Greater Oxford Area Tree Canopy Analysis 2006 vs. 1976 Oxford Tree Board / Ole Miss Funded by an Urban & Community Forestry Grant from the MS Forestry.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
An Interdisciplinary Approach to Increase Interest in Information Technology Through an Environmental Project A Joint Partnership Grant between Claremont.
Advertisements

Brian Wolyniak Urban Forester Penn State Extension ORDINANCES TO PROTECT AND ENHANCE TREE POPULATIONS.
1 The Challenge Preserving forest cover, parkland and open space can help to meet needs for water quality, air quality, recreation and wildlife habitat.
Green Roofs By The Edgemont Environmental Club. What are green roofs? Roofs that are either partially or completely covered with plants are considered.
Water Too Much or Too Little? Or a Little of Both? URS Group Inc ASFPM National Conference May 2010.
NPDES Phase II Storm Water Regulations: WHAT MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENTS NEED TO KNOW.
1437 SOUTH BOULDER AVE., SUITE 1080  TULSA, OKLAHOMA  (P) (F)  CITY OF TULSA Fee-in-Lieu of Detention,
W AYS TO E FFECTIVELY R EDUCE U RBAN H EAT I SLAND E FFECTS Dallas Urban Heat Island Options.
Photo Courtesy of the Vermont Land Trust The Berlin Pond Watershed Conservation Project.
Regional Green Infrastructure Task Force Meeting April 24, 2012.
The coming storm: Managing Roanoke’s Stormwater Infrastructure Challenges Solutions for Roanoke’s future.
Wake County Stormwater Workshop Guidance on the New Stormwater Ordinance and Design Manual August 29, 2006.
Using Trees to Help Mitigate Tropospheric Ozone Levels and Stormwater Runoff in Desoto County Eric Kuehler Technology Transfer Specialist USDA Forest Service.
Watershed Forestry Initiative Ellen Kohler Attorney & Policy Specialist Funded in part by Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Urban.
THE COSTS OF SUBURBAN SPRAWL AND URBAN DECAY. What is Suburban Sprawl? Sprawl is unsustainable development that wastes tax dollars, destroys farmland.
Smarter Stormwater Management Kelly Schmitt Rose Stenglein An example of Low Impact Design.
Environmental Science Chapter 14 Test
Green Infrastructure Planning for working landscapes, natural resources and other open spaces.
Humans Impacts on Land Objective 2.07
Landscape Ecology, Urban Forestry & Wetlands.  Woody vegetation in populated places  25% of forest canopy in US.
Jefferson High School Compton Creek Research Project UCLA and Los Angeles Waterkeeper Funded by the Environmental Protection Agency.
NORTH CENTRAL FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ALACHUA WEST DRI.
Introduction to the Sustainable Sites Initiative Founded in 2005 as an interdisciplinary partnership between the American Society of Landscape Architects,
A Policy Evaluation of Planting Street Trees in Morgantown, West Virginia: A Spatial and Benefit-Cost Analysis GIS Conference and Workshop 2004 Vishakha.
Center for Watershed Protection USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area, State and Private Forestry How to estimate future forest cover in a watershed.
2014 Budget Department Presentations Infrastructure Funding Options.
Rogue Basin Water Quality Implementation Plans Greg Stabach, Natural Resources Project Manager Rogue Valley Council of Governments.
COMPREHENSIVE FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT : Promoting Wise Uses of Floodplains CA Department of Water Resources/ CIFMCG Workshop July 2006.
How do Wetlands Factor into New Infiltration Policies?
Section 2: Urban Land Use
Open Space Residential Development Bylaw Town of Rehoboth.
New York City Case Study: Methods of Analysis David J. Nowak USDA Forest Service Northeastern Research Station Syracuse, NY.
Water Management and Conservation in the Landscape (outline) The Water Cycle Stormwater: runoff, conveyance and treatment with urban infrastructure, discharge.
Center for Watershed Protection USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area, State and Private Forestry How to estimate future forest cover in a watershed.
Inventorying and Assessing the Values of Urban Trees in Kingston, PA using CITYgreen ® 5.0 Brian Keating, Elizabeth Roveda, Megan Smith, Kenneth Klemow,
Level IB: Advanced Fundamentals Seminar
1 Urban Heat Island Mitigation and Air Quality David Hitchcock, AICP Houston Advanced Research Center August 2004.
Oregon and Washington: A Comparison of State Mandated Land Use Planning Programs Presented by: Richard H. Carson, director Clark County Department of Community.
Defining Urban Forestry. Next Generation Science / Common Core Standards Addressed! WHST.9 ‐ 12.9 Draw evidence from informational texts to support analysis,
The Potential Benefits of Greenroofs in Waller Creek Watershed Katherine Jashinski GIS in Water Resources December 1, 2009.
Chapter 8: Land Section 8.1: The City Part 2. When suburban sprawl began to take over the countryside surrounding Washington D.C., in the 1960’s, a commission.
February 22, Tree Data Arbor Day 2011 Colonial Oaks Park Peach Tree Planting Red Bug Slough Live Oak planting w/ educational signage Slash pine.
Land Pollution.
Comparison of Water Budgets in Urban, Suburban, and Rural Schoolyards in order to Identify the Water Quality of Schoolyards By Team Water Zeny Paul Roger.
Greater Manchester a resilient city region U-Score Essential 5 In partnership with: European Commission Humanitarian Aid & Civil Protection Salford United.
Key Findings and Recommendations from an i-Tree Eco inventory in the City of Winooski: Phase 2 Prepared for the Winooski Natural Resources Conservation.
New Development and Significant Development 12/21/20151 New Development & Significant Redevelopment.
Doubling Baltimore’s tree canopy one tree at a time.
CONEWAGO CREEK GROUND WATER STUDY Base Flow and Impervious Cover November 7, 2007 Watershed Alliance of Adams County Joe McNally, P.G. GeoServices, Ltd.
JULIE MAWHORTER MID-ATLANTIC URBAN & COMMUNITY FORESTRY COORDINATOR CHESAPEAKE TREE CANOPY STRATEGY & WORKPLAN UPDATE CITIZEN’S ADVISORY.
County-Wide Act 167 Plan “County-wide Act 167 Stormwater Management Plan for Chester County, PA” was prepared by: Chester County Water Resources Authority.
What is Stormwater? Direct result of rainfall Recharges groundwater by infiltration Produces “runoff” (excess rainfall after infiltration) May be concentrated.
Green infrastructure includes intact forests, tree canopy, wetlands, dune systems, parks and rivers, or agricultural soils that provide clean water, air.
LAND LAND 14.1 How We Use Land 14.2 Urban Land Use 14.3 Land Management & Conservation.
It’s all about The LEAVES on the TREES in the Urban Forest LTAP Road School 2011 This presentation is made possible by the Indiana Department of Natural.
Module 5: Solutions – Sustainable Urban Communities MPP 655: Policy Making for Sustainable Urban Communities 1MPP Module 5.
EAB: The little-big disaster
Urban Heat Islands and Mitigation Strategies
Land Use Ch. 14. Land Use and Land Cover Urban land –Land covered mainly with buildings and roads Rural land –Land that contains relatively few people.
Stormwater and our Local Watersheds Green Night in Roselle May 7, 2009.
Enhancing the Urban Canopy Through Ordinance and Collaboration
GREEN STREETS | GREEN JOBS | GREEN TOWNS INITIATIVE
LOW-IMPACT DEVELOPMENT
Interception Interception is the amount of water retained in vegetation It never reaches soil and evaporates back to atmosphere In heavily forested regions.
A Science Sisters Presentation.
We often celebrate trees…
Do Now Please have out any information pertaining to heat islands as we will be discussing them today to prepare for your engineering design challenge.
Reducing Stormwater with Trees and Native Plants
Trees and Climate Action
ECONOMIC INCENTIVES FOR
Presentation transcript:

Greater Oxford Area Tree Canopy Analysis 2006 vs Oxford Tree Board / Ole Miss Funded by an Urban & Community Forestry Grant from the MS Forestry Commission & Ole Miss

Analysis Techniques 1976 and 2006 aerial photos were analyzed to determine the change in Tree Canopy –Canopy Cover, No Change –No Canopy, No Change –Tree Loss Area –Tree Gain Area Resolution: 5 ft. X 5 ft. (vs. 100 ft. x 100 ft.) Study Area: 10,500 acres (16.5 Sq. Miles) City Limits: 6,849 acres (10.7 Sq. Miles) [City Limits = 65% of total study area]

Looks Like Good News Oxford’s Canopy 2006 = 44.6% – A 17.1% Loss from Acres (1 Sq Mi.) County’s Canopy 2006 = 71.5% –A 3.7% Gain from Acres (¼ Sq Mi.) Total Canopy 2006 = 54.0% –A 8.6% Loss 530 Acres (¾ + Sq Mi. )

BUT …. This study was about the Past During the Study Period, Tree Gain off-set most of the Tree Loss; 2,103 acres lost vs. 1,567 gained. This will not hold true in the future ! Tree Gain Area: Only 1/4 of the historic Tree Gain area will be a factor in the future. (Small areas of trees in newer developments) 3/4’s was due to large areas of “converted” farms (These opportunities no longer exist.) Tree Loss Area: Most (90%) occurred during the last decade.

The Future of Oxford’s Canopy Over the last 10 years, the average actual canopy loss has been: 117 Acres per Year (1 Sq Mile every 5 years) But - historical averages aren’t appropriate given our unprecedented growth.

Future Rate of Change Building Permit Fees are a more reliable predictor for future canopy loss From 1997 to 2005, each $1,000 in fees equates to over ¾ of an acre lost acres / $1,000

Canopy Lost / Fee $ (1997 thru 2005 Trend: + 19 acres/yr) Acres Lost

Canopy Lost / Fee $ (1997 thru 2006 Trend: + 30 acres/yr) Acres Lost

Oxford’s Canopy Future If the current rate of loss is NOT reduced, in 2007 We fall below a 40% Canopy Cover (The Minimum “Healthy” Canopy) 2009 We fall below a 30% Canopy Cover (The “Crisis” Canopy Level) (For areas east of the MS River, American Forest)

The Impact of 2006 ! (Acres LOST since the study was done) S/E Corner of Veterans Dr Feb 2006

Windsor Falls – 105 Acres

Grove Hill; 40+ Acres

West Jackson; 12 Acres

The Future of Oxford’s Canopy These three 2006 developments account for 135% of the average annual canopy loss acres. All were in compliance with our codes. Total canopy loss for 2006 is projected to be more than twice the average loss over the last 9 years (234+ acres). This Trend is Disturbing and at worst Alarming. –Building Permit Fees (where are they going?) –Impact of known Future Development Plans

Proposed Site of Ole Miss’ Business Park (What will this look like in 2007/8 ?)

Canopy Value / Benefits Improve Air Quality, Reduce air pollution, Mitigate heat island effect, Shade buildings and reduce energy usage, Increase property values, Absorb Carbon Dioxide & store Carbon. Enhance streetscapes and “Sense of Place” Watershed Benefits

Watershed Benefits Provided by the Tree Canopy Leaves, branches and stems of trees intercept rainfall. This reduces the total volume of runoff and delays the onset of peak flows. Rainfall collected either evaporates or drips down to the ground and is absorbed (a mature tree can store 50 to 100 gallons of water). Trees also increase the capacity of the soil to absorb and store rainfall by transpiring water through their leaves, reducing soil moisture.

Watershed Issues As our Canopy declines, handling storm- water run-off is becoming a much more important concern of Oxford & its citizens. Without tougher canopy controls, this concern will only grow – especially in Hilly terrain. The cost of in-action is huge!

Canopy’s Watershed $ Value American Forests’ specific analysis of Oxford’s canopy showed: $108,500 is needed to provide an equal amount of storm-water handling infrastructure that each acre of canopy currently provides. The capital expense needed to replace Oxford’s canopy is $118.6 Million; with an annual value of $10.3 Million / year (20 year 6%). (Lower than a more detailed study would produce.) AF 01: 17.3% Canopy (54%) & 1,093 Acres (5,700) $ Indexed 5%/yr (USDA: NRCS TR-55 Model with 2 yr, 24 hr rainfall of 4.25 inches)

To Maintain a Healthy Canopy Level, we need to start thinking Differently: Our Canopy is made-up of ALL the trees in Oxford, not just those on City Property (10%) Each Tree should be considered important To paraphrase Senator Everett Dirksen: “A tree here and a few trees there, and pretty soon you’re talking about a real forest.” Understand our tree canopy is a valuable asset, similar to other community infrastructures (roads, sewer system, electric power grid and storm- water facilities).

Recommended Actions Increase community awareness of the importance of the area’s Tree Canopy Encourage All Developers to respect the existing terrain and tree cover Establish stronger protection for our declining Tree Canopy, including the modification of City Ordinances. Strongly enforce protection of trees ID to be retained (per approved site plan review) Promote more aggressive tree planting

Possible Ordinance Changes Make the Preservation of the Area’s canopy an explicit priority concern for development Only allow trees to be removed when in the foot- print of the development’s impervious surfaces Require a permit to remove any mature canopy tree (Hilly terrain more restrictive) Reduce the number of parking spaces required in large lots (e.g. Wal-Mart) Promote pervious surfaces in developments Research other communities efforts to improve their control over this valuable asset

Summary The last decade shows a dramatic decline in the area’s tree canopy The rate of loss is growing dramatically The economic value of this critical community asset is huge ($10.3 M / Yr) Per request of the Board of Aldermen, the Tree Board is working with the Planning Dept to develop recommended changes to the City’s Land Development Code to better manage and protect our Canopy.