
challenges of “green on green” conflicts, in which the use of GI can interfere with one another if
efforts are not appropriately coordinated across departments11. He described how these conflicts
and tradeoffs are bound to arise in the process of working toward sustainability while attempting
to maximize ecosystem services; successful management to balance these complexities will
require interdisciplinary research and collaboration.
Tinianow went on to identify challenges to sustainable water management, noting that
much of the land in Denver is privately owned. Public action alone, for which support is
gathering, is not enough. Developers tend to be unaware of GI for stormwater management,
resulting in missed opportunities to promote the benefits of urban ecosystem services to
purchasers. He stated that removing barriers is not about creating new programs, but rather about
increasing awareness and visibility of existing practices, and appropriately valuing those options
11
He cited examples of independently beneficial practices conflicting with each other: an irrigation system from a
community garden shorting out an adjacent bike-share kiosk; competition for sunlight between trees and solar
panels; conflict between hydroelectric dams producing clean power while harming fisheries; clean wind turbines
killing birds; and, raising water levels behind dams to enhance downstream river flow at the cost of losing wildlife
habitat upstream.
11
for private interests. He cited the stormwater incentive programs used in Philadelphia and
Washington, D.C. (see below for a discussion of both) as best practice models for effectively
engaging the private real estate sector.
Tinianow concluded by describing efforts to improve water quality through the
development of a water quality assessment scorecard that Denver’s Public Works Department
has used to rank and benchmark the quality of regional watersheds12. Measurement (i.e.,
monitoring) and the use of explicit goals as a commitment device are important for future
administrations, and as a way to maintain public programmatic support - the City has set itself
the goal of raising each ranking by at least one grade within the next five years.
2. New York City, NY
Margot Walker, Director of Capital Planning and Partnerships, Office of Green
Infrastructure, City of New York, presented New York City’s efforts to improve existing
water infrastructure and the strategic plan to expand the quantity of public GI projects. Citing
recent investments of $10 billion spent on infrastructure improvements in the past decade,
Walker noted the improvements that water quality in the city is the best it has been in over 100
years of testing. Going forward, schoolyards and playgrounds, public housing, parkland, and
parking lots, “Right of Way” projects13 aim to saturate areas with the heaviest sewer overflow
with installation of permeable pavers and turf field with storage to increase rates of bio-retention.
Other public property retrofits include drainpipe sewer disconnect/diversion (to direct water from
the roof to ground infiltration or rain gardens rather than the sewer). Walker also discussed their
12
Denver’s 2014 water quality report can be found at:
http://www.denvergov.org/content/dam/denvergov/Portals/771/documents/WQ_Docs/Water Quality Report 2014
web.pdf
13
Right–of-way projects use the public area public area between the two property lines along the street that includes
sidewalks and paved roadway.
12
cost-benefit assessment tool14, which is being beta-tested to evaluate pilot projects and estimate
lifecycle value of the different projects the city is undertaking. This tool will be used to consider
the multiple co-benefits of GI across public health, environmental and economic sectors.
3. Portland, OR
Michelle
Kunec-North,
Program
Coordinator,
Bureau
of
Planning
and
Sustainability, City of Portland, began by noting that both natural and engineered facilities can
provide protection and support for natural systems while benefiting society through the
ecosystem services (ES) they produce. She discussed Portland’s transition from conventional
wastewater utility services to an environmentally conscious approach to infrastructure
management that utilizes GI.
Two core values form the basis for the City’s strategic
sustainability planning goals: (1) to guide development to environmentally less sensitive areas,
and (2) to reduce pressure from development on existing green infrastructure and natural
resources. Portland targets opportunity areas or regions for development that can accommodate
urban growth without negative impact on the watershed. In addition, promoting the use of GI
helps the City “weave nature back into the city.”
Working in partnership with the Bureau of Transportation and Portland’s Bureau of
Environmental Services, the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability is developing a Green Assets
Report.15 This includes a citywide framework and baseline inventory of GI, an assessment of the
financial contributions to infrastructure and ecosystem services, and a set of guidelines for next
steps to improve management of the city’s GI systems and wildlife habitats. 16
14
NYC Green Infrastructure Cost Benefit Comparison Tool.
A link for Green Assets Report can be found at http://www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/article/532125.
16
See Susan M. Wachter, J. Leo Penne, and Arthur C. Nelson, eds. 2000. Bridging the Divide: Making Regions
Work. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, DC for a discussion of Portland’s
greenbelt.
15
13
4. Seattle, WA
Tracy Tackett, Green Stormwater Infrastructure Program Manager, Seattle Public
Utilities, City of Seattle, described recent progress toward sustainability in Seattle. Specifically,
she mentioned successful initiatives to increase recycling, expanded water efficiency and
conservation efforts, and growing support for climate neutrality. Seattle’s green stormwater
infrastructure program focuses primarily on managing runoff through increasing the bioretention
ability of city blocks by distributing green space. Tackett also discussed the transformation of
impervious surfaces on residential and commercial property. Tackett gave an overview of
already established GI projects and reviewed strategic plans for continuing to move the program
forward. Efforts to accelerate GI application include: (1) overhauling relevant code requirements
to eliminate conflicts and loopholes in land use language, and require GI in all new
developments; (2) using utility incentives to encourage residents to pursue GI independently; and
(3) making capital investments in larger-scale GI projects in public areas. Going forward,
establishing methods of assessing and valuing green assets is important for informing the design
of incentives and future implementation and expansion of GI.
5. Washington, DC
Tommy Wells, Director, District Department of the Environment, Washington DC,
presented the District’s goals for restoring its waterways to a swimmable and fishable quality.
Wells described the efforts of the District Department of the Environment (DDOE) to decrease
existing contaminants and incoming runoff and overflow. In the District, the Potomac River, the
Anacostia River, and Rock Creek provide habitat for fish and wildlife and are enjoyed
14
recreationally by residents and visitors, but have been subject to decades of pollution and are
threatened by regional urban development.
To realize the vision of the District’s comprehensive sustainability plan, numerous
initiatives are being developed. These include cleaning up contaminated sediments17 ,
eliminating combined sewer overflows18, and reducing stormwater runoff.
The District has a three-pronged approach to curbing stormwater runoff: (1) direct
investment in GI to capture and retain runoff, (2) incentive programs that reward homeowners
and commercial properties for voluntarily managing impervious surfaces with GI, and (3) new
stormwater regulations that require development projects to use green practices to retain runoff
on-site. In addition, Washington DC has developed an innovative stormwater retention credit
(SRC) trading market that allows regulated projects to meet up to 50% of their stormwater
retention obligations by purchasing SRCs from properties that voluntarily install runoff-reducing
GI. The District also works closely with neighboring jurisdictions to encourage them to mirror
the District’s efforts upstream through a comprehensive, regional plan to protect and restore
entire watersheds. Wells concluded by describing the value that DC sees in collaborations and
opportunities to learn from others.
George Hawkins, Chief Operating Officer and General Manager, DC Water
provided specifics on the efforts to eliminate combined sewer overflows in Washington DC. He
reviewed the DC Clean Rivers Project, which in accordance with a federal consent decree will
invest $2.6 billion dollar in stormwater management infrastructure19. The project is estimated to
reduce combined sewer demand by close to 3 billion gallons a year (~96 percent of current
17
DDOE is currently assessing the extent of pollution by testing river sediment and fish for a variety of hazardous
chemicals and will identify actions for remediation
18
DC Water’s Clean Rivers Project is a large scale infrastructure and support program to reduce combined sewer
overflows by capturing and cleaning water during heavy rainfalls
19
This is similar to the consent decree that Philadelphia has with EPA. See Footnote 5 above.
15
volume). Hawkins discussed the anticipated water quality benefits of the storage tunnels that the
District plans for the project but also elaborated on efforts to incorporate GI into the broader
solution. He explained that while the tunnels are primarily useful during the heaviest rains, GI
features, including rain gardens and green roofs, serve to support natural habitats and enhance
public space while collecting, infiltrating, and diverting surface runoff across the District. In May
2015, DC Water signed an update to this agreement with the U.S. EPA, U.S. Department of
Justice and the District of Columbia to modify the existing consent decree to incorporate these
components of GI.20 Hawkins detailed challenges; including making the case that GI can deliver
the same performance as grey infrastructure for reducing overflows to the rivers. He also
described the coordination between multiple agencies, organizations and private property owners
necessary to implement these projects. DC Water is accountable for meeting the water quality
targets of the consent decree, but since it does not own the land in the areas where it will
implement GI, it is necessary to coordinate with other government offices, such as the
Department of Transportation and the Department of Environment.
Hawkins concluded with goals and strategies for long-term success of the program,
which he stated will hinge on on-going maintenance. While the tunnels require minimal
maintenance over their 100-year life span, GI requires more frequent care to ensure performance.
Thus, building an understanding of the life-cycle cost efficacy as well as the ecosystem cobenefits of these programs will be important.
6. Philadelphia, PA
Howard Neukrug, Water Commissioner, Philadelphia Water Department, City of
Philadelphia, discussed the historical importance in the development of cities of the provision of
20
For more information on this agreement, see https://www.dcwater.com/green.
16
safe drinking water. He then reflected on the City of Philadelphia’s efforts over the last 20 years
to improve the quality of its rivers, to make them fishable, swimmable, attractive, and accessible
to the public. He described that GI, in combination with grey infrastructure, is the key to
ensuring safe and abundant water resources. Moreover GI can be the mechanism to link many
urban sustainability initiatives.
Neukrug expressed that it is essential to have the support of mayors, councilors and other
members of local government, but the reality is that these issues compete for attention and
funding with other pressing civic concerns related to housing, crime, transportation, education,
and taxes. Thus, highlighting the economic benefits and multiple social and public health cobenefits of GI are a necessary approach to building political and public support. He described
challenges of promoting GI, and investments in infrastructure, acknowledging that the
Philadelphia Water Department (PWD) wants to provide clean and healthy water services to as
many Philadelphians as possible, but faces the reality of finite funding sources.
Neukrug summarized the history of PWD and how the city came to be involved with GI.
The City first began to look at long-term watershed management planning in 1997 following the
introduction of the Combined Sewer Overflow Control Policy of 1994. Inter-city agency
collaboration is vital to facilitate the support, ownership, and the institutionalization of design
and innovation. He concluded by expressing his gratitude for the pioneering joint agreement
between Philadelphia and EPA; much will be learned going forward on the use of GI to avoid
the costs of replacing grey infrastructure while gaining quality of life improvements, which he
hopes will be useful for cities across the country.21
21
See Hogan, D.M., Shapiro, C.D., Karp, D.N., and Wachter, S.M., 2014, Urban ecosystem services and decision
making for a green Philadelphia: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2014–1155, 21
p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20141155.
17
V. Sustainable Urbanization: How Cities Can Save (or Wreck) the
Planet
Karen Seto, Professor of Geography and Urbanization and Associate Dean of
Research at Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies addressed the challenges
resulting from rapid urbanization and economic development. She pointed to the need to rethink
our approach to urbanization so that urban forms can be made more sustainable while increasing
human well-being. She proposed that urbanization can be a solution to increasing sustainability
challenges but that it requires a radical rethinking of our approach to urbanization and
development to capture more efficiently existing energies and resources and prevent extreme
events such as sea level rise, sinking deltas and extreme climatic events from annihilating the
welfare gains associated with urbanization.
She highlighted two challenges to developing an urban systems science able to capture
and guide contemporary urbanization processes. The first challenge is the need to transition from
single sector solutions based on a deep understanding of individual components of cities to
integrated solutions that incorporate the complexities, dynamics and interdependencies of the
relationships between different components of cities such as transport, buildings and
infrastructure. This transition to accounting for linkages between components will enable us to
identify where and how to achieve sustainability gains. The second challenge is to incorporate
planetary limits on resources and non-local impacts to the development of cities. This is
necessary to ensure that localized increases in urbanization and income do not translate in a
dramatic global increase in air and water pollution, loss of biodiversity and accelerated climate
change.
Taking into account the unprecedented scope of urbanization and development is
necessary to develop urbanization strategies commensurate to the scale of the challenges. For
18
example, over the next forty year, more infrastructure will be built than currently exists. Seto
suggested that how and where these infrastructures are developed would have important
consequences on whether urbanization mitigates rather than contributes to existing sustainability
challenges. Failure to decrease the environmental impact of urbanization would have a large
negative global impact. According to Seto, the development of an integrated urban system
science that takes into account the linkages between sectors and between local and global scales
can contribute to ensure that that does not happen.
VI. Federal and Local Partnerships for Science: Afternoon Keynote
Bill Werkheiser, USGS Associate Director for Water, (*Approved comments from USGS
will be available shortly)
VII. Discussion Sessions
1. Green Infrastructure and Urban Ecosystem Services: What Works?
Moderated by Dianna Hogan, SILUS Co-director, the first roundtable session featured
presentations from scientists working in environmental research, protection, and conservation.
The session’s three panelists were Aditi Bhaskar, National Science Foundation Postdoctoral
Research Fellow at USGS, Dominique Lueckenhoff, Deputy Director of EPA Region 3, Water
Protection Division, and Julie Ulrich, Director of Urban Conservation at The Nature
Conservancy. The subsequent discussion focused on four key questions:
1. What is the state of the use of GI for urban stormwater management, and what types of
monitoring (e.g. hydrologic) exists regarding the efficacy of the practice?
2. How is scientific information applied to inform and evaluate urban decision-making?
19
3. What metrics are being (or may be) used to measure hydrologic or environmental "success"
of the implementation of GI?
4. What direct ecosystem services and co-benefits (in addition to stormwater management) do
cities and communities receive through the use of GI (e.g., services related to recreation,
aesthetics, micro-climate regulation, etc.)?
Aditi Bhaskar discussed the underlying goals that municipalities consider when deciding
on the implementation of GI and water management, and how cities evaluate successful
implementation. Her discussion highlighted that a municipality’s goals often include the use of
GI for: (1) preservation of, or restoration to pre-development watershed hydrologic conditions;
(2) improvement of ecosystem functions; (3) saving money while meeting regulatory standards;
and, (4) realizing secondary benefits, such as reducing urban heat island effects, increasing
access to green space, and improving air quality. Bhaskar considered whether or not we are
meeting these goals collectively as a Nation, and offered recommendations for evaluating these
questions. To assess whether we are adequately restoring our watersheds to pre-development
hydrological standards, she encouraged scientists and policy-makers to specify what aspects of
hydrology they are aiming to improve (e.g., preventing flooding during small frequent storms,
preserving low flows in urban streams, or restoration of the entire hydrologic cycle).
Bhaskar noted that that reform in urban water systems go beyond what local GI initiatives
can address. Bhaskar recommended defining the geographical scale of the ecosystem, to include
upstream water bodies. She emphasized the need to meet regulatory standards and to consider
upfront, ongoing and future restoration costs. The use of life cycle analyses and the cost benefit
of green as compared to grey infrastructure over time will allow evaluation of the potential cost
20
savings of GI. To conclude, Bhaskar recommended monitoring the outcomes of GI to inform
strategies for maximizing co-benefits.
Dominique Lueckenhoff discussed how successful implementation of GI is about systems
thinking and the management of rainwater as a resource. She reviewed the importance of taking
full advantage of GI, describing barriers we must overcome and the opportunities to do so.
Lueckenhoff stated that stormwater is a large and growing source of water pollution causing
beach closures, water body impairments, and a rise in urban flooding, stream bank erosion, and
loss of aquatic habitat. She noted that billions of dollars are spent annually on stormwater quality
and control in the form of retrofits and water-related infrastructure in the U.S. She proposed that
by using more robust, performance-based design standards, promoting public-private
partnerships, and accessing federal and state grants for monetary and in-kind support, GI can
become a leading technology of future urban planning. In addition, consideration of an
ecosystems approach will promote making important upstream and downstream connections to
allow working at a watershed, rather than jurisdictional, scale. She advocated for a focus on
three strategies for achieving progress. These include: (1) improving technical and financial
support to assist communities with growing regulatory mandates to accelerate implementation of
stormwater control measures; (2) striving to meet quality and quantity goals at lower costs by
leveraging efforts in other sectors such as transportation and energy; and (3) searching for
greener solutions including design, building, and long-term commitments to maintenance.
Julie Ulrich focused on the state of the science on ecosystem services that communities
may receive through the adoption of GI. Ulrich noted that many of the current GI design
approaches are similar to ones that were experimented with 20 years ago, but that the distribution
and use of the technology has increased dramatically. However, she noted gaps in the use of GI,
21
specifically, the necessity for a watershed-scale approach, the necessity of analyzing
opportunities for strategic placement of GI, and a need for new thinking about GI design. Many
agree that GI provides co-benefits. However, Ulrich urged the consideration of several related
issues that are not resolved. These include: (1) the need for data to estimate the impact of GI; (2)
research on how to bundle ES strategically to deliver maximum value; (3) how this information
makes a difference to decision makers and other audiences; and, (4) which organizations can
assist municipalities in maximizing ecosystem services, and in what ways.
2. The Role of Incentives and Regulatory Mechanisms
Susan Wachter, SILUS Co-director, moderated the second roundtable session and included
presentations from researchers and practitioners who discussed the role of partnerships, and
incentives and regulation in the local and regional implementation of GI. The session’s four
panelists were Lisa Pelstring, Department of Interior (DOI) Lead for the Urban Waters Federal
Partnership (UWFP), Patrick Coady, Senior Director, Seale & Associates, Todd Doley,
Environmental Economist, EPA, Mark Alan-Hughes, Professor of Practice, University of
Pennsylvania School of Design.
Pelstring presented on the Urban Waters Federal Partnership (UWFP) and its vision: to
protect and restore America’s urban waters and the lands that surround them while also
reconnecting communities, especially economically distressed ones, to those waters. The UWFP
has grown to include 14 Federal agencies and 28 NGOs around the country to construct and
maintain a better regional GI network. She described the UWFP’s progress in tapping outside
partners, generating revenue and designing projects that address community needs.
22
Coady presented on the involvement of private capital institutions in producing urban
ecosystem services and GI. He identified three priorities that the public sector should address in
considering the role of the private sector in the effective implementation of GI. These include:
(1) increasing the scale of funding for GI and sustainability programs to put them at the level of
other highly-prioritized government programs; (2) incentivizing the private sector to revitalize
urban areas while incorporating GI; and, (3) securing places in urban and suburban areas for
green growth. Citing examples of exemplary programs, he described the Milwaukee Watershed
preservation initiative, Philadelphia’s pay-for-performance strategy and Washington DC’s credit
trading and green bonds program22. He concluded by explaining that in moving forward,
governments would do well to consider private capital transaction costs, regulatory stability and
project development costs.
Doley discussed federal environmental regulatory mechanisms and their use in reaching
ecological objectives. He specifically addressed the EPA’s Phase 1 & 2 Stormwater Rules, which
require all large cities (and smaller cities within urban areas) to develop stormwater management
programs. Abiding by these regulations, cities are expected to develop stormwater requirements
to control post-construction discharge from newly developed sites. Doley conveyed what the
EPA has learned from programs already in place. He noted that one size does not fill all when
protecting the environment – a project must be flexible and adaptable to the place and situation.
He stated that incentives play a large role in persuading decision-makers to act decisively, and in
both local and state governments. Doley referenced cities such as Portland and Philadelphia (as
described above) as having exemplary incentive programs, and noted that for many cities and
states, the EPA can serve a significant role in helping to identify priorities and paths forward for
22
See above for discussion of Philadelphia and Washington, DC’s programs.
23
managing stormwater and toward promoting innovative technology, such as GI, while removing
institutional barriers to implementation.
Hughes pointed to the importance of the terms ‘incentives’ and ‘regulatory mechanisms’ by
referencing Anthony Downs’ essay “Alternative Futures for the American Ghetto.” Using this
text as a point of reference, Hughes moved on to discuss how vision is also important in
informing effective long-term policy designs and emphasized the concepts of capacity, scale and
jurisdiction. Regarding capacity in terms of ecosystem services and sustainability, he described
“non-declining welfare” over generations, building on the idea of a return to environmental
equilibrium in cities, acknowledging that achieving this goal is not just a question of resource
allocation, but also allocation of risk and liability, particularly in being able to respond to
emergent environmental challenges. He moved on to discuss the challenge of scale, and
acknowledged the importance of a systems approach as a way of improving the metrics we use to
assess ecosystem and environmental health. In addressing jurisdiction, he outlined how the
notions of increased capacity and scale create pressures on jurisdiction and asked the question,
who has the jurisdictional ability to recognize the benefits of ecosystem services? He concluded
by asserting the importance of drawing perimeters around capacity, scale and jurisdiction, in
order to address the difficulty of putting effective regulatory programs in place.
3. Directions in Research and Practice Going Forward
Carl Shapiro, USGS Science and Decisions Center Director moderated the concluding
panel, which included comments from leading researchers and practitioners in areas of
sustainability science. The session’s four panelists were Pierre Glynn, Eastern Region Chief,
National Water Research Program, USGS, David Hsu, Assistant Professor of Planning,
24
University of Pennsylvania School of Design, Margaret Walls, Research Director and Senior
Fellow, Resources for the Future, and Katya Wowk, Senior Social Scientist, NOAA Office of
Program Planning and Integration. Shapiro began the discussion with four foundational
questions:
1. What critical research directions are needed to advance efforts to use green and hybrid
infrastructure for stormwater management, and to evaluate their effectiveness?
2. How can we identify and inventory state-of-the-art practices that should be studied,
reproduced, and highlighted for use in future settings?
3. How can we learn through implementation so that the state-of-the-art advances, and so
that we improve our ability to monitor and evaluate the use of green and hybrid
solutions?
4. What are the fundamental research questions that we need to consider going forward?
Glynn discussed the importance of connecting the biological and physical sciences with the
behavioral sciences. How do we conduct environmental scientific research when humans are
part of the experiments, and the experiments are policy-based? Glynn also pointed out that
because science teaches us to be skeptical; we need to consider the benefits, costs, negatives, and
side-effects of alternatives. Even good solutions have costs that need to be considered. Glynn
concluded his remarks by suggesting that we must remember that people are a part of nature, not
separate from the natural environment.
Hsu raised the issue of scale, asking, how effective is GI at larger scales? Hsu pointed
out that much research is conducted for small areas and there is not much research on the impact
of GI in larger watersheds. Hsu echoed Glynn’s interest in the behavioral sciences and identified
a key question: How much money do we have to spend and what should we spend it on? Hsu
25
argued that these are challenging questions because we do not have good information on the cost
efficacy questions even for the short run and yet must plan for the long run.
Walls identified a series of key points relating to economics. She pointed out the need to
understand better the effectiveness of GI. She asked, how do we document and evaluate the
ecosystem services resulting from GI? She explained that economists have sophisticated
techniques for valuing ecosystem services, but there are a variety of methods and it is uncertain
which approaches should be used. She discussed the need to develop priorities and assess
tradeoffs, explaining that economics teaches us that there is no such thing as a free lunch and we
need to understand the costs and benefits of alternative solutions. Addressing the issue of
finance, she asked, how can money be raised and how can creative zoning and development
strategies be implemented? The final issue she dealt with was behavioral research. Walls joined
Glynn and Hsu in highlighting the importance of behavioral science research, and asked, how
can incentives be developed to encourage behavior consistent with societal goals?
Wowk identified key areas of research for moving forward: (1) metrics, (2) ecosystem
service evaluation, (3) ecological production functions, and (4) societal impacts. Wowk
emphasized the need to link environmental health with socio-economic needs. Wowk also
highlighted the importance of partnerships and collaboration. She joined Walls, Hsu, and Glynn
in discussing the importance of behavioral science as a research direction and the connection
with developing incentives.
Conclusion
The use of urban GI is increasing even as a comprehensive understanding and accounting
of the services provided by GI (in addition to stormwater management) are not fully established.
26
There is growing attention to the efficacy of GI as a solution for urban water-related
infrastructure challenges. This roundtable provided a forum for the exchange of ideas on current
best practices, lessons learned from those practices, identification of information needs, and how
GI and resultant urban ES could better be incorporated into urban decision making and planning.
Bringing together practitioners, policymakers, and researchers from across disciplines, the
roundtable offered the opportunity to discuss challenges and opportunities, and to envision an
agenda to advance and better inform the use of GI and urban ES. Speakers and participants
emphasized a number of points:

Green infrastructure can produce multifunctional landscapes that serve stormwater
management goals, but also provide recreational space and a host of indirect benefits
(including air quality, temperature control, real estate value, and psychological benefits).
Properly understanding and accounting for these services is key for incentivizing and
financing the efficient production of urban ecosystem services.

Partnerships across local, state, and federal government agencies are important to
advance the optimal use of GI for cost efficiency and provision of urban ES.
Integrating these lessons learned and experiences from leaders in the use of GI helps to
translate and extend the available information, advancing towards more effective use of the
technology. It is hoped that results from the day’s program will help to inform efforts in local
and national planning and decision making toward the efficient use of GI, an understanding and
accounting of the urban ES provided by GI, and provide guidance for the Urban Waters Federal
Partnership (UWFP) and other organizations.
27
Appendices
Appendix A: Agenda
The Sustainable City:
Roundtable on Science, Urban Ecosystem Services, and Green Infrastructure
- An Invite-only Roundtable –
University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
May 19, 2015 – 9:00am – 5:00pm
Registration: 8:30AM – 9:00AM
Introduction: 9:00AM – 9:05AM
(Introduction and Welcome)
Susan Wachter, University of Pennsylvania, Co-director: Penn IUR, SILUS
Dianna Hogan, Research Physical Scientist, USGS, Co-director SILUS
Science, Urban Ecosystem Services, and Green Infrastructure – Critical Directions:
9:05AM – 9:15AM
Carl Shapiro, Director, USGS Science and Decisions Center
Opening Keynotes: 9:15AM – 10:00AM
Michael Nutter, Mayor of the City of Philadelphia
Suzette Kimball, Acting Director, U.S. Geological Survey
Shawn M. Garvin, Regional Administrator, EPA Mid-Atlantic Region
Green Infrastructure and Urban Sustainability: 10:00AM – 10:20AM
(Introductory Presentations)
Michael DiBerardinis, Deputy Mayor, Environmental and Community Resources, City
of Philadelphia
Katherine Gajewski, Director, Mayor’s Office of Sustainability, City of Philadelphia
BREAK: 10:20AM – 10:35 AM
Lessons Learned from Leading Cities (Panel Presentations): 10:35AM – 12:25PM
George S. Hawkins, CEO & General Manager, DC Water and Sewer Authority
Michelle Kunec-North, Program Coordinator, Bureau of Planning and Sustainability,
City of Portland
Howard Neukrug, Water Commissioner, City of Philadelphia
Tracy Tackett, Green Stormwater Infrastructure Program Manager, Seattle Public
Utilities
Jerry Tinianow, Chief Sustainability Officer, City and County of Denver
Margot Walker, Director, Capital Planning and Partnerships, Office of Green
Infrastructure, City of New York
Tommy Wells, Director, District Department of the Environment, Washington DC
28
Lunch: 12:25PM – 1:40PM
(Luncheon Speaker 12:40-1:20pm)
“Sustainable Urbanization: How Cities Can Save (or Wreck) the Planet”
Introduction by Richard Weller, University of Pennsylvania, School of Design
Karen C. Seto, Associate Dean of Research, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental
Studies
Federal and Local Partnerships for Science: 1:40PM-1:55PM
William Guertal, Deputy Associate Director for Water, USGS
Green Infrastructure and Urban Ecosystem Services: What Works? 1:55PM – 2:50PM
Panelists
Aditi Bhaskar, National Science Foundation Postdoctoral Research Fellow, USGS
Dominique Lueckenhoff, Deputy Director, Water Protection Division, EPA Region 3
Julie Ulrich, Watershed Restoration Coordinator, The Nature Conservancy
(Roundtable Discussion, moderator – Dianna Hogan)
BREAK: 2:50PM – 3:05PM
The Role of Incentives and Regulatory Mechanisms: 3:05PM – 4:00PM
Panelists
Patrick Coady, Senior Director, Seale & Associates
Todd Doley, Environmental Economist, EPA
Mark Alan Hughes, Professor of Practice, University of Pennsylvania, School of Design
Lisa Pelstring, DOI Lead, Urban Waters Federal Partnership, U.S. Department of
Interior
(Roundtable Discussion, Moderator – Susan Wachter)
Directions in Research and Practice Going Forward: 4:00PM – 4:55PM
Panelists
Pierre Glynn, Eastern Branch Chief, National Water Research Program, USGS
David Hsu, Assistant Professor of Planning, University of Pennsylvania, School of
Design
Margaret Walls, Research Director and Senior Fellow, Resources for the Future
Katya Wowk, Senior Social Scientist, NOAA Office of Program Planning and
Integration
(Roundtable Discussion, Moderator – Carl Shapiro)
Closing Remarks 5:00PM
Dianna Hogan, Research Physical Scientist, USGS, Co-director SILUS
Susan Wachter, University of Pennsylvania, Co-director: Penn IUR, SILUS
29
Appendix B: Speaker Biographies
-SpeakersMichael
DiBerardinis,
Deputy Mayor,
Environmental
and
Community
Resources, City
of
Philadelphia:
As Deputy
Mayor for
Environmental
and
Community
Resources ,
Michael
DiBerardinis
provides leadership for over 10,000 acres of land,
150 recreation centers and playgrounds, 150
neighborhood and regional parks, 54 library branches
and thousands of programs and events throughout
Philadelphia. Since his 2009 appointment as
Commissioner of the Department of Parks and
Recreation, DiBerardinis has raised over $34 million
in government grants, philanthropic funding and
private partnerships; overseen the merger of the
Fairmount Park Commission and the Department of
Recreation; renovated City-owned ice skating rinks;
restored swimming season at public pools and
expanded outdoor recreation offerings.
Katherine Gajewski, Chief Officer of Sustainability,
Office of the Mayor, City of Philadelphia: Katherine
is the Director of Sustainability for the City of
Philadelphia. Katherine leads the Mayor's Office of
Sustainability and oversees the citywide
implementation of Greenworks, Philadelphia’s
sustainability plan. In this role, she works across
government and with external stakeholders to
advance progress on fifteen targeted goals, covering a
wide array of initiatives. Greenworks has received
broad support within Philadelphia, garnered national
and international attention, and positioned
Philadelphia as a leader in urban sustainability. She
is active nationally as co-chair of the Urban
Sustainability Directors Network, a professional
network of local government sustainability
professionals working in cities across North America.
Michael Nutter, Mayor, Office of the Mayor, City of
Philadelphia: Sworn in for a second term in January
2012, Michael A. Nutter has set an aggressive agenda
for America’s fifth largest city –improving high
school graduation and college attainment rates,
vowing to strengthen community policing through
Philly Rising, a unique partnership between
vulnerable neighborhoods and the City, and
continuing to implement the nationally recognized
GreenWorks Philadelphia initiative that is helping to
make the City of Philadelphia become the greenest
city in America. Born in Philadelphia and educated at
the Wharton School at the University of
Pennsylvania, Michael Nutter has been committed to
public service since his youth in West Philadelphia.
30
-PanelistsGeorge Hawkins,
CEO, DC Water and
Sewer Authority:
George Hawkins
serves as General
Manager of the
District of Columbia
Water and Sewer
Authority (DC
Water). On his
arrival in 2009, Mr.
Hawkins launched
an ambitious agenda
to transform DC
Water into a
customer-oriented
enterprise that is
driving innovation and delivering improved value to
its ratepayers. The core goal is to improve aging
infrastructure while complying with stringent
regulatory requirements. DC Water is implementing
the $2.6 billion Clean Rivers Project to nearly
eliminate overflows of sewage and stormwater to the
Anacostia and Potomac rivers and Rock Creek. DC
Water has invested $950 million to achieve the next
level of nutrient reductions to help restore the
Chesapeake Bay. DC Water is also nearing
completion of a $470 million waste-to-energy
program to help manage solids being removed from
reclaimed water while generating 13 megawatts of
green power. Finally, he tripled the rate of DC
Water's program to replace water and sewer
infrastructure.
Michelle
Kunec-North,
Program
Coordinator,
Bureau of
Planning and
Sustainability,
City of Portland
Michelle
Kunec-North
works for the
City of
Portland’s
Bureau of
Planning &
Sustainability
on projects to ensure Portland is an equitable,
healthy, resilient, and prosperous community. Her
work focuses on interdisciplinary projects that
address inequities and improve health outcomes
through innovative infrastructure and community
planning. Michelle led the development of the
Portland Plan’s Healthy Connected City Strategy to
create complete, active and green communities. Her
current work includes the development of a Green
Infrastructure Assets Report and updates to the City’s
Comprehensive Plan and public facilities plans,
which will guide future development and
infrastructure investments. Michelle holds Bachelor
degrees in Environmental Science and Urban and
Regional Planning from the University of Virginia
and a Masters in Community and Regional Planning
from the University of Oregon.
Howard Neukrug, Water Commissioner,
Philadelphia Water Department: As Commissioner
and CEO of Philadelphia Water, Mr. Neukrug is
responsible for the operation and management of one
of the nation’s oldest, most integrated and largest
public water utilities. With an annual operating /
capital budget of $1 billion, this utility of 2000
employees serves over 2 million people in every
aspect of water service - drinking water treatment and
distribution, wastewater and stormwater
management, flood control, river/stream protection
and enhancement, and wetlands and source water
protection. Mr. Neukrug is a local and national
leader in the water industry, serving on numerous
boards and advisory groups and currently teaches two
classes at the University of Pennsylvania: “The
Water, Science and Politics of the Green City, Clean
Water Program” and “The US Water Industry in the
21st Century”.
31
Tracy Tackett,
Green Infrastructure
Program Manager,
Seattle Public
Utilities: Tracy
Tackett, PE is the
Green Stormwater
Infrastructure (GSI)
Program Manager
for Seattle Public
Utilities. She is
responsible for the
management,
direction and
decision making for
capital improvement
projects and
significant programs
focused on using
green infrastructure to reduce the effects of Seattle’s
urban stormwater runoff on our receiving water
bodies. She has designed innovative projects,
directed design standards for GSI in Seattle’s street
rights-of-ways, and developed GSI requirements for
City of Seattle stormwater code. She directs
evaluation of GSI solutions as part of capital
improvement projects to achieve multiple stormwater
goals, as well as working to integrate GSI with other
City sustainability goals. Mrs. Tackett holds a
Master’s of Science degree in Civil and
Environmental Engineering from the University of
Washington.
Jerry Tinianow,
Chief Sustainability
Officer, Denver
Office of
Sustainability: As
Denver’s Chief
Sustainability
Officer since 2012,
Jerry Tinianow
works to ensure that
critical natural and
human resources
are available and
affordable to
everyone in
Denver, now and
tomorrow. His work is organized around the City’s
2020 Sustainability Goals, which are among the most
ambitious of any American city. Jerry previously
served as a national officer of both the Sierra Club
and the National Audubon Society, and practiced law
for over two decades with two of Ohio’s largest law
firms. The Sierra Club designated him as a national
“Environmental Hero,” and the President of the
National Audubon Society called him a “star
performer.” Jerry received his undergraduate and law
degrees from George Washington University.
Margot Walker, Director, Capital Planning and
Partnerships, New York City Department of
Environmental Protection, Division of Sustainability,
Office of Green Infrastructure: Margot Walker has
worked in environmental and stormwater
management planning at the NYC Department of
Environmental Protection since 2008 and with DEP’s
Office of Green Infrastructure since its inception in
January 2011. Previously, she worked on stormwater
related projects at the Pratt Center for Community
Development while attending graduate school at Pratt
Institute. She is currently the Director of Capital
Planning and Partnerships in the Office of Green
Infrastructure, which is responsible for implementing
the NYC Green Infrastructure Program.
Tommy Wells, Director, Stormwater Management
Division, District Department of the Environment,
Washington, DC: Tommy Wells is the director of the
District Department of the Environment (DDOE).
Appointed January 2015, he is chiefly responsible for
protecting the environment and conserving the
32
natural resources of the District of Columbia.
Tommy’s team is comprised of approximately 300
environmental professionals collectively working to
improve the quality of life for residents and the
natural inhabitants of the Nation’s Capital. Most
recently, Tommy served as the DC Councilmember
representing Ward 6—a position he held since 2006.
During his time on Council, he garnered broad
support for his efforts to make the District livable and
walkable for all. Tommy worked with the City’s
leadership and, in particular, residents of Ward 6 to
create a shared and respected place where drivers,
cyclists, pedestrians, and exercise enthusiasts can coexist safely. Known for his neighborhood-focused
development, Tommy championed efforts to ensure
availability of public transit, including the
construction of new streetcar lines and the expansion
of the DC Circulator. As Chair of the DC Council
Committee on Transportation and the Environment,
he worked to double the city’s Capital Bikeshare
program.
-Luncheon SpeakerKaren Seto, Associate Dean of Research, Yale School of Forestry and
Environmental Studies: Karen Seto is Associate Dean of Research and
Professor of Geography and Urbanization at the Yale School of Forestry &
Environmental Studies. Prior to joining Yale in 2008, she was faculty at
Stanford University for eight years. She is an expert in urbanization and global
environmental change, urban mitigation of climate change, and satellite remote
sensing. Professor Seto has pioneered methods to reconstruct historical landuse with satellite data and has developed novel empirical methods to forecast
the expansion of urban areas. She has conducted urbanization research in China
for twenty years and in India for ten. She was one of the two Coordinating
Lead Authors for the urban chapter of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. She
has served on many U.S. National Research Council Committees, including the
current NRC Committee on Pathways to Urban Sustainability. She is a founder and co-chair of the international
project on Urbanization and Global Environmental Change (UGEC), a core science project of the Future Earth
initiative. She is Executive Producer of “10,000 Shovels: Rapid Urban Growth in China,” a documentary film that
examines urban changes in China.
33
-Discussion StartersAditi
Bhaskar:
National
Science
Foundation
Postdoctor
al Fellow,
USGS:
Aditi
Bhaskar is
a postdoctoral researcher at USGS Eastern
Geographic Science Center funded by a National
Science Foundation Earth Sciences Postdoctoral
Fellowship. Her research focuses on urban
hydrology and presently on base flow and
groundwater recharge changes associated with
urbanization using green infrastructure in Clarksburg,
Maryland. Aditi received her Ph.D. in
Environmental Engineering at University of
Maryland, Baltimore County where she was a trainee
in the “Water in the Urban Environment”
interdisciplinary graduate program (NSFIGERT). Bhaskar received her undergraduate degree
from Brown University in Geology-Physics/Math.
Dominique
Lueckenhoff,
Associate Director,
Water Protection
Division, EPA Region
III: Dominique
Lueckenhoff has over
20 years of diverse
programmatic and
geographic experience
with US EPA, having
served in several
Regions and the
Administrator’s Office.
She currently serves as
Deputy Director of the
EPA Region 3 Water Protection Division. In this
capacity, she supports and shares with the Division
Director in the administration and management of all
division activities, and water protection and state
grant programs for the Mid-Atlantic (PA, DE, MD,
VA, WVA, DC) totaling several billion dollars. She
also serves as EPA’s management point of contact on
the Green Infrastructure (GI) and Urban
Waters/Federal Partnership Initiatives in the MidAtlantic, in addition to participating in a number of
related internal and external national and regional
work groups.
Julie Ulrich,
Director of Urban
Conservation, The
Nature
Conservancy: Julie
Ulrich is the
Director of Urban
Conservation for
The Nature
Conservancy. She
has extensive
experience in
sustainable planning
and design and has
worked at the intersection of cities and ecology for
over ten years. Working as a Sustainability Specialist
for the City of Portland, OR, she contributed to the
development and implementation of numerous green
infrastructure projects. Focusing on ecological and
social resiliency in cities such as New Orleans,
Toronto, and Stockholm, she is passionate about reenvisioning the relationship between cities,
communities, and nature. She received her Masters
of Urban Planning and Design from the University of
Virginia’s School of Architecture and is a Senior
Fellow with The Environmental Leadership
Program. She also serves on the faculty of
Philadelphia University’s sustainability program.
Pat Coady,
Senior
Director,
Seale &
Associates:
Pat Coady
has a lifelong career
in
investment
banking. He
is currently
Senior
Director at
Seale & Associates, Washington DC. Between 1989
and 1993, Pat was U.S. Executive Director of the
World Bank. He has had stints as Chief Financial
Officer at such diverse companies as a billion dollar
financial services company as well as a start-up
rocket development enterprise. Pat contributed to the
book From Walden to Wall Street and organized a
2007 Conservation Finance Workshop in New York
City. Pat is a senior fellow at Conservation
International. In 1994, Pat co-founded and is
34
currently Chairman of the Northern Virginia
Conservation Trust. Pat is a graduate of
Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the
Harvard Business School. He resides in Washington,
DC.
Todd Doley,
Environmental
Economist, EPA:
Todd Doley is an
economist with the
United States
Environmental
Protection Agency’s
Office of Water.
His work on
stormwater issues
began with the
Phase II National
Stormwater Rule promulgated in 1999. He was the
lead economist for the construction and development
of Effluent Limitation Guidelines initially
promulgated in 2009. More recently, he was the lead
economist on a comprehensive analysis of possible
revisions to the national Stormwater Regulations.
Currently he is working on improvements to the
methods used for estimating the economic benefits
associated with improvements in water quality and
with the use of green infrastructure.
Mark Alan
Hughes, Professor
of Practice,
University of
Pennsylvania,
School of Design:
Hughes is the
founding director
of the Kleinman
Center for Energy
Policy at Penn,
where he has
taught since 1999.
In 2008-09, he
was the founding Director of Sustainability and Chief
Policy Adviser to the Mayor of Philadelphia. He was
a weekly opinion columnist for the Philadelphia
Daily News from 2001-2007. He has been a senior
fellow at Brookings and the Urban Institute, a
program officer at the Ford Foundation, a professor at
Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School. He has a BA
from Swarthmore and a PhD from Penn.
Lisa Pelstring, Advisor,
Urban Environmental
Issues, Office of Water
and Science and Office
of Fish, Wildlife, and
Parks, U.S. Department
of Interior: Lisa has
worked in the
environmental field for
the last twenty years in
the nongovernment and
government sectors. In
2011, Lisa was hired to
work for former Interior
Deputy Secretary David
J. Hayes on urban environmental issues. She is
currently an Advisor reporting to the Assistant
Secretary for Water and Science and the Assistant
Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks at the
Department of the Interior. In this role, Pelstring is
working across the Bureaus to spearhead an
Administration initiative launched in 2011, the Urban
Waters Federal Partnership (UWFP)—a collaborative
effort among 14 federal agencies working at the
intersection of economic revitalization and
environmental restoration in underserved
communities.
Pierre
Glynn,
Eastern
Branch
Chief,
USGS:
Pierre
oversees a
broad
diversity of
science in
areas such as numerical modeling of water flow and
solute transport, environmental isotope forensics and
characterization, groundwater dating, water and
sediment contamination problems, nutrient cycling,
ecological habitats, geomorphic processes, and the
application of molecular and other techniques to the
study of microbial processes. His current interests
include integrated environmental modeling, Citizen
Science, watershed research and monitoring
programs, and the behavioral biogeosciences. Some
of Pierre's recent accomplishments include (1)
leading a review of the USA National Phenology
Network (USGS Circular provisionally approved),
(2) publishing two papers on human biases and
human challenges in the construction and use of
integrated environmental models
(http://www.iemss.org/sites/iemss2014/papers/iemss2
35
014_submission_113.pdf; 2nd paper coming out soon
at http://sp.lyellcollection.org/online-first/408), and
(3) contributing to a review and synthesis paper on
Participatory Modeling (just submitted to the journal
Environmental Modeling and Software).
David Hsu, Assistant
Professor, University
of Pennsylvania,
Department of City
and Regional
Planning: David Hsu
is an Assistant
Professor in the
Department of City &
Regional Planning at
the University of
Pennsylvania. His
main area of research
is urban
environmental policy. Topics of particular interest
include efficiency in energy and water networks;
policies to encourage green buildings; and data
analysis. Current projects include studies of how
information affects investment in energy efficiency in
the real estate market, funded by the US Department
of Energy; digital tools for green infrastructure
planning, funded by the US Environmental Protection
Agency; and smart stormwater management, funded
by the National Science Foundation. He will join the
faculty at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Department of Urban Studies and Planning as an
Assistant Professor in July 2015.
faculty of the School of Economics and Finance of
Victoria University in Wellington, New
Zealand. She has a PhD in economics from the
University of California – Santa Barbara.
Dr. Kateryna
Wowk, Senior
Social Scientist to
the NOAA Chief
Economist:
Kateryna (Katya)
Wowk is an expert
in using
multidisciplinary
approaches to
achieve sustainable
management of
human impacts on
coastal and marine areas, with a focus on ecosystem
services, climate change and coastal hazards and
resilience. Prior to her current position, Katya served
as Senior Policy Official to the Assistant Secretary of
Commerce for Conservation and Management, where
she led NOAA and interagency efforts related to
Sandy Recovery, National Ocean Policy, and the
National Drought Resilience Partnership. Katya also
worked for a private company conducting federal
contracting services to NOAA, and as a Consultant
for the Global Forum on Oceans, Coasts and Islands.
Katya holds a PhD in International Marine Policy
from the University of Delaware and a Masters of
Public Administration from Columbia University.
Margaret Walls,
Research Director
and Senior Fellow,
Resources for the
Future: Margaret
Walls is Research
Director and Senior
Fellow at resources
for the Future, an
independent
research
organization in
Washington, DC.
Dr. Walls has
conducted research and policy analysis on a range of
environmental and natural resource issues. Her
current work focuses on land use and urban
development, climate resilience, and building energy
efficiency. Her work has appeared in a number of
peer-reviewed journals and she is the author of 18
book chapters. Dr. Walls was previously on the
36
Appendix C: List of Participants
Jen Adkins, Executive Director, Partnership for the Delaware Estuary
Greg Arthaud, Acting National Program Leader Economics Research, US Forest Service
Aditi Bhaskar, National Science Foundation Postdoctoral Research Fellow, USGS
Jim Campbell, Director, USGS Pennsylvania Water Science Center
Frank Casey, Theme Lead, USGS Science and Decisions Center, USGS
Patrick Coady, Senior Director, Seale & Associates
Christopher Crockett, Deputy Water Commissioner, Philadelphia Water Department
Tom Daniels, Professor of City and Regional Planning, University of Pennsylvania, School of
Design
Alex Demas, Public Affairs Specialist, Energy Resources and Environmental Health, USGS
Michael DiBerardinis, Deputy Mayor, Environmental and Community Resources, City of
Philadelphia
Todd Doley, Environmental Economist, EPA
Theodore Eisenman, Penn IUR
Ira Feldman, President and Senior Council, Greentrack
Michael Focazio, Toxic Substances Hydrology Program Coordinator, Environmental Health
Mission Area USGS
Tera L. Fong, Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President, Stormwater
Management Expert
Katherine Gajewski, Director, Mayor’s Office of Sustainability, City of Philadelphia
Shawn M. Garvin, Regional Administrator, EPA Mid-Atlantic Region
Pierre Glynn, Eastern Branch Chief, National Water Research Program, USGS
William Guertal, Deputy Associate Director for Water, USGS
George S. Hawkins, CEO & General Manager, DC Water and Sewer Authority
Brian Hazelwood, Conservation Associate, American Rivers
Stuart Hean, Research Coordinator, The Wharton School, Penn IUR
Ken Hendrickson, Green Infrastructure Lead Office of State and Watershed Partnerships,
Water Protection Division, EPA Region 3
Dianna Hogan, Research Physical Scientist, USGS, Co-director SILUS
David Hsu, Assistant Professor of Planning, University of Pennsylvania, School of Design
Mark Alan Hughes, Professor of Practice, University of Pennsylvania, School of Design
Stephanie Johnson, Senior Program Officer, Water Science and Technology Board, National
Research Council
Jeffrey Knowles, Regional Advisor, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources,
Bureau of Recreation and Conservation
John Landis, Crossways Professor of City & Regional Planning, University of Pennsylvania,
School of Design
Suzette Kimball, Acting Director, U.S. Geological Survey
Michelle Kunec-North, Program Coordinator, Bureau of Planning and Sustainability, City of
Portland
David Lange, Chief, Conservation and Recreation Assistance Division
Michael Leff, Ambassador, Urban Waters Federal Partnership - Delaware River Watershed,
The Davey Institute, USDA Forest Service
Theo Lim, PhD Candidate, University of Pennsylvania, School of Design
Chris Linn, Manage, Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission
Noam Lior, Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Applied Mechanics, University of
Pennsylvania
Sarah Low, Coordinator, Philadelphia Field Station, US Forest Service
Dominique Lueckenhoff, Deputy Director, Water Protection Division, EPA Region 3
Matt Nicholson, EPA, Office of Environmental Information and Analysis, Environmental
Assessment and Innovation Division
Melissa Monsalve, USGS
Michael Miller, OLIN
Howard Neukrug, Water Commissioner, City of Philadelphia
Michael Nutter, Mayor of the City of Philadelphia
Eric Orts, Director, Initiative for Global Environmental Leadership, University of Pennsylvania
Emily Pindilli, Economist, USGS
Lisa Pelstring, DOI Lead, Urban Waters Federal Partnership, U.S. Department of Interior
Karen C. Seto, Associate Dean of Research, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies
Carl Shapiro, Director, USGS Science and Decisions Center
Guy Sheets, Vice President, AMO Environmental Decisions
Noel Soto, Conservationist, USDA
Tracy Tackett, Green Stormwater Infrastructure Program Manager, Seattle Public Utilities
Jerry Tinianow, Chief Sustainability Officer, City and County of Denver
Niel Trenk, Transportation Planner, HNTB Infrastructure Solutions
Julie Ulrich, Watershed Restoration Coordinator, The Nature Conservancy
Susan Wachter, Co-director: Penn IUR, SILUS, University of Pennsylvania
Margot Walker, Director, Capital Planning and Partnerships, Office of Green Infrastructure,
City of New York
Margaret Walls, Research Director and Senior Fellow Resources for the Future
Richard Weller, University of Pennsylvania, School of Design
Tommy Wells, Director, District Department of the Environment, Washington DC
Katya Wowk, Senior Social Scientist, NOAA Office of Program Planning and Integration
Paul Young, Associate Director – Energy and Minerals and Environmental Health, USG