Action Step #8: Further Study Loss from Development
Tree protection regulations can likely be improved, but gaps in information should be filled first.
Progress Made To-Date
Last Updated April 2020
A Tree Canopy Policy Action Plan has been initiated in 2020 to strive to better define policies that preserve, restore and enhance the canopy in Charlotte. This effort will utilize the updated tree canopy cover data recently obtained and provide an opportunity for the entire community to weigh in on what they'd like to see in place in Charlotte. This Action Plan will supplement of the Charlotte Future 2040 Comprehensive Plan, and concepts for future code will be used in the Unified Development Ordinance code rewrite in the works.
Original Action Step 8 Directive from 2017:
Source: Forbes.com
There is a general feeling that Charlotte is losing large amounts of tree canopy as a result of the city's rapid growth and associated land development. The city recently ranked 13 out of 20 on Forbes magazine's list of "America's fastest-growing cities" for 2016, based on measurements of fastest-growing populations and economies. With this high rate of growth comes high levels of development, which are often associated with loss of trees and tree canopy.
Charlotte is ahead of many cities by having a tree protection ordinance in place. This ordinance contains mechanisms and requirements for the preservation of tree canopy during development. The question is: how effective is this ordinance? What impact does it have, or will it have, on meeting the city's canopy goal. There is a sense that canopy losses are substantial, (see What's at Risk), and that the rate of canopy loss needs to be slowed via a stricter ordinance with higher preservation requirements. However, solid data will be required to realistically make the needed protection policy changes in Charlotte. To do that, an updated tree canopy assessment (UTC) study (one that includes significant change analyses) is required.
However, before hiring experts to undertake a UTC, thoughtful consideration should be taken to ensure the study produces the findings that will support the city in making future decisions to adjust policy. Important questions to answer may include:
Where are the largest losses happening and why?
How many developed sites are paying in lieu of meeting Tree Save requirements, and where are those funds being used? What is the actual canopy impact of this option?
How has the canopy changed 5-10 years after development of sites that have met the Tree Save minimum?
Is the Tree Canopy Protection Program (use of tree save funds) resulting in substantial canopy preservation compared to lost canopy in development?
What are the future growth trends for the city, and what does that mean for future tree canopy?
What is more impactful - requiring preservation as it is now or planting new trees?
Are there changes in needs across the city, and thus should canopy requirements differ across different regions of the city?
These questions will help answer the ultimate question: How impactful is the existing tree protection policy? What should be adjusted in the policy? While it is important to consider how other cities approach their tree protection policies, Charlotte's primary focus should be its own policy and whether that policy helps the city reach its goals (in this case, 50% by 2050).
Further relationship building between the development community, the City of Charlotte, and TreesCharlotte will also be greatly improved through implementation of further study. The Charlotte Homebuilders Association recently passed a resolution to form a subcommittee on this topic, which can open the door for discussions. This group should be included in the assessment process.
Next Steps:
Form a Development Study working committee to explore these issues.
Ensure that the next canopy assessment includes the right pieces to provide valuable findings on which to base future changes.
After studies and analyses are completed, review findings and identify potential policy changes that will affect the greatest change in canopy losses. Pursue any adjustments to tree protection policy based on study findings.
Potential Owner: Tree Canopy Manager (City), Development working group (Canopy Team) Potential Participants: City Staff, REBIC, Charlotte Homebuilders Association, Davey
Case Studies
How are other communities dealing with losses in tree canopy? The stories below start to provide some insight into
LEXINGTON, KY: A City Protecting its Identity Lexington, Kentucky is well known for it's rolling hills and iconic horse farms. But it hasn't maintained that identity without struggle. With the post-World War II surge in manufacturing and suburban expansion, city leaders started to see huge losses in the famous farmlands surrounding the city. To preserve city identity, an urban growth boundary was created in 1958 (the first in the nation) to deliberately preserve Lexington's signature horse industry (Lexington 2016). Not only did the growth boundary preserve farmland, but many believe it also nurtured vibrant urban neighborhoods. While cities without growth boundaries continued to expand in sprawl, abandoning areas in decline for better newer development, Lexington was forced to perfect infill and redevelopment projects. This unexpected outcome has produced unique results. Some of those once-neglected areas are the sites of infill projects that would otherwise not exist were it not for that fact that development subdivisions and strip malls on Fayette County farmland was restricted (Eblen 2016).
LOUISVILLE, KY: Combating the Urban Heat Island Effect with the Urban Forest In 2008, Louisville was identified as one of the top ten fastest growing cities in the country. It was also identified as one of the most intense urban heat islands , which has significant implications for public health.A Natural Resources Defense Council 2012 study estimated that 39 people die every summer in Louisville from heat-related causes. These Louisville deaths represent 6% of the heat-related deaths in the US for the entire year, despite having only 0.2% of the US population (Peterson 2014). These studies triggered an urgency for change in Louisville. To combat the projected increases in heat-related deaths, the city’s 2013 sustainability plan called for a multi-year tree canopy assessment to identify which areas were most at risk. Tree canopy assessments were completed for 2004, 2008, and 2012, revealing that Louisville was losing approximately 820 acres of tree canopy each year. Since the assessments, real changes have been occurring in Louisville. The city has consolidated departments that care for trees and hired an urban forester. A non-profit was formed and started working on more stringent development requirements and exploring incentives for commercial buildings to install green roofs (Peterson 2014). For more information, download Louisville's full Urban Tree Canopy Assessment (PDF).
PHILADELPHIA, PA. Sustainability Plan Leads to City Wide Tree Plantings In 2009, Philadelphia launched Greenworks, the city's sustainability plan, to address issues with energy, the environment, equity, the economy, and engagement. The program established an aggressive goal of achieving 30% canopy cover by 2025 (from 20% in 2010) and an interim goal of planting 300,000 trees by 2015. The study also identified areas of the city with the highest potential for tree planting. The non-profit TreePhilly, kick started by the Greenworks call to action, encourages citizen engagement by providing access to resources for trees and tree care. Philadelphians planted more than 400,000 trees between 2009 and 2015. Additional progress has included:
Changes in street tree rules
Creation of an urban forest management program
Decreases in costs of tree planting
Establishment of a citywide public tree planting campaign
Establishment of seasonal tree maintenance associate program
Initiation of a city-based tree nursery
Launch of a carbon offset market
Preservation of large caliper trees
Revision of zoning code regarding trees for surface parking lots
Building on the achievements of the last eight years the Greenworks program was updated November 2016. The City advanced Greenworks’ vision by using trees to reduce urban heat, coordinating tree plantings to include maintenance as part of routine work, rebuilding community infrastructure, including green infrastructure into future district plans, expanding the tree inventory to include information on tree health and species, and incorporating tree planting in street construction. Read the full Greenworks 2016's progress report (PDF).
ATLANTA, GA. Protecting the Urban Forest from Sprawl Through Policy Changes Since 1970, the Atlanta metropolitan area has experienced explosive population growth which has led to increased development, traffic, and a decrease in tree canopy cover. The metro region was losing an average of 58 acres per day of canopy from 1991 to 2001. This unchecked suburban growth created many issues, include poorer air quality. In the late 1990's many communities within Atlanta began to realize the importance for the urban forest and lobbied for stricter, more enforceable ordinances. In 2007, Dorfman et. al. did a study (PDF) evaluating the impact of current land use policies on tree canopy cover in Atlanta. This study identified nine policies that promoted quality growth in a community. These policies include:
Infill development
Cluster development
Mandatory conservation subdivision ordinance (combination of cluster and conservation ordinance)
Creative design for higher density
Riparian buffers
Land trusts
Park creation and financing
Heat island mitigation
By 2008 the City of Atlanta had 50% tree canopy cover, the highest percentage in the nation. The city now faces further stresses on tree canopy from the renewed interest in urban living. New dense development tends lead to removal of valuable mature trees in the urban core, and leaves minimal space for new trees, stunting their growth and minimizing canopy cover. New policies have helped regulate removal of trees greater than 6 inch diameter (on both public and private land), protect trees during construction, and specify when and where new trees need to be planted. Atlanta’s ultimate goal is a “no net loss” of tree canopy.
LAKE FOREST, IL: Responding to Deforestation on an Estate In 1987, the City of Lake Forest, Illinois spearheaded revisions to their tree ordinance in response to an incident on one lake front estate. Seven acres were clear cut of all trees on the estate owned by the actor Mr. T, comically dubbed by the owner as the “The Lake Forest Chain Saw Massacre,” after the removals caused public outrage. At the time, the city had the ability to prohibit mass removal of trees on newly developed land only - not on existing estates. In response to public outcries, the city passed a tree ordinance that prevented developers and homeowners from removing trees on private property without a permit. The purpose of Lake Forest’s Tree Preservation Ordinance today includes preservation of trees on both public and private property, and the inclusion of replacement planting requirements. Today, Lake Forest is revising its ordinance once again thanks to the threat of the emerald ash borer. It has been updated to reflect the need of controlling risk created from dying/dead ash trees on private property. Just like Dutch elm disease, ash trees infested with emerald ash borer are public nuisances and removal is required. The City of Lake Forest plans to reforest trees lost where possible with a diverse mix of species on public and private property.
GRAND RAPIDS, MI: A Multi-Faceted Approach to Urban Forest Management In 2011, the City of Grand Rapids, Michigan adopted a tree canopy goal of 40%. By the end of 2015, Grand Rapids had a canopy of 35%. To meet the 40% goal the city adopted a multi-faceted approach, understanding that just one effort alone (e.g. ordinance, planting) would not be enough to make real progress. To date, Grand Rapids has:
Adopted a zoning ordinance which requires minimum canopy levels to be maintained on development properties, tree planting to achieve canopy levels, or payments into a tree fund
Altered sidewalk replacement specifications to protect tree roots, where appropriate and increased staffing levels to improve levels of inspection during sidewalk work
Integrated tree replacement into all major publicly funded infrastructure projects (e.g. road resurface, stormwater work)
Funded and completed a tree inventory to improve care provided to the City's trees
Created a dashboard that tracks the city's progress towards its goal