April 2009
Project Partners: Grand Rapids Planning Department and JJR, Inc.
TWO GOALS…..
Quantify the presence of the urban tree canopy à How much land area in the city has tree canopy?
Place a monetary Pl t value l on the th ecological l i l services i b being i provided by urban trees à Can we calculate this for the entire city?
Defined as the layer of tree leaves, branches and stems that cover the ground when viewed from above*.
It includes trees growing à Individually I di id ll à in small groups à or under forest conditions
*Chesapeake Bay Program. 2004. Summary: Guidelines for Implementing the Chesapeake Bay Program. Annapolis MD.
Watershed scale*
Environmental Benefits à Reduce stormwater runoff and flooding à Improve regional air quality à Improve soil and water quality à Reduce stream channel erosion à Provide habitat for plants and wildlife à Preserve native ecotypes à Reduce summer air and water temperatures
*Center for Watershed Protection and USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry. 2005. Urban Watershed Forestry Manual. Ellicott City, MD.
Site scale*
Economic Benefits à Decrease heating and cooling costs à Trees left on site during construction will Reduce costs related to clearing clearing, grading grading, paving paving, mowing mowing, and managing stormwater
à Increase property values à Positively y influence consumer behavior
Environmental Benefits à Reduce urban heat island effect à Enhance function of stormwater treatment
*Center for Watershed Protection and USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry. 2005. Urban Watershed Forestry Manual. Ellicott City, MD.
Site scale*
Community Benefits à Increase livability à Improve health and well-being à Block UV radiation à Provide shade à Buffer wind and noise à Increase recreational opportunities à Aesthetics
*Center for Watershed Protection and USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry. 2005. Urban Watershed Forestry Manual. Ellicott City, MD.
Rainfall Interception – individual trees*
A mature deciduous can à Intercept 500 to 760 gallons of water per year
A mature coniferous tree can à Intercept more than 4000 gallons per year
Rainfall Interception – forests**
Coniferous forests à Capture 15 to 40% of annual precipitation
Deciduous forests à Capture p 10 to 20% of annual p precipitation p
*Center for Watershed Protection and USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry. 2005. Urban Watershed Forestry Manual. Ellicott City, MD. **Xiao, Q., E.G. McPherson, S.L. Ustin, M.E. Grismer, and J.R. Simpson. 2000. “Winter Rainfall Interception by Two Mature Open-Grown Trees in Davis, CA” in Hydrological Processes 14, 763784.
Evapotranspiration* (ET)
Represents the combined water loss from à evaporation from soil and plant surfaces à and transpiration by plants
Generally, coniferous trees have lower transpiration rates Generally than deciduous trees Generally, a mature tree can transpire 100 gallons per day An A acre off mature t forest f t can take t k up more than th 1800 gallons of water every day
*Center for Watershed Protection and USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry. 2005. Urban Watershed Forestry Manual. Ellicott City, MD.
A 25” diameter deciduous tree:
within a forest can use 420 gallons of water a dayy
growing in the open can use nearly 1200 gallons of water a day
*From, Center for Watershed Protection and USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry. 2005. Urban Watershed Forestry Manual. Ellicott City, MD. Adapted from: Perry, T.O. 1994. “Size, Design and Management of Tree Planting Sites.” in Watson and Neely, eds. 1994. The Landscape Below Ground. International Society of Arboriculture. Savoy, IL.
Air quality improvements*
One large front yard tree can: à Absorb 10 lbs. of air pollutants per year including: 4 lbs. of ozone 3 lbs. of particulates
à Cleans 330 lbs. of CO2 from the atmosphere through direct
sequestration in the trees biomass and reduced power plant emissions due to cooling energy savings
Oxygen release as a byproduct of photosysnthesis à A healthy 32’ Ash produces about 260 lb of net oxygen annually à A typical person consumes 386 lb of oxygen per year
*Center for Watershed Protection and USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry. 2005. Urban Watershed Forestry Manual. Ellicott City, MD.
Aesthetics and Other Benefits*
Beautification, Beautification trees add: à Color, texture, line and form to the urban landscape
Tree lined residential streets are the single strongest positive influence on scenic quality** quality Private property values
à People are willing to pay 3 to 7% more for properties with
ample trees versus few or no trees à Each front-yard tree is associated with about a 1-percent increase in home sales price***
*Center for Watershed Protection and USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry. 2005. Urban Watershed Forestry Manual. Ellicott City, MD. Schroeder, N.W., N W Cannon, Cannon W W.N. N 1983 1983. The esthetic contribution of trees to residential streets in **Schroeder Ohio towns. Journal of Arboriculture. 9: 237-243. *** Anderson, L.M., Cordell, H.K. 1988. Residential property values improve by landscaping with trees. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry. 9: 162-166
Compared the value of ecosystem services provided by trees with the costs associated with a full service urban forestry program
Ecosystem services benefits à Air Ai quality lit iimprovements, t energy conservation, ti stormwater t t
interception and carbon dioxide reduction
Costs of maintaining the trees à Including I l di planting, l ti pruning, i iirrigation, i ti administration, d i i t ti pestt
control, liability, cleanup, and removal
*USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-202. 2007. Northeast Community Tree Guide, Benefits, Costs, and Strategic Planting. Albany, CA.
Š
Results ƒ
Average Annual Net Benefits (benefits minus costs)
Tree Size
Location
Net Benefit $$
Small
Private Yard
5
Small
Public
9
Medium
Private Yard
36
Medium
Public
52
Large
Private Yard
85
Large
Public
113
*USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-202. 2007. Northeast Community Tree Guide, Benefits, Costs, and Strategic Planting. Albany, CA.
Result Highlights Benefits associated with energy savings and increased property value account for the largest proportion of total benefits Planting is the greatest cost for trees trees, followed by tree pruning
à tree care expenditures tend to increase with mature tree size
Environmental benefits alone alone, are up to four times tree care costs Pubic trees produce higher net benefits than private trees
*USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-202. 2007. Northeast Community Tree Guide, Benefits, Costs, and Strategic Planting. Albany, CA.
Potential Methods Manual photo interpretation of the tree canopy Traditional remote sensing tools based on spectral signatures
à Supervised/unsupervised classification
Feature extraction automation tools à Feature Analyst - Visual Learning Systems, Inc. of Overwatch
Geospatial Textron Systems Geospatial,
Feature Analyst is an intelligent software agent, that learns by example Using spatial context (surrounding information) as well as spectral reflectance to identify objects Using hierarchical learning – sequences of learning passes to remove clutter and add missed features Learning parameters
Training set
Identify/Remove Clutter
Learn
Learn
1st extraction
2nd extraction
Typical Workflow
Continue or
Add missed features
Learn
Final results
Accept
3rd extraction
Total City Area = 45.3 Sq. Miles Tree Canopy Area = 10,029 (15.7 Sq. Miles) 10 029 Acres (15 7 Sq Area covered by the urban tree canopy = 34.6%
How many trees? 2,005,800 (estimate)
City/State
% Tree Canopy
Charlotte, NC
49
Burlington, VT
43
Pittsburgh, PA
38
Atlanta, GA
37
Grand Rapids, MI
35
Montgomery, AL
33
Muskegon, MI
30
Boston, MA
29 (22) ( )
Syracuse, NY
24
New York, NY
24 (21)
Providence RI Providence,
23
Baltimore, MD
20 (25)
Philadelphia, PA
16
Jersey City City, NJ
12
Frederick, MD
12
Š
As established by American Forests ƒ
For metropolitan areas east of the Mississippi River and in the Pacific Northwest Area
% Tree Canopy
Average tree cover all zones
40
S b b residential Suburban id ti l zones
50
Urban residential zones
25
Central business districts
15
Road Name 7th St Collindale Ave Elmridge Dr Oakleigh Rd O'Brien Rd Perkins Ave Bristol Ave Camelot Dr Maryland Ave Covel Ave D Dean L Lake k A Ave Coit Ave Aberdeen St Ball Ave 3 Mile Rd Walker Ave Richmond St Valley Ave Robinson Rd Diamond Ave College Ave 6th St
Tree Canopy (Acres) 3.5 4.0 40 1.8 5.2 2.0 3.2 2.2 1.8 5.4 6.4 13 1.3 7.6 3.7 4.4 59 5.9 4.0 6.5 3.2 1.2 6.0 4.2 1.2
% - Tree Canopy 46.1 44.6 44 6 44.3 43.9 43.9 40.3 36.0 34.0 33.9 33.0 31 7 31.7 28.7 27.2 26.8 25 0 25.0 23.8 22.7 22.3 21.8 21.7 21.6 20.6
Developed by American Forests ((www.americanforests.org) g)
ESRI ArcGISTM extension Environmental and Resource Values Quantified Air pollution removal quantities and value Carbon storage quantity Stormwater runoff q quantity y and value Water quality improvements
Does not calculate calc late Energy savings value Increased property value
Air pollution removal and carbon storage output à Based on the Urban Forest Effects Model (UFORE) Developed by the USDA Forest Service
Stormwater runoff reduction output à Based on the TR-55 model Developed p by y the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service
Water quality output à Based on the L-THIA model (Long-term Hydrologic Impact
Assessment) Developed by Purdue University and U.S. EPA
Tree Canopy
COVER AND USE CLASS
ACRES
% Cover (Grand Rapids)
R id ti l Residential
7126
24 6 24.6
Trees - Mostly Natural
4629
16.0
Road & Road ROW
4354
15.0
Trees w/ Grass & Turf Understory
3947
13.6
Commercial/Business/Institutional
3376
11.6
Open Space w/ Grass Cover
1635
5.6
Industrial
1623
5.6
Trees w/ Mostly Impervious Understory
1452
5.0
Water Area
457
16 1.6
Parking Lots - Impervious
264
0.9
Shrubs w/ Ground Cover
156
0.5
29020
100.0
Total Area
Air Pollutant
Pounds Removed Money Saved per year** from Removal*
Carbon Monoxide
17,880
$7,631
Ozone
295,023
$906,375
Nitrogen Dioxide
107,281
$329,591
Particulate Matter: Less then 10 microns
196,682
$403,428
44,700
$33,546
661,566
$1,680,570
Sulfur Dioxide Total
** Based on Air Pollution conditions for the City of Milwaukee, Wisconsin
* Dollars are “externality� costs borne by society due to rising health care expenditures and reduced tourism revenue.
2-year, 24-hour Rainfall event:
2.37 inches
g conditions: Curve Number of existing
78
Curve Number if the trees were replace with buildings:
89
Additional Stormwater storage volume needed if the trees were replaced with buildings:
67,075,658 ft3
Construction cost per ft3* Total Stormwater Storm ater Savings: Sa ings Annual costs based on payments over 20 years at 6% interest * Construction
April 2008
$5.50 $368 916 122 $368,916,122 $32,163,789 per year
costs based on the cost to build just an ADS Storm Tech System to handle the additional stormwater
Amount of Carbon Stored in the Trees CCX – CFI @ $3.60 metric ton Additional Amount Stored each year CCX – CFI @ $3.60 metric ton
438,494 Metric Tons $1,578,578 3414 Metric Tons $12,290
Chicago Climate Exchange April 28th 2008 Greenhouse G h gas emission i i registry, i t reduction, and trading system
Percent Change in Contaminant Loading When Trees are Replaced with Impervious Surfaces Biological Oxygen demand
51
Cadmium
63
Chromium
77
Pollutant
Chemical Oxygen demand
82
Copper
0
Lead
21
Nitrogen
28
Phosphorous
58
Suspended Solids
50
Zinc
15 0
10
20
30
40
50 Percent
60
70
80
90
Air Pollution Removal: $1,680,570 annually Stormwater Runoff: $368,916,122 $368 916 122 or $32,163,789 $32 163 789 annually Carbon Storage: g $1,578,578 (p (presently y stored in the trees) or $12,290 worth of storage per year Water Quality Benefits: $???? THE CITY’S 35 PERCENT TREE CANOPY PROVIDES TOTAL DOLLAR BENEFITS OF: $372,175,270
Can we extract the tree canopy into tree species classes?
Can we calculate the “possible” possible full extent of the tree canopy?
Oak, Ash, Maple, Basswood, Pine, etc.
Identify areas that could actually have tree cover minus existing trees and built infrastructure What areas are actually viable for tree canopy
How has the tree canopy changed over time? What potential impact could the Elm Ash Borer have on the tree canopy?