An Assessment of Tree Canopy and Canopy Change in the City of Charlottesville, VA

Transcription

1 An of Tree Canopy Canopy Change in the City of Charlottesville, VA A Presentation of, Findings Results February 24, 2016 Presented By: Chris Peiffer, Manager, info@planitgeo.com 1

2 TONIGHT S AGENDA Acknowledgements Results Comments Results Comments info@planitgeo.com 2

3 MEET THE STAFF Geo Results Comments About: est headquartered in Arvada, CO Ian Hanou Owner, Director of Business Development 15 years exp., managed 100+ urban forestry projects Chris Peiffer Business Developer Urban Forester 8 years exp., ISA Certified, project manager Andrea Santoro Senior GIS Analyst & Planner 15 years exp., production lead, technical report writing, visualization Michael Gentry Lead Software Application Developer Mobile apps, web-based software, front-end UI/UX Patrick Saal GIS Technician Watershed sustainability i-tree modeling TJ Wood Lscape Architect Tree Inventory Specialist ISA Certified Arborist, Graphics/Design, GIS technician Clayton Steneroden Senior Software Engineer 20+ years exp., programmer, server/database, IT info@planitgeo.com 3

4 OUR SERVICES AND MARKETS Geo Results Comments GIS Remote Sensing Software App Development Web, mobile, hybrid, desktop Subscription custom tools 30+ software clients Tree Inventory Risk Ecosystem Services Analysis Urban Canopy & Forest Analysis Resource Management Planning Training, Workshops, Spatial Surveys Natural Color Color-Infrared LiDAR-based Canopy Analysis 4

5 PLAN-IT GEO APPLICATIONS OVERVIEW Geo Browser-based for tablets or desktop No GIS or GPS software needed; complete hosted solution Real-time, multi-user data entry on-the-cloud Subscription custom apps Tree Plotter Work Order Management Park Plotter Results Canopy Planner Custom/Native Apps Tree Dashboard Comments 5

6 PROJECT BACKGROUND PROJECT BACKGROUND Results Comments 6

7 THE PRODUCTS of tree l cover or Urban Tree Canopy assessment Possible planting areas of canopy change Ecosystem services of the canopy Identifying new locations for planting Report Presentation Results Comments info@planitgeo.com 7

8 BENEFITS OF URBAN TREES Results Comments Acer japonicum f. aconitifolium 8

9 BENEFITS OF URBAN TREES REDUCE Stormwater Runoff Energy Consumption Air Pollutants Crime INCREASE / IMPROVE Property Values Retail Recreation Public Health/Well-being Habitat Results Comments info@planitgeo.com 9

10 BENEFITS OF URBAN TREES CANOPY Results Comments 10

11 WHAT IS AN URBAN TREE CANOPY ASSESSMENT? Urban Tree Canopy s A high resolution tree l cover assessment for community planners residents Results Comments info@planitgeo.com 11

12 WHAT IS AN URBAN TREE CANOPY ASSESSMENT? UTC s Answer These How much tree canopy do I have? Who owns the tree canopy? Results Comments How much room is there to plant trees? What is the distribution of canopy? info@planitgeo.com 12

13 WHAT IS AN URBAN TREE CANOPY ASSESSMENT? Bottom-up approach Results Comments Top-down approach UTC metrics: Existing UTC: Any piece of l covered by tree canopy Possible UTC: Where is it biophysically feasible to plant trees? Two types: 1. Vegetation grass shrubby areas 2. Impervious impervious areas that are not roads or buildings info@planitgeo.com Tree Canopy Open Space (grass) Impervious Surfaces 13

14 PROJECT FUNDAMENTALS AND METHODOLOGY Results Comments 14

15 PROJECT FUNDAMENTALS AND METHODOLOGY Results Mapping L Cover 2014 high-resolution (1-meter) aerial imagery Esri s Image Classification Toolset 5 initial l cover classes Additional layers to improve accuracy (e.g. building footprints) Manual review/edit of automated classification Focus on UTC, plantable space, impervious area = UTC Metrics Urban Tree Canopy Tree cover when viewed mapped from above Other Vegetation Grass open space vegetation Impervious Surfaces Hard surfaces where rainfall cannot permeate Bare Soil Not included in possible planting areas Water Bodies Bodies of water removed from UTC results Comments info@planitgeo.com 15

16 PROJECT FUNDAMENTALS AND METHODOLOGY Results Comments Identifying Possible Planting Areas (PPA) Derived from the Other Vegetation Impervious classes Not Suitable Vegetated PPA (PPA-Veg) Sports fields Golf course fairways Not Suitable Impervious PPA (PPA-Imp) Buildings Roads Driveways Remaining vegetation impervious areas become Vegetated PPA or Impervious PPA or collectively known as Total PPA Not every area that is possible is preferable (e.g. open space for recreation) 16

17 PROJECT FUNDAMENTALS AND METHODOLOGY Levels Citywide Planning Neighborhoods Parcels Property Ownership Type Right-of-Way Right-of-Way by Planning Neighborhood Results Comments 17

18 ASSESSMENT RESULTS AND KEY FINDINGS Results Comments 18

19 CITYWIDE TREE AND LAND COVER RESULTS Study Area = 7,006 acres Canopy = 3,152 acres Grass/Open Space = 1,361 acres Impervious = 2,429 acres (this includes buildings, roads, driveways, parking lots, other paved surfaces) Results Comments info@planitgeo.com 19

20 PLANNING NEIGHBORHOODS 21 Planning Neighborhoods (2 of which are in UVA to be consistent with the 2009 study) Highest Canopy% = Barracks/Rugby (65% or 324 ac) Lowest Canopy% = Star Hill (14% or 9 ac) Highest PPA-Veg% = Woolen Mills (27% or 74 ac) Highest PPA-Veg area = Locust Grove (160 acres) Results Comments info@planitgeo.com 20

21 PLANNING NEIGHBORHOODS Results Comments 21

22 RIGHT-OF-WAY ROW: Defined as any area not covered by parcels (inverse of the parcel area) 1,097 acres of total ROW 247 acres of UTC (25%) 95 acres of PPA-Veg (10%) PPA may contain overhead wires, underground utilities, etc. Further inspection is required Results Comments *NOTE: ROW l area excludes alleys railroad ROW info@planitgeo.com 22

23 RIGHT-OF-WAY BY PLANNING NEIGHBORHOOD Highest UTC% acres = Barracks/Rugby (43% or 34 ac) Lowest UTC% = 10 th & Page Highest PPA-Veg% = Belmont, Greenbrier, The Meadows Results These ROW areas may still contain various utilities that may limit planting, additional information is still needed to determine ROW canopy potential Comments *NOTE: ROW l area excludes alleys railroad ROW info@planitgeo.com 23

24 CANOPY CHANGE OVER TIME Results Methods for comparing canopy over two different time periods 1) simulated using point-based sampling technique 1,000 romly distributed points ID presence or absence of canopy for both years 2014 used imagery from the assessment 2005 sample points in Google Earth Canopy points vs. non canopy points = canopy % Canopy change = difference in canopy % s Yielded a 1.6% stard error 2) accuracy assessment run for each remotely sensed result (Description of accuracy assessment results in full report) 2009 accuracy assessment yielded 77.7% accuracy 2014 accuracy assessment yielded 94.3% accuracy Comments With the low accuracy from 2009, it should be noted that comparing the 2009 data against the present data may not effectively represent change over time info@planitgeo.com 24

25 CANOPY CHANGE OVER TIME Results of Canopy Change loss of 6.2% canopy loss of 1.4% canopy Rate of tree loss is declining over time Many follow-up replanting efforts Development sites required to plant trees Meadow Creek Restoration Invasives removed replaced with natives These new trees aren t large enough for remote sensing at this time Will have a big impact on canopy in future assessments Urban Tree Canopy Results ( ) Using the Point Sampling Technique Results Urban Tree Canopy Results ( ) Using L Cover Maps Derived Using Remote Sensing Technology Comments With the low accuracy from 2009, it should be noted that comparing the 2009 data against the present data may not effectively represent change over time info@planitgeo.com 25

26 COMPARING EXISTING CANOPY Results Comments 26

27 ECOSYSTEM SERVICES Results Comments USDA Forest Service s i-tree software suite ( i-tree Canopy Rom sampling process Classify ground cover types Estimates carbon storage, annual carbon sequestration, annual air pollution removal i-tree Hydro Estimates stormwater mitigation Localized weather data used Elevation models L cover data from the UTC assessment Qualitative estimates, not exact calculations Full description in Appendix of the report info@planitgeo.com 27

28 ECOSYSTEM SERVICES $990,000 in savings annually from CO 2 sequestration air pollution removal* 30 million pounds of carbon being stored annually 765 million gallons of runoff annually (equivalent of 1,159 Olympicsized swimming pools per year) For more information on how these values were derived visit Citywide Annual Urban Forest Ecosystem Services Results Comments *A savings at the overall society level, not necessarily dollar savings to the locality info@planitgeo.com 28

29 IDENTIFYING NEW LOCATIONS FOR PLANTINGS Priority Planting Parcels Purpose: target areas for planting Criteria for parcels UTC < 45% (city average) PPA-Veg > 18% (city average) Parcel is at least 10,000 ft 2 These parcels include public private property would need further assessment to determine if they are preferred desired Results Comments info@planitgeo.com 29

30 COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS Results Comments 30

31 THANK YOU! Chris Peiffer, Urban Forester Business Developer Penn-Del ISA Certified Arborist PD-20709A (717) A geospatial technology, software, consulting, planning firm specializing in urban natural resource management