An urban forest is defined as all the trees, shrubs and woody vegetation growing along city streets, in public parks and on institutional and private property. In Ann Arbor, about 25% is on public property, with 75% on private property. Based on a U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Forest Service i-Tree Eco Analysis done in 2012, Ann Arbor’s urban forest has an estimated 1.45 million trees. It creates a 33% tree canopy – the layer of leaves, branches and stems of trees that cover the ground when viewed from above.

The city manages 43,240 street trees and about 6,900 park trees in mowed areas. A tree inventory conducted in 2009 didn’t include natural areas, she noted, so there are thousands of trees that aren’t counted. The urban forest includes over 200 species, representing 82 genera.

Map of selected tree variety by The Chronicle from city of Ann Arbor 2009 survey. Image links to dynamic map hosted on geocommons.com

PAC had been briefed on the 135-page Urban & Community Forest Management Plan at its Feb. 25, 2014 meeting by Kerry Gray, the city’s urban forest & natural resources planning coordinator. The management plan includes 17 recommendations, listed in priority based on community feedback for implementation. Each of the 17 recommendations includes action tasks and implementation ideas, case studies, and resources that are needed, including funding. The recommendations are:

1. Implement proactive tree maintenance program.
2. Strengthen tree planting and young tree maintenance programs.
3. Monitor threats to the urban and community forest.
4. Increase landmark/special tree protections.
5. Secure adequate city‐funding for urban forestry core services.
6. Develop street tree master plans.
7. Pursue grant and philanthropic funding opportunities.
8. Strengthen forestry related ordinances.
9. Update tree inventory and canopy analysis.
10. Develop urban forest best management practices.
11. Increase urban forestry volunteerism.
12. Strengthen relationships with outside entities who impact trees.
13. Implement community outreach program.
14. Obtain the best use of wood from removed trees.
15. Create city staff working groups to coordinate projects that impact trees.
16. Engage the city’s Environmental Commission in urban and community forestry issues.
17. Review the urban forest management plan periodically and update as needed.

The city council has adopted a budget for FY 2015, which starts July 1, 2014 that includes a one-time expenditure of $1 million to address the backlog in maintenance of trees in the public right of way.

Included in the focus of the effort to remove the back log are trees classified as Priority 1 removals (red dots), Priority 2 removals (yellow dots), Priority 3 removals (blue dots) for large trees and Priority 1 prunings (green dots) [Map by The Chronicle with data from the city of Ann Arbor.]:

This brief was filed from the city council’s chambers on the second floor of city hall, located at 301 E. Huron.

An urban forest is defined as all the trees, shrubs and woody vegetation growing along city streets, in public parks and on institutional and private property. In Ann Arbor, about 25% is on public property, with 75% on private property. Based on a U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Forest Service i-Tree Eco Analysis done in 2012, Ann Arbor’s urban forest has an estimated 1.45 million trees. It creates a 33% tree canopy – the layer of leaves, branches and stems of trees that cover the ground when viewed from above.

The city manages 43,240 street trees and about 6,900 park trees in mowed areas. A tree inventory conducted in 2009 didn’t include natural areas, she noted, so there are thousands of trees that aren’t counted. The urban forest includes over 200 species, representing 82 genera.

Map of selected tree variety by The Chronicle from city of Ann Arbor 2009 survey. Image links to dynamic map hosted on geocommons.com

PAC had been briefed on the 135-page Urban & Community Forest Management Plan at its Feb. 25, 2014 meeting by Kerry Gray, the city’s urban forest & natural resources planning coordinator. The management plan includes 17 recommendations, listed in priority based on community feedback for implementation. Each of the 17 recommendations includes action tasks and implementation ideas, case studies, and resources that are needed, including funding. The recommendations are:

1. Implement proactive tree maintenance program.
2. Strengthen tree planting and young tree maintenance programs.
3. Monitor threats to the urban and community forest.
4. Increase landmark/special tree protections.
5. Secure adequate city‐funding for urban forestry core services.
6. Develop street tree master plans.
7. Pursue grant and philanthropic funding opportunities.
8. Strengthen forestry related ordinances.
9. Update tree inventory and canopy analysis.
10. Develop urban forest best management practices.
11. Increase urban forestry volunteerism.
12. Strengthen relationships with outside entities who impact trees.
13. Implement community outreach program.
14. Obtain the best use of wood from removed trees.
15. Create city staff working groups to coordinate projects that impact trees.
16. Engage the city’s Environmental Commission in urban and community forestry issues.
17. Review the urban forest management plan periodically and update as needed.

The formal elimination of the city council committee member leaves the committee with seven voting members and one non-voting member – the city’s urban forestry & natural resources planning coordinator. The city’s description of the committee indicates “No Council Rep. Based on City Council action taken on 1/6/03.” Based on city council action on that date, it appears that no councilmember was appointed when all of the council committee assignments were made. It appears that in subsequent years, the council has not had a representative on the Dean Tree Fund.

A staff memo accompanying the resolution indicates that the reason for the formal change is a desire to have an odd number of voting members and to reduce the quorum requirement for meetings from five members to four.

For fiscal year 2012, the investment income to the fund is budgeted at $85,000.

Currently, only six people are listed as members of the Dean Tree Fund committee, according to the city’s Legistar system: Albert E. Gallup, Bonita D. Ross Ion, Jane Immonen, John R. Bassett, John Remsberg, and Warren Attarian.

This brief was filed from the city council’s chambers on the second floor of city hall, located at 301 E. Huron. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

Matt Naud, Ann Arbor's environmental coordinator, moderated a panel discussion on resource management – the topic of the first in a series of four sustainability forums, all to be held at the Ann Arbor District Library. (Photos by the writer.)

It was the first of four public forums, and part of a broader sustainability initiative that started informally nearly two years ago, with a joint meeting of the city’s planning, environmental and energy commissions. The idea is to help shape decisions by looking at a triple bottom line: environmental quality, economic vitality, and social equity.

In early 2011, the city received a $95,000 grant from the Home Depot Foundation to fund a formal sustainability project. The project’s main goal is to review the city’s existing plans and organize them into a framework of goals, objectives and indicators that can guide future planning and policy. Other goals include improving access to the city’s plans and to the sustainability components of each plan, and to incorporate the concept of sustainability into city planning and future city plans.

In addition to city staff, this work has been guided by volunteers who serve on four city advisory commissions: Park, planning, energy and environmental. Many of those members attended the Jan. 12 forum, which was held at the downtown Ann Arbor District Library.

The topics of the forums reflect four general themes that have been identified to shape the sustainability framework: Resource management; land use and access; climate and energy; and community. The Jan. 12 panel on resource management was moderated by Matt Naud, the city’s environmental coordinator. Panelists included Laura Rubin, executive director of the Huron River Watershed Council (and a member of the city’s greenbelt advisory commission); Kerry Gray, the city’s urban forest and natural resource planning coordinator; Jason Tallant of the city’s natural area preservation program; Tom McMurtrie, Ann Arbor’s solid waste coordinator, who oversees the city’s recycling program; and Chris Graham, chair of the city’s environmental commission.

Dick Norton, chair of the University of Michigan urban and regional planning program, also participated by giving an overview of sustainability issues and challenges that local governments face. [The university has its own sustainability initiative, including broad goals announced by president Mary Sue Coleman last fall.]

The Jan. 12 forum also included opportunities for questions and comments from the audience. That commentary covered a wide range of topics, from concerns over Fuller Road Station and potential uses for the Library Lot, to suggestions for improving the city’s recycling and composting programs. Even the issue of Argo Dam was raised. The controversy over whether to remove the dam spiked in 2010, but abated after the city council didn’t vote on the question, thereby making a de facto decision to keep the dam in place.

Naud said he’s often joked that the only sure way to get 100 people to come to a meeting is to say the topic is a dam – but this forum had proven him wrong. The city is interested in hearing from residents, he said: What sustainability issues are important? How would people like to be engaged in these community discussions?

The forum was videotaped by AADL staff and will be posted on the library’s website. Additional background on the Ann Arbor sustainability initiative is on the city’s website. See also Chronicle coverage: “Building a Sustainable Ann Arbor,” and an update on the project given at the November 2011 park advisory commission meeting.

Sustainability & Resource Management: Setting the Stage

Dick Norton, chair of the University of Michigan urban and regional planning program, began the panel presentation by saying that he’d been asked to talk about the big picture concepts related to these themes, and challenges that local governments face in dealing with them. He emphasized that the concept of sustainability encompasses more than just the environment, but that this first forum would focus on environmental issues.

Dick Norton, chair of the University of Michigan urban and regional planning program, and a member of the Huron River Watershed Council executive committee.

Norton gave a brief overview of possible ways to think about attributes of a clean environment, related to topics that would be discussed by panelists. For air and water quality, it’s important that those resources are unpolluted, available in sufficient quantity, and that residents have adequate access. Viable ecosystems are one way to provide clean air and water, he said. Ecosystems provide filtering functions, and are a source of biodiversity – we suffer if we homogenize our environmental base, he said. Ecosystems also provide an aesthetic quality, making places pleasant to live.

Regarding responsible resource use, Norton pointed to the three Rs: Reduce, reuse, recycle. Recycling is good, he said, but reuse is better and reducing is the best approach to responsible resource use. It’s also important to think about the waste stream, and how waste can be used as input for new systems. Composting is one example of that.

Norton then outlined four challenges that local governments face when dealing with these issues. The first is factual uncertainty. The world is complex, and there is a great amount of scientific uncertainty. That gives people ammunition to argue against environmental protection, he said. There’s uncertainty over when a substance becomes pollution, for example. Carbon dioxide or arsenic are common elements – at what amounts do those elements become pollutants? Another uncertainty relates to resource depletion. The environment is a resilient receptor, Norton said – it can take a lot of shock to its system. But at what point does disruption and depletion of resources become too great? That uncertainty makes it difficult for government to act, he said.

Moral disagreements are another challenge for governments, Norton said. Is nature a form of sacred life, or just toilet paper on a stump? Should nature be preserved at the expense of jobs? And who gets to decide? Norton said he tells his students that if you have a collaborative planning process, you’ll encounter a plurality of values. That’s a challenge.

Capacity problems – both legal and financial – are also an issue, Norton said. Local governments are creatures of the state, he said, and can only do what the state enables them to do by law. A lot of local officials are reticent to undertake proactive environmental protection, but they have a lot more capacity to act than they think, he contended.

Regarding fiscal capacity, Norton noted that financial resources are highly strained, and there’s a sentiment that local governments can’t afford this “sustainability stuff.” But Norton argued that energy efficiency, for example, is often less expensive in the long term, though it usually requires a higher upfront investment. He encouraged officials to make decisions based on a longer timeframe.

The final challenge Norton cited is a category he called “unhappy propensities” – localism, parochialism and inertia. Localism is the attitude that “we get to decide,” he said. Parochialism is the belief that if something is happening outside of our borders, we don’t need to worry about it. That works if the problems are downstream, but not so much if it’s an upstream problem headed our way.

Then there’s the challenge of inertia: We’ve always done it this way, so why change? Norton noted that sustainability is a different way of looking at things, and that means change. Ann Arbor is stepping out in front of other communities, Norton said, and is pushing these boundaries. He encouraged a broader perspective, looking at decisions as they fit into a bigger system.

Water Resources: Protecting the Huron River

Laura Rubin, executive director of the Huron River Watershed Council, began by describing the history of HRWC. The nonprofit was founded in 1965 by 17 communities along the Huron River who were concerned about protecting this water resource. They knew they couldn’t just look at it from the perspective of where the river flowed through their individual jurisdictions.

Sometimes people overlook the value of the watershed, Rubin said. In addition to providing drinking water, the river also is an asset for recreation, property values, wildlife habitat and stormwater control. The watershed – including the Huron River and its tributaries – is arguably the region’s largest natural feature.

Laura Rubin, executive director of the Huron River Watershed Council.

The Huron River is the only river in southeast Michigan that’s a state-designated “natural river.” The designation affords the river special protections, she said, related to development and vegetation. The watershed also is protected by strong local and regional regulations and partnerships, Rubin said, citing the Huron Clinton Metropolitan Authority as one example.

The watershed offers a wealth of recreational and fishing opportunities, Rubin said, and provides a habitat to threatened and endangered wildlife, including the northern madtom, the snuffbox mussel, the prairie fringed orchid, the least shrew, and the massasauga rattlesnake.

But although the Huron River is the cleanest urban river in Michigan, she said, there are also problems. Many sections are classified as “impaired,” based on the inability to meet certain uses, like swimming or fishing, as laid out in the federal Clean Water Act. Two major problems are excess levels of phosphorus and E. coli – a problem that’s especially common in urban areas, Rubin said. Sources for E. coli include animal and human feces, which can be discharged into the river from wastewater or sewer overflow during storms.

Other problems causing the impaired classification relate to sediment, erratic flows, low dissolved oxygen, mercury and PCBs.

Rubin outlined several broader threats to the area’s water resources. The region, sandwiched between the urban areas of Detroit and Lansing, has lost many of its natural areas, she said. Ann Arbor itself has become more urbanized, which has contributed to the loss of habitat, as well as to pollution, warmer temperatures and erratic flows.

Hydrologic changes are another threat. The river has 97 documented dams, Rubin said, and this changes flow patterns tremendously. It leads to the loss of wetlands, causes sedimentation, and alters the way that the ecosystem functions.

Rubin also identified “non-point” source pollution as a threat to the watershed. As rain falls onto roofs, into gutters, and onto roads, it collects pollutants that eventually flow into the river. That’s the No. 1 cause of water pollution in the U.S., she said.

A variety of tools are used to address these issues, Rubin said, including watershed-wide partnerships, data that’s collected and analyzed, advocacy and education. Due to efforts by the watershed council and the University of Michigan, the Huron is one of the best studied rivers in Michigan, she said.

The watershed council pushes people to do more to protect the river, Rubin said. Staff and volunteers work on water-quality monitoring, for example, as well as an adopt-a-stream program, which includes data collection and experiential learning.

There’s value in having “eyes on the river,” Rubin concluded. Among other things, it enables the long-term tracking of trends, and provides a scientific basis to advocate for local and state protection policies.

Following Rubin’s presentation, Matt Naud asked the audience a trivia question: How many cities use the Huron River for their drinking water? Just one – Ann Arbor, he said. That’s why the city cares about its upstream partners.

Solid Waste: Reduce, Reuse, Recycle

Tom McMurtrie, the city’s solid waste coordinator, began by saying that recycling is one of the most effective things that people can do to reduce their carbon footprint. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has identified Ann Arbor as one of the nation’s top recycling communities, he said. So how did the city get to this point?

From left: Kerry Gray, Ann Arbor's urban forest & natural resource planning coordinator; Jason Tallant of the city's natural area preservation program; and Tom McMurtrie, solid waste coordinator.

In the 1970s, the city brought curbside recycling to every home in the city, McMurtrie said. Back then, recycling required more work – residents had to separate green glass from brown glass, cardboard from newspapers. It reminded him of a favorite New Yorker cartoon: “Recycling in Hell.”

In 1991 the city introduced two-stream recycling. And every multi-family building was added, which doubled participation. The city built a sorting facility at the location of the current drop-off site.

Then in 2010, McMurtrie said, the city moved to another level of recycling: single stream. New plastics were added to the list of recyclables, and new carts with radio-frequency tags were deployed, which allowed single-family homes to record their recycling and be eligible for a rewards program.

In mid-2010, a $3.5 million overhaul was completed to the city’s materials recovery facility – known as the MRF (pronounced “murf”)– at 4150 Platt Road. Overall tonnages of recyclables have tripled, he said, with materials coming from as far away as Toledo and Lansing. Four new hybrid recycling trucks were purchased, which use less fuel.  Four more hybrid trucks will likely be added in 2012, he said.

McMurtrie also pointed to the concepts of “reduce” and “reuse.” His suggestions included shopping for fresh food at the farmers market, where less packaging is used, and using reusable bags whenever possible. About two years ago, the city also added the option of including food waste in its composting program, he noted. Every pound of food or yard waste that’s composted greatly reduces the burden on landfills, he said.

Showing images extracted from a core boring taken at the closed Ann Arbor landfill, McMurtrie noted that most materials in the landfill haven’t decomposed.

McMurtrie concluded by saying that the city is working on an update of its five-year solid waste plan, and he encouraged residents to participate by giving their input. The first meeting will be held on Thursday, Jan. 19, 2012 from 4-6 p.m. in the 4th floor conference room in Larcom City Hall, 301 E. Huron. The meeting is open to the public.

Urban Forest Management

Kerry Gray, the city’s urban forest and natural resource planning coordinator, said that until recently, the city didn’t have a comprehensive understanding of its urban forest resources. In 2009, city staff finished an updated tree inventory, cataloging location and maintenance needs, among other things. The city has 42,776 street trees, 6,923 park trees (in mowed areas), and 7,269 potential street planting locations, she said.

Maintenance needs were also inventoried, with 1,642 trees identified as priority removals and 3,424 trees that needed priority pruning. An additional 43,271 trees needed routine pruning, and 1,362 stumps needed to be removed.

In 2010, the city completed an evaluation of its urban tree canopy, Gray reported. The canopy covers nearly 33% of the city. Of that, 46% is located in residential areas, 23.7% is in the city-owned right-of-way, and 22% is in recreational areas, such as parks. Compared to other cities, Ann Arbor’s tree canopy is average, she said.

Chart of tree diversity in Ann Arbor. (Links to larger image)

Gray addressed the issue of tree diversity, and said the city discourages the planting of maple trees, which account for 37% of the public tree population. ”Plant something other than a maple – that’s my take-away message,” she said.

Ann Arbor’s urban forest is a tremendous asset, Gray said. Public trees provide an estimated annual $2.8 million in benefits related to energy, property values, stormwater control, air quality and other benefits.

But in the past, there hasn’t been a management plan for the urban forest, unlike the city’s other assets, Gray said. So in 2010, city staff began developing an asset management plan, with the goal of maintaining the urban forest and maximizing its benefits. The city is doing a lot of public engagement related to this plan, she said – more information is online at a2.gov/urbanforestry.

Matt Naud added a coda to Gray’s presentation, noting that the city lost about 10,000 city street trees that were attacked by the emerald ash borer several years ago. The city spent over $2 million just to remove the trees, he said, and that doesn’t count what it cost residents for tree removal on private property. That’s why tree diversity is important – you don’t know what’s coming next, he said.

Natural Area Preservation

Jason Tallant of the city’s natural area preservation program (NAP) began his comments by showing a slide of the Furstenberg Nature Area – it’s the image he sees when he closes his eyes to think about the topic of sustainability, because it integrates the built environment with the native landscape.

NAP straddles the line between providing services for people, he said, and empowering them to preserve natural features in the city’s parkland and on their own property. He read NAP’s mission statement: “To protect and restore Ann Arbor’s natural areas and foster an environmental ethic among its citizens.”

Ann Arbor resident David Diephuis, center, talks with urban forester Kerry Gray, left, and Jason Tallant of the city's natural area preservation program.

A lot of sustainability practices are based on history, Tallant said, specifically what occurred prior to European settlement. He quoted from the 1836 land survey notes of John M. Gordon, who described the land between Ann Arbor and Dixboro: “Oaks of the circumference of 9-15 feet abound in the forests… White Oak and Burr Oak at intervals of 30-40 feet with an undergrowth 5-6’ high which has the appearance of being annually burnt down as I am informed it is.”

The history of the land is really important when thinking about how to move into the future, Tallant said. He showed a slide of the types of vegetation on land in the Ann Arbor area prior to settlement, and noted that much of the area had been covered by a mixed-oak or oak-hickory forests, with wetlands along the river. It wasn’t a monoculture, he noted, but rather a mixed environment, depending on topography, hydrology, soil type and other factors.

NAP facilitates restoration work in all of the city parks and natural areas, Tallant said. Their work includes conducting controlled burns, taking detailed inventories of the plants and animals within the city, and knowing what’s occurring in the landscape. They also do invasive species control, he said – when you see someone walking along with an orange-colored bag full of garlic mustard, they’re restoring the land so that its biodiversity isn’t diminished. That work helps create a resilient ecosystem, he said.

Outreach, Education

Chris Graham, chair of the city’s environmental commission, said he hoped that the previous speakers had given the audience an idea of the extraordinary things that Ann Arbor is doing related to sustainability. Residents should be very proud, he said.

Graham explained that the original “Ann’s arbor” was a grove of large burr oak trees – the “children” of those early oaks are obvious in the area near St. Andrew’s Church, he said, north of city hall. Underneath those oaks were roughly 300 species of plants that the native Indians burned every year.

Just a few decades ago, there were no regulations related to landmark trees, Graham noted. Controversies in the 1970s and ’80s, when development resulted in the removal of many of those trees, led to changes in Chapter 62 of the city code – what’s known as the natural features ordinance, Graham said. Ann Arbor stepped up courageously, he said, and added a natural features standard that must be met in order to gain site plan approval for any development.

What are natural features? Graham asked. His list includes woodlands, native forest fragments, some wetlands, waterways, and floodplains. Related to native forest fragments, Graham said there’s an idea hatching to develop a stewardship program, similar to the city’s natural area preservation program. The new program would look at native forest fragments in all parts of the city, including the University of Michigan and private land – the fabric of natural features knits itself across the city, he said. The plan would be to do outreach and education, so that property owners would know what’s in their back yards.

The children of trees that existed in the 1820s won’t last without help, Graham said. “Come join us in this endeavor.”

Questions & Comments

During the last portion of the forum, panelists fielded questions and commentary from the audience. This report summarizes the questions and presents them thematically.

Questions & Comments: Recycling

Question: Why doesn’t the city’s recycling program accept No. 3 plastics or biodegradable materials?

Tom McMurtrie noted that No. 3 plastics – made from polyvinyl chloride – are a significant contaminant if mixed with other plastics. The city needed to be responsible, he said, and fortunately there aren’t a lot of No. 3 products in the waste stream.

As for biodegradables, McMurtrie said that’s been a challenging issue. On the surface, it looks like a good idea, he said. However, research shows that biodegradable products break down into very small particulates that aren’t necessarily good for the environment. Most of the particulates are petroleum-based, he said, and end up staying in the environment in that form. The other issue is that if those particulates end up in the recycling stream, they act as contaminants.

Question: Are there plans to eventually accept post-consumer food waste? And how much contamination ends up in the compost stream?

McMurtrie fielded this question too, inviting the speaker to participate in the city’s solid waste plan update. This issue of post-consumer food waste will be explored, although there are some repercussions around that issue, he said. Regarding contamination in the compost stream, that hasn’t been a problem, McMurtrie said. The city switched to a private operator about a year ago, and it’s worked out well, he said. [At its Dec. 6, 2010 meeting, the city council approved contracting with WeCare Organics to operate the city's composting facility.]

Question: If reducing waste is really the goal, how will incentives be built into the program to achieve that goal? There are incentives to recycle, but how can the city encourage reduction?

McMurtrie called this a great question, and said that a simplistic approach might be to use a graduated fee system for trash collection – to charge more for large trash containers, and less for smaller ones. The city is already doing that to some extent, he said. Households that use 96-gallon trash containers pay a fee each year – $38 – while there’s no fee for 64-gallon or 32-gallon containers. Perhaps the city could incentivize more in that area.

Jeanine Palms asked city staff about whether there are plans to give incentives to residents for reducing their waste, not simply for recycling it.

Jeanine Palms, who had asked the original question, wondered if there was any way to charge for the actual amount of waste that a household produced. McMurtrie replied that it’s an option, but that city council has been hesitant to take that approach. It risks becoming a kind of regressive tax on low-income people with large families, he said.

Dick Norton weighed in, saying that the answer depends on what you want to reduce. Palms’ question and McMurtrie’s answer had focused on trash, he said, but there are other things that people consume, like energy, water and land. Urban planners try to design cities to create greater density and transportation systems so that people can live more compactly. The ways that cities are built out impacts how much people consume, he said.

Norton also pointed to research on the impact of monetizing behavior. One study looked at a daycare center, which started charging parents who showed up late to pick up their kids. The intent was to create a disincentive for people, and to eliminate the late pick-ups. But instead, more people started showing up late, Norton said. When a monetary amount was attached to that behavior, people decided it was worth the amount charged. So incentives can result in perverse outcomes, he noted.

We have to start changing our cultural expectations, Norton continued. We have to stop thinking about living the big life, then throwing it away later. And that’s a tougher nut to crack, he said.

Chris Graham pointed to another thing that could be reduced: Turf grass. The amount of energy, pollutants, time and effort that’s spent on maintaining lawns in the city is counterproductive when trying to achieve sustainability, he said.

Laura Rubin addressed the question from the perspective of water resources. She noted that the city has a graduated water rate structure, so that heavier users pay more. The Huron River Watershed Council have been holding focus groups on the issue of water conservation. Because water is plentiful in the Great Lakes region, the issue of saving water isn’t always compelling. It’s better to tie the issue to energy conservation, she said.

When people talk about reasons why they might want to save water, the knee-jerk answer is to save money, Rubin noted. But when asked, no one in the focus groups could report what their water bill is, she said. Rubin concluded by noting that while our culture seems to be driven by money and economics, other motivations are often at play.

Matt Naud pointed out that information on water consumption per household is available on the city’s website. Residents can get a lot of data about their water usage by typing in their address and water bill account number, he said.

Comment: Portland, Oregon, has mandated that residents compost their food waste – that’s a direction that Ann Arbor should be headed. Currently, compost pick-up in Ann Arbor runs from April through December. I still eat fruits and vegetables in the winter – compost pick-up should be year-round.

Matt Naud encouraged the speaker to participate in the city’s solid waste plan update, saying that this type of feedback is exactly the kind of thing the city needs to hear.

Question: I live in an apartment in order to be environmentally sound. When will food compost pick-up be available for multiple family dwellings? I now take my food scraps to friends who live outside the city and raise chickens. So there’s no lack of motivation.

Matt Naud again suggested that this kind of feedback would be useful for the city’s solid waste plan update. Tom McMurtrie said that most multi-family buildings can get compost carts. Requests can be made by calling 99-GREEN.

Questions & Comment: Air Quality – Fuller Road Station

Question: The proposed Fuller Road Station will be a parking structure with almost 1,000 spaces that will bring 1,000 cars into an area near Fuller Pool and Fuller Park. It seems like this will affect the air quality along the Fuller Road corridor and the Huron River. It’s already a heavily used traffic corridor with a lot of emissions, and it seems like Fuller Road Station would really change the quality of air.

Matt Naud said he wasn’t sure if a formal air-quality study has been completed for the Fuller Road Station project. He offered to contact Eli Cooper, the city’s transportation program manager, and find out what’s being done or what the plan is.

Questions & Comment: Water Quality – Argo Dam

Comment: I was really surprised to see the number of dams along the Huron River. Fred Pearce wrote a book called “When the Rivers Run Dry.” He has almost nothing good to say about dams.

Laura Rubin noted that there are 97 documented dams along the Huron River – until recently there were 98, but one was removed in Dexter. Beyond that, there are at least 50 other dams that the Huron River Watershed Council has discovered while taking inventory for a new dam management tool it’s developing. A lot of the dams are connected to aging infrastructure, she noted – used at former wastewater treatment plants, or to generate electricity. Some dams have been retired from their original uses. Some are just piles of rubble.

Dams are very detrimental from an environmental point of view, Rubin said, but socially they can be very successful. They can have recreational value. For the Huron River, flood control isn’t a problem, so dams aren’t generally needed for that purpose, she said. A lot of river systems and social systems have been engineered, she noted, and it’s hard to change that mentality.

Dick Norton said the issue highlights the fact that “green” and “nature” don’t have the same meaning for everyone. Norton, who’s on the executive committee of the Huron River Watershed Council, noted that the council was involved in discussions about whether to remove Argo Dam, and it had been painful. [The watershed council advocated for dam removal.] A lot of people who would typically be on the same side of an environmental issue were on different sides of the Argo Dam issue, because they valued natural resources in different ways, he said. The debate was emblematic of issues that society struggles with, he added. Norton said he sympathizes with local officials, who get hammered by people on various sides of an issue.

Questions & Comment: Public Outreach

Comment: I’ve been a townie since 1967 – and have been to a lot of the concerts that are in the posters hanging around the room. [The concert posters were part of a retrospective organized by the Ann Arbor District Library called "Freeing John Sinclair."] Outreach needs to go much further.

My neighborhood is concerned about the Gelman 1,4 dioxane plume, and about property values. Very few of my neighbors are paying attention to other issues that were mentioned tonight. They don’t want taxes to go up, or property values to do down, and they don’t want to pay more for a trash cart. They need to understand sustainability issues in ways that make sense to them. I’d like to see more outreach.

Matt Naud acknowledged that outreach is a challenge. Funding for this kind of effort is one issue – many people who work on sustainability issues are funded by grants, and “that’s not sustainable,” he said.

Questions & Comment: Land Use, Natural Areas – Library Lot

Question: Will the city have a public conversation about the future use for the top of the new underground parking structure – the Library Lot? A lot of people would like to see a park or green space there. Is the city going to ask for ideas from the public?

Sabra Briere, Ward 1 city councilmember.

Matt Naud asked city councilmember Sabra Briere – the only elected city official who attended the forum – to comment.

Briere noted that early last fall, at the city council’s direction, the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority began to explore alternate uses of  the five city-owned parcels in downtown Ann Arbor. Those parcels include the Library Lot on South Fifth Avenue north of William; the former YMCA lot north of William between Fourth and Fifth avenues; the Palio lot at the northeast corner of Main and William; the Kline lot on Ashley north of William; and the bottom floor of the parking structure at Fourth and William.

This is a plan that hasn’t been developed yet, so no one can say what will happen, she said, but part of the plan will be to solicit public input. In the near term, she said, the Library Lot will be a surface parking lot, with trees planted. That’s not the long-term plan, she said. However, Briere added, no one knows how long the near-term will last.

Dick Norton commented that there’s a need to see how to make urban environments more green, but it’s also important to worry about maintaining farmland outside of the city. Development should go into already developed cities – it’s important to think about how to accommodate more people in urban areas so that large tracts of farmland and forest can be preserved outside of cities. It’s a difficult trade-off, he noted, especially because different jurisdictions are involved, and different perspectives. Residents of the city don’t want it to change and grow bigger, while farmers don’t want to be told that they can’t sell their land for development – in many cases, that’s their retirement plan.

But if the city wants to reduce energy and preserve farmland, turning the Library Lot into open space probably isn’t the best use for it. The site should probably be put to a more urban use, Norton said. It’s something to think about.

Matt Naud noted that at one of the future sustainability sessions, the city’s greenbelt program will likely be included. [Laura Rubin of the Huron River Watershed Council is a member of the city's greenbelt advisory commission, which oversees the greenbelt program. The program, funded by a 30-year millage, preserves farmland and open space outside of the city by acquiring property development rights.]

Comment: Some years ago, we dug out the grass on our lawn extension and replanted it with native plants – and we were ticketed by the city. The city needs to straighten out that disconnect.

Jason Tallant of the city’s natural areas preservation program applauded the planting of native plants in the easement. Some residents are putting in rain gardens or bioswales, which is great, he said. But the key point, he said, relates to public safety. If the plantings obstruct the view – of pedestrians using a crosswalk, for example – that’s a problem. That’s why the city enforces height restrictions on plants in the easement, he said. The thing to remember is “the right plant for the right place.” [The height restriction limits vegetation to an average height of 36 inches above the road surface.]

Questions & Comments: Future Forums

Question: It was interesting to hear about what the city is doing, but this forum didn’t match my expectations. I thought you’d have more opportunities for asking questions and engaging in dialogue. As I decide whether to attend future sessions, I wonder if the format will be the same?

This is an experiment, Matt Naud said. The first forum was intended to give people a taste of what the city is doing toward sustainability in different areas – city staff are never quite sure how much information is getting out, he said. The question is whether to hold longer sessions, to give the public more time to ask questions and give commentary, or to hold smaller focus sessions that take a deeper dive into these issues.

Naud said the city staff would like to hear what kind of format would be most effective – feedback forms were provided at the forum. Basically, if people want a certain kind of meeting and will attend it, the city will hold it, he said.

Naud said he’s held public meetings about the Gelman 1,4 dioxane issue and only a dozen people would come. It’s hard to know what issues will draw a turnout. He said he’s often joked that the only sure way to get 100 people to come to a meeting is to say the topic is a dam – but this forum has proven him wrong, he said. The city wants to know how people prefer to give feedback, and how this discussion should move forward, Naud said.

Future Forums

Three more forums in this sustainability series are planned. All forums will be held at the downtown Ann Arbor District Library building, 343 S. Fifth Ave. starting at 7 p.m.

• Feb. 9, 2012: Land Use and Access – including transportation designs, infrastructure, land uses, built environment, and public spaces.
• March 8, 2012: Climate and Energy – including an overview of Ann Arbor’s climate action plan, climate impacts, renewable and alternative energy, energy efficiency and conservation.
• April 12, 2012: Community – including housing, public safety, public art, recreation, outreach, civic engagement, and stewardship of community resources.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public entities like the city of Ann Arbor. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

The view looking east down the dewatered Argo headrace, with the embankment on the right. The trail along the embankment to Broadway is closed, as the city prepares for major reconstruction of the headrace. (Photos by the writer.)

Commissioners approved a resolution recommending a change to the scope of work at the Argo headrace – a change that will add a new entrance to the soon-to-be-reconstructed waterway from Argo Pond to the Huron River. The modification to the project was linked to an offer from DTE to pay for a whitewater section that’s part of the overall project, which freed up city funds for the new entrance. A state permit needed to start the reconstruction is expected to be received by Aug. 23.

A second resolution introduced at Tuesday’s meeting urged the city council to incorporate design of a trail system – including the county’s Border to Border (B2B) trail – into the Fuller Road area in advance of building the proposed Fuller Road Station. Two members of the Washtenaw Bicycling & Walking Coalition were on hand with suggestions for where trails might be located to bypass the busy intersection of Fuller Road, Maiden Lane and East Medical Center Drive.

The topic of trails also emerged tangentially during a presentation by PAC vice chair John Lawter on dog parks. Some people walk their dogs off leash on park trails and in other park areas, violating Ann Arbor’s ordinance requiring dogs to be leashed. The exception is in the city’s two dog parks, on the north and south edges of town.

Lawter suggested that Ann Arbor might find other ways to let dogs off leash, either by creating another traditional dog park that’s more centrally located, or designating certain hours for dogs to be off leash in specific parks. PAC might form a subcommittee to explore options for a new dog park, and for how to increase enforcement of existing dog-control ordinances. Such an effort might uncover more data points like those Lawter provided in his presentation, which included the pounds of poo collected annually at Swift Run dog park.

Data collection has also been part of developing the city’s first urban forest management plan. Oliver Kiley of JJR, the consultant leading this project, updated the commission on the effort. Possible outcomes include a recommended maintenance plan, protections for mature trees, targets for new tree plantings, and proposals for relevant ordinances and zoning. The discussion among commissioners led to concerns over whether the city is prepared for something similar to the emerald ash borer – which decimated thousands of trees in the city over the past decade and chewed up the city’s forestry budget for several years.

The urban forest management plan will be among the 26 city plans in a sustainability framework being developed, focused on “triple-bottom line” goals of economic vitality, environmental quality and social equity. The commission was briefed on this project in preparation for a Sept. 27 joint meeting of the park, planning, energy and environmental commissions. The goal of that meeting is to start prioritizing goals from these existing city plans.

Argo Dam Update

Brian Steglitz gave an update on the city’s reconstruction project at the Argo dam headrace, as commissioners were asked to recommend amending the project scope with TSP Environmental. Steglitz is the city’s project manager for the Argo reconstruction. [.pdf of staff memo and resolution]

TSP, a Livonia firm, had been hired last year to build a dam bypass channel in the headrace for $988,170 and to add whitewater features for an additional $180,000. However, DTE is now offering to pay for the whitewater feature of the project, if the city agrees to hold off on construction of that piece until after DTE completes environmental remediation on its nearby property, as required by the state.

By having DTE pay for the work, the city is expected to save $163,636. The resolution at Tuesday’s PAC meeting recommended using some of these funds to improve the entrance to the headrace. That work had not previously been part of the project’s scope.

Steglitz told commissioners that the additional work would include modifying the entry into the headrace by removing the top of the concrete culvert, adding grouted limestone to widen the approach, building new concrete abutments, and installing an arched prefabricated steel clear span bridge with a concrete deck. The work is expected to cost about $85,000.

A July 25 memo from city staff reported that the city had been notified by DTE officials of upcoming remediation work that DTE plans to do in 2012, adjacent to DTE’s property on the south side of the Huron River, between Allen Creek Drain and the Broadway Bridge. The remediation is being required by the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality. The city is currently in negotiations with DTE about the details of the work it will do related to the headrace and whitewater features, Steglitz said.

Brian Steglitz gives a presentation on the Argo headrace project to the city's park advisory commission.

The overall Argo dam project, as previously approved, calls for removing the canoe portage and replacing it with a series of “drop pools” so that no portage is required. Originally, five pools were proposed, but that has increased to eight pools, Steglitz said. Grade changes on the drops between pools will be less steep, to accommodate fish movement through the headrace. The change will also make it easier for novice canoers and kayakers to navigate, he said. [.pdf of Argo headrace design and bridge info]

Other work includes improving the accessibility of the path – which is part of the county’s Border-to-Border trail – and addressing problems in the headrace embankment.

The work is tied to a consent agreement that the city reached with the state in May 2010, laying out steps that the city must take to deal with some of long-outstanding structural issues with the earthen embankment. TSP Environmental had been selected by the city council at its Nov. 15, 2010 meeting, following a recommendation by PAC in October 2010.

Steglitz told PAC that the city hasn’t yet received the necessary state permit to begin major work on the project. The city applied for the permit in April, and since then has been responding to comments and additional requests for information from the state. City staff expect to receive the permit by Aug. 23, after which work will begin immediately. There’s a Nov. 15 deadline from the state related to the consent agreement, Steglitz said, which had originally been set based on receiving a permit in May. Meeting that deadline now will be aggressive, he noted, but for the most part doable – and the state will likely be flexible, if necessary, given that work couldn’t begin when planned.

Steglitz also said that some work almost certainly won’t be completed by Nov. 15, such as paving the path and putting in plantings. That work will be finished up next spring.

Meanwhile, some work that didn’t require the permit has been done, including tree removal and dewatering of the headrace, which Steglitz said has been a battle. The trail along the embankment has been closed, and detour signs are up.

Argo Dam: Commissioner Discussion

Colin Smith, the city’s manager of parks and recreation, urged commissioners to visit the Argo site, saying it was exciting to see that some work has begun. He also noted that Gary Lacy, the Colorado consultant who’s designing the project, had previously talked about the benefits of improving the entryway to the headrace, if possible. City councilmembers had also expressed interest in that when they initially approved the project, he said.

David Barrett asked whether TSP Environmental will still build the whitewater feature, now that DTE is paying for it. Steglitz replied that it might not be TSP, because DTE will probably want to use its own contractor. The city still needs to negotiate with DTE about the role that city staff and Lacy will play. City staff might be indifferent to who builds it, he said, as long as the design remains acceptable.

Facing west, looking at the entry to the dewatered Argo headrace. Argo Pond is on the other side of the berm. If approved by city council, a proposed change in the project's scope of work will entail rebuilding the entry with a Trailblazer bridge to provide more headroom to travel from Argo Pond into the headrace.

Smith said DTE staff have been very helpful in working with the city. In response to a query from Sam Offen, Smith said it wasn’t yet clear what type of remediation needs to take place on the DTE site, but he promised to forward that information to PAC as soon as it’s available. Barrett noted that if the remediation is extensive, it might push back the timeframe for building the whitewater features. Tim Berla clarified that even if that occurs, the new headrace would still be open.

Berla asked whether the deal with DTE had been finalized – was it certain that they’ll pay? Smith said that DTE reviewed the memo about the project that was provided to PAC and the city council, so everyone is on the same page. Everything has been laid out, he said, though the agreement hasn’t been finalized. Smith felt it was solid. Offen later asked Smith to seek the city’s attorney’s opinion on the agreement, before PAC’s recommendation goes to city council.

In response to a question from Tim Doyle, Smith said the new bridge would be similar to one installed in Bandemer Park.

John Lawter confirmed that the city would still have the ability to close the headrace, following reconstruction. Steglitz said a stop log could still be used, which would allow staff to block water flowing into the headrace, if necessary.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved recommending an amendment to the scope of work for the Argo dam headrace project. The recommendation will be forwarded to city council for final approval.

Trails and Fuller Road Station

Over the past two years or so, several PAC members have raised concerns about various aspects of the proposed Fuller Road Station, a large parking structure, bus depot and possible rail station to be located near the intersection of Fuller Road, Maiden Lane and East Medical Center Drive, near the University of Michigan medical campus on city-owned land. The land has been used as a surface parking lot since 1993, leased to the university, but is on property designated as parkland. It’s a joint project of the city of Ann Arbor and UM, though a formal agreement regarding its construction and operation hasn’t yet been finalized.

In June 2010, the commission passed a resolution that asked the city council to make available a complete plan of Fuller Road Station – including any significant proposed agreements, such as what the university will pay the city for use of the structure – allowing sufficient time for a presentation at a televised PAC meeting before the council votes on the project. The resolution also asked that staff and the council ensure the project results in a net revenue gain for the parks system. Revenues from the lease of the surface parking lot support the parks system.

PAC most recently got a detailed update on the project at its May 2011 meeting. At that meeting, there was a discussion about the status of trails – including the county’s Border-to-Border (B2B) trail – as it runs through that area. As a follow-up to that discussion, at Tuesday’s PAC meeting, commissioners Gwen Nystuen and Tim Berla presented a resolution recommending that planning for a trail system be incorporated into plans for the proposed Fuller Road Station.

Trails and Fuller Road Station: Public Commentary

Eric Boyd of Ann Arbor said he strongly supported including non-motorized trails in the Phase 1 design of Fuller Road Station. The overall Fuller Road Station project is worthwhile to improve transit services in Ann Arbor, he said. But he said it will poorly serve cyclists if improvements aren’t made to non-motorized trails in the area – either first or at the same time. Specifically, one of the city’s best non-motorized assets is the trail connecting Bandemer Park to Parker Mill – a key link in the Border-to-Border trail, he said.

Right now, Boyd said, there are three obstacles preventing this from being a truly great ride, especially for families with young children: (1) access to Bandemer Park from the west is a mess, he said, (2) the dirt track along the headrace is difficult to navigate – he noted that the city is thankfully working on that now, and (3) the intersection at Fuller Road and Maiden Lane is an unwelcome obstacle and time-consuming to navigate safely. Boyd urged PAC to take a strong advocacy role in supporting non-motorized improvements – as called for in the Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) plan – in the vicinity of Fuller Park, before or during construction of the Fuller Road Station.

John Satarino, a former PAC member, encouraged commissioners to look at a study that was done several years ago regarding the Border-to-Border trail, especially as it related to the Bandemer/Argo area. The rest of his comments related to Fuller Road Station, and a recent letter that mayor John Hieftje sent out to the community with comments about the project. Satarino asked who would pay the $15 million annual operating and maintenance costs for the facility – no one talks about that, he said, though it’s included in a consultant’s report on the project. Also, nothing was said about WALLY, the north/south commuter rail project. That will cost about $36 million to get up and running, Satarino said, plus $6 million to $8 million in annual operating costs.

The mayor minimized the issue of when the Fuller Road Station site became parkland, Satarino said – that was in 1932, when the city acquired the property. At that time, there had been provisions that the land remain parkland, but over the years “I guess the lawyers might have taken care of that,” he said. Satarino also wanted to remind people that there’s a paved parking lot on the land now because the University of Michigan bullied the city into building it – creating a “hostage situation” in order to save some old oak trees near the Veterans Administration hospital.

Trails and Fuller Road Station: Presentation

In starting the discussion, PAC chair Julie Grand suggested commissioners limit their focus to the issue of trails in the area of Fuller Road Station, and not discuss the facility itself at this point.

Tim Berla agreed, saying the resolution was a way to address having biking and pedestrian paths that would provide a safer way to navigate through an area where thousands of vehicles pass every day. He then introduced two members of the Washtenaw Bicycling & Walking Coalition (WBWC): Larry Deck and Joel Batterman.

Larry Deck of the Washtenaw Bicycling & Walking Coalition.

Deck and Batterman covered much of the information contained in a statement issued by WBWC in June. [.pdf of WBWC statement and map showing recommended trails] They showed a series of maps with options for trails – including maps from the city’s PROS plan and the 2006 non-motorized transportation plan.

The WBWC is suggesting three actions, Deck said:

1. Complete the trail system before construction of the Fuller Road Station parking structure.
2. Complete the trail system before the proposed bike center within Fuller Road Station is completed.
3. Have the university share in the costs of the trails and a bridge.

Batterman described several conflicts that pedestrians and bicyclists face with vehicles in the Fuller Road area, at intersections and at entrances to places like Fuller Park. A demand for improvements exists there, he said. A 12-hour traffic count in 2006 showed more than 4,000 pedestrians and 700 bicyclists used that area.

Batterman noted that in the early 1980s, when bridges on Fuller Road and East Medical Center Drive were built over the railroad and when the bridge was built over the Huron River on Maiden Lane, the design included room for future trails to go under the bridges. However, those trails haven’t yet been built, and there’s no continuity in that area for the B2B trail. Both the PROS plan and the non-motorized plan recommend completing these trails, he said. The non-motorized plan also calls for a bridge to be constructed over the Huron River, linking the trails on the south of the river to the trail that continues on the north side of the river through Riverside Park.

It seems reasonable to request funding for trail improvements that have been envisioned for roughly 30 years, Batterman said. The lack of trails is one of the last major gaps in the Huron River greenway system in the city’s center, he noted, and is a keystone in the corridor between UM’s central and north campuses.

Trails and Fuller Road Station: Commissioner Discussion

Berla began by noting that the traffic study mentioned by Batterman is five years old – given the university’s growth, those figures are likely higher today, he said. Berla referred to the text of the resolution, but did not read it – the resolution and memo had been distributed to commissioners via email before the meeting. [.pdf of memo and resolution]

Among other things, the resolution states that detailed plans for the design and funding of the trail system, including the B2B trail through Fuller Park and the connecting links on all sides, should be approved by PAC and the city council prior to action on the Fuller Road Station project. The resolution calls for trail improvements to be completed prior to or concurrently with changes planned along Fuller Road or construction of the Fuller Road Station, and recommends that any future transit improvements – including the “Signature Route” of the future University of Michigan rapid transit connector along Fuller Road – should preserve the integrity of the trail system.

Further, the resolution states that improvement of the trail system should be given priority over planned bicycle amenities within Fuller Road Station, and that costs of a complete non-motorized trail system and a source of funding should be established jointly by the city of Ann Arbor, the University of Michigan, and the Washtenaw County Parks & Recreation Commission.

PAC member Tim Berla.

Julie Grand clarified with Larry Deck that the WBWC was proposing trails underneath the bridges in that area.

Parks planner Amy Kuras was asked for her opinion about the WBWC proposal. She said she agreed that the intersection at Maiden Lane and Fuller Road was one of the most dangerous in the city for pedestrians and bicyclists. Trail connections under the bridges are probably the safest alternative.

Berla noted that the resolution prioritizes trails over the bike amenities planned inside Fuller Road Station. But he wondered whether it would be useful to be even more specific in the resolution. He directed his question to Christopher Taylor, an ex-officio PAC member who also represents Ward 3 on city council.

Taylor replied that in general, articulating priorities isn’t a bad thing. He wondered what the current plans are for trails at Fuller Road Station. Berla said it was difficult to know, since he hadn’t actually seen the plans. But the last time Berla had asked that question of Eli Cooper, the city’s transportation program manager, Cooper had indicated that the design entailed widening an existing path through the site to 10 feet, but that no other trail linkages would be part of the project’s first phase.

Tim Doyle asked how expensive it would be to build a non-motorized bridge over the Huron River. Deck indicated it could cost as much as $500,000.

Sam Offen had questions about two of the resolved clauses:

5) That improvement of the trail system, including the B2B Trail, be given priority over the bicycle elements of Phase I of FRS since there is use of and demand for trail continuity now, and

6) That the costs of a complete non-motorized trail system and source of funding be established jointly by the City of Ann Arbor, the University of Michigan, and the Washtenaw County Parks & Recreation Commission.

Regarding the #5 resolved clause, Berla clarified that while he’d like both the trails and the proposed amenities within the facility – bike lockers within the station, for example – priorities should be given to completing the trails first. Taylor observed that it seemed the clause oversteps the point of the resolution, which is to make sure the facility fits with the non-motorized infrastructure that feeds into it.

Offen was curious to know how Washtenaw County parks & rec was involved. Berla and Nystuen both emphasized that the county is a major funder of the B2B trail.

With no further questions, Grand called for a vote.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved the resolution recommending action related to non-motorized trails in the Fuller Road Station area. The resolution will be forwarded to city council.

Dog Parks: More Needed?

John Lawter, PAC’s vice chair, has on several occasions raised the question of whether the city has a sufficient number of dog parks, and at Tuesday’s meeting he gave a formal presentation on the issue. He began broadly – by noting that dogs are believed to be the first domesticated animal, dating back more than 32,000 years. Dogs were hunting companions and guarded humans against danger, so in many ways, Lawter said, the evolution of humans is closely linked to the evolution of dogs.

The number of dogs is growing, both nationally and locally, Lawter said, including an estimated 75,000 dogs in Washtenaw County. And while there’s a leash law in Ann Arbor, there’s also a need for off-leash socialization and exercise. Leashes can cause dogs to be territorial, Lawter noted.

An off-leash dog area is fenced off from the rest of Olson Park, on the city's north side.

At the same time, complaints about off-leash incidents are on the rise, and enforcement is handled by police, who understandably don’t give it a high priority, Lawter said. But the challenge is that off-leash options in Ann Arbor are limited, he said – there are only two legal off-leash dog parks in Ann Arbor, at Ols0n Park and Swift Run. That’s led to informal off-leash gatherings, which Lawter characterized as common. In an “undisclosed” location in his neighborhood, Lawter said on Saturdays 50 or more people gather to run their dogs off leash. He knows of at least two other locations where this happens within a one-mile radius of the city’s center.

Possible solutions include increased enforcement and additional dog parks. The benefit of a dog park, Lawter said, is that it promotes responsible pet ownership and the enforcement of dog-control laws, while giving dogs a safe place to exercise. Dog parks provide seniors and the disabled with an accessible place to exercise their dogs, as well as a place for socializing for all people and dogs who visit the park – it’s a way to build community, he said.

On the flip side, concerns over dog parks include safety, sanitation, noise, traffic, effects on wildlife and natural areas, and the costs of construction and maintenance. Locations are often hard to find, he said, especially in areas adjacent to residential neighborhoods.

The two existing dog parks are located on the city’s edges – one in Olson Park, a fenced half-acre on the north side of town, and another 10 acres of fenced area at Swift Run in the south, which includes a separate section for small dogs. To reach these parks, most people need to drive there, Lawter said. Dogs aren’t permitted on AATA buses, and these aren’t walkable locations for most city residents.

Lawter also noted that while the number of permits to use these parks has dropped – from about 800 in 2008 to just over 400 in 2010 – the “pounds of poo” have increased, indicating that usage of the dog parks is increasing. About 12,000 pounds were collected by park staff in 2008, compared to over 14,000 pounds in 2010.

Traditional fenced-in dog parks cost about $40,000 to build, not including parking, Lawter said. Olson was cheaper – about $21,000. Maintenance costs are also a factor. Swift Run maintenance costs about $20,000 annually, he said.

In addition to traditional fenced-in areas, Lawter laid out several different options for dog parks. “Instant” dog parks can be created by putting up temporary fencing in areas that aren’t being used for other purposes, for example. Or unfenced dog parks can be designated in larger parks, he said, perhaps by setting restricted hours of use. Other ideas include having amenities like water areas for dogs to play in, benches that can be paid for by donors, and sponsorship opportunities – raising money by selling customized engraved bricks for paths, for instance. The goal is to “focus on the loot, not the poop,” Lawter quipped. He reported that a park planner in Indianapolis said permits for dog parks are “recession-proof” for that city, and that the dog parks could be money-makers, if managed well.

Lawter laid out a process the city could pursue, first by forming public/private partnerships to create additional options for dog parks, possibly by partnering with dog owner organizations. The city would need to identify an appropriate site – at least a quarter-acre minimum, and factoring in a capacity of 25 dogs per acre. Rules, regulations and enforcement issues would need to be developed, he said, followed by design of the park and eventual construction.

In conclusion, Lawter said there’s a need for another off-leash area in the central part of the city. He recommended incorporating this goal into the city’s park planning efforts, adding it as a consideration when looking at land acquisitions, and asking that parks staff actively look for potential sites.

Dog Parks: Commissioner Discussion

Julie Grand asked whether Lawter had suggestions for possible dog park locations. He did not identify any specific locations but said there are potential spots, depending on whether the dog park would be a small fenced-in area or a larger open space. However, the biggest issue is convincing neighbors to allow it, he said. It takes campaigning and advocating, which isn’t the role of the city staff, he said – that’s up to advocates for the dog parks.

Gwen Nystuen suggested setting up a PAC subcommittee to explore Lawter’s recommendations, and said she’d be willing to serve on it.

David Barrett jokingly described the informal off-leash gatherings as “spontaneous doggie flash mobs,” and asked whether there were a lot in the city. Lawter said he knew of at least three in his neighborhood alone, and he agreed with Barrett’s characterization that there was a kind of “doggie underground.”

Barrett also asked about the data regarding poo poundage. That’s collected by county employees at Swift Run, Lawter said – the dog park there is a joint city/county operation. Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, reported that it’s one of the stranger data points he’s regularly received from the county over the past three years, but that Lawter had found it useful – “so you never know,” Smith said.

From left: Park advisory commissioners Sam Offen and Tim Doyle.

Sam Offen said he supported another dog park, if it’s in the right park with the right amenities. But it’s important that an increased effort to find a location for another dog park in the city’s center be accompanied by increased enforcement, he said. Bird Hills seems to be the easiest place to find people walking their dogs off-leash, Offen said – and when it’s politely pointed out to them that they’re violating a city ordinance, they often don’t care. However, it’s not cost effective to have police patrol the parks, he added, saying he didn’t know what the solution is.

Lawter agreed that more enforcement is needed. A lack of enforcement only encourages more people to break the rules, he said.

Grand supported the idea of designating limited hours to allow off-leash dogs in an area in an existing park. She suggested exploring that idea since it meant not having to build another dog park. Lawter said that in other cities where this is done, the hours are set to coincide with times that the parks aren’t used by children – early in the morning, or later at night.

Tim Doyle asked whether any section of Bird Hills might be used for this purpose – would there be public outcry at that? Yes, Smith said, there’d be outcry. Bird Hills is one of the higher-quality nature areas in the city, and there’s no area where dogs could run without damaging the plant life, he said.

Barrett asked if Lawter had ideas about how the dog parks could make money, as the park planner in Indianapolis had indicated. There are many ways, Lawter said. Some dog parks have gates requiring keys that must be purchased. Another option is to periodically go to the dog parks and check to see if people have permits – probably only a third of people who currently use Ann Arbor’s dog parks have permits, he said. Or occasionally a booth could be set up at the dog park to accept permit applications, and educate people about why permits are needed.

Offen noted that currently, permits must be purchased at city hall – it’s not possible to get one online or at other locations, so it’s not convenient to do. Lawter said that one possibility would be to have permit applications available at other park sites where staff are present. Smith said that for people who’ve already gotten a permit, the city mails reminders at the end of the year, urging them to renew. [.pdf of dog permit application]

There are other reasons why permits are important, beyond the revenue, Lawter said. It’s also a way to verify that the dogs are vaccinated – that’s important for public safety. Doyle suggested making permits available at local veterinarian offices.

Smith noted that a few years ago, when the two dog parks were created, the city did significant public outreach on the issue. It’s possible to draw on that information again, he said.

Urban Forest Management Plan

Commissioners received a presentation about development of the city’s urban forest management plan from Oliver Kiley, a landscape architect with the firm JJR, which has been hired by the city as a consultant for the project. [Cheryl Zuellig of JJR is working as a consultant on the project as well. She also serves on the city's public art commission.]

This is the city’s first urban forest management plan, Kiley told commissioners. The intent is to develop a long-term vision for how to manage this major community asset. Public engagement has been a big part of the process, he said, in working to establish a range of goals, objectives and an action plan. Possible outcomes include a recommended maintenance plan, protections for mature trees, targets for new tree plantings, and proposals for relevant ordinances and zoning.

The process started over a year ago, when a working group was set up of the consultants and city staff. An advisory committee of community members was also formed to give input. Beyond that, Kiley said, there’s been outreach to stakeholders and focus groups, as well as two citywide public meetings last year. Two more meetings will be held later this year and in early 2012. In addition, an online survey posted last year yielded about 400 responses, he said.

The draft plan is divided into three components: (1) tree resources, (2) resource management, such as policies, funding and staff, and (3) community engagement. Goals have been set for each component, and a draft of over 50 possible objectives has been developed, Kiley said. [.pdf of draft objectives] The timetable calls for a draft plan to be circulated in April and May of 2012, with city council reviewing and adopting it later that year.

Kiley pointed commissioners to the project’s website at www.a2gov.org/urbanforestry for more information. He noted that Connie Pulcipher of the city’s systems planning unit is the point person for this project, during the time when the city’s forester, Kerry Gray, is on maternity leave.

Urban Forest: Commission Discussion

Gwen Nystuen referred to stormwater management as a major issue for the city, and an important aspect of the urban forest. Will the urban forest management plan attempt to measure or quantify this impact? Kiley noted that the consultant Davey Resource Group did a tree inventory and benefits analysis in 2009 that addressed this issue. [.pdf of full report]

Sam Offen asked who serves on the advisory committee. Members include:

• Harry Sheehan: Office of the Washtenaw County Water Resource Commissioner
• Joel Dalton: Huron Valley Group of the Sierra Club
• Ann Lund: Broadway neighborhood
• Kathy Stroud: Traver Association
• Allison Stupka: Old Westside
• Lynn Borset: Ann Arbor Tree Conservancy
• Jeff Plakke: UM Botanical Gardens & Arboretum
• Neal Foster: Orchard‐Hills Maplewood Homeowners Association & Millers Creek Action Team
• Rita Mitchell: Neighborhood Alliance
• Jim Rogers: Friends of Greenview and Pioneer Nature Areas
• Peggy Sorvala: DTE
• Mike Martin: First Martin (representing business/property managers)
• Paul Bairley: Former city forester
• Kris Olsson: Huron River Watershed Council
• Matt Naud: Environmental Commission (city staff, sitting in for reporting purposes)
• John Lawter: Park Advisory Commission and UM Grounds
• Joan Doughty: Community Action Network

Offen noted that the city had been hit by the emerald ash borer several years ago, which decimated most of the emerald ash trees. He wondered if the city would have responded to the crisis differently, if an urban forest management plan had been in place at that time. Kiley replied that one of the plan’s goals is to be flexible and responsive to changing conditions. It’s important always to keep an eye on what the next disease or insect attack might be, he said, but it’s not clear how the city could have anticipated the emerald ash borer. The city was caught off guard, he said, and for several years the crisis consumed all of the city’s forestry budget and man-hours. That meant that other routine maintenance was deferred – the city just didn’t have the capacity to handle it.

Kiley noted that diversity of trees in the city is important, to prevent decimation of the urban forest by a single bug or disease.

David Barrett asked if the emerald ash borer crisis was over. The borer doesn’t attack trees under a certain size, Kiley said, so for the most part, those smaller ashes are all that remain in the city. Over the longer term, the question is whether the insect has moved out of the area so that the ash trees can grow.

Lawter noted that the plan will address many areas that relate to parks, including setting goals for tree canopy coverage, funding sources, and possible ordinances related to when trees can be removed. He said PAC will at some point receive a draft copy to review for input.

Julie Grand asked whether the interviews with stakeholders or focus groups yielded any surprises or common themes. Riley pointed her to a document on the urban forest website that lists common themes pulled from those interviews. [.pdf of common themes] A sampling includes: (1) the importance of communication and transparency of forestry activities, (2) the need for tree diversity, (3) the importance of tree maintenance and young tree care, and (4) the suggestion of incentives for tree plantings on private property.

Mike Anglin, an ex-officio PAC member who also represents Ward 5 on city council, wrapped up the discussion by thanking Kiley for the work he’s doing.

Sustainability Update

Jamie Kidwell, who’s working for the city on a sustainability project funded by a $95,000 grant the city received from the Home Depot Foundation, gave an update to PAC about those efforts. She had given a similar presentation at a city planning commission working session earlier this month.

The concept of sustainability focuses on what’s called the triple bottom line: environmental quality, economic vitality, and social equity. Kidwell told commissioners that the goal of the project isn’t to develop a new plan. Rather, it’s to review the city’s existing plans and organize them into a framework of goals, objectives and indicators that can guide future planning and policy. Other project goals include improving access to the city’s plans and to the sustainability components of each plan, and to institutionalize the concept of sustainability into city planning and future city plans.

There’s an 18-month timeline for the project, which started earlier this year. For the first phase, Kidwell reviewed existing city plans – such as the downtown plan, the non-motorized transportation plan, the natural features master plan and others – and interviewed key city staff to determine which plans they use to guide their decision-making. There are 26 plans that are included in this project, and the second phase has involved organizing the goals for each plan. [.pdf of the list of 26 plans]

Kidwell said she and other city staff are starting to develop a framework for these plans, and to identify gaps that exist – goals that the city might want to pursue, but that aren’t laid out in existing plans.

The final six months of the project will be focused on developing an action plan, Kidwell said. That will include prioritizing goals within the framework, and tying those goals to the city’s two-year budget plan.

Efforts in other parts of the country – Philadelphia, Miami-Dade, Santa Monica, Calif. and Asheville, N.C. – have provided some guidance in developing a framework for Ann Arbor, Kidwell said. Philadelphia’s model was particularly appealing for its simplicity, she said, using broad themes like energy and the environment.

The draft for Ann Arbor’s framework is centered around four themes: (1) climate and energy, (2) natural systems, (3) community, and (4) land use and access. Goals from each of the city’s 26 plans in the framework are being sorted to see how many of those goals fit into these four themes, Kidwell said.

Also in draft form is a document with summaries for each of the 26 plans, including the top 10 goals from each plan. It’s intended to be a reference resource, Kidwell said. [.pdf of draft sustainability summaries]

At the end of the project, Kidwell said, there will be two concrete products: a relative brief document that will be distributed with a summary of the city’s sustainability framework, and an interactive website – a centralized place where people can access all of the city’s plans, and can sort information based on different goals and themes.

Kidwell concluded by highlighting some upcoming events tied to the sustainability project:

• Tuesday, Sept. 13 at 7 p.m.: Lecture on sustainability by Dick Norton, chair of the University of Michigan’s urban and regional planning program. The venue has not yet been finalized.
• Tuesday, Sept. 27 at 6 p.m.: A joint meeting of the planning, park, environmental and energy commissions, to set sustainability priorities. The meeting will be held at Cobblestone Farm, 2781 Packard Road.
• Second Thursday of each month, January-April 2012: A lecture series on sustainability issues.

The events will be open to the public.

Sustainability Update: Commissioner Discussion

David Barrett asked whether there had been any outreach to the business community, given that one of the three sustainability goals is economic vitality. Not yet, Kidwell said. This initial phase has involved organizing what the city has already adopted. In later phases, the effort will involve community outreach, and the business community will be part of that.

Sam Offen described it as a tremendous project, and asked what outcomes Kidwell anticipates, in terms of recommendations and priorities. Kidwell replied that she hopes some priorities will be set at the Sept. 27 joint meeting of the four city commissions, perhaps identifying one priority from each theme that could be moved head in the coming year. That would provide direction for staff to focus. There are hundreds of goals within the 26 plans, she noted, and not all of them can be acted on at the same time. The hope is that an action plan will prioritize some of the goals so that staff can better track progress toward reaching those goals.

Colin Smith, parks and recreation manager, added that the priorities can be linked to the city’s capital improvements plan (CIP), which is used to prioritize projects for budgeting purposes.

Offen noted that if this kind of framework had been in place, then perhaps projects like the Fuller Road Station would have evolved from it by identifying transportation and environmental needs, rather than just appearing suddenly on someone’s To Do list. Fuller Road Station would have been more understandable if it had been part of a process, rather than just being “birthed,” he said.

Tim Doyle asked whether Kidwell had run across any inconsistencies or conflicts between goals in the different city plans. Not as much as anticipated, she said. There are some conflicts – between goals in the solar and urban forest plans, for example – but those will just have to be addressed whenever they’re encountered, she said. Conflicting goals will be highlighted in the database she’s compiling, Kidwell added.

Offen wondered why there weren’t any plans related to public safety. Kidwell said she wasn’t aware of any such plan, but that there was still time to incorporate suggestions for other plans to include.

Barrett observed that there also weren’t any plans specifically related to economic vitality. Kidwell said that no city plan focuses specifically on that issue, but that goals in many of the 26 plans used in the framework do address economic vitality. In response to a question from Offen, she said that no plans from the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority are being incorporated into the framework, though similar goals are in some of the city’s master plans.

Barrett then asked what’s meant by “social equity.” That’s a big question, Kidwell said, and one that the community needs to answer. Generally, it means ensuring that public health and affordable housing goals, for example, are part of the city’s planning. But part of the process to develop a sustainability framework is to define these terms, she said.

Julie Grand noted that several of the city plans address issues related to the Huron River and non-motorized transportation. She observed that PAC’s agenda that evening included an item related to that too – trails in the Fuller Road Station area.

Kidwell wrapped up the discussion by mentioning that she’s keeping a blog on the Sustainable Cities Institute website, giving updates on the Ann Arbor project.

Misc. Communications

At the end of Tuesday’s three-hour meeting, parks and recreation manager Colin Smith gave several brief updates.

Colin Smith, Ann Arbor's manager of parks and recreation.

He noted that stakes with white flags had been placed in the West Park detention pond in an attempt to “politely dissuade” water fowl from eating the plants there. He acknowledged that it would be helpful to put up signs explaining the purpose of those flags. He also noted that a memo had been sent to city council earlier this month, providing an update on West Park construction.

Earlier in the day, Smith said, an event to launch the RiverUp! project had been held at Island Park. [At its July 2011 meeting, PAC had been briefed on the project, which is spearheaded by a conservancy group called the Wolfpack, and involves several other partners, including the Huron River Watershed Council, the National Wildlife Federation, the Michigan League of Conservation Voters, and the Community Foundation for Southeast Michigan.] The event had been well attended, he said, but it was also a chance to reflect on how much the city has done over the past decade or so to improve conditions along the river and provide exposure to the river as a recreational resource. It was good to know that the city has taken a lead on that, he said.

Smith also reported that Matt Warba has been promoted to assistant manager of field operations for the city, taking on broader responsibility for operations outside of the parks. Warba was on hand to give a very brief report, focusing on efforts at Plymouth Park. The city continues to battle stormwater runoff from the railroad embankment in that area along Plymouth Road, he said. Engineering work is underway for a longer-term solution, he said, with construction to start in the fall.

Present: David Barrett, Tim Berla, Doug Chapman, Tim Doyle, Julie Grand, Sam Offen, Gwen Nystuen, John Lawter, councilmember Mike Anglin (ex-officio), councilmember Christopher Taylor (ex-officio). Also Colin Smith, city parks manager.

Absent: Karen Levin

Next meeting: PAC’s meeting on Tuesday, Sept. 20, 2011 begins at 4 p.m. in the city hall second-floor council chambers, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [confirm date]

The Chronicle survives in part through regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor park advisory commission. If you’re already supporting The Chronicle, please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to do the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

This is one of Ann Arbor's more significant trees. Some readers will undoubtedly recognize it and will know its location, type, and age – which they're invited to leave in the comment section.

This month’s report is also an invitation to all readers to participate in the development of Ann Arbor’s first comprehensive Urban Forest Management Plan. A public workshop to help kick off the planning effort is being held on June 1, 2010 from 7-9 p.m. at Forsythe Middle School, 1655 Newport Road.

This spring has been exceptional with both beautiful weather and ample rain. The trees seemed to have noticed, with their early bud break in April and full canopies by mid-May. While we worried for those tender emerging leaves when the temperature dipped below freezing, the trees handled the dips in temperatures just fine and are now flourishing.

That’s good news because the city receives exceptional benefits from our trees. A recent analysis of the publicly managed trees (i.e., trees along streets and mowed areas of parks) estimated that they provide $4.6 million in benefits each year. When you factor in the cost for management, the city receives $2.68 in benefits for every $1 it spends on the municipal forestry program. We think that’s a pretty good rate of return.

What are these benefits and how were they calculated?

How Tree Benefits Are Calculated

In 2009, the city contracted with the Davey Resource Group to conduct a comprehensive inventory of street trees and park trees in mowed areas. Some Ann Arbor residents probably remember seeing the survey work in progress.

Using the data from this newly completed tree inventory, the Davey Resource Group then calculated the values and benefits of the city’s public trees. The city’s website summarizes them on a page titled “Benefits of Urban Forests.” The calculations were done using i-Tree, a suite of peer-reviewed software programs developed by the USDA Forest Service.

The Benefits of City Trees

The city’s public trees conserve and reduce energy, reduce carbon dioxide levels, improve air quality, mitigate stormwater runoff, and provide other benefits associated with aesthetics, increased property values, and quality of life. It’s great to be able to describe these benefits in words but even more powerful when we can show you in numbers. Here are some of the numbers:

• Public trees reduce energy and natural gas use in Ann Arbor from shading and climate effects equal to 3,408 MWh and 1,260,313 therms, for a total savings valued at approximately $2,252,055, with a citywide average of $47.55 per public tree.
• Ann Arbor’s public trees reduce atmospheric CO2 by a net of 7,851 tons per year, valued at $52,450 for an average net benefit per tree of $1.11.
• The net air quality improvement from the removal and avoidance of air pollutants is valued at $395,569 per year, with an average net benefit per tree of $8.35.
• Ann Arbor’s public trees intercept 65.0 million gallons of stormwater annually. The total value of this benefit to the city is $519,895 per year, for an average value of $10.98 per inventoried tree.
• The estimated total annual benefit associated with increased property values, aesthetics, and other less tangible improvements is $1,368,302 per year, for an average of $28.89 per inventoried tree.

You may already be familiar with many of these benefits – at least in general terms – but having a quantifiable figure attached to each of them begins to demonstrate the value of our city’s “green infrastructure.” These trees are an asset that is owned and managed by the city. The city is beginning to develop an urban forest plan to ensure that this resource is sustainable and continues to provide benefits into the future.

Trees are a defining characteristic of Ann Arbor (Tree Town) that make the city a desirable place to visit, work, do business, and live. This month’s indicator report focuses on Ann Arbor’s urban forest, and the metrics used to measure its quality.

Urban Forest Environmental Indicators

The State of Our Environment report includes three indicators for Ann Arbor’s urban forest: Tree Diversity, Size Class, and Urban Tree Canopy.

Indicator: Tree Diversity

Tree Diversity Indicator

Let’s start with tree diversity. The indicator is rated as poor (red) because of the dominance of Maple (Acer) species, and the indicator is improving (upward arrow) because of focused efforts to increase species diversity through new plantings.

The recently completed comprehensive street and park tree inventory cataloged over 40,000 street trees, 6,600 park trees in mowed areas and 8,800 potential planting sites. According to the inventory, Maple (Acer) species makes up nearly 40% of Ann Arbor’s urban forest.

The tree inventory did not account for trees on private property or in city-owned natural areas.

(Image links to higher resolution chart.)

Diversity plays an important role in the long-term stability of an ecosystem. When an area has a high diversity of tree species, it is less likely to suffer catastrophic loss from diseases or pests. For example, consider the impact the Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) had on Ann Arbor ash trees. The Emerald Ash Borer (Agrilus planipennis), an exotic wood-boring beetle discovered in the area in the summer of 2003, has killed more than 10 million trees in southeast Michigan.

Prior to the EAB infestation in 2002, ash trees comprised 17% of Ann Arbor’s tree population. The EAB infestation resulted in the emergency removal of 10,000 ash trees that were planted along public sidewalks and in parks. Planting a diversity of hearty tree species throughout Ann Arbor neighborhoods can reduce the vulnerability of the urban forest to species-specific pests. A good rule of thumb is that no more than 10% of a city’s tree population should consist of one species.

The city of Ann Arbor is increasing urban forest tree diversity through replanting efforts. More than 4,000 trees have been planted since 2004. In fall 2010, an additional 705 trees representing 28 different genera were planted, with more plantings planned in the spring. An important component of the replanting strategy is a focus on diversifying the tree population by planting non-maple species.

Indicator: Size Class

Size Class Indicator

Moving on to the urban forest size class indicator, the news is much better. We rated the indicator as good (green) and improving (upward arrow). It’s hard to tell a tree’s age without cutting it down to count its rings or taking core samples, which damages the tree.

Instead, we use the diameter at breast height (DBH) as a predictor of tree age. Young trees have small DBH measurements and as trees mature, DBH increases. Ann Arbor has a healthy mixture of young, middle, and old individuals and the tree inventory shows a similarly healthy mix of trees.

(Image links to higher resolution bar chart.)

In the same way that high species diversity reduces a forest’s vulnerability to species-specific pests and diseases, a diverse age structure reduces the possibility that all the trees in the forest will begin to die at the same time. A healthy mixture of young, medium, and old trees provides a nearly constant turnover of generations over time as new trees replace the old. In addition, trees of different sizes provide more complex habitat for wildlife and can support a greater number of species.

An ideal tree population’s age distribution is skewed toward younger trees because it ensures there will be a continuous flow of benefits as mature trees begin to decline.

Indicator: Urban Tree Canopy

UTC Indicator

The last Urban Forest Indicator is the Urban Tree Canopy (UTC). We rated the indicator as fair (yellow) and stable (flat arrow). This is a new indicator based on very recent and very accurate remote sensing data.

While the tree inventory only looked at publicly managed trees, the canopy cover analysis measures the canopy of the entire city – the cumulative cover of all public- and privately-owned trees. The analysis is based on 2009 “leaf-on” aerial imagery. We rated this indicator as fair (yellow) because, with 33% canopy, the city of Ann Arbor has average or above-average tree canopy cover compared with other small and medium-sized communities in the United States (see Existing UTC Chart below).

With this percent canopy cover, Ann Arbor should focus on maintaining and preserving tree canopy to sustain functional benefits while also targeting areas for improvement. We rated the indicator as stable (flat arrow) because the canopy cover of newly planted trees does not (yet) replace the canopy cover we lose when a large mature shade tree dies.

(Image links to higher resolution chart.)

The UTC analysis provides a rich dataset that can be used with other city GIS layers. For example, this chart shows the canopy cover by creekshed and the potential urban tree canopy within each watershed.

                                        Total   Total
                      Exist.  Exist.    Poss.   Poss.
               Total   UTC     UTC      UTC     UTC
Creekshed      Acres  Acres     %       Acres    %   

Huron River 	4,213 	1,646 	39.1 	1,454 	34.5
Fleming Creek 	642 	184 	28.7 	311 	48.4
Traver Creek 	1,578 	508 	32.2 	774 	49.0
Honey Creek 	815 	335 	41.1 	296 	36.4
Millers Creek 	1,415 	460 	32.5 	669 	47.3
Allen Creek 	3,340 	1,151 	34.5 	1,287 	38.5
Mallets Creek 	5,087 	1,427 	28.0 	2,451 	48.2
Swift Run 	1,174 	303 	25.8 	667 	56.8

-

Using these new data, GIS tools, and input from the public engagement process, we will develop an Urban Forest Management Plan that maximizes the benefits of the urban forest while meeting the needs and values of the community.

Paths to Contribution

Are you interested in trees? Do you want to influence how trees in the city of Ann Arbor are managed?

Participate in the Process: Urban Forest Management Plan

Join us on Tuesday, June 1 from 7-9 p.m. at Forsythe Middle School, 1655 Newport Road, to learn about Ann Arbor’s urban forest and to share your ideas about the tree planting, tree trimming, tree removals and the development of the city’s first urban forest management plan. Go to the urban forestry website for more information.

Educate Yourself

Learn about the trees in your neighborhood. The city’s data catalog includes a Google Earth file of every tree in our inventory. [.kmz file of Ann Arbor Google Earth Tree Data – note that this is a very large file]

Get Your Hands Dirty

Help plant the city’s trees. More information on that is available on the city’s website:  www.a2gov.org/trees

Volunteer at events sponsored by the city’s Natural Area Preservation Program and Adopt-a-Park program that are helping to improve the urban forest.

Maintain Your Private Trees

• Ensure that newly planted trees are watered weekly, if we receive no rain.
• Avoid the untimely death of young trees from weed whip and lawn mower damage by mulching around your trees (be sure to keep mulch away from the trunk).
• Prune young trees to improve their structure and prune out dead, diseased or dying limbs in mature trees. Hire a certified arborist if the tree is too large to safely prune it yourself.

About the authors: Kerry Gray is the urban forestry and natural resources planning coordinator; Matthew Naud is the city’s environmental coordinator; and Adrienne Marino is environmental programs assistant. They’re all staff with the city of Ann Arbor.