Jason Paul Fristensky : Independent Research & Studio Project

DESIGN FOR M.O. STUDIO : METHODOLOGY

adaptDENVER:A strategic green infrastructure vision

for adapting the Denver Metro in preparation for thermal climate change

Jason Paul FristenskySpring 2014

University of PennsylvaniaSchool of Design

Department of Landscape Architecture

Professor Richard WellerLARP 702: Modus Operandi Studio

2

Research Extracts .......... 3

Denver Metro Overview .......... 5

Typology Lens Overview .......... 14

Tree Species Selections .......... 23

Typology Strategies .......... 27 CBD & Mixed High Density Use .......... 29 Industrial & Business Parks .......... 36 New Residential .......... 43 Mid-age Residential .......... 50 Old Residential .......... 57 Multi-Family Residential .......... 59 Peri-Urban .......... 67 Greenways & Open Space .......... 75 Underutilized Agricultural Land .......... 81 Overall Strategy Summary .......... 88

Planting Sequence & Thermal Impacts .......... 90

Future Recommendation .......... 96

Previous Research .......... 98

A SPECIAL THANKS TO: Sara Davis and John Myer, Denver Parks and Recreation Craig Greenwell, EPA Region 8 Office Dr. Jim Klett, Colorado State University Kevin Rein, Colorado Division of Water Resources Sonia John, Friends and Neighbors of Washington Park

TABLE OF CONTENTS

3

How can we mitigate the confluence of thermal climate change and the urban heat island effect in the semi-

arid region of Denver?

How can an effective strategic plan be developed that acknowledges funding options, prioritizes long-term

environmental valuation and addresses public awareness?

RESEARCH QUESTIONS : PROJECT DRIVERS

Designer as an instrumental catalyst to advance conversation and public awareness.

Project as an adaptation vision and scoping strategy at the metropolitan scale with implementable specificity via a

typological approach

RESEARCH FOCUS

APPROACH

15.7%Existing

Denver MetroUTC

9.7Million

ExistingTrees

=

30.7%UTC

7.2 °Fcooler

=

=

What is the production cycle for an implementation strategy that increases the

urban tree canopy by 4.25 million or 15%?

DESIGN FOR M.O. STUDIO : PREMISE

4.25Million

AdditionalTrees

Information interpolated from the 2103 Denver Urban Forest Assessment

4

5

overviewDENVER:

6

sq. miles

721721

METRO : AERIAL

ROCKY MOUNTAIN ARSENALROCKY MOUNTAIN ARSENALNATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGENATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

7

METRO : 8 COUNTIES

counties

88

8

METRO : 29 CITIES

cities

2929

9

METRO : EXISTING RESOURCES

17”17”Annual

Precipitation

10

METRO : EXISTING URBAN TREE CANOPY BLOCKS

11

METRO : URBAN HEAT ISLAND

12

METRO : PRIORITIZATION

prioritizinglow

existing canopy areas

13

METRO : EXPANDING URBANIZATION

2035

sq. miles

++259259

3.623.62

2013

millionpeople

2035

millionpeople

2.942.94

lensTYPOLOGIES:

14

15

TYPOLOGY : UNDERUTILIZED AGRICULTURAL LAND

16

TYPOLOGY : GREENWAY

17

TYPOLOGY : PERI-URBAN

TYPOLOGY : MID RESIDENTIAL

18

19

TYPOLOGY : OLD RESIDENTIAL

TYPOLOGY : NEW RESIDENTIAL

20

21

TYPOLOGY : INDUSTRIAL SPACE

22

TYPOLOGY : CBD

23

speciesSELECTION:

24

SPECIES : FUTURE TOLERANCE AND DIVERSITY FILTERING

Diversity 10 - 20 - 30 % No More Than: Species - Genus - Family

Heat Tolerance + Drought Tolerance + Pest Tolerance

APPROVED STREET TREES AND PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY

FRONT RANGE RECOMMENDED TREE LIST

SPECIES SPECIFICATIONS

-30

109 14

123

25

SPECIES : FUTURE TOLERANCE AND DIVERSITY RESULT

93 DIFFERENT TREES

20 39 (93 species)

Families

AltingiaceaeAnacardiaceae

BetulaceaeBignoniaceae

CercidiphyllaceaeCornaceae

CupressaceaeEucommiaceae

FabaceaeGingkoaceae

HamamelidaceaeHippocastanaceae

LauraceaeMagnoliaceae

OleaceaePinaceaeRosaceae

SapindaceaeTiliaceaeUlmaceae

Acer (8)Aesculus (1)

Alnus (1)Amelanchier (3)

Carpinus (1)Catalpa (2)

Celtis (3)Cercidiphyllum (1)

Cercis (1)Cornus (1)Corylus (1)

Crataegus (6)Eucommia (1)

Fagus (1)Gingko (4)

Gymnocladus (1)Juniperus (3)

Koelreuteria (1)Liquidambar (1)

Liriodendron (1)Maacki (1)Malus (1)

Magnolia (2)Parrotia (1)

Phellodendron (2) Picea (2)Pinus (3)

Pistacia (1)Platanus (1)Prunus (5)Pyrus (5)

Quercus (11)Sorbus (1)

Styphnolobium (1)Syringia (3)

Tilia (5)Taxodium (1)

Ulmus (4)Zelkova (4)

Genera (Species)

SPECIES : INDIVIDUAL TREE VALUATION

Existing UTC Ecosystem Benefits $61.70Additional UTC Ecosystem Benefits $66.93

Ecosystem Benefits value includes:reduced electricity usereduction in CO2reduced pollutionreduction in stormwater management costsrainfall interception and water speed reduction

Ecosystem Benefits value excludes:job creationhuman health and medical costswildlife habitatbiodiversity

Individual Annual Benefits:Real Estate Value + $82.58Summer Cooling Cost - $106

VALUE PER TREE PER YEAR

Information interpolated from the 2103 Denver Urban Forest Assessment

26

27

typologySTRATEGIES:

28

TYPOLOGY MAPPING : FLOW DIAGRAM DIFFERENTIATION

TypologyDifferentiation

Peri-Urban OldResidential

MidResidential

Industrial/Business

CBD MixedMulti-Family GreenwaysOpen Space

NewResidential

DENVER METROLEVEL

CITY OR COUNTYLEVEL

NGO, NON-PROFITRNO, HOA

INDIVIDUAL

UnderutilizedAgricultural

29



MidResidential

Industrial/Business

Multi-Family GreenwaysOpen Space

NewResidential


TYPOLOGY MAPPING : FLOW DIAGRAM IMPLEMENTATION

CBD/MIXED

DENVER METROLEVELCITY OR COUNTYLEVEL


INDIVIDUAL

StreetsMiscellaneousSpaces

BusinessParking Lots

30

TYPOLOGY CALCULATIONMETHODOLOGY

PARAMETERS:

Streets: 35’ocParking Lots: 25% carrying capacityMetric: 706 sf per tree (30’ mature canopy)Reduction Coefficient: 0.50 (urbanized areas)

STRATEGY : CBD & URBAN CORE HIGH DENSITY

WHOLE OF METROCOSTS & BENEFITS

68,385 Additional Trees

COST: $21.8 million @ $320 per tree to purchase and install

BENEFIT: $394 million 2100 $4.6 million annually @ $67 per tree per year

Includes: Energy Savings Carbon Storage & Sequestration Air Quality Stormwater Runoff Property Values

18.9 sq miles

31

StreetsMiscellaneousSpaces


NURSERY LOCATION

VARIABLE PLANTING PARTNERS

Amur Maacki (Maacki amurensis)Persian Ironwood (Parrotia persica)Osage Orange (Maclura pomifera)

English Oak (Quercus robur)Pin Oak (Quercus palustris)

Shingle Oak (Quercus imbricaria)Bald Cypress (Taxodium distichum)

URBAN CORE & CBDSPECIES

2-3” CALIPER PLANTINGS

DENVER METROLEVEL

CITY OR COUNTYLEVEL

NGO, NON-PROFITRNO, HOA INDIVIDUAL

Nursery locations for propagation of species to be located on vacant land within, or directly adjacent to, typology


32

EXISTING VIEW CULTURAL EXPRESSION

2013 seasons

What if each organization annually donated a tree per score factor? ...And gave back to the city that supports them with a 0.1% tax every year...

Broncos : One Tree per point 606 points Rockies : Four Trees per homerun 159 homeruns Nuggets : One Tree per 3-pointer 521 3-pointers Avalanche : One Tree per goal 350 goals Rapids : One tree per goal 45 goals


33

STORMWATER INFILTRATION PLANTING BASIN


34


35


8-10 F8-10 FMicro-climateMicro-climate

DecreaseDecrease

36




MidResidential


NewResidential


INDUSTRIAL/BUSINESS

StreetsOpen / Undeveloped Space




INDIVIDUAL

37




COST: $191 million @ $320 per tree to purchase and install

BENEFIT: $3.4 billion 2100 $40 million annually @ $67 per tree per year


97.32 sq miles

PARAMETERS:

Streets: 35’ocParking Lots: 25% carrying capacityMetric: 706 sf per tree (30’ mature canopy)Reduction Coefficient: 0.50 (urbanized areas)

STRATEGY : INDUSTRIAL & BUSINESS PARKS

38

NURSERY LOCATION


Amur Maacki (Maacki amurensis)Persian Ironwood (Parrotia persica)Osage Orange (Maclura pomifera)

English Oak (Quercus robur)Pin Oak (Quercus palustris)

Shingle Oak (Quercus imbricaria)Bald Cypress (Taxodium distichum)

INDUSTRIAL & BUSINESS PARKSPECIES


StreetsOpen / Undeveloped Space




DENVER METROLEVEL

CITY OR COUNTYLEVEL


39



What if each mode of transportation was linked to a number of trees? ...And helped to forest the spaces around their vehicles’ needs....

Vehicles : One Tree per every 5 years 51,000 annually

Trains (17) : One Tree per train per week 884 annually

Airplanes (16) : One Tree per airline per day 5,840 annually

40

STORMWATER INFILTRATION PLANTING BASIN


41


42



DecreaseDecrease

43




MidResidential

Industrial/Business





INDIVIDUAL

Median R.O.W. Planting

Strip

Private Space

ParksOpen SpaceSchoolsAthleticFields

Front Yard Back Yard

NEWRESIDENTIAL

MiscellaneousSpaces

CBD Mixed

Capacity of 2.3 per Private

Space

44







39.1 sq miles

PARAMETERS:

Streets: 35’ocParking Lots: 25% carrying capacityMetric: 706 sf per tree (30’ mature canopy)Reduction Coefficient: 0.83 (irrigated areas)

STRATEGY : NEW RESIDENTIAL

45

NURSERY LOCATION


NEW RESIDENTIAL SPECIES

Median R.O.W. Planting Strip

Private Space Public Space

ParksOpenSpace

SchoolsAthleticFields



Acer buergeranum (Trident Maple)Acer campestre (Hedge Maple)

Acer grandidentatum (Bigtooth Maple)Acer miyabei (Miyabe Maple)

Acer nigrum (Black Maple)Acer truncatum (Pacific Sunset Maple)

Aesculus glabra (Ohio Buckeye)Alnus cordata (Italian Alder)

Amelanchier (Shadblow Serviceberry)Amelanchier x Autumn Brilliance (Cole’s Serviceberry)

Catalpa ovata (Chinese Catalpa)Catalpa speciosa (Northern Catalpa)Celtis laevigata (Sugar Hackberry)

Celtis occidentalis (Common Hackberry)Cercidiphyllum japonicum (Katsuratree)Crataegus ambigua (Russian Hawthorn)Crataegus douglasii (River Hawthorn)

Crataegus phaenopyrum (Washington Hawthorn)Eucommia ulmoides (Hardy Rubber-tree)

Fagus sylvatica (European Beech)Ginkgo biloba (Autumn Gold Ginkgo)

Ginkgo biloba (Magyar Ginkgo)Ginkgo biloba (Princeton Sentry Ginkgo)

Ginkgo biloba (Shangri-la Ginkgo)Gymnocladus dioicus (Kentucky Coffeetree)

Koelreuteria paniculata (Goldenraintree) Magnolia x soulangiana (Magnolia Saucer) Phellodendron amurense (Amur Corktree)

Phellodendron lavallei (Eye Stopper Cork Tree)Pistacia chinensis (Chinese Pistache)

Prunus serotina (Black Cherry)Pyrus calleryana (Callery Pear)

Pyrus calleryana (Chanticleer Pear)Pyrus usseriensis (Ussurian Pear)Quercus macrocarpa (Bur Oak)

Quercus muehlenbergii (Chinkapin Oak)Quercus x macdanielli (MacDaniel’s Oak)Quercus x mazei (Colorado Foothills Oak)

Quercus undulata (Wavyleaf Oak)Quercus x warei (Ware’s Oak)

Styphnolobium japonicum (Scholar Tree)Tilia americana (American Linden)

Tilia americana (Lincoln Linden)Tilia x euchlora (Redmond Linden)Tilia mongolica (Mongolian Linden)

Ulmus japonica (Japanese Elm)Ulmus parvifolia (Allee Lacebark Elm)

Ulmus wilsoniana (Prospector Elm)Ulmus x (Elm hybrids)

Zelkova serrata (Green Veil Zelkova)Zelkova serrata (Halka Zelkova)

Zelkova serrata (Musashino Zelkova)Zelkova serrata (Village Green Zelkova)



DENVER METROLEVEL

CITY OR COUNTYLEVEL


46


weddinghigh.com

“Star t a new life”


What if every wedding couples planted 1 tree? ...And had a life that grew with their marriage...

And if they divorce, 1 tree gets planted for every year of marriage?

19,992 marriages Denver Metro (avg/year since 2000)

average cost of wedding is $27,000

47

INCREASING TYPICAL RIGHT-OF-WAYPLANTING STRIPS TO 8’ ANDESTABLISHMENT WATERING


48


49



DecreaseDecrease

50




NewResidential




INDIVIDUAL




ParksOpen SpaceSchoolsAthleticFields

MIDRESIDENTIAL

Industrial/Business

Capacity of 5.7 per Private

Space

51





BENEFIT: $2.7 billion 2100 $31.4 million annually @ $67 per tree per year


192.5 sq miles

PARAMETERS:

Streets: 35’oc Metric: 706 sf per tree (30’ mature canopy)Reduction Coefficient: 0.83 (irrigated areas)

STRATEGY : MID RESIDENTIAL

52

NURSERY LOCATION


MID RESIDENTIAL SPECIES



ParksOpenSpace

SchoolsAthleticFields



























DENVER METROLEVEL

CITY OR COUNTYLEVEL


53



weddinghigh.com

“Star t a new life” What if every wedding couples planted 1 tree? ...And had a life that grew with their marriage... And if they divorce, 1 tree gets planted for every year of marriage?



54

RESTORING UNDERUTILIZED RIGHT-OF-WAYPLANTING STRIPS TO 8’ ANDESTABLISHMENT WATERING


55


56



DecreaseDecrease

57



Peri-Urban NewResidential

MidResidential

Industrial/Business





INDIVIDUAL

CBD Mixed

Private Space

Front YardBack Yard

Parks StripMalls

Open SpaceSchoolsAthleticFields

R.O.W. Planting

Strip

Public Space

OLDRESIDENTIAL

58



STRATEGY : OLD RESIDENTIAL

minimalAdditional Trees

COST: $0 @ $160 per tree to purchase and install

BENEFIT: $0 $0 annually @ $67 per tree per year

Approach requiring each city to continue responsibility to maintain its’ current canopy via loss replacement from age, vandalism, or disease

9.32 sq miles

PARAMETERS:


59



Peri-Urban NewResidential

MidResidential

Industrial/Business

GreenwaysOpen Space




INDIVIDUAL

CBD Mixed

Street Trees PropertyGrounds

MULTI-FAMILYOldResidential

60





BENEFIT: $51.9 million 2100 $604 thousand annually @ $67 per tree per year


10.6 sq miles

PARAMETERS:


STRATEGY : MULTI-FAMILY

61

NURSERY LOCATION


MULTI-FAMILY SPECIES

Street Trees PropertyGrounds



























DENVER METROLEVEL

CITY OR COUNTYLEVEL


62



weddinghigh.com




63

INCREASING TYPICAL RIGHT-OF-WAYPLANTING STRIPS TO 8’ ANDESTABLISHMENT WATERING


64


65



DecreaseDecrease

STRATEGY : INDIVIDUAL OUTREACH PROVOCATIONS

66

67


Capacity of 117 per Private

Space


NewResidential

MidResidential

Industrial/Business

GreenwaysOpen Space




INDIVIDUAL

CBD MixedOldResidential

PERI-URBAN

PropertyGrounds

Multi-Family

68







28.04 sq miles

PARAMETERS:

Metric: 706 sf per tree (30’ mature canopy)

Reduction Coefficient: 0.83 (irrigated areas)

STRATEGY : PERI-URBAN

69

PropertyGrounds

NURSERY LOCATION


PERI-URBAN SPECIES

























1-2” CALIPER PLANTINGSDENVER METROLEVEL

CITY OR COUNTYLEVEL



70



weddinghigh.com




71

STAKED TREE PLANTED IN UNDISTURBED EXISTING SOILS


72


73



DecreaseDecrease




CBD MixedMulti-FamilyNewResidential




INDIVIDUAL

Industrial/Business

MidResidential

GREENWAYSOPEN SPACE

74

75



1,462,321 Additional Trees

COST: $29.2 million @ $20 per tree whip to purchase and install



271.05 sq miles

PARAMETERS:


Reduction Coefficient: 0.64 (bare soil areas)

STRATEGY : GREENWAYS & OPEN SPACE

76

NURSERY LOCATION


Acer truncatum (Pacific Sunset Maple)Acer tataricum (Hot Wings)

Amelanchier arborea (Downy Serviceberry)Carpinus caroliniana (American Hornbeam)

Celtis reticulata (Netleaf Hackberry)Cercis canadensis (Eastern Redbud)

Cornus mas (Cornelian Cherry)Crataegus ambigua (Russian Hawthorn)

Crataegus crus-galli (Thornless Cockspur)Crataegus laevigata (Crimson Cloud Hawthorn)

Crataegus x mordensis (Snowbird Hawthorn)Juniperus monosperma (Utah Juniper)

Juniperus osteosperma (One-Seed Juniper)Juniperus virginiana (Eastern Red Cedar)

Liquidambar styraciflua (Sweetgum)Malus species (Crabapples)

Picea Glauca (Black hills Spruce)Picea omorika (Serbian Spruce)

Pinus flexilis (Limber Pine)Pinus hendreichii (Bosnian Pine)

Pinus strobiformis (Southwestern White Pine)Prunus ‘Snow Goose’ (Snow Goose Plum)

Prunus x Frankthrees (Mt. St. Helens Plum)Prunus x cistina (Schmidtcis Big Cis Plum)

Prunus x fontanesiana (DeFontaine’s Cherry)Pyrus calleryana (Jaczam Jack Pear)

Pyrus fauriei Westwood (Korean Sun Pear)Quercus alba (White Oak)

Quercus bicolor (Swamp White Oak)Sorbus americana (Dwarfcrown Red Cascade)Syringa pekinensis (Morton China Snow Lilac)

Syringa reticulata (Ivory Silk Japanese Lilac Tree)

GREENWAYS & OPEN SPACESPECIES

WHIPS, PLUGS & SEEDLING PLANTINGS

Nursery locations for propagation of seedlings and whips can be in any easily accessible greenway that have high water table


DENVER METROLEVEL

CITY OR COUNTYLEVEL


77


deviantart.com

“Planting the seed”


What if each hospital annually donated 2 trees per bir th? ...And improved the air quality of the residents they help....

43,081 bir ths

Denver Metro (avg/year since 2000) average cost of bir th is $9,025 average cost of cesarean is $15,755 (without complications, in a Colorado hospital).

78

TREE WHIP OR SEEDLINGPRODUCTION PLANTINGS

LABORFORCE

Weekender’s andCommunity Service

Time


79


80



DecreaseDecrease

81



NewResidential

MidResidential

Industrial/Business

GreenwaysOpen Space



INDIVIDUAL


Multi-FamilyUNDERUTILIZEDAGRICULTURAL

Peri-Urban

Peri-Urban

82




COST: $71.9 million @ $20 per tree whip to purchase and install



60.22 sq miles

PARAMETERS:


Reduction Coefficient: 0.64 (bare soil areas)

STRATEGY : UNDERUTILIZED AGRICULTURAL

83

NURSERY LOCATION


AGRICULTURAL LANDSPECIES

Acer truncatum (Pacific Sunset Maple)Acer tataricum (Hot Wings)

Amelanchier arborea (Downy Serviceberry)Carpinus caroliniana (American Hornbeam)

Celtis reticulata (Netleaf Hackberry)Cercis canadensis (Eastern Redbud)

Cornus mas (Cornelian Cherry)Crataegus ambigua (Russian Hawthorn)

Crataegus crus-galli (Thornless Cockspur)Crataegus laevigata (Crimson Cloud Hawthorn)

Crataegus x mordensis (Snowbird Hawthorn)Juniperus monosperma (Utah Juniper)

Juniperus osteosperma (One-Seed Juniper)Juniperus virginiana (Eastern Red Cedar)

Liquidambar styraciflua (Sweetgum)Malus species (Crabapples)

Picea Glauca (Black hills Spruce)Picea omorika (Serbian Spruce)

Pinus flexilis (Limber Pine)Pinus hendreichii (Bosnian Pine)

Pinus strobiformis (Southwestern White Pine)Prunus ‘Snow Goose’ (Snow Goose Plum)

Prunus x Frankthrees (Mt. St. Helens Plum)Prunus x cistina (Schmidtcis Big Cis Plum)

Prunus x fontanesiana (DeFontaine’s Cherry)Pyrus calleryana (Jaczam Jack Pear)

Pyrus fauriei Westwood (Korean Sun Pear)Quercus alba (White Oak)

Quercus bicolor (Swamp White Oak)Sorbus americana (Dwarfcrown Red Cascade)Syringa pekinensis (Morton China Snow Lilac)

Syringa reticulata (Ivory Silk Japanese Lilac Tree)

Nursery locations for propagation of seedlings and whips can be in any easily accessible greenway that have high water table

WHIPS, PLUGS & SEEDLING PLANTINGS


DENVER METROLEVEL

CITY OR COUNTYLEVEL


84


“Leave Something Behind”

bigthink.com


What if each mortuary annually donated 1 tree per cremation? ...And put more than pine boxes in the earth...

10,725 cremations

Denver Metro (avg/year since 2000) $795 for cremation $2150 for traditional funeral

85

TREE WHIP OR SEEDLINGPRODUCTION PLANTINGS

LABORFORCE

Weekender’s and

Community ServiceTime


86


87



DecreaseDecrease

TYPOLOGY MAPPING : ALL : METRO


Best Case Potential

721 sq miles

88

89

TYPOLOGY STRATEGY : IMPLEMENTATION SUMMARY


Best Case Potential

BenefitCost

$36.9billion

$423million

Overall StrategyStaggered Implementation

Sequencing

1 23 2 2 1 1 1

NewResidential

MidResidential

Industrial/Business

GreenwaysOpen Space


Multi-FamilyUnderutilizedAgricultural

Peri-Urban

90

thermalIMPACT:

91

CULTURAL : HEALTH AND MEDICAL

NRDC 2012 “Killer Summer Heat: Projected Death Toll from Rising Temperatures in America Due to Climate Change

EHE Days

by 2055

EHE Deaths

by 2055

9xincrease

2xincrease

92

CULTURAL : HEALTH AND MEDICAL

NRDC 2012 “Killer Summer Heat: Projected Death Toll from Rising Temperatures in America Due to Climate Change

Does NOT account for Population Increases

Assumes that energy demands can handle increased

mechanical cooling needs

Case Example: Los Angeles

July 15 – August 1 2006, resulting in more than 140 confirmed heat-related deaths, more than 16,000

emergency department visits and nearly 1,200 additional hospitalizations occurred statewide.

Cost $133 MILLION

EHE Days

by 2055

EHE Deaths

by 2055

9xincrease

2xincrease

93

IMPLEMENTATION : THERMAL TIMELINE

20352015

1 F

0 F

2 F

3 F

4 F

5 F

6 F

7 F

8 F

2065 2080 2100

high emission RCP 8.5 scenario

+ 2.7 F

+ 3.6 F

+ 6.5 F

+ 8.6 FTHERMAL CLIMATE CHANGE

Near-term Projections(IPCC 2013, p. 981)

Highly Likely

Long-term Projections(IPCC 2013, p. 1062)

Likely

94

IMPLEMENTATION : TREES PLANTED TIMELINE

20352015

1 F

0 F

2 F

3 F

4 F

5 F

6 F

7 F

8 F

2065 2080 2100

+ 228,500 trees for first 10 years

...then 64,150 every year until 2075

6.6%mortality of new

plantings

25 yearmaturity

echo

4,250,000by 2059

Mature by 2084

TREE SEQUENCING

+ 2.7 F

+ 3.6 F

+ 6.5 F

+ 8.6 F

2.99 MILLION Trees Planted2.8 MILLION Trees Survive



95




+ 228,500 trees for first10 years

...then 64,150 every year until 2075

6.6%mortality of new

plantings

25 yearmaturity

echo

IMPLEMENTATION : CANOPY COOLING TIMELINE

20352015

1 F

0 F

2 F

3 F

4 F

5 F

6 F

7 F

8 F

2050 2065 2080 2100

- 0.2 F

- 3.7 F

- 6.8 F

- 8.8 F

Thermalrise offsetby 2050

+ 2.7 F

+ 3.6 F

+ 6.5 F

+ 8.6 F

COOLING IMPACT

96

futureRECOMMENDATION:

97

METRO : GROWTH RECOMMENDATION

2035

sq. miles

++259259

3.623.62

2013

millionpeople

2035

millionpeople

2.942.94

Current development requirementis only a minimum 10%

public open space

Shift focus; requiring new development to include tree planting that will achieve a minimum 35%

tree canopy within 25 years, and any tree losses to be replaced within 1 year and a minimum 2” caliper

98

previousRESEARCH:

1) SYNOPSIS

The 2013 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2013) indicates the earth is quickly approaching a significant and hazardous shift in diurnal temperature highs that will be felt globally. The report predicts that most US cities will traverse a climate threshold before 2050, and temperatures will increase by 5-10 degrees F by the end of the century. Additionally, the annual number of days exceeding 100 degrees is expected to increase roughly eight-fold (EPA, 2013). Combined with the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect, preemptive planning ofintra-urban environments and implementation of a strategic plans to assist with adaptation are urgently needed.

There are existing literature, strategy discussions, scientific reports, public health response programs, and approaches to regulating the urban thermal environment; however, most of these focus on mitigation though emissions reduction, while “adaptation” responses to the hazards posed by rising temperatures and UHI effect are being under-emphasized. As landscape architects, we are uniquely qualified to assist in the realization of whole of city adaptation by bridging science with holistic design solutions. Denver, Colorado, has commenced implementation of the Mile High Million (Hinkenlooper, 2006), a million tree initiative similar to many large metropolitan cities. Superficially, the Mile High Million appears a significant contribution to urban adaptation in Denver, but full implementation of the program will only increase the Urban Tree Canopy (UTC) by3.8%. Based on the Denver Urban Forest Assessment (Xiao, 2013), the UTC in Denver would need to be increased by nearly 16% to effectively mitigate the anticipated temperature changes.

The Modis Operandi Studio will be used to outline the production and implementation cycle of a robust urban forest for the Denver Metropolitan region, culminating in a comprehensive package of plans, metropolitan transects, and policy recommendations to provide the City of Denver with a viable adaptation (rather than mitigation) strategy in response to thermal climate change.

2) PRIMARY RESEARCH QUESTION

How can we adapt to the predicted confluence of thermal climate change and the UHI effect in the semi-arid region of Denver?

3) SUB-RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Can water-sensitive urbanism be created in a State with strict water rights policies and restrictionsagainst water harvesting?

Can an effective strategic plan be developed that acknowledges funding options, prioritizes long-term environmental valuation and addresses public awareness?

4) DECLARATION OF SIGNIFICANCE

Due to the focus on mitigation via emissions reductions, adaptation responses to the hazard of rising temperatures and heat island effect are currently being under-emphasized. As landscape architects, we are uniquely positioned to facilitate the realization of whole of city adaptation by bridging science with holistic design solutions.

5) LITERATURE REVIEW

i

In a study published Nature on October 10, 2013, MoraLab (2013) provided a timeframe of thermal climate change that predicted that, under a business-as-usual scenario, “average location[s] on Earth will experience a radically different climate by 2047” (Mora, 2013). Even with mitigation through concerted emission reductions, the average year of climate departure is predicted to be postponed only until 2069. The lead author further state that “regardless of the scenario, changes will be coming soon...[and that]…within my generation, whatever climate we areused to will be a thing of the past” (Mora, 2013). “Climate departure” was defined as “using temperature data from 1860 to 2005 as a baseline, the point in time that the average temperature of the coolest year after 2005 becomes warmer than the historic average temperature of the hottest year, for a specific location” (Thorp 2013). Beyond significant impacts to biodiversity, ecological, and agricultural ecosystems that will negatively impact societal necessities, predicted temperature increases will force our urban environments across a health andsafety threshold.

NASA (2013) published another study, which included visualization of the impacts and gradient of progressively increasing temperatures over the remainder of this century. As in Mora et al. (2013),NASA found that, regardless of emission reduction or business-as-usual, over 75% of the US will see an increase in temperature between 4.5 and 8 degrees F. While this increase may seem small,such a rise in temperatures will catapult most cities across the public health threshold and challenge human physiological tolerances (EPA, 2013). Combined with an overall thermal increase,the number of days exceeding 100 degrees F is forecast to increase roughly eight-fold in locations like Denver, Colorado (EPA, 2013). Presently, the number of days exceeding 100 degrees F in Denver averages less than one per year (National Weather Service, 2013). EPA (2013) predicts that by the end of the century, we will see between 20 and 75+ days exceeding 100 degrees F, corresponding with low or high emission scenarios, respectively.

To place this predicted scenario into context, we have only to review the 2003 European Heat Wave to see for ourselves the damage that such a change in our thermal environment can inflict. According to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP, 2004), temperatures spiked to between 95 to 104 degrees F during July and August 2003. The result was “enormous social, economic, and environmental effects” with major loss of water ecosystems, rampant fires, power outages, and reduced agricultural output, all of which culminated in nearly 35,000 deaths (UNEP, 2004). Under such extreme conditions and duration, reliance upon artificial interior cooling is a short-sighted and naïve approach for future adaptation to rising exterior temperatures. Fortunately, numerous researchers have outlined potential methods for adaptation. For example, ina paper entitled Remote sensing science to inform urban climate change mitigation strategies, Karen Seto (Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies) states that “there are enormous opportunities to shape the built environment and for urban spatial planning to play an important role in climate change mitigation and adaptation” (Seto, 2013, p. 1).

The IPCC Fifth Assessment Report for Policymakers (IPCC, 2013), released in September 2013, emphasizes the contribution of anthropogenic causes to changing climates, in part to point out howmitigation via anthropogenic responses might proceed. However, at many levels this issue, which remains controversial (although largely outside of the scientific community; S. Talbot, USGS, personal communication), is subordinate to the fact that regardless of the proximal cause, the ultimate result the same: climate change is predicted to push humans, along with other species, to the limits of physiological tolerances. Summarizing various emission scenario models, the IPCC (2013) states that “it is vir tually certain that there will be more frequent hot and fewer cold temperature extremes over most land areas on daily and seasonal timescales as global mean temperatures increase. It is very likely that heat waves will occur with a higher frequency and duration” (IPCC 2013, p. SM14). This summary of multiple independent studies more than sufficiently outline predicted outcomes, and as such should be taken as a clarion call by the public and their leaders for the preparation of our cities, and society as a whole, for survival.

ii

In a paper entitled Climate change and the differential evidence of European urbanism, Mehaffey(2012), emphatically underscores the consequences of continued delay by allied design professions. Mehaffey states that “climate change – at once the tip of a larger crisis of unsustainability, and in its own right a looming threat the human well-being on par at least with the black death of the thirteenth century – has changed everything, except our way of thinking. Our response to date has been characterized by a bizarre mix of paralysis, denial, and tokenism. We have hardly begun to change the titanic operating system that pulls us deeper into the crisis” (p. 46). Our response to natural disasters suggests we are a reactive society, rather than a proactive one. Thus, while statements like Mehaffey’s can be perceived as apocalyptic and devoidof any hope for the survival of the human species, these warnings have been sounded for decades and now society urgently needs to understand these predictions and prioritize responses, and transmit that understanding and prioritization to elected officials.

As designers of the urban realm, it is our responsibility to analyze and synthesize site-specific information and develop solutions in response to that information. Up to this point, our 'response' to climate change has been largely on a city-block, park, or singular urban corridor scale, and that scale provides an insignificant impact on the urban realm. Steffen Lehmann (University of South Australia), an internationally renowned thought leader in the field of sustainable buildings, urban development principles and our complex relationship with nature, emphasizes the lacking efficacy of our response by stating that “urbanism is often missing from the proposed remedies forclimate change and environmental stress; it is the invisible wedge in the pie chart of green solutions...[and] to respond to the energy and climate change challenge, compounding layers of design must be integrated. Efficient, climate-responsive buildings are important but miss many community-scale opportunities” (quoted in Haas, p. 14).

In his conceptual strategy writing Green Urbanism: Formulating a Series of Holistic Principles (Haas, p. 25-30), Steffen Lehmann provides 15 Guiding Principles of Green Urbanism, summarizedbelow:

1) Climate and Context; city based on its climatic conditions, with appropriate responseto location and site context;

2) Renewable Energy for Zero CO2 Emissions; the city as a self sufficient, on-site energy producer, using decentralized district energy systems;

3) Zero-waste City; the zero-waste city as a circular, closed-loop eco-system;4) Water; the city with closed urban water management and a high water supply.5) Landscape, Gardens, and Urban biodiversity; the city that integrates landscapes,

urban gardens, and green roofs to maximize biodiversity. Which strategies can be applied to protect and maximize biodiversity and to reintroduce landscape and garden ideas back into the city to ensure urban cooling?it needs to maximize the resilience of the ecosystem through urban landscapes that mitigate the “urban heat island ” (UHI) effect, using plants for air-purification and urban cooling. Further, the narrowing of roads, which calms traffic and lowers the UHI, allows for more (all-important) tree planting;

6) Sustainable Transport and Good Public Space;7) Local and Sustainable Materials with less embodied energy;8) Density and Retrofitting of existing districts; the city with retrofitted districts, urban

infill , and densification/intensification strategies;9) Green buildings and Districts;10) Livability, Healthy Communities, and Mixed-use Programs;11) Local Food and Short Supply Chain;12) Cultural Heritages, Identity, and Sense of Place;13) Urban Governance, Leadership, and Best Practices;14) Education, Research, and Knowledge;

iii

15) Strategies for Cities in Developing Countries

In response to the necessary adaptation in preparation of thermal climate change, Principles (4) and (5) are the most critical for planning the urban environment. In support of these principles, Steffen posits that water and vegetation are crucial for the urban environment, that “biophilic cities are using natural processes as part of their infrastructure – green roofs, green walls, and integrated open space management – together with creative use of urban areas for foot production. One of the core reasons for cities moving down the biophilic path is to air-condition their city through photosynthetic cooling effects of plants and water in the urban landscape as well as using less heat-absorbing materials” (Haas, 2012, p. 19). Translating this approach into a multi-pronged method for urban thermal regulation caused by the UHI effect combined with temperature increases predicted via climate change falls squarely into the abilities and principles inherent to the field of Landscape Architecture.

Another set of conceptual approaches to the future livability of cities is addressed in by Peter Newman (Newman et al., 2009), in Resilient cities: Responding to peak oil and climate. Seven key elements and summarized descriptions of the paradigm shift outlined are as follows:

1) Renewable Energy City; urban areas will be powered by renewable energy technologies from the region to the building level.

2) Carbon Neutral City; every home, neighborhood, and business will be carbon neutral.

3) Distributed City; cities will shift from large centralized power, water , and waste systems to small-scale and neighborhood-based systems.

4) Photosynthetic City; the potential to harness renewable energy and provide food and fiber locally will become part of urban green infrastructure.

5) Eco-Efficient City; cities and regions will move from linear to circular or closed-loop systems, where substantial amounts of their energy and material needs are providedfrom waster streams.

6) Place-Based City; cities and regions will understand renewable energy more generally as a way to build the local economy and nurture a unique and special sense of place.

7) Sustainable Transport City; cities, neighborhoods, and regions will be designed to use energy sparingly by offering walkable, transit-oriented options for all supplemented by electric vehicles.

While these key elements are critical to embed within the urban environment, they are still primarily focused on mitigation via reducing emissions and use, which is not predicted to quickly mitigate the impending thermal climate change (Mora et al., 2013). Why is there no “Cool City” approach, one that fully acknowledges thermal public heath and safety within the urban environment? To this point, while we may portray through rhetoric our site designs' adaptation providing capacity, the long-range view and upfront designs still fail to tackle the most pressing issues of our society. Steffen Lehmann (2010) eloquently articulates the critical impact of this ineffective approach in The principles of green urbanism: Transforming the city for sustainability:

“Architecture and urban planning are playing a major role in the challenge of moving towards a more sustainable urbanization models. But rather that see our relative wealth in the developed world as an opportunity to build well – designing and constructing longer lasting buildings and cities with enduring infrastructure – we do just the opposite: we keep designing and constructing cities and buildings that are not meant to last more that 20 to 30 years and put in place policies that encourage rapid depreciation, planned obsolescence and minimal expenditures with the lowest bidder.

iv

Human settlement patterns have created such fragmented and polluted natural habitats that biologist now predict that as many as two-thirds of all plant and animal species will be extinct by 2050. Add to that the exponential rise in atmospheric carbon, at levels not seen for the last 400,000 years, and the exponential increase in human population....we stand at a moment in our history when we either choose to inhabit this planet very differently very quickly, or we mayfind ourselves among the species that we have rendered extinct” (p. 214)

Even as climate adaptation plans are being created for cities, including Million Tree initiatives, these efforts are severely limited since they do not address ecologically responsible approaches, such as addressing species diversity and the ability of planted trees to withstand the changing climate. Turning to the allied sciences, such as landscape ecology and biomimicry, and bridging the informational gap between design and science, is crucial for any long-term climate change strategy to be effective:

“Hugh Aldersey Williams explored extensively the relationship between animal structure and buildings. Biologists have observed that before eco-systems collapse they often become so inter-connected, productive and efficient that they lose all resiliency, becoming unable to withstand unexpected outside stress. Their collapse represents what biologists call an 'adaptive cycle', in which the eco-systems have become more diverse and resilient, but less inter-connected, productive and efficient,Certainly, such observation of principles must be of relevance for all designers of the human eco-system we call the built environment.” (Lehmann, 2010, p.244)

Adaptation plans targeting the urban environment will likely need a multi-layered system of strategies that would allow for higher performance and site specific micro-climate efficacy. One such method of potential is solar cooling:

“For highly air-conditioned dependent cities, solar cooling technology is a particularly useful solution to reduce their urban heat island (uhi) effect. The uhi effect creates primarily a night-time problem, when the interior spaces are not cooling down sufficiently at night.... Solar cooling technology would avoid the issue that air-conditioned units blow their hot waster air into the streets, which is getting trapped in the urban environment, adding to the uhi problem. Integration of greenery in the urban environment is essential to mitigate for the urban heat island effect. Planted surfaces have much lower temperatures, heat up less, and improve the micro-climate. Water bodies have also beneficial effects on the micro-climate, asthey help moderate temperatures in summer through evaporation.” (Lehmann, 2010, p. 272)

Peter Droege (University of Lichtenstein), an internationally eminent leader in urban design and planning with a focus on resilient urbanism, addresses the hazardous confluence of UHI effect and thermal climate change in Renewable city: A comprehensive guide to an urban revolution (Droege, 2006). He noted that the “most visible and damaging effects of climate change” (p. 74-78) are two-fold. The first is through hazard and exposure to temperature change itself, which will manifest as greater heat levels and a rise in the number of days of extreme temperatures and a higher incidence of drought with extreme flooding. The second tier of damage is revealed in physical impact. He noted five direct impacts of rising temperatures, with likely downstream impacts. The five impacts are summarized as follows:

1) power generation efficiency declining at higher ambient temperature;2) drying damage to water supply and sewage systems;3) failure of transport systems during storm surge and floods;4) overall depletion of loss and agricultural production;

v

5) overall threatened quality to the urban environment, compounded by the UHI effect.

With respect to the surface heat island effect, Droege (2006) noted that the urban environments can produce temperatures upwards of 18 degrees F, relative to surrounding undeveloped lands. This effect can be most significant at night, when heat absorbed by impervious surfaces is released into the lower atmosphere. The result of higher temperatures is an increase in artificial cooling efforts, which expels more hot air into the urban environment and increases the atmospheric heat island (Wong, 2012). The combination of surface heat island and atmospheric heat island generates a feedback system though convection and air dynamics.

The most direct strategy for reducing UHI is to increase canopy and shade over impervious surfaces that have a low reflectivity and albedo, primarily through the use of trees and other vegetation (Wong, 2012). Beyond direct shading by trees and urban forests, evapo-transpiration cooling breezes caused by the decreased localized temperature is a potential method of increasing air flow within a dense urban environment. This can be facilitated by including living walls and green roofs as a supplementary strategy. In fact, urban parks may have the potential tocool beyond their borders and upwards of 100 meters downwind (ASLA, 2012). While these mechanisms are complex, presumably dominant wind flow at any given location, combined with its proximate surroundings, would potentially create micro-climatic cooling effects. An ancillary concern is the limited ability to insert any park of significant size within the dense urban environment that would have a measurable impact on the entire urban environment. To provide an effective adaptation strategy in response to thermal climate change and UHI effect, a metropolitan-scale green infrastructural approach is necessary.

6) CASE STUDIES AND PRECEDENTS

The ability for green infrastructure and vegetation cover to reduce UHI effect was studied in the city of Manchester, United Kingdom (Gill, 2007). This study found that “outdoor thermal comfort is highly variable from factors such as humidity, solar radiation, wind, and precipitation…[but] adding 10% cover decreased maximum surface temperatures by 2.2 C in 1961-1990, and [with increasing canopy diameter] 2.4-2.5C by the 2080's” (p. 120-122). This translates into roughly a 4.5 degree F decrease, which, with regard to expected temperature increase associated with climate change, provides an appropriate urban adaptation strategy.

Many cities nationally and globally have created Climate Change Actions Plans, most of which appear to be based in policy and, again, strongly focused on emission reduction and mitigation asthe suggested approach for urban adaptation. Denver, Colorado‘s 2007 Greenprint Climate Action Plan falls into this category, but lacks effective long-range adaptive planning. The Plan is comprised of ten Key Elements and Goals, summarized below (Mayor's Greenprint, 2007):

1) Corporate and Residential Climate Challenges - Develop outreach campaigns supporting the adoption of best practices related to energy conservation, renewable energy, multi-modal transportation, and waste reduction.

2) Incentivize Energy Conservation - Introduce a proposal to apply a tiered rate structure to electrical and natural gas usage.

3) Voluntary Travel Offset Program - Provide the opportunity to pay a small voluntary fee, at the time of air travel or motor vehicle registration, to offset the carbon emissions related to travel.

4) City Leading by Example - Aggressively pursue opportunities for energy efficiency and renewable energy at Denver International Airport, work to develop “carbon neutral” City buildings through application of energy efficiency savings.

5) Enhance Recycling Programs - Support new & expanded recycling initiatives throughout Denver to double present recycling rate.

vi

6) Energy Efficiency Standards for New Buildings and Remodels - Adopt a set of mandatory building standards for commercial buildings and building codes for new homes.

7) Increase Energy Efficiency in Existing Homes - Promote basic energy efficiency measures at residential properties as a way to improve the energy efficiency of older housing stock. Incentives to plant shade trees and install in-home energy display systems.

8) Community-wide High-performing Green Concrete Policy - Require, through City policies, the use of “green” concrete, containing a low to moderate percentage of fly ash, in all public and private construction projects.

9) Compact Growth Boundary with Incentives for Density in Urban Areas - Support maintenance of the existing DRCOG growth boundary and support additional population growth around transit in the metro area to promote denser, more pedestrian-, bicycle-, and transit-friendly neighborhoods that will reduce the demand for motorized personal transport.

10) City Support for Alternative Transportation Strategies - Develop various City policies that promote the transition over time to the use of alternative transportationsources (such as bicycles, telecommuting, walking, van/car pools, and mass transit).

Each of these elements is valuable and should be implemented. However, the only one with robust potential planning for thermal climate change is (7), with its link to the Mile High Million tree planting initiative. Unfortunately, even that element is focused on residential homes only, which mostly have existing vegetation; thus, this approach will have little impact for the city-wide UHI effect. This approach is duplicated in many Climate Action Plans, demonstrated in the summary by the ICLEI (2013) as:

Atlanta, GA - Climate Action Plan underlying goals to reduce emission and have a “No Net Loss” of urban trees

Boston, MA - A Climate of Progress, mitigation and mitigation through emission reduction, energy efficiency, reduction, cool roofs, coastal responses to sea level rise, private transportation reduction, and planting 100,000 trees for heat island eduction

Chicago, IL - Climate Action Plan includes increasing total green roofs to 6,000, and mitigate urban heat island effect with 1 million trees

El Paso, TX - Extreme Weather Task Force was established 10 years ago. Its purpose is to bring awareness to the community about staying healthy and hydrated,finding cool zones.

Grand Rapids, MI - To offset the urban heat island effect, the city plans to increase its tree canopy cover to at least 37.5% between 2011 and 2015.

Houston, TX - NO Climate Action Plan. Owns 17 SPACE units for emergency relief effort. The units contain refrigerators and air conditioning to provide relief.

Los Angeles - ClimateLA is focusing on emission reduction, alternative transportation and energies, and planting 1 million trees for CO2 sequestration andadding 35 parks

New York, NY - plaNYC Climate Action Plan to reduce gas emission by 30%, mitigate heat island effect primarily through cool roofs. Trees for Public health is focused on planting in low coverage neighborhoods

Philadelphia, PA - Greenworks, identified a target of 30% UTC by planting 1 million trees by 2025 for health and heat island offset

Salt Lake City, UT - SLCGreen, reducing carbon footprint, reduce greenhouse emissions, and early phases pf beginning an urban tree plan

Tucson, AZ - Plan is focused on water shortage remedies, greenhouse gas emission

vii

reduction, and acknowledge increasing temperatures, but with arid climate and low water resources, the response to heat island effect is severely limited

Washington, DC - District will surpass 1.5 million square feet of green roofs in 2012 as requirements and incentives encourage installation of green roofs

A handful of the plans acknowledge the necessity for increasing urban canopy cover and addressing UHI effect, though the quantitative aspects are relatively insignificant relative to existing canopy and levels of canopy increase needed for adaptation to thermal climate change. The New York City Climate Action plan, plaNYC 2030, explicitly states that with “significant increase in predicted high temperature days ...emission reduction will not alone have significant impact” (plaNYC, 2007).

As found in a majority of metropolitan regions, implementation of Million Trees planting initiatives has commenced during the past five to seven years. The initiative in Denver was started in 2006, with the goal of planting one million trees by 2025, and jump-started with a $6 million grant for the US Department of Energy (Mile High, 2013). To date, at least 250,000 trees have been planted, but planting appears to have been mostly via an on-request system and located in newerresidential front yards. Further, the program restricted the number of total species to eight, all of which are tolerant only of existing climate conditions and less likely to survive in the increasing temperature range. Earlier this year, initial funding was exhausted, and the Mile High Million program has been cut. The current focus of the Denver City Forester is to prepare for the damaging impacts of the Emerald Ash Borer and Asian Beetle, which have been moving westward across the country as temperature and precipitation changes (Denver Post, 2013).

7) DENVER SPECIFIC DATA

In March, 2013, an Urban Forest Assessment (Xiao et al., 2013), completed by research scientists from the University of California Davis, was provided to the manager of the Denver Mile High Million program and the Denver Forestry Department. A summary of elements from this report indicate the potential of increasing the Denver Metropolitan urban canopy cover:

The Metro Denver urban forest is extensive, covering 15.7% of the 721 square mile region;There are approximately 9.6 million trees in the Metro Denver urban forest, assuming an average crown diameter of 19-ft per tree;The Denver Metro urban forest contains approximately 10 million vacant planting sites, assuming plant-able space for a 30-ft crown diameter;70% of these plant-able vacant sites are in single family residential and mixed land uses;16% percent are in public and institutional land usesFilling 50% of the plant-able vacant sites region wide will require 4.25 million trees;This would increase the UTC to roughly 31%, and 20-30 years to reach projected canopy level;Reaching the 4.25 million would result in $1 billion in ecosystem services, property value increase to $788 million, save $32.2 in electricity costs, and reduce stormwater costs by $178 million annually.

If the 4.25 million trees were treated as an infrastructural asset, for example, similar to the transportation infrastructure, its asset value valuation would reach $93.6 billion through the end of this century. Within the urban forest assessment, Xiao et al. (2013) excluded any impervious surfaces from the potential planting sites, suggesting that the number of potential sites could be

viii

significantly higher. “Finding adequate space for trees in these densely engineered developments is a challenge. These problems urgently need solutions” (Xiao, 2013). Combined with the urban forest assessment, the climatology specific to the semi-arid Denver region with limited precipitation of 17” annually and resultant strict water regulations linked to intrastate and international compacts presents a complex but ideal set of circumstances that falls squarely into the realm of landscape architecture as instrumental in strategic development of an implementable solution.

Water regulations in Denver provide an obstacle for planning. According to the Colorado Division of Water Resources web site, the following provides a glimpse of water regulation complexity (CDWR, 2013):

Rooftop Precipitation CollectionAlthough it is permissible to direct your residential property roof downspouts

toward landscaped areas, unless you own a specific type of exempt well permit, youcannot collect rainwater in any other manner, such as storage in a cistern or tank, forlater use. Please review our publications below, as well as links to CSU Extension's information on this topic and Colorado law on the subject as written in the Colorado Revised Statutes, before applying for a Rooftop Precipitation Collection System Permit. If your well has not been registered, you will also need to Register an Existing Well before applying.

Rainwater Harvesting Pilot ProjectsHouse Bill 09-1129 allows for Pilot Projects for the Beneficial Use of Captured

Precipitation in New Real Estate Developments. The Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) has developed criteria and guidelines for applications and the selection process for new development pilot projects to evaluate the feasibility of rainwater harvesting as a water conservation measure in Colorado, when paired withefficient landscaping and irrigation practices.

Graywater ReuseColorado Water Law typically does not permit most residential properties to reuse

graywater, water already used once for showers, laundry and dish washing. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Water Quality Control Division (CDHPE WQCD) administers requirements and minimal standards. Many city and county regulations further prohibit the issuance of any type of individual sewage disposal system permit within a certain distance of service by a municipal orcommunity sewage treatment facility, so please contact your local government officefor specific details.

Stormwater ManagementPrecipitation that falls on a site and becomes concentrated in a detention or

infiltration area may not be diverted for any beneficial use. Landscaping that is planted on roofs (green roofs) is allowable as long as the landscaping intercepts only precipitation that falls directly onto the landscaping. The landscaping may not intercept and consume concentrated flow and may not store water below the root zone. Please see the administrative position for additional details.

ix

8) BIBLIOGRAPHY

ASLA (2012). Cool Designs for hot Cities: Site strategies to mitigate the urban Heat Island, Workshop Session A-4 summary presented by Larissa Larsen, pdf. www.asla.org

Beatley, T. (2011). Biophilic cities: Integrating nature into urban design and planning. Washington D. C.: Island Press.

Bell, D. M., Bradford, J. B., & Lauenroth, W. K. (2013). Mountain landscapes offer few opportunities for high elevation tree species migration. Global Change Biology: early online. doi:10.1111/gcb.12504.

CDWR (Colorado Division of Water Resources). (2013). Rainwater collection and graywater reuse.Available at: water.state.co.us/SURFACEWATER/SWRIGHTS/Pages/RainwaterGraywater.aspx

Denver Post (2013, September 9). Denver 'chops' Mile High Million trees project. Available at: http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_24051514/denver-chops-mile-high-million-trees-project

Droege, P. (2006). Renewable city: A comprehensive Guide to an urban revolution. Great Britain: Wiley-Academy.

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) (2013). Climate change impacts and adapting to change (plus website sub-pages), http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/impacts-adaptation/index.html Accessed October 19, 2013

Gill, S.E. & Handley, J.F & Ennos, A.R. & Pauleit, S. (2007), Adapting Cities for Climate Change: The Role of the Green Infrastructure, Built Environment Volume 33, Number 1

Haas, T. (Ed.). (2012). Sustainable urbanism and beyond: Rethinking cities for the future. New York, NY: Rizzoli International Publications Inc.

Heinberg, R. & Lerch, D. (Eds.). (2010). The Post carbon reader: Managing 21st century's sustainability crises. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Hinkenlooper, J. (2006, July 12). State of the City Address, 2006.

ICLEI, Local Governments for Sustainability USA (2012), Local governments, extreme weather, and climate change 2012. Factsheet, available at: www.icleiusa.org. Accessed October 18, 2013.

IPCC Working Group (2013). Contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policymakers.

Lehmann, S. (2010). The principles of green urbanism: Transforming the city for sustainability. Washington D. D.: Earthscan LLC.

Mayor’s Greenprint Denver Advisory Council (2007).City of Denver Climate Action Plan 10/2007

Mehaffey, M. (2012). Climate change and the differential evidence of European urbanism. In: Haas, T. (Ed.), Sustainable urbanism and beyond: Rethinking cities for the future. New York, NY: Rizzoli International Publications Inc.

Mile High Million (2013). Available at: www.milehighmillion.org, accessed October 20, 2013

Mora, C., Frazier, A., & Longman, R. (2013). Study in Nature Reveals Urgent New Time Frame for

x

Climate Change, University of Hawaii Manoa

MoraLab. Department of Geography, University of Hawaii, http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/mora/PublicationsCopyRighted/Cities%20Timing.html

National Weather Service (2013), National Weather Service Forecast Office; Denver-Boulder, COAvailable at http://www.nws.noaa.gov/climate/index.php?wfo=BOU

NASA (2013). Climate models show potential 21st century temperature, precipitation changes. Available at: http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/climate-models-show-potential-21st-century-temperature-precipitation-changes/#.UrYiX-JdDPs Accessed October 22, 2013

Newman, P., Beatley, T., & Boyer, H. (2009). Resilient cities : Responding to peak oil and climate change. Washington D. C.: Island Press.

PlaNYC 2030 (2007), Available at www.nyc.gov/html/planyc2030/html/home/home.shtml

Seto, K. C. (2013). Remote sensing science to inform urban climate change mitigation strategies. Urban Climate 3: 1-6. Retrieved at: www.elsevier.com/locate/uclim

Talbot, Sandra (2013). USGS Alaska Science Center. Personal communication

Thorp, G. (2013, October 9). Hot spots: Global temperature rise. Washington Post.

UNEP (2004). Impacts of summer 2003 heat wave in Europe. Environmental Alert Bulletin. Available at: www.grid.unep.ch/ew

Wong, E. (2013). Reducing urban heat islands: Compendium of strategies, Urban Heat Island basics. EPA document, available at: http://www.epa.gov/hiri/resources/compendium.htm

Xiao, Q., Wu, C. & Bartens, J. (2013). Metro Denver Urban Forest Assessment, University of California Davis.

xi

Jason Paul Fristensky : Independent Research & Studio Project

Documents

Transcript of Jason Paul Fristensky : Independent Research & Studio Project