Urban Tree Canopy Study

Asheville, North Carolina

October, 2019

Prepared for:
City of Asheville, North Carolina

Prepared by:
Davey Resource Group
1500 North Mantua Street
Kent, Ohio 44240
800-828-8312
 REPORT COVER SHEET
October 23, 2019
Chad Bandy, PE Public Works Streets Division Manager

REPORT NAME: ​Urban Tree Canopy Study

REPORT PREPARED BY: ​Davey Resource Group

WHY WAS THIS REPORT NEEDED? ​The tree canopy study is part two of an identified three-step process to develop a Master Urban
Forest Plan. The first step was the completion of the Urban Forest Sustainability and Management Review, completed in 2017.

WHAT WILL BE DONE WITH THE INFORMATION IN THE REPORT? ​This canopy study identifies the change in tree canopy coverage
over the entire city of Asheville during a 10-year period (2008-2018). This information will inform the development of the Master
Urban Forest Plan. This plan will be designed to identify trends in canopy coverage and help in the development of strategies to
strengthen Asheville’s climate resiliency. This coincides with City Council’s stated ​strategic priorities​ of a clean and healthy
environment.

COST OF STUDY: ​$30,000

FUNDING SOURCE:​ The project was funded through general funds in PW operations.

STAFF CONTACT INFORMATION: ​Chad Bandy, [email protected]

Table of Contents
Acknowledgments........................................................... iv
Introduction ...................................................................... 5
Asheville Urban Tree Canopy Findings ..................... 10
Ecosystem Benefits ......................................................... 24
Recommendations and Conclusion ............................. 32
References ......................................................................... 34
Tables
Table 1. Comparison of Tree Canopy in Eastern Cities 10
Table 2. Asheville Tree Canopy Loss Presented as Change in Air Quality 27
Table 3. Asheville Tree Canopy Loss Presented as Change in Carbon Storage and Sequestration 28
Table 4. Asheville Tree Canopy Loss Presented as Changes in Avoided Stormwater Runoff 29
Table 5. Avoided Stormwater Runoff by Benchmark Pollutant Measurements 30
Table 6. Avoided Pollutant Runoff by Oxygen Demand and Pollutant Loads. 31
Figures
Figure 1: The Urban Forestry Program Continuum: A Guideline for a Successful Urban Forestry Program 8
Figure 2. Asheville Tree Canopy Loss or Gain from 2008 to 2018 11
Figure 3. Parcel View Inset of Changes in Canopy per Percentage Gain or Loss 2008-2018 11
Figure 4. 2008-2018 Asheville Tree Canopy Changes for City Limits 12
Figure 5. Closeup of Asheville Tree Canopy Layers from 2008 and 2018 12
Figure 6. Asheville Tree Canopy Consistency between 2008 and 2018 13
Figure 7. Inset of 2008-2018 Tree Canopy Loss or Gain per Parcel 13
Figure 8. Asheville Neighborhood Tree Canopy by Percent Cover in 2018 14
Figure 9. Chart of Asheville Neighborhood Tree Canopy Percentages by Neighborhood Acreages 15
Figure 10. Asheville Tree Canopy Percent Change by Neighborhood Acreage. 16
Figure 11. 2008-2018 Inset Image of Asheville Tree Canopy Change by Neighborhood 17
Figure 12. Chart of Asheville Neighborhoods Gaining Tree Canopy from 2008 to 2018 18
Figure 13. Asheville Neighborhoods Losing Tree Canopy from 2008 to 2018 19
Figure 14. Asheville Tree Canopy Change per Census Tract from 2008 to 2018 20
Figure 15. Asheville Percentage of Population Living below the Poverty Level 20
Figure 16. Asheville Overall Change in Percentage of Tree Canopy by Parcel from 2008-2018 21
Figure 17. Inset of Improvement Value per Parcel in 2018 21
Figure 18. Central Asheville Absolute Canopy Change per Parcel Acreage 22
Figure 19. i-Tree Landscape Tool - Priority Planting Map Recommendations per Census Block 23

Davey Resource Group ii October 2019

Acknowledgments

The Public Works Department wishes to thank the Asheville City Council for funding this
research and the Asheville Tree Commission for their support with the project.

Davey Resource Group iv October 2019

Introduction

The City of Asheville is the located in western, central North Carolina and is the county seat of Buncombe County. In the last
thirty years, the population of Asheville has grown 50% to over 92,000 current residents. The median age of the population
is 39 years old and the median annual family income is $44,000. The largest employers are the Mission Health System,
Buncombe County Schools, Ingles Markets, and The Biltmore Company. Asheville is located 130 miles northwest of Charlotte,
200 miles northeast of Atlanta, 300 miles east of Nashville and 470 miles southwest of Washington D.C.

Thousands of years before it was known as Asheville, the confluence of the Swannanoa and French Broad rivers was home
to ancient native Americans; local archaeological discoveries have carbon dated artifacts to early 8,000 B.C. Early colonial
missionaries reported the area as home to the Cherokee people. The area was colonized by Europeans in the early 1780’s
and was given the name Morristown. In 1797, Morristown was renamed in honor of the sitting Governor Samuel Ashe, a
Revolutionary War veteran and the 9th governor of North Carolina serving from 1795 to 1798. In the 1880s the expansion of
the railroad into Asheville created a steady increase in population and accompanying industrial revolution. The Great
Depression hit the county and city hard, but due to slower economic growth, the central business district of Asheville was
spared the removal of significant Art Deco period architecture which many downtowns are lacking today.

Asheville is known as a mountain town situated in the Blue Ridge Mountains. It is classified as Cfa, humid subtropical climate
in the Koppen classification system. Summers are mild with average high temperatures in the mid-70s and average winter
temperatures in the mid-30s. Snowfall is generally less than ten inches per winter season, with ice storms being the largest
weather concern during the year. The Blue Ridge Mountains are part of the world’s most biologically diverse deciduous forest
ecoregion due to the geologic stability of the Appalachian range, untouched by glacial advances. Pines, oaks, hickories,
maples, birches, cedars, hemlocks, spruces and firs abound in the region. Trees are of paramount importance to Asheville
as the forested mountains surrounding the city create a serene sense of place.

Davey Resource Group 5 October 2019

Urban Tree Canopy and Geographic Information Systems
As communities focus more attention on environmental sustainability, it is increasingly important that they understand the
vital role that tree play in helping to achieve their goals. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) have become an important
tool for urban forest managers to understand and communicate the value and benefits that urban trees provide to the
community. Utilizing GIS to map tree canopy, conduct analyses and understand the extent and location of tree canopy is key
to identifying ways that trees and urban forest management activities can help meet community sustainability and resiliency
goals. These can include:
• Development of planting plans focused on equitable distribution of tree canopy and associated benefits

• Stormwater management

• Water resource and quality management

• Impact and management of invasive species based on tree condition

• Preservation of environmental benefits and sustainability

• Outreach and education

The City of Asheville has partnered with Davey Resource Group, Inc (DRG) to conduct an UTC assessment to better
understand the city’s urban tree canopy, establish baseline data on the extent of the urban forest, analyze canopy change
over time, and quantity benefits. A UTC assessment takes a birds-eye view of the city to measure the layer of leaves,
branches and stems that cover the ground. It provides a baseline of information on the current urban tree canopy that the
City of Asheville can use to monitor and measure canopy change, and guide management and tree planting efforts to
achieve sustainability and resiliency goals. The data from this assessment will be provided to the city to add to their GIS
system.

The UTC assessment utilized high-resolution aerial imagery and infrared technology to remotely map all tree canopy and
land cover (Figure 3) within the borders of the City of Asheville. The assessment included the measurement of other
landcover classifications, including impervious surfaces, pervious surfaces, bare soils, and water to better understand the
tree canopy and its relationship within the community.

Davey Resource Group 6 October 2019

The results of the study provides a clear picture of the extent and distribution of Asheville’s tree canopy. Incorporating the
data from the UTC assessment into the city’s GIS database will provide a foundation for developing community goals and
urban forest policies, and can be used to determine:
• The location and extent of canopy over time

• The location of available planting space (potential planting area)

• The best strategies to increase canopy in underserved areas

The data, combined with existing and emerging urban forestry research and applications, can provide additional guidance
for determining a balance between growth and preservation and aid in identifying and assessing urban forestry opportunities

Analysis Purpose
The UTC assessement establishes tree canopy baseline information, quantifies the current contributions of urban trees,
and examines canopy gains and losses between 2008 and 2018. The intent of the analysis is to provide Asheville with
valuable data that will support efforts in developing community goals, prioritizing tree planting, establishing trees as
important asset in the city’s infrastructure system, and developing data-backed strategies and plans for Asheville’s current
and future urban forest. Asheville is encouraged to refer to these results, utilize the data for additional analyses, and
continue to seek new tools and information to measure progress, report accomplishments, and inform management
decisions.
This study is the first step in developing and supporting Asheville’s urban forestry program. The UTC data and maps,
along with management tools, such as tree inventories, management plans, and master plans, are important components
in developing a sustainable and resilient urban forest. Figure 1 describes the continuum of an urban forestry programs.
Asheville’s UTC study can be thought of as precursor to an urban forest master plan (UFMP) but is not the same as a tree
inventory. A tree inventory is an in field assessment of individual city trees growing along streets and in city park. While
a UTC study is an overview of all the trees within the city limits, both public and private trees are evaluated from an aerial
perspective

Davey Resource Group 7 October 2019

 Figure 1: The Urban Forestry Program Continuum: A Guideline for a Successful Urban Forestry Program

Davey Resource Group 8 October 2019

Process and Methods
The City of Asheville’s UTC analysis was conducted by Davey Resource Group, Inc. (DRG) using a well-established GIS-
based process that utilized a variety of data, tools, and analytical methodologies from various sources, including United
States Department of Agriculture aerial imagery, i-Tree Tools, census data, remote sensing technology, locally supplied
data, scientific studies, and previous canopy analyses. These sources will be briefly mentioned or referenced throughout
the remainder of this report.
To begin the analysis a land cover extraction was completed using the 2018 60-cm National Agriculture Imagery Program
(NAIP) photography. The canopy data from the land cover extraction were analyzed using i-Tree models to generate an
estimate of ecosystem benefits provided by the existing tree canopy. The data was used to develop recommendations to
achieve Asheville’s goals of using trees to mitigate stormwater, reduce the urban heat island, and improve air quality. As
an added level of comparison, an i-Tree Canopy assessment, which closely reflected the results of the land cover extraction,
was completed.

Accuracy Standards
DRG manually edits and conducts thorough quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) checks on all UTC and land
cover layers. A QA/QC process is completed using ArcGIS to identify, clean, and correct any misclassification or topology
errors in the final land cover dataset. DRG edits the initial land cover extractions in urban and rural areas at a 1:2,000
quality control scale, and woodland/forested areas at a 1:5,000 scale. The project will attain a minimum of 95% user’s
accuracy for UTC and impervious classes and an overall accuracy of greater than or equal to 94% using a minimum mapping
unit of 9 square miles.

Davey Resource Group 9 October 2019

Asheville Urban Tree Canopy Findings

The City of Asheville’s 2018 city-wide urban tree canopy is 44.5%, which is comparable to other cities in the eastern United
States. Table 1 are referenced municipalities with similar demographics, longitude, and size. However, the analysis found
that Asheville’s tree canopy is declining with a 6.4% loss in tree canopy from 2008 to 2018. There can be many reasons for
canopy loss. Every municipality will have identity specific reason for canopy gains or losses. Typically, the main concern
is continued growth and land development standards.

To understand the tree canopy distribution across the city and the factors that drive changes in canopy Asheville’s aerial
images were segmented and examined to identify tree canopy trends:
• city-wide
• by neighborhood Municipality Tree Canopy (%)
• by census block Charlotte, NC 47%
• by parcel Gainesville, FL 47%
Cookeville, TN 40%
Concord, NH 40%
This report provides an analysis of some of the general Winston-Salem, NC 47%
findings and trends of Asheville’s UTC assessment. Cambridge, MA 30%
However, these data can be examined and analyzed in a
Pittsburgh, PA 40%
multitude of different and more specific ways. Asheville is
encouraged to further explore these data as new ideas, Table 1. Comparison of Tree Canopy of Eastern Cities

interests, or priorities arise. Simply, this study represents

only a subset of a vast array of information and findings
that can be gleaned from the further analyses of the data
generated by this assessment.

Davey Resource Group 10 October 2019

 Tree Canopy by City Limits 2008 and 2018
Asheville is 29,274 acres overall, in 2008, tree canopy covered 13,912
acres, and in 2018 it covered 13,021 acres. The city lost 891 acres of
tree canopy cover, or 6.4% over the ten-year period.
Figure 2 combines the 2008 and 2018 canopy maps to identify the
areas of the city where tree canopy was lost, gained or remained the
same over the 10-year period. The southwest area of the city saw the
greatest canopy loss, especially west of the French Broad River and I-
26. Figure 3 is a canopy change shown as percentage of per parcel
acreage (2008-2018).
Legend
2008 - 2018 Canopy Change
Change per Acreage
-100%
-50%
-25%
-10%
0%
10%
25%
50%
75%
100%

Figure 2. Asheville Tree Figure 3. Parcel view inset of changes in canopy per percentage gain or
Canopy Loss or Gain from 2008 to 2018. loss 2008-2018.

Davey Resource Group 11 October 2019

 Figure 4 combines the canopy cover data from 2008 and 2018 for the
entire city. Figure 4 provides a closer view of central Asheville. In both
maps, the 2008 canopy is shown underneath the 2018 canopy. Areas
of loss from those ten years can be observed as the lower layer (2008)
will show in their respective color.

TreeCanopy_2018
TreeCanopy_2008

Figure 5. Closeup of Asheville Tree Canopy Layers from 2008 and 2018.

Figure 4. 2008-2018 Asheville Tree Canopy Changes for City Limits

Davey Resource Group 12 October 2019

 Figure 6 highlights the areas of the city where canopy cover remained
the same between 2008 to 2018. The overall change in canopy from
2008 to 2018 was a loss of 6.4%. Figure 7 is an inset of central Asheville
depicting any loss or gain per parcel. Losses are those areas with
negative change, gains are greater than 0% canopy change. This is a per
parcel change map, identifying which parcels are gaining or losing tree
canopy.

Legend
2008 - 2018 Canopy Change
Gains or Losses
Loss
Gain

Figure 6. Asheville Tree Canopy Consistency between 2008-2018. Figure 7. Inset of 2008-2018 Tree Canopy Loss or Gain per Parcel

Davey Resource Group 13 October 2019

Tree Canopy by Neighborhood

Tree canopy coverage by neighborhood is shown in Figure 8.

Neighborhoods in the eastern areas of the city have higher tree
canopy cover than other areas. The age and scale of neighborhoods
can play a considerable role in the amount of canopy present. For
example, older and smaller neighborhoods may have narrow rights
of way and lot lines, leading to higher density and less space for
larger tree species.

Figure 8. Asheville Neighborhood Tree Canopy by Percent Cover in 2018.

Davey Resource Group 14 October 2019

 In Figure 9 the graph illustrates
the percent canopy cover
(2018) for each Asheville
neighborhood organized from
smallest to largest by acreage.
The trend line (dashed
horizontal line) shows the
majority of neighborhoods are
in the 40 to 50 percent canopy
cover range. Outliers in the
data are instances of dense
development or segments of
neighborhoods within larger
areas of existing tree canopy.
Further study can be performed
to evaluate site conditions or
land regulations which gain or
lose tree canopy within
residential developments.

Figure 9. Asheville Neighborhood Tree Canopy Percentages by Neighborhood Acreages

Davey Resource Group 15 October 2019

 Figure 10 provides the percent of tree canopy change by
neighborhood from 2008 to 2018 based upon acreage. The City
should focus efforts on understanding the causes of canopy loss,
especially in areas with significant decreases (greater than 10%).
Understanding the causes can help ensure that the downward trend
in canopy cover does not continue and can also highlight areas where
tree planting and preservation efforts are most needed.

Legend
Neighborhood Tree Canopy
Change by Neighborhood Acreage
-16% - -15%
-14% - -10%
-9% - -5%
-4% - -1%
0%
1%
2% - 5%
6% - 10%
11% - 15%
16% - 20%

Figure 10. Asheville Tree Canopy Percent Change by Neighborhood Acreage

Davey Resource Group 16 October 2019

Figure 11 provides a detailed view of the percent change (loss/gain) in tree canopy cover from 2008 to 2018 in central
neighborhoods in Asheville. Generally, neighborhoods to the east showed gains in tree canopy cover, while neighborhoods
Legend to the west
Neighborhood Tree Canopy showed losses.
Change by Neighborhood Acreage These losses
-16% - -15% may be
-14% - -10%
attributable to
-9% - -5%
-4% - -1%
increased
0% development in
1% these
2% - 5% neighborhoods.
6% - 10%
Gains could be
11% - 15%
16% - 20%
natural growth,
combined with
newer
development
with stronger
tree planting
requirements.
This study
provides a
foundation for
other research
into where tree
canopy can be
increased to
counteract the
losses.
Figure 11. 2008-2018 Inset Image of Asheville Tree Canopy Change by Neighborhood.

Davey Resource Group 17 October 2019

 Neighborhoods with the
largest gains in tree
canopy between the 2008
and 2018 imagery are
shown in Figure 12.
Further study can be
accomplished by asking
questions about these
neighborhoods through
the lens of tree canopy.
Viewing population
density or zoning
requirements for these
neighborhoods can reveal
maximum achievable
canopy coverages.

Figure 12. Chart of Asheville Neighborhoods Gaining Tree Canopy from 2008 to 2018.

Davey Resource Group 18 October 2019

 Figure 13 shows the
Asheville neighborhoods
with the largest losses
in tree canopy from
2008 to 2018. Similar to
Figure 12, review of the
land development
regulations or zoning
requirements for these
neighborhoods should
provide insight into why
the tree canopy has lost
coverage. As phases of a
development are
completed over time,
the tree canopy will
inherently decrease
from a 100% wooded
parcel to the final
developed sites with
improvements. Focused
land development
regulations which
review finished
landscaping
requirements for tree
density is a way to
counteract the tree loss.
Figure 13. Chart of Asheville Neighborhoods Losing Tree Canopy from 2008 to 2018

Davey Resource Group 19 October 2019

Tree Canopy by Census Tract
Analyzing tree canopy based on census data is another method of identifying canopy trends and needs within the
community. Figure 14 is Asheville’s tree canopy coverage change percentage by census block from 2008 to 2018. Figure 15
maps census tracts in relation to percentage of population living below the poverty level for income. Figures 13 and 14 show
that census areas with the highest percentage of population below the poverty level also have higher percentages of canopy
loss. Further studies into these and other demographic trends can help prioritize tree planting.
Legend
Canopy Change by Census Tract
Change by Acreage Percentage
-22% - -20%
-19% - -15%
-14% - -10%
-9% - -5%
-4% - -1%
0%
1%
2% - 5%
6% - 5%
6% - 10%
11% - 15%
16% - 20%

Figure 14. Asheville Tree Canopy Change per Census Tract from 2008 to 2018 Figure 15. Asheville Percentage of Population Living below the Poverty Level

Davey Resource Group 20 October 2019

Tree Canopy by Parcel
Figure 16 illustrates loss of tree canopy from 2008 to 2018 by individual
parcel. Figure 17 provides property value by individual parcel in an area of
Asheville, areas in white did not have an improvement value listed with the
parcel. An analysis of these maps shows that lower valued properties appear
to have lost significant canopy coverage between 2008 and 2018.
Understanding the relationship between canopy loss and other socio-
economic factors can assist Asheville in targeting tree preservation and
planting initiatives to areas of the city most in need of canopy cover and the
benefits it provides.

Legend
Asheville Parcels 2018
Building Value
$0.00
$0.01 - $1.00
$1.01 - $25,000.00
$25,000.01 - $50,000.00
$50,000.01 - $100,000.00
$100,000.01 - $200,000.00
$200,000.01 - $300,000.00
$300,000.01 - $500,000.00
$500,000.01 - $1,000,000.00
$1,000,000.01 - $1,500,000.00
$1,500,000.01 - $5,000,000.00
$5,000,000.01 - $10,000,000.00

Figure 17. Inset of Improvement Value per Parcel in 2018

Figure 16. Asheville Overall Change in Percentage of
Tree Canopy by Parcel from 2008-2018

Davey Resource Group 21 October 2019

Figure 17 is an inset of the per parcel canopy level map. A trend in tree canopy loss can be noted in the downtown area
over the last ten years. Parcels to the east had modest gains, but scale must be considered in parcel level mappings. One
large tree removed from a smaller parcel could result in a larger overall percentage loss rating. Thinking of this scenario in
a different light, this is indicative of how important one large canopy tree can be in a densely populated neighborhood.
Legend
2008 - 2018 Canopy Change
Change per Acreage
-100%
-75%
-60%
-45%
-30%
-15%
-1%
0%
1%
15%
30%
45%
60%
75%
100%

Figure 18. Central Asheville Absolute Canopy Change per Parcel Acreage

Davey Resource Group 22 October 2019

i-Tree Landscape Priority Planting

Using i-Tree Landscape, a tool in the

USDA Forest Service’s i-Tree suite, a
priority planting map was created. The
Landscape tool evaluated census
blocks in Asheville and was created
using three equally weighted (33%
importance) contrasting parameters.
Figure 18 was created from these
selected i-Tree settings which are
included in i-Tree’s existing database
using aerial photography and
demographic studies:

• Existing Tree Stocking Level

• Tree Cover per Capita
• Population Density

Consistent with the other findings in

Asheville’s UTC assessment, census
blocks that have lost the most tree
canopy since 2008 were identified as
priority areas for significant tree
plantings.

Figure 19. i-Tree Landscape Tool - Priority Planting Map Recommendations per Census Block

Davey Resource Group 23 October 2019

Ecosystem Benefits

The USDA Forest Service’s i-Tree Tools is a suite of software applications that quantifies the benefits and services, both
functional and structural, that trees provide to a community. The functional ecosystem benefits of trees are classified by
their ability to provide pollution reduction, while the structural benefits are those which accumulate over the life of the
tree.
For functional benefits, pollutants removed by trees from the atmosphere include carbon (C), ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide
(NO2), particulate matter up to the tenth of a micron (PM10), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). During photosynthesis, trees remove
carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere to form carbohydrates that are used in plant structure/function and return
oxygen (O2) back to the atmosphere as a byproduct. These services are quantifiable within i-Tree through a process that
utilizes tree growth algorithms.
Structural values are determined by utilizing comparison-based appraisal methodology of the physical resource - the
comparable cost of replacing the specific tree with a similar tree. i-Tree determines these values by utilizing the Council
of Tree and Landscape Appraisers equations. Carbon storage is also considered a structural value as it is amassed over
the life of the tree, not an annual benefit. In this study, carbon storage and sequestration will be discussed in the same
section under functional ecobenefits, although they are separate classes of ecological benefits.
By offering a better understanding of the structure, function, and value of a city’s tree resource, i-Tree models provide
cities the means to advocate for the necessary resources needed to appropriately manage its trees.

Davey Resource Group 24 October 2019

 Benefit Methodology

1. How Tree Canopy Benefits Are Calculated:

Tree canopy datasets from 2008 and 2018 were run through the model and then compared as a change analysis.
1.1 Air Quality
The i-Tree Canopy v6.1 Model was used to quantify the value of ecosystem services for air quality. i-Tree Canopy was
designed to give users the ability to estimate tree canopy and other land cover types within any selected
geography. The model uses the estimated canopy percentage and reports air pollutant removal rates and monetary
values for carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and particulate matter (PM)
(Hirabayashi 2014).
Within the i-Tree Canopy application, the U.S. EPA’s BenMAP Model estimates the incidence of adverse health effects and
monetary values resulting from changes in air pollutants (Hirabayashi 2014; US EPA 2012). Different pollutant removal
values were used for urban and rural areas. In i-Tree Canopy, the air pollutant amount annually removed by trees and
the associated monetary value can be calculated with tree cover in areas of interest using BenMAP multipliers for each
county in the United States.
To calculate ecosystem services for the study area, canopy percentage metrics from UTC land cover data performed
during the assessment were transferred to i-Tree Canopy. Those canopy percentages were matched by placing random
points within the i-Tree Canopy application. Benefit values were reported for each of the five listed air pollutants.
1.2 Carbon Storage and Sequestration
The i-Tree Canopy v6.1 Model was used to quantify the value of ecosystem services for carbon storage and
sequestration. i-Tree Canopy was designed to give users the ability to estimate tree canopy and other land cover types
within any selected geography. The model uses the estimated canopy percentage and reports carbon storage and
sequestration rates and monetary values. Methods on deriving storage and sequestration can be found in Nowak et al.
2013.

Davey Resource Group 25 October 2019

 To calculate ecosystem services for the study area, canopy percentage metrics from UTC land cover data performed
during the assessment were transferred to i-Tree Canopy. Those canopy percentages were matched by placing random
points within the i-Tree Canopy application. Benefit values were reported for carbon storage and sequestration.
1.3 Stormwater
The i-Tree Hydro v5.0 Model was used to quantify the value of ecosystem services for stormwater runoff. i-Tree Hydro
was designed for users interested in analysis of vegetation and impervious cover effects on urban hydrology. This most
recent version (v5.0) allows users to report hydrologic data on the city level rather than just a watershed scale giving
users more flexibility. For more information about the model, please consult the i-Tree Hydro v5.0 manual
(http://www.itreetools.org).
To calculate ecosystem services for the study area, land cover percentages derived for the project area were included in
the project area were used as inputs into the model. Precipitation data from 2005-2012 was modeled within the i-Tree
Hydro to best represent the average conditions over an eight-year time period. Model simulations were run under a Base
Case as well as an Alternate Case. The Alterative Case set tree canopy equal to 0% and assumed that impervious and
vegetation cover would increase based on the removal of tree canopy. Impervious surface was increased 8.2% based on a
percentage of the amount of impervious surface under tree canopy and the rest was added to the vegetation cover
class. This process was completed to assess the runoff reduction volume associated with tree canopy since i-Tree
Hydro does not directly report the volume of runoff reduced by tree canopy. The volume (in cubic meters) was
converted to gallons to retrieve the overall volume of runoff avoided by having the current tree canopy. To place a
monetary value on storm water reduction, the cost to treat a gallon of storm/wastewater was taken from McPherson et
al 1999. This value was $0.089 per gallon.

Davey Resource Group 26 October 2019

Ecobenefit Findings

Air Quality Improvements

In 2008, the Asheville canopy coverage offered $282,000 in air pollution removal value and reduced air pollutants by
880,000 pounds. By 2018, the city saw a 6% loss in tree canopy and with that a significant reduction in its ability to clean
Asheville’s air. The loss of canopy increased the amount of air pollution by 73,000 pounds. The total reduction in air
quality was a deficit of -$23,500.

Table 2. Asheville Tree Canopy Loss Presented as Change in Air Quality

2008 2008 2018 2018 Unit Difference

Air Quality Units (lbs) Value ($) Units (lbs) Value ($) (lbs) Value Difference ($)
CO 11,520 $1,319 10,560 $1,209 -960 ($110)
NO2 86,240 $2,761 79,060 $2,531 -7,180 ($230)
O3 623,460 $198,630 571,520 $182,077 -51,940 ($16,553)
SO2 9,840 $124 9,020 $114 -820 ($10)
PM10 149,080 $79,577 136,660 $72,946 -12,420 ($6,631)

Davey Resource Group 27 October 2019

 Carbon Reduction
Trees store massive amounts of carbon in their woody tissue. Forests—both urban and rural—are an important carbon
sink, helping to mitigate climate change. Trees store some of the carbon dioxide (CO2) they absorb, preventing the CO2
from reaching the upper atmosphere where it can react with other compounds and form harmful gases like ozone, which
adversely affects air quality. Trees also sequester some of the CO2 during growth (Nowak et al. 2013).
The i-Tree calculations consider the carbon emissions that are not released from power stations due to the heating and
cooling effect of trees (i.e., conserved energy in buildings and homes). It also calculates emissions released during tree
care and maintenance, such as driving to the site and operating equipment.
Asheville’s 2008 tree canopy sequestered 70,749 tons of carbon, based on reduction amounts of atmospheric carbon. The
6% loss of tree canopy between 2008 and 2018 reduced the capacity of sequester 5,896 tons of carbon. This amount of
carbon is equivalent to approximately 2 million gallons of gasoline.

The carbon storage amount reflects the amount of carbon the trees have amassed during their lifetimes. The total carbon
storage of the canopy in 2008 was valued at $82,348,000 totaling 1,777,000 tons. The ten years of incremental canopy
loss decreased carbon storage benefit by nearly $7 million.

Table 3. Asheville Tree Canopy Loss Presented as Change in Carbon Storage and Sequestration

Units (tons) Units (tons) Unit Change Value Change

Carbon 2008 Value ($) 2008 2018 Value ($) 2018 (Loss) (Loss)

Sequestration 70,749 $3,279,027 64,853 3,005,775 -5,896 ($273,252)

Storage 1,776,775 $82,348,666 1,628,711 $75,486,277 -148,064 ($6,862,389)

Davey Resource Group 28 October 2019

Stormwater Runoff and Pollution Control
Trees intercept rainwater by capturing water droplets on their leaves and bark. A tree’s expansive root system also absorbs
water from the surrounding soil, increasing the soil’s water holding capacity. Combined, these processes result in reducing
and slowing the amount of stormwater runoff. Without trees, cities would have to invest in significantly more stormwater
infrastructure to handle the additional water flow that would otherwise be captured by trees. In the model, i-Tree hydro
evaluated canopy loss and estimated the increased amounts of pollutants due the loss of canopy.

The below table illustrates the change in runoff amounts within the ten-year period between 2008 and 2018. For this i-Tree
Hydro model, the most recent weather data from 2005 to 2012 was utilized to evaluate the two canopy cover layers – for
both 2008 and 2018. The loss of tree canopy resulted in an average increase of 18,000,000 gallons of stormwater control, or
equivalent to 27 Olympic swimming pools. The ten-year increase in runoff was over 1,300 gallons per acre or approximately
$1,600,000 overall. Increased runoff increases local hydrologic peak flow rates and associated increases in water pollutant
loading levels.

Table 4. Asheville Tree Canopy Loss Presented as Changes in Avoided Stormwater Runoff

Avoided Stormwater Runoff Change from 2008 to 2018

Change in Avoided
Weather Year Rainfall Total Runoff Total Runoff Change in Runoff Avoided Runoff Avoided Runoff Change in Avoided Runoff Runoff
(mm) (m3) 2008 (m3) 2018 (m3) ’08 to ‘18 (m3) 2008 (m3) 2018 (m3) ’08 to ‘18 Gallons
2005 1,137 45,422,516 46,606,904 1,184,388 1,254,443 1,158,419 -96,024 -25,366,931
2006 1,037 43,609,009 44,607,283 998,274 896,405 814,955 -81,450 -21,516,889
2007 833 36,687,547 37,455,533 767,986 1,089,405 1,030,507 -58,898 -15,559,202
2008 810 34,358,212 35,102,737 744,525 949,418 902,479 -46,939 -12,399,890
2009 1,418 56,287,610 58,219,160 1,931,551 949,507 866,446 -83,061 -21,942,311
2010 1,030 41,513,785 43,117,837 1,604,052 972,466 910,743 -61,723 -16,305,462
2011 1,114 44,456,738 46,669,921 2,213,183 925,221 869,936 -55,284 -14,604,564
2012 970 40,151,634 41,074,754 923,120 1,004,829 943,602 -61,226 -16,174,248
Average 1,044 42,810,881 44,106,766 1,295,885 1,005,212 937,136 -68,076 -17,983,687

Davey Resource Group 29 October 2019

For the same weather station data period, the UTC data for 2018 and 2008 were contrasted to relate the loss of tree canopy
as an increase in potential polluted runoff. The i-Tree hydro model evaluates commonly associated pollutants and
measurements such as Total Suspended Solids, Biochemical Oxygen Demand, Chemical Oxygen Demand, Total Phosphorus,
Soluble Organic Pollutants and Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen. Table 5 offers commonly measured water pollutants total suspended
solids, phosphorus, and nitrogen. Note the change columns – all measurements are negative as they reflect losses in the
ability of the canopy to retain those pounds of pollutants. The concentrations vary due to changes in annual rainfall.
Phosphorus and nitrogen levels are measured as they are main components in eutrophication of water bodies and harmful
algal blooms.

Table 5. Avoided Stormwater Runoff by Benchmark Pollutant Measurements

Avoided Pollutant Runoff from Tree Canopy (in pounds)

Total Total Total Total Change Total Kjeldahl Total Kjeldahl Change in
Mean Suspended Suspended Change in Phosphorus Phosphorus in TP Nitrogen 2008 Nitrogen 2018 TKN
Year
Concentration Solids Solids TSS 2008 2018
2008 2018
Median 82,828 77,693 -5,135 394 369 -24 2,234 2,096 -139
2005
Mean 119,153 111,763 -7,390 479 449 -30 2,629 2,466 -163
Median 56,009 52,526 -3,482 266 250 -17 1,511 1,417 -94
2006
Mean 80,570 75,562 -5,009 324 304 -20 1,778 1,667 -111
Median 105,959 101,325 -4,635 504 482 -22 2,858 2,733 -125
2007
Mean 152,426 145,759 -6,667 612 586 -27 3,364 3,216 -147
Median 50,597 47,857 -2,740 240 227 -13 1,365 1,291 -74
2008
Mean 72,786 68,843 -3,943 292 277 -16 1,606 1,519 -87
Median 86,584 80,029 -6,555 411 380 -31 2,335 2,159 -177
2009
Mean 124,553 115,126 -9,427 500 463 -38 2,748 2,540 -208
Median 81,773 77,202 -4,571 389 367 -22 2,206 2,082 -123
2010
Mean 117,633 111,057 -6,576 473 446 -26 2,596 2,451 -145
Median 58,384 55,001 -3,384 277 261 -16 1,575 1,484 -91
2011
Mean 83,989 79,119 -4,870 337 318 -20 1,853 1,746 -107
Median 50,911 47,524 -3,387 242 226 -16 1,373 1,282 -91
2012
Mean 73,239 68,365 -4,874 294 275 -20 1,616 1,509 -107
Median 71,631 67,395 -4,236 340 320 -20 1,932 1,818 -114
Average
Mean 103,044 96,949 -6,094 414 390 -24 2,274 2,139 -134

Davey Resource Group 30 October 2019

Measuring the levels of pollutants is one method of determining effects of canopy loss, another is measuring the effects of
those pollutant concentrations. Table 6 illustrates additional pollutant concerns which can be controlled with attenuation
and retention of stormwater via community trees. These measures are known as biological oxygen demand and chemical
oxygen demand – an evaluation of the dissolved oxygen available to support aquatic life and oxidizable pollutants. Soluble
organic pollutants are those compounds which dissolve in water – some commonly toxic soluble compounds are
dichlorodiphenylthrichloroethane (DDT), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), and numerous other insecticides, herbicides and
plasticizers. These soluble pollutants are not only toxic aquatic life, but also humans when ingested via contaminated water
or food.

Table 6. Avoided Pollutant Runoff by Oxygen Demand and Pollutant Loads.

Avoided Pollutant Runoff from Tree Canopy (in pounds)

Soluble Soluble Change Total Total Change Biochemical Biochemical Chemical Chemical
Mean Organic Organic in SOP Pollutant Pollutant Total Oxygen Oxygen Change in Oxygen Oxygen Change in
Year Pollutants Pollutant Load '08 Load '18 Pollutant
Concentration Demand Demand BOD Demand Demand COD
'08 2018 2008 2018 2008 2018
2005 Median 157 147 -10 172,125 178,673 6,548 17,478 16,394 -1,084 67,935 63,722 -4,212
Mean 196 184 -12 225,501 233,370 7,869 21,429 20,100 -1,329 80,245 75,269 -4,976
2006 Median 106 99 -7 116,390 120,818 4,427 11,818 11,084 -734 45,937 43,082 -2,855
Mean 133 124 -8 152,481 157,802 5,320 14,490 13,590 -901 54,261 50,890 -3,371
2007 Median 200 191 -9 220,193 228,734 8,540 22,358 21,381 -978 86,906 83,105 -3,802
Mean 251 240 -11 288,474 298,736 10,263 27,414 26,214 -1,199 102,655 98,165 -4,490
2008 Median 96 90 -5 105,145 109,179 4,034 10,677 10,098 -578 41,499 39,252 -2,247
Mean 120 113 -6 137,751 142,598 4,847 13,090 12,382 -709 49,020 46,364 -2,656
2009 Median 164 151 -12 179,929 186,675 6,745 18,270 16,887 -1,383 71,015 65,638 -5,377
Mean 205 189 -16 235,721 243,826 8,106 22,401 20,705 -1,696 83,882 77,532 -6,350
2010 Median 155 146 -9 169,933 176,440 6,507 17,255 16,290 -965 67,070 63,320 -3,750
Mean 194 183 -11 222,626 230,445 7,819 21,156 19,973 -1,183 79,223 74,793 -4,431
2011 Median 110 104 -6 121,328 125,964 4,636 12,320 11,605 -714 47,886 45,110 -2,775
Mean 138 130 -8 158,952 164,522 5,571 15,105 14,230 -875 56,564 53,285 -3,279
2012 Median 96 90 -6 105,798 109,804 4,006 10,743 10,028 -714 41,757 38,979 -2,778
Mean 121 112 -8 138,607 143,420 4,814 13,172 12,295 -876 49,324 46,042 -3,282
Average Median 135 127 -8 148,855 154,536 5,680 15,115 14,221 -894 58,751 55,276 -3,474
Mean 170 160 -10 195,014 201,840 6,826 18,532 17,436 -1,096 69,397 65,292 -4,104

Davey Resource Group 31 October 2019

Recommendations and Conclusion
Asheville’s urban forest is an important community asset providing numerous environmental, economic and social
benefits, however, the loss in tree canopy described in this study should serve as a call to action for the City of Asheville.
Canopy loss not only affects the aesthetics of the Asheville, but it also leads to a loss in the ecological, social, and economic
benefits that trees provide. With the appropriate planning, management and care, however, Asheville’s urban forest can
grow and increase in value over time.

The Urban Tree Canopy assessment was designed to help document Asheville’s urban forest, quantify the value and
benefits that it provides, and develop recommendations for future canopy efforts. Based on the analysis, some key
recommendations have emerged:
• Development of an UFMP can provide a road map and shared vision for increasing and improving Asheville’s urban
forest.
• In the face of 6.4% loss in tree canopy, seek to increase tree protection efforts. This can be done through an ordinance
review with a focus on establishing tree protection measures, specifications and mitigation requirements.
• Asheville is encouraged to adhere to the 10-20-30 planting rule and expand its planting palette to include new tree
species. The 10-20-30 rule:
o No more than 30% of any family (e.g. Fagaceae – Beech family (Oak belongs to this family)
o No more than 20% of any genus (e.g. Quercus – Oak)
o No more than 10% of any species (e.g. Quercus rubra – Red Oak)
• Intercepting stormwater and mitigating the urban heat island with tree canopy are important priorities for the City
of Asheville. To meaningfully expand canopy and address these priorities, Asheville should explore opportunities
to improve infrastructure that support trees and engage property and business owners in community forestry
efforts within core commercial and industrial areas.
• Planting is only part of the equation to expand tree canopy. Preserving or protecting old established trees can often
have a greater impact on urban canopy levels while newly planted trees are growing. Asheville should examine
policies to identify any barriers or potential incentives to protecting and expanding tree canopy community wide.

Davey Resource Group 32 October 2019

 • The i-Tree Landscape planting plan in this report provides a great starting point for urban greening efforts that, if
implemented, will have impacts on managing stormwater, reducing the urban heat island and ensuring that planting
is prioritized in areas in greatest need. Asheville should use these data to strategically plant trees in a way that
provides the greatest community benefits.
• This report represents several ways in which these data can be analyzed. With additional datasets or new questions,
the data can further be used to help Asheville manage its urban forest. Therefore, Asheville is encouraged to
continue to use these data to analyze additional relationships and connections that can help develop community
objectives, understand challenges, and frame management decisions.

The data, analysis and recommendations in this study should be considered as a starting point—a place from which to
begin conversations and explore opportunities to enhance the city’s tree canopy.

Davey Resource Group 33 October 2019

References

Hirabayashi, S. 2014. i-Tree Canopy Air Pollutant Removal and Monetary Value Model Descriptions.
http://www.itreetools.org/canopy/resources/iTree_Canopy_Methodology.pdf [Accessed 25 June 2019]

i-Tree Canopy v6.1. i-Tree Software Suite. [Accessed 25 June 2019]

http://www.itreetools.org/canopy

i-Tree Hydro v6.0. i-Tree Software Suite. [Accessed 25 June 2019] http://www.itreetools.org/hydro/index.php

McPherson, E.G.; Simpson, J.R.; Peper, P.J.; Xiao, Q. 1999. Tree Guidelines for San Joaquin Valley Communities. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Center for Urban Forest Research.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2012. Environmental Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program (BenMAP).
http://www.epa.gov/air/benmap [Accessed 25 June 2019]

U.S. Forest Service. 2012. STRATUM Climate Zones. [Accessed 25 June 2019]
http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/programs/uesd/uep/stratum.shtml

Davey Resource Group 34 October 2019