Collaborative Urban Forest Studies in the GTA. May 12 th 2010 Meaghan Eastwood

Transcription

1 Collaborative Urban Forest Studies in the GTA May 12 th 2010 Meaghan Eastwood

2 Outline Background Collaborative Urban Forest Studies Methodology Preliminary Results and Recommendations Next Steps 2

3 3 Background and Context

4 INSERT CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES OF ONTARIO MAP TRCA 4

5 5

6 Background Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy Goal: Define existing and target natural system Goal: Secure and restore target natural system Goal: Manage the matrix Natural system management natural infrastructure management Goal: To build knowledge and capacity for the protection and enhancement of natural infrastructure and associated ecosystem services within the Living City Region 6

7 Rationale Programs that restore and enhance the urban forest represent a cost-effective and sustainable biotechnological means to meet multiple standards, as trees provide multiple benefits for a singular cost (Nowak, 2006). 7

8 Collaborative Urban Forest Studies 8

9 9

10 Collaborative Urban Forest Studies Urban Forest Studies Design Forum April 2008 Objectives: To develop a standardized methodology that would facilitate comparative and complimentary research across the GTA To strengthen the collective capacity to maintain and enhance the urban forest resource comparative ecological research would lay a foundation for distinguishing common urban effects and responses from those specific to a particular city or group of cities due to variation in factors such as geography, climate, soil, urban morphology, cultural values, and political and economic systems (Carreiro and Zipperer, 2008). 10

11 Collaborative Urban Forest Studies Partners Conservation Authorities Municipalities Technical Advisors NGOs and Consultants 11

12 Costs of Collaboration More communication time and effort More complex relationships timing, outcome, resources More dependence higher risk 12

13 Benefits of Collaboration Data collected uniformly across the GTA Shared terminology consistent messaging Shared experience of design/management Mutual support political Wise use of experts 13

14 14 Methodology

15 Methodology Characterization i-tree Software Suite Eco (UFORE) Hydro Grow-Out Simulations Priority Planting Index Surface Cover Analyses Urban Tree Canopy (UTC) Analysis Aerial photo interpretation Consultation Public Open House Stakeholder Charette Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Urban Forest Management (Urban Forest Innovations Inc. and W.A. Kenney, 2008) Recommendations 15

16 Eco Study Design Municipal boundaries 200 plots 0.04 ha Randomized grid sample Post-stratification by land use categories 16

17 Eco Project Set-Up Generate and locate field plots Land owner contact Staff training 17

18 18

19 Data Collection: Eco Field Data Ground cover Tree and shrub species DBH and height Crown attributes Distance and direction to buildings QA / QC Pollution Data Hourly measurements SO2,NO2, CO, O3, PM10 19

20 Building footprints Data Requirements: UTC Road and right-of-way boundaries High resolution multispectral imagery Property parcel boundaries Geographies for data summary 20

21 Analysis Transfer data to USDA Forest Service and UVM MAGIC Transfer Results to TRCA 21

22 22 Preliminary Results

23 Results: Distribution QuickBird satellite imagery Digital land cover map 23

24 Results: Structure Impervious 27% Tree/ Shrub 18% Water 2% Grass/ Soil 53% Figure 1: Surface cover composition in Ajax 24

25 Results: Structure Trees Leaf Area Trees per he ectare Leaf area per hecta are (m2/ha) Open Space + Natural Cover Agriculture Residential Commercial + Industrial Land Use Institutional + Utilities and Transportation Other 25 Figure 2: Tree density (trees/ha) and leaf area density (m2 /ha) by land use in Brampton.

26 14 Results: Structure 12 Leaf area Stems 10 Percent of Total sugar maple Norway maple green ashmanitoba white ash blue maple spruce red pine willow spp. Tree Species white spruce Austrian pine linden spp. silver maple eastern white cedar Figure 3: Species composition in Mississauga by percent of total leaf area and number of stems. 26

27 Results: Structure Table 1: Dominant tree species by percent of total leaf area and percent of total stems within land uses in Brampton. Land Use Open Space + Natural Cover Agriculture Residential Commercial + Industrial Other Percent of Total Leaf Area Percent of Total Stems Common Name Percent Common Name Percent Manitoba maple 12 European buckthorn 23 black walnut 10 sugar maple 13 sugar maple 10 black ash 9 eastern cottonwood 23 European buckthorn 34 European buckthorn 15 hawthorn spp. 15 eastern white cedar 14 ironwood 14 white spruce 17 eastern white cedar 21 white ash 14 Norway maple 8 Norway maple 14 white spruce 8 European buckthorn 29 European buckthorn 52 Norway maple 24 honeylocust 9 white ash 11 white spruce 7 hawthorn spp. 27 European buckthorn 46 European buckthorn 24 hawthorn spp. 25 Manitoba maple 13 eastern white cedar 4 27

28 1,200,000 1,000,000 Results: Structure Population at risk Structural value Numbe er of trees 800, , , Structural value ($ millions) , ALB GM EAB DED 0 Figure 4: Number of trees in Mississauga susceptible to Asian longhornedbeetle (ALB), gypsy moth (GM), emerald ash borer (EAB), and Dutch elm disease (DED), and potential loss in associated structural value of host trees. 28

29 60 50 Results: Structure Mississauga Brampton 40 Percent of stems Diameter Class (cm) Figure 5: Diameter class distribution of trees in Mississauga and Brampton 29

30 Results: Structure Pe ercent of Population Diameter Class Open space + Natural cover + Agriculture Commercial + Industrial Other Residential Institutional + Utilities and Transportation Figure 6: Diameter class distribution of trees by land use in Mississauga 30

31 Results: Function 250 3,000,000 Metric tons Pollution remove ed (tonnes / year) Value (Can. Dollars) 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000, ,000 llars / year) Value (dol 0 0 CO NO2 O3 PM10 SO2 Pollutant Figure 7: Annual pollution removal by trees and shrubs in Mississauga and associated removal value. 31

32 3000 Results: Function 50 Average carbon storage per tree (kg) Carbon Storage (kg) Carbon Sequestration (kg/yr) Average annual carbon se equestration per tree (kg/yr) Diameter Class Figure 8: Average per tree carbon sequestration and storage by diameter class for trees in Brampton.

33 Results: Function Table 2: Annual energy savings and carbon avoided in Ajax due to trees near residential buildings. Energy Units Heating Cooling Total MBTU 35,570 n/a 35,570 MWH ,220 Carbon avoided (tonnes) Table 3: Annual savings in residential energy expenditures in Ajax during heating and cooling seasons (based on energy costs). Energy Units Heating Cooling Total MBTU $308,000 n/a $308,000 MWH $20,000 $61,000 $81,000 Carbon avoided (tonnes) $16,900 $3,400 $20,300 Total $409,300 33

34 Hydro Population Projections Priority Planting Index Additional Results 34

35 Summary of Recommendations Improve distribution of tree cover Increase leaf area Increase proportion of large, healthy trees Increase species diversity* Address specific needs of each land use type Strengthen and support community stewardship ethic 35

36 36 Next Steps

37 Next Steps Short term goals: Stakeholder consultation Complete studies and strategies Assist partners in development and implementation of strategic management plans Regional urban forest study Integrate into broader research Long term goals: Monitoring Focus on functions natural infrastructure Inform provincial and federal policy / legislation 37

38 Conclusions 1. Collaboration works 2. Make the case for investing in urban forests 3. Monitoring is essential 38 Photos courtesy of the Town of Ajax

39 Peel Partners Region of Peel Mississauga Brampton Thank You! Credit Valley Conservation Town of Ajax USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station University of Vermont Members of Collaborative 39

40 40