Introduction
Although state- and region-wide planning for built or “gray”
infrastructure (including roads, sewers, and utility lines)
is a given, preserving the natural or “green”
infrastructure through the coordination and prioritization
of conservation efforts is a relatively new concept. The
green infrastructure approach has many benefits –
wildlife, plants, and ecosystems are better protected by
preserving connected natural areas; public conservation
funds are better spent through the prioritization of target
areas; surrounding communities are more healthy, better
prepared for growth, and benefit from enhanced air and water
purification, stormwater management, and other “free”
services provided by healthy ecosystems; and, conservation
efforts are made more effective through their coordination
to build and protect a statewide green infrastructure network.
Several states have begun green infrastructure projects.
Those established via legislation are described below, along
with laws implementing local programs and those enacting
important aspects of a statewide green infrastructure program.
As of September 2003, five states (Florida, Maryland, Massachusetts,
New Jersey, and Oregon) had conducted large-scale conservation
assessments. While not called green infrastructure projects,
they have similar elements.
Statewide Green Infrastructure Programs
Delaware
HCR
31 (2003) supports the Subcommittee on Green Infrastructure,
convened by the governor as part of the Livable Delaware
Program’s Advisory Council, and directs the Departments
of Agriculture, and Natural Resources and Environmental
Control to develop a green infrastructure network plan.
The resolution also mandates that these departments, along
with the state Forest Service, report annually to the General
Assembly on their progress. In broadly outlining green infrastructure
goals, the resolution stresses the importance of ecological
assessments prior to development, flexibility with regard
to land management plans, and connections between areas
of protected land.
Status: Passed by both the House and Senate, June 2003
Maryland
HB
1379 (2001) establishes the Maryland GreenPrint Program
within the state Department of Natural Resources. The legislation’s
stated purpose is “to create a statewide green infrastructure
network.” It directs the Department to identify ecologically
important areas comprising the green infrastructure network
and protect them through land acquisitions, conservation
easements, and grants to local governments and land trusts,
all in cooperation with existing conservation programs.
Special consideration is given to agricultural, forest,
and rural lands. Funds are provided in the state budget.
Status: Enacted July 2001; in effect until June 2006
Local Green Infrastructure Programs
Massachusetts
Chapter
266 (2002) authorizes the establishment of the Southeastern
Massachusetts Bioreserve. Upon completion of a land survey
by local authorities and subsequent to a memorandum of understanding
among involved state and local agencies, Massachusetts will
convey parcels of state forest land to the local redevelopment
authority. Part of the transferred land is for a business
park development. In return, local governments will place
conservation restrictions on other lands and make payment
into a state greenspace fund.
Status: Enacted August 2002
Minnesota
Chapter
407, Section 8, Subdivision 4 (1996) funds an Urban
Natural Resources Greenway Corridors and Natural Areas Project,
focused on the seven-county Twin Cities greater metropolitan
area. The project, known as the Metro Greenways Program,
is administered by the state Department of Natural Resources.
The program was launched in response to a citizens’
report that identified key ecological features and proposed
a plan to preserve “a network of open areas and green
spaces connected via greenways” while accommodating
a growing urban population.
Status: Enacted 1996
Aspects of Green Infrastructure Programs
Arizona
HB
2555 (1996) establishes the Arizona State Land Preserve
Initiative, for the long-term conservation of ecologically,
culturally, and historically important areas. The Act directs
the state Land Commissioner to survey public lands and determine
if areas should be reclassified for conservation purposes.
Protections are given to anyone leasing land that is reclassified.
State agencies, county boards, local governments, nonprofit
organizations, and individuals can all petition the Commissioner
to reclassify areas for conservation. Public hearings are
held as part of the process, and the Commissioner works
with the state Conservation Advisory Committee to develop
management plans for conserved land. The Act also establishes
a State Land Conservation Task Force for one year, to recommend
conservation criteria, assess public lands, suggest land
management options, solicit public input, and make recommendations
to the State Legislature. The Act falls short of a green
infrastructure program in that it only involves land already
owned by the state and does not recognize the importance
of an interconnected network.
Status: Enacted 1996
Florida
Statute
259.105 (2001), known as the “Florida Forever
Act,” extends and elaborates upon the Preservation
2000 program. Conservation projects are based on “a
comprehensive assessment of Florida’s natural resources
and planned so as to protect the integrity of ecological
systems and provide multiple benefits.” Acquisitions
are coordinated among several state departments, commissions,
and programs, including the Ecological Network Project.
An Acquisition and Restoration Council receives proposals
and develops an annual project list, using criteria detailed
in the Act. Heavy emphasis is placed on the setting of concrete
goals, with public reporting on progress made. The bulk
of Florida Forever funds are earmarked for property acquisitions
meeting water management and land conservation priorities,
along with grants to local governments and nonprofit organizations.
The grants are for community-based greenspace areas, with
priority given to urban projects. Funds are generated through
bond sales.
Status: Enacted 2001
Georgia
SB
399 (2000) creates the Georgia Greenspace Commission
and the Georgia Greenspace Trust Fund “to promote
adoption in developed and rapidly developing areas of policies,
rules, and regulations which will have the effect of preserving
at least 20 percent of the land area as connected and open
greenspace.” The Department of Natural Resources is
the lead state agency; the State Forestry Commission is
also involved. Counties are eligible to participate if their
population is greater than 60,000 or their average population
growth over the past decade is greater than 800 people per
year. Participating counties develop greenspace plans that
include the identification of currently protected lands,
priority lands to be acquired or otherwise protected, needed
changes to pre-existing comprehensive plans, and the lead
local agency. If a county plan is approved by the Greenspace
Commission, the county receives a state grant whose amount
is proportional to the share of state property tax income
from that county. Extra funds are available for the protection
of lands within river watersheds. The Greenspace Trust Fund
is funded by a mix of state, federal, and private money.
Relative to a green infrastructure program, the Greenspace
program lacks statewide consideration of ecological resources,
which would provide better prioritization of and coordination
among county efforts. The Georgia program also lacks a strong
public education and outreach component.
Status: Enacted April 2000
Michigan
Act
451 (1994) creates a joint legislative working committee
on biological diversity, and gives that committee the ability
to establish scientific advisory boards. The committee is
given one year “to prepare a recommended state strategy
for conservation of biological diversity,” including
mitigation of adverse impacts of state activities; the responsibility
of different state agencies to conserve biodiversity; the
establishment of cooperative programs among state, local,
university, and private partners benefiting biodiversity;
the identification of habitats and species needing special
attention; and, provisions to ensure the long-term viability
of ecosystems in the state. The Act may represent a first
step towards a green infrastructure program, though it does
not explicitly mandate follow-up action based upon the committee’s
findings. While the Act does provide for public hearings
and suggests that the establishment of a biological diversity
education center might be one recommendation of the committee,
it does not contain a significant public outreach and education
component.
Status: Enacted May 1995
Washington
SB
6400 (2002), the Biodiversity Conservation Act, meets
most green infrastructure goals without using the term.
Its major omission is the absence of language addressing
the importance of creating an interconnected network of
protected natural areas. The Act authorizes a review of
biodiversity information, including mapping and research
programs, and the development of a state biodiversity plan
based on that review. The plan must coordinate with existing
conservation efforts, focus on unmet conservation needs,
include public education and outreach, involve state and
local stakeholders, and use policies, regulations, and non-regulatory
approaches to preserve biodiversity in the state. A report
on the proposed biodiversity plan is due before the state
legislature in October 2003. Funds for the study and proposal
are provided by an interagency committee for outdoor recreation.
Status: Enacted April 2002 |
