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