UTC Assessments. Technology + Planning + Community

Transcription

1 UTC Assessments = Technology + Planning + Community

2 Achieve a common understanding of their scope and effects Begin a dialogue with collaborators to maximize their potential

3 Identify driving initiatives Describe how they spur strategic investments Identify hurdles and solutions Create a network to advance UTC assessments

4 Ian Hanou: Overview of UTC Assessments Kimberly Miller: Using i-tree to Market the Value of Tree Canopy Patricia Farrell: Municipal Applications of UTC Assessment Danielle Fitzko: Lessons Learned and New Frontiers

5 Ian Hanou: An Overview of UTC Assessments Technologies, assessments types, and products/costs Examples of applications, scale, results Tree canopy goal setting An Ideal Study Where are we heading

6 Types of Canopy Assessments American Forests (30-meter resolution Urban Ecosystem Analysis) High-resolution land cover and CITYgreen study UTC Assessments (starting early 2000 s) i-tree Vue (30-m) and i-tree Canopy (statistical tool)

7 UTC s: How Many and Where? ~165 shown here likely many more Credits: American Forests, UC-Davis, Davey Resource Group, Plan-It Geo, Systems Ecology, University of Vermont

8 i-canopy UTC Level of Effort ~1-day 2-6 months $ - Cost Low or free $10K - 200K Method Statistical sampling, Google imagery Remote Sensing/GIS, comprehensive analysis GIS Products Produced No Yes Change Analysis? Yes (some limitations) Yes (cost/time intensive) Assessment Boundaries No or limited Yes, numerous Assess Ecosystem Services? Overall Summary Not directly Low $, easy, customizable but no visual products or spatial detail Yes: CITYgreen, i-tree Vue, i-tree Landscape in v.6 Higher cost but target strategic areas, partners, I.D. needs, goals, etc.

9 UTC Costs and Products Imagery & Land Cover Data tree canopy, grass, impervious, bare soil, water. Size of Project Area UTC Metrics maps, tables, charts by GIS assessment boundaries Small Medium Large Ecosystem Services i-tree, CITYgreen... Reporting methods, results, and recommendations Additional UTC Products: Prioritization data, maps, tools for environmental, social & other criteria % of UTC at risk from development Planting sites (GIS points) Map areas unsuitable for planting Scenarios, Plans, 3D Visualization Basic Intermediate Advanced Level of Analysis $10K $150K

10 Examples of applications scale and results

11 Choosing Assessment Boundaries Environmental: Riparian buffer, watersheds Political: Wards, voting districts Management: ROW, land use, Social: zoning, parcels Neighborhood, census blocks

12 Terminology Possible UTC = Possible Planting Area (PPA) Potential Tree Canopy Cover is more involved Plantable Space on-the-ground Potential Urban Tree Canopy

13 Picturing the Assessment Terminology Existing UTC Possible Planting Area (PPA) - Vegetation Possible Planting Area (PPA) - Impervious Property Boundary (1-acre) 100% 60% 35% Grass Planting Area 40% 30% Impervious Planting Area 35% 0% Urban Tree Canopy Land Cover Types UTC and PPA Percentage

14 Riparian Buffer Analysis (100-foot) Street Rights-of-Way (split by street blocks) 49 of 69 riparian corridors have greater than 50% UTC

15 Tree Planting Potential Meeting Multiple Goals: Low UTC, high area for planting large trees Shade impervious surfaces Community benefits (near recreation) Water quality benefits (near Anacostia River) Air Quality Benefits (near highways)

16 Canopy Goal Setting 75 th Percentile Rule Are we content where we are? Would we have a net positive gain from investing in greater canopy cover? What is our Potential Tree Canopy? Goals by land use or ownership Political/regulatory support, social capital Duration / planning horizon UTC Calculator

17 An Ideal UTC Study Share costs (a) city departments, (b) countywide, (c) regional Diverse, dedicated partners, targeted audience User-friendly and accessible products Technically: GIS capacity/resources (understand enough to explain/repeat it) Impervious data already mapped (reduces cost) LiDAR and 2-foot, 4-band imagery Accuracy assessment (95% overall) Training workshop Dissemination and outreach plan (e.g. PSA) Implementation plan

18 Where are we heading? Integrating of UTC Results with: Policies (UTC targets in ordinances) Ecosystem services (e.g. i-tree Landscape) Plans (management, green infrastructure, sustainability, climate action plans) UTC Change Analysis Decision Support Tools Low-tech interactive maps Web-based Desktop

19 UTC Change Analysis Higher cost, many technical challenges Technology Imagery quality and resolution LiDAR, NAIP, high-resolution satellite Quality Control and Accuracy Appropriate Comparison Methods Monitoring Frequency: 8 to 10 years? More research needed Another Option: i-tree Canopy with Google Earth historical imagery

20 Interactive PDF Maps Use in Adobe Reader (free) Turn GIS layers on/off in the PDF map Easily customizable No GIS software needed Removes technical barrier Interactive UTC Webmaps Add/track trees statewide Develop/save planting plans Query UTC results by parcel and land use types Estimate ecosystem services Print planting maps Report on usage Layers Legend

21 Desktop Planning & Design Tools Dynamic Analysis and Charts Land use planning framework Design tree planting projects Dynamic integration w/utc data New canopy created, # of trees, etc. See cost/benefits Create scenarios, design alternatives

22 Kimberly Miller: Using i-tree to Market the Value of Tree Canopy

23 Kimberly Miller Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

24 In 2011, WI DNR urban forestry staff embarked upon a pilot i-tree Analysis project to quantify the benefits of the urban forest in 19 communities in northeast Wisconsin. The purpose of the project is to demonstrate the importance of the urban forest and its management to our communities.

25 Specifically, the project would: provide urban forest managers with information to build support for their tree management programs with residents and elected officials, show how trees can help meet the goals of various public plans (e.g. Smart Growth Plans and Sustainability Plans), help non-profit and community organizations increase support for tree planting initiatives, provide baseline data for future comparison studies

26 We selected communities with known tree inventories. The communities provided the data and we conducted the i-tree Canopy and Streets analysis.

27 From the analysis we created and provided community and metro area fact sheets to each community.

28 Individual and metro analyses have been completed for the 7 communities in the Green Bay metro area. Each community was asked to complete a survey to determine successes, failures, and next steps. 6 out of the 7 completed the survey to date.

29 The project and the factsheets have been enthusiastically received by local communities. They have generated interest in i-tree Suite training opportunities among communities in and out of the project. Communities felt that the consistency of data across communities will help them to cooperate more fully as a metro area.

30 In addition, communities have been able to use the results of the project to: educate political leaders and residents about their urban forest and what could be lost without proper management, build program support, justify budgets and personnel, start the planning process for UTC goals.

31 Complete the analysis for the remaining communities. Analyze the survey results to determine how well our goals were met and identify any failures. Identify any barriers to communities. Determine how we can best help our communities use these tools to further their urban forest goals.

32 Patricia Farrell: Municipal Applications of UTC Assessment

33 Municipalities and UTC Assessments Why Funding & Partnerships Using the Information

34 Variety of Drivers: Opportunistic funding or project sponsor opportunity; Desire/Need to Establish UTC Baseline or Monitor Change; Desire/Need to Increase Environmental Benefits/Ecosystem Services of canopy; Permit National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)/MS4 permits or local code requirements.

35 Grants, In-Kind Services, and Partnerships through Federal agencies (USFS, EPA) State Forestry Departments Universities Foundations Non-profits OR Funded through municipal budget (e.g. stormwater utility) for private consultant

36 MAPPING Ownership ASSESSMENT REPORT & GOAL SETTING Zoning Neighborhoods Watersheds Land Cover

37 Targeted Plantings Environmental Justice Prioritization Stewardship Awareness Master Plans Long Term Monitoring Correlation Regulatory Goal Setting

38

39 Land Cover Mapping Green and Gray Infrastructure

40 Potential Tree Canopy Existing Canopy Cover Possible Planting Area

41 Costs to update and maintain data Long Term Staff Leadership In house GIS Capacity & Expertise Political Support HURDLES AND CONSTRAINTS Taking UTC down to on-the-ground implementation Budget Deficits and Making Trees a Priority Proving Costs/ Benefits Using the UTC Information for Planning

42 Danielle Fitzko: Lessons Learned and New Frontiers

43 Targeted Plantings Environmental Justice Prioritization Stewardship Awareness Master Plans Long Term Monitoring Correlation Regulatory Goal Setting

44 Assessment Goals Implementation Prioritization Leader Collaborators Buy In Skills Knowledge

45 Accuracy: LiDAR, Resolution I Change Detection I New Layers Larger Areas Assessment Goals Implementation Prioritization

46

47

48 Assessment Goals Implementation Prioritization

49 CT = CB + CN + CG CM CT = total canopy in 30 years CB = existing (base) canopy CN = new planting CG = growth of existing canopy CM = mortality and loss Not all about carpet bombing with trees! Nowak and Luley model (2002)

50 Voluntary and Regulatory Assessment Goal Implementation Prioritization

51 Big trees = greater gains over time Photo: Society of Municipal Arborists

52 Site Design Standards Regeneration

53 Possible Where is it biophysically feasible to plant? Preferable Where is it socially desirable to plant? Potential Where is it economically likely to plant? Assessment Goal Implementation Prioritization

54 Select and weight priorities Generate heat maps showing optimal planting locations View layers such as impervious surface, current UTC, location of community groups, and existing trees Funded by USDA Small Business Innovation Research grants ( and )

55 Spatial Map Changes Based on User Decisions Optimize Benefits

56 Water Climate Health Sustainability

57

58 Ian Hanou, Plan-It Geo LLC Danielle Fitzko, Urban Forestry Coordinator Arvada, CO planitgeo.com Waterbury, VT (802) Kimberly Miller, Wisconsin DNR Green Bay, WI Patricia Farrell, Natural Resources Specialist Salem, OR U.S. Department of Agriculture Pacific Southwest Research Station Science that makes a difference Moderator: Dr. Greg McPherson If Wanted, Add Secondary Office Information Here Urban Ecosystems & Social Dynamics, Davis, CA 2012 Partners in Community Forestry Conference, Sacramento, CA 66