You are on page 1of 45

April 2009

Project Partners: Grand Rapids Planning Department and J J R, Inc.


Presentation by:
R d D i R hA i t GISP Rod Denning, Research Associate - GISP
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..
Quantifythe presence of the urban tree canopy Quantify the presence of the urban tree canopy
How much land area in the city has tree canopy?
Pl t l th l i l i b i Place a monetary value on the ecological services 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 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 Environmental Benefits
Reduce stormwater runoff and flooding
Improve regional air quality
Improve soil and water quality Improve soil and water quality
Reduce stream channel erosion
Provide habitat for plants and wildlife
Preserve native ecotypes 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 Economic Benefits
Decrease heating and cooling costs
Trees left on site during construction will
Reduce costs related to clearing grading paving mowing and Reduce costs related to clearing, grading, paving, mowing, and
managing stormwater
Increase property values
Positively influence consumer behavior y
Environmental Benefits
Reduce urban heat island effect
Enhance function of stormwater treatment 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 Community Benefits
Increase livability
Improve health and well-being
Block UV radiation Block UV radiation
Provide shade
Buffer wind and noise
Increase recreational opportunities 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*
Amature deciduous can 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 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 precipitation p p 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 Represents the combined water loss from
evaporation from soil and plant surfaces
and transpiration by plants
Generally coniferous trees have lower transpiration rates Generally, coniferous trees have lower transpiration rates
than deciduous trees
Generally, a mature tree can transpire 100 gallons per day
A f t f t t k th 1800 An acre of mature forest can take up more than 1800
gallons of water every day
*Center for Watershed Protection and USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and Private
Forestry. 2005. Urban Watershed Forestry Manual. Ellicott City, MD.
A 25 diameter
deciduous tree:
within a forest can
use 420 gallons of
water a dayy
growing in the open
can use nearly 1200
gallons of water a gallons of water a
day
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.
*From, Center for Watershed Protection and USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry. 2005.
Urban Watershed Forestry Manual. Ellicott City, MD.
Air quality improvements*
One large front yard tree can: One large front yard tree can:
Absorb 10 lbs. of air pollutants per year including:
4 lbs. of ozone
3 lbs. of particulates 3 lbs. of particulates
Cleans 330 lbs. of CO
2
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, trees add:
Color, texture, line and form to the urban landscape
Tree lined residential streets are the single strongest
positive influence on scenic quality** positive influence on scenic quality
Private property values
People are willing to pay 3 to 7% more for properties with
ample trees versus fewor no trees 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 WN 1983 The esthetic contribution of trees to residential streets in Schroeder, N.W., Cannon, W.N. 1983. The esthetic contribution of trees to residential streets in
Ohio towns. J ournal of Arboriculture. 9: 237-243.
*** Anderson, L.M., Cordell, H.K. 1988. Residential property values improve by landscaping with
trees. Southern J ournal of Applied Forestry. 9: 162-166
Compared the value of ecosystem services
provided by trees with the costs associated with a provided by trees with the costs associated with a
full service urban forestry program
Ecosystem services benefits
Ai lit i t ti t t Air quality improvements, energy conservation, stormwater
interception and carbon dioxide reduction
Costs of maintaining the trees
I l di l ti i i i ti d i i t ti t Including planting, pruning, irrigation, administration, pest
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
AverageAnnual Net Benefits (benefits minus costs) 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 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 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 Planting is the greatest cost for trees, followed by tree
pruning
tree care expenditures tend to increase with mature tree size
Environmental benefits alone are up to four times tree care Environmental benefits alone, are up to four times tree care
costs
Pubic trees produce higher net benefits than private trees
*USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-202.
2007. Northeast Community Tree Guide, Benefits, Costs, and Strategic Planting. Albany, CA.
Potential Methods
Manual photo interpretation of the tree canopy Manual photo interpretation of the tree canopy
Traditional remote sensing tools based on spectral
signatures
Supervised/unsupervisedclassification Supervised/unsupervised classification
Feature extraction automation tools
Feature Analyst - Visual Learning Systems, Inc. of Overwatch
Geospatial Textron Systems Geospatial, Textron Systems
Feature Analyst is an intelligent software agent, that
learns by example
Using spatial context (surrounding information) as 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 1
st
extraction
Learn
2
nd
extraction
Learn
Add missed features
Learn
Typical Workflow
Continue or
3
rd
extraction Final results
Accept
Total City Area = 45.3 Sq. Miles
Tree CanopyArea =10 029Acres (15 7 Sq Miles) Tree Canopy Area = 10,029 Acres (15.7 Sq. Miles)
Area covered by the urban tree canopy = 34.6%
How many trees? 2,005,800 (estimate)
City/State % Tree Canopy
Charlotte, NC 49
Burlington, VT 43
Pittsburgh, PA 38
Atlanta, GA 37
Grand Rapids, MI 35
Montgomery, AL 33
Muskegon, MI 30
( ) Boston, MA 29 (22)
Syracuse, NY 24
New York, NY 24 (21)
Providence RI 23 Providence, RI 23
Baltimore, MD 20 (25)
Philadelphia, PA 16
J erseyCity NJ 12 J ersey City, NJ 12
Frederick, MD 12
As established by American Forests
For metropolitan areas east of the Mississippi River and in For metropolitan areas east of the Mississippi River and in
the Pacific Northwest
Area % Tree Canopy
Average tree cover all zones 40
S b b id ti l 50 Suburban residential zones 50
Urban residential zones 25
Central business districts 15
Road Name Tree Canopy (Acres) % - Tree Canopy
7th St 3.5 46.1
CollindaleAve 4 0 44 6 Collindale Ave 4.0 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
D L k A 1 3 31 7 Dean Lake Ave 1.3 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 25 0 3 Mile Rd 5.9 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
(www.americanforests.org) ( g)
ESRI ArcGIS
TM
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 calc late Does not calculate
Energy savings value
Increased property value
Air pollution removal and carbon storage
output 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) Assessment)
Developed by Purdue University and U.S. EPA
Tree Canopy Tree Canopy
COVER AND USE CLASS ACRES % Cover (Grand Rapids)
R id ti l 7126 24 6 Residential 7126 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 Water Area 457 1.6
Parking Lots - Impervious 264 0.9
Shrubs w/ Ground Cover 156 0.5
Total Area 29020 100.0
Air Pollutant
Pounds Removed
per year**
Money Saved
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
Curve Number of existing conditions: 78 g
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 ft
3
Construction cost per ft
3
* $5.50
Total Storm ater Sa ings $368 916 122 Total Stormwater Savings: $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 each year 3414 Metric Tons
CCX CFI @ $3.60 metric ton $12,290
Chicago Climate Exchange
April 28
th
2008
G h i i i t Greenhouse gas emission registry,
reduction, and trading system
51 Biological Oxygen demand
Percent Change in Contaminant Loading
When Trees are Replaced with Impervious Surfaces
77
63
Chromium
Cadmium
0
82
Copper
Chemical Oxygen demand
u
t
a
n
t
28
21
Nitrogen
Lead
P
o
l
l
15
50
58
Zinc
Suspended Solids
Phosphorous
15
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Zinc
Percent
Air Pollution Removal: $1,680,570 annually
Stormwater Runoff: $368 916 122 or $32 163 789 Stormwater Runoff: $368,916,122 or $32,163,789
annually
Carbon Storage: $1,578,578 (presently stored in the g (p y
trees) or $12,290 worth of storage per year
Water Quality Benefits: $????
THE CITYS 35 PERCENT TREE CANOPY
PROVIDES TOTAL DOLLAR BENEFITS OF: PROVIDES TOTAL DOLLAR BENEFITS OF:
$372,175,270
Can we extract the tree canopy into tree
species classes? species classes?
Oak, Ash, Maple, Basswood, Pine, etc.
Can we calculate the possiblefull extent of Can we calculate the possible full extent of
the tree canopy?
Identify areas that could actually have tree cover 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:
R d D i R hA i t GISP Rod Denning, Research Associate - GISP
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