1. Landscape Ecology, Urban Forestry & Wetlands

2.  Woody vegetation in populated places  25% of forest canopy in US

3.  Increased Property Values Trees as an amenity value Increased privacy A 15% premium

4.  Decreased Energy Costs Reducing urban heat island effect

5.  Decreased Energy Costs Reducing urban heat island effect

6.  Decreased Energy Costs Shading in summer Wind break Site & area benefits

7.  Decreased Energy Costs 10 degree area differential 50% reduction in wind > 10-12% reduction in heating costs

10.  Improve air quality Shaded parking reduces hydrocarbon (evaporative) emissions CO2 Reduction  In Sacramento, CA – 6 million trees contribute to a net reduction in CO2 by 335,000 tons (262,300 of which are sequestered

11.  Improve air quality

12. Ozone and particulate matter  Sacramento’s trees removed 665 tons of ozone and 748 tons of PM10  Canopy cover and “surface roughness” inhibits uptake of these pollutants

13.  Reduce storm water runoff Root system Inhibiting / retarding rainfall (leaves and branches) Reduction of peak flow

14.  Decrease soil erosion See previous slide Most effective near stream banks

15.  Improve water quality Reduction in nutrient flow Reduction in sedimentation Temperature regulator (shade)

16.  Create wildlife habitat Site and area benefits Trees as connectivity

17.  Increase community pride

18.  Increase recreational opportunities Passive and active recreation

19.  Improve health and well-being Secondary impacts of previous benefits

20.  Reduce noise levels Tree canopy as noise buffer  Distinguish between deciduous and evergreen

21.  Create buffer zones Edges and corridors

25. Dot gridImage Tool

29. Washington DC

30. CITYgreen for ArcGIS

32.  Town of Boone (exists in UDO) Preserving existing trees  Typically “historic trees”  Credits and incentives Determination of tree health Loophole – protection of trees only when drip line is outside of proposed building footprint  Strict protection of trees unless reduction in project intensity results…

34.  Flood Damage Reduction  Shoreline Erosion Control  Water Quality Improvement  Groundwater Recharge  Healthy Fisheries  Biodiversity  Recreation, Aesthetics, Education, Research

36.  Avoidance of Impact  Minimizing Impact  Mitigation and Compensation Impacts are unavoidable  Restoration  Enhancement  Creating from scratch  Current Issues Current Issues Boone, and Idaho

38.  Section 404 Permitting CWA Regulation of dredge and fill into wetlands Activity is permissible if no degradation occurs or no feasible / practicable alternative exists

39.  Section 404 Permitting Burden of Proof?  Steps have been taken to avoid wetlands impacts  Minimization of potential impacts  Compensation for unavoidable impacts through restoration, enhancement or creation Administered by ACE Currently considering a “three-tier” ranking of wetlands

40.  Wetlands Mitigation Banking A “market” approach for mitigation Satisfies a “no net loss” of wetlands

41.  Wetlands Mitigation Banking 1) Identification of degraded wetlands 2) Degraded wetlands are restored by private entity 3) Mitigation credits are applied to restoration 4) Mitigation credits can be sold to offset unavoidable wetlands losses off site 5) ACE determines equity of trade (buyers and sellers, environment)