handout formatted rc final

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


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)


3/15


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


4/15


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


5/15


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%


6/15


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


7/15


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


8/15


INDICATOR 2: SIZE / AGE D ISTRIBUTION


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.


9/15


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%


10/15


INDICATOR 5: PLACEMENT

No significant amount of quantitative reliable data available.

INDICATOR 6: D ISTRIBUTION


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


11/15


Health Data Source: Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) & Prevention Research Center

for Healthy Neighborhoods, Case Western Reserve University, 2005-2009


12/15



13/15



14/15



15/15


handout formatted rc final

Documents