cuyahoga county urban tree canopy...

Cuyahoga County Urban Tree Canopy Assessment, 2013.

Cuyahoga County Planning Commission 1

Cuyahoga County Urban

Tree Canopy Assessment,

2013

Prepared by

The Cuyahoga County Planning Commission

and

Cleveland Metroparks

December 20, 2013



Tree canopy (TC) is the layer of leaves, branches, and stems of trees that cover the ground when viewed from above. Tree canopy provides many benefits to communities, improving water quality, reducing ero-sion, reducing stormwater runoff, saving energy, lowering city temperatures, reducing air pollution, en-hancing property values, providing wildlife habitat, facilitating social and educational opportunities, and providing aesthetic benefits. Establishing a tree canopy goal is crucial for communities seeking to improve their green infrastructure. A tree canopy assessment is the first step in this goal-setting process, providing estimates for the amount of tree canopy currently present in a city as well as the amount of tree canopy that could theoretically be established.

Why is Tree Canopy Important?

Project Background

The goal of the project was to apply the USDA Forest Service’s Tree Canopy (TC) Assessment Protocols to Cuyahoga County. The analysis was conducted based primarily on 2011 infrared imagery from the National Agricultural Inventory Program (NAIP), together with a number of local data sources. This project 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 the Cuyahoga 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.



How Much Tree Canopy Does Cuyahoga County Have?

An analysis of Cuyahoga County’s tree canopy (TC) based on land cover data derived from high-resolution aerial imagery, LiDAR, and other sources (Figure 1) found that nearly 110,000 acres of the county were covered by tree canopy (termed Existing TC), representing 37.6% of all land in the county. An additional 44.8% (371,000 acres) of the county could theoretically be modified (termed Possible TC) to accommodate tree canopy (Figure 2). In the Possible TC category, 15.3% (44,500 acres) of the county was classified as Impervious Possible TC and another 29.5% was Vegetated Possible TC (86,000 acres). Vegetated Possible TC, or grass and shrubs, is more conducive to establishing new tree canopy, but establishing tree canopy on areas classified as Impervious Possible TC will have a greater impact on water quality and summer temperatures.

Figure 1: Land cover derived from high-resolution aeri-al imagery for Cuyahoga County.

Figure 2: TC metrics for Cuyahoga County based on % of land area covered by each TC type.

Key Terms

Tree Canopy (TC) is the layer of leaves, branches, and stems of trees that cover the ground when viewed from above. Land Cover: Physical features on the earth mapped from aerial or satellite imagery, such as trees, grass, water, and impervious surfaces. Existing TC: The amount of urban tree canopy present when viewed from above using aerial or satel-lite imagery. Possible Tree Canopy: Total area theoretically available for establishment of additional tree canopy Impervious Possible TC: Asphalt or concrete surfaces, excluding roads and buildings, that are theo-retically available for the establishment of tree canopy. Vegetated Possible TC: Grass or shrub area that is theoretically available for the establishment of tree canopy. Non-Plantable Areas: Vegetated areas that have been eliminated from consideration for tree planting, such as athletic fields, agricultural areas, and non-wooded natural areas.



Mapping Cuyahoga County’s Trees

Prior to this study, the only comprehensive remotely-sensed estimates of tree canopy for Cuyahoga County were from the 2006 National Land Cover Database (NLCD 2006). While NLCD 2006 is valuable for analyzing land cover at the regional level, it is derived from relatively coarse, 30-meter resolution satellite imagery (Figure 3a). The NLCD substantially under estimated Cuyahoga County’s tree canopy, at 17.6%, largely because it failed to capture smaller patches. Instead, using advanced automated processing techniques to combine high resolution aerial imagery (Figure 3b), with a variety of locally developed sources to develop land cover mapping for the entire county in much greater detail (Figure 3c). Data sources include: Leaf-on 4-band aerial imagery, 1 meter resolution (USDA National Agricultural Imagery Program, 2011) Leaf-off 3-band color infrared aerial imagery, 1 foot resolution (Cuyahoga County, 2011) LiDAR point cloud (Cuyahoga County, 2006) Building polygons (Cuyahoga County, 2006 and City of Cleveland, 2008) Road polygons (Cuyahoga County, 2006) Property parcel polygons (Cuyahoga County, 2013) Hydrography polygons (Cuyahoga County, 2006) Impervious surface polygons (NEORSD, 2012)

b. Color-infrared Aerial Imagery (1 meter)

a. NLCD P Tree Canopy (30 meter)

Figure 3a, 3b, 3c: Comparison of NLCD to high-resolution land cover.

c. Land Cover Derived from 2011 Aerial Imagery

Tree CanopyGrass/ShrubBare SoilWaterBuildingsRoads/RailroadsOther Paved



4a. Parcels

Geographic Area Metrics

After land cover was mapped county-wide, Tree Canopy (TC) metrics were summarized for a number of geographic scales. Existing TC and Possible TC metrics were calculated for Communities, Watersheds, Riparian Zones, Census Tracts and Blocks, and individual parcels. Metrics were calculated both in terms of total acres and as a percentage of the land area within each parcel (TC area ÷ land area of the parcel). See Figures 4a—4d for a graphic view of parcel level summarization. In addition to those calculated metrics, any characteristics of those areas can be applied to the analysis. Population demographics, for example, can be tied to the metrics for census geographies. Property appraisal characteristics, such as land use or ownership can be applied at the parcel level.

Figure 4a, 4b, 4c, 4d: Parcel-based TC metrics.

4c. Existing Tree Canopy 4d. Possible Tree Canopy

% Possible Tree Canopy

0% -

15%

16%

- 35

%

36%

- 55

%

56%

- 75

%

76%

- 10

0%

4b. Land Cover



Figure 5: Tree Canopy

metrics summarized by community

Area Summary: Local Communities

Cuyahoga County consists of 59 cities, villages, and townships. Those communities are characterized by its central city—Cleveland; (about 17% of the County’s total land area), a number of highly urbanized inner-ring communities; and several outer-ring communities featuring less dense development patterns. Many of those communities are home to the extensive Cleveland Metroparks system (18,649 acres in Cuyahoga County), the Cuyahoga Valley National Park (2,800 acres), and numerous local parks and other protected land.

As might be expected, Cuyahoga County’s Existing Tree Canopy is not evenly distributed (Figure 5). About

half (31) of the County’s communities have less than the mean Existing Tree Canopy for the county (37.6%)

and nearly 68% of the total population lives in these communities. With the exception of Bratenahl, nearly

all the leading Tree Canopy communities are located in outlying suburbs. Several inner ring suburban com-

munities exceeded the county average, including Cleveland Heights, Fairview Park, Bedford, Shaker Heights,

and South Euclid. The City of Cleveland’s Tree Canopy was well below the county average, at 18.9%. Below

Cleveland were the communities of Warrensville Heights, Brook Park, and North Randall.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Chagrin Falls TownshipBentleyvilleGates Mills

Moreland HillsHunting Valley

BrecksvilleWalton HillsChagrin Falls

MayfieldOrange

Pepper PikeBay Village

North RoyaltonBratenahl

Olmsted FallsBroadview Heights

IndependenceCleveland Heights

Fairview ParkStrongsville

North OlmstedSolon

Olmsted TownshipBedford

WestlakeValley View

Shaker HeightsSouth Euclid

Richmond HeightsSeven Hills

East ClevelandLyndhurst

WoodmereGlenwillow

Middleburg HeightsBerea

Rocky RiverParma Heights

OakwoodHighland Heights

ParmaUniversity Heights

LakewoodEuclid

Highland HillsBeachwood

Brooklyn HeightsBedford Heights

Maple HeightsGarfield Heights

Mayfield HeightsCuyahoga Heights

BrooklynNewburgh Heights

LinndaleCleveland

Warrensville HeightsBrook Park

North Randall

CUYAHOGA COUNTY TOTAL

Existing Tree Canopy as Percent of Land Area Possible Planting Area Vegetated as Percent of Land Area

Possible Planting Area Impervious as Percent of Land Area Not Suitable for Planting as Percent of Land Area



Figure 7: Possible

Planting Area

summarized by community.


WALTONHILLS

GLENWILLOW

ROCKYRIVER

GARFIELDHEIGHTS

MIDDLEBURGHEIGHTS

BAYVILLAGE

BEREAOLMSTEDTOWNSHIP

WARRENSVILLEHEIGHTS

SOLON

BENTLEYVILLEMAPLE

HEIGHTS

PARMA

OAKWOOD

BRATENAHL

WESTLAKE

NORTHRANDALL

OLMSTEDFALLS

CHAGRINFALLS

NORTHROYALTON

CHAGRINFALLS

TOWNSHIP

BROADVIEWHEIGHTS

NORTHOLMSTED

STRONGSVILLE

SOUTHEUCLID

WOODMERE

ORANGE

PARMAHEIGHTS

LINNDALE

LAKEWOOD

SEVENHILLS

BROOKLYNHEIGHTSBROOK

PARK

SHAKERHEIGHTS

BEDFORDHEIGHTS

NEWBURGHHEIGHTS

FAIRVIEWPARK CUYAHOGA

HEIGHTS

HUNTINGVALLEY

INDEPENDENCE

VALLEYVIEW

LYNDHURST

EASTCLEVELAND

PEPPERPIKE

CLEVELANDHEIGHTS

MORELANDHILLS

EUCLID

HIGHLANDHILLS

RICHMONDHEIGHTS

HIGHLANDHEIGHTS

MAYFIELD

BRECKSVILLE

UNIVERSITYHEIGHTS

GATESMILLS

MAYFIELDHEIGHTS

BROOKLYN

CLEVELAND

BEDFORD

BEACHWOOD

11% - 20%

21% - 40%

41% - 60%

61% - 80%

Source: Cuyahoga County Urban Tree Canopy Assessment, 2013.

Cuyahoga County = 37.6%

Figure 6: Existing Tree Canopy

summarized by community.

WALTONHILLS

GLENWILLOW

ROCKYRIVER

GARFIELDHEIGHTS

MIDDLEBURGHEIGHTS

BAYVILLAGE

BEREAOLMSTEDTOWNSHIP

WARRENSVILLEHEIGHTS

SOLON

BENTLEYVILLEMAPLE

HEIGHTS

PARMA

OAKWOOD

BRATENAHL

WESTLAKE

NORTHRANDALL

OLMSTEDFALLS

CHAGRINFALLS

NORTHROYALTON

CHAGRINFALLS

TOWNSHIP

BROADVIEWHEIGHTS

NORTHOLMSTED

STRONGSVILLE

SOUTHEUCLID

WOODMERE

ORANGE

PARMAHEIGHTS

LINNDALE

LAKEWOOD

SEVENHILLS

BROOKLYNHEIGHTS

BROOKPARK

SHAKERHEIGHTS

BEDFORDHEIGHTS

NEWBURGHHEIGHTS

FAIRVIEWPARK CUYAHOGA

HEIGHTS

HUNTINGVALLEY

INDEPENDENCE

VALLEYVIEW

LYNDHURST

EASTCLEVELAND

PEPPERPIKE

CLEVELANDHEIGHTS

MORELANDHILLS

EUCLID

HIGHLANDHILLS

RICHMONDHEIGHTS

HIGHLANDHEIGHTS

MAYFIELD

BRECKSVILLE

UNIVERSITYHEIGHTS

GATESMILLS

MAYFIELDHEIGHTS

BROOKLYN

CLEVELAND

BEDFORD

BEACHWOOD

20% - 35%

36% - 45%

46% - 55%

56% - 100%



The geographic distribution of Existing and Possible Tree Canopy by community is depicted in Figures 6 and 7,

below.



Figure 8: Tree Canopy metrics summarized by subwatershed

Area Summary: Subwatersheds

Cuyahoga County is intersected by 3 major watersheds: the Rocky, Cuyahoga, and

Chagrin. In addition, much of the County drains directly to the shores of Lake Erie.

Within those major watersheds are 32 smaller subwatersheds (Figure 8), ranging in size

from 200 acres to more than 20,000 acres. Although they follow the natural contours

of their respective drainage areas (as opposed to local community boundaries), these

subwatersheds are characterized by varying degrees of urbanization and degradation.

In a few subwatersheds, there is no significant above-ground drainage, while others

benefit from extensive protection in the form of parks and conservation easements.

Research by Goetz et al. (2003) indicates that watersheds with 37% tree canopy can be categorized as “fair” in a

stream health rating; watersheds with 45% tree canopy can be categorized as “good.”

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Willow Creek

Chagrin River Upper Main Branch / Beaver Creek

Chagrin River Main Branch

Cuyahoga River / Cuyahoga Valley National Park

Chippewa Creek

Chagrin River Aurora Branch

Pond Brook

Rocky River East Branch

Lake Erie Tributaries East of Black River

French Creek

Plum Creek

Doan Brook

Porter Creek

Furnace Run

Lake Erie West Tribs (Cahoon, Sperry Creeks)

Baldwin Creek

Rocky River West Branch

Rocky River Main Stem

Tinkers Creek

Euclid Creek

Dugway / Nine Mile / Green Creeks

West Creek

Brandywine Creek

Big Creek

Mill Creek

Abrams Creek

Lake Erie Tributaries West of Chagrin River

Lake Erie West Tributaries

Cuyahoga River Navigation Channel / Kingsbury Run

Lake Erie East Tributaries

Cuyahoga River Navigation Channel

Cuyahoga Navigation Channel / Morganna / Burke Br

CUYAHOGA COUNTY TOTAL





Figure 10: Possible

P l a n t i n g A r e a summarized by

subwatershed.


Figure 9: Existing T r e e C a n o p y summarized by

subwatershed.

ABRAMSCREEK

BALDWINCREEK

BIGCREEK

BRANDYWINECREEK

CHAGRIN RIVERAURORA BRANCH

CHAGRINRIVER MAIN

BRANCH

CHAGRIN RIVERUPPER MAIN BRANCH

/ BEAVER CREEK

CHIPPEWACREEK

CUYAHOGA NAVIGATIONCHANNEL / MORGANNA

/ BURKE BR

CUYAHOGA RIVER /CUYAHOGA VALLEY

NATIONAL PARK

CUYAHOGA RIVERNAVIGATION

CHANNEL

CUYAHOGA RIVERNAVIGATION CHANNEL

/ KINGSBURY RUN

DOANBROOK

DUGWAY /NINE MILE /

GREEN CREEKS

EUCLIDCREEK

FRENCHCREEK

FURNACERUN

LAKE ERIEEAST

TRIBUTARIES

LAKEERIE EAST

TRIBUTARIES

LAKE ERIETRIBUTARIES EAST

OF BLACK RIVER

LAKE ERIETRIBUTARIES WESTOF CHAGRIN RIVER

LAKE ERIE WESTTRIBS (CAHOON,

SPERRY CREEKS)

LAKEERIE WEST

TRIBUTARIES

MILLCREEK

PLUMCREEK POND

BROOK

PORTERCREEK

ROCKYRIVER EAST

BRANCH

ROCKY RIVERMAIN STEM

ROCKYRIVER WEST

BRANCH

TINKERSCREEK

WESTCREEK

WILLOWCREEK

WILLOWCREEK

20% - 35%

36% - 45%

46% - 55%

56% - 100%



ABRAMSCREEK

BALDWINCREEK

BIGCREEK

BRANDYWINECREEK

CHAGRIN RIVERAURORA BRANCH

CHAGRINRIVER MAIN

BRANCH

CHAGRIN RIVERUPPER MAIN BRANCH

/ BEAVER CREEK

CHIPPEWACREEK

CUYAHOGA NAVIGATIONCHANNEL / MORGANNA

/ BURKE BR

CUYAHOGA RIVER /CUYAHOGA VALLEY

NATIONAL PARK

CUYAHOGA RIVERNAVIGATION

CHANNEL

CUYAHOGA RIVERNAVIGATION CHANNEL

/ KINGSBURY RUN

DOANBROOK

DUGWAY /NINE MILE /

GREEN CREEKS

EUCLIDCREEK

FRENCHCREEK

FURNACERUN

LAKE ERIEEAST

TRIBUTARIES

LAKEERIE EAST

TRIBUTARIES

LAKE ERIETRIBUTARIES EAST

OF BLACK RIVER

LAKE ERIETRIBUTARIES WESTOF CHAGRIN RIVER

LAKE ERIE WESTTRIBS (CAHOON,

SPERRY CREEKS)

LAKEERIE WEST

TRIBUTARIES

MILLCREEK

PLUMCREEK POND

BROOK

PORTERCREEK

ROCKYRIVER EAST

BRANCH

ROCKY RIVERMAIN STEM

ROCKYRIVER WEST

BRANCH

TINKERSCREEK

WESTCREEK

WILLOWCREEK

WILLOWCREEK

11% - 20%

21% - 40%

41% - 60%

61% - 80%



Area Summary: Subwatersheds

The geographic distribution of Existing and Possible Tree Canopy by subwatershed is depicted in Figures 9 and

10, below.



Riparian Areas

Within each subwatershed, land areas that are adjacent to rivers, streams, lakes,

and wetlands are perhaps the most critical zones for tree planting.

As part of its Green Space planning efforts, the Cuyahoga County Planning

Commission collaborated with a number of partners, including Cleveland

Metroparks and Chagrin River Watershed Partners to develop “modeled” riparian

corridors. Riparian buffers range in size from 25 feet for small streams to 300 feet

for larger drainage areas, including the Lake Erie shoreline.

When summarized by subwatersheds (Figure 11), Existing Tree Canopy coverage varies widely within the

County’s riparian zones. As a whole, 65% of the county’s riparian zones are covered by Tree Canopy—well

above the county’s 37.6% average as a whole. Much of that Tree Canopy can be attributed to areas within

the Cleveland Metroparks (e.g., Rocky River) and the Cuyahoga Valley National Park. More problematic,

however, are individual subwatersheds, whose riparian areas have Tree Canopy that cover 50% or less of its

area.

Figure 11: Tree Canopy metrics for riparian zones, summarized by subwater-shed.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Willow Creek

Rocky River Main Stem

Chippewa Creek

Chagrin River Main Branch

Chagrin River Upper Main Branch / Beaver Creek

Rocky River East Branch

French Creek

Cuyahoga River / Cuyahoga Valley National Park

Plum Creek

Chagrin River Aurora Branch

Doan Brook

Baldwin Creek

Euclid Creek

Lake Erie West Tribs (Cahoon, Sperry Creeks)

Porter Creek

Tinkers Creek

Rocky River West Branch

Pond Brook

West Creek

Furnace Run

Mill Creek

Dugway / Nine Mile / Green Creeks

Big Creek

Abrams Creek

Lake Erie Tributaries West of Chagrin River

Lake Erie Tributaries East of Black River

Lake Erie West Tributaries

Brandywine Creek

Cuyahoga River Navigation Channel

Cuyahoga Navigation Channel / Morganna / Burke Br

Cuyahoga River Navigation Channel / Kingsbury Run

Lake Erie East Tributaries

Total Riparian Areas





Figure 12: Tree Canopy metrics summarized by land use.

The Cuyahoga County Fiscal Office maintains land use

classification as part of its parcel records. Existing and

Possible Tree Canopy (TC) were summarized for the seven

aggregated parcel land use classes and two types of public

right-of-way (Figure 12, Table 1).

For each land use class, Tree Canopy metrics were

calculated as a percentage of land area in the specified

land use category, and as a percentage of all land in the

county. Residential land is the largest land use type within

the county, at 50.8%, and contributes 62.4% of the

county’s total tree canopy. In fact, residential land is

second only to Parks/Open Space in its percentage of tree canopy cover among all uses.

Possible Tree Planting Area is also dominated by Residential land uses, accounting for 57% of all Vegetated

Possible Tree Planting Area in the County, as well as 34% of the county’s Impervious Possible Tree Planting

Area. Commercial and Industrial land uses provide significant potential planting area, particularly in their

“Impervious” areas (paved surfaces that are not buildings or roads). Parking lots and areas immediately

adjacent provide significant area for the establishment of tree canopy to reduce stormwater runoff and

urban heat effects.

Similarly, Public Right-of-Way offers substantial area for tree planting efforts, with a combined 11.6% of the

county’s Vegetated Possible Tree Planting Area. In addition to their ecological and societal benefits,

establishing tree canopy in these areas could add to tree canopy totals at the expense of current roadway

and other adjacent impervious cover.

0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000

Residential

Commercial

Industrial

Park/Open Space

Institutional

Agricultural

Transportation/Utility

R/W Highway

R/W Street

ACRES

Existing Tree Canopy

Possible Planting Area Vegetated

Possible Planting Area Impervious

Not Suitable for Planting

Parcels

Public Right-of-Way

Area Summary: Land Use

Parma

Brooklyn

LAND USE

RESIDENTIAL

COMMERCIAL

INDUSTRIAL

PARK / OPEN SPACE

INSTITUTIONAL

AGRICULTURAL

TRANSPORTATION / UTILITY

RIGHT OF WAY




PERCENT OF LAND USE CATEGORY PERCENT OF COUNTY LAND

Land Use

Existing

Tree

Canopy

Possible

Planting

Area

Vegetated

Possible

Planting

Area

Impervi-

ous

Not

Suitable

for

Planting

Total

Land Use

Existing

Tree

Canopy

Possible

Planting

Area

Vegetated

Possible

Planting

Area I

mpervious

Not

Suitable

for

Planting

Total

County

Land

Residential 45.4% 33.5% 10.3% 11.1% 100.0% 62.4% 57.1% 34.4% 30.4% 50.8%

Commercial 16.1% 22.3% 42.6% 19.5% 100.0% 2.5% 4.3% 16.1% 6.0% 5.8%

Industrial 18.4% 27.4% 33.9% 21.1% 100.0% 4.6% 8.5% 20.5% 10.5% 9.2%

Park/Open pace 67.2% 14.9% 3.5% 17.5% 100.0% 18.7% 5.1% 2.4% 9.7% 10.3%

Institutional 25.6% 32.6% 22.3% 19.9% 100.0% 3.5% 5.6% 7.4% 5.5% 5.1%

Agricultural 43.7% 43.8% 3.6% 11.3% 100.0% 0.8% 1.0% 0.2% 0.4% 0.7%

Transp./Utility 13.0% 38.0% 17.4% 32.4% 100.0% 1.9% 6.8% 6.1% 9.3% 5.4%

R/W Highway 10.0% 44.2% 15.7% 30.2% 100.0% 0.6% 3.3% 2.3% 3.6% 2.3%

R/W Street 17.5% 23.5% 15.5% 43.6% 100.0% 5.0% 8.3% 10.7% 24.6% 10.5%

Total County 37.0% 29.9% 15.3% 18.6% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Table 1: Tree Canopy metrics summarized by land use

Note: PERCENT OF LAND USE CATEGORY: Add Across / PERCENT OF COUNTY LAND: Add Down.

Area Summary: Land Use



Due in large part to the recent foreclosure crisis, vacant

land in Cuyahoga County has grown in recent years.

Countywide, over 35,500 parcels and nearly 25,000 acres

of land is now estimated to be vacant.

As might be expected, 56% of vacant land in Cuyahoga

County consists of Existing Tree Canopy (Figure 13). More

than 40% of the remaining area is available as Possible

Tree Canopy—largely vegetated.

While much of this land consists of smaller, isolated urban parcels, there are significant opportunities for

land assembly. In a recent analysis of vacant land in the County, the CCPC aggregated adjacent vacant par-

cels to form vacant “tracts”, and found that over 20,000 acres of the County’s vacant land were in tracts that

were 2 acres or larger (see sample area, Figure 14).

Additional consideration should be given to reforestation opportunities are available on large former indus-

trial properties as well. The City of Flint, Michigan has undertaken an effort to plant approximately 1,000

tree on its Chevy in the Hole brownfield site .

Area Summary: Vacant Land

Figure 13: TC metrics for Vacant Land in Cuyahoga County.

Vacant Tracts

Tree Canopy

Grass/Shrub

Bare Soil

Water

Buildings

Roads / Railroads

Other Paved


Figure 14: Vacant “tracts” overlaid on Land Cover.



0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Anne Arundel County, MD

Allegheny County, PA

Scranton Metro Area, PA

Greater Fairfax County, VA

Prince George's County, MD

Mecklenburg County, NC

Howard County, MD

Montgomery County, MD

Baltimore County, MD

Pittsburgh, PA

Berkeley County, WV

Jefferson County, WV

Cuyahoga County, OH

Toronto, ONT

Baltimore City , MD

New York, NY

Philadelphia, PA

Percent of Land Area

% Tree Canopy - Land Area % Possible Tree Canopy - Vegetation % Possible Tree Canopy - Impervious Not Suitable

Figure 15: Tree Canopy metrics for selected counties and cities.

Comparisons to Other Areas

At 38% of the land area, Cuyahoga County’s overall tree canopy is a lower

percentage than other available counties (Figure 15). In addition, a majority of

the County’s residents live in communities with substantially less tree canopy.

The City of Cleveland, at 19% Tree Canopy, is comparable to New York and Phil-

adelphia.

By aggressively replanting in its existing potential planting areas, Cuyahoga County can meet or surpass

many of those areas.



Conclusions

In its “Watershed Book”, the Cuyahoga River Community Planning Organization (CRCPO) identifies

several Key Benefits of Preserving and Expanding Forest Cover:

Roots stabilize soils, while canopy and leaf cover interrupt precipitation to reduce erosion and

sedimentation in streams

Cleans stormwater before releasing into groundwater and streams

Reduces flooding by absorbing and managing stormwater

Absorbs airborne pollutants, especially particulates, that would otherwise enter the water

system

Provides wildlife habitat

Conserves household energy costs

Increases property values

The tree canopy metrics, in combination with neighborhood indicators such as poverty and crime,

can be used to prioritize neighborhoods for tree planting initiatives. For more information on these

approaches, see the available publications on the US Forest Service website:

http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/urban/utc/pubs/

Although this assessment indicates that nearly half of the land in Cuyahoga County could

theoretically support tree canopy, planting new trees on much of this land may not be socially

desirable or financially feasible (e.g. parking lots). Setting a realistic goal requires a detailed

feasibility assessment using the geospatial datasets generated as part of this assessment.

Cuyahoga County’s residents are the largest steward of the County’s tree canopy and have most of

the land to plant tees. Programs that educate residents on tree stewardship and provide incentives

for tree planting are crucial if Cuyahoga County is going to sustain its tree canopy in the long term.

Existing and Possible Tree Canopy metrics have been summarized at detailed geographic levels and

integrated into GIS databases, and are particularly useful at the parcel level. Individual parcels,

groups of parcels, and classes of parcels can be examined and targeted for tree canopy

improvement. Of particular focus should be parcels that have large, contiguous impervious surfaces.

These parcels contribute high amounts of runoff, which degrades water quality. The establishment

of tree canopy on these parcels will help reduce runoff during periods of peak overland flow. Vacant

lands should also be a focus as they present a unique opportunity.

http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/urban/utc/pubs/



Daniel Meaney Cuyahoga County Planning Commission 2429 Superior Viaduct Cleveland, Ohio 44113 (216) 443-3700 [email protected]

Prepared by:

Additional Information

More information on Cuyahoga County’s Urban Tree Canopy Assessment will be posted soon on the

Cuyahoga County Planning Commission’s website, including an interactive mapping application

(courtesy of Cleveland Metroparks), downloadable spreadsheet and GIS data, and links to a variety of

related resources:

http://planning.co.cuyahoga.oh.us/canopy/

More information on local reforestation efforts and best practices is available from the Cuyahoga River Community Planning Organization’s “Releaf” program site, especially its Watershed Book:

http://www.crcpo.org/education.html

… and its Watershed Strategies page, including a section on Forest Canopy and Tree Mitigation: http://www.crcpo.org/watershedstrategies/WatershedStrategies.html

More information on Urban Tree Canopy Assessments can be found at the US Forest Service Urban Tree Canopy site, including links to other studies and further research topics:

http://nrs.fs.fed.us/urban/utc/

Special thanks to Jarlath O’Neil-Dunn of the University of Vermont Spatial Analysis Lab for their excel-lent land cover analysis, and for providing templates for the metric graphics and for portions of this report’s narrative content; to Stephen Mather of Cleveland Metroparks for accuracy assessment, web development and analysis; and, to numerous local communities for their participation in quality con-trol.

http://planning.co.cuyahoga.oh.us/canopy/

http://www.crcpo.org/education.html

http://nrs.fs.fed.us/urban/utc/

cuyahoga county urban tree canopy...

Documents