HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 5538 ORDINANCE NO. 5538
AN ORDINANCE TO WAIVE FORMAL COMPETITIVE BIDDING AND
APPROVE A MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
ARKANSAS FORESTRY COMMISSION AND THE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE TO PAY $20,000.00 AND $24,995.00 RESPECTIVELY TO
PLAN-IT GEO TO CONDUCT A TREE CANOPY ANALYSIS FOR
FAYETTEVILLE
WHEREAS, Section 167.03 of the Fayetteville Code, Tree Registry and Urban Forest
Analysis requires the City to "initiate a tree canopy analysis in 2012"; and
WHEREAS, the Arkansas Forestry Commission has agreed to pay $20,000.00 of the
$44,995.00 needed to pay Plan-It Geo (which was competitively selected through a Request for
Proposals process) for the tree canopy analysis.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS:
Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby determines
that such circumstances make formal competitive bidding impractical and therefore waives
formal competitive bidding and agrees to enter into a Memorandum of Agreement with the
Arkansas Forestry Commission to cost share the services of Plan-It Geo to obtain the necessary
tree canopy analysis for Fayetteville which will be shared by the Commission and Fayetteville
and authorizes Mayor Jordan to execute this Agreement which requires the City to pay
$24,995.00 and the Commission to pay$20,000.00.
PASSED and APPROVED this 16'h day of October, 2012.
APPROVED: ATTEST:
ly
y: By: ..
NELD AN, Mayor SONDRA E. SMITH, City Clerk/Tre-pul;�r YYETTEVILLE:
9s•.�'KANSP '���
Z1;/11(3T0 ��
City of Fayetteville Staff Review Form
City Council Agenda Items
and
Contracts,Leases or Agreements
10/16/2012
City Council Meeting Date
Agenda Items Only
Megan Dale Park Planning/Urban Forestry Parks and Recreation
Su itted By Division Department
Action Required:
Approval of a bid waiver and a Memorandum of Agreement with Arkansas Forestry Commission to participate in an
Urban Tree Canopy Assessment, as required by Chapter 167.03(C)Urban Forest Analysis.
$24,995 $80,000 Forestry,Safety and ADA Compliance
Cost of this request Category/Project Budget Program Category/Project Name
4470.9470.5314.00 $0 Urban Forest Analysis
Account Number Funds Used to Date Program/Project Category Name
02045.1201 $80,000 Sales Tax Fund
Project Number Remaining Balance Fund Name
Budgeted Item �x Budget Adjustment Attached Q
r
7 f Previous Ordinance or Resolution#
Dep ent Dir Date
(� 1 Original Contract Date:
- - -- (
"TZ- 0-- Original Contract Number:
City Attorney Date
, 261
Finance and internal Services Director Date Received in City 09-2:,- ? % P 0 3:3 9 P C V u
Clerk's Office I
Chief of S ff Date ENER
Received in
Mayor's Office 1.�I�
a or 16ate
Comments:
Revised January 15,2009
Fayl
�]1 THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS
Y j. DEPARTMENT CORRESPONDENCE
ARKANSAS
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
To: Mayor Lioneld Jordan and City Council
Thru: Don Marr, Chief of Staff
Connie Edmonston, Parks and Recreation Director
Alison Jumper,Park Planning Superintendent
From: Megan Dale, Urban ForesteQ0
Date: 16 October 2012
Subject: Urban Tree Canopy Assessment Grant—Bid Waiver and Memorandum of Agreement
between Arkansas Forestry Commission and City of Fayetteville
PROPOSAL
Staff is requesting approval of a bid waiver and a Memorandum of Agreement with the Arkansas Forestry
Commission to participate in an urban forest canopy assessment. Chapter 167: Tree Preservation and Protection
states that an Urban Tree Canopy Assessment must be completed every 10 years.The last study was done in
2002 and a new study is due to be completed this year.
The Arkansas Forestry Commission(AFC)desires to partner with the City of Fayetteville(COF)to participate
in an urban forest canopy assessment which is part of a regional program through the USDA Forest Service.
The AFC and COF will work with a consultant to provide an assessment of the Urban Tree Canopy(UTC)for
COF. This UTC Assessment will include both public and private trees. Partial funding is provided by the USDA
Forest Service.
The study is part of a three state project where tree canopy analyses will be conducted in Arkansas,Tennessee,
and Mississippi. Other Arkansas cities participating in the study include Little Rock,North Little Rock,
Jonesboro, and West Memphis.
The objectives for the City of Fayetteville are to obtain a current classification of land cover, conduct an
analysis of the urban tree canopy,and determine ecosystem benefits that area derived from urban forests. This
study will help the city in setting canopy goals,revising policies,promoting the benefits of trees,and
developing sound management plans.
AFC advertised a Request for Proposals in accordance with all state bidding requirements that included
deliverables desired by the City of Fayetteville. AFC and COF staff evaluated the proposals and selected Plan-It
Geo to perform the work. The performance of the Program will be determined by the deliverables as outlined in
the Request for Proposals provided by AFC.
The funding for Fayetteville's portion of the project will be under the administration of the Urban Forestry
Coordinator of AFC and the Urban Forester for COF. Funds will be paid by the City of Fayetteville directly to
Plan-It Geo,therefore requiring a bid waiver.
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf TDD(479)521-1316 113 West Mountain-Fayetteville,AR 72701
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS
All work for the City of Fayetteville's canopy study will be complete by November 30,2012.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approving a bid waiver and a Memorandum of Agreement with Arkansas Forestry
Commission to participate in an Urban Tree Canopy Assessment, as required by Chapter 167.03(C)Urban
Forest Analysis.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Total project cost is $44,995. Arkansas Forestry Commission agrees to provide funding in the amount of
$20,000. Matching funds in the amount of$24,995 are budgeted in the Sales Tax Fund in project 02045.1201,
Urban Forest Analysis.
Attachments:
Chapter 167 Tree Preservation and Protection
Memorandum of Agreement with Arkansas Forestry Commission
RFP advertised by AFC
Purchase Order Request
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE TO WAIVE FORMAL COMPETITIVE BIDDING AND
APPROVE A MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
ARKANSAS FORESTRY COMMISSION AND THE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE TO PAY $20,000.00 AND $24,995.00 RESPECTIVELY TO
PLAN-IT GEO TO CONDUCT A TREE CANOPY ANALYSIS FOR
FAYETTEVILLE
WHEREAS, Section 167.03 of the Fayetteville Code, Tree Registry and Urban Forest
Analysis requires the City to "initiate a tree canopy analysis in 2012"; and
WHEREAS, the Arkansas Forestry Commission has agreed to pay $20,000.00 of the
$44,995.00 needed to pay Plan-It Geo (which was competitively selected through a Request for
Proposals process) for the tree canopy analysis.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS:
Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby determines
that such circumstances make formal competitive bidding impractical and therefore waives
formal competitive bidding and agrees to enter into a Memorandum of Agreement with the
Arkansas Forestry Commission to cost share the services of Plan-It Geo to obtain the necessary
tree canopy analysis for Fayetteville which will be shared by the Commission and Fayetteville
and authorizes Mayor Jordan to execute this Agreement which requires the City to pay
$24,995.00 and the Commission to pay$20,000.00.
PASSED and APPROVED this 16th day of October, 2012.
APPROVED: ATTEST:
By: By:
LIONELD JORDAN, Mayor SONDRA E. SMITH, City Clerk/Treasurer
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
ARKANSAS FORESTRY COMMISSION
AND
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE
Whereas the Arkansas Forestry Commission(AFC)desires to partner with the City of
Fayetteville(COF)to participate in an urban forest canopy assessment which is part of a
regional program through the USDA Forest Service. The AFC and COF will work with a
vendor to provide an assessment of the Urban Tree Canopy(UTC)for COF. This UTC
Assessment will pertain to both public and private trees.Funding is provided by the
USDA Forest Service(USDA FS).
This project is one of a series of assessments being developed for a landscape scale
Urban Tree Canopy project that encompasses cities in Arkansas,Tennessee,and
Mississippi.This project will"allow communities to have tree canopy assessments done
for their urban forests and provide them with the tools needed to develop canopy goals
and strategies to improve green infrastructure."
The objectives for the City of Fayetteville are to obtain a current classification of land
cover,conduct an analysis of the urban tree canopy,and determine ecosystem benefits
that are derived from the urban forests. This will assist COF in setting canopy goals,
revising policies,promoting the benefits of trees,and developing sound management
plans. UTC assessment protocols integrate high resolution land cover aerial
multispectral photography with planimetric datasets such as building and streets to
determine an area's existing UTC.The UTC geographic information system analyses
also define land-use areas,including impervious layers,and the percentages of these
lands that are covered by trees.
The Area of Interest(AOI)is 55.4 square miles defined by the city limits of the COF,in
Washington County,Arkansas.
The funding for this project will be under the administration of the Urban Forestry
Coordinator of AFC and the Urban Forester for COF. The performance of the Program
will be determined by the deliverables as outlined in the Request for Proposals provided
by AFC that the vendor,Plan-It Geo,bid on and was awarded. All requirements as
agreed to by AFC and COF in said proposal will be provided by Plan-It Geo.
AFC agrees to provide funding in the amount of$20,000 and the matching in the
amount of$24,995 will be provided by the COF.
The contract period will be from August 30, 2012 to November 30,2012.
1
AGREED TO BY: AGRE TO BY:
Patti Erwin Lioneld Jo
Urban Foreat X Program Coordinator Mayor
Title Title
Date D e
2
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
ARKANSAS FORESTRY COMMISSION&the CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE
PROPOSED BUDGET
9/14/2012
CORE RFP TASKS COST
Project/Contract Management $1,500
Data Collection $1,000
Land Cover Classification $10,500
Accuracy Assessment $1,000
UTC Analysis and Mapping $4,500
Ecosystem Services Analysis $5,000
Urban Forest Management Scenarios $3,500
Powerpoint,Report&Delivery $7.9()9
Sub-Total $34995
ADDITIONAL TASKS
2-pg Summary Factsheet $2,000
Training Workshop $3,250
Potential Planting Sites&Prioritization $4,250
Total Project Costs $44,995
3
D
t0
E�
O Ct r C OD -I T 01 A W N !C m a
CL
7 N (D t/1
�- � N •�O N �. W � C
O co
d g t
n' 3 7 a =
co fD tO qa
O O > > N
a
0 3S
CD _ ca
0 N CL C
z
CA m 3' � so A
n �
N 2
3 ?,z
06 0y
N 0
3 O �•
�j G 1 0
co m
m m m x m
h ? o
�p A a a CL
O O O O O O O O O O m A.
C3 O G CD O O O O O O N 0
O o r ^`
n W
N I
p�`j
0 0
0
o �
Q t c
0 CD
c "W0 Z Tm
N c g v 1
i V Op Q
A O 6.
O CD
A
0 -� C O N C O � � N �C N�• �
x v (D ty N
t m _ m ° -
`� A 0 3
�c 0
CD N Q CD
CA CA c0
A
N CD o v
o r
Z Z
0 0
I
N10
N < Nto co
A A � •�• � Os N
O D N O
n _
N �
d fD
0!
N
X
d
N Z
N
Q
TITLE XV UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
CHAPTER 167: TREE PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION
167.01 Purpose (5) If none of the above approaches can be
It is the purpose of this chapter to preserve and achieved, payment shall be made to the tree
protect the health, safety, and general welfare, and escrow account.
preserve and enhance the natural beauty of
Fayetteville by providing for regulations of the (Code 1991, §162.01; Ord. No. 3699, §1 4-20-93; Ord. No.
preservation, planting, maintenance, and removal of 4100,§2(Ex.A),6-16-98;Ord.No.4340,10-2-01)
trees within the city, in order to accomplish the 167.02 City Of Fayetteville Tree
following objectives:
Preservation, Protection, And Landscape
(A) Objectives. Manual
The urban forester, in cooperation with other
(1) To preserve existing tree canopy; members of city staff, shall promulgate and
periodically revise forms, procedures and regulations
(2) To create a healthful environment for to implement this chapter and publish this information
Fayetteville residents, businesses, and in the City of Fayetteville, Tree Preservation,
industries; Protection, and Landscape Manual.
(3) To moderate the harmful effects of sun, (A) Copies of the Tree Preservation, Protection, and
wind,and temperature changes; Landscape Manual are to be made readily
available to the public and shall include, but need
(4) To buffer noise,air and visual pollution; not be limited to:
(5) To filter pollutants from the air that assist in (1) Specific criteria for gaining city approval of
the generation of oxygen; tree preservation plans;
(6) To reduce storm water runoff and the (2) The format and content of reports and plans
potential damage it may create; the applicant must submit to the city
pursuant to this chapter;
(7) To stabilize soil and prevent erosion, with an
emphasis on maintaining tree canopy on (3) Tree protection during construction;
hillsides defined as canopied slopes in
Chapter 151; (4) A glossary of important terms used in this
chapter;
(8) To provide habitat for birds and other wildlife;
(5) Size and species requirements for trees
(9) To preserve riparian banks and beds, and planted for on-site mitigation or off-site
prevent sedimentation; forestation;
(10)To screen incompatible land; (6) Maintenance of trees (including but not
limited to pruning, irrigation, and protection
(11)To promote energy conservation;and from disease).
(12)To protect and enhance property values. (B) The Tree and Landscape Advisory Committee
shall review and may recommend revisions to the
(B) Principles. This chapter shall be enforced Tree Preservation, Protection, and Landscape
according to the following principles: Manual at least every three years to reflect
changes in arboricultural and horticultural
(1) Preservation shall be the first, best, and practices, lists of preferred tree species, city
standard approach. policies, or the content of this chapter.
(2) If preservation cannot be achieved, on-site (Ord.No.4340,10-2-01)
mitigation shall next be pursued.
167.03 Tree Registry And Urban Forest
(3) If on-site mitigation cannot be achieved, off- Analysis
site preservation shall be pursued.
(A) Tree Registry. Trees and groups of trees which
(4) If off-site preservation cannot be achieved, are documented to be of historic merit, of an
off-site forestation shall be pursued. uncommon or endangered species, or are of
extraordinary value due to their age,size, or type,
CD167:3
Fayetteville Code of Ordinances
may be registered in the City of Fayetteville's tree that are not required to go through
registry. It shall be the duty of the urban forester subdivision or large scale development
to maintain and keep this registry on file in the process. There shall be no land disturbance,
urban forester's office. grading, or tree removal until an abbreviated
tree preservation plan has been submitted
(B) Voluntary registration. Registration of trees shall and approved, and the tree protection
be voluntary and may be done by the owner(s)of measures at the site inspected and
the property on which the tree is located. approved.
Registration shall not run with the land unless the
property owner wishes to use an express trust to (3) Building permits. Tree preservation require-
transfer a benefit in the tree or groups of trees to ments apply to all permit applications for
the city. Registered tree owners are entitled to nonresidential construction, and the
consultation with the Tree and Landscape construction of multi-family residential
Advisory Committee and/or the urban forester buildings composed of three or more
concerning proper care and protection of the tree, dwelling units. An abbreviated tree
as well as an evaluation of the tree's condition. preservation plan, as set forth in § 167.04
(H)(3), shall be submitted with the
(C) Urban Forest Analysis. The city shall initiate a application for building permits on projects
tree canopy analysis and an Urban Forestry that are not required to go through the
Effects Model study or their current equivalent subdivision or large scale development
studies within the current geographical process. There shall be no land disturbance,
boundaries of the city by December 31, 2012. grading, or tree removal until an abbreviated
Thereafter, the city should conduct these studies tree preservation plan has been submitted
every ten(10)years. and approved, and the tree protection
measures at the site inspected and
(Ord. No.4340, 10-02-01; Ord.5427,8-2-11) approved.
167.04 Tree Preservation And Protection (4) Parking lots. Tree preservation require-
During Development ments apply to all permit applications for the
construction of parking lots with five or more
(A) Applicability. The provisions of this section shall spaces. An abbreviated tree preservation
apply to proposed subdivisions, and large scale plan, as set forth in §167.04 (H)(3), shall be
developments required by other chapters of the submitted with the application for permits on
Unified Development Code to go through the projects that are required to go through the
city's permitting process. Persons seeking to subdivision or large scale development
build one single-family dwelling unit, or duplex, process. There shall be no land disturbance,
are specifically exempt from the provisions of this grading, or tree removal until an abbreviated
section except when the land is located within the tree preservation plan has been submitted
Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District; then all the and approved, and the tree protection
provisions of this ordinance shall apply. Planned measures at the site inspected and
Zoning Districts should meet the percent approved.
minimum tree canopy based upon their primary (5) Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District. Undeveloped
use, but may be allowed a lesser tree canopy land located within the Hillside/Hilltop
requirement as part of the overall Master Plan Overlay District shall submit a site analysis
approved by the City Council. plan, analysis report, and tree preservation
(1) 'Subdivisions and large scale developments. plan with the preliminary plat or site plan.
Applicants seeking approval of proposed Single and two family residential
subdivisions and large scale developments development shall submit an abbreviated
shall submit a site analysis plan, analysis tree preservation and site plan at the time of
report, and tree preservation plan with the obtaining a building permit. Structural
preliminary plat or site plan. There shall be changes to buildings located in the
no land disturbance,grading, or tree removal Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District that do not
until a tree preservation plan has been result in an enlargement of the building
submitted and approved, and the tree footprint or roof dripline shall not require an
protection measures at the site inspected abbreviated tree preservation plan. There
and approved. shall be no land disturbance, grading, or tree
removal until a tree preservation plan has
(2) Grading permit. An abbreviated tree been submitted and approved, and the tree
preservation plan, as set forth in protection measures at the site inspected
§167.04(H)(3), shall be submitted with the and approved.
application for grading permits on projects
CD167:4
The Arkansas Forestry Commission
Urban & Community Forestry Program
Request for Proposals
The State expects vendors to propose creative, competitive solutions to the
agency's stated problem and needs, as specified below.
OVERVIEW OF PROJECT
The Arkansas Forestry Commission Urban &Community Forestry(AFC) program is
currently seeking a vendor to provide an assessment of the Urban Tree Canopy(UTC)
for the City of Fayetteville (COF).This Urban Tree Canopy Assessment will pertain to
both public and private trees.This funding is provided by the USDA Forest Service
(USDA FS). The contract period will be from August 30, 2012 to November 30, 2012.
This RFP is one of a series of RFPs being developed for a landscape scale Urban Tree
Canopy project that encompasses cities in Arkansas,Tennessee, and Mississippi. This
project will"allow communities to have tree canopy assessments done for their urban
forests and provide them with the tools needed to develop canopy goals and strategies to
improve green infrastructure."
The Area of Interest(AOI) is 55.4 square miles defined by the city limits of the City of
Fayetteville, in Washington County,Arkansas. The link to the COF GIS data download
page can be found at:
http•//gis accessfayetteville org/SpatialDirectitranslationServlet?SSFunction=prepareFetch
(last accessed August 2, 2012)
1) set max extents
2) in the boundary list
3) select"City Limits"
There are several programs that can be used for ecosystem benefits calculations in
conjunction with urban tree canopy studies;for example,AMERICAN FORESTS
CITYGreen®, i-Tree Vue, and the urban watershed runoff model TR55 (NRCS).
This UTC assessment will use 2olo National Agricultural Imagery Program(NAIP)leaf-
on aerial digital imagery of 1 meter pixel resolution for the image classification to
develop the UTC layer and other deliverables for the City of Fayetteville.
All intermediate datasets and layers, and final data developed or created for this project
will be the property of the Arkansas Forestry Commission and the City of Fayetteville.
This project is awarded through AFC in cooperation with and funding from the USDA
Forest Service State&Private Forestry. The USDA is an equal opportunity provider and
employer.
1
Definitions
For the purpose of this RFP, the following definitions will be used:
AOI Area of interest; an area of 55.4 square miles as currently defined by
the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas
AFC Arkansas Forestry Commission Urban & Community Forestry
Program
Awarded VendorThe organization/individual that is awarded and has an approved
contract with the AFC for the services identified in this RFP.
CITYGreen® A Windows based GIS application extension for ArcView®
software.
COF City of Fayetteville, Arkansas
Existing UTC The area that is covered by trees, leaves and branches existing at the
time of imagery data acquisition.
i-Tree Vue A program that makes use of a city's current land cover GIS layer to
assess a community's tree canopy and the ecosystem services
provided by the urban forest. Basic scenarios can be modeled for
various urban tree canopy changes.
Land Cover Land cover is the description of the physical surface of the earth.
Land covers include: grass, asphalt, trees, bare ground, water, etc.
Land Use Land use is a description of how people utilize the land and the
socio-economic activity that occurs on the land; urban and
agricultural land uses (including forestry) are two of the most
commonly known land use classes. Urban land use can be further
divided into sub -classes like: residential, commercial, public, etc.
For this study, land -use is defined by the current COF land -use GIS
layer downloaded from their website (see Overview for link).
MMU Minimum mapping unit.
NAIP National Agricultural Imagery Program.
NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service, USDA
Possible UTC The area where trees can possibly be planted; this includes grass
and bare ground as assessed at the time of imagery data acquisition.
2
TR55 An NRCS model that provides a quantitative measure of
stormwater characteristics based on landcover.
USFS United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service.
UFS Urban Forestry South (USDA FS in Athens, Georgia)
UTC Urban Tree Canopy
Objective
The objectives for the City of Fayetteville are to: obtain a current classification of land
cover, conduct an analysis of the urban tree canopy and determine ecosystem benefits
that are derived from the urban forests. This will assist the City in setting canopy goals,
revising policies, promoting the benefits of trees, and developing sound management
plans.
UTC assessment is a starting point to understanding, managing and preserving the City
of Fayetteville's investments in both public and private trees and will provide tools to
develop local urban forestry management plans, and goals and policies to sustain the
existing Urban Forest (UF). UTC assessment protocols integrate high resolution land
cover aerial multispectral photography with planimetric datasets such as building and
streets to determine an area's existing UTC. The UTC geographic information system
analyses also define land -use areas, including impervious layers, and the percentages of
these lands that are covered by trees. With this analysis and the values of the impact
UTC has on ecosystem services (air quality, energy conservation, stormwater runoff and
water quality), decision makers can plan and make better decisions about integrating
trees into their urban infrastructure. Additionally, the modeling of various percent UTC
scenarios demonstrate the effects of increases or declines in the UTC on these ecosystem
benefits and can be used to set UTC goals. UTC assessment or study results also show
where there are the greatest opportunities to plant trees and increase the UTC.
SCOPE OF WORK
The awarded vendor will be responsible for an image classification and specified
assessment of the Area of Interest. This AOI encompasses the city limits of Fayetteville,
Arkansas.
REQUIREMENTS AND TASKS
The awarded vendor must perform the following tasks, complete those tasks to the
specified standards and submit each component of those tasks as deliverables to the
Arkansas Forestry Commission and the City of Fayetteville.
The awarded vendor must consult with AFC (and indirectly COF & USFS) prior to
beginning the project with a proposed outline (if different than the RFP submitted), any
clarifications on deliverables, and final methodology for classification and accuracy
assessment.
3
Specifically, the awarded vendor will:
i. Utilize the 2010 NAIP imagery (4 -band orthorectified digital aerial photography -1
meter resolution) to extract the following land cover.
• Classifications will include: bare ground, open space/grass, impervious layers
(parking lots and generalized building areas), and other commercial and
industrial areas, roads, water features and UTC.
• Tables, graphs and geospatial data created by the analysis will be provided for the
report; the percent and acres of UTC, land cover classifications in acres and
percentages, the UTC ecosystem services, and scenarios of the impacts of
increasing and decreasing UTC to these services.
2. GIS datasets and layers must be delivered in a form compatible with ArcGIS - ESRI
software version 10.
3. Accuracy Standards
The grantee and its GIS subcontractor will provide an accuracy assessment including the
detailed error assessment methodology narrative, the intermediate GIS layers that show
locations of points used for the accuracy assessment, a layer that shows locations of any
training sites used in the classification process, and the resulting error matrix.
4. In the RFP, clearly indicate all licensed and open -source software that the contractor
intends on using for this project.
Quality Assurance (QA) and Quality Control (QC)
The analysis will achieve a minimum of 92% user's accuracy for tree canopy and
impervious classes. Overall accuracy must ≥90%.
Based on the vendor's classification methodology and other considerations, the RFP
response must clearly define the minimum mapping unit (MMU) that will be developed
for all deliverables. Based on the objectives of the project, MMU should probably be ≤9
square meters.
The AFC in cooperation with the USFS will perform a QA/QC check on the image
classification deliverables. The error assessment methodology for the QA/QC will be
based on Assessing the Accuracy of Remotely Sensed Data : Principles and Practices
(2nd Edition) Congalton Russell G and Kass Green, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL 2008
All appropriate accuracy assessment techniques will be employed including: Kappa
(KHAT statistic) and MARGFIT (normalization). A fuzzy error matrix approach will be
used if deemed appropriate. USDA FS (UFS) will consult with NOAA and USFS remote
sensing specialists on the protocol.
Vendor will provide UFS datasets needed for accuracy verification as soon as the vendor
has completed their assessment for the project. This should occur by mid/late-October.
(See timeline.) This should include the final classified raster layer with metadata, the
Gl
narrative description of the classification methodology, the contractor's error matrix,
and the narrative describing the contractor's error assessment methodology.
Deliverables
A. Land Cover Classifications
Develop digital GIS/spatial data sets; these data sets will be used to complete the
required tasks.
• Classifications will include: bare ground, open space/ grass, impervious layers
(parking lots and generalized building areas), and other commercial and
industrial areas, roads, water features and UTC.
• Tables, graphs and geospatial data created by the analysis will be reported for the
report; the percent and acres of UTC, land cover classifications in acres and
percentages, the UTC ecosystem services, and scenarios of the impacts of
increasing and decreasing UTC to these services.
B. GIS Datasets
• All final raster and vector GIS datasets
• All significant intermediary GIS datasets (AFC and USFS reserves the right to
request specific intermediary data sets as deemed necessary in the review and
delivery acceptance process)
C. Urban Tree Canopy (UTC) Analysis and Mapping
1. The vendor must provide a report of existing UTC, and Possible UTC broken out
into the following land use categories:
a) Agricultural
b) Residential
c) Commercial
d) Industrial
e) Public land
f) Public Right -of -Way
2. The vendor must generate maps, statistics, tables, spreadsheets and charts
identifying the following:
a) Existing UTC in acres and percentages of total for AOI.
b) Existing UTC in acres and percentages of total for each land use category
(obtained from other GIS layers) for AOI.
c) Possible UTC acres to plant (riparian zones, open spaces, front lawns, etc.) and
percentages of total for AOI.
d)Possible UTC acres and percentages of total for each land use categories in the
AOI.
D. Ecosystem Benefits Analysis
5
Awarded vendor must prepare reports, graphs, spreadsheets and/or tables which
capture air quality, water quality, stormwater runoff, and carbon sequestration values
for the tree canopy for the AOI. Note: Included indicators must also be quantified in
resource units and dollars.
1. Air pollution removed by existing UTC as:
a) Pounds removed per year; and,
b) Dollar value of removed air pollutants per year.
2. Carbon storage and sequestration as:
a) Total tons stored
b) Total tons sequestered annually
3. Stormwater Management as:
a) Water quantity — runoff volume
b) Total stormwater savings.
E. Urban Forest Management Scenarios
Using existing UTC the awarded vendor must develop and record models for:
1. 2004 - 2012 Comparison
a) Determine decrease in benefits due to canopy lost.
b) Prepare 2012 benefits of canopy from the 2010 NAIP classification benefits
(we are assuming the benefits from 2010 are current benefits).
c) Chart where development happened(focus on impervious surface).
d) Chart where canopy was removed.
e) Chart where canopy was replaced.
f) Determine if the trees that were planted in 2004 (where chart shows
development) matured and compensated for the loss of trees removed?
2. Target areas to plant trees
a) Note areas that are most vulnerable to the urban heat island
b) Notes area that could benefit from additional wildlife habitat such as linkages
& density improvement.
c) Note areas for potential planting spaces (classified by current land use)
3. Identify our city's current % of canopy coverage analyze data from #1
a) The national recommendation is 40% canopy cover.
b) Is our tree preservation ordinance effective?
c) If our ordinance is not achieving the 40% target, we would like
recommendations noting where it failed.
4. Management
Gain or loss for city property trees (parks, and trails) these areas
Awarded vendor must provide the Arkansas Forestry Commission (AFC) with one
original CD disk and one identical copy, two identical copies for the City of Fayetteville
and one copy for the USFS.
PowerPoint Presentations
The awarded vendor must develop a PowerPoint Presentation with talking points for the
AOI. The presentation must be made to the AFC and COF and oriented and suitable for
elected officials and decision makers. The presentations will encompass; the data,
summary of methods and results. COF will set up the presentation. The AOI
presentations must be on one primary disk and two backup disks.
Report and Data Disks
The awarded vendor must:
1. Produce 20 spiral -bound copies of a report that documents the results and
methodology.
2 Record an electronic version of the spiral -bound report on five (5) disks. The disk
must include the reports, data, graphs, spreadsheets, charts, maps, and PowerPoint
show talking points and data. This requirement must be included in the 20 spiral
bound reports.
Note: Both the spiral -bound reports and disk must be submitted to AFC and COF.
Timeline
1. RFP released on August 20, 2012
2. Pre -deadline conference call with AFC, COF, and UFS to answer questions about
the project, requirements, and deliverables. August 24, 2012
3. RFP deadline September 10, 2012
4. Vendor notification and contract award date September 12, 2012
5. UFS Accuracy Assessment by November 16, 2012
6. Complete all the required tasks - to include deliverable acceptance - no later than
November 26, 2012.
7. Submit all bills to AFC and City of Fayetteville no later than November 16, 2012.
NOTE: These dates represent a tentative schedule of events. The State reserves the right
to modify these dates at any time.
Minimum RFP Components
Narrative
Vendors must clearly describe and reference (peer -reviewed ) the image
classification methodology they will utilize. Based on methodology and
the data available for the project, vendors will define the MMU they will
target & achieve at the specified accuracy requirements.
Vendors must clearly describe the accuracy assessment methodology
(including software components) that will be used to develop and analyze
the error matrix.
7
Deliverables
Describe any deviation from deliverables specified in this RFP. This may
include vendor clarification language if needed. A simple statement "All
deliverables will be produced as specified in the RFP" is sufficient.
Company Background and References
Name, address and telephone number of the vendor's point of contact for a
contract resulting from this RFP.
A list and/or a brief description of the applicant's experience with image
classification and/or UTC studies.
Vendors should provide a minimum of three (3) references from similar
projects performed for private, state and/or large local government clients
within the last three years.
RFP & Project Contacts
Patti Erwin, Arkansas Forestry Commission Urban Forestry Coordinator —
(479) 442-4963, patti.erwin(c�arkansas.gov
Megan Dale, City of Fayetteville Urban Forester - (479) 444.-3470
mdale(�ci.fayetteville.ar.us
Todd Jorgensen, City of Fayetteville's mapping - (479) 575-8440,
tjorgensen(a�ci.fayetteville.ar.us
Dudley Hartel, Center Manager, Urban Forestry South, Centers for Urban & Interface
Forestry - (706) 559-4236, dhartel(hfs.fed.us
NORTHWEST ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT -GAZETTE
NORTHWESTARKANSAS
THE MORNING NEWS OF SPRINGDALE
NEWS-P-M-ER�SLLC
THE MORNING NEWS OF ROGERS
NORTHWEST ARKANSAS TIMES
BENTON COUNTY DAILY RECORD
212 NORTH EAST AVENUE, FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72701 1 P.O. BOX 1607, 72702 1 479-442-1700 1 WWW.NWANEWS.COM
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
I, Karen Caler, do solemnly swear that I am the Legal Clerk of the
Northwest Arkansas Newspapers, LLC, printed and published in
Washington and Benton County, Arkansas, bona fide circulation,
that from my own personal knowledge and reference to the files
of said publication, the advertisement of:
City of Fayetteville -
Ordinance 5538
Was inserted in the Regular Editions on:
November 1, 2012
Publication Charges: $ 84.30
J
Karen Caler
Subscribed and sworn to before me
This 2 ( day of , 2012.
Notary Public
My Commission Expires: )oty,
,'"P E n % CATHY J, WILES
lz <:r Benton County
my Comrnis,ion Expires
February 20, 2014
**NOTE**
Please do not pay from Affidavit. Invoice will be sent.
RECEIVED
N0V 2 7 2012
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE
CITY CLERKS OFFICE
-
Qndl . rb53g
ux cc Ca d
Pt1Vi1e
p Q THE CITY OF FAYETTEV LLE, ARKANSA °
V DEPARTMENT CORRESPONDENCE
AR A N 5 A S
CITY COUNCIL MEMO
To: Mayor Jordan and City Council
Thru: Don Marr, Chief of Staff t RECEIVED
Connie Edmonston, Parks and Recreation DirectorQi'
Alison Jumper, Park Planning Superintendent 0; FEB 0 7 2013
From: Megan Dale, Urban Forester CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
Date: January 17, 2013
Subject: 2012 Urban Tree Canopy Assessment -- Results
For your reference, please see attached one (1) fact sheet and one (1) report regarding results from the 2012 Urban Tree
Canopy Assessment. A copy of the documents has been provided for each Council member.
Background:
Chapter 167.03 (C) of the Unified Development Code (UDC) requires the City to conduct a tree canopy study every 10
years. Approved by City Council on October 16, 2012, participation in the 2012 Urban Tree Canopy Assessment
accomplished this requirement to complete a tree canopy study by December 31, 2012.
Results:
The 2012 Urban Tree Canopy Assessment classifies land cover, analyzes tree canopy, and examines economic and
ecosystem benefits that the urban forest generates within the City of Fayetteville. Project deliverables included GIS data
layers and analysis tools, Excel spreadsheets, and the attached fact sheet and summary report. The assessment will help
the city in setting tree canopy goals, revising policies, promoting the benefits of trees, and developing sound management
plans.
The attached UTC Canopy Assessment report outlines results from the study.
with associated page number:
Major Findings (6)
Methodology (7)
Land Cover Results (9)
Tree Canopy by Land Use and Area (11-18)
Ecosystem Services and Economic Benefits (19-20)
Management Scenarios and Canopy Change (21-26)
Recommendations (33)
Summary (35)
Urban Tree Benefits (36-37)
Note the following sections of the document
Please view and retain for reference the attached documents. More information is available at
urbanforestry.accessfayetteville.org. Please feel free to contact me at mdale(a ci.fayetteville,ar.us or 479-444-3470 should
you have any questions.
Attachments:
2012 Urban Tree Canopy Assessment Summary Report
Fayetteville UTC Fact Sheet
W
•�.i _f r.` ..rti o .
•
d a a / u4� )r
Tree Canopy in the City of Fayetteville
Trees provide many economic, environmental, social, and health benefits that form the basis of livability in every
community. It is important for urban developers to work closely with natural resource managers to maintain and enhance
this resource. As Fayetteville grows, development will place many challenges on the natural environment. Tree planting,
tree care, and natural forest regeneration have never been more important.
In 2012, Fayetteville contracted with Plan -It Geo LLC to conduct Arkansas's first
Urban Tree Canopy (UTC) Assessment. The assessment used summer leaf -on aerial
imagery and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to map and assess land cover
for a variety of planning scales and assessment boundaries.
The UTC study provides a wealth of information on:
The City's existing tree canopy and 10 -year trends
e Priority tree planting sites and areas for forest preservation
74 An analysis of some of the ecosystem services benefits of the urban forest
Maps, tools, training, and a report to evaluate policies and planning
At the time of analysis, Fayetteville had 36% tree canopy and 51% plantable space
(grass, open space, and parking lots), with 13% of the City mapped as being
unsuitable for tree planting (roads, buildings, water, and agricultural fields).
The data will be used to develop strategies to help increase and maintain the City of
Fayetteville's Urban Tree Canopy and educate the public on the many benefits of
urban trees and community forests. A citywide land cover map is below.
.IrTI.1s1TL$fJfThfhui..
:TI
_ ..�y Ja•; r N a�� .--. . AAA
r`
____
<•,(
\. :
- _,
,.
i
7 1.i� F +
6
.k•
k. 1
_ i
Canopy Trends
Assessing current and historical imagery
showed that Fayetteville has lost an
estimated 1.5% canopy cover from 2002
to 2012 (-750 acre decrease).
Gains and Losses
Gains have occurred through the growth
of existing trees and newly planted trees.
The area of forest stands greater than
.25 -acre increased by roughly 500 acres.
Losses have occurred from new
development, storms, and natural
mortality totaling an estimated 1,250
acres with 90% of the loss resulting in
more development and impervious
surface cover.
plan -it
GCO
y
IIT
Tree Canopy by Land Use
Land cover data was also used to assess tree cover and planting opportunities for six broad land use types (see table
below). Residential properties average 41% tree cover which makes up a third (36%) of all UTC in Fayetteville. Residential
areas also provide 28% of the total planting area citywide and may be most realistic for reaching and maintaining tree
canopy gains while also providing the greatest benefits to Fayetteville's citizens. A cost-effective means for advancing
urban forestry in Fayetteville will be public education and outreach on urban tree canopy benefits. Zoning and landscaping
codes also impact canopy cover. Note that commercial properties average 18% canopy cover with 69% total plantable area.
Land Use Category
Total
Acres
Land
Area
(acres)
%of Total
City Area
UTC
(acres)
Existing
UTC
,
/o
Distribution
of UTC by
Land Use
Total
Possible
Planting
(acres)
Total
Possible
Planting
%
Distribution
of Total PPA
by Land Use
No. of Planting
Planting Sites per
Sites Acre
UTC Added by Growing
50% of Sites (30' mg tree
crown;40'forResidential)
Acres %
Agriculture
9,880
9,757
28%
4,353
45%
35%
5,329
55%
30%
3,520
0.4
29 45%
Commercial
3,985
3,943
11%
702
18%
6%
2,705
69%
15%
17,674
4.5
143 21%
Industrial
957
949
3%
258
27%
2%
549
58%
3%
3,827
4.0
31 30%
Public Land
6,731
6,106
19%
2,285
37%
18%
3,190
52%
18%
22,977
3,8
186 40%
Residential
11,017
10,968
31%
4,475
41%
36%
5,038
46%
28%
68,251
6,2
984 50%
Pu_blichtsof Way
2,867
2,863
8%
368
13%
3%
1,247
44%
7%
15,097
5.3
122 17%
TOTALS
35,437
34,586
100%
12.441
36%
100%
18,058
52%
100%
131.346
1,496 40%
Ecosystem Services of Trees
1 Reducing urban heat island effect and cooling
energy costs. There are 50,000 potential tree
planting sites near residential buildings
3i Improving air quality ($3.5M/year), water quality,
and groundwater recharge
Decreasing stormwater management and
infrastructure costs ($64M/year)
10 Improving property values, increasing tax revenue
recreation opportunities, and wildlife habitat
Summary
'W 36% citywide average tree canopy cover, very
respectable for the climate and community
?0 4% shy of nationally recommended 40% canopy;
65,000 mature trees would bridge the gap
7i Tree planting and growth has not compensated for
losses of tree cover from development
1tI Natural regeneration has offset a portion of losses
'W Fayetteville should use these results to foster
volunteerism, promote tree benefits, pursue
partnerships to meet goals, and monitor the
effectiveness of the Tree Preservation Ordinance
Acknowledgements
Funding assistance was provided by a grant from the
Arkansas Forestry Commission Urban & Community
Benefit Type UTC-% Citywide Decline to Increase
36% 30% to 40%
Air Annual $ Benefit $3.5 million $3.0 million $4.0 million
Quality Lbs. Removed/Year 1.3 million 1.1 million 1.4 million
Carbon Total CO2 stored 1.1 billion 915 million 1.2 billion
Storage & Annual Rate Stored 8.4 million 7.1 million 9.5 million
Sequestration
Stormwater Total $ Benefit $64.1 million $43.9 million $65.5 million
Savings Total Gallons Benefit 21.4 million 14.6 million 21.9 million
Potential Planting by Site Type
• (flw,, 11,Y1n1 • NO.Sfl nvq,Io.n
• kA"
o ,vrq fISW, • we�ra+
• .ter..
En.aC4' W* " • wa s<roa
Forestry Program through the USDA Forest Service
(USFS). Special thanks to the USFS Urban Forestry South -Centers for Urban & Interface Forestryteam. For more information
contact the Arkansas Forestry Commission (479) 442-4963 or City of Fayetteville (479) 444-3486.
In accordance with Federal law and U.S. Department of Agriculture policy, this institution is prohibited from discriminating on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability.
11
t -
INTRODUCTION
Trees provide many economic, social, and environmental benefits that form the basis of livability in
urban municipalities. Therefore, it is important for urban development to work closely with urban
forest health protection and management goals in order to maintain community livability.
Geographic distribution of land use plays a critical role in maintaining a uniform urban forest. Each
category of land use has unique management objectives and regulatory constraints.
IT -' _ _ _
� .;SAL• � `j r'l a
g s r�Yr
V.
AlAt [a d
r
•
This Urban Tree Canopy Assessment (UTC) in Fayetteville represents an opportunity to better
understand baseline conditions of tree canopy, the distribution of existing canopy vs. potential tree
canopy, and development of tools to incorporate urban forest benefits during policy and planning
processes. It involves the use of high -resolution multispectral imagery, GIS, and remote sensing
technologies, training and development of custom tools, ecosystem benefits modeling, and reporting
to characterize existing and potential UTC. The products and outcomes of this study will support
developing and monitoring of UTC goals, provide detailed data for management plans and
ordinances, and foster greater understanding of UTC benefits.
This analysis of urban tree canopy aims to reveal and provide a better understanding of the benefits
of the City of Fayetteville's green infrastructure, expanding upon previous studies by the Fayetteville
Natural Heritage Association (FNHA). This study looks at the urban forest's relation to air quality,
stormwater control, and carbon sequestration and storage. With funding in part provided by the
USDA Forest Service (USDA FS), the Arkansas Forestry Commission Urban & Community
Forestry (AFC) program contracted with Plan -It Geo, LLC to map Fayetteville's urban tree canopy
plan —it Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012
GCQ
3
(UTC). This assessment examines the area and percent cover for existing tree canopy, possible
planting area (in vegetated grass areas and paved impervious areas), and areas unsuitable for planting
(buildings, roads, water, agricultural fields, etc.). These metrics were calculated for six (6) assessment
boundaries: (1) Fayetteville City boundary, (2) land use, (3) census blocks, (4) riparian corridors, (5)
street rights -of -way, and (6) parcels (see Table 1 on the following page).
The assessment was accomplished by using newly generated land cover data and assessment
boundaries provided by City GIS. The land cover classification includes the following eight (8)
classes for the City: (1) tree canopy, (2) other low-lying vegetation, (3) bare soil/dry vegetation, (4)
water, (5) buildings, (6) roads, (7) agriculture, and (8) other impervious surfaces (parking lots,
driveways, etc.). See Figure 1.
Specific objectives of this assessment were to:
P Map and assess eight (8) land cover classes across Fayetteville.
Map and quantify existing urban tree canopy and possible planting areas for the City and five
other finer scale assessment boundaries.
Estimate Urban Forest Ecosystem Services, including air pollution removal capacity, carbon
storage and sequestration, and stormwater management, broken out by the City, residential
land uses, and watersheds.
Create a series of Urban Forest Management Scenarios describing how UTC has changed
over time and what current vs. future projected tree benefits and tree canopy could look like.
This involved developing a GIS layer for prioritized potential planting locations, a plug 'n
play Canopy Calculator tool, and an evaluation of the City's tree preservation ordinance.
Provide training to City staff, volunteer organizations, state agency officials, and others in a
workshop demonstrating how to use the data and tools and conduct ecosystem services
analysis. In addition, presenting the results to the Fayetteville City Council.
The Fayetteville Urban Tree Canopy assessment provides data and tools to develop local and
regional urban forestry goals, policies, outreach, and management plans to sustain and enhance
the existing urban forest. In addition to this report, Plan -It Geo, LLC has also provided GIS
data layers and Excel spreadsheets to accompany reported results. Only a fraction of the
information available from this assessment is provided in the report. Fayetteville and other
partners are encouraged to conduct additional analyses to answer specific questions related to
local planning policies and concerns.
plan —it Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 4
Table 1. List and description of UTC assessment boundaries for this study.
Assessment
# of Types
Description
Map
Boundary
or Features
City Boundary
1
City of Fayetteville
Land Use Categories Used:
Agriculture
Land Use
Commercial
� Pgrioulture
r commercial
Land Use
6
Industrial
a Industrial
Public Land
i Public
d Residdential
Residential
Public Right -of -Way
2010 U.S. Census data provides
;,
demographic data at the tract,
Census Blocks
1,894
block group, and block level. The
l;
{" �` .ti
most detailed `block' level was
used for this project.
�y,� ® Gnw. E4be►s j
Buffered streams and rivers,
Riparian
segmented by watershed
x -
Corridors
69
boundary into finer -scale reaches
to provide a better planning scale
for this assessment.
r. :.
i R� WQP1Aseas -
7,41a i" I. see.t Row
Street
The public rights -of -way (ROW)
eo
Rights -of -Way
903
along streets.
a '
Lj Parce
Tax lots from the county
Parcels
28,768
assessors property database.
l -
.
plan -it Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012
GCO
MAJOR FINDINGS
Based on Fayetteville's analysis of aerial imagery, Land Use / Land Cover, ecosystem services, and
potential tree planting sites, the following represents the major findings from this study.
Fayetteville has 36% urban tree canopy cover based on 2010 imagery.
` Canopy trends indicate a loss ofpossibly 1.5% UTC since 2002.
Residential lots cover 31% ofFayetteville with an average tree cover of 41%
citywide. This represents 1/3 of the City's total tree canopy.
P 19% of the City's tree canopy is on publically owned properties.
P The current urban forest removes nearly L3Mpounds of air pollutants from
the air annually, valued at $3.5Mper year.
P This equates to 1.1 billion pounds of stored carbon with an annual carbon
sequestration rate of 8.4Mpounds of CO2 taken up by the tree canopy.
P Storm water Savings
o At 36% UTC, Fayetteville's tree canopy is valued at an estimated $64
million based on avoided storm water facility construction costs.
o If canopy declines, at 30.0% canopy cover, it is valued at $44M.
o At 40% UTC with 4% of new canopy growth from regeneration
(natural forested areas), it is valued at $65M
o At 45% UTC with the new canopy gro wing over streets and parking
lots, the tree canopy would be valued at $85M.
P Natural forest regeneration plays a large role in UTC gains in Fayetteville.
Examples are provided in the Canopy Change section of this report.
P There are 50,000 potential tree planting locations near residential
buildings. If trees are planted to maximize cooling in summer, energy
conservation as trees reach maturity would be significant.
pl afl� Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 6
METHODOLOGY
The following section describes the data and methods used for land cover classification and the
terminology for defining and assessing the urban tree canopy (U'1'C) and potential planting areas
(PPA). Brief methods for the comparison of tree canopy cover from 2002 to 2010 are included in
the Results section further below.
DATA INPUTS, IMAGERY AND LAND COVER CLASSIFICATION
Numerous GIS data layers from the City and County were used in the process of mapping land cover
classes and in the UI'C assessment process. Examples include streets, buildings, water bodies,
streams, parcels, land use, publicly owned properties, watersheds, and GIS layers from Fayetteville
Natural Heritage Association's Green Infrastructure Plan. One -meter resolution imagery from
summer 2010 (National Agricultural Imagery Program — NAIP) was used as the basis for this Ul'C
Assessment. The final land cover classification data includes eight (8) classes: (1) tree canopy, (2)
grass / open s �%cc, (3) bare soil/dry vegetation, (4) v ,.ttc t, (5) httiIdin ;, (6) road s, (7)
tt.,FricitIiiire, and (8) other paved surfaces (parking lots, driveways) shown in Figure 1 below.
Figure 1. Land cover with 8 classifications as an overview and an inset map.
pJannHt Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 7
GCO
TERMINOLOGY
The UTC types assessed in this study are
defined and described below. The area and
percent of each was reported for six
assessment boundaries. More details are
provided throughout the report.
t Existing forest canopyis comprised of
all forests and individual trees mapped
from the 2010 summer NAIP imagery.
For the purposes of this study, water was
excluded from the total study area when
calculating percent UTC. Excluding water
from the study area (35,437 acres) creates
total land area (34,586 acres) which was
used to create all UTC metrics.
Possible planting area (PPA) is defined
as the total land area where no tree canopy
cover currently exists and it is
biophysically possible to plant trees. In
this analysis, mainly grass and open space
constitute "PPA — Vegetation" while
impervious surfaces such as parking lots
makeup "PPA — Impervious". These are
combined to report Total PPA. This does
not equal to potential canopy but rather
the space on -the -ground that is available
for tree planting opportunities.
Unsuitable UTC, for this study, was the
combination of bare soil, dry vegetation,
roads, buildings, agricultural land use, and
water. Soil and dry vegetation are
considered unsuitable given they comprise
baseball infields, industrial lots, and
vegetation that is lacking completely or
unmaintained. Some areas mapped as
Unsuitable UTC could become PPA
through natural and human processes over
time. Agricultural lands from the county
land use data were sub -categorized as a
PPA type but are generally considered as
Unsuitable UTC.
plan —it Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 8
GCQ
RESUL'T'S
Detailed land cover and UTC assessment results are presented below. Land cover results are
presented first, followed by results for each assessment boundary with specific tables, maps and
graphics for Existing UTC, Possible Planting Areas, and Unsuitable UTC.
LAND COVER IN FAYETTEVILLE Land Cover Distribution by Acres
This study encompasses 55.4 square miles (35,437.4 acres)
defined by the city limits of Fayetteville. 'The two
predominate land cover types for the study area are green
vegetation (grass and open space) at 41% (14,518 acres) and
secondly tree canopy at 12,441 acres as shown in Figure 2.
"Other impervious", consisting of parking lots, driveways,
patios, and other paved surfaces, is third comprising of 10%
of Fayetteville or 3,539 acres. The next four land cover
classes including roads, buildings, water, soil and dry
vegetation each individually fall under 10% for land cover
and as a whole comprise of 14% of Fayetteville's land cover.
Water
d .L @C
Soil and
Dry Veg.
526 at
Figure 2. Distribution ofland cover in Fayetteville.
Figure 3. Tree canopy classification overview and inset map.
plan —it Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 9
GCQ
TREE CANOPY IN FAYETTEVILLE
As seen in Table 2 and Figure 4, Fayetteville's current UTC covers 12,441 acres or 36% of the total
land area. In addition to tree canopy, total possible planting area (PPA) in Fayetteville is equivalent to
18,057 acres or 52% of the total land area. The remaining 4,088 acres (11.8%) of land area is
considered unsuitable for planting additional trees.
Table 2. Metrics for Fayetteville showing UTC and PPA in acres and percent.
Total Land
2010 2010
Area
Acres
UTC o
UTC /o
(acres)
(acres)
City of
35,437
1I - VJ:r rte: -='
34,586
Fayetteville
Figure 4. Percent distribution of UTC and PPA for the City of Fayetteville.
Qian-it Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012
10
TREE CANOPY BY LAND USE AND PARCELS
Various policies, regulations, ordinances, and city codes influence tree canopy in Fayetteville. To
provide data that advances urban forest management, six (6) broad land use categories were assessed
for tree canopy and possible planting areas. Parcels from the county tax assessor's database were
provided which included broad land use categories. Public lands were derived from parcels with
`exempt' status and the Public Rights -of -Way occur outside of all parcel boundaries. This was the
finest scale assessment boundary and included 28,768 records. Results can be queried and
symbolized using GIS to drill down and identify specific planting opportunities in subdivisions, land
use types, or neighborhoods. Table 3 provides complete results for UTC and PPA land use metrics.
Table 3. UTC and PPA Results for 6 Broad Land Use Categories.
Total
Land
° of Total
UTC
FExisting
Distribution
Total 1
Possible
Total
Possible
Distribution
Land Use Category
Acres
Area
City Area
(acres)
UTC
of UTC by
planting
Planting
of Total PPA
(acres)
%
Land Use
(acres)
%
by Land Use
Agriculture
9,880
9,757
27.9%
4,353
44.6%
35.0%
5,329
54.6%
29.5%
Commercial
3,985
3,943
11.2%
702
17.8%
5.6%
2,705
68.6%
15.0%
Industrial
957
949
2.7%
258
27.2%
2.1%
549
57.9%
3.0%
City of
Public Land
6,731
6,106
19.0%
2,285
37.4%
18.4%
3,190
52.2%
17.7%
Fayetteville
11,017
10,968
31.1%
4,475
40.8%
36.0%
5,038
45.9%
27.9%
- 0
2,867
2,863
8.1%
368
12.9%
3.0%
1,247
43.6%
6.9%
12,441
36.0%
100.0%
18,05852.2%100.0%
TOTALS
35,437 34,586 100.0%
As an example, Commercial properties makeup 11% of the City, have 18% average tree canopy cover
which represents almost 6% of UTC citywide, have 69% possible planting area largely from turf grass
areas and parking lots, which constitutes 15% of all the PPA citywide.
Distribution of Land Use Distribution of Existing UTC Distribution of Total PPA
Public
Right Of W
EtesidentW ' 8.1
'S�'1.�
Industrial Commercial
2.7% 11.2%
by Land Use
Ru1iiic Right
• 01 Wa
Industrial Commercial
2.1% 5.6%
by Land Use
Public Right Of
4Wa
Public Land
Industrial Commercial
3.0% 15.0%
Figures 5-7. The Distribution ofLand Use, UTC by Land Use, and PPA by Land Use.
Maps in Figures 8-13 on the following pages illustrate how the land use and parcels data can be used
together with UTC and PPA metrics to target specific properties for tree planting as well as
monitoring the effectiveness of ordinances. Maps are shown for commercial, residential, and public
properties by the percent of Existing UTC and Total Possible Planting Areas.
plan -it Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 11
GCQ
Figures 8-9. Existing UTC and Total PPA Percentages for Commercial Properties.
plan —it Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 12
Figures 12-13. Publicly owned parcels color -coded by Percent Existing UTC and Total PPA.
plan -it Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012
�.7LQ
14
TREE CANOPY IN THE STREET RIGHTS -OF -WAY
The City of Fayetteville's urban forestry program plants, manages, and maintains trees in the street
rights -of -way (ROW). This is where the City has the most direct influence on tree canopy aside from
tree preservation or other private property ordinances. Key findings in Fayetteville's ROW are:
ROW total land area is equal to 2,863 acres, or 8% of the total city land area.
Existing UTC in the ROW is 368 acres or 13% average cover. This represents 3% of all
UTC citywide.
PPA — Vegetation totals 611 acres or 21% of the ROW and PPA — Impervious totals 636
acres or 22% of the ROW.
There are an estimated 15,000 potential planting sites in the ROW, or 5 per acre. If 25% of
these sites were planted, grew to 30' tree crown spreads, this would generate 61 acres of new
tree canopy. 61 acres is 4% of the acreage required to reach 40% citywide UTC.
Other UTC and PPA results for the ROW can be seen in Table 3 and Figures 5-7 in the Tree Canopy
by Land Use section.
Figure 14. Potential planting area in the Street ROW The GIS queries in the map
legend show 3 colors based on ranges of Existing UTC and Total PPA. As an
example, streets colored red have less than 10% UTC and greater than 50% total
planting area.
I
rs, �',S. .. ,,;.�-_ r, .ra-.':7•�'� -k�r.f Rif• �;.-�
?• t ' r � Y
i ��• r
plan --it
GO
Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012
15
jr A
. err - L it •� �� � •- �►.. �.` f.- p - , f.i ,'
=7i:i P'' I
-. -
I., •
' 1TiUi - I " s
i>wSj t .�L'R
.- .may z
T ':
^ r
iikY F .�� _ �1ie+'y ',; " } . -a yr_ :;,F ��,•,�I+
� �' �� tom.'. Y� r� � ,; ��t_' ► . `q�
tr
LAND COVER CLASSIFICATION METHODS & ACCURACY
Introduction to Image Classification and Accuracy
The goal of image classification for the City of Fayetteville (COF) was to convert a landscape
comprised of complex uses and cover types into target categories that are meaningful for the
management of the City's urban forests. The object -based classification approach used in this analysis
provides the ability to segment landscape features at a fine scale with a high level of precision, based
on the 1 meter horizontal resolution of the input imagery. Classification accuracy assessment
describes how well the classification is able to translate the complex landscape into target land cover
classes.
Five target land cover classes (1. Tree Canopy, 2. Impervious Surface, 3. Green Vegetation and
Agriculture, 4. Soil and Dry Vegetation, or 5. Water) were and three impervious sub -classes were
initially mapped (for a total of eight classes) for the COF using four -band National Agricultural
Inventory Program (NAIP) aerial photography from 2010. A single color infra -red image was
mosaicked from multiple Geotiff image tiles purchased from USDA NAIP headquarters in Utah.
Feature Analyst software (FA) was used to segment the COF mosaic into desired land cover classes.
Additional vector layer inputs were used to further segment classification categories.
Target land cover classes were selected because they segment the landscape into categories that are
useful for urban forest management. Tree canopy describes the current forest cover as seen from
above, but is only part of Urban Tree Canopy (UTC) assessment. Subcategories of impervious
surfaces segment areas where it may be impossible to plant trees (such as roads and buildings) and
areas where trees offset many of the negative impacts of impervious materials (such as parking lots
and sidewalks). Areas comprised of green vegetation are important for UTC assessment since they
represent the easiest transition to additional forest cover through tree planting. In this assessment, all
agricultural areas were classified in the vegetation category and later differentiated from other green
vegetation using the agricultural land use data provided by the COF. Soil and dry vegetation is
excluded from possible planting areas since these areas represent either current development, or
areas where live vegetation is not supported. For this classification, water was directly digitized in
combination with input data provided by the COF.
Accuracy Assessment
Accuracy assessments serve two main purposes; Accuracy assessments provide information to map
producers about what methods are working and where improvements need to be made for creating
the best possible product from available resources. Accuracy assessments also provide information to
map users who need to understand how closely the intended classification categories represent the
true classes observed on the ground.
Procedure
More than 100 sample points were randomly distributed across the study area and assigned a random
numeric value. Sorting from lowest random value to highest, at each sample point, a 3x3 pixel (9 m2)
reference sample unit was digitized onto the NAIP imagery and assigned one of the five target land
cover classes. The procedure was repeated until an at least 100 pixels were sampled from the three
dominant land cover classes (Tree Canopy, Impervious Surfaces, and Green Vegetation). Sample
units were then intersected with the classified map to compare with the reference samples, as
presented in the sample error matrix below.
plan —it Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 38
QQQ
Interpretation
Statistical relationships between the reference pixels (representing the true conditions on the ground)
and the intersecting classified pixels are used to understand how closely the entire classified map
represents the COF landscape. The sample error matrix represents the intersection of reference
pixels manually identified by a human observer (columns) and classification category of pixels in the
classified image (rows). The white boxes along the diagonals of the matrix represent agreement
between the two pixel maps. Off -diagonal values represent the number pixels manually referenced to
the column class that were classified as another category in the classification image. Overall accuracy
is computed by dividing the total number of correct pixels by the total number of pixels reported in
the matrix (238+165+220+72+66 = 761 / 819 = 93%), and the matrix can be used to calculate per
class accuracy percentages. For example, 260 pixels were manually digitized in the reference map as
Tree Canopy, but only 238 of those pixels were classified as Tree Canopy in the classification map,
with 22 pixels misclassified as Green Vegetation. This relationship is called the "Producer's
Accuracy" and is calculated by dividing the agreement pixel total (diagonal) by the reference pixel
total (column total). Therefore, the Producer's Accuracy for Tree Canopy is calculated as: (238 / 260
= 0.92), meaning that we can expect that 92% of all tree canopy in the COF were classified as Tree
Canopy in the classification map. Conversely, the "User's Accuracy" is calculated by dividing the
number agreement pixel total by the total number of classified pixels in the row category. For
example, 241 classification pixels intersecting reference pixels were classified as Tree Canopy, but
three pixels were identified as Green Vegetation in the reference map. Therefore, the User's
Accuracy for Tree Canopy is calculated as: (238 /241 = 0.99), meaning that pixels classified as Tree
Canopy the classification were actual tree canopy in the COF.
It is important to recognize the Producer's and User's accuracy percent values are based on a sample
of the true ground cover, represented by the reference pixels. As with any statistical relationship we
can compute the level of confidence with which the classified map values represent the reference
map of the COF. Confidence intervals are used to report the lower limit and upper limit of the
expected percent values of each classification category. In the matrix above, the 95% confidence
interval describes the range of values we would expect to observe 95 out of 100 times given a
randomly distributed selection of reference pixels. For example, if the accuracy assessment was
repeated 100 times, we expect that tree canopy accuracy would fall between 88% and 95% for
Producer's and 97% and 100% for User's accuracy for at least 95 of the 100 samples.
Relating Accuracy to the Classification Map
Accuracy assessments provide important information regarding how well the landscape was classified
into target land cover classes, but what do Producer's and User's accuracies mean for interpreting
land cover results? It should be noted that for both the classification map and the error matrix, land
cover classes are interrelated, meaning that if a pixel is incorrectly omitted from one category, it is
also incorrectly committed to another category. For example, 22 pixels in the sample error matrix
were erroneously omitted from the Tree Canopy class and erroneously committed to the Green
Vegetation class. The classification map reports 36.5% of the COF is covered with Tree Canopy. The
Producer's accuracy of 92% can be interpreted as up to 8% of the overall landscape may be tree
cover but was classified as another land cover category. Conversely, the User's accuracy of 99%
indicates that if a pixel is classified in the classification map as Tree Canopy, we are 99% confident
that the pixel is tree canopy in the reference map. When combined, these two figures indicate that
36.5% probably underestimates the true canopy percent (and that the Green Vegetation category
probably contains some actual tree canopy). Figure 32 below uses work by Pontius and Millones
plan —it Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 39
GCO
(2011) to illustrate the total map area of each classification category where there is agreement
between the reference and classification map (blue), where classification categories contained
committed (pink) and omitted (green) pixels. The figure below uses concepts defined as Quantity and
ure 32. Land
,vet Accuracy
sessment per
id cover class
A total of eight land cover classes were mapped for Fayetteville including four impervious sub -classes
classified using some of the City's GIS resources.
Figure 33. An
additional
example of the
land covet
mapping data in
Fayetteville.
plan -if Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012
GCQ
40
Figure 37. Potential planting sites
along major arterials and highways
to maximize air quality benefits.
Figure 38. Potential planting sites showing multiple prioritization criteria.
ADDITIONAL MAPS FOR POTENTIAL PLANTING SITES
Figure 34. Reference GIS
Layers used to Prioritize
Potential Planting Areas.
Figure 35. Potential planting
sites in and nearby parks.
Figure 36. Potential planting
sites by % Existing UTC of
underlying census block.
plan -it Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 41
GCO
REFERENCES
Downing, Adam, 2011. Ecology, Air. li/hat's a Tree Got to Do with It?
htLp://wvwccoIogv.com/2I! 1 /U'] I3 aIr-rrcc1. Accessed November 2, 2012.
Pontius, R. and M. Millones. 2011. Death to Kappa: birth of quantity disagreement and allocation -
disagreement for accuracy assessment. International Journal of Remote Sensing. 32, 15: 4407-
4429.
The City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, Urban Forartry. urbanforestrv.accessfayetteville.org/.
Accessed November 2, 2012.
r
pan —it Fayetteville, Arkansas Urban Tree Canopy Assessment 2012 42