An Assessment of Urban Tree Canopy and Canopy Loss in Tupelo, MS by Plan-It Geo

An Assessment of Urban Tree Canopy

and Canopy Loss in the City of Tupelo, Mississippi

Prepared By Plan-It Geo, LLC, Arvada, Colorado

Prepared For City of Tupelo, Mississippi

Pa ge le f t in te n tion a lly b la n k < A L L O W S L AYO U T V I E W I N W O R D. D E L E T E P R I O R T O PUBLISHING>

An Assessment of Urban Tree Canopy and Canopy Loss in the City of Tupelo, Mississippi September 2015

Prepared By Plan-It Geo, LLC, Arvada, Colorado

Acknowledgements This project was made possible by the Mississippi Forestry Commission and the City of Tupelo. In addition, special thanks go to Bobby Coghlan, David Knight, Todd Matthews, and Renee Newton. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, status as a parent (in education and training programs and activities), because all or part of an individualâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s income is derived from any public assistance program, or retaliation. Prepared For City of Tupelo

Pa ge le f t in te n tion a lly b la n k

CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................1 PROJECT FUNDAMENTALS & METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................4 MAPPING LAND COVER ..................................................................................................................................................... 4 IDENTIFYING POSSIBLE PLANTING AREAS ............................................................................................................................... 5 VISUALIZING URBAN TREE CANOPY RESULTS .......................................................................................................................... 5 DEFINING ASSESSMENT LEVELS ........................................................................................................................................... 6 ECOSYSTEM SERVICES ....................................................................................................................................................... 7 ASSESSMENT RESULTS & KEY FINDINGS .....................................................................................................8 LAND COVER................................................................................................................................................................... 8 CITYWIDE STUDY AREA...................................................................................................................................................... 9 WARDS ......................................................................................................................................................................... 9 RIGHT-OF-WAY CITYWIDE ............................................................................................................................................... 10 RIGHT-OF-WAY BY WARD ............................................................................................................................................... 10 ZONING ....................................................................................................................................................................... 11 PARKS AND PARKLAND .................................................................................................................................................... 12 PARCELS ...................................................................................................................................................................... 13 TORNADO DAMAGE ASSESSMENT ...................................................................................................................................... 14 TORNADO AREA ECOSYSTEM SERVICES ............................................................................................................................... 15 CITYWIDE ECOSYSTEM SERVICES ........................................................................................................................................ 15 RECOMMENDATIONS & STRATEGIES ........................................................................................................17 RECOMMENDATION 1: REPLACE CANOPY LOST FROM TORNADO................................................................................................ 17 RECOMMENDATION 2: ADOPT A MANAGEMENT PLAN AND STRATEGY ........................................................................................ 17 RECOMMENDATION 3: CREATE A FORMAL ORGANIZATION AND FUNDING OF A GREENSPACE PROGRAM .............................................. 17 RECOMMENDATION 4: UTILIZE THIS ASSESSMENT AND ASSOCIATED TOOLS .................................................................................. 18 APPENDIX .................................................................................................................................................19 ACCURACY ASSESSMENT .................................................................................................................................................. 19 COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT AREA RESULTS ...................................................................................................................... 21

FIGURES & TABLES FIGURES Figure 1: A Multi-use Trail in Veteran's Park .................................................................................................................... 1 Figure 2: The Intersection at Eugene and Joyner (facing West on Eugene) before and after the 2014 Tornado ............... 2 Figure 3: Agricultural land, such as this on N Veterans Blvd, is not considered as a Possible Planting Area ...................... 3 Figure 4: Planting New Trees in Tupelo ............................................................................................................................ 3 Figure 5: Five Primary Land Cover Classes generated from Aerial Imagery-based Analysis ............................................... 4 Figure 6: Agricultural Lands were mapped as an additional Land Cover class ................................................................... 4 Figure 7: Sports fields, such as this baseball diamond at Rob Leak Park, are considered unsuitable for planting .............. 5 Figure 8: Golf course fairways are considered unsuitable for planting ............................................................................. 5 Figure 9: Examples of Relative Canopy Coverage by Parcel .............................................................................................. 5 Figure 10: Parcel Level Target Geography ........................................................................................................................ 6 Figure 11: Rights-of-Way ................................................................................................................................................. 6 Figure 12: Wards ............................................................................................................................................................. 6 Figure 13: Ecosystem Services and Benefits provided by Urban Tree Canopy .................................................................. 7 Figure 14: Detailed Land Cover ........................................................................................................................................ 8 Figure 15: Acreage of Urban Tree Canopy and Possible Planting Area by Ward ............................................................... 9 Figure 16: Percent Urban Tree Canopy within Right-of-Way by Ward ............................................................................ 10 Figure 17: Distribution of Zoning Land Use Classes ........................................................................................................ 12 Figure 18: Percent Urban Tree Canopy by Parcel ........................................................................................................... 13 Figure 19: Tornado Damage Assessment Area ............................................................................................................... 14 Figure 20: Tornado Damage Area Canopy Change (2012-2014) ..................................................................................... 14 Figure 21: Tornado Damage Area Canopy Change Insets (2012-2014) ........................................................................... 15 Figure 22: Example of Tree Plotter Application .............................................................................................................. 18 Figure 23: Tupelo Land Use 6-Class ................................................................................................................................ 22 Figure 24: Percent Urban Tree Canopy by Ward ............................................................................................................ 23 Figure 25: Percent Possible Planting Area by Ward ........................................................................................................ 24 Figure 26: Percent Urban Tree Canopy in Right-of-Way by Ward ................................................................................... 26 Figure 27: Percent Possible Planting Area in Right-of-Way by Ward .............................................................................. 27 Figure 28: Percent Urban Tree Canopy by Parcel ........................................................................................................... 31 Figure 29: Percent Possible Planting Area by Parcel ....................................................................................................... 32 TABLES Table 1: UTC Results by Ward .......................................................................................................................................... 9 Table 2: Assessment Results by Citywide Right-of-Way ................................................................................................. 10 Table 3: Bottom 3 Wards for Percent of Urban Tree Canopy ......................................................................................... 11 Table 4: Urban Tree Canopy Metrics by Zoning Use Class .............................................................................................. 11 Table 5: Top 3 Parks for Acreage of Possible Planting Area ............................................................................................ 13 Table 6: Ecosystem Services associated with Tree Canopy Lost from the 2014 Tornado ................................................ 15 Table 7: Annual Citywide Ecosystem Benefits ................................................................................................................ 16 Table 8: Sample error matrix for land cover classification within municipal areas in Tupelo, MS ................................... 20 Table 9: Planning Area Assessment Results ................................................................................................................... 25 Table 10: Planning Area Assessment Results.................................................................................................................. 28 Table 11: Planning Area Assessment Results.................................................................................................................. 29 Table 12: Watershed Assessment Results ...................................................................................................................... 30

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Tree canopy plays a significant role in the beautification of an urban environment and in the health and sustainability of the overall community. The City of Tupelo, located in Lee County, Mississippi, has recognized the value and importance of trees, and the significance of canopy lost from the tornado of 2014. Their awareness is demonstrated by their efforts in carrying out this Assessment of Urban Tree Canopy and Canopy Loss, as well as in past citywide planning efforts. The value that trees have in contributing to a desirable, livable Tupelo is highlighted in the City’s 2025 Comprehensive Plan, Tupelo: The Story Continues, adopted in 2008. In the plan, the incorporation of landscaping and trees into new development is encouraged to promote the citywide goal of high quality design, which is “critical to the success of the community“ (Tupelo, 2008, p. 55). Multi-Use trails through the urban forest, like the one shown here in Figure 1, also offer desirable recreational opportunities that Figure 1: A Multi-use Trail in Veteran's Park promote a healthy and sustainable urban environment. Periodically assessing the extent of tree canopy provides a top-down view which tells a story about land use, green infrastructure, and development patterns, and helps to achieve the aforementioned goal of creating a successful community.

Urban Tree Canopy in Tupelo Within the City of Tupelo, 38% of the 40,448 land acres (excluding water) is covered by urban tree canopy, with 17%, or 6,748 acres of the remaining vegetated land area available for new plantings. 25% of the land in Tupelo is used or taxed as agricultural, and were separated out from the non-tree vegetation considered for possible planting. Impervious surfaces made up 7,234 acres of the City, including roads, buildings, and parking lots. While it was beyond the scope of this study to separate out parking lots and other impervious areas from buildings and roads, it should be noted that some of those areas also provide opportunities for new plantings. Planting in impervious areas such as parking lots also provide a great opportunity to help mitigate the urban heat island affect, where temperatures tend to be hotter in densely developed and highly impervious areas. Tupelo’s urban tree canopy provides a multitude of economic, environmental, and social benefits, conservatively valued at close to $5 million annually. Trees may also help achieve many of the goals identified in the 2025 Comprehensive Plan, including promoting the development of more livable neighborhoods, aesthetics, and energy efficiency.

Assessment Boundaries This study assessed Urban Tree Canopy (UTC) and Possible Planting Areas (PPA) at multiple geographic levels in order to provide actionable information to multiple audiences. Metrics were generated at the following scales: The City of Tupelo city limits, Wards, Zoning Land Use classes, Parks, Parcels, Right-of-Way, and Right-of-Way by Ward. TUPELO URBAN CANOPY: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Ward 1 contains the largest land area with 11,267 acres, and consequently, the greatest amount of UTC with 4,421 acres, which is 39% of its total area and 28% of the City’s entire tree canopy. Ward 1 also contains the most acreage of vegetated possible planting areas (PPA-Veg), with 1,618 acres or grass and open space land potentially available for new plantings. Of the 5,216 acres of Right-of-Way (ROW), 1,526 contain UTC, or 29% of the entire ROW area. Within the ROW, an additional 1,388 acres of vegetated possible planting areas still remains. Further summarized by Wards, Ward 1 contains the most amount of PPA-Veg acres, with 408 acres available within the ROW. Residentially zoned lands have the most relative tree canopy coverage, with Low Density Residential, MixedUse Residential, and Medium Density Residential accounting for 55% of the City’s total UTC. Conversely, the densely developed Mixed-Use Downtown area has the lowest amount of UTC, at only 8%, but the highest relative amount of impervious area, with 59% covered by impervious surfaces. The tree canopy within Tupelo’s parks collectively make up 25% of the City’s entire UTC. The greatest opportunity to expand the tree canopy within the City’s parkland is found in the largest three parks: Veteran’s Park, Ballard Park, and the Bel Air Center and Golf Course.

Tornado Canopy Loss On April 28, 2014, Tupelo was hit by a powerful storm that produced 110 miles per hour winds (Ward, 2014). A tornado ripped through town destroying buildings, roads, and trees. Using aerial imagery from 2012 and 2014, this study evaluated the tree canopy loss within the City defined tornado damage assessment area. Results showed a canopy loss of 268 acres, or an 8% loss within the damage assessment area. This loss can be estimated at well over 19,000 trees, and represents approximately 0.6% of the entire tree canopy.

Figure 2: The Intersection at Eugene and Joyner (facing West on Eugene) before and after the 2014 Tornado Source: Google Street View and the City of Tupelo

Planting Opportunities There is much open land in Tupelo that could offer potential planting opportunities, however a good portion of this land is actively being used for agricultural purposes. For this reason, any non-tree vegetation that had an agricultural use associated with the county assessor property record, or that clearly appeared to have an agricultural use in the aerial imagery, was classified as agricultural land and excluded from the total possible plantable area. The assessment results section of this report highlights planting opportunities, or possible planting areas (PPA), within each target geography. In addition to replenishing canopy that was lost within the TUPELO URBAN CANOPY: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

tornado damage assessment area, the results of this study should help guide the City in locating additional areas to focus new plantings.

Figure 3: Agricultural land, such as this on N Veterans Blvd, is not considered as a Possible Planting Area

Recommendations Recommendations made in this report reinforce goals that the City has already identified in other planning efforts. For example, the value that trees have in contributing to a desirable, livable Tupelo is highlighted in the City’s 2025 Comprehensive Plan, Tupelo: The Story Continues, adopted in 2008. The plan addresses the value of trees for aesthetics and design, as well as for improving streetscapes along key corridors to enhance pedestrian and bicycle environments. As recommended in the City’s 2025 Comprehensive Plan, Tupelo: The Story Continues, Tupelo should create a formal organization and funding of a greenspace program, which can also benefit tree canopy growth efforts. It is highly recommended that the City adopt a forest management plan, with a strong focus on maintenance, including what work needs to be done, the staffing needs, and a training approach for those new staff. This would be the logical next step after the State’s recent completion of a Level-1 tree risk assessment, where all trees on public property, including the City’s parks, schools and rights-of-way, as well as trees on adjoining private property with potential impact, were evaluated. This Assessment identified approximately 900 trees with potential hazards. Additionally, the City of Tupelo should continue to move forward with efforts to replace canopy lost from the 2014 tornado, including the promotion of the Tornado Recovery Landscape Master Plan. This assessment and associated tools, including the Tree Plotter interactive web-mapping application, should be utilized to increase the utility of the plan.

Figure 4: Planting New Trees in Tupelo

TUPELO URBAN CANOPY: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PROJECT FUNDAMENTALS & METHODOLOGY This section describes Plan-It Geo’s approach to Tupelo’s urban tree canopy assessment, from the foundational land cover dataset to the target geographies for which the urban canopy and possible planting areas were assessed. By identifying what resources and opportunities exist, the City can be more proactive in its approach to expanding the urban tree canopy and setting future canopy goals.

Mapping Land Cover The most fundamental component of this urban tree canopy assessment is the creation of an initial land cover data set. The process began with the acquisition of 2014 high-resolution (1-meter) aerial imagery from the USDA’s National Agricultural Imagery Program (NAIP). An object-based image analysis (OBIA) software program called Feature Analyst (ArcGIS Desktop) was used to classify features through an iterative approach, where objects’ spectral signatures across four bands (blue, green, red, and near-infrared), textures, and pattern relationships were taken into account. This process resulted in five initial land cover classes as shown in Figure 5.

Urban Tree Canopy

Other Vegetation

Impervious Surfaces

Bare Soil

Water Bodies

Tree cover when viewed and mapped from above

Grass and open space vegetation

Hard surfaces where rainfall cannot permeate

Not included in possible planting areas

Bodies of water removed from total land cover

Figure 5: Five Primary Land Cover Classes generated from Aerial Imagery-based Analysis

Additional data layers from the city, such as buildings and roads, were utilized to capture finer feature detail and improve the accuracy of the land cover classification. In addition, agricultural land was mapped and incorporated to further categorize the land cover dataset. Due to the high level of agricultural activity in Tupelo, it was necessary to distinguish these areas from other areas of non-tree vegetation that may be recommended for future plantings (see Figure 6). These agricultural areas were identified through a combination of manually mapping land that appeared to have an agricultural use in the aerial imagery, and identifying parcels that have an agricultural use associated with their county assessor property record. Figure 6: Agricultural Lands were mapped as an additional Land Cover class

TUPELO URBAN CANOPY: PROJECT FUNDAMENTALS & METHODOLOGY

Identifying Possible Planting Areas After the base land cover map was established, areas in Tupelo where it is not feasible to plant trees, such as sports fields, golf courses, and airports were layered in to establish an Urban Tree Canopy (UTC) dataset. From this refined dataset, Possible Planting Areas (PPA) were derived from the non-tree vegetation land cover class, excluding these unsuitable areas. Since agricultural land was already identified in the base land cover dataset, these areas were also categorize separately from the non-tree vegetation and, therefore, excluded from the total possible planting areas. The resulting possible planting areas are identified as vegetated PPA.

Figure 7: Sports fields, such as this baseball diamond at Rob Leak Park, are considered unsuitable for planting

Figure 8: Golf course fairways are considered unsuitable for planting

While this assessment reports vegetated PPA as the primary indicator of land available for new plantings, it should be noted that areas identified as impervious may also offer canopy opportunity. For this study, impervious areas mapped not only roads and buildings, but also parking lots and sidewalks, where trees can be integrated into the landscape.

Visualizing Urban Tree Canopy Results Maps showing urban tree canopy (UTC) in this report express relative levels of canopy as a percentage of land area (not including water). UTC levels are divided into meaningful categories for each of the assessment area boundaries and may vary slightly depending on the distribution within the target geographies. For Parcels, UTC levels are broken up into four classes: Less than 25% UTC, 25-50% UTC, 51-75% UTC, and Greater than 75% UTC. Figure 9 provides a visual examples of what the varying levels of UTC look like against the aerial imagery. All images area at a scale of 1:12,400. 22% UTC (low)

42% UTC

64% UTC

90% UTC (High)

Figure 9: Examples of Relative Canopy Coverage by Parcel

TUPELO URBAN CANOPY: PROJECT FUNDAMENTALS & METHODOLOGY

Defining Assessment Levels In order to better inform various stakeholders, such as city officials, city staff, and citizens alike, urban tree canopy and associated information was calculated for a variety of geographic boundaries. These areas included the City of Tupelo municipal boundary, parcels and Rights-of-Way, generalized zoning classes, parks, and wards. The citywide land cover dataset served as the input for analysis at these finer assessment levels, and a series of values were summarized for each. Outputs include total area (in acres or feet) and relative values (as percentages) for tree canopy, possible planting areas, and unsuitable areas. Assessment levels include the following geographic boundaries: 

City of Tupelo citywide boundary is the one (1) main area of interest for which all urban tree canopy (UTC), possible planting area - vegetation (PPA-Vegetation), impervious areas, agricultural areas, and unsuitable areas will be summarized.



Wards include seven (7) administrative boundaries for which the UTC results will be summarized.



Citywide Right-of-Way (ROW) reports the UTC results within the publicly owned ROW for the entire city.



Right-of-Way by Ward further dissects the ROW areas by each of the seven wards so the City can get a better idea of where to focus efforts within the publicly owned land across the different administrative boundaries.



Parks show the various levels of canopy and possible planting area within each of the city’s 17 parks, from big parks such as Ballard Park, to the small pocket parks such as Chandler Park.



Zoning Use Classes were evaluated to identify the amount of tree canopy as it relates to the regulatory framework, and to help inform policy development.



The smallest geographic area (finest level of detail) is the parcel level, where land cover and UTC metrics are reported for individual properties. This includes over 17,000 land parcels.

Figure 10: Parcel Level Target Geography

Figure 11: Rights-of-Way

TUPELO URBAN CANOPY: PROJECT FUNDAMENTALS & METHODOLOGY

Figure 12: Wards

Ecosystem Services Trees, along with their associated urban forest, provide significant value to all those who live, work, and visit the City of Tupelo. While the City’s 2025 Comprehensive Plan, Tupelo: The Story Continues, highlights some of the benefits trees provide in terms of aesthetics, trees also have a profound impact on the overall health of an urban environment. Benefits of trees are referred to as “ecosystem services” and describe the ways that urban forests impact our lives and the environment. Generally speaking, the return on investment of planting a tree is nearly 200% (McPherson, et al., 1997). Figure 13 describes how trees can be valued in terms of public health, energy demand, and public infrastructure savings, and helps justify the many reasons to promote, establish, manage, and maintain a robust, “working” urban forest. Quantifying these benefits helps to demonstrate the value of urban forests beyond their aesthetic appeal. To estimate the ecosystem services provided by Tupelo’s trees, i-Tree Canopy software, developed by the USDA Forest Service, was used. This program estimates tree cover and tree benefits for a given area with a random sampling process that enables classification of ground cover types. This tool was utilized to estimate the carbon storage, annual carbon sequestration, and annual air pollution removal provided by the urban forest in Tupelo.

Air quality:

Property value:

Public health:

Trees absorb, trap, offset, and hold pollutants such as particulates, ozone, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and CO2.

Each 10% increase in tree cover increases home prices by $1,300+ (Sander, Polasky, & Haight, 2010).

Trees diminish asthma symptoms and reduce UV-B exposure by about 50% (Shade: Healthy Trees, Healthy Cities, Healthy People, 2004).

Water quality:

Energy conservation:

Soil aeration, evapotranspiration, and rainfall interception by trees improves water quality.

Trees lower energy demand through summer shade and winter wind block, offsetting power plant emissions.

Erosion control: Tree roots hold soil together along stream banks and slopes.

Wildlife habitat:

Stormwater mitigation: Urban forests intercept stormwater, reducing the need for costly gray infrastructure.

Trees promote urban biodiversity.

Crime and domestic violence: Urban areas directly correlate with lower levels of fear, fewer incivilities, and less violent and aggressive behavior (Kuo, 2001).

Noise pollution: Trees act as a buffer, absorbing up to 50% of urban noise (U.S. Department of Energy).

Figure 13: Ecosystem Services and Benefits provided by Urban Tree Canopy

TUPELO URBAN CANOPY: PROJECT FUNDAMENTALS & METHODOLOGY

ASSESSMENT RESULTS & KEY FINDINGS This section presents the key findings of this study, including the land cover base map as well as the canopy analysis results, or metrics, across the various geographic assessment boundaries. These results help to inform a strategic approach to identifying future planting areas. Complete assessment results for target geographies and additional maps can be found in the Appendix.

Land Cover In 2014, 37% of Tupelo was covered by tree canopy, 42% was grass and open space, and 18% impervious. Of the 42% grass and open space, 10,094 acres were identified as agricultural. By incorporating agricultural lands, we refine our grass and open space land to just 18%, with 24% agricultural. The detailed land cover dataset also identifies surface water as covering 2% of the City area.

Figure 14: Detailed Land Cover Classification

TUPELO URBAN CANOPY: ASSESSMENT RESULTS & KEY FINDINGS

Citywide Study Area Within the City of Tupelo, 38% of the 40,448 land acres (excluding water) is covered by urban tree canopy (UTC), with 17%, or 6,748 acres of the remaining vegetated land area available for new plantings, also called possible planting areas (or PPA). The total values of UTC and PPA were broken down into various target geographies, including Wards, Right-of-Way, Right-of-Way by Ward, Parks, and Parcels. As discussed on page 5 of this report, the Possible Planting Areas (PPA) were derived from the non-tree vegetation land cover class, and therefore only represent vegetated areas. Again, it should also be noted that some impervious areas may offer additional opportunities for planting, since they not only identify roads and buildings, but also parking lots and sidewalks.

Wards This study processed urban tree canopy (UTC) totals and vegetated possible planting area (PPA) metrics for each of Tupeloâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s 7 Wards. Ward 1 contains the largest land area with 11,267 acres, and consequently, the greatest amount of UTC with 4,421 acres, which is 39% of its total area and 28% of the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s entire tree canopy. Ward 1 also contains the most acreage of PPA, with 1,618 acres or grass and open space land potentially available for new plantings. Table 1 shows the UTC results by Ward while Figure 15 highlights the total acreage of existing UTC and PPA within each Ward. Table 1: UTC Results by Ward % UTC

Distribution of % Total UTC

PPA Vegetation (acres)

% PPA Vegetation

% Impervious

% Agricultural

4,421

39%

28%

1,618

14%

12%

33%

1,800

777

43%

381

21%

29%

4,713

1,148

24%

851

18%

35%

23%

3,694

1,078

29%

768

21%

31%

18%

8,767

4,033

46%

26%

1,280

15%

12%

26%

7,343

2,607

36%

17%

1,312

18%

14%

25%

2,864

1,450

51%

537

19%

17%

13%

Overall

40,448

15,513

38%

100%

6,748

17%

18%

25%

UTC

Ward

Land Area (acres)

(acres)

11,267

2 3

Figure 15: Acreage of Urban Tree Canopy and Possible Planting Area by Ward

TUPELO URBAN CANOPY: ASSESSMENT RESULTS & KEY FINDINGS

Right-of-Way Citywide Urban Tree Canopy (UTC) and vegetated possible planting area (PPA) metrics have also been evaluated for Right-of-Way both citywide and by Ward. The total land area of ROW in Tupelo (excluding water) is 5,216 acres, of which 1,526 contain UTC, or 29% of the entire ROW area. Within the ROW, an additional 1,388 acres of possible planting area still remains, meaning that 27% of the ROW area is still plantable. However; while the remaining 44% is considered “unsuitable”, it was not part of the scope of this study to separate roads and buildings from impervious and some of this “unsuitable” area may include sidewalks and other surfaces where new plantings could be established. Table 2: Assessment Results by Citywide Right-of-Way

ROW Citywide

Land Area (acres) 5,216

UTC (acres)

% UTC

1,526

29%

PPA Vegetation (acres) 1,388

% PPA Vegetation

% Impervious

% Unsuitable*

27%

43%

44%

*Note: “Unsuitable” areas may include sidewalks and other surfaces where new plantings could be established

Right-of-Way by Ward This study assessed the urban tree canopy (UTC) and vegetated possible planting area (PPA) for Right-of-Way within each Ward. The lowest relative amounts of UTC are found in Wards 3, 5, and 7, with 12%, 17%, and 20%, respectively. The percent of urban canopy within the Right-ofWay within each ward is shown in Figure 16, while more detailed assessment results are shown in Table 3. Ward 1, which is the largest ward, contains the most amount of PPA acres, with 408 acres of possible planting vegetation within the ROW.

Figure 16: Percent Urban Tree Canopy within Right-of-Way by Ward

TUPELO URBAN CANOPY: ASSESSMENT RESULTS & KEY FINDINGS

Table 3: Bottom 3 Wards for Percent of Urban Tree Canopy

PPA Vegetation (acres)

% PPA Vegetation

% Impervious

12%

Distribution of % Total UTC 4%

110

20%

68%

17%

119

34%

45%

162

20%

11%

285

35%

45%

Ward

Land Area (acres)

UTC (acres)

% UTC

547

354

821

Zoning This study processed urban tree canopy (UTC) levels and vegetated possible planting area (PPA) data at the level of 10 zoning land use classes (FLU). These classes group official zone districts into categories based on land use. (An overview of these zoning land use classes is shown in Figure 17, along with the associated distribution of these lands across the City.) As is common in urban environments, residentially zoned lands have the most relative tree canopy coverage, with Low Density Residential, Mixed-Use Residential, and Medium Density Residential boasting 56%, 45%, and 44% UTC within their zones, respectively. Combined, these zones account for 55% of the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s total UTC. Also common in cities, the densely developed Mixed-Use Downtown area has the lowest amount of UTC, at only 8%, but the highest relative amount of impervious area, with 59% covered by impervious surfaces. Regional Commercial is second to Downtown with low UTC (14%) and high impervious (51%). Assessment results for all zoning use classes are shown in Table 4.

Table 4: Urban Tree Canopy Metrics by Zoning Use Class

Zoning Use Class

Agriculture/Open Space Industrial Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential MU Activity Center MU Commercial Corridor MU Downtown MU Employment MU Residential Regional Commercial Overall

Land (acres)

UTC (acres)

13,118 2,146 9,560 6,021 331

4,447 428 5,397 2,636 116

3,119 396 3,701 1,261 807 40,458

855 33 928 566 112 15,516

% UTC within Zoning Class

Distribution of % Total UTC

% PPA Vegetation

% Impervious

% Agricultural

34% 20%

29% 3%

10% 17%

5% 23%

50% 14%

56% 44% 35% 27% 8% 25% 45% 14% 38%

35% 17% 1% 6% 0.2% 6% 4% 1% 100%

17% 25% 24% 19% 21% 21% 20% 24% 17%

10% 23% 36% 40% 59% 37% 28% 51% 18%

16% 8% 4% 12% 11% 16% 6% 9% 25%

TUPELO URBAN CANOPY: ASSESSMENT RESULTS & KEY FINDINGS

Figure 17: Distribution of Zoning Land Use Classes

Parks and Parkland This study processed urban tree canopy (UTC) totals and vegetated possible planting area (PPA) data for Parks and Parkland throughout the City of Tupelo. The tree canopy found in Tupelo’s parks collectively make up 25% of the City’s entire UTC. The greatest opportunity to expand the tree canopy within the City’s parkland is found in the largest three parks: Veteran’s Park, Ballard Park, and the Bel Air Center and Golf Course. Combined, these parks have 139 acres of available planting space. Lee Acres Park contains the least amount of UTC, with only 3%. However, this park has a land area of only 4 acres, and thus, provides only a few acres of possible planting space. Comprehensive assessment results can be found in the appendix of this report. It should also be noted that while parks are often great spaces to plant trees, these lands often include golf courses and sports fields that fall into the unsuitable areas category. As described in more detail earlier in this report, these unsuitable areas were removed when determining the total amount of PPA.

TUPELO URBAN CANOPY: ASSESSMENT RESULTS & KEY FINDINGS

Table 5: Top 3 Parks for Acreage of Possible Planting Area

Park

Land Area (acres)

UTC (acres)

% UTC

Distribution of % Total UTC

PPA Vegetation (acres)

% PPA Vegetation

% Impervious

Veteranâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Park

131

25%

26%

43%

Ballard Park

168

22%

30%

Bel Air Center and Golf Course

20%

11%

46%

Parcels The most detailed assessment geometry analyzed for this study was the parcel layer. Figure 18 illustrates relative levels of UTC throughout the city by parcel. The low canopy cover associated with the agriculturally used lands is apparent in the parcel map. Associated GIS data have been provided to the City with comprehensive results for over 17,000 properties.

Figure 18: Percent Urban Tree Canopy by Parcel

TUPELO URBAN CANOPY: ASSESSMENT RESULTS & KEY FINDINGS

Tornado Damage Assessment On April 28, 2014, Tupelo was hit by a powerful storm with a tornado that ripped through town destroying buildings, roads, and trees. Using aerial imagery from 2012 and 2014, this study evaluated the tree canopy loss that resulted from this tornado within the City defined damage assessment area (Figure 19). The tornado damage area consisted of 3,262 acres, which is approximately 8% of the entire city. In 2012, this area contained 1,416 acres of tree canopy, but after the storm in 2014, only 1,148 acres of tree canopy remained, showing a total canopy loss of 268 acres, or an 8% loss. Assuming an average tree crown area of 600 square feet, this loss can be estimated at well over 19,000 trees. Citywide, the loss represents approximately 0.6% of the entire tree canopy. While this overall loss may not seem that significant, the damage was concentrated and dramatically affected the neighborhoods in which it hit. This is apparent in the Insets shown in Figure 21.

Figure 19: Tornado Damage Assessment Area

Figure 20: Tornado Damage Area Canopy Change (2012-2014) See Figure X for Insets

TUPELO URBAN CANOPY: ASSESSMENT RESULTS & KEY FINDINGS

2014

2012

Figure 21: Tornado Damage Area Canopy Change Insets (2012-2014)

Tornado Area Ecosystem Services The hundreds of acres of tree canopy lost due to the 2014 tornado also resulted in a loss of ecosystem benefits associated with the canopy. As explained above, assuming an average tree crown area of 600 square feet, this loss equates to approximately 19,457 trees. Using the USDA Forest Serviceâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s i-Tree Canopy software and i-Tree Design, that number of trees yields an estimated annual ecosystem benefit of $1,157,617. This includes the costs associated with air pollution removal, carbon sequestration, stormwater mitigation, and both summer and winter energy savings. Table 6 shows some examples of these estimated values that contribute to the total ecosystem benefits. Table 6: Ecosystem Services associated with Tree Canopy Lost from the 2014 Tornado

lbs

Winter Energy Savings $

Loss per tree

0.02

$ 0.01

0.58

$ 0.37

155

$ 2.67

$ 42.49

$ 3.52

$ 9.18

Total canopy loss

385

$ 256

11,339

$ 7,240

3,013,867

$ 51,989

$ 826,728

$ 68,440

$ 178,615

Canopy Loss

Carbon Monoxide

Carbon (CO2) Sequestration

Ozone (O3)

Stormwater

Summer Energy Savings $

Citywide Ecosystem Services Tree Canopy Ecological Benefits Tree canopy and urban forests provide many benefits and ecosystem services that can be associated to economic costs or savings. While trees provide a multitude of benefits that cannot be valuated, such as wildlife habitat, mental and physical well-being, noise abatement, and energy savings from summer cooling and winter wind block, estimates here are drawn from those which have an associated monetary value. Of these quantifiable ecosystem services, it is estimated that trees in Tupelo provide close to $5 million annually in TUPELO URBAN CANOPY: ASSESSMENT RESULTS & KEY FINDINGS

savings to the community from air pollution removal and carbon sequestration services alone. In addition, the total CO2 storage over the lifetime of the tree canopy is close to $38 million, with 3,899,896,204 pounds of carbon being stored. These values were derived using the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) i-Tree Canopy software tools. Table 7: Annual Citywide Ecosystem Benefits

Pollutant

Pollutant Amount (lbs)

Value ($)

Carbon Monoxide

22,261

NO2 O3 PM10 PM2.5 SO2 CO2 Sequestration

93,869 656,371 86,500 39,450 83,972 174,455,692

$ 10,517 $ 419,102 $ 271,112 $ 1,125,394 $ 2,307 $ 3,009,361

Total

175,438,115

$ 4,852,635

TUPELO URBAN CANOPY: ASSESSMENT RESULTS & KEY FINDINGS

14,843

RECOMMENDATIONS & STRATEGIES The following recommendations and strategies address ways in which the City of Tupelo can maximize the value of this report. The City should use these suggestions, along with the key findings in this report, as a starting point for an interdisciplinary goal-setting process and determination of priorities and strategies.

Recommendation 1: Replace canopy lost from tornado The City of Tupelo has already been making progress in their efforts to replace canopy lost from the April 2014 tornado. The Tornado Recovery Landscape Master Plan, produced by JBHM Architecture, encompasses the planting of 5,251 trees and 1,279 shrubs over the next 9-years to replace lost canopy. The City should continue with new plantings in the tornado area, and improve the utility of the 9-year planting plan with information from this assessment, as well as associated tools (see Recommendation #4).

Recommendation 2: Adopt a management plan and strategy The City should write and adopt a management plan, with a strong focus on maintenance, including what work needs to be done, the staffing needs, and a training approach for those new staff. This would be the logical next step after the State’s recent completion of a Level-1 tree risk assessment for the City’s parks, schools and rightsof-way. The management plan and strategies should include the following : 

Identify potential risks to the urban forest. For example, emerald ash borer is a devastating pest encroaching upon the City’s urban forest. Evaluate the potential loss of canopy and tree benefits as a result of this pest. Use this information to emphasize the importance of urban forest management.



Develop a program strategy that consists of the concepts; “Connect, Engage, Manage, Plan, Protect” in which the community is involved and supportive, trees are managed as a resource and asset, strategies are developed to improve the urban forest and organizations, and the canopy that exists is protected through proper procedures and ordinances.



To ensure long-term urban forest sustainability, site specific assessments should be conducted to document soil and site amendments needed, restrictions identified, and general tree recommendations.



Update ordinances and integrate with other department objectives.



Maintain Tree City USA status.

The City should also consider adopting a “no net-loss strategy” in which the City replaces every tree removed on public land with a species appropriate for an available site.

Recommendation 3: Create a formal organization and funding of a greenspace program As recommended in the City’s 2025 Comprehensive Plan, Tupelo: The Story Continues, Tupelo should create a formal organization and funding of a greenspace program. The plan states that “creating and maintaining neighborhood parks, greenways, street trees, landscaping, and community gardens” will help to keep it competitive as a location choice (Tupelo, 2008, p. 7). As expressed in this urban canopy assessment, this will also TUPELO URBAN CANOPY: RECOMMENDATIONS & STRATEGIES

help promote the growth of the urban forest canopy and its associated social and economic benefits. As part of the process for creating a formal organization and program, the following are also recommended: 

Evaluate the City and its members’ needs and opinions of urban trees to shape the organization’s vision and goals.



The program should have short and long-term goals. Suggested broad, program-wide goals include improving and increasing staff capacity and resources. It is important to provide needed training and the resources to complete essential tasks. Use the canopy assessment as a tool to highlight the importance and need.

Recommendation 4: Utilize this assessment and associated tools The results of this assessment can and should be used to encourage investment in forest monitoring, maintenance, and management, and to develop targeted presentations for city leaders, planners, engineers, resource managers, and the public on the functional benefits of trees in addressing environmental issues. 

Sharing the data provided through social media tools and other resources will help increase the awareness and importance of urban forestry and existing programs.



The land cover data should be disseminated to diverse partners for urban forestry and other applications while it is current and most useful for decision-making and implementation planning. Canopy cover should be re-assessed in no less than 10-year intervals to continue to monitor the changing tree canopy.

Plan-It Geo is also providing an interactive mapping tool called Tree Plotter, which allows users to accurately plot potential planting sites and existing trees on a web-map interface, either in the office or in the field. The app stores the locations of trees along with associated tabular data that can be summarized and quantified. This tool should be used in conjunction with planting efforts, including the Tornado Recovery Landscape Master Plan to track new trees. The URL is http://pg-cloud.com/tupelo

Figure 22: Example of Tree Plotter Application

TUPELO URBAN CANOPY: RECOMMENDATIONS & STRATEGIES

APPENDIX 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 in Table 8 contains confidence intervals that report the high and low values that could be expected for any comparison between the classification data and what actual, on the ground land cover was in 2014. The internal accuracy assessment was completed in five (5) steps 1. Approximately six hundred sample points were randomly distributed across the study area and assigned a random numeric value. 2. Sorting from lowest random value to highest, each sample point was referenced using the NAIP imagery and assigned one of the five land cover classes (“Ref_ID”) mentioned above. 3. In the event that the reference value could not be discerned from the imagery, the point was dropped from the accuracy analysis. 4. An automated script was then used to assign values from the classification raster to each point (“Eval_ID”). The classification supervisor provides unbiased feedback to quality control technicians regarding the types of corrections required. Misclassified points (where reference ID does not equal evaluation ID) and corresponding land cover are inspected for necessary corrections to the land cover1. Accuracy is re-evaluated (repeat steps 3 & 4) until an acceptable classification accuracy is achieved.

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 Tupelo, MS landscape. The error matrix shown in Table 8 represents the intersection of reference pixels manually identified by a human observer (columns) and classification category of pixels in the classified image (rows). The gray boxes along the diagonals of the matrix represent agreement between the two pixel maps. Off-diagonal values represent the number 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 (226+82+98+2+15+115 = 538 / 599 = 90%), and the matrix can be used to calculate per class accuracy percent’s. For example, 234 points were manually identified in the reference map as Tree Canopy, and 226 of those pixels were classified as Tree Canopy in the classification map. This relationship is called the “Producer’s Accuracy” and is calculated by dividing the agreement pixel total

Note that by correcting locations associated with accuracy points, bias is introduced to the error matrix results. This means that matrix results based on a new set of randomly collected accuracy points may result in significantly different accuracy values. TUPELO URBAN CANOPY: APPENDIX

(diagonal) by the reference pixel total (column total). Therefore, the Producer’s Accuracy for Tree Canopy is calculated as: (226/234 = .97), meaning that we can expect that ~97% of all tree canopy in the Tupelo, MS study area were classified as Tree Canopy in the classification map. Table 8: Sample error matrix for land cover classification within municipal areas in Tupelo, MS

Reference Data

Classification Data

Tree Canopy Vegetation

Tree Canopy Vegetation Impervious Soil / Dry Veg. Water Agricultural Total

226 3 1 0 0 4 234

11 82 8 1 0 0 102 Overall Accuracy =

Producer's Accuracy Tree Canopy Veg. / Open Space Impervious Bare Ground / Soil Water Agricultural

97% 80% 84% 100% 83% 91%

Impervious

Soil / Dry Veg.

Water

0 15 98 2 0 1 116

0 0 0 2 0 0 2

1 0 0 0 15 2 18

Total Agricultural Reference Pixels 7 245 5 105 0 107 0 5 0 15 115 122 127 599

90% User's Accuracy Tree Canopy Veg. / Open Space Impervious Bare Ground / Soil Water Agricultural

92% 78% 92% 40% 100% 94%

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, 245 classification pixels intersecting reference pixels were classified as Tree Canopy, but 11 pixels were identified as Vegetation, 1 pixel was identified as water, and 7 pixels were identified as Agricultural in the reference map. Therefore, the User’s Accuracy for Tree Canopy is calculated as: (226/245 = 0.92), meaning that ~92% of the pixels classified as Tree Canopy in the classification were actual tree canopy Tupelo, MS. It is important to recognize the Producer’s and User’s accuracy percent values are based on a sample of the true ground cover, represented by the reference pixels at each sample point. It should also be noted that while the overall accuracy is only 90%, the canopy accuracy is higher, and the values have been brought down by the discrepancies of interpreting bare soil as compared to impervious or vegetation.

Results Interpretation of the sample error matrix results indicates this land cover, and more importantly, tree canopy, were accurately mapped in Tupelo, MS. The largest source of classification confusion exists between impervious surfaces, vegetation, and agricultural lands. This confusion is largely the result of human interpretation in that the interpreter must determine when a gravel parking lot should be considered pervious or impervious, or whether existing vegetation is being used for agricultural purposes.

TUPELO URBAN CANOPY: APPENDIX

Comprehensive Assessment Area Results This Urban Tree Canopy (UTC) Assessment of Tupelo, MS was conducted by Plan-It Geo, LLC for the City of Tupelo. The assessment examined existing urban tree canopy (UTC) and Possible Planting Areas within Vegetation (PPA-Vegetation) across several geographic boundaries. This section provides results for each target geography, as well as maps showing the distribution of the results for UTC and PPA-Vegetation. Analysis results and additional maps are as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Citywide Land Use Map Parcel Maps Wards Results and Maps Right-of-Way by Wards Results and Maps Land Use by Zoning Results and Map Parks Results

TUPELO URBAN CANOPY: APPENDIX

Figure 23: Tupelo Land Use 6-Class

TUPELO URBAN CANOPY: APPENDIX

Figure 24: Percent Urban Tree Canopy by Ward

TUPELO URBAN CANOPY: APPENDIX

Figure 25: Percent Possible Planting Area by Ward

TUPELO URBAN CANOPY: APPENDIX

City of Tupelo Geographic Summary: Assessment Results by Ward This table summarizes the UTC metrics by Ward in Tupelo, MS in Acres and % including Urban Tree Canopy (UTC), Possible Planting Area Vegetation (PPA Vegetation), Impervious, and Areas Unsuitable for Planting (Unsuitable). Table 9: Planning Area Assessment Results

Ward

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Overal l

UTC %

% of Total UTC

PPA (Veg.) Acres

PPA (Veg.) %

IA Acres

IA %

Ag Acres

Ag %

4,421 777 1,148 1,078 4,033 2,607 1,450

39% 43% 24% 29% 46% 36% 51%

28% 5% 7% 7% 26% 17% 9%

1,618 381 851 768 1,280 1,312 537

14% 21% 18% 21% 15% 18% 19%

1,363 522 1,646 1,150 1,073 1,003 476

12% 29% 35% 31% 12% 14% 17%

3,725 104 1,073 680 2,263 1,844 372

33% 6% 23% 18% 26% 25% 13%

5,246 644 2,730 1,860 3,482 3,438 878

Unsuitabl e UTC * % 46% 36% 57% 49% 38% 45% 30%

15,513

38%

100%

6,748

17%

7,234

18%

10,061

25%

18,279

44%

Total Land Acres

UTC Acres

11,267 1,800 4,713 3,694 8,767 7,343 2,864 40,448

Unsuitable UTC * (acres)

*Note: Unsuitable areas include all land identified as impervious, agricultural, soil and dry vegetation, as well as ball fields, golf courses, and airport runways. As it was not part of the scope of this study to separate roads and buildings out from impervious, some of this “unsuitable” area does include sidewalks and other surfaces where new plantings could be established.

TUPELO URBAN CANOPY: APPENDIX

Figure 26: Percent Urban Tree Canopy in Right-of-Way by Ward

TUPELO URBAN CANOPY: APPENDIX

Figure 27: Percent Possible Planting Area in Right-of-Way by Ward

TUPELO URBAN CANOPY: APPENDIX

City of Tupelo Geographic Summary: Assessment Results by ROW by Ward This table summarizes the UTC metrics within Right-of-Way by Ward in Tupelo, MS in Acres and % including Urban Tree Canopy (UTC), Possible Planting Area Vegetation (PPA Vegetation), Impervious, and Areas Unsuitable for Planting (Unsuitable). Table 10: Planning Area Assessment Results

Ward 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Overall

Total Land Acres

UTC Acres

UTC %

% of Total UTC

PPA (Veg.) Acres

PPA (Veg.) %

1573 394 547 818 821 710 354 5,216

608 188 67 199 162 241 61 1,526

39% 48% 12% 24% 20% 34% 17%

40% 12% 4% 13% 11% 16% 4%

26% 13% 20% 34% 35% 19% 34%

29%

100%

408 52 110 279 285 135 119 1,388

27%

IA Acres

IA %

515 151 369 338 367 322 160 2,223

33% 38% 68% 41% 45% 45% 45% 43%

Unsuitable UTC * (acres)

Unsuitable UTC * %

557 153 370 340 374 335 174 2,304

35% 39% 68% 42% 45% 47% 49% 44%

TUPELO URBAN CANOPY: APPENDIX

City of Tupelo Geographic Summary: Assessment Results by Zoning This table summarizes the UTC metrics by Zoning Land Use Classes (FLU) in Tupelo, MS in Acres and % including Urban Tree Canopy (UTC), Possible Planting Area Vegetation (PPA Vegetation), Impervious, and Areas Unsuitable for Planting (Unsuitable). Table 11: Planning Area Assessment Results Zoning Land Use (FLU) Ag Ind LDRes MDRes MUAC MUCC MUDTN MUEmp MURes RegCom Overall

Total Land Acres

UTC Acres

UTC %

% of Total UTC

PPA (Veg.) Acres

PPA (Veg.) %

13,118 2,146 9,560 6,021 331 3,119 396 3,701 1,261 807 40,458

4,447 428 5,397 2,636 116 855 33 928 566 112 15,516

34% 20% 56% 44% 35% 27% 8% 25% 45% 14%

29% 3% 35% 17% 1% 6% 0.2% 6% 4% 1%

10% 17% 17% 25% 24% 19% 21% 21% 20% 24%

38%

100%

1261 372 1617 1507 80 604 84 784 253 193 6,754

17%

IA Acres

IA %

Ag Acres

Ag %

679 486 938 1387 118 1250 235 1376 352 413 7,234

5% 23% 10% 23% 36% 40% 59% 37% 28% 51%

6543 307 1562 461 14 390 43 591 78 73 10,061

50% 14% 16% 8% 4% 12% 11% 16% 6% 9%

18%

25%

Unsuitable UTC * (acres) 7458 1353 2559 1882 136 1669 280 1995 442 505 18,279

Unsuitable UTC * % 55% 59% 26% 31% 41% 53% 70% 53% 35% 62% 44%

FLU KEY: Ag = Agriculture/Open Space Ind = Industrial LDRes = Low Density Residential MDRes = Medium Density Residential MUAC = Mixed-Use Activity Center MUCC = Mixed-Use Commercial Corridor MUDTN = Mixed-Use Downtown MUEmp= Mixed-Use Employment MURes = Mixed-Use Residential RegCom = Regional Commercial *Note: Unsuitable areas include all land identified as impervious, agricultural, soil and dry vegetation, as well as ball fields, golf courses, and airport runways. As it was not part of the scope of this study to separate roads and buildings out from impervious, some of this “unsuitable” area does include sidewalks and other surfaces where new plantings could be established.

TUPELO URBAN CANOPY: APPENDIX

City of Tupelo Geographic Summary: Parks This table summarizes the UTC metrics by Parks in Tupelo, MS in Acres and % including Urban Tree Canopy (UTC), Possible Planting Area Vegetation (PPA Vegetation), Impervious, and Areas Unsuitable for Planting (Unsuitable). Table 12: Watershed Assessment Results

Park BALLARD PARK BEL AIR CENTER AND GOLF COURSE BRISTOW PARK CC AGUSTUS CENTER CHANDLER PARK CREATIVE COMMONS ELVIS PRESLEY BIRTHPLACE GUM TREE PARK GUN CLUB PARK HANCOCK PARK HAVEN ACRES PARK LEE ACRES PARK OLD MILL TOWN PARK ROB LEAKE CITY PARK ROBINS FIELS THERON NICHOLS PARK VETERANS PARK Overall

Total Land Acres

UTC Acres

UTC %

% of Total UTC

PPA (Veg.) Acres

PPA (Veg.) %

IA Acres

IA %

Unsuitable UTC * (acres)

Unsuitable UTC * %

168

22%

30%

22%

47%

69 1 2 0.4 1 14 23 8 9 1 4 1 22 8 35 131 498

14 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.1 7 5 2 4 1 0.1 1 4 1 16 32 124

20% 24% 14% 41% 12% 47% 22% 24% 47% 60% 3% 63% 19% 17% 44% 25% 25%

32 0.3 1 0.3 0.5 5 14 5 3 0.3 3 0.1 6 2 11 56 190

46% 56% 49% 59% 54% 33% 59% 67% 38% 21% 77% 7% 28% 22% 32% 43% 38%

6 0.1 1 0.0 0.3 3 4 1 1 0.2 1 0.3 4 2 4 23 87

8% 26% 36% 2% 34% 20% 17% 9% 15% 19% 20% 29% 20% 24% 11% 17% 17%

25 0.1 1 0.0 0.3 3 4 1 1 0.2 1 0.3 12 5 9 44 185

35% 26% 38% 2% 34% 20% 19% 9% 15% 19% 21% 29% 53% 61% 24% 33% 37%

11% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 4% 2% 3% 1% 0% 1% 3% 1% 12% 26% 100%

TUPELO URBAN CANOPY: APPENDIX

Figure 28: Percent Urban Tree Canopy by Parcel

TUPELO URBAN CANOPY: APPENDIX

Figure 29: Percent Possible Planting Area by Parcel

TUPELO URBAN CANOPY: APPENDIX

REFERENCES Kuo, E. (2001). Environment and Crime in the Inner City: Does Vegetation Reduce Crime? Environment and Behavior, 343-367. McPherson, E. G., Nowak, D., Heisler, G., Grimmond, S., Souch, C., Grant, R., & Rowntree, R. (1997). Quantifying Urban Forest Structure, Function, and Value. Urban Ecosystems, 49-61. Sander, H., Polasky, S., & Haight, R. G. (2010). The Value of Urban Tree Cover. Ecological Economics, 1646-1656. Shade: Healthy Trees, Healthy Cities, Healthy People. (2004). Urban Forestry South. Retrieved from http://www.urbanforestrysouth.org/ Tupelo, C. o. (2008). Tupelo: The Story Continues. Tupelo, MS: Tupelo City Council. Ward, R. (2014, April 29). Path of destruction: Tornado rips through Tupelo area. Retrieved from djournal.com: http://djournal.com/news/path-destruction-tornado-rips-tupelo-area/

TUPELO URBAN CANOPY: REFERENCES