View
230
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
8/9/2019 Handout Formatted RC Final
1/15
CLE Tree Plan Stakeholder Meeting 1 of 3
“OUR TREES” TODAY’S AGENDA:
1. Welcome & Introductions (10 mins)
2. Presentation (15 mins)
Overall Project Summary
Today’s To pic
3. Facilitated Discussion (90 mins)
4. Next Steps
Next Two Meetings:
Meeting 2 “The Players”
Tuesday, March 3, 8:00 – 10:00 a.m.
Meeting 3 “Management Approach”
Thursday, April 9, 8:00 – 10:00 a.m.
Please RSVP for both at www.ClevelandTreePlan.EventBrite.com
Handout Contents
Process 1
Timeline 1
Data Sources 2
Indicator 1: Canopy 4
Indicator 2: Size/Age 7
Indicator 3: Condition 8
Indicator 4: SpeciesDiversity 8
Indicator 5: Placement 9
Indicator 6: Distribution 9
8/9/2019 Handout Formatted RC Final
2/15
Davey Resource Group 1 February 2015
PROCESS
Miller, R. W. 1988. Urban Forestry: Planning and Managing Urban Greenspaces. New Jersey: Prentice Ha ll.
Kenney, W. A., et al. 2011. “Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Urban Forest Planning and Management.” Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 37(3): 108 – 117.Clark, J. R., et al. 1997. “A Model of Urban Forest Sustainability.” Journal of Arboriculture 23(1): 17 – 30.
TIMELINE
Data Collection/Analysis (Jan-Apr)
o Data Analysis / Research
o Stakeholder Meetings
#1: Our Trees: Thursday, February 5, 2015, 8:00 – 10:00 a.m. #2: The Players Tuesday, March 3, 2015, 8:00 – 10:00 a.m.
#3: Tree Management Thursday, April 9, 2015, 8:00 – 10:00 a.m.
o Interviews: ongoing
Plan Development (Feb-May)
o Outline Development and Writing (Feb – May)
Comment Period (May)
Final Plan (June)
8/9/2019 Handout Formatted RC Final
3/15
Davey Resource Group 2 February 2015
DATA SOURCES
Tree Inventory
Inventory is inaccurate and unreliable.
Approximately 120,000 trees, data is 10-15 years old.
Figure 1 Spatial View of Existing Tree Inventory
in Cleveland
8/9/2019 Handout Formatted RC Final
4/15
Davey Resource Group 3 February 2015
2013 Urban Tree Canopy (UTC) Assessment
This county-wide UTC project took place in 2013, using 2011 aerial imagery. It was made
possible by funding from a US Forest Service grant administered by the Ohio Department of
Natural Resources, Division of Forestry, with support from the Cuyahoga River Community
Planning Organization. Funding was matched by equal in-kind contributions from theCuyahoga County Planning Commission and Cleveland Metroparks, as well as a number of
individual communities. Land cover analysis was conducted by the Spatial Analysis
Laboratory (SAL) at the University of Vermont’s Rubenstein School of the Environment
and Natural Resources, in collaboration with SavATree, Inc. Tree canopy metrics were
developed by the Cuyahoga County Planning Commission and Cleveland Metroparks.
Figure 2 Close-Up of UTC Land Cov er
Results
Figure 3 Canopy Cover Map for Cuyahoga County
8/9/2019 Handout Formatted RC Final
5/15
Davey Resource Group 4 February 2015
INDICATOR 1: CANOPY
Indicator Information Local Data Performance Levels (CLE is Green)
Indicators of a Sustainable Urban Forest Description Overall Objective
Industry
Standard/Optimal
Levels
Public or Private Cleveland Today Low Moderate Good
Urban Tree Canopy (UTC)
Percentage of allland covered by
tree canopy
(as seen fromabove).
Achieve region-appropriate degree of
tree cover, both city-
wide and within eachneighborhood.
American Forestsrecommendations:
40% overall, 15% in
CBDs, 25% in urbanresidential areas and
50% in suburbanresidential. Difficult
to set goals.
Combined 19% Below 20% 20-40% 40%+
Relative Urban Tree Canopy (RUTC)
Percentage ofmaximum possible
canopy reached.= Existing Canopy
/ Maximum
Canopy Possible
Achieve region-appropriate degree of
tree cover, both city-wide and within each
neighborhood.
The existing canopy
cover equals75% – 100% of the
total canopy possible.
Combined 27% Below 25% 25-50% Above 50%
8/9/2019 Handout Formatted RC Final
6/15
Davey Resource Group 5 February 2015
Cleveland 2013 UTC Data by Neighborhoods.
LAND COVER % POSSIBLE CANOPY HEAT ISLAND
Neighborhood Total Acres Grass/LowVeg
Bare Soil Water Impervious Canopy Max TreeCanopy Possible
Relative TreeCanopy
Ratio of Canopy toImpervious
Bellaire-Puritas 2,191 33% 2% 0.3% 52% 15% 73% 21% 0.29
Broadway-Slavic Village 2,901 28% 5% 0.2% 54% 18% 73% 25% 0.34
Brooklyn Centre 938 28% 4% 0.5% 47% 24% 75% 32% 0.51
Buckeye-Shaker Square 742 26% 0% 0.0% 49% 25% 72% 35% 0.52
Buckeye-Woodhill 790 31% 3% 0.0% 45% 24% 73% 33% 0.54
Central 1,501 27% 2% 0.0% 60% 13% 70% 18% 0.21
Clark-Fulton 611 24% 0% 0.0% 56% 20% 68% 29% 0.35
Collinwood-Nottingham 2,110 26% 4% 0.2% 61% 14% 71% 19% 0.22
Cudell 698 24% 3% 0.0% 60% 16% 68% 24% 0.27
Cuyahoga Valley 2,573 14% 19% 9.2% 72% 5% 73% 7% 0.07
Detroit Shoreway 974 27% 2% 0.1% 55% 19% 68% 27% 0.34Downtown 1,779 24% 2% 3.0% 69% 4% 54% 8% 0.06
Edgewater 533 27% 1% 0.2% 43% 30% 75% 39% 0.69
Euclid-Green 733 24% 0% 0.0% 37% 39% 79% 50% 1.05
Fairfax 1,031 26% 3% 0.0% 56% 18% 71% 25% 0.31
Glenville 2,454 29% 1% 0.1% 45% 26% 73% 35% 0.57
Goodrich-Kirtland Pk 1,071 17% 1% 0.3% 75% 8% 57% 15% 0.11
Hopkins 2,642 41% 5% 0.6% 50% 9% 51% 17% 0.17
Hough 1,089 32% 1% 0.0% 44% 24% 74% 33% 0.55
Jefferson 1,655 28% 0% 0.0% 54% 17% 71% 24% 0.32
Kamm's 3,199 30% 0% 1.2% 35% 34% 78% 43% 0.95
Kinsman 1,071 33% 3% 0.0% 45% 22% 77% 28% 0.49
Lee-Harvard 1,059 39% 1% 0.0% 42% 20% 77% 26% 0.48
Lee-Seville 914 35% 1% 0.0% 44% 21% 79% 26% 0.47
Mount Pleasant 1,402 33% 0% 0.0% 45% 22% 73% 31% 0.50
North Shore Collinwood 1,451 30% 1% 0.6% 47% 22% 73% 31% 0.48
Ohio City 709 23% 0% 0.0% 54% 22% 67% 34% 0.41
Old Brooklyn 3,794 33% 1% 0.7% 44% 22% 77% 29% 0.50
Tremont 1,068 26% 4% 0.1% 57% 17% 70% 24% 0.29
Union-Miles 2,045 31% 3% 0.0% 47% 22% 75% 29% 0.46
University 971 21% 0% 0.8% 52% 26% 70% 37% 0.50
West Boulevard 1,219 29% 0% 0.0% 51% 20% 71% 29% 0.40
St.Clair-Superior 1,037 27% 2% 0.6% 54% 19% 71% 27% 0.36
Stockyards 1,065 31% 0% 0.1% 52% 16% 74% 22% 0.31
50,019 29% 3% 1% 51% 19% 71% 27% 0.37
8/9/2019 Handout Formatted RC Final
7/15
Davey Resource Group 6 February 2015
American Forests UTC standards
American
Forest Rec.*
Cleveland
2011
Average of All Zones 40% 19%
Central Bus. Districts 15% 4%
Urban Residential 25% -
Suburban Residential 50% -*American Forests recommendations for metropolitan areas east of the
Mississippi.
Scenarios to Reach 25%, 30%, 40% UTC
TODAY SCENARIOS
Total Acres In CLE 50,019
UTC % 19% 25% 30% 40%
Canopy Acres Required for UTC% 9,530 12,505 15,006 20,008
Additional Acres of Canopy Needed 0 2,975 5,475 10,477
Total Trees Needed* 0 184,420 339,478 649,595
* Based on average 29' crown diameter tree
= 62 trees possible per acre
City Canopy Comparisons
City
EXISTING GOAL SIZE
UTC
Cover
Year
Assessed
UTC
GoalTarget Date Sq Mi
Charlotte, NC 49% 2012 298
Atlanta, GA 48% 2008 Increase Ongoing
Nashville, TN 47% 2010
Annapolis, MD 42% 2006 50% 30-year plan (2036)Pittsburgh, PA 42% 2011 60% 20-year plan (2031) 58
Knoxville, TN 40% 2014 103
Cincinnati, OH 38% 2011 78
New Haven, CT 38% 2009Add 10K
trees5-year plan (2014)
Louisville, KY 37% 2012 TBD TBD 398
Washington, DC 35% 2009 40% 20-year plan (2029)
Austin, TX 32% 2006 40% Ongoing
Portland, OR 30% 2014 33% Ongoing
Boston, MA 29% 2006 49% 10-year plan (2016)
Port Angels, WA 27% 2011 40% Ongoing
Cambridge,Ontario
27% 2013 N/A 2050
Leesburg, VA 27% 2006 40% 25-year plan (2031)
Evansville, IN 26% 2011 44
St. Louis, MO 26% 2010 96
Lexington, KY 25% 2014 25
New York, NY 24% 2006 30% 2036
New Orleans, LA 23% 2009 Increase Ongoing
Providence, RI 23% 2007 30% 10-year plan (2020)
Seattle, WA 23% 2007 30% 30-year plan (2037)
Detroit, MI 23% 2008 40% Ongoing
Milwaukee,WI 22% 2008 40% Ongoing
Los Angeles, CA 21% 2006 28% 2040
Baltimore, MD 20% 2007 40% 2036
Philadelphia, PA 20% 2011 30% 15-year plan (2025)Cleveland, OH 19% 2013 78
Tacoma, WA 19% 2010 30% 20-year plan (2030)
Vancouver, BC 19% 2010 28% 20-year plan (2030)
Chicago, IL 17% 2007 25% Ongoing
Denver, CO 16% 2010 31% 20-year plan (2025)
Sacramento, CA 15% 1998 35% Ongoing
Indianapolis, IN 14% 2008 19% 10-year plan (2018)
San Francisco, CA 14% 2012 20% 20-year plan (2034)
Phoenix, AZ 10% 2007 25% 2030
Las Vegas, NV 9% 2012 20% 2035
8/9/2019 Handout Formatted RC Final
8/15
Davey Resource Group 7 February 2015
INDICATOR 2: SIZE / AGE D ISTRIBUTION
Indicator Information Local Data Performance Levels (CLE is Green)
Indicators of a
Sustainable
Urban Forest
DescriptionOverall
Objective
Industry
Standard /
Optimal Levels
Public or
PrivateCleveland Today Low Moderate Good
Size/Age
Distribution
Size is used as ageneral
indicator/guestimate
of age. To maintainthe flow of urban
forest benefitsovertime, the
number of newly
planted trees mustexceed losses fromdeath and removal.
Provide for
uneven agedistribution
citywide aswell as at theneighborhood
level.
No exact numberindustry standards
in place. In
general, the
number ofnew/young trees
should be
significantlyhigher than the
older age groups.
Public
0-8" DBH: 59%9-17" DBH: 21%
18-24" DBH: 11%Over 24" DBH:
9% ** even distribution
ormajority of trees inlarger size classes
uneven age distribution with
majority of trees in smallersize classes
aligned with ideal standard
Private no data avail
DBH
Cleveland
Inventory Data
(inaccurate)
Recommended
0-8" 59% 40%
9-17" 21% 30%
18-24" 11% 20%
Over 24" 9% 10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
0-8" 9-17" 18-24" Over 24"
% o
f A
l l P u b l i c T r e e s
Size of Tree
(shown as DBH, or diameter at breast height)
CLEVELAND TREE SIZE DISTRIBUTIONData Source: Outdated Inventory
CLE Rec.
8/9/2019 Handout Formatted RC Final
9/15
Davey Resource Group 8 February 2015
INDICATOR 3: CONDITION OF TREES
No quantitative reliable data available.
INDICATOR 4: SPECIES DIVERSITY
10/20/30 Rule: Plant no more than 10% of any species, 20 % of any genus, and 30% of anyfamily.
Species (10% target) Acer platanoides 15% (Norway maple), all other under species are under 10%
Genus (20% target) 31% Acer (maple), all other under 10%
Family (30% target) Aceraceae at 31%, all other families under 20%
8/9/2019 Handout Formatted RC Final
10/15
Davey Resource Group 9 February 2015
INDICATOR 5: PLACEMENT
No significant amount of quantitative reliable data available.
INDICATOR 6: D ISTRIBUTION
Indicator Information Local Data Performance Levels (CLE is Green)
Indicators of
a Sustainable
Urban Forest
Description Overall ObjectiveIndustry Standard /
Optimal Levels
Public or
Private
Cleveland
TodayLow Moderate Good
Distribution:
Equity
The distribution of trees
across the city equitably,meaning all residents benefit
from services provided by
trees (air quality, propertyvalues, etc.)
Ensure that the
benefits of treecoverage are
available to all,
especially to those inmost need of them.
Low variation between tree benefits
and equity factors
(determined locally) by neighborhood.
Combined
Equity is not a
significantfactor in planting
locationdeterminations.
planting & outreachis not determined by
canopy cover or
benefits
planting &outreach is
focused in low
canopyneighborhoods
planting &
outreach isfocused in
neighborhoods
with low canopyand a high need
for tree benefits
8/9/2019 Handout Formatted RC Final
11/15
Davey Resource Group 10 February 2015
Health Data Source: Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) & Prevention Research Center
for Healthy Neighborhoods, Case Western Reserve University, 2005-2009
8/9/2019 Handout Formatted RC Final
12/15
Davey Resource Group 11 February 2015
8/9/2019 Handout Formatted RC Final
13/15
Davey Resource Group 12 February 2015
8/9/2019 Handout Formatted RC Final
14/15
Davey Resource Group 13 February 2015
8/9/2019 Handout Formatted RC Final
15/15
Davey Resource Group 14 February 2015
Recommended