Cambridge, Ontario Urban Forest Canopy Report

City of Cambridge, Ontario Urban Forest Canopy Assessment December 2013 Prepared By: Plan-It Geo LLC Urban Forest Innovations Inc.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 2 Cambridge Overview

2

Urban Forest Canopy Assessment

2

Major Findings

3

Results ........................................................................................................................................................ 4 Canopy Assessment

4

Street and Park Tree Urban Forest Structure

10

Ecosystem Services

11

2050 Business as Usual (BAU) Scenario ..................................................................................................... 13 2050 Canopy Scenarios Approach and Assumptions

13

Key Factors Influencing Forest Canopy Change Over Time

13

2050 Canopy Scenarios Discussion

16

Recommendations .................................................................................................................................... 18 Appendix A: Assessment Methods ............................................................................................................ 19 Canopy Assessment

19

Urban Forest Structure – Field Data Collection

24

Urban Forest Value: Ecosystem Services and Asset Value

27

Appendix B: Related UFC Assessment Materials ....................................................................................... 29 I.

List of Deliverables

29

II.

Land Cover Classification & Accuracy Assessment

29

III.

Complete Assessment Result Tables & Maps

32

IV.

Canopy Calculator Example Illustration

39

Appendix C: Cambridge Community Map Book ......................................................................................... 40

_Cambridge Urban Forest Canopy Assessment Report

1

INTRODUCTION

Communities across the City of Cambridge enjoy enhanced health, beauty, and livability thanks to the role of urban forests. The trees, forests, gardens, green spaces and other natural areas provide many benefits from cleaner air and water, reduced energy and stormwater processing costs, to lower crime rates and higher property values. Results from the assessment are presented in this report, the Urban Forest Canopy and Priority Planting Map Book (see Appendix B) and in the maps, data, and tables presented to the City.

CAMBRIDGE OVERVIEW

The City of Cambridge covers approximately 113 square kilometers, and has a population of 127,748 (Statistics Canada 2011). The City contracted with Urban Forest Innovations Inc. and associates to conduct an Urban Forest Canopy (UFC) assessment and Urban Forest Management Plan. Using Geographic Information Systems (GIS), and field data collection and analysis, the UFC assessment measures existing canopy cover and provides baseline information for increasing environmental services from the urban forest. The Urban Forest Management Plan (phase 2) will incorporate UFC assessment results, locally relevant research, current urban forest program practices, and stakeholder engagement to craft a guidance document to enhance forest health and longevity among all Cambridge communities.

URBAN FOREST CANOPY ASSESSMENT

The purpose of conducting this assessment is to inform community and city stakeholders on the current extent, conditions, and values of the city’s UFC. This analysis employed top-down (aerial imagery) and bottom-up (field-based) approaches to measure forest canopy extent, forest community and structural components, and associated ecosystem service values for air pollution mitigation and carbon sequestration and storage. Urban forests are constantly changing due to development, tree planting, and natural mortality and reproduction. This assessment also examines possible future scenarios based on the current Business As Usual (BAU) and alternative management practices. A Map Book and UTC Calculator tool were also created as a part of the project.

_Cambridge Urban Forest Canopy Assessment Report

2

MAJOR FINDINGS

The 2013 Urban Forest Canopy (UFC) cover percent for Cambridge is 27%.

Urban Forest Canopy: 27% Other Land Cover: 48% Possible Planting Area: 25%

49% of Cambridge’s total UFC is located on properties with Open Space zoning and 29% is found on Residential zoning types.

Among Cambridge neighbourhoods, UFC ranged from 9% UFC in Industrial Park to 46% in River Flats.

Ash is one of the top three species in the Open Space zoning type.

The Institutional zoning type had the highest percentage of good condition trees (74%) while Open Space contained the highest percentage of poor condition trees (6.9%).

Cambridge receives more than $3 million annually from the city’s urban forests in ecosystem services for carbon sequestration, storage, and air pollution removal alone.

73% of the City’s Urban Forest Canopy is found in woodlots.

68% of individual trees are located within the Residential zoning type, while 59% of Woodlot areas are located within the Open Space zoning type.

Approximate asset (replacement) value of the urban forest is between $800 and $900 million.

_Cambridge Urban Forest Canopy Assessment Report

3

RESULTS

How Are the UFC Assessment Results Used?

This section presents results from the UFC assessment, ecosystem services evaluation, and field data collection.

Results presented in this report are only meant to provide a broad level overview. Examine the provided data and spreadsheets to learn more about the city’s urban forests.

   

To set and implement canopy cover goals To prioritise areas for tree planting and preservation To analyze and visualise tree planting opportunities To work with multiple, diverse partners to achieve and maintain goals

CANOPY ASSESSMENT

The boundaries assessed in Cambridge are governed, owned, managed, and used in different ways by diverse constituents in the community. Therefore, the UFC data and analysis results are presented at multiple scales to inform planners, managers and citizens alike. Canopy assessment results in this section are reported citywide and for neighbourhoods, subwatersheds, wards and a subset of parcels.

More detailed assessment results for each neighbourhood are available in the Cambridge Mapbook (Appendix B).

URBAN FOREST CANOPY BY NEIGHBOURHOODS

This study encompasses 11,567 hectares defined by the City limits of Cambridge and provides a snapshot of land cover based on 2013 satellite imagery. Forest canopy covers 3,080 hectares (27%) of Cambridge. Other land cover types mapped for the study area are plantable vegetation (grass and open space) at 2,899 hectares (25%), unsuitable vegetation (sport, recreational, and agricultural fields and golf courses) at 1,003 hectares (9%) and other land cover (impervious surfaces, water, and soil) at 4,585 hectares (40%).

Urban Forest Canopy: 27%

Unsuitable Vegetation:

Possible Planting Area: 25%

Other Land Cover: 40%

9% Figure 1. Percent coverage for each of four land cover types mapped across Cambridge.

_Cambridge Urban Forest Canopy Assessment Report

4

URBAN FOREST CANOPY BY NEIGHBOURHOODS

This assessment examined 38 neighbourhoods in Cambridge. See Appendix B for more detailed information about each neighbourhood. Tree canopy in neighbourhoods ranged from 9% UFC in Industrial Park, to 46% in River Flats. Plantable area ranged from 12% in Kossuth to 44% in Parklawn.

ID #

Neighborhood Name

ID #

Neighborhood Name

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Blair Preston Heights Royal Oak St Andrews Hills Elgin Park Northview Briardean Branchton Park Southview Southwood Glenview Galt City Centre Eastview Victoria Highlands Westview Lincoln Oaks

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

Langs Farm Central Park Riverside Parklawn Allendale Riverbank No 3 Middle Block Kossuth Maple Grove Beaverdale Chilligo Blackbridge Hillcrest Silverheights River Flats Centennial

17

Riverview

36

Downtown Hespeler

18 19

Shades Mills Industrial Park

37 38

Cambrian Hills Cooper

Figure 2a & b. UFC percent (a) and PPA percent for 38 Cambridge neighbourhoods.

_Cambridge Urban Forest Canopy Assessment Report

5

URBAN FOREST CANOPY BY SUBWATERSHEDS

This assessment examined 34 subwatersheds in Cambridge. Tree canopy in subwatersheds ranged from 0.3% in Hespeller West watershed (2), to 92% in Bauman Creek watershed. Plantable area ranged from 7% in Bauman Creek watershed to 48% in Irish Creek.

ID #

Subwatershed Name

ID #

Subwatershed Name

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Tributaries Of The Grand River East Hespeler Portuguese Swamp Drainage Unnamed Mill Creek Hespeler West Randall Drain Unnamed Unnamed Chilligo (Ellis) Creek Moffat Creek Hespeler West Hespeler West Forbes Creek Irish Creek Speed River

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

Cruickston Creek Hespeler West Hespeler West Freeport Creek Toyota Drain Hespeler West Forbes Creek Fairchild Creek Blair Creek Devils Creek Unnamed Newman Creek Groff Mill Creek Unnamed Bechtel Creek Unnamed

17

Unnamed

34

Bauman Creek

Figure 3a & b. UFC percent (a) and PPA percent for 34 subwatersheds.

_Cambridge Urban Forest Canopy Assessment Report

6

URBAN FOREST CANOPY BY WARDS

This assessment examined 8 wards in Cambridge. Tree canopy in wards ranged from 19% in Ward 8 to 36% in Ward 7. Plantable area ranged from 23% in Ward 1 to 31% in Ward 2.

Figure 4a & b. UFC percent (a) and PPA percent (b) for 8 Wards in Cambridge.

_Cambridge Urban Forest Canopy Assessment Report

7

WOODLOTS IN CAMBRIDG E

As part of the Urban Forest Canopy structure assessment, the mapped forest polygons were broken into three size classes. Forest polygons smaller than 500 square meters were assumed to be individual trees, polygons between 500 and 5,000 square meters were called patches and forest polygons larger than 5,000 square meters were called woodlots. GIS analysis reveals that 73% of the city’s urban forest is in the woodlot size class, while 14% is in patches and 13% is in individual trees.

Figure 5. Woodlots in Cambridge.

_Cambridge Urban Forest Canopy Assessment Report

8

URBAN FOREST CANOPY BY ZONING & PARCELS

For many applications, parcel-level urban forest metrics provide too much detail to process at any management level. The example below illustrates how analysis results of other geographies can be used in concert with parcel-level data to identify vulnerabilities and opportunities.

Ward 2 Neighborhoods % Possible Planting Area < 15% 15% - 26% 26% - 30% > 30%

Hillcrest Neighbourhood Parcels % Urban Forest Canopy < 10% 10% - 30% 30% - 55% > 55%

Wards % Possible Planting Area < 24% 24% - 26% 26% - 28% > 28%

Hillcrest Neighbourhood Parcels % Possible Planting Area < 19% 19% - 34% 34% - 51% > 51%

The residential and public parcels in and around this park have low tree cover and high planting area. They are a good target for focusing both public planting efforts, and private landowner outreach.

Figure 6. Using the assessment data across scales to inform urban forest planning.

_Cambridge Urban Forest Canopy Assessment Report

9

STREET AND PARK TREE URBAN FOREST STRUCTURE

Results from the field survey are presented below, aggregated by zoning type (Table 3). Data were collected for each sampled road segment. The “Top 3 Species” are trees that were found in the top three species most often (1st, 2nd and 3rd) within each respective Zoning type. “Size Distribution” metrics reflect all trees sampled and are independent of species. “Ash Component” was calculated from specific observations collected for all trees belonging to the Fraxinus genus. “Condition” was calculated as a percentage of all trees surveyed. The 2050 Business As Usual Scenario section below explores these results in more detail.

Table 1. Cambridge tree and forest patch structural results from the windshield survey sample.

Size Distribution Zoning Type

Agricultural

Commercial

Industrial

Institutional

Open Space

Residential

Cambridge (Whole city)

Top 3 Species

Stem Size

Stem Count

Stem Pct.

Manitoba Maple Black Walnut Silver Maple Norway Maple Pine Honey Locust Norway Maple Manitoba Maple Little Leaf Linden Norway Maple Eastern White Pine Green Ash Norway Maple Green Ash Norway Spruce Norway Maple Little Leaf Linden

Small Medium Large Small Medium Large Small Medium Large Small Medium Large Small Medium Large Small Medium

288 331 171 244 66 9 33 170 67 41 98 9 157 349 280 413 835

36.5% 41.9% 21.6% 76.5% 20.7% 2.8% 12.2% 63.0% 24.8% 27.7% 66.2% 6.1% 20.0% 44.4% 35.6% 24.7% 49.9%

Silver Maple Norway Maple Silver Maple

Large Small Medium

427 1176 1849

25.5% 29.5% 46.4%

Little Leaf Linden

Large

963

24.1%

Ash Component

Condition

Ash Count

Ash Pct.

Pct. Poor

Pct. Fair

Pct. Good

14

1.8%

No Data

No Data

No Data

1

0.3%

2.5%

35.0% 65.0%

1

0.4%

4.2%

39.0% 57.0%

2

1.4%

0.0%

26.0% 74.0%

44

5.6%

6.9%

30.0% 63.0%

80

4.8%

4.8%

33.0% 62.0%

142

3.6%

3.7%

32.6% 64.2%

_Cambridge Urban Forest Canopy Assessment Report

10

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

Assigning a dollar value to the benefits provided by Cambridge’s trees and forests can motivate leaders to preserve and enhance the urban forest. This is critical to understanding how trees impact our homes, communities, and overall environment.

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES EVALUATION

Plan-It Geo’s environmental analysis reveals that existing canopy in Cambridge stores approximately 1 million tons of carbon, valued at $22 million, and each year sequesters approximately 37 thousand tons of carbon dioxide, valued at $727 thousand. Table 2 below presents total ecosystem services amounts and savings in the City and also results broken out by each of Cambridge’s 38 neighbourhoods.

Findings from the i-Tree Vue software also reveal that tree canopy in Cambridge removes 243 thousand kilograms of air pollution annually, valued at $2.3 million.

Table 5 below also illustrates potential ecosystem service increases and decreases related to UFC change over time.

_Cambridge Urban Forest Canopy Assessment Report

11

Table 2: Ecosystem services provided by trees in Cambridge broken out by neighbourhood.

Total Carbon Stored Neighbourhood Name

Carbon Sequestered

Air Pollution Removed

$ / year

Kg / year

$ / year

Total Annual Benefit

Tonnes

$

Tonnes / year

Cambridge (Totals)

1,039,125

$22,250,755

33,941

$726,783

243,415

$2,302,164

$3,028,948

ALLENDALE

13,030

$279,007

426

$9,113

3,052

$28,867

$37,981

BEAVERDALE

46,538

$996,512

1,520

$32,549

10,901

$103,104

$135,653

BLACKBRIDGE BLAIR BRANCHTON PARK

28,505

$610,377

931

$19,937

6,677

$63,152

$83,089

61,898

$1,325,426

2,022

$43,293

14,500

$137,135

$180,427

52,199

$1,117,734

1,705

$36,509

12,228

$115,646

$152,155

BRIARDEAN

38,594

$826,415

1,261

$26,993

9,041

$85,505

$112,498

CAMBRIAN HILLS CENTENNIAL CENTRAL PARK CHILLIGO GALT CITY CENTRE COOPER DOWNTOWN HESPELER EASTVIEW ELGIN PARK GLENVIEW HILLCREST INDUSTRIAL PARK KOSSUTH LANGS FARM LINCOLN OAKS

19,393

$415,269

633

$13,564

4,543

$42,966

$56,530

15,011

$321,427

490

$10,499

3,516

$33,256

$43,755

35,195

$753,634

1,150

$24,616

8,244

$77,974

$102,591

56,498

$1,209,792

1,845

$39,516

13,235

$125,171

$164,686

5,861

$125,501

191

$4,099

1,373

$12,985

$17,084

1,245

$26,656

41

$871

292

$2,758

$3,629

5,248

$112,385

171

$3,671

1,229

$11,628

$15,299

56,586

$1,211,681

1,848

$39,578

13,255

$125,366

$164,944

11,697

$250,472

382

$8,181

2,740

$25,915

$34,096

22,300

$477,512

728

$15,597

5,224

$49,406

$65,003

20,226

$433,090

661

$14,146

4,738

$44,809

$58,956

27,571

$590,378

901

$19,284

6,459

$61,083

$80,367

34,095

$730,081

1,114

$23,847

7,987

$75,537

$99,384

32,145

$688,310

1,050

$22,482

7,530

$71,216

$93,698

17,144

$367,095

560

$11,991

4,016

$37,981

$49,972

MAPLE GROVE

17,868

$382,603

584

$12,497

4,186

$39,586

$52,083

MIDDLE BLOCK NORTHVIEW PARKLAWN

17,210

$368,517

562

$12,037

4,031

$38,128

$50,165

13,340

$285,649

436

$9,330

3,125

$29,555

$38,885

5,421

$116,080

177

$3,792

1,270

$12,010

$15,802

PRESTON HEIGHTS

24,774

$530,491

809

$17,328

5,803

$54,887

$72,215

RIVER FLATS

15,555

$333,073

508

$10,879

3,644

$34,461

$45,341

RIVERBANK NO 3

12,987

$278,096

424

$9,084

3,042

$28,773

$37,857

RIVERSIDE RIVERVIEW ROYAL OAK SHADES MILLS SILVERHEIGHTS SOUTHVIEW SOUTHWOOD

30,530

$653,733

997

$21,353

7,152

$67,638

$88,991

16,429

$351,789

537

$11,491

3,848

$36,398

$47,888

13,696

$293,270

447

$9,579

3,208

$30,343

$39,922

107,048

$2,292,226

3,497

$74,872

25,076

$237,164

$312,036

31,030

$664,443

1,014

$21,703

7,269

$68,746

$90,449

20,011

$428,487

654

$13,996

4,687

$44,333

$58,329

11,638

$249,208

380

$8,140

2,726

$25,784

$33,924

ST ANDREWS HILLS

31,626

$677,201

1,033

$22,120

7,408

$70,066

$92,186

VICTORIA HIGHLANDS

40,587

$869,096

1,326

$28,388

9,508

$89,921

$118,308

WESTVIEW

28,396

$608,039

928

$19,861

6,652

$62,910

$82,771

_Cambridge Urban Forest Canopy Assessment Report

12

2050 BUSINESS AS USUAL (BAU) SCENARIO Changes to the urban forest are impacted by a variety of interconnected environmental, social, and institutional factors. Identifying key factors and how they will impact the urban forest now and in the future is essential to planning for and maintaining a healthy and vibrant urban forest.

2050 CANOPY SCENARIOS APPROACH AND ASSUMPTIONS

The goal of this analysis is to frame the key factors influencing changes in UFC over time and provide estimates of expected forest change by the year 2050, (1) under the current urban forest planning regiment (business as usual; BAU), and (2) in a scenario where the City’s Forestry department received the financial and planning resources necessary to overcome anticipated challenges. This analysis uses the UFC and field data collected and general information received from City planners. The scenarios only provide points from which more specific actions and results can be estimated and shared in the Phase 2 management plan. It should be noted that forecasting into the future can be extremely difficult and these scenarios are presented as just two possible outcomes out of an infinite number of possibilities.

KEY FACTORS INFLUENCING FOREST CANOPY CHANGE OVER TIME

Vulnerability, Opportunity, and Knowledge: The following list of factors represents some of the most important influences to the future of Cambridge’s urban forest. Below each factor, bullets describe Vulnerabilities (V), Opportunities (O), and what we Know (K) from this analysis.

Emerald Ash Borer - One of the most influential factors in urban forest management for many cities across eastern North America is the spread and subsequent damage of the Emerald Ash Borer (EAB).

V. The impact of EAB can be tremendous, threatening the loss of every Ash tree in the City’s inventory. Even with preparation and preventative measures, Forestry department resources may be overwhelmed by the volume of required removals.

O. A well-crafted strategic implementation plan with the necessary resources to stagger the flow of required maintenance is a wise investment that can save a lot of resources in the future.

O. This assessment and the Forest Management plan will provide much key intelligence for continuing to make the right steps.

K. 3.6% of all trees surveyed were in the Fraxinus (Ash) genus.  Open space had the highest percent with 5.6% (44 out of 786 sampled).  Commercial had the lowest percent with 0.3% (1 out of 319 sampled).  Ash was the second most common species in Open Space and third in Institutional.

K. Most trees sampled were in good condition  Institutional was best with 74% in good and 0% in poor condition.  Open Space had the highest trees in poor condition (6.9%) but Industrial had the lowest in good (57%).

_Cambridge Urban Forest Canopy Assessment Report

13

 No condition data was collected for Agricultural zoning.

Climate Change – Predictions of climate change impact have proven difficult due to the high variability in both the temporal and spatial distribution of effects.

V. Immediate impacts of climate change can include intense weather patterns causing major tree damage or loss, while long term impacts may alter ecosystems or bring new exotic pests.

O. An urban forest that is diverse in both size and species mix will be more resilient to changes and threats.

O. Keeping up with maintenance and removals will ensure trees are healthy and resources are ready for any event.

K. The survey found 28 species in almost 4,000 trees sampled.  Norway Maple was the most common species in all zoning types except for Agricultural.

K. Medium sized trees represent the largest percentage in all zoning types.  Commercial zoning has the highest percentage of small trees (77%) and lowest large (2.8%).

Community Planning – People are the most influential agent of urban forest change. Communities impact UFC by planting and removing trees and raising awareness of the importance of trees to others in the community. Events and individual actions can be influential on both private and public properties.

V. Without community support there may be no urban forestry program.

O. Trees often foster an innate stewardship among the urban forests’ inhabitants.

O. Community organization may be a cheap source for labor and support.

K. Residential zoning is comprised of about 1/3 PPA (32%) and contains most of the city’s total PPA (35%) (see Table 5).

Table 3. UFC and PPA summarised by zoning type.

Zoning Type

Total Hectares

% of Total City Area

UTC (Ha)

Existing UTC %

Distribution of UTC by Zoning

Total Possible Planting (Ha)

Total Possible Planting %

Distribution of Total PPA by Zoning

Agricultural

1,905.8

19.1%

346

18%

12%

246

13%

10%

Commercial

363.1

3.6%

35

10%

1%

51

14%

2%

Industrial

1,790.7

17.9%

214

12%

7%

479

27%

19%

Institutional

330.1

3.3%

43

13%

1%

90

27%

4%

Residential

3,012.2

30.2%

845

28%

29%

961

32%

38%

Open Space

2,583.1

25.9%

1,414

55%

49%

690

27%

27%

TOTALS

9,985

100.0%

2,898

29%

100%

2,517

25%

100%

_Cambridge Urban Forest Canopy Assessment Report

14

Development – Every city planner’s goal is to create a prosperous environment for residents to thrive.

Sometimes these goals are in concert with urban forest health and other times they are in direct conflict.

V. Development of forested areas will result in a sudden and substantial loss in forest canopy.

O. Development of agricultural or vacant areas results in reforestation along new streets, yards, and parks.

K. Almost 60% of forest in Cambridge woodlots are likely protected in the Open Space zoning Type.

K. 14% and 18% of forest in woodlots are in Agricultural and Residential zoning types respectively.

Table 4. Forest Type area summarised by zoning type.

Forest Type Zoning Type

Tree Percent

Patch Percent

Woodlot Percent

Agricultural Commercial Industrial Institutional Open Space Residential Average

4% 3% 9% 3% 13% 68% 100%

7% 2% 10% 3% 20% 59% 100%

14% 1% 7% 1% 59% 18% 100%

Policies and By-Laws – The greatest influence available to municipal planners are tree care policies and by-laws geared toward promoting healthy urban forests and discouraging actions that are detrimental.

V. Private land owners are the managers of half of Cambridge’s urban forest (see Table 5 above).

O. Development by-laws can require tree replacement for each tree removed.

K.

More than 40% of all woodlots are located on privately owned properties.

_Cambridge Urban Forest Canopy Assessment Report

15

2050 CANOPY SCENARIOS DISCUSSION

The future of Cambridge’s urban forest is impacted by current conditions and management decisions, as well as unforeseen changes that can occur in the future. The key is to make effective decisions today that establish an urban forestry program that meets current challenges and is (therefore) best prepared for the unexpected.

POSSIBLE CANOPY CHANGE SCENARIOS ACROSS CAMBRIDGE

Currently Cambridge tree planting aims to replace tree removals at a rate of one to one. Even without extenuating threats, this is often inadequate to avoid a net loss of UFC and associated ecosystem services since trees planted are usually much smaller than trees removed. Faced with the threat of EAB, the 1 to 1 replacement strategy will lead to a net loss in UFC and corresponding ecosystem services over time in Cambridge. With adequate resources, Forestry and Planning officials can use this assessment and forthcoming management plan to establish policies, by-laws, and programs to minimise canopy loss by increasing tree planting across the city and by planting the proper tree in the proper place.

POSSIBLE CANOPY CHANGE SCENARIOS BY ZONING TYPE

Zoning types determine the level of control for urban forest managers and can be linked with key structural metrics learned through this study. The Forest Type designations segment Cambridge’s UFC by size and consequently describe the intensity of forest management required, and the level of ecosystem services provided. The structural analysis identifies opportunities and vulnerabilities within the city’s trees and forest patches. From the structural analysis, public lands in Cambridge (zoned Open Space) have two potentially large challenges that could equate to net loss of UFC over time: (1) the largest percentage of stems in poor condition, and (2) the largest percentage of ash component.

Development by-laws based on zoning type can be geared toward preservation of woodlots and for encouraging tree replacement in areas that only contain individual trees.

Figure 7. Forest types and zoning provide a multi-scalar intersection of Cambridge’s urban forest condition.

_Cambridge Urban Forest Canopy Assessment Report

16

ANALYSIS BY COMMUNITY

Local communities can drive UFC growth on private lands where City planners have little influence. It is estimated that Cambridge communities plant between 300 and 500 trees annually in a variety of locations. Community engagement and organization can ensure that trees planted by communities are in locations that will maximise the benefits received by each community and across the city as a whole.

Predicting the future is impossible but incorporating the best available information into the planning process will ensure that Cambridge will face the best possible outcomes for the cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s urban forests.

Table 6 below illustrates the relationship between UFC and annual benefits received for the carbon storage and sequestration and air pollution removal. There is much to be gained from a scenario where UFC is increased in Cambridge over time.

Table 5. Ecosystem services received from Cambridgeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s UFC for current conditions and two possible future scenarios.

Cambridge Annual Urban Forest Ecosystem Services

UFC Percent

Total Annual Benefit

$ Increase / Decrease Annually

Current UFC

27%

$3,028,948

--

2050 Scenario Increase UFC by 10%

37%

$4,149,659

$1,120,711

2050 Scenario Decrease UFC by 5%

22%

$2,877,500

-$151,447

_Cambridge Urban Forest Canopy Assessment Report

17

RECOMMENDATIONS

Conduct a full tree inventory on City-owned properties. Results show that Institutional and Open Space properties were found to contain a high ash component.

Invest in acquiring the Vegetation Type for the woodlots sample data. Most of the city’s trees (and associated benefits) are located in woodlots. The windshield survey provided a glimpse at single trees and patches.

Set an Urban Forest Canopy (UFC) goal and commit to reaching the goal over time.

Use the neighbourhood mapbooks to relay information and engage community members.

Use forest types and zoning to protect key forest areas.

Consider conducting an i-Eco study to assess more of the city’s ecosystem services received by the urban forest.

Prioritise tree planting opportunities to maximise benefits accrued over time.

Target neighbourhoods, wards, zoning areas, and parcels with low UFC and high Possible Planting Area (PPA) for tree planting opportunities.

Consider a preferred species list for the City’s by-laws to increase diversity of newly planted trees.

Use the knowledge gained through this study and the urban forest management plan to minimise risks from vulnerabilities and maximise opportunities to ensure Cambridge’s UFC increases in the future.

_Cambridge Urban Forest Canopy Assessment Report

18

APPENDIX A: ASSESSMENT METHODS This section describes methods used to undertake the following aspects completed in the Cambridge analysis: Urban Forest Canopy Assessment o Landcover Classification o Assessment Boundaries Urban Forest Structure o Field Data Collection o Data Integration Urban Forest Value o Ecosystem Services Evaluation o Asset Value CANOPY ASSESSMENT

The “top-down” assessment conducted for Cambridge provides a spatially explicit evaluation of how canopy cover is distributed across the city’s neighbourhoods, parcels, wards, watersheds, and zoning types. This section of the UFC report describes the data and methods used for land cover classification, the terminology for defining and assessing Urban Forest Canopy (UFC) and Possible Planting Areas (PPA), and boundaries used to assess the distribution of UFC. LAND COVER MAPPING

Satellite imagery (2013 Pleiades Satellite, CNES) at ½ meter pixel resolution was used as the basis for mapping UFC and other land cover in Cambridge. Object-based image classification results were combined with GIS data provided by the City to produce four (4) classes of land cover (see Appendix A for more information on land cover mapping methods and accuracy assessment).

Urban Forest Canopy: Forest cover, when viewed and mapped from above.

Vegetation: Non-forest vegetation suitable for tree planting.

Unsuitable Planting: Vegetated areas such as recreational, sport, and agricultural fields and golf course fairways were mapped and excluded from planting space vegetation .

Other: All other land cover classes (buildings, pavement, soil and water) were combined into a single fourth class.

_Cambridge Urban Forest Canopy Assessment Report

19

Figure 8: Land cover/UFC types mapped in Cambridge

_Cambridge Urban Forest Canopy Assessment Report

20

UFC Types Tree Canopy Unsuitable PPA PPA Vegetation Other/Unclassified

Figure 9: Citywide land cover in Cambridge.

_Cambridge Urban Forest Canopy Assessment Report

21

ASSESSMENT BOUNDARIES AND SU MMARY METRICS

Assessment boundaries provide geographic areas describing where we live, work and play. Areas and percent of each of the four land cover types were calculated for the GIS boundaries listed in Table 1.

These summaries provide data for resource managers and planners at different spatial scales.

Table 6: Assessment boundaries used to calculate UFC statistics in this assessment.

City Boundary

Description:

Wards

Divisions of Cambridge representative, electoral, or administrative purposes

Cambridge City Limits

Neighbourhoods

Description:

Watersheds

A geographically localised community within Cambridge

Parcels

Description:

Description:

Description:

Areas that gather surface water and drain it to a particular body of water

Zoning Types

Individual properties and parcels from the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s parcel database

_Cambridge Urban Forest Canopy Assessment Report

Description:

Types: Agricultural, Commercial, Industrial, Institutional, Low Density Residential, Medium High Density Residential

22

URBAN FOREST CANOPY AND PRIORITY PLANTING MAP BOOK

Given the technical nature of the GIS assessment data, a PDF map book was created as a low-tech tool for viewing and exploring some of the data-rich information produced in this study. The map book illustrates canopy cover and planting space percent for Cambridge at the city-, neighbourhood-, and parcel-level scales. The first page provides a map index. Subsequent pages present results for each of the city’s 38 neighbourhoods including summary metrics of total canopy, planting space, and ecosystem benefits for that neighbourhood.

Priority planting areas are shown based on parcels with low tree cover and higher than average planting potential (i.e. a subset of parcels which have less than 20% canopy and more than 25% plantable area).

To target planting opportunities where trees can provide specific types of benefits, “themes” were created by colouring different copies of these parcel subsets based on their proximity to streams, parking lots, recreation areas, and residential homes. Table 2 below presents each parcel-level theme, the data type or source, the query used in GIS to isolate parcels in each theme, and the colour that parcel outlines were given in the map book.

Table 7. Themes, data, and GIS parcel queries used in the neighbourhood-scale map books.

Themes

Data Types and Sources

All Priority Planting Parcels Water Quality

Recreation/Public

Parcels Parcels RMW Drainage Parcels Park/School Zoning

GIS Query Used

Parcel Colour in Map Book

Parcels with less than 20% canopy and more than 25% plantable area

Green

Parcels in floodplain or within 50 meters from water bodies

Blue

Parcels within 50 meters of a Park or School

Orange

Parking

Parcels Zoning

Commercial/Industrial where “Other” land cover is greater than 50%

Red

Energy Conservation / Public

Parcels Zoning Building footprints

Residential parcels containing buildings

Purple

Non-technical stakeholders interested in the city’s urban forest canopy can quickly and easily explore the data, use it to inform policies, educate on potential urban forest benefits, and target strategic tree plantings or restoration projects. Additionally, GIS software can be used to develop other custom “themes” from the parcels or neighbourhood assessment layers with other ancillary GIS data layers. The interactive PDF map book is presented as part of this report in Appendix B.

_Cambridge Urban Forest Canopy Assessment Report

23

URBAN FOREST STRUCTURE – FIELD DATA COLLECTION

The integration of mapped forest canopy (“top-down”) with field sample data (“bottom-up”) provides an understanding of quality, value, and potential of the trees and forests within each Cambridge community. While the synthesis in relating these findings into what they mean for each community will be accomplished in Phase 2, the goals are to collect and summarise important urban forest statistics.

The UFC assessment provides the “where” by mapping trees, forest patches, and woodlots. Integration of field data will include the “what” for answering key questions raised in the planning process.

Forest structure results will be used to inform these results: (1) Ecosystem services valuation will use estimates of forest structure, (2) Business as Usual (BAU) scenarios of how the urban forest is likely to change over time will be informed by the current forest community, and (3) estimates will inform management and planning direction for reporting in Phase 2.

Three distinct and simultaneous methods were used for the collection of data used in the integration process: Woodlots, forest patches, and individual trees (the UFC) were mapped using remotely sensed imagery.

A stratified (by zoning type and neighbourhoods) sample of rights of way and park trees (species and count by size class) were collected to estimate the distribution of individual trees and patches.

Ecological studies surveyed select forest stands in the city.

MAPPING TREES PATCHES AND WOODLOTS

Contiguous polygons of mapped forest canopy (see Land Cover Methods) were assigned a Forest Type classified by size (Trees = < 500 m2 > Patches =< 5,000 m2, and Woodlots > 5,000 m2). Area and percent of each forest type was calculated across the city and for neighbourhoods and zoning .

Figure 10. Forest Types in yellow (Trees), blue (patches) and green (woodlots) in southwest Cambridge.

_Cambridge Urban Forest Canopy Assessment Report

24

SAMPLING DESIGN/APPROACH

Trees within a stratified selection of streets and parks were surveyed to collect forest community and structural data. Sample segments stratified across all zoning types and neighbourhoods in the city were driven or walked. Data were collected on all trees along each segment and within the rights of way.

Information collected included the top three species, distribution of stem count by size distribution, estimate of number of trees in the sample belonging to the Ash genera (fraxinus), and general condition class.

WOODLOT DATA AND METRICS

The woodlots data has great potential for information on the structure of large forested areas (woodlots) across the city. Initial analysis of the data indicates that additional collection of information regarding these data will need to be completed to fully integrate into the urban forest management plan. The further investigation will be accomplished in Phase 2.

DATA INTEGRATION

Structural data (field sampling) detailing Cambridgeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s UFC is summarised across the city by zoning type.

To relate these values with each community, Table 14 Dominant zoning type by neighbourhood (Appendix A) is provided to illustrate the zoning type composition of each neighbourhood.

_Cambridge Urban Forest Canopy Assessment Report

25

Figure 11. Road segments and field sampling areas for forest structure analysis.

_Cambridge Urban Forest Canopy Assessment Report

26

URBAN FOREST VALUE: ECOSYSTEM SERVICES A ND ASSET VALUE

Trees and forests provide many values to community residents of Cambridge and understanding the magnitude of these values can be very import to foster a common direction for urban forest management. This assessment looks at quantifying the value of trees through the benefits they provide (Ecosystem Services Evaluation) and by the replacement cost of existing trees (Asset Value).

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES EVALUATION

Ecosystem service values (air quality and carbon sequestration and storage) were evaluated using i-Tree Vue, available through the U.S. Forest Service i-Tree suite of urban forest software tools (itreetools.org). While other urban forest benefits can be modeled and quantified such as stormwater runoff mitigation and energy conservation, this was not feasible in Cambridge because certain iTree software tools require data that is only available within the U.S. and/or inputs of more intensive field data measurements. In the future, Cambridge may consider conducting an i-Tree Eco study involving data plots or other i-Tree tools.

http://www.itreetools.org/resources/reports/Corvallis_Urban_Tree_Assessment.pdf collected in randomly generated field

Using available data and software, current and future values were estimated for the following ecosystem service types: Air Quality—Trees naturally remove pollutants and lower air temperature Carbon sequestration and storage—Through photosynthesis, trees absorb atmospheric carbon and use it for new growth (stems, branches, roots and leaves), acting as a natural carbon sink I-TREE VUE METHODS

i-Tree Vue is a tool in the i-Tree software package developed by the U.S. Forest Service. It is used to estimate the amount and value of ecosystem benefits being provided by the landscape. I-Tree Vue uses the National Land Cover Database (NLCD) as an input. The NLCD is a 30-meter pixel resolution land cover dataset produced by a consortium of U.S. government agencies with coverage across the United States, but not Canada. To circumvent this Plan-It Geo created a mock boundary for Cambridge by relocating the Cambridge City limits to a location with very similar land cover on the outskirts of Rochester, New York. In this way it was possible to run i-Vue against the NLCD and produce estimates of the amount and value of carbon storage, annual carbon sequestration, and annual air pollutant removal of Cambridge’s urban forest. Given changes in species and forest structure between the two areas, the ecosystem benefit values should be considered broad estimates.

_Cambridge Urban Forest Canopy Assessment Report

27

NLCD Classes

Figure 12. Location of the City was “moved” to use existing i-Tree data. i-Tree Vue calculates ecosystem service values based on estimates of benefits provided per canopy area.

Research derived average benefit values have been compiled for each U.S. state. Average benefit values for the state of New York were assumed to approximate benefit values in Cambridge. These per area average values are multiplied by the area of canopy in Cambridge to give an approximate value for the city. For more detailed information on i-Tree Vue see the i-Tree Vue user’s manual at (http://www.itreetools.org/resources/manuals/i-Tree%20Vue%20Users%20Manual.pdf ) or visit itreetools.org to learn about all the tools in the i-Tree suite.

Table 8: Average Ecosystem Service Values of Tree Canopy in Cambridge Benefit Amount Value 2 Carbon Stored 7.96 kg / m $22.80 / metric ton 2 Carbon Sequestered 0.26kg / m / yr. $22.80 / metric ton Air Pollution Removal

CO .082 g / m2 / yr. $1,407 / metric ton 2 O3 3.16 g / m / yr. $9,906 / metric ton 2 NO2 1.30 g / m / yr. $9,906 / metric ton 2 SO2 .615 g / m / yr. $2,425 / metric ton 2 PM10 1.68 g / m / yr. $6,614 / metric ton ** These values are based on i-Tree statewide averages for the state of New York, USA ASSET VALUE OF THE URBAN FOREST

With limited field data sampling available for this study, a proxy value for the asset (replacement) value of the urban forest was determined using a study in Oakville, Ontario (2006 Solution to our Pollution).

With 29% UFC in Oakville based on an estimated 1.9 million trees across 130 square kilometers, Oakville’s urban forest asset value was estimated to be $877 million using the US Forest Service's UFORE model (now referred to as i-Tree ECO). Given Cambridge is similar in size and has similar urban forest canopy cover, the asset value of Cambridge’s urban forest is estimated between $800 and $900 million.

_Cambridge Urban Forest Canopy Assessment Report

28

APPENDIX B: RELATED UFC ASSESSMENT MATERIALS I. II. III. IV. I.

     II.

List of deliverable products as part of this assessment Land cover classification and accuracy detailed methods Complete assessment result tables Example Canopy Calculator illustration LIST OF DELIVERABLES

GIS Data (land cover and assessment boundaries) MS Excel Spreadsheets (Canopy and UF Structure) Report, BAU Scenario(s), and Presentation Maps, Map Book, and ArcMap .mxds Canopy Calculator Tool (MS Spreadsheet) LAND COVER CLASSIFICATION & ACCURAC Y ASSESSMENT

CAMBRIDGE LAND COVER CLASSIFICATION

This report describes the methods used and generated results in mapping land cover types across the City of Cambridge. Half-meter, pan-sharpened, four band imagery acquired by the Pleiades satellite in 2012 was used to map three land cover classes: (1) Tree Canopy, (2) Green Vegetation, and (3) Other Land cover using Object-based image analysis (OBIA) software.

ACCURACY ASSESSMENT

Classification accuracy serves two main purposes: First, accuracy assessments provide information to technicians producing the classification about where processes need to be improved and where they are effective. Secondly, measures of accuracy provide information about how to use the classification and how well land cover classes are expected to estimate actual land cover on the ground. Even with high resolution imagery, very small differences in classification methodology and image quality can have a large impact on overall map area estimations. The classification accuracy error matrix illustrated below contains estimates of the classification accuracy relative to actual land cover classes on the ground.

Six hundred (600) sample points were randomly distributed across the study area and assigned a random numeric value. Sorting from lowest random value to highest, each sample point was referenced using the imagery and assigned one of the three land cover classes (“Ref_ID”) mentioned above. In the event that the reference value could not be discerned from the imagery, the point was dropped from the accuracy analysis (hence the total of 594 evaluated points for Cambridge). Random values ensure sample points are geographically distributed across the entire study area. An automated script is then used to assign values from the classification (“Eval_ID”). Misclassified points (where reference ID does not equal evaluation ID) and corresponding land cover are inspected for necessary corrections.

_Cambridge Urban Forest Canopy Assessment Report

29

Table 9. Sample error matrix for remote sensing land cover mapping in Cambridge.

Reference Data

Classification Data

Tree Canopy Vegetation Tree Canopy Vegetation Other LC Total

140 8 1 149

Total Reference Pixels

0 2 245 247 Total Points -> Overall Accuracy = 95%

Producer's Accuracy Tree Canopy Vegetation Other

Other LC

8 179 11 198

148 189 257 564 594

User's Accuracy 94% 90% 99%

Tree Canopy Vegetation Other

95% 95% 95%

SAMPLE ERROR MATRIX INTERPRETATION

Statistical relationships between the reference pixels (representing the true conditions on the ground) and the intersecting classified pixels are used to understand how closely the entire classified map represents the Cambridge landscape. The sample error matrix represents the intersection of reference pixels manually identified by a human observer (columns) and classification category of pixels in the classified image (rows). The white boxes along the diagonals of the matrix represent agreement between the two pixel maps. Off-diagonal values represent the number of pixels manually referenced to the column class that were classified as another category in the classification image.

Overall accuracy is computed by dividing the total number of correct pixels by the total number of pixels reported in the matrix (140+179+245 = 564 / 594 = 95%), and the matrix can be used to calculate per class accuracy percents. For example, 149 points were manually identified in the reference map as Tree Canopy, but only 140 of pixels at those points were classified as Tree Canopy in the classification map, with 8 pixels misclassified as Vegetation and 1 as Other Land cover. This relationship is called the “Producer’s Accuracy” and is calculated by dividing the agreement pixel total (diagonal) by the reference pixel total (column total). Therefore, the Producer’s Accuracy for Tree Canopy is calculated as: (140 / 149 = 0.94), meaning that we can expect that 94% of all tree canopy in the Cambridge study area were classified as Tree Canopy in the classification map. Conversely, the “User’s Accuracy” is calculated by dividing the number agreement pixel total by the total number of classified pixels in the row category.

For example, 148 classification pixels intersecting reference points were classified as Tree Canopy, but 8 pixels were identified as Vegetation in the reference map. Therefore, the User’s Accuracy for Tree Canopy is calculated as: (140 / 148 = 0.95), meaning that 95% pixels classified as Tree Canopy in the classification were actual tree canopy in Cambridge. It is important to recognize the Producer’s and

_Cambridge Urban Forest Canopy Assessment Report

30

Userâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s accuracy percent values are based on a sample of the true ground cover, represented by the reference pixels at each sample point.

ACCURACY RESULTS

Interpretation of the sample error matrix results indicates that this land cover analysis does a very good job of mapping land cover accurately in the City of Cambridge. The most reliable class is the Other Land cover class. The largest source of classification confusion exists between Vegetation and Other Land cover. This confusion is largely the result of human interpretation drawing lines between exposed soil (classified as Other) and vegetation in agricultural fields. The Figure below illustrates an example of the 3-class land cover in northeast Cambridge.

Figure 13. Accuracy assessment of the Cambridge 3-Class land cover classification.

_Cambridge Urban Forest Canopy Assessment Report

31

III.

COMPLETE ASSESSMENT RESULT TABLES & MAPS

COMPLETE URBAN TREE CANOPY ASSESSMENT RESULTS

Table 10. Complete results table for neighbourhoods.

Neighbourhood Name

Total Hectares

UTC Hectares

UTC %

PPA Hectares

PPA %

Other Hectares

Other %

ALLENDALE

337

39

11.50%

81

24.20%

217

64.30%

BEAVERDALE

462

138

29.90%

60

12.90%

264

57.20%

BLACKBRIDGE

291

84

29.10%

87

30.00%

119

41.00%

BLAIR

494

183

37.20%

117

23.60%

194

39.20%

BRANCHTON PARK

482

155

32.10%

130

27.10%

197

40.90%

BRIARDEAN

426

114

26.90%

124

29.10%

187

44.00%

CAMBRIAN HILLS

214

57

26.90%

61

28.40%

96

44.70%

CENTENNIAL

191

44

23.30%

50

25.90%

97

50.80%

CENTRAL PARK

385

104

27.10%

102

26.60%

178

46.30%

CHILLIGO

645

167

26.00%

95

14.70%

382

59.30%

CITY CORE

121

17

14.40%

16

13.10%

88

72.50%

COOPER

70

4

5.30%

28

39.90%

38

54.80%

DOWNTOWN HESPELER

47

16

32.90%

9

19.50%

23

47.60%

EASTVIEW

538

168

31.20%

156

28.90%

214

39.90%

ELGIN PARK

172

35

20.10%

49

28.60%

88

51.20%

GLENVIEW

238

66

27.80%

65

27.30%

107

44.90%

HILLCREST

227

60

26.40%

73

32.40%

93

41.20%

INDUSTRIAL PARK

895

82

9.10%

233

26.00%

580

64.90%

KOSSUTH

293

101

34.40%

34

11.70%

158

53.80%

LANGS FARM

402

95

23.70%

108

27.00%

199

49.40%

LINCOLN OAKS

173

51

29.40%

48

28.00%

74

42.50%

MAPLE GROVE

295

53

17.90%

74

25.10%

168

57.00%

MIDDLE BLOCK

198

51

25.70%

35

17.50%

112

56.70%

NORTHVIEW

208

40

19.00%

65

31.40%

103

49.60%

PARKLAWN

77

16

20.90%

34

43.70%

27

35.40%

260

73

28.20%

59

22.60%

128

49.20%

99

46

46.40%

32

32.00%

22

21.70%

RIVERBANK NO 3

188

38

20.50%

25

13.40%

124

66.10%

RIVERSIDE

288

90

31.50%

87

30.20%

110

38.40%

RIVERVIEW

231

49

21.00%

48

20.70%

135

58.20%

ROYAL OAK

341

41

11.90%

119

34.80%

182

53.30%

SHADES MILLS

784

317

40.50%

187

23.80%

280

35.70%

SILVERHEIGHTS

266

92

34.50%

84

31.60%

90

33.90%

SOUTHVIEW

270

59

22.00%

87

32.10%

124

45.90%

SOUTHWOOD

128

34

27.00%

34

27.00%

59

46.00%

ST ANDREWS HILLS

259

94

36.20%

67

25.70%

99

38.20%

VICTORIA HIGHLANDS

270

120

44.60%

64

23.80%

85

31.60%

WESTVIEW

302

84

27.80%

82

27.00%

146

48.40%

PRESTON HEIGHTS RIVER FLATS

_Cambridge Urban Forest Canopy Assessment Report

32

Table 11. Complete results for subwatersheds.

Urbantable Tree Canopy (UTC) Assessment Metrics by Subwatershed ID#

Subwatershed Name

Total Hectares

UTC Hectares

UTC %

PPA Hectares

PPA %

Other Hectares

Other %

181

48

26.70%

27

15.10%

105

58.20%

549

127

23.10%

177

32.30%

245

44.60%

396

97

24.50%

126

31.80%

173

43.60%

218

92

42.20%

25

11.40%

101

46.40%

4

TRIBUTARIES OF THE GRAND RIVER EAST HESPELER PORTUGUESE SWAMP DRAINAGE UNNAMED

5

MILL CREEK

1,260

403

32.00%

332

26.30%

525

41.70%

6

HESPELER WEST

559

140

25.00%

129

23.10%

290

51.90%

7

RANDALL DRAIN

250

58

23.40%

44

17.60%

148

59.00%

8

UNNAMED

790

213

26.90%

229

29.00%

348

44.00%

9

UNNAMED

1,356

398

29.40%

324

23.90%

633

46.70%

10

CHILLIGO (ELLIS) CREEK

1,091

318

29.10%

185

17.00%

588

53.90%

11

MOFFAT CREEK

1,164

341

29.30%

334

28.60%

489

42.00%

12

HESPELER WEST

34

0

0.30%

13

38.60%

21

61.10%

13

HESPELER WEST

160

46

28.80%

32

20.20%

82

51.00%

14

FORBES CREEK

350

88

25.20%

92

26.20%

170

48.70%

15

IRISH CREEK

14

6

43.10%

7

48.20%

1

8.70%

16

SPEED RIVER

73

21

28.20%

28

38.50%

24

33.40%

17

UNNAMED

16

3

15.80%

3

20.10%

10

64.10%

18

CRUICKSTON CREEK

41

2

4.90%

4

10.50%

35

84.60%

19

HESPELER WEST

117

27

23.40%

31

26.40%

59

50.20%

20

HESPELER WEST

65

11

17.00%

17

25.40%

38

57.60%

21

FREEPORT CREEK

319

33

10.40%

79

24.90%

206

64.70%

22

TOYOTA DRAIN

224

26

11.70%

88

39.20%

110

49.20%

23

HESPELER WEST

28

12

41.30%

10

36.40%

6

22.20%

24

FORBES CREEK

39

7

17.40%

11

29.10%

21

53.50%

25

FAIRCHILD CREEK

72

24

32.90%

20

27.40%

28

39.70%

26

BLAIR CREEK

337

106

31.40%

80

23.70%

152

45.00%

27

DEVILS CREEK

264

105

39.60%

67

25.20%

93

35.20%

28

UNNAMED

497

120

24.10%

143

28.70%

235

47.30%

1 2 3

29

NEWMAN CREEK

21

5

22.40%

8

38.60%

8

39.00%

30

GROFF MILL CREEK

964

135

14.00%

212

22.00%

617

64.00%

31

UNNAMED

12

8

65.80%

2

16.60%

2

17.60%

32

BECHTEL CREEK

76

40

52.80%

16

21.00%

20

26.20%

33

UNNAMED

24

16

67.00%

5

19.10%

3

13.90%

34

BAUMAN CREEK

7

6

91.70%

0

6.60%

0

1.70%

_Cambridge Urban Forest Canopy Assessment Report

33

Table 12. Complete Urban UFC Results for Wards Tree Canopy (UTC) Assessment Metrics by Ward Ward # 1

Total Hectares 5,043

UTC Hectares 1,320

26.2%

PPA Hectares 1,163

23.1%

Other Hectares 2,561

2

945

210

22.2%

293

31.0%

442

46.8%

3

573

128

22.3%

149

26.0%

296

51.6%

4

751

197

26.2%

179

23.9%

375

49.9%

5

745

247

33.1%

177

23.8%

321

43.1%

6

734

215

29.3%

207

28.2%

312

42.5%

7

1,455

521

35.8%

374

25.7%

560

38.5%

8

1,305

241

18.5%

350

26.9%

713

54.7%

UTC %

PPA %

Other %

_Cambridge Urban Forest Canopy Assessment Report

50.8%

34

COMPLETE ECOSYSTEM S ERVICES AIR POLLUTION REMO VAL RESULTS

Table 13. Air Quality Benefits by Neighbourhood.

Ozone (O3)

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)

Particulate Matter <10Îź

Carbon Monoxide (CO)

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)

Kg / year

$ / year

Kg / year

$ / year

Kg / year

$ / year

Kg / year

$ / year

Kg / year

$ / year

Cambridge

2,908

$4,650

46,132

$519,314

112,663

$1,268,253

21,888

$60,322

59,824

$449,625

Allendale Beaverdale

36 130

$58 $208

578 2066

$6,512 $23,258

1413 5046

$15,903 $56,799

274 980

$756 $2,702

750 2679

$5,638 $20,137

Blackbridge

80

$128

1265

$14,246

3091

$34,790

600

$1,655

1641

$12,334

Blair

173

$277

2748

$30,934

6711

$75,547

1304

$3,593

3564

$26,783

Branchton Park

146

$234

2317

$26,087

5659

$63,709

1100

$3,030

3005

$22,586

Neighbourhood Name

Briardean

108

$173

1713

$19,288

4184

$47,104

813

$2,240

2222

$16,700

Cambrian Hills

54

$87

861

$9,692

2103

$23,670

409

$1,126

1116

$8,391

Centennial

42

$67

666

$7,502

1627

$18,321

316

$871

864

$6,495

Central Park

98

$157

1563

$17,589

3816

$42,956

741

$2,043

2026

$15,229

Chilligo

158

$253

2508

$28,236

6126

$68,956

1190

$3,280

3253

$24,446

Galt City Centre

16

$26

260

$2,929

635

$7,153

123

$340

337

$2,536

Cooper Downtown Hespeler Eastview

3

$6

55

$622

135

$1,519

26

$72

72

$539

15

$23

233

$2,623

569

$6,406

111

$305

302

$2,271

158

$253

2512

$28,280

6135

$69,064

1192

$3,285

3258

$24,485

Elgin Park

33

$52

519

$5,846

1268

$14,276

246

$679

673

$5,061

Glenview

62

$100

990

$11,145

2418

$27,217

470

$1,295

1284

$9,649

Hillcrest

57

$91

898

$10,108

2193

$24,685

426

$1,174

1164

$8,752

Industrial Park

77

$123

1224

$13,779

2989

$33,650

581

$1,601

1587

$11,930

Kossuth

95

$153

1514

$17,039

3697

$41,613

718

$1,979

1963

$14,753

Langs Farm

90

$144

1427

$16,065

3485

$39,232

677

$1,866

1851

$13,909

Lincoln Oaks

48

$77

761

$8,568

1859

$20,924

361

$995

987

$7,418

Maple Grove

50

$80

793

$8,930

1937

$21,808

376

$1,037

1029

$7,731

Middle Block

48

$77

764

$8,601

1866

$21,005

363

$999

991

$7,447

Northview

37

$60

592

$6,667

1446

$16,281

281

$774

768

$5,772

Parklawn

15

$24

241

$2,709

588

$6,616

114

$315

312

$2,346

Preston Heights

69

$111

1100

$12,381

2686

$30,237

522

$1,438

1426

$10,720

River Flats

44

$70

691

$7,774

1686

$18,985

328

$903

896

$6,730

Riverbank No 3

36

$58

577

$6,491

1408

$15,851

274

$754

748

$5,620

Riverside

85

$137

1355

$15,258

3310

$37,262

643

$1,772

1758

$13,210

Riverview

46

$74

729

$8,210

1781

$20,051

346

$954

946

$7,109

Royal Oak

38

$61

608

$6,845

1485

$16,716

288

$795

788

$5,926

Shades Mills

300

$479

4752

$53,499

11606

$130,653

2255

$6,214

6163

$46,319

Silverheights

87

$139

1378

$15,508

3364

$37,872

654

$1,801

1786

$13,427

Southview

56

$90

888

$10,001

2170

$24,423

422

$1,162

1152

$8,659

Southwood

33

$52

517

$5,816

1262

$14,204

245

$676

670

$5,036

St Andrews Hills

89

$142

1404

$15,805

3429

$38,599

666

$1,836

1821

$13,684

Victoria Highlands

114

$182

1802

$20,284

4401

$49,537

855

$2,356

2337

$17,562

Westview

79

$127

1261

$14,191

3079

$34,657

598

$1,648

1635

$12,287

_Cambridge Urban Forest Canopy Assessment Report

35

COMPLETE FIELD SAMPL ING RESULTS

Table 14. Complete species list (28).

Genus Acer Acer Acer Acer Acer Acer Acer Quercus Quercus Tilia Tilia Tilia Picea Pinus Pinus Pinus Pinus Pinus Fraxinus Gleditstia Betula Juglans Malus Salix Syringa

Species spp negundo plantoides saccharinum rubrum saccharum freemanii spp rubra spp americana cordata abies nigra sylvestris pungens strobus mariana pennsylvanica triacanthos papyrifera nigra spp spp reticulata

Sorbus Rhus Robinia

aucuparia typhina pseudoacacia

Common Maple species Manitoba Maple Norway Maple Silver Maple Red Maple Sugar Maple Freeman Maple Oak species Red Oak Linden species American Basswood Littleleaf Linden Norway Spruce Austrian Pine Scotch Pine Blue Spruce Eastern White Pine Black Spruce Green Ash Honey Locust Paper Birch Black Walnut Crabapple Willow Japanese Tree Lilac European Mountain Ash Staghorn Sumac Black Locust

_Cambridge Urban Forest Canopy Assessment Report

36

Table 15. Dominant zoning type by neighbourhood.

Neighbourhood Allendale Beaverdale Blackbridge Blair Branchton Park Briardean Cambrian Hills Centennial Central Park Chilligo City Core Cooper Downtown Hespeler Eastview Elgin Park Glenview Hillcrest Industrial Park Kossuth Langs Farm Lincoln Oaks Maple Grove Middle Block Northview Parklawn Preston Heights Riverbank No 3 Riverside Riverview Royal Oak Shades Mills Silverheights Soutview Southwood St Andrews Hills Victoria Highlands Westview

Dominant Zoning Type Agriculture Agriculture Open Space Open Space Residential Open Space Residential Residential Residential Agriculture Commercial Residential Residential Industrial Residential Residential Residential Industrial Agriculture Residential Residential Agriculture Agriculture Residential Industrial Residential Agriculture Open Space Residential Industrial Open Space Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential

Secondary Zoning Type

Tertiary Zoning Type

Industrial Open Space Agriculture Agriculture Open Space Residential Industrial Industrial Open Space Open Space Open Space Open Space Commercial Open Space Industrial Industrial Open Space Commercial Open Space Open Space Open Space Industrial Open Space Open Space Open Space Open Space Open Space Industrial Industrial Open Space Residential Open Space Open Space Institutional Open Space Open Space Open Space

Open Space Residential Residential Residential Institutional Agriculture Open Space Institutional Institutional Residential Residential Institutional Open Space Residential Open Space Open Space Institutional Residential Institutional Industrial Industrial Open Space Residential Institutional Industrial Residential Residential Institutional Residential Institutional Industrial Institutional Open Space Industrial Agriculture Institutional

_Cambridge Urban Forest Canopy Assessment Report

37

Table 16. Sampling statistics from all field samples.

Zoning Type

Total Number of Stems Sampled

Total Number of Sample Segments

Agricultural

790

8

5,803

Commercial

319

5

Industrial

270

Institutional

Total Total segment Segment area Length (ha)

Zoning Type Total Area (ha)

Percent Sample

Stems / km

5.80

1,906

0.3%

136.1

1,394

1.39

363

0.4%

228.8

13

3,566

3.57

1,791

0.2%

75.7

148

6

630

0.63

330

0.2%

234.9

Open Space

786

18

5,250

5.25

2,583

0.2%

149.7

Residential

1,675

59

24,561

24.56

3,012

0.8%

68.2

Cambridge (Whole City)

3,988

109

41,204

41.20

9,985

0.4%

96.79

_Cambridge Urban Forest Canopy Assessment Report

38

IV.

CANOPY CALCULATOR EXAMPLE ILLUSTRATION

The MS Excel-based â&#x20AC;&#x153;Canopy Calculatorâ&#x20AC;? shown below allows the City to adjust the

Welcome to the Plan-It Geo UTC Calculator!

This tool allows you to predict changes to Urban Tree Canopy by altering the following parameters: Canopy Cover and Tree Planting Goals, Average Tree Size, Rate of Growth and Mortality, and Development

Cambridge, ON (Hectares) (Hectares)

Current

Agricultrual Commercial Industrial Institutional Low-Density Residential Med-High Density Residential Open Space

Citywide Total

Total Possible Planting Area

Existing UTC (%)

(Hectares)

18% 10% 12% 13% 29% 21% 55%

246 51 479 90 874 87 690

13% 14% 27% 27% 32% 28% 27%

9,985

2,897

29%

2,517

25%

(-)

(+)

Natural Regeneration

Canopy Growth & Mortality

Loss to Development

Tree Planting Required

(Hectares)

(%)

(Hectares)

(%)

(No. Trees)

(%)

346 35 214 43 778 67 1,414

(+/-) (%)

(%)

1,906 363 1,791 330 2,698 314 2,583

(+) (Hectares)

Urban Tree Canopy 20% 15% 15% 15% 50% 30% 30%

-

30%

3,495

Goals

Total Land

Land Use Classes

-

(=) Net UTC Increase

(Hectares) (No. Trees) (Hectares)

UTC in 2053

(%)

(Hectares)

(%)

-

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

-

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

-

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

35 19 55 7 571 27 (639)

1,638 907 2,544 304 26,614 1,266 (29,779)

35 19 55 7 571 27 (639)

10% 56% 26% 15% 73% 41% -45%

381 54 269 50 1,349 94 775

20% 15% 15% 15% 50% 30% 30%

-

0%

-

0%

-

0%

75

3,495

75

3%

2,972

30%

*Change Calculated after 40 Years *Regeneration, Growth, Mortality, and Loss may result in negative Planting numbers

Figure 14. Example illustration of the Canopy Calculator spreadsheet tool.

_Cambridge Urban Forest Canopy Assessment Report

39

APPENDIX C: CAMBRIDGE COMMUNITY MAP BOOK

_Cambridge Urban Forest Canopy Assessment Report

40