1. i-Tree Eco Analyses in the GTA Evaluating the Ecosystem Services Provided by Our Urban Forests1

2. Outline Introduction to i-Tree Eco Collaboration on GTA studies
Toronto study results
GTA study results
Next steps

3. Rationale for i-Tree Eco Studies
USDA Forest Service i-Tree suite provides science-based analysis and benefits assessment tools
Eco uses field plots, air pollution and meteorological data to quantify urban forest structure, environmental effects and value
Generates baseline data that can inform management decisions, policy and strategic planning

4. GTA i-Tree Collaboration
2008 TRCA joint planning session
i-Tree experts, researchers, users from GTA and other Ontario municipalities
Harmonized study design & methodologies
Potential for consolidating data in future
Opportunity to raise profile of urban forests
Connected UF professionals across the GTA

5. Toronto Study Elements
In Toronto: i-Tree Eco “plus…”
1999
Field data collection (407 plots)
i-Tree Eco data analysis (USDA)
basics
plus
i-Tree Hydro, Grow Out modeling
Forest & land cover change analysis
Digital land cover map
Street tree data
extras
2005
Measuring
land cover change using orthophotos
Automated land cover
classification using 0.6m
Quickbird satellite imagery

6. Toronto’s tree cover is average compared to cities of similar size.
*Tree canopy is approximately 20%
Goal: Achieve & maintain between 30-40%
Toronto’s tree cover is average compared to cities of similar size.
Toronto’s urban forest is a vital city asset with a replacement value of $7 billion.

7. Distribution of Tree Cover Goal: More even/equitable distribution of tree cover
Average tree cover by ward
Average tree cover by neighbourhood
Distribution of tree cover is uneven
Data can be used to prioritize planting areas

8. Ownership
60% located on private property
34% located in City parks and natural areas
6% located in City road allowances
Private property owners control a majority of the City’s existing and possible tree canopy.

9. Land Use Affects Tree Canopy Goal: Improve distribution & quality of tree cover
Generalized Land Use
% Tree Cover
% of City’s land area
Parks
44%
11%
Open Space
27% 6%
Residential Single
24%
41%
Residential Multi
16%
Institutional
15% 7%
Other (vacant)
14%
Utility & Trans
12% 4%
Commercial 5%
Industrial
Land use affects
Distribution of forest cover
Species composition & diversity
Average tree size

10. Land/Forest Cover Change (*preliminary)
Biggest change in neighbourhoods
(-1.3%)
Tree Cover
-0.7%

11. Forest Composition & Condition Goal: High diversity, appropriate species, healthy trees
Good species diversity overall species & cultivars
Exception - maple & ash (41%)
Majority of trees are in good condition (exception: street trees)

12. Forest Size Class Structure Goal: Maintain regeneration, reduce mortality, increase % mid- to large-size trees
increase
Number of large trees relative to small is low
Have good regeneration, but
Large trees provide maximum benefits

13. Value of Ecological Services Provided by Toronto’s Urban Forest
Annual equivalent value = $60 million+
Carbon storage = 1.1 million tonnes
Carbon sequestration = 46,700 tonnes
Building energy reduction = 41,200 MWH
Avoided carbon emissions = 17,000 tonnes
Air pollution removed = 1,680 metric tonnes
Hydrology
i-Tree Hydro shows reduction in stream flow rates with increased forest cover
% impervious cover has more significant effects

14. Other values?

15. Benefits of i-Tree Eco Study for Toronto Urban Forestry
Provides baseline information and a monitoring framework to inform management of the urban forest.
Results support current program direction & priorities.
Confirms that 60% of the urban forest is on private property - supports rationale for new policy/programs.
Provides an important information platform to continue engaging other operating divisions, Council and the public.

16. Study Elements Peel and York Regions Ajax and Pickering i-Tree Eco
Digital Land Cover Map
Priority Planting Index
Grow-out Scenarios
i-Tree Hydro
Ajax and Pickering
Aerial photo interpretation

17. 85
215
214
200
224
217
199
207

18. Canopy Cover and Leaf Area
Table 1: Canopy cover and leaf area metrics for study areas
Study Area
Canopy Cover
Leaf Area (km2)
Leaf Area Density
Mississauga
15 %
223.8
0.78
Brampton
11 %
145.2
0.54
Caledon East
29 %
13.1
2.74
Bolton
17 %
13.5
0.80
Toronto
20 %
1015
1.60
Ajax
18 %
85.6
1.27
New York City
21 %
740.6
0.93

19. Urban Forest Distribution
Text
Etc
Figure 1: Existing and possible tree canopy in Peel study areas summarized by service delivery areas (SDA)

20. Priority Planting Index
Summarized by small geographic unit (SGU)
Prioritize areas of high population density and low canopy cover
Equitable distribution of ecosystem services
Figure 2: Priority planting index in Mississauga summarized by small geographic unit

21. Distribution by Land Use
Figure 3: Existing and possible tree canopy in Peel study areas summarized by land use

22. Species Composition - Mississauga
Figure 4: Dominant tree species in Mississauga by percent of total leaf area and total number of stems
10 most common species account for 57% percent of all trees
56 % of species are native to Ontario
58 % of all trees are planted

23. Species Composition - Brampton
Figure 5: Dominant tree species in Brampton by percent of total leaf area and total number of stems
10 most common species account for 72% percent of all trees
43 % of species are native to Ontario
20 % of all trees are planted

24. Tree Size
Figure 6: Diameter class distribution of trees in Peel study areas
In Brampton a tree that is 65 cm in diameter stores 10 times more carbon and 75 times more pollution than a tree that is 11 cm in diameter

25. Air Pollution Removal Annual Removal Value: Mississauga: $4.8 million
Brampton: $ 3.2 million
Bolton: $110,000
Annual sulfur dioxide removal in Mississauga = Annual sulfur dioxide emissions from 19,100 automobiles
Annual PM10 removal in Brampton = Annual PM10 emissions from 170,700 automobiles
Figure 7: Annual air pollution removal by trees in Peel study areas

26. Climate Change Mitigation
Carbon storage = 405,000 tonnes or $11.5 million
Annual carbon sequestration = 19,050 tonnes or $ 544,000
Annual residential energy savings = $2.4 million
Annual carbon emissions avoided = 4,300 tonnes or $128,000
Carbon stored in Mississauga = annual carbon emissions from 167,400 single family homes
Carbon stored in Brampton = annual carbon emissions from 116,000 automobiles

27. Next Steps Urban Forest Strategies and Management Plans
Educate and engage
Protect
Maintain
Plant
Monitoring and Research
Repeat at 10 year intervals
Evaluate trends
Anticipate future challenges
Pursue partnerships
Regional Study
Municipal comparisons
Encourage provincial support

28. Acknowledgments
Andy Kenney

29. Rike Burkhardt
City of Toronto
Urban Forestry
Meaghan Eastwood
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
Ecology Division