• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Urban Forests Ecological Services
 

Urban Forests Ecological Services

on

  • 2,164 views

Urban Tree Canopy Inventory done for the City of Grand Rapids, MI, by the Grand Valley State University/Annis Water Resources Institute. http://www.gvsu.edu/wri/

Urban Tree Canopy Inventory done for the City of Grand Rapids, MI, by the Grand Valley State University/Annis Water Resources Institute. http://www.gvsu.edu/wri/

Statistics

Views

Total Views
2,164
Views on SlideShare
2,161
Embed Views
3

Actions

Likes
2
Downloads
88
Comments
0

1 Embed 3

http://www.slideshare.net 3

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Urban Forests Ecological Services Urban Forests Ecological Services Presentation Transcript

    • Project Partners: Grand Rapids Planning Department and JJR, Inc. April 2009
    •  Presentation by:  Rod Denning, R R dD i Research A h Associate - GISP i t  Grand Valley State University – Annis Water Resources Institute, 740 W. Shoreline Dr., Muskegon, MI 49441  Contact: denningr@gvsu.edu or 616-331-3793 April 2008
    •  TWO GOALS…..  Quantify the presence of the urban tree canopy  How much land area in the city has tree canopy?  Place a monetary value on the ecological services b i Pl t l th l i l i being provided by urban trees  Can we calculate this for the entire city?
    •  Defined as the layer of tree leaves, branches and stems that cover the ground when viewed from above*.  It includes trees growing  I di id ll Individually  in small groups  or under forest conditions *Chesapeake Bay Program. 2004. Summary: Guidelines for Implementing the Chesapeake Bay Program. Annapolis MD.
    •  Watershed scale*  Environmental Benefits  Reduce stormwater runoff and flooding  Improve regional air quality  Improve soil and water quality  Reduce stream channel erosion  Provide habitat for plants and wildlife  Preserve native ecotypes  Reduce summer air and water temperatures *Center for Watershed Protection and USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry. 2005. Urban Watershed Forestry Manual. Ellicott City, MD.
    •  Site scale*  Economic Benefits  Decrease heating and cooling costs  Trees left on site during construction will  Reduce costs related to clearing grading paving mowing and clearing, grading, paving, mowing, managing stormwater  Increase property values  Positively influence consumer behavior y  Environmental Benefits  Reduce urban heat island effect  Enhance function of stormwater treatment *Center for Watershed Protection and USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry. 2005. Urban Watershed Forestry Manual. Ellicott City, MD.
    •  Site scale*  Community Benefits  Increase livability  Improve health and well-being  Block UV radiation  Provide shade  Buffer wind and noise  Increase recreational opportunities  Aesthetics *Center for Watershed Protection and USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry. 2005. Urban Watershed Forestry Manual. Ellicott City, MD.
    •  Rainfall Interception – individual trees*  A mature deciduous can  Intercept 500 to 760 gallons of water per year  A mature coniferous tree can  Intercept more than 4000 gallons per year  Rainfall Interception – forests**  Coniferous forests  Capture 15 to 40% of annual precipitation  Deciduous forests  Capture 10 to 20% of annual p p precipitation p *Center for Watershed Protection and USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry. 2005. Urban Watershed Forestry Manual. Ellicott City, MD. **Xiao, Q., E.G. McPherson, S.L. Ustin, M.E. Grismer, and J.R. Simpson. 2000. “Winter Rainfall Interception by Two Mature Open-Grown Trees in Davis, CA” in Hydrological Processes 14, 763- 784.
    •  Evapotranspiration* (ET)  Represents the combined water loss from  evaporation from soil and plant surfaces  and transpiration by plants  Generally, Generally coniferous trees have lower transpiration rates than deciduous trees  Generally, a mature tree can transpire 100 gallons per day  A acre of mature forest can take up more than 1800 An f t f t t k th gallons of water every day *Center for Watershed Protection and USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry. 2005. Urban Watershed Forestry Manual. Ellicott City, MD.
    •  A 25” diameter deciduous tree:  within a forest can use 420 gallons of water a day y  growing in the open can use nearly 1200 gallons of water a day *From, Center for Watershed Protection and USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry. 2005. Urban Watershed Forestry Manual. Ellicott City, MD. Adapted from: Perry, T.O. 1994. “Size, Design and Management of Tree Planting Sites.” in Watson and Neely, eds. 1994. The Landscape Below Ground. International Society of Arboriculture. Savoy, IL.
    •  Air quality improvements*  One large front yard tree can:  Absorb 10 lbs. of air pollutants per year including:  4 lbs. of ozone  3 lbs. of particulates  Cleans 330 lbs. of CO2 from the atmosphere through direct sequestration in the trees biomass and reduced power plant emissions due to cooling energy savings  Oxygen release as a byproduct of photosysnthesis  A healthy 32’ Ash produces about 260 lb of net oxygen annually  A typical person consumes 386 lb of oxygen per year *Center for Watershed Protection and USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry. 2005. Urban Watershed Forestry Manual. Ellicott City, MD.
    •  Aesthetics and Other Benefits*  Beautification, trees add: Beautification  Color, texture, line and form to the urban landscape  Tree lined residential streets are the single strongest positive influence on scenic quality** quality  Private property values  People are willing to pay 3 to 7% more for properties with ample trees versus few or no trees  Each front-yard tree is associated with about a 1-percent increase in home sales price*** *Center for Watershed Protection and USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry. 2005. Urban Watershed Forestry Manual. Ellicott City, MD. **Schroeder N.W., Cannon, W N 1983 The esthetic contribution of trees to residential streets in Schroeder, N W Cannon W.N. 1983. Ohio towns. Journal of Arboriculture. 9: 237-243. *** Anderson, L.M., Cordell, H.K. 1988. Residential property values improve by landscaping with trees. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry. 9: 162-166
    •  Compared the value of ecosystem services provided by trees with the costs associated with a full service urban forestry program  Ecosystem services benefits  Ai quality i Air lit improvements, energy conservation, stormwater t ti t t interception and carbon dioxide reduction  Costs of maintaining the trees  I l di planting, pruning, i i ti Including l ti i irrigation, administration, pest d i i t ti t control, liability, cleanup, and removal *USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-202. 2007. Northeast Community Tree Guide, Benefits, Costs, and Strategic Planting. Albany, CA.
    •  Results  Average Annual Net Benefits (benefits minus costs) Tree Size Location Net Benefit $$ Small Private Yard 5 Small Public 9 Medium Private Yard 36 Medium Public 52 Large Private Yard 85 Large Public 113 *USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-202. 2007. Northeast Community Tree Guide, Benefits, Costs, and Strategic Planting. Albany, CA.
    •  Result Highlights  Benefits associated with energy savings and increased property value account for the largest proportion of total benefits  Planting is the greatest cost for trees followed by tree trees, pruning  tree care expenditures tend to increase with mature tree size  Environmental benefits alone are up to four times tree care alone, costs  Pubic trees produce higher net benefits than private trees *USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-202. 2007. Northeast Community Tree Guide, Benefits, Costs, and Strategic Planting. Albany, CA.
    •  Potential Methods  Manual photo interpretation of the tree canopy  Traditional remote sensing tools based on spectral signatures  Supervised/unsupervised classification  Feature extraction automation tools  Feature Analyst - Visual Learning Systems, Inc. of Overwatch Geospatial, Geospatial Textron Systems
    •  Feature Analyst is an intelligent software agent, that learns by example  Using spatial context (surrounding information) as well as spectral reflectance to identify objects  Using hierarchical learning – sequences of learning passes to remove clutter and add missed features Learning parameters Identify/Remove Clutter Learn Learn Training set 1st extraction 2nd extraction Add missed features Typical Workflow Continue or Learn Final results Accept 3rd extraction
    •  Total City Area = 45.3 Sq. Miles  Tree Canopy Area = 10,029 Acres (15 7 Sq Miles) 10 029 (15.7 Sq.  Area covered by the urban tree canopy = 34.6%  How many trees? 2,005,800 (estimate)
    • City/State % Tree Canopy Charlotte, NC 49 Burlington, VT 43 Pittsburgh, PA 38 Atlanta, GA 37 Grand Rapids, MI 35 Montgomery, AL 33 Muskegon, MI 30 Boston, MA 29 ( ) (22) Syracuse, NY 24 New York, NY 24 (21) Providence, Providence RI 23 Baltimore, MD 20 (25) Philadelphia, PA 16 Jersey City NJ City, 12 Frederick, MD 12
    •  As established by American Forests  For metropolitan areas east of the Mississippi River and in the Pacific Northwest Area % Tree Canopy Average tree cover all zones 40 Suburban S b b residential zones id ti l 50 Urban residential zones 25 Central business districts 15
    • Road Name Tree Canopy (Acres) % - Tree Canopy 7th St 3.5 46.1 Collindale Ave 4.0 40 44.6 44 6 Elmridge Dr 1.8 44.3 Oakleigh Rd 5.2 43.9 O'Brien Rd 2.0 43.9 Perkins Ave 3.2 40.3 Bristol Ave 2.2 36.0 Camelot Dr 1.8 34.0 Maryland Ave 5.4 33.9 Covel Ave 6.4 33.0 Dean L k A D Lake Ave 1.3 13 31.7 31 7 Coit Ave 7.6 28.7 Aberdeen St 3.7 27.2 Ball Ave 4.4 26.8 3 Mile Rd 5.9 59 25.0 25 0 Walker Ave 4.0 23.8 Richmond St 6.5 22.7 Valley Ave 3.2 22.3 Robinson Rd 1.2 21.8 Diamond Ave 6.0 21.7 College Ave 4.2 21.6 6th St 1.2 20.6
    •  Developed by American Forests ( g) (www.americanforests.org)  ESRI ArcGISTM extension  Environmental and Resource Values Quantified  Air pollution removal quantities and value  Carbon storage quantity  Stormwater runoff quantity and value q y  Water quality improvements  Does not calculate calc late  Energy savings value  Increased property value
    •  Air pollution removal and carbon storage output  Based on the Urban Forest Effects Model (UFORE)  Developed by the USDA Forest Service  Stormwater runoff reduction output  Based on the TR-55 model  Developed by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service p y  Water quality output  Based on the L-THIA model (Long-term Hydrologic Impact Assessment)  Developed by Purdue University and U.S. EPA
    • Tree Canopy
    • COVER AND USE CLASS ACRES % Cover (Grand Rapids) Residential R id ti l 7126 24.6 24 6 Trees - Mostly Natural 4629 16.0 Road & Road ROW 4354 15.0 Trees w/ Grass & Turf Understory 3947 13.6 Commercial/Business/Institutional 3376 11.6 Open Space w/ Grass Cover 1635 5.6 Industrial 1623 5.6 Trees w/ Mostly Impervious Understory 1452 5.0 Water Area 457 1.6 16 Parking Lots - Impervious 264 0.9 Shrubs w/ Ground Cover 156 0.5 Total Area 29020 100.0
    • Pounds Removed Money Saved Air Pollutant per year** from Removal* Carbon Monoxide 17,880 $7,631 Ozone 295,023 $906,375 Nitrogen Dioxide 107,281 $329,591 Particulate Matter: Less then 10 microns 196,682 $403,428 Sulfur Dioxide 44,700 $33,546 Total 661,566 $1,680,570 ** Based on Air Pollution conditions for the City of Milwaukee, Wisconsin * Dollars are “externality” costs borne by society due to rising health care expenditures and reduced tourism revenue.
    • 2-year, 24-hour Rainfall event: 2.37 inches g Curve Number of existing conditions: 78 Curve Number if the trees were replace with buildings: 89 Additional Stormwater storage volume needed if the trees were replaced with buildings: 67,075,658 ft3 Construction cost per ft3* $5.50 Total Stormwater Savings: Storm ater Sa ings $368,916,122 $368 916 122 Annual costs based on payments over 20 years at 6% interest $32,163,789 per year * Construction costs based on the cost to build just an ADS Storm Tech System to handle the additional stormwater April 2008
    • Amount of Carbon Stored in the Trees 438,494 Metric Tons CCX – CFI @ $3.60 metric ton $1,578,578 Additional Amount Stored each year 3414 Metric Tons CCX – CFI @ $3.60 metric ton $12,290 Chicago Climate Exchange April 28th 2008 Greenhouse gas emission registry, G h i i i t reduction, and trading system
    • Percent Change in Contaminant Loading When Trees are Replaced with Impervious Surfaces Biological Oxygen demand 51 Cadmium 63 Chromium 77 Chemical Oxygen demand 82 Copper 0 Pollutant Lead 21 Nitrogen 28 Phosphorous 58 Suspended Solids 50 Zinc 15 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Percent
    •  Air Pollution Removal: $1,680,570 annually  Stormwater Runoff: $368,916,122 or $32,163,789 $368 916 122 $32 163 789 annually  Carbon Storage: $1,578,578 (p g (presently stored in the y trees) or $12,290 worth of storage per year  Water Quality Benefits: $????  THE CITY’S 35 PERCENT TREE CANOPY PROVIDES TOTAL DOLLAR BENEFITS OF: $372,175,270
    •  Can we extract the tree canopy into tree species classes?  Oak, Ash, Maple, Basswood, Pine, etc.  Can we calculate the “possible” full extent of possible the tree canopy?  Identify areas that could actually have tree cover minus existing trees and built infrastructure  What areas are actually viable for tree canopy  How has the tree canopy changed over time?  What potential impact could the Elm Ash Borer have on the tree canopy?
    •  Presentation by:  Rod Denning, R R dD i Research A h Associate - GISP i t  Grand Valley State University – Annis Water Resources Institute, 740 W. Shoreline Dr., Muskegon, MI 49441  Contact: denningr@gvsu.edu or 616-331-3793 April 2008