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/

1. Project Partners: Grand Rapids Planning Department and JJR, Inc.
April 2009

2.  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

3.  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?

4.  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.

5.  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.

6.  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.

7.  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.

8.  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.

9.  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.

10.  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.

11.  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.

12.  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

13.  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.

14.  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.

15.  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.

16.  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

19.  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

24.  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)

25. 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

26.  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

28. 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

30.  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

31.  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

32. Tree Canopy

34. 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

39. 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.

40. 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

41. 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

42. 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

43.  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

44.  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?

45.  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