State Urban Forest Assessments
David J. Nowak
USDA Forest Service
Syracuse, NY
Overview
•
•
•
•
Top-down vs. bottomTopbottom-up approaches
State Reports
U b Forest
Urban
F
t IInventory
t
Tools
Assessing Urban Forests
Top down approach
Top-down
– Aerial-based
B tt
Bottom-up
approach
h
– Ground-based
Data Collection
Aerial
– Spatial cover data; available space
– Limited information (cover types; heights)
Ground-based
– Limited geography of data (unless inventory)
– Statistical sample
– Same types of data from aerial, plus:
Species
p
Condition
Sizes
Number of trees
Local, specific benefits
Top--down Approach
Top
Cover Data
– NLCD ((30 m))
– Hi-resolution (~1 m)
– Photo-interpretation
p
Testing NLCD Tree and
I
Impervious
i
C
Cover M
Maps
100%
0%
T
Tree
Cover
C
Tree cover:
National underestimation = 9.7%
Maximum underestimation = 28.4%
Underestimation in 64 of 65 zones
Impervious cover:
National underestimation = 1.4%
1 4%
Maximum underestimation = 5.7%
Underestimation in 44 of 65 zones
NLCD
Adv: Free
– wall-to-wall
ll t
ll coverage off lower
l
48 states
t t
– maps of canopy cover distribution
– can integrate with GIS
Disadv: relatively course resolution
– tends to underestimate tree cover
– not designed for local scale (e.g., city)
analyses (better for regional analyses)
Tree Cover Mapping
High resolution (typically sub-meter)
cover data
High resolution data
Adv: high resolution cover map
– good estimates
est ates of
o cover
co e amount
a ou t / location
ocat o
– Integrates with GIS
– can locate potentially available spaces for
trees
Disadv: costly (time and $)
– cloud cover can be an issue, requiring multidate images
– significant effort and time
Photo Interpretation
PI Mapping
Photo Interpretation
Adv: low cost – free through Google Earth
– qu
quick
c and
a d easy
– accuracy increased with more points
– all cover types (e.g., available planting space,
tree, impervious
Disadv: does not produce detailed cover
map
– photo-interpreter potential error
State Urban Forest Reports
Free - www.mrlc.gov
30 meter resolution
l i
– Land cover
– Tree cover
– Impervious cover
State reports
– Data at community,
y, county
y
sub-division and county
level http://nrs.fs.fed.us/data/urban/
State Reports
All reports in publication group for layout and printing
State Reports
• New England - CT, MA, ME, NH, RI, VT
• Mid Atlantic - NJ, NY, PA
• South Atlantic - DE, MD, WV, VA, DC, NC, SC, GA, FL
• East North Central - IL,, IN,, MI,, OH,, WI
• West North Central - IA, KS, MN, MO, NE, ND, SD
• East South Central - AL, KY, MS, TN
• West South Central - AR, OK, LA, TX
• Mountain Region - AZ, CO, ID, MT, NV, NM, UT, WY
• Pacific Coast - CA, OR, WA
•
•
Uncorrected
U
t d cover d
data
t
Correction factors given
http://nrs.fs.fed.us/data/urban/
What is urban (2000)?
Combination of urbanized areas and
urban clusters
Areas with minimum population
density of 500 people per square mile
Old definition (1990):
– Pop dens >= 1,000
1 000 / mi2 or
– Pop total >= 2,500 people
Population
p
Urban and Community Land
Impervious Surface
Tree Canopy
% Canopy
C
%
Canopied
C
i d
green space
Classified Land Cover
Tree canopy % and available
growing space for the
following:
• Developed (NLCD
classes 21-24)
• Barren (NLCD class
31)
• Forested
F
t d (NLCD
classes 41- 43)
• Shrub/Scrub (NLCD
class 52)
• Grassland (NLCD
class 71)
• Agriculture (NLCD
classes 81 and 82)
• Wetland (NLCD
classes 90 and 95)
Assessment
Geographies are
standardized
and ranked
Ratings are
assigned
i
d based
b
d
on rank:
– Excellent:
Standardized score of
0.9 to 1.0
– Very Good: 0.7 to 0.89
– Good: 0.5 to 0.69
– Fair: 0.3 to 0.49
– Poor: 0.0 to 0.29
Top Ranked Cities
Relative comparison of all 273 cities with population > 100,000
City
Gainesville FL
Gainesville,
St. Paul, MN (7)
Columbus, GA
Norman, OK
Tallahassee FL
Tallahassee,
Mobile, AL
Jacksonville, FL
Pittsburgh, PA
C l bi SC
Columbia,
Rochester, NY (6)
Tempe, AZ
Durham, NC
Mi
Minneapolis,
li MN ((7))
Cary, NC
Provo, UT
Chesapeake, VA
Savannah, GA
Stamford, CT
Raleigh, NC
Winston-Salem, NC
Index Score
100.0
100 0
95.0
92.5
91.0
82 2
82.2
80.6
80.1
78.4
77 1
77.1
76.3
75.4
70.3
69
69.7
67.9
67.4
67.0
65.5
65.5
62.1
61.7
Pop Dens
1000-4999
1000
4999
>5000
750-999
500-749
1000 4999
1000-4999
1000-4999
750-999
>5000
750 999
750-999
>5000
1000-4999
1000-4999
>5000
000
1000-4999
1000-4999
500-749
1000-4999
1000-4999
1000-4999
1000-4999
PPI
Urban Tree Benefits
Maine
Statewide
Urban
Communities
Urban or Communities
Carbon
Carbon Stored (metric tons)
NA
2,800,000
13,400,000
14,300,000
Carbon Stored ($)
NA
$63,800,000
$
,
,
$305,500,000
$
,
,
$326,000,000
$
,
,
Carbon Sequestered (metric tons/year)
NA
93,000
441,000
471,000
Carbon Sequestered ($/year)
NA
$2,120,000
$10,055,000
$10,739,000
Pollution
CO Removed (metric tons/year)
NA
27
126
135
CO Removed ($/year)
NA
$37,400
$177,600
$189,900
NO2 Removed (metric tons/year)
NA
164
778
832
NO2 Removed ($/year)
NA
$1,624,500
$7,708,100
$8,242,900
O3 Removed (metric tons/year)
NA
993
4,713
5,040
O3 Removed ($/year)
NA
$9,839,000
$46,683,000
$49,922,000
SO2 Removed (metric tons/year)
NA
87
415
443
SO2 Removed ($/year)
NA
$211,800
$1,005,200
$1,074,900
PM10 Removed (metric tons/year)
NA
437
2,073
2,217
PM10 Removed ($/year)
NA
$2,889,500
$13,710,200
$14,661,400
Total Pollution Removal (metric
tons/year)
NA
1,710
8,100
8,670
Total Pollution Removal ($/year)
NA
$14,600,000
$69,300,000
$74,100,000
Urban
Urban Forest Health Monitoring :
Forest Health Monitoring :
Tennessee
Measurement is Critical
Structure
Function
Value
UFHM Team
Keith Cline
Dan Crane
Anne Cumming
Robert Hoehn
Rob Mangold
Phil Marshall
Dennis May
Manfred Mielke
Robin Morgan
Phillip Rodbell
Angie Rowe
Chip
p Scott
Bill Smith
Jack Stevens
Borys Tkacz
Dan Twardus
Jeff Walton
Others
Urban Forest Health Monitoring
Goals:
Fill-in
Fill
i “data
“d t gap”” within
ithi urban
b areas
Assess urban forest structure,
health, functions, and values
Provide long-term
g
monitoring
g data to
assess change and detect pest or
other tree health issues
Provide information to improve longterm planning and management of
urban forest ecosystems
Process
Census boundary determines area
FIA plot locations determined
State FIA crews collect data
FS processes and
d analyzes
l
data
d t
State urban forest reports
Data Collection and Analysis
Data collected on species, dbh, height, crown condition,
damage, distance from residential buildings
UFHM History
2001 – Indiana (32 plots – one panel)
2002 – Wisconsin (139 plots – 5 panels)
2003-2004 – New Jersey (180 plots – 5/1
panel)
2005-2008 – Tennessee (201 plots – 4
panels)
2006-2008 – Colorado (106 plots – 4
panels)
Indiana’s Urban Forest
92.7 million trees (77.6 trees/ac)
– 49.1 million trees in forested land ((246.5 trees/ac))
– 43.6 million trees in non-forest land (43.8 trees/ac)
– 20% tree cover
Sassafras
15.1%
Other 25 spp
22.9%
Sugar maple
3.4%
Silver maple
14.6%
Slippery elm
3.4%
Black cherry
4.3%
American
basswood
5.6%
Eastern
cottonwood
10.9%
Siberian elm
5.7%
White oak
5.8%
Northern red oak
8.4%
Wisconsin’s
Wisconsin s Urban Forest
130.6 million trees (145.0 trees/ac)
– 103.7 million trees in forested land (604.0 trees/ac)
– 26.9 million trees in non-forest land (36.9 trees/ac)
– 26.7%
26 7% tree cover
eastern
hophornbeam
7.3%
red maple
6.5%
green ash
6.0%
black cherry
6 0%
6.0%
other
46.2%
American elm
3.9%
eastern white
pine
5.6%
boxelder
5 1%
5.1%
quaking aspen
4.8%
white ash
4.0%
American
basswood
4.6%
Tennessee’s
Tennessee s Urban Forest
285.2 million trees (183.0 trees/ac)
– 147
147.2
2 million
illi ttrees iin fforested
t d lland
d (629.8
(629 8 trees/ac)
t
/ )
– 138.0 million trees in non-forest land (104.2 trees/ac)
– 37.7%
37 7% tree cover (SE = 0
0.8%)
8%)
Land Use Distribution
Comm&Ind
10.5%
Transportation
25.5%
Agriculture
12.0%
Other Urban
13.5%
Residential
23.5%
Forest
15.0%
1.5 million acres
Urban Tree Populations
Trees
State/City
(#)
Tennessee
285,200,000
Wisconsin
130 600 000
130,600,000
Indiana
92,700,000
Atlanta GA
Atlanta,
9 415 000
9,415,000
New York, NY
5,212,000
Chicago,
g IL
3,585,000
Baltimore, MD
2,627,000
Philadelphia, PA 2,113,000
O kl d CA
Oakland,
1 590 000
1,590,000
Boston, MA
1,183,000
Density
(#/ac)
183
145
77
112
26
24
51
25
49
34
Cover
(%)
37.7
26 7
26.7
20.0
36 7
36.7
20.9
17.2
18.9
21.6
21 0
21.0
21.2
Species Distribution
285.2 million trees (SE = 24.4 million)
Virginia pine
Chinese privet
Eastern red cedar
Hackberry
Flo ering dog
Flowering
dogwood
ood
Black tupelo
Amur honeysuckle
Sugar maple
Black locust
Winged elm
Eastern redbud
Tulip tree
Red maple
Sweetgum
American beech
Pignut hickory
Chestnut oak
Black cherry
Sourwood
American elm
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
Other 73 species = 29.5%
8%
Species
Distribution (>5”
DBH))
p
(
72.2 million trees (25.3% of population)
Eastern red cedar
Virginia pine
Hackberry
Tulip tree
Chestnut oak
Silver maple
White oak
Black cherry
Black locust
Sugar maple
Winged elm
Boxelder
Red maple
Sweetgum
A
American
i
elm
l
Green ash
Black oak
Pignut hickory
Southern red oak
White ash
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
Other 67 species = 32.9%
7%
Species Distribution (<5” DBH)
213.1 million trees (74.7% of population)
Chinese privet
Virginia pine
Eastern red cedar
Flowering dogwood
Hackberry
Amur honeysuckle
Black tupelo
Sugar maple
Black locust
Eastern redbud
Winged elm
American beech
Sweetgum
Red maple
Pignut hickory
Tulip tree
Sourwood
Slippery elm
Mockernut hickory
American elm
-1%
1%
3%
5%
7%
Other 36 species = 23.6%
9%
Diameter Distribution
56.8% less than 3-inches dbh
60
50
Percent
40
30
20
10
0
1-3
3-6
6-9
9-12 12-15 15-18 18-21 21-24 24-27 27-30 30+
d.b.h. class (in)
Tree Distribution and Density
160,000,000
700.0
Total Trees
per ac
140 000 000
140,000,000
100 000 000
100,000,000
400.0
80,000,000
300.0
60,000,000
,
,
200.0
40,000,000
100.0
20,000,000
O
id
en
tia
R
es
or
ta
tio
an
sp
Tr
l
th
er
U
rb
an
Ag
ric
ul
Co
tu
re
m
m
er
ci
al
&I
nd
0.0
n
0
Trees per accre
T
500.0
Fo
re
st
Nu
umber of Tre
ees
120,000,000
600 0
600.0
Percent of Land Use Population
30.0%
25 0%
25.0%
Forest
Residential
Agriculture
Comm/Ind
20.0%
Transportation
Other Urban
15.0%
10.0%
5 0%
5.0%
el
m
W
in
g
ed
t
lo
cu
s
k
Bl
ac
le
ap
m
ar
ne
ho
ur
Su
g
ys
uc
kl
e
pe
lo
tu
k
Am
g
Bl
ac
do
gw
oo
kb
e
Fl
ow
er
in
H
ac
ce
d
re
rn
Ea
st
e
d
rry
r
da
iv
e
pr
se
C
hi
ne
Vi
rg
in
ia
pi
ne
t
0.0%
Percent of Species
p
Population
p
90.0%
Forest
80.0%
Residential
Agriculture
70.0%
Comm/Ind
Transportation
Other Urban
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
el
m
W
in
g
ed
t
lo
cu
s
k
Bl
ac
le
ap
m
ar
ne
ho
ur
Su
g
ys
uc
kl
e
pe
lo
tu
k
Am
g
Bl
ac
do
gw
oo
kb
e
Fl
ow
er
in
H
ac
ce
d
re
rn
Ea
st
e
d
rry
r
da
iv
e
pr
se
C
hi
ne
Vi
rg
in
ia
pi
ne
t
0.0%
Species Distribution - Forest
147.2 million trees (SE = 18.0 million)
Flowering dogwood
Loblolly pine
Eastern redbud
Black cherry
Sweetgum
Virginia pine
Amur honeysuckle
Winged elm
Sourwood
Pignut hickory
Tulip tree
Red maple
Chestnut oak
Sugar maple
American beech
Hackberry
Chinese privet
Black tupelo
Eastern red cedar
Black locust
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
Other 49 species = 22.5%
7%
Species Distribution – Transportation
48.6 million trees (SE = 10.2 million)
Virginia pine
Flowering dogwood
Eastern red cedar
Black tupelo
Yellow buckeye
Sugar maple
Chinese privet
Eastern redbud
Mockernut hickory
Winged elm
Amur honeysuckle
Sugarberry
Sweetbay
Red maple
Sweetgum
Green ash
White oak
American elm
Pignut hickory
Boxelder
0%
5%
10%
15%
Other 36 species = 15.2%
20%
Species Distribution - Residential
44.3 million trees (SE = 8.9 million)
Virginia pine
Amur honeysuckle
Eastern redbud
Sugar maple
Hackberry
Chinese privet
Ligustro
Boxelder
American elm
Tulip tree
Common persimmon
Flowering dogwood
Common cherry laurel
Red maple
Black
ac ccherry
e y
White ash
Silver maple
Slippery elm
Sassafras
Eastern red cedar
0%
5%
10%
15%
Other 44 species = 16.5%
Species Distribution - Other
20.0 million trees (SE = 7.3 million)
Chinese privet
Flowering dogwood
Tree of heaven
Common persimmon
Silver maple
Sweetgum
Sycamore
American elm
Osage orange
Yellowwood
Hackberry
Winged elm
Water oak
Boxelder
Southern red oak
Eastern white pine
Eastern red cedar
Black cherry
Green ash
Butternut
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Other 14 species = 4.6%
Species Distribution - Agriculture
17.7 million trees (SE = 5.6 million)
Hackberry
Winged elm
Eastern red cedar
Chinese privet
Black cherry
Sweetgum
American elm
Flowering dogwood
Boxelder
Virginia pine
Sassafras
Black locust
Tulip tree
Green ash
Southern red oak
Silver maple
Cherrybark oak
Sugar maple
Common persimmon
Sugarberry
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Other 2 species = 0.5%
30%
Species Distribution – Comm/Indust.
7.4 million trees (SE = 2.3 million)
Hawthorn
Mimosa
Sweetgum
Eastern red cedar
Slippery elm
Sweet cherry
Hackberry
Siberian elm
Loblolly pine
Eastern redbud
Sugar maple
Black willow
Black walnut
Boxelder
Cherry
Virginia pine
Sourwood
Pecan
Silver maple
Red maple
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Other species (winged elm) = 0.6%
Ea
s
n
do
re
d
g
d
ar
be
rry
pi
ne
le
da
r
m
ap
ce
gw
oo
to
ak
in
ia
Su
g
Vi
rg
le
e
m
ap
le
m
ap
tn
u
Si
lv
er
te
r
er
in
he
s
ed
ar
7
Fl
ow
C
R
Su
g
rry
tre
ac
kb
e
Tu
lip
H
Percent
Leaf Area
8
% of total leaf area
% of all trees
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Native vs. Exotic
100
90
80
60
50
40
30
20
10
or
th
as
er
ic
Am
Am
er
ica
+*
*
+*
ow
n
nk
n
U
as
ia
Eu
r
ica
Am
er
As
ia
N
N
or
th
ne
ss
ee
0
Te
n
Percentt
70
* native to North America and one other continent, excluding South America
** native to North America and South America, and one other continent
Pest Risk Potential
70,000,000
25,000
26.4%
Population at risk
Compensatory Value
20,000
Numbe
er of trees
60,000,000
50,000,000
15,000
40,000,000
30,000,000
10,000
11.7%
20 000 000
20,000,000
5,000
10,000,000
6.4%
2 0%
2.0%
0
ALB
GM
EAB
0
DED
Compensatoryy value ($ millions)
80,000,000
Air Pollution Removal
24,000 tons/year ($180 million/year)
16,000
14,000
120,000,000
Pollution Removed
Value (U.S. Dollars)
12,000
10,000
80,000,000
8,000
60,000,000
6,000
40 000 000
40,000,000
4,000
20,000,000
2,000
0
0
CO
NO2
O3
PM10
SO2
Value (dolla
ars)
Pollution remove
ed (tons)
100,000,000
Energy Conservation
Heating
Savings ($/yr)
Carbon avoided (t/yr)
Cooling
Total
-$32,234,000 $101,523,000
$69,289,000
-960 900
-960,900
4 909 900
4,909,900
3 949 000
3,949,000
Carbon Storage
g and Sequestration
q
17.6 million tons of stored carbon ($363 million)
925 000 tons C removed annually ($19 million/yr)
925,000
70,000
60 000
60,000
1,600,000
Carbon Sequestration
U.S. Dollars
1,200,000
1,000,000
40,000
800,000
30,000
600,000
20,000
10,000
C
he
st
nu
to
ak
H
ac
Su kbe
rr
ga
rm y
ap
le
Tu
lip
t
W ree
hi
Si te o
lv
er ak
m
a
R
So
ed ple
ut
he ma
pl
rn
re e
d
Vi
oa
rg
k
in
ia
Bl
ac pine
k
ch
er
ry
0
400,000
200,000
0
Dolla
ars
Carbon ((tons)
50,000
1 400 000
1,400,000
Si
lv
er
rry
k
da
r
le
le
m
ap
m
ap
oa
k
ce
m
ap
le
re
d
ar
rn
re
d
ed
Su
g
th
e
n
R
oa
to
ak
hi
te
tn
u
e
pi
ne
tre
ac
kb
e
W
H
lip
in
ia
he
s
te
r
So
u
Ea
s
C
Vi
rg
Tu
Struc
ctural value ((millions of dollars)
Structural Value
$82 billion ($290 per tree)
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1 000
1,000
0
Urban FIA Estimated Costs
Approximately $2.5 million per year
– ~2,000 p
plots per
p year
y
Monitoring
6th panel will provide first estimates
g
of change
– Important information for management
and detection
What information is most useful to
you?
Easy Urban Forest Assessments
Urban Tree Cover Change
Paired image analysis
~ 20 cities (1
(1,000
000
points per year)
SE
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.1
0.3
2005
% cover
18.2
19.9
18.3
11.1
18.3
1.7
12.4
Toronto Cover
Co er Projections
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
Grass
Tree
Building
Road
Impervious - other
Water
Soil
00
0.0
2005
2007
2009
2011
2013
2015
2017
2019
2021
2023
2025
2027
2029
2031
2033
2035
Perc
cent of Citty
25.0
Grass
Tree
Imp bldg
Imp road
Imp other
Water
Soil
1999
% cover
17.9
20.6
17.7
10.8
17.7
1.7
13.5
Year
SE
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.1
0.3
2035
Est. % cover
19.4
16.5
21.8
12.4
21.4
2.0
6.5
Change Analysis
2007
2002
Change Analysis
2007
2002
Change Analysis
2007
2002
Conclusion
State urban forest reports are available
National urban forest inventories can be
conducted
State can use simple
p means to assess
tree cover and ecosystem services
Questions?
dnowak@fs.fed.us
nrs.fs.fed.us/units/urba