Green Landscaping: Greenacres Workshops
Meeting Summary Beneficial Landscaping Focus
Group Sessions
February 28, 1995
Contents
Attachments
Regional Administrator Valdas V. Adamkus of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Region 5 provided the opening remarks. He
thanked all the participants for taking part in the focus group
sessions on environmentally beneficial landscaping. These sessions
were designed so that EPA can better understand the issues related to
making beneficial landscaping a standard practice among corporations
and universities both in EPA Region 5, which is in the Great Lakes
Basin, and across the nation.
He went on to say that EPA has been concerned about current
landscaping practices that may harm the Great Lakes ecosystem due to
the impact of past and present landscaping practices, which can impair
air, water, soils and the diversity of plants and animals. Mr. Adamkus
stressed the need to work together to restore the integrity of our
natural systems.
In addition, Mr. Adamkus mentioned that beneficial landscaping
practices combines several of EPA's highest priorities: pollution
prevention, protection of ecosystems, and the use of integrated,
holistic approaches to solving environmental problems. These
approaches can also lead to economic benefit; proving that
environmental protection and cost-efficiency can go hand-in-hand.
In closing, Mr. Adamkus stated that he very much hoped that the
discussion at the sessions would allow Region 5 to begin to
effectively support the efforts of the audience without delay. He
mentioned that the Region wishes to build upon the good work that has
already been accomplished by many of the participants to bring
landscaping more in tune with nature. Region 5 would like to
facilitate reaching our mutual goals and to make the best use of our
limited resources.
The floor was then turned over to Lee Ann Naue and Bevin Horn, the
co-chairs of the Beneficial Landscaping Workgroup. Ms. Naue provided
information on the history of the Region's efforts to promote
beneficial landscaping.
She stated that the Agency has always encouraged beneficial
landscaping practices within specific program opportunities. However,
momentum built for a holistic effort, which led to the creation of the
Beneficial Landscaping Workgroup. This workgroup is composed of
representatives from the Air and Radiation Division, Pesticides
Program, Water Division, Great Lakes National Program Office, RCRA and
Superfund Programs, Environmental Assessment Branch and Office of
Regional Counsel. This group has been collecting information on
various activities that are already occurring and on how we can
incorporate this practice into our programs and make it more
mainstream.
In addition, she mentioned that the Agency has recognized the
advantages of beneficial landscaping and started promoting it through
draft guidance to implement it on Federal lands. However, the Regional
workgroup decided to encourage these practices on corporate and
university campuses, which are much more visible and would facilitate
a much more widespread acceptance.
Ms. Naue stated that the intent of the Regional activities in this
area are modeled after the recommendations for Federal lands which
were developed by a national Interagency Task Force, which include the
following objectives:
- To incorporate native plants whenever practicable into landscape
projects. For the purposes of the focus group sessions, the
following definition for native was used: "All species,
indigenous to a region at the time of European settlement."
- To minimize construction's adverse effects on the natural
habitat and retain the soil resource.
- To seek to prevent pollution by, among other things reducing
lawn care chemical use, recycling green waste, and reducing
runoff.
- To implement water-efficient practices.
- To promote awareness of the environmental and economic benefits
of implementing this type of landscaping.
Ms. Naue also stated that EPA hopes to refine these goals beginning
with the help of the meeting participants and future conversations
with other experts in the field.
The floor was turned over to Ms. Horn to present the agenda for the
day's activities and the specific goals of these sessions.
She mentioned that the day's activities were arranged in a
non-traditional format to expedite gaining useful information. The
meeting was designed after formal marketing focus group sessions so
that the group could gain a great deal of insight, especially on more
qualitative items. The information will also establish the specific
actions that EPA can do to be most helpful in promoting beneficial
landscaping practices.
The goals of the focus group sessions were to:
- understand motivation and barriers
- evaluate the tools presented by EPA Region 5
- ensure EPA plays a relevant and meaningful role in promoting
beneficial landscaping
- avoid duplication with other efforts
After providing the logistical information regarding rooms and
times, the three focus group session facilitators began the individual
focus group sessions. The concurrent sessions held were:
Following the individual focus group sessions, the groups met for a
full-group session. Each group had one person present the information
they generated in the individual sessions to the full group. Following
the summary reports, the whole group discussed the similarities and
differences in their conclusions and created a consolidated list of
"What U.S. EPA Region 5 should be doing to support beneficial
landscaping practices."
The day ended with closing remarks by Ms. Horn who recaptured some
of the suggestions generated by the full-group and thanked the entire
group of participants for helping us reach our goals of the day. Based
upon the results of the focus group sessions, U.S. EPA Region 5 is
looking into setting up a library of beneficial landscaping
information on the Internet, pulling together education and outreach
materials for relevant Federal, State and local governments, and
working with other partners to produce fact sheets which include
successful case studies.
Corporate and
University Decision-makers Summary Notes
Participants:
Mr. Dan Hainesworth, Sears/Homart
Mr. Richard Harris, Amoco/Whiting
Mr. Michael Hassett, Governor's State University
Mr. Volker Kotscha, Underwriters Labs
Mr. Jim Rulseh, Modine Manufacturing
Mr. Doug Smith, State Farm Insurance Company
Ms. Betty Sterling, Sterling Hardware
Mr. Rod Walton, Fermilab
The EPA facilitator Jan Tarpey asked participants to introduce
themselves and explain their landscape project and significant
barriers encountered.
I. Shared Experiences
Mr. Walton explained that Fermilab began in 1975 and since has
expanded into a 750-acre prairie restoration effort. The barrier at
this site has been finding volunteer labor. Mr. Hainesworth said the
Prairie Stone business park was developed in 1990. Enhancement and
restoration of 90 acres of wetlands began in 1992. Also 100 acres of
common area is in native prairie plantings. One barrier was the
learning curve to execute the project. When developing an
environmental landscape in a marketing environment, it needs to be
presented as economically feasible.
Ms. Sterling pointed out that natural landscaping at her site began
in 1990 as a personal interest with a 30-acre parcel associated with
her business. There is a threat of the State building a tollway on 10
acres of property even though nesting cranes, silver blue butterflies
and other rare species are on the property. There have been no
pesticide applications since the property was purchased in early
1950's. The barrier is finding (low cost) labor to mechanically cut
noxious plants, although burns are more successful.
Mr. Smith stated his company has a 400-acre campus with a third of
the site managed as a low-maintenance prairie. While the cost drives
landscape direction, there are three groups to work with as follows:
rural public (expect traditional landscape), management (cost issue),
and employees (implementation time line). Perception was the key
barrier for a company selling insurance and not appearing to invest
premiums in landscaping.
Mr. Rulseh explained that they operate a 105-acre manufacturing
site. In 1984, 16 acres of prairie were established which contains a
five-acre stand of virgin oak savanna. They also developed a 25-acre
pond. The barrier is the difficulty finding the knowledge base on
natural landscaping in one organization.
Mr. Hassett described Governor's State University as having a
760-acre campus with 350 acres being farmed, 150 acres in a preserve
(natural species) and a 250-acre research park. Two to three miles of
hedge row around the campus controls wind impacts which would
otherwise require snow fencing and reduces labor and improves campus
appearance. The hedge rows are comprised of about 50 varieties of
natural plants. The University also has a sculpture park on campus
with natural paths. The barrier is cost.
Mr. Kotscha said his site is 110 acres with previous use being a
clay pit and brick factory until the 1980's. The restored area was a
four-acre pit/pond with 35 acres around the pit in bad condition. The
pit was enlarged to a 12-acre lake with natural prairie plants on the
embankments. The site has frequent staff use during work breaks and
company picnics. The barrier is concern with the type of plants to use
because the adjoining land is Forest Preserve District property.
Underwriters Labs received planting guidance from the Forest Preserve.
Mr. Harris described a small scale project within a very highly
developed industrial site of 1600 acres. A 10-acre parcel was abused
with trash but undisturbed vegetation was in a natural condition. A
prairie development plan was prepared. They had problems with some
county slag runoff. Company staff made a good volunteer effort. They
had an active core group of five persons with over 50 staff
participants. Costs have been managed within existing Division
budgets. They took a low scale approach. The primary barrier is
organizing a controlled burn on such a small tract. Another barrier is
the adjoining communities' perception of non-traditional land
management and its effects.
Cost Savings
Responses by some of the participants are presented below:
Since a more managed natural system was desired, we investigated
who was using natural landscaping (e.g., Caterpillar and Fermi Lab).
An extensive cost analysis was conducted in 1991. Initial costs were
more expensive, but there were long-term savings. While installing an
irrigation system contributed to cost, expense was controlled by using
quick couplers to add temporary irrigation lines to meet watering
demands for specific sites. It has been difficult to find native plant
suppliers with competitive prices and replacement plants. It's tough
to forecast costs, but a 5-year horizon could justify the project.
There were some problems with a lack of cost-competitive vendors; this
situation may be changing.
Long-term cost was definitely less for natural landscaping and
estimated to be a third of traditional landscaping. The real issue is
design and development not cost. A key problem was public perception
of premiums being used because the initial cost was about $2.5 million
for natural vs. $700,000 for traditional. Our site will experiment
with a matrix of grasses (cool & warm season) and use fringe
irrigation with burns. Seed shortages occurred only in the past year
and a half. At the start-up of a long-term project, we can not
guarantee specific dates when burns will take place. Some native plant
purists are unable to accept an uncertain project schedule as
mentioned above.
Cost was minor and came from existing internal division budgets,
not appropriations. Intent was to avoid big company expenditures. Had
high employee interest and just ran with it. Not intended to be a
showcase because of varied interest, but expects that once burn is
conducted, cost will definitely be an issue.
Cost appears to be linked to the type of project. Fermi Lab had a
low level of effort, but it was a long project and parts appear ugly.
One needs to ask "what is the goal, ecological restoration or a
show piece landscape?"
Native landscaping does not equal restoration. Costs will depend on
whether goal is to do restoration or use native landscaping.
What has helped sell the idea of beneficial landscaping?
Participants explained how they sold beneficial landscaping to their
organizations
The long-term cost savings were used to promote beneficial
landscaping because maintenance is less expensive. Mowing is two times
more costly compared to burning natural landscape once every 3 years
(natural landscape is established in 10 years). The site has 50,000
annual visitors and trails have been installed with interpretive signs
which also improves public relations of natural landscaping.
While cost estimates were critical, other factors included
stormwater quality and downstream flow rates. Native plants provided
the answer to both quality and flow concerns. The native landscaping
effort opened a marketing opportunity both for the site to be
distinctive and ecologically sound, which promotes good public
relations.
The 35-acre site was not accessible. We needed to reduce steep
banks to improve access to site. Since 1987, bridges were installed
for maintenance activities and fish were stocked then left alone.
While not open to the public, the site is available for employee use
and has been used for small corporate picnics. The initial investment
was about $500,000 and water provides free cooling for heat
exchangers.
Many concepts that have been discussed are suited to larger
corporations. The same ideas can be difficult to promote on a small
scale (i.e., to sell to the public, small companies, schools, etc.).
Public relations is problem for locals to accept concept of native
landscaping.
Open Discussion
Existing government regulations are out of step with some
native landscaping required plans (e.g., water regulations regarding
pond discharges). EPA needs to coordinate more with the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) on wetland issues and monitoring. Concern
was expressed that EPA was leading towards another level of regulation
and would restrict native landscaping efforts. Some regulations could
have a positive impact.
EPA should give formal recognition in promoting native landscaping.
To help with costs, EPA could work on a tax credit. Paperwork for a
tax credit would be a hindrance.
II. Recommended Role for EPA and Evaluation of Proposed Tools
Library
A listing of contacts working on similar projects would be
most helpful. We would rely on experts and a library would be helpful
to them. Most important is the dissemination of knowledge and research
as well as bringing the information into a central point. This
information should be available on the Internet.
Symposium
Most corporations are afraid of U.S. EPA, "I would never
call the U.S. EPA or the Illinois EPA for this type of
information." One participant suggested that another agency lead
this effort, possibly a State agency, and include local groups. The
lead should be with an organization that has an intense interest in
natural landscaping.
An annual or biennial symposium to promote information exchange would
be helpful, but roles (government and non-government) must be clearly
defined. Perhaps a 2-day conference, where we discuss projects one day
and visit sites the second day, would be helpful.
An information session would be helpful which includes a one-on-one
information exchange. There is a need for better information available
at local government levels. Do not mandate!
Since problems vary, most would be interested in seeing case
studies on various sites. More individual involvement is needed.
Knowledge is fragmented and diverse. Who is correct (many expert
opinions)? Also issues are varied such as: zoology, soil conservation,
on site seed-bank replenishment (don't collect for 7 years?), impact
of deep wells to replenish wetlands (water chemistry or algal
impacts?).
Hierarchy
Several participants did not understand the hierarchy concept.
The following explanation of hierarchy is provided.
U.S. EPA would develop a hierarchy of beneficial landscaping
implementation options. The hierarchy represents building blocks where
the top represents landscaping options that are nearest a pure natural
landscape and the bottom represents less comprehensive beneficial
landscaping options (i.e. simply planting a few prairie plants).
Between these two options are moderate options that build toward a
higher level of implementation as you move up the building blocks
toward the pure natural landscape. The goal of this hierarchy would be
to educate land managers and others on the range of beneficial
landscaping options available and to encourage land managers to
incorporate as much as possible toward the top of the hierarchy. The
hierarchy also represents recognition of the barriers to
implementation and the options available when the pure natural
landscape is not feasible.
Hierarchy concept would be helpful; how does it benefit me?
Guidance document helpful but need to get something back for choosing
higher "ranked" option.
Research
EPA needs to research and promote (e.g., contests) the best
projects and document success (video) through development.
Seed Gardens
Seeds are not cheap. A benefit would result from improving
seed collection methods for a region. Could this be funded by EPA?
Fact Sheets
While the Illinois EPA burn permit process is reasonable, we
need to inform locals of benefits.
Informing neighbors with a fact sheet prior to a burn is one
technique for networking. Another approach is a door-to- door survey
prior to a burn.
Method of informing public will vary based on existing information
networks and acceptance of project.
Many will question the beneficial uses. Not sure who should have
the lead (Federal or State).
Recognition of program by regulatory agency such as U.S. EPA would
be important to gain support.
Not certain who should be lead, but Federal involvement would be
good to promote awareness at regional and/or large ecosystem scale.
Information to Local Governments
The municipality is the controlling factor since projects need
to meet local controls. During development program, local authorities
need to be advised well in advance. Permits often take a year and a
half to 2 years.
Need a salesperson to promote the concept and to explain overall
project goals. Also, need someone to assure that the property is
maintained in a way that is visually appealing.
Need to keep project moving with focus and on target.
Successful State and Federal projects should be promoted at the
local level.
EPA should advise local government that land use restrictions
conducive to native landscaping can have local benefits (e.g., reduced
watering).
Which tool is most useful
- Library through Internet
- Research and access
- Informing local governments, that native landscaping is O.K.
Any tools not listed?
- The number of Federal agencies involved makes it cumbersome to
contact right parties. The ideal system would be to have a
facilitated process of reaching the correct agencies.
- Research needed on conflict of existing regulations with respect
to promotion of habitat restoration.
- Would incorporation of the hierarchy provide additional grant
funds?
Landscape Architects
and Seed Sources Summary Notes
Participants:
Mr. Jim Patchett, Conservation Design Forum, Inc.
Ms. Karen Morby, Church Landscaping
Mr. Bob Van Abel, Prairie Nursery
Mr. Dick Mallory, Brickman Group
The EPA facilitator Mary Pat Tyson began by reviewing the
definition of native landscaping and the purpose of the session. The
EPA is especially interested in identifying barriers participants have
experienced to using native landscaping, and to defining what role EPA
should play in removing or minimizing these barriers. Participants
first briefly introduced themselves, their qualifications, and their
experience with native landscaping.
I. Shared Experiences
Mr. Patchett is a landscape architect with expertise in water
resource management that began during his university education. He has
worked on prairie and wetland restoration projects. In the 1980's,
Johnson, Johnson & Roy of Ann Arbor hired him because they sought
to become multi-disciplinary landscapers. Patchett's work has
addressed the many issues of wetland delineation, permitting,
mitigation, and sustainable design. He has found a knowledge of
hydrology and watersheds central to a holistic view of landscaping. He
is currently working on Sears' Prairie Stone project. He has developed
a hierarchy of treatment to eliminate all runoff and a series of
measures to manage all surface water. He has sought to develop
"sustainable" and "regenerative" landscape
designs. To accomplish this a team of experts is needed to address all
issues. However, the key to good design is hydrology and water
management that treats water as an essential, valuable, and usable
resource, rather than as a waste.
Ms. Morby is a certified arborist and landscape contractor. She
works with land architects, owners, developers, and managers. Her job
usually is to implement decisions that have already been made. She
holds long-standing values and interests in conservationism and
prairie and native plant restoration. She has seen the failed results
of attempts to use retention/ detention ponds and improperly used
native plants as wetland substitutes or "pseudo-wetlands."
She emphasizes that authentic native landscaping is a fairly new,
controversial, and developing field filled with "rancor."
Church Landscaping is a major contractor on the Sears project and the
Park Center wetland/garden demonstration project.
Mr. Van Abel holds a Ph.D. in biological chemistry. He represents
Prairie Nursery, a pioneering producer of seeds and plants founded and
led by Ned DeBall. Prairie Nursery also has done some consulting. One
barrier to native landscaping began as an ecological idea or ideal,
and is still developing as a market. Because of our free market
economy, we must understand market economics and how it effects
landscaping practices and choices. Practitioners must develop native
landscaping within this economic context. Van Abel concurs that a
design team is essential to successful native landscaping projects
such as the Sears' Prairie Stone project.
Mr. Mallory has been with the Brickman Group for 15 years. He is a
landscape architect. There is a growing market for native landscaping
planning and design, and especially for native landscape management
and re-development of existing university and corporate lands (as
opposed to new developments) and "smaller" projects such as
shopping centers. His first experience with prairie restoration was on
the Sears/Homart Prairie Stone project and he has woodland landscape
experience on the McDonald's project. He feels residential groups are
ahead of commercial groups in the native landscaping movement. He
stated that working on Motorola's Harvard, Illinois, project is a
great learning and educational process.
After these introductory remarks, the group proceeded to the major
task of specifically identifying and discussing barriers, some of
which they had noted in recounting their experiences.
II. Discuss and Rank Barriers
The participants identified many barriers to the use of native
landscaping species and practices. Probably the most general,
pervasive, and important barrier echoed by all is listed first below.
A recurrent theme for surmounting this primary barrier and many of the
others was: "Education, Education, Education."
- Misperceptions or lack of knowledge of native landscaping: what
it is, what it looks like (aesthetics), what it requires, how it
is done, what it costs, and what its benefits and effects are.
People are unaware of the great variety of native species (1500+
native plants to choose from, one for every area and purpose).
People often fail to realize this diversity and the ability to
compromise and to blend native and non-native plants appropriately
in a sound ecological community.
- Dealing with decision makers for approval is sometimes
difficult. Often lower management is sold on using native species,
but upper management may be less inclined to try something new
that is perceived as more costly and risky.
- Failed, improperly designed and implemented, and poor examples
of native landscaping have left lasting impressions. It's
sometimes difficult to replace these impressions with better,
proper, and good native landscaping models and practices.
- Market factors sometimes inhibit proper native landscaping. In
the beginning of the movement toward the use of native species,
there was no market. Also, there has been and still is a tendency
to accept low bidders on projects. That often means improper or
sub-par work and projects that fail to meet standards of
appropriate economics, aesthetics, horticulture, and habitat.
- Many corporate decision makers know and like the manicured
traditional aesthetics of closely cut Kentucky blue grass and
ornamental trees. They are uncomfortable with vegetation they
consider "weeds," and native landscaping is perceived as
"weedy," unkempt, and unattractive. Decision makers are
concerned that native species will increase the bug and animal
population and negatively affect the site as a human habitat.
- Lack of training, education, and expertise in use of native
species is a problem because the practice and market is still
relatively new and immature. Many contractors do not have the
expertise or access to qualified seed essential to success.
- Native landscaping requires a design team of experts to
successfully address all issues (hydrology, botany, landscape
architecture and engineering, etc.)
- Native species take longer to establish than traditional plants,
and initially, may be more expensive if more "plugs" are
required to fill out the landscape. People tend to want immediate
gratification. They often want the biggest tree they can get now,
rather than an appropriate native tree. However, even here there
is some misperception. For example, the usually slower growth of
small oaks can be much improved by also restoring their natural
habitat of native grasses and moisture holding plants. This
substantially improves growth of oaks' shallow root systems.
- Conflict between "Purists" and "Realists"
sometimes is a barrier. For example, the purist may advocate using
strictly native species found within a 50-mile radius of the plant
site. Some practitioners in the field contend that the
micro-climate is a more important factor to consider, and take a
more pragmatic approach to design and plant selection.
- Site design can make up for space limitations. Native
landscaping is most attractive and effective when it uses large
open green swaths and areas. Certain native species, e.g., prairie
grass, may need more threshold space for viability than is
available at a site. Land use and zoning practices can limit
native landscape site design. However, designers can overcome some
limitations by new design and planning ideas. For example, some
housing developments are keeping the houses closer together in
order to increase the amount of contiguous common land space for
prairie grass.
- Zoning and legal issues. For example, many communities have
zoning ordinances prohibiting plants taller than 8, 10, or 12
inches. Such ordinances can preclude many native plants/grasses.
- Misunderstanding of the use of burning. Some people equate
burning with the California wild fires and are very much afraid of
the idea of burning. Others may fear that burning will kill bird
and animal populations.
- Perception that native landscaping will ruin contractors'
business.
III. Recommended Role for U.S. EPA and Evaluation of Proposed
Tools
Library/Information
The group strongly recommended that EPA play a role in
gathering, storing, and disseminating good information to the public
-- especially decision makers need to form opinions on native
landscaping and to make their decisions. If EPA is known to be behind
the idea and practice, that's a big help.
Symposium
A good idea, especially if it were designed for a specific
audience, e.g., developers or landscape architects, local government
officials, or very specific topics such as "retrofit market"
(a huge market now) for native landscaping.
Hierarchy
Received a positive response, but requires some further
definition to evaluate its impact and significance now. [See
clarification p. 6.]
Research
Could also be helpful if focused on topics such as: (a) burn
management research that shows that burning does not contribute to
pollution or degradation, and (b) water management of reconstructed
prairies and storm water run-off, and (3) researching and collecting
case study of "retrofit projects".
Seed Gardens
This alone received an unfavorable response, chiefly because
it puts government in competition with private parties already expert
at providing seed. The group believed EPA should leave this to the
private sector and select better tools.
Fact Sheets
This tool was very highly endorsed as a valuable relatively
inexpensive educational tool easy to produce.
Information on local governments
The group made this a high priority, along with the library,
symposium, and facts sheets. All have a role in improving public
awareness and education.
Case Studies and Awards
Compile case studies of successful projects. Award companies
successfully using native landscaping.
In summary, a lack of accurate knowledge and education about native
landscaping was the chief barrier to its implementation. EPA can best
promote native landscaping by publicly supporting native landscaping
and by helping to inform and educate the public, local, and State
governments, and business.
Ecological Experts
Summary Notes
Participants:
Mr. Jerry Wilhelm, Morton Arboretum
Mr. Ders Anderson, Open Lands Project
Mr. David Sollenberger, Chicago Botanic Garden
Mr. Donald Hey, Hey & Associates, Inc.
The EPA facilitator Jane DeRose-Bamman asked each participant to
introduce themselves and explain their area of interest and expertise.
I. Shared Experiences
Mr. Wilhelm stated he is interested in the vegetation of the
Chicago region, the interaction between landscaping and the physical
environment, and the principles of bio-diversity.
Mr. Anderson said that he just recently joined the Open Lands Project.
Previously, he was a municipal planner and actively tried to
incorporate the preservation of the environment in the planning
process. He is currently working on the Greenways project that is
continuous open spaces along stream beds for the purposes of
protecting the environment, controlling flooding, and providing
recreational areas.
Mr. Sollenberger stated he is involved with the conservation
program at the Chicago Botanic Garden. The program includes the
reconstruction of six prairies for educational purposes and
development of a woodland restoration project along the Skokie River
that will demonstrate more appropriate habitats for streams in urban
settings.
Mr. Hey said he is a hydrogeologist who is interested in wetland
restoration and believes that appropriate landscaping practices can
solve some of today's urban problems. He urged that EPA contribute to
this area by supporting, promoting, and/or conducting large scale
restoration projects. For example, he said the current waste water
treatment designs promote pollution by expelling 4 tons of carbon into
the atmosphere through fossil fuel combustion for every ton of carbon
removed from the waste water.
Discussion of Gaps
The group reviewed the issue of what and where there are gaps
in information, data, research, technology, etc. The group identified
several major gaps that have an impact on the implementation of
natural landscaping practices. The gaps are data on various topics
such as runoff; habitat performance in regards to infiltration,
evaporation, carbon retention; funding, supporting, and/or promoting
projects that will generate the data; lack of an interdisciplinary
approach to planning; lack of tools for city and local officials;
education that does not focus on normal processes and basic
principles; lack of engineering principles to landscaping; lack of
accessibility and/or integration of existing data; no incentives for
natural landscaping; and the need for a new paradigm for urban
development, landscaping, etc.
A major gap was the lack of data on environmental processes. If
there is data, they are poorly documented and vague. Since water is
such a critical component in the environmental equation; data on
surface water runoff, infiltration, percolation, evaporation,
hydrologic response and storage capacity in many different types of
ecosystems are badly needed to understand the mechanics of each
ecosystem. For instance, what happens to runoff on a 1-year old
prairie vs. a 5-year old prairie vs. a mature prairie, or runoff on a
range of plot sizes - 1 acre, 5 acre, etc. Other areas for research
and data collection include stream banks and flood plains - what is
the optimum acreage needed for protection of these resources; what
impacts do time, soil compaction, and humus have on the environmental
processes; data on open burning, grass fires, by-products of grassland
fires, and by-products of yard wastes; and the ability of landscapes
to sequester carbon.
These environmental data are also needed for computer models.
Currently, there are not enough documented numbers for the models. The
research and studies on the above topics would generate hard numbers
which could be imported into the models. There are some examples of
numbers and data on the hydrologic response of the ecosystems. For
example, the USACE has for 50 years studied the effect of flooding on
the Mississippi River valley, using a model. This model provides
numbers on percolation, surface runoff, hydrology. Also, EPA has a
model but does not promote its application. Good data and good models
(readily available and publicized) would be invaluable to the
development and promotion of natural landscaping and environmental
protection.
The study of urban soils is needed to understand how the current
practices of urban development have an impact on soils and long-term
landscaping. The practice of scrapping top soil from areas slated for
development is widespread and leaves the area with what is being
termed "urban soils." The lower horizons of soil are
compacted and overlaid with a thin layer of top soil. However, the
interface between the soil horizons is destroyed, and it is not known
how long it takes to re-establish the interface and how its loss
affects root development, hydrology, etc. Also, the replacement top
soil may have lost carbon and organic material as wells as texture.
These conditions will affect landscape, but they are not evaluated for
their impact on water storage capacity of altered soil horizon and
root development.
Urban planning needs to be reinvented. Currently, landscaping seems
to be ancillary in the development process. Natural landscaping must
become an integral part of urban planning, for it can provide
solutions to contemporary problems. For instance, the current answer
to flooding and rain runoff displaced by the homes, roads, parking
lots, etc., is the retention pond. However, the problem of flooding
and runoff could be reduced by utilizing natural landscaping practices
and minimizing the disturbance of the original soil horizons thereby
utilizing the soil's natural water holding capacity. The practice of
seeding large expanses with Kentucky blue grass is not as effective as
planting native species and capitalizing on their deep and extensive
root system. Rather than viewing landscaping of an urban area as
window dressing, planners need to call on the services of landscapers,
hydrologists, soil scientists, botanists, architects, engineers,
archaeologists, etc., at the commencement of the project so that all
components are integrated into the master plan.
Part of reinventing urban planning is the education of local
officials and city managers who will be making the decision regarding
their communities' development. Local officials and city managers need
access to information on natural landscaping practices - it benefits
and cost savings. Not all local officials and city managers have
access to experts, resources, and/or information concerning the
benefits of natural landscaping, or they may not be aware of other
types of landscaping. They rely on planners or they default to the
standard practices of retention ponds, waste water treatment plants,
Kentucky blue grass, etc. This group of users needs support in the
introduction to alternatives to current landscaping practices,
information on financial benefits, and access to experts for
consultation. Other ways to support the local officials and city
managers is to provide incentives for implementing natural
landscaping. This could be awards, citations, grants, and assistance
with permitting requirements.
Botanists have led the charge on recognizing the value of natural
landscaping and native plants. Now the other scientists and
professionals involved in the process need to add their expertise to
this area. Landscaping itself needs reinventing; it needs to be
approached in an interdisciplinary manner.
Education is another gap that needs support. Current text books
present information on static conditions and the fundamentals, but not
the natural processes. The hydraulics of soil are presented in detail,
but not in relation with streams and rivers. Landscaping is taught as
an area of specialties, but it is time to organize it as an
interdisciplinary program. An agency such as EPA could promote the
development of a landscape institute that would be oriented to native
land management. Also, EPA could help promote the idea that there is a
job market for students with these types of degrees. More and more
they will be needed for urban development if we are to capitalize on
current resources.
Cost Savings and Negative Experiences
The participants felt that these topics would be best answered
or discussed by the practitioners and clients.
II. Recommended Role for EPA and Evaluation of Proposed Tools
Library
The EPA could develop an Internet library so that planners and
local officials could have a user-friendly source. Since most
universities have libraries, EPA's value would be to develop the
connection between the sources of information and the users. The
Internet could help organized the new way of thinking about native
restoration. For instance, the Rocky Mountain Institute has already
developed the integration of exterior and interior architecture. The
next stage is to extend this orientation to corporations and
homeowners to provide them with access to this type of information in
a user-friendly presentation.
Symposium
Symposiums are an inefficient way of disseminating
information. There are a number of well-attended and established
symposiums, so EPA should not try to duplicate what already exists.
However, symposiums for a defined groups such as planners, local
officials, etc. would have value. Or, symposiums that promote the
dialogue of an interdisciplinary approach between representatives from
different programs. Small or local-based symposiums organized and
targeted for specific site areas or eco-regions would fill a niche.
Rather than serve as the sponsor of the symposiums, EPA could provide
grant money to qualified groups or agencies for the organization of
the smaller targeted symposiums.
Hierarchy
The hierarchy tool was not clearly understood. [See
clarification on p. 6]
Research
Research is an area where EPA could made a major contribution.
Funding mega-projects is needed so that data can be generated on such
topics as the dynamics of reconstructing native plantings vs.
restoration remnants on undisturbed plots, the restoration of valuable
habitats other than prairie and wetlands, etc.
Seed Gardens
There is a need for standards on native plant seeds without
invoking regulations. This new industry needs encouragement. The EPA
does not need to sponsor local seed gardens; this is best handled by
the industry that is growing up around this market.
Fact Sheets
Fact sheets would be a good educational tool. The fact sheets
could be a way to disseminate information to the local officials and
city managers. They could also provide information on the natural
landscaping benefits to special interest groups as well as the public.
For natural landscaping to succeed, the public will have to accept and
enjoy the look of this alternative landscaping.
Information on Local Government
The focus session ran out of time before this tool could be
addressed.
The full group reconvened at 11:30 am. Jane DeRose-Bamman asked
each group to present a summary of the barriers and tools discussed in
the focus group session.
Landscape Practitioners Recommendations
This group identified the main barriers to using
environmentally beneficial landscaping as the general misconception of
what a native landscape looks like and the lack of education about
natural systems. The group supported the majority of the tools
presented by EPA (library, symposium, hierarchy, research, seed
gardens, fact sheets, and local governments). They noted the library
should be set up as a clearinghouse or system on the Internet; the
symposium would best be held locally for recognizing regional
ecological differences; research in all areas is a must; fact sheets
would serve as a good promotional tool; and local governments need to
be instructed in the benefits of native plantings. The group thought
the seed gardens tool should be dropped.
Ecological Experts Recommendations
The major gaps perceived are the lack of understanding several
levels of data and how systems/cycles are interrelated; the need to
develop and manage land and systems to replicate the hydrological
landscape; and the lack of education. The group supported most of the
tools presented by EPA, with some modifications. They stated there is
no need to duplicate libraries, but an Internet system or a means to
integrate all this information would be extremely helpful. They, too,
thought the symposiums should be targeted for small local groups
because of ecosystems ranges and differences, and the symposiums
should strive to bring together multi-disciplinary representatives.
They were unsure what EPA meant by the hierarchy. The group suggested
EPA might award/certify environmentally beneficial landscape projects
which are well done.
Corporate and University Decision Makers Recommendations
This group felt the main barriers were public acceptance of
maintenance practices (particularly burning); the lack of a good
network of information; and the costs involved in establishing/
maintaining a natural landscape. Recommendations for EPA involvement
included education and coordination; supporting the formation of seed
banks or coops to increase seed supplies; supporting
advocate/catalysts in the field, reviewing regulations that hamper
natural landscaping, and providing recognition/ incentives/rewards.
Rank Recommendations as a Full Group
Jane DeRose-Bamman then asked the full group to rank the EPA
tools, and to identify which tools were the most important to start on
and which were considered more long term activities. Individuals
expressed their own thoughts about which recommendations should be
prioritized. Although the group did not reach a consensus on ranking
the tools, recurring themes were: education and dissemination of
information; fund or facilitate funding for environmentally beneficial
landscaping research; promote the use of environmentally beneficial
landscaping by recognizing success stories; and examine existing
zoning, permitting, and water regulations to identify and modify
barriers to using environmentally beneficial landscaping. During the
discussion, some participants remarked most people think of the EPA as
a regulatory agency, so EPA's involvement in this field might be
unclear. A suggestion was made that EPA create a vision for using
environmentally beneficial landscaping so people understand the basis
for this effort and for EPA's involvement.
Key Points
- Create vision of beneficial landscaping as a way to protect the
environment. Let it influence EPA actions and programs and
publicize image of assistance.
- Promote general acceptance of beneficial landscaping to local
government, corporate, and industrial sectors.
- Re-examine local government restrictions and assist with making
appropriate changes to encourage beneficial landscaping.
- Disseminate information regarding beneficial landscaping
benefits through PC on-line information service. It is critical
that information is promoted at local level of government.
- Recognize successful projects by informational brochures and
awards.
- Provide facilitation and funding for research not occurring at
corporate or public sectors.
- Promote technical transfer of interdisciplinary research and
best management practices.
- Resolve conflicts between beneficial landscaping and existing
EPA water regulatory and funding programs.
Closing
Bevin Horn wrapped up the session by saying the morning's
events would be summarized and distributed to the participants. She
thanked the group for providing EPA some direction in its efforts in
this field. Lastly, she identified some material she had available to
distribute to interested parties. The meeting adjourned at 12:25 pm.
|
