Increasing Urban Forest Sustainability and Growth with Regional Trail Networks: Treasure Valley, Idaho

Increasing Urban Forest Sustainability and Growth with Regional
Trail Networks: Treasure Valley, Idaho
Joshua DuBois
March 14, 2018
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the
Graduate Certificate in Urban Forestry Program at Oregon State
University

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Abstract……………………………...………………………………………………………………...2
2. Introduction and Study Question…..……………………………………………………….2
3. Background and Methodology..……………………………………………………………...4
4. Results and Analysis……………………………………………………………………………...19
5. Discussion, Recommendations, and Conclusions…………………………………..24
6. References…………………………………………………………………………………………….31
7. Appendices…………………………………………………………………………………………...34
1

1. ABSTRACT
The Treasure Valley (TV) of Idaho is an arid valley in the southwest portion of the state that
contains the state’s largest city, Boise and surrounding metropolitan area. A regional Urban
Tree Canopy (UTC) Assessment was performed for the TV in 2013. This assessment documented
10% UTC for the Treasure Valley (9 municipalities including: Boise, Caldwell, Eagle, Garden City,
Kuna, Meridian, Middleton, Nampa, Star) and 16% UTC for the City of Boise. In Boise's 2015
Community Forestry Strategic Management Plan, stakeholders set a goal of maintaining the
current level of tree canopy and increasing to the range of 16-25%. The eight other
municipalities in the TV do not currently have a UTC goal. An interconnected Regional Trail
Network (RTN) can be one way to attract fresh stakeholders and new areas of support to help
energize the efforts to grow the Treasure Valley UTC.
How can an interconnected Regional Trail Network (RTN) help to increase sustainability and
growth of the Treasure Valley UTC? This study will analyze how a RTN can garner wide support
for sustainability and increase of the UTC of a region by identifying opportunities for multi-use
trail expansion. One trail being proposed is a 28 mile Rail with Trail connecting the cities of
Nampa, Meridian and Boise, ID. Using this project as an example this study will examine how
the cultural, economic and environmental factors of sustainable urban forestry can be
leveraged to ensure equitable access and gain broad support of Urban Forest (UF) and RTN
initiatives. By analyzing other cities where similar Regional Trail Networks have been
successfully completed (Atlanta Beltline, Singapore) this study will describe UF benefits and
discuss/predict future benefits that may be provided along with ways to gain new support for
regional trails and the UF.
2. INTRODUCTION
“Idaho’s Treasure Valley is located in the southwestern region of the state, an arid valley on the
western edge of the great basin and the intermountain west characterized by dryland and
irrigated agriculture, and framed between the Boise foothills, Boise River and Snake River. The
project area spans two counties (Ada and Canyon), nine municipalities (including the state
capitol, Boise) and a population of over 600,000 people—nearly 40% of the state’s population”
(TV UTC Final Report 2013).
A healthy, sustainable UF is a critical asset to the region as it develops. The UF provides vital
ecosystem system services to the inhabitants of the city including stormwater mitigation, air
pollutant reduction, energy savings, habitat for wildlife, recreation opportunities and numerous
other public health benefits. The use of an RTN throughout the entire Treasure Valley region
has the potential to increase the UTC percentage by enabling the planting of trees in new and
2

reworked project areas. An RTN will prove to be a valuable way to increase UF health and the
UTC percentage by broadening the base of potential stakeholders who may not otherwise be
willing to commit to growing the urban forest.
With the numerous ecosystem benefits that the UF provides and the concurrent, multiple
benefits a regional trail network provides in conjunction with the UF it must be noted that Boise
is projected to be the fastest growing in the U.S. in 2018 (Forbes 2018). With the inevitable
growth and land use changes that will happen due to this population growth the urban forest
and regional trail network must be taken into consideration. It will be more efficient and
beneficial to include urban forestry and parks departments in the planning process of new
infrastructure projects to grow the UF and regional trail network alongside new projects and
renovations rather than as an afterthought when these projects are completed.
Since 2006, Boise’s UTC has been measured at 16% with a goal to increase the UTC to 25-35%.
Boise's UTC was measured at 16% in 2013 with a goal established by the city and stakeholders
in 2015 of maintaining and increasing UTC to between 16-25%. According to data from the
Treasure Valley UTC final report 2013, the UTC of the entire Treasure Valley sits at 10% with a
goal of growing to 20% UTC. In order to sustain current UTC levels let alone grow the UF, fresh,
collaborative approaches are desperately needed. The many benefits of the UF listed above are
directly related to the UTC percentage of the region, so more trees, especially older, larger
trees will result in a greater amount and value of benefits provided to the public.
Since the many benefits of the urban forest span across academic disciplines, municipal
jurisdictions, racial and socio-economic divides so too should the approach for sustainable
management and growth of the urban forest. The urban forest should no longer be the sole of
realm of a single city parks department or lone city arborist—it should be a diverse collective of
engaged citizens, city planners and representatives and other groups that view the urban forest
not only as a valuable resource that provides innumerable benefits to the citizenry but as an
integral part of the city’s infrastructure from stormwater to transportation.
The question is how can interconnected regional trail networks add to the sustainability and
growth of the urban forest? The answer to this is relatively straightforward in theory. However,
putting theory into practice becomes complicated. In Boise, ID for example, the Rails with Trails
proposal for a 28 mile multi-use trail within the active Right of Way (ROW) of the Union Pacific
railroad from Nampa to Boise, ID seems straightforward. However, this trail will cross multiple
municipalities, will be located in an active railroad ROW and therefore requires a regional focus
and coordination between multiple city departments, railroad representatives, trail advocate
groups, Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho (COMPASS), local residents and
many other stakeholders that can be brought to the table.
3

3. BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY
The methodology of this paper is to define the concepts and terms of sustainability. Identify
and explain the many benefits of the UF and therefore highlight the importance and need of
not only sustaining the UF but growing it. By identifying and grouping the beneficiaries of the
UF, new and enthusiastic stakeholders can be identified and recruited by educating the public
of and promoting the multiple benefits and positive experiences the UF provides. Also, by
linking public health outcomes to the UF and trail network creation, UF departments can gain
more public support along with potential budget increases.
Just as the UF touches and affects all residents of a city and just as sustainability of the UF
intersects the strata of society (socioeconomic, race, geographic, etc.) so too is the potential of
regionally interconnected trail networks to positively affect communities in all areas of a region
by providing a multitude of public health benefits and ecosystem services from urban trees that
can be planted in conjunction with newly developed and reworked multi-use trails.
While a generally recognized definition of sustainability can be contentious, Clark and Matheny,
1997 define sustainability in a UF context as “The naturally occurring and planted trees in cities
which are managed to provide the inhabitants with a continuing level of economic, social,
environmental and ecological benefits today and into the future.” Clark and Matheny state that
three ideas must be accepted in order to apply this definition of sustainability to urban areas: 1.
Communities must acknowledge that city trees provide a wide range of net benefits. 2. Given
the goal of maintaining net benefits over time, the regeneration of urban forests requires
intervention and management by humans. 3. Sustainable urban forests exist within defined
geographic and political boundaries: those of cities. Based on these three premises Clark and
Matheny developed a model of urban forest sustainability that aligns well with the social,
economic, ethical aspects and political drivers of UTC as well as time, space and landscape
aspects. This model consists of three components 1. Vegetation resource--knowledge of the
existing tree resource, 2. A strong community framework--interaction and cooperation of
constituent groups, 3. Appropriate management of the resource (Resource
Management)--current management programs.
Because the many benefits of the UF cross multiple disciplines and can have regional effects
across city and state lines the management and engagement approach must also cross these
same lines regionally and internally. This approach can be defined as multidisciplinary or
cross-functional leadership. As the name implies, the Houston Chronicle defines this as “a group
of workers from different professional backgrounds or work disciplines that collaborate on
specific projects or on an ongoing basis” (Kokemuller 2017). For example applying this to the
Rail with Trail proposal: the multiple layers of city departments should be collaborating not only
4

with each other but also with the other city government layers of Nampa, Meridian and Boise,
COMPASS, Union Pacific, Canyon and Ada County. All these layers must work in cooperation
towards a shared vision of a continuous Rail with Trail from Nampa to Boise for this vision to be
successfully developed.
3.1 Rail Trails
The Rail to Trails Conservancy defines Rail Trails as “multi-purpose public paths created from
former railroad corridors…...Ideal for many uses, such as walking, bicycling, inline skating,
cross-country skiing, and equestrian and wheelchair use, rail-trails are extremely popular for
both transportation and recreation” (Rails to Trails Conservancy, 2018). Rail trails are just one
of many other types of trails but can be longer, have gentler slopes and are more continuous in
length than other trail types. It is important to note the existence and difference of a Rail with
Trail which “is a public pathway that runs parallel to an active rail line. As of 2015, there are
more than 240 rails-with-trails in the United States” (Rails to Trails Conservancy, 2018).
Rail trails are becoming increasingly popular as sustainable tourism products (Reis, 2012). “The
six proposed characteristics – length, physical features, scenery, environmental aspects,
gateways, and heritage – are therefore what we propose as the key elements for the tourism
product; the three facilitators identified strengthen the significance of the tourism product and
indirectly help connect each characteristic to create a sustainable tourism product. However,
not all characteristics must be present in all cases, as the case study will show” (Reis, 2012).
According to (Taylor, 2015), “ there is considerable evidence to suggest that rail trails are
becoming important tourism attractions for destinations and that organisations responsible for
tourism planning and develop are increasingly keen to development them in their locations.”
Taylor continues on to list numerous rail trails throughout Australia, New Zealand and the
United States.
Three factors contribute to the success of rail trails as tourist destinations: 1. the willingness of
non-locals to visit, 2. the experiences they have at the trail and 3. how supportive the
government bodies, the tourism industry and local communities are of the trail, (Taylor, 2015).
Taylor goes on to emphasize “the absolute importance of management organisations, local
community associations (such as friends' groups) or co-operative bodies that come from
partnerships, collaborations or alliances between various groups. They are pivotal to the
underlying success of any destination rail trail and contribute to the development, funding,
interpretation, maintenance and promotion of trails.” This highlights the importance of
multidisciplinary approach between the multiple municipalities, railroad leadership, trail
advocate groups and local citizens in developing the rail trail proposal in the Treasure Valley, ID.
Some studies have found key factors having direct influences on visitor experiences ranging
from signage, restrooms, water availability and the lack of “shade and/or trees” (Taylor 2015).
5

In the context of this paper the lack of trees along the trail is of exceptional note. The benefits
of trails compliment many of the benefits of the Urban Forest. “Trails add value to our lives in
so many ways—increasing our mobility, improving our health, spurring economic development
and job creation, protecting our environment and creating powerful connections within, to and
across communities” (Rails to Trails Conservancy, 2018). These studies are important in
documenting the link of increasing tourism and economic activity with the creation and
promotion of rail trails. There is also an inherent link to increasing ecosystem services by
considering the opportunity for increasing the UTC during the planning phase of the rail trail.
3.2 Green Infrastructure
Green infrastructure (GI) is defined by (McMahon, 2006) as “an interconnected network of
natural areas and other open spaces that conserves natural ecosystem values and functions,
sustains clean air and water, and provides a wide array of benefits to people and wildlife.”
Green infrastructure at its core derives multiple benefits from a single purpose built design. For
instance, a tree lined pathway--properly designed and built could be seen as merely providing a
recreation opportunity or alternate transportation route. However if viewed through a GI lens
the benefits would add up: the trees lining path are mitigating stormwater runoff, removing
harmful particulates from the air, providing habitat for wildlife and if connected to larger areas
this tree lined trail becomes a corridor, increasing the range, habitat and genetic health of
wildlife. These connected pathways also provide recreation and alternate transportation
opportunities which are important public health benefits.
3.2a Trees as Green Infrastructure
Trees are an important GI asset in all urban forests. Specifically, “In urban systems…..trees
serve as green infrastructure by routing rainfall to various components of the hydrologic cycle.
Losses can occur via canopy interception loss, transpiration, improved infiltration, and possible
benefits with regard to deeper percolation along root channels and water table management”
(Berland, 2017). Berland goes on to note that continued strategic planting of urban trees in a
purposefully designed way to reduce stormwater runoff will help promote stormwater control
as well as the many other ecosystem services trees provide. This highlights the importance of
including urban foresters during the planning process of new trails, developments, and roads.
Including trees in the design phase, serving a measured infrastructure purpose will pay a
multitude of ancillary benefits as soon as the tree is planted. Therefore, a tree-lined multi use
pathway could be considered a form of GI. Planted alongside interconnected pathways, trees
could make a considerable collective impact on public and environmental health.
6

UTC and purposeful planning—planning for the urban forest and trees as infrastructure.
UTC goals should not be to solely increase the UTC for the sake of increasing the UTC. UTC
increase should be realistic, strategic and methodical. Some basic steps need to be taken, i.e.
ensuring a city or region has a strategic urban forest management plan. Within this plan should
be discussions for tree inventories, age, size and species identification, budget plans, street tree
pruning cycles, risk assessments, hazard preparedness plans, tree ordinance etc., along with
criterion and indicators (C&I) to measure progress towards goals. It will be a fruitless endeavor
and a blatant mismanagement of funds to plant street trees without a strategic management
plan to maintain these trees and ensure their survival to provide long term service to public. It
would be better to develop a plan that maximizes the health and benefits of the current UF
while developing the capacity to manage subsequent UTC increase in the future.
It must be stressed that UTC increase should not be the single focus of city planners and urban
foresters. As alluded to above there are many factors that contribute to a healthy urban forest
and UTC is one of those; however there are many criteria that must be considered for cities and
regions when setting UTC goals. Considering these factors and how they can be specific to a
region has led American Forests to no longer recommend a general UTC percentage of 40%.
“It’s important to note, however, that urban tree canopy percentage is just one of many criteria
to consider. A robust tree canopy comprised of largely invasive species, for example, is not a
healthy urban forest. Age and species diversity, condition of trees and equitable distribution
across income levels, to name a few, should also be considered” (American Forests 2017).
3.3 Interconnected Multi Use trails—Successful examples at home and abroad
3.3a Atlanta
The Atlanta Beltline “...will ultimately connect 45 in town neighborhoods via a 22-mile loop of
multi-use trails, modern streetcar, and parks – all based on railroad corridors that formerly
encircled Atlanta. When completed, it will provide first and last mile connectivity for regional
transportation initiatives and put Atlanta on a path to 21st century economic growth and
sustainability” (Atlanta Beltline 2018). Figure 1 below shows an overview of the project area.
The current UTC of the city of Atlanta sits at 47.9% (City of Atlanta 2014). This value provides a
baseline to measure any subsequent tree plantings performed in coordination with the beltline
project. According to the Georgia Forestry Commission, increasing space for tree planting is one
of the six ways to increase and improve the urban forest (Georgia Forestry Commission 2001).
The Beltline project seems to have taken this into consideration and planned for the urban
forest from an early point. “The Atlanta BeltLine Arboretum, when completed, will be an
unprecedented 22-mile linear arboretum – a city-scale mix of existing and cultivated tree
species that is an urban forest, an ecological connector, a corridor for scientific research, and a
7

collection of remarkable public spaces focused on education” (TreesAtlanta 2018). As of this
writing Trees Atlanta has planted 2,800 trees and eleven acres of native grasses in the Atlanta
Beltline Arboretum (personal communication, February 12, 2018).
“Large-scale, multimodal projects like the BeltLine can be used to deliver multiple resilience
benefits to a community: by providing redundant transportation networks, enhancing urban
tree canopy, and enhancing greenspace and green infrastructure (Adaptation Clearinghouse
2018). By linking the benefits of the UF to specific outcomes such as the ones mentioned above,
broad support and awareness can be gained which can lead to increased budget support.
Figure 1. Overview map of Atlanta Beltline.
8

“Results suggest resident support for urban greenways is a function not just of use, but of how
the greenways economically benefit the neighborhood and psychologically and socially
empower residents. With these results in mind, greenway planners interested in boosting
residential support for greenways should hold charrettes with neighborhood residents that
focus on designing greenways that will spur the tangible economic benefits sought in urban
development projects and boost resident pride and community cohesion” (Palardy 2018). The
Atlanta beltline connects 45 diverse neighborhoods throughout the town. Support for the
beltline would not be possible without community engagement and support.
3.3b Singapore Park Connector
In Singapore, a small, densely populated city state where land commands a premium
greenways and parks are a signature asset to the city. In Singapore the greenways that link
parks and open space are called “park connectors” so the greenway network throughout the
city is called the Park Connector Network (PCN). Since initial planning in the 1990’s the PCN has
grown in size and popularity with the citizens of Singapore connecting them to a network of
multi-use trails totaling a length of 306 kilometers, approximately 190 miles as of March 31,
2017 (NParks 2016-2017 Annual report). Figure 2 below shows an overview of the PCN.
Figure 2. Map of Singapore Park Connector Network.
A key strategy to the success of this program has been selecting low value land reserved as
drainage buffers for greenway development. In fact, “The key selling point in securing
government endorsement for the park connector network concept was that the project initially
required minimal additional land uptake through the optimal use of drainage buffers” (Tan
9

2006). It is also an objective of the greenway project to increase biodiversity in the environment
by using the greenways as corridors to support wildlife and habitat.
The design concept of the park connector relied on trees and shrubs to “form a continuous
canopy upon maturity, providing a protective cover over the jogging and cycling paths below”
(Tan 2006). Sections of the greenway can serve small scale residential trips or they can even
support large regional trips to include the entire island. According to Singapore National Park
Service the Park Connector consists of five loops—Central Urban Loop, Eastern Coastal Loop,
Northern Explorer Loop, North Eastern Riverine Loop, Western Adventure Loop.
There is also “The Round Island Route (RIR) is a continuous 150 km park connector that goes
around Singapore. It was first conceptualised in 2011 following public consultations for our City
in a Garden vision, where many suggestions were given by the public on a green corridor that
goes around the island, linking parks and park connectors. After a period of study, plans were
announced in 2012 to develop a Round Island Route” (National Parks Board 2018). Also in
planning is the coast to coast trail that “take users through a variety of parks, park connectors,
nature areas, places of interests and urban spaces” (National Parks Board 2018).
Specific tree inventory data and UTC percentage data was unavailable for the PCN. However, as
of 2009, “The Singapore National Parks Board (NParks) supervises 1.3 million trees located in
300 parks and on more than 2,400 hectares of Garden City roadsides using GIS” (ArcNews
2009).
3.3c Treasure Valley, Idaho
Boise River Greenbelt
The Boise River Greenbelt is an important recreation and multi-use corridor that parallels the
Boise River for a length of 25 miles which is managed by the City of Boise. This greenbelt
provides many benefits of recreation, alternate transportation, wildlife habitat and ecosystem
services provided by the trees along the river. This greenbelt connects neighborhoods to
downtown, the river and the Boise Foothills via the Ridge to Rivers Trail System.
Ridge to Rivers Trail System
The Ridge to Rivers Trail system connects neighborhoods to the Foothills and people to nature.
This system consists of a 190 mile trail network throughout the Foothills with connections
throughout to the Boise River Greenbelt and neighborhoods in Boise. It is important to note
that Ridge to Rivers is a partnership consisting “of the City of Boise, Ada County, the Bureau of
Land Management Four Rivers Field Office, the Boise National Forest and the Idaho Department
of Fish and Game. The Partnership exists under a multi-agency Memorandum of
Understanding, with the City of Boise serving as the lead agency” (Ridge to Rivers 2018). This
10

partnership aims to effectively manage limited funds and specialized knowledge to provide
maximum benefit to the taxpayer and can be a model for a future regional partnership that
manages the Treasure Valley Rail Trail and/or a regional trail network throughout the Valley.
Rail with Trail Proposal
As defined earlier in this paper a Rail with Trail is simply a public path that parallels an active
railway. As of 2015 there are more than 240 of these trails in the U.S. alone. (Rails to Trails
Conservancy 2018). The Rail with Trail proposal in the Treasure Valley, ID intends a continuous
28 mile trail from Nampa, through Meridian and terminating at the train depot in Boise, ID.
While still in a concept phase this would be a perfect opportunity to include urban foresters in
the design phase to incorporate and advocate for trees as infrastructure alongside pathways.
In collaboration with COMPASS, the city of Meridian has taken the lead in development of this
trail as the only city in the Treasure Valley with a solid plan forward. In fall 2016 the city hired
landscape architects to design a half mile stretch of this path through downtown Meridian
(Idaho Statesman 2017). As shown in the success of the Singapore greenway network—pilot
projects are an effective way to build support and gain input from the public see (Tan 2006).
Meridian is also following the Singapore model by building this small stretch not on the railroad
ROW but beside it in a different ROW—that of Nampa and Meridian Irrigation District. The
challenges of this project are many—including funding, support and promotion, but these are
not insurmountable challenges. There are successful examples that can provide a template
forward to building successful, effective partnerships that can bring in multiple funding sources
and increase public support. Being the only city in the Treasure Valley with a plan for the
schedule of design, construction and completion with plans to build the trail segment in 2018 or
2019, the City of Meridian is in a strong position to lead this project.
Figure 3. Proposed Rail with Trail route from Nampa to Boise.
11

3.3 Identify stakeholders
Identifying UF stakeholders can be accomplished through goal setting and evaluation of the
current state of the urban forest, i.e. what do we have, what do we want, how do get what we
want. Zig Ziglar famously said “You can have everything in life you want, if you’ll just help
enough other people get what they want.” Attracting UF stakeholders through this lens
requires identifying what could be valuable to the urban resident and how the UF can help
them attain it. Cleaner air and water? Recreation opportunities? Shade, lower crime rates,
increased time and money spent in commercial zones, increased real estate value and
salability? The list can go on and on. The benefits of the UF have been known, promoted and
discussed for years and yet the urban forests are in decline nationwide. “Yet investment in
planting new trees—or even caring for those that exist—is perpetually underfunded. Despite
the overwhelming evidence cities are, on average, spending less on trees than in prior decades”
(Nature Conservancy 2018). Perhaps new strategies in communicating these benefits are in
order.
Marketing and Branding: Focus on the experience to be had with the product.
Marketing and Branding are terms not typically heard in the UF realm but they can be
important to the growth and success of a municipal UF program. In the commercial world, it is
nearly impossible for a new product to enter the marketplace or gain market share without an
effective marketing strategy. The same could be said for the UF. “Urban forestry may well be a
bright idea with substantial benefits but it is unlikely to progress far in our consumer oriented
society where attention is rarely captured and held without effective marketing” (Hewlett
2007). A focus group for the Wyoming Valley Wellness Trails Partnership in Spring 2004
highlights this point “...community members were more motivated to participate in outdoor
physical activity by messages about fun, adventure and socializing with friends and family than
by messages about health benefits, regardless of age, gender, or place of residence”
(Schasberger 2009).
Linking the urban forest and trails to experiences rather than solely the benefits provided could
be an effective addition to the toolbox of UF promotion. “So, rather than trying to convince
others about how good trees and parks are, we should link urban forest and green-space to
customer health, wealth and happiness just as McDonalds links its product to the experience of
happiness and not to food, and Nike and Harley Davidson link theirs to experience and not to
shoes and machines” (Hewlett 2007).
Customers with the most influence should be the focus of urban forestry marketing efforts. The
motivations, beliefs and attitudes of political leaders, policymakers, city councilors, local
businesses, NGO groups and citizen groups should all be studied and understood to better
12

focus marketing efforts (Hewlett 2007). Taylor (2015) cites numerous authors who show
marketing and promotion to be one of the most crucial aspects to attraction management for
trails “and that ‘successful attractions are usually those which have a systematic, professional
approach to marketing.’”
City branding efforts are also important to leaving a lasting image with consumers and residents
alike. There is a growing connection between city branding and greenspace. Urban greening is
“suggested to be compatible with the purposes of city branding which is to attract economic
resources from the outside world and strengthen the community inside a city” (Fock et al
2018). Fock goes on to say the greening is increasingly associated with sustainable
development and the greater amount of urban greenery a city possesses, the more attractive it
is to workers and investors.
An example of city branding in Boise is the LIV campaign which promotes sustainable policies,
practices and partnerships, promoting livability across three different areas of Lasting
Environments, Innovative Enterprises and Vibrant Communities (LIV Boise 2018). By
recognizing, leveraging and reinforcing a city’s comparative strengths it is possible to create
genuinely distinctive brand (Fock 2018). Lastly, branding “can only remain strong and relatable
to its stakeholders if the authority aligns policies and initiatives to live up to the image it is
projecting” (Fock 2018). This means if cities are going to promote greenways, trails and a
healthy UF with sustainable policies then the creation, management, health and promotion
efforts of these assets should reflect the hype.
In this line of thinking, connecting public health outcomes to the urban forest (Nature
Conservancy 2008) would also attract a whole new realm of stakeholders to the support of
urban forests.
3.4 Social, Economic, Ethical aspects and political drivers of UTC increase and Trail
completions
Social
Social aspects of UTC increase and trail completions should include the people who use and
support the trails and greenways. This would include politicians, city and county
representatives, NGO groups and the public. Some of the major stakeholders for a regional trail
network throughout the Treasure Valley are identified as follows. Treasure Valley Canopy
Network, Rails to Trails Conservancy, Union Pacific Railroad, COMPASS, St. Luke’s Hospital, City
of Meridian, City of Boise, City of Nampa, Ada County, Canyon County. Other possible partners
could be Safe Routes Treasure Valley, Treasure Valley Cycling Alliance, Idaho Power Company
and Foundation for Ada/Canyon Trail System (FACTS). Promotions and events that incorporate
13

education and activities related to trail networks and the UF could be important to building
awareness and support of these assets.
Bringing stakeholders together, especially if they do not see any benefit of tree plantings and
trail creation to themselves or their organization will prove difficult. This is where highlighting
the experiences to be had not only on the trails and under the UF but in activities related to the
support and building of the UF. For example, organized tree planting events may be a fun, eye
opening experience for someone who normally doesn’t eat, sleep and breathe trees . The
camaraderie and publicity of local tree planting events could be one way to elicit support from,
individuals, local businesses and organizations that are not usually associated with UF activities
or functions. Incorporating multiple drivers of urban tree planting projects and benefits is a
way to reach out to people and organizations not usually associated with UF activities. Again by
tying multiple and various experiences and benefits of the UF and trail network it may be
possible to create supporters who were once thought unrelated and unreachable.
Economic
Trees and green areas have been documented to increase property value, increase time and
money spent in commercial zones, and increase public health among many other benefits. In
addition to the monetary benefits urban trees provide, trail creation can spur economic and
commercial development as the 22 mile Atlanta BeltLine highlights. “Since 2005, there has
been more than $1 billion in new private development around the Atlanta BeltLine.” Also “New
parks, trails and transit are expected to continue this trend as developers recognize the value of
this new infrastructure and build denser, mixed-use urban developments that attract new
residents to the city” (Atlanta BeltLine 2018). In this same trend the City of Boise could promote
and extend its LIV campaign with neighboring cities throughout the Treasure Valley to increase
pressure and support for an interconnected multi-use trail network.
Ethical
Since the frequency and volume of greenway use decreases as the distance from the greenway
increases (Akpinar 2015) it is important that parks, trails and urban forest plans embody the
tenets of environmental justice by ensuring equitable access to greenspace and urban canopy
cover. Having an abundance of interconnected routes encompassing the region is one way to
provide access to green space, trails and parks that would be in alignment with these principles.
An interconnected trail network with an increase in UTC could spur unintended greening and
gentrification of lower income and minority neighborhoods which could ultimately push these
residents out of the neighborhood. So the “challenge is to develop strategies that are ‘just
green enough.’ That is, to reap the public health benefits of improved access to urban green
space while avoiding the urban green space paradox (Wolch et al. 2014). According to Wolch,
14

this strategy requires the cooperation of planners and local stakeholders, i.e. neighborhood
residents to rally for and design projects that are tailored specifically to address community
concerns, needs and desires over more traditional planning formulas. The green space paradox
is described as the greening or gentrification of a low-income/minority neighborhood to the
point where the desirability of the neighborhood increases followed by value and cost of living
increases therefore displacing current residents to even poorer neighborhoods.
Some strategies that Wolch discusses to keep these communities ‘just green enough’ are as
follows: 1.Encouraging landscapes that serve as nodes for urban agriculture and community
gardens to address local concerns about food security, job creation and human health.
2.Employing environmental cleanup strategies that allow for continued industrial uses of the
area and blue collar work. 3.Planners should focus on projects with a smaller scale and
scattered sites rather than highly visible, grandiose green space projects that can act as a
catalyst to gentrification.
A study of figure 4 below (Environmental Justice Consideration Areas) and the proposed Rail
with Trail route will show that the two magnified areas in the map actually encompass parts of
the proposed Rail with Trail route in Nampa and Boise. This should be a highly marketable
attribute of the project in providing equitable access to the trail for disadvantaged segments of
the population that could draw more stakeholder support to the project.
Figure 4. Low income and minority areas relevant to Rail with Trail.
15

Political Drivers
Funding and collaboration can be seen as political drivers for the development and
sustainability of the UF and trail networks. The long distance nature of linear trails, crossing
political boundaries makes collaboration between multiple cities and intercity departments,
landowners and advocates for and against trails inevitable (Taylor 2015).
When marketing the UF and trails it may seem obvious that main influencers/gatekeepers are
the politicians, policymakers, city officials and NGO groups. Not to be taken for granted are the
local community associations or friends’ groups and cooperative bodies that come from
partnerships, collaboration or alliances between various groups which are pivotal to the
underlying success of any destination rail trail and contribute to the development, funding,
interpretation, maintenance and promotion of trails (Taylor 2015). Taylor goes on to describe
numerous examples including the High Line in New York that could not have been constructed
without the tireless dedication of non-profit groups and how these groups now have significant
roles in promoting and managing their respective trails.
These groups can act as political drivers by being able to gain support of the local communities
they serve and applying pressure to politicians and representatives in their respective
coalitions.
3.5 Time, Space and Landscape aspects of Sustainable Urban Forestry and Regional Trail
Networks
Time
There is no time frame specified for completion of the Rail with Trail in the Treasure Valley.
However as stated previously, City of Meridian has taken the lead on the project as the only city
in the Treasure Valley with a plan for the schedule of design, construction and completion with
plans to build the first trail segment in 2018 or 2019 (Berg 2017).
Time is an important factor for the sustainability of the urban forest indefinitely. Again Clark
and Matheny define UF sustainability as “The naturally occurring and planted trees in cities
which are managed to provide the inhabitants with a continuing level of economic, social,
environmental and ecological benefits today and into the future” (Clark et al 1997). If planning
urban forests to be sustainable it is important to provide the policy and management
framework for cities to effectively manage the current state of the UF let alone any expansion
16

that may occur due to effective marketing and promotion of the UF. This means having a plan
that is adaptive and able to be re-evaluated every few years.
Space
Trail networks can be analyzed with Geographic Information System (GIS) to find the highest
value trail routes and GAP analysis may be performed to map and identify gaps in the trail
network. These maps can be presented interactively on the internet and/or printed out in
paper or brochure form. Bike and Walk pathway maps are available on the COMPASS website
however the individual shapefiles were not.
Space aspects of the urban forest and trail network sustainability need to emphasize the
importance of broad support, proper planning and promotion of the UF and trail networks as
infrastructure assets. By defining the UF and trails as infrastructure assets this can reduce
conflicts with other infrastructure by ensuring urban foresters and arborists as well as trail
planners have a seat at the table through all phases of development and redevelopment
projects.
As far as physical space available for these projects there is ample room for increasing the
number of trails and trees. According to the 2013 TV UTC Final Report, approximately 40% of
the Treasure Valley region is classified as available planting space to increase the UTC. Again,
looking at the previous example of the small city-state of Singapore and the creative solutions
implemented to provide green space there are many lessons to be learned for any region
including the Treasure Valley.
Maybe one of the most helpful examples to come from the Singapore PCN is the identification
of under-utilized and ‘non-economic’ land (Tan 2006). This is in fact what the city of Meridian
has done with its first planned segment of the Rail with Trail by using the ROW of the Nampa
Meridian Irrigation District. It is possible there could be limitations of use specific to the
irrigation district such as access requirements for vehicles or other requirements that may
prevent the planting of trees. Regardless of possible limitations to planting, the image below
shows a cross section of a typical Park Connector along a drainage reserve in Singapore (Tan
2006). This could be a good example for other districts to consult when implementing trails and
tree plantings along a drainage ROW.
17

Figure 5. Cross section of a typical drainage reserve ROW and Park Connector trail in Singapore.
Landscape
Landscape level analysis needs to be performed and researched to determine and prioritize the
best trail candidates for connections along with the appropriate and preferred tree species for
the planting sites. This analysis can employ GIS technology as previously stated to identify gaps
in trail network routes and also analyze completed networks for various trail routes.
The 2013 Treasure Valley UTC Report classified land cover into the following categories: Tree
Canopy, Grass/Open areas, Parking Lots, Roads-Buildings-Other impervious surfaces and Water.
This same report also calculated 40% of the Treasure Valley to be suitably labeled for planting
space. It is important to note, and a landscape level analysis will attest to planting appropriate
tree species for the site conditions i.e. ‘the right tree in the right place.’ This could mean not
planting a tree at all due to conflicts with infrastructure, soil condition or buildings. Another
challenge to consider is the need for irrigation of newly planted trees along the rail trail. This is
where interdepartmental planning and cooperation between cities will be instrumental in
successful tree establishment along regional pathways.
18

One strategy to alleviate a possible lack of irrigation for newly planted trees along this proposed
rail trail could be multiple, strategically placed rest stops and trailheads along the trail planted
with groves of trees. These tree groves could actually increase the number of newly planted
trees associated with the rail trail beyond what is projected by spacing the plantings out along
the 28 mile pathway. In fact, rest stops among other amenity factors such as signage, restrooms
and water are key factors directly influencing visitor experiences on rail trails (Taylor 2015).
Rest stops planted with groves of trees providing shade and other ecosystem services could
increase trail use and popularity which could increase economic impact to businesses along the
trail. Also, interpretive signage describing the type of trees planted along the trail and the
benefits they provide could be just one more way to increase awareness and support for the
UF.
One of the greenways related to this paper (Wyoming Valley Wellness Trails Partnership)
provides a good example of using small scale projects to ultimately create a continuous trail
network. The Susquehanna Greenway aims to be the longest greenway in the state of
Pennsylvania. It’s plan for “landscape-scale vision is composed of many smaller, local greenway
projects” (Susquehanna Greenway Partnership). This could be one of many large scale projects
for the Rail to Trail organizers to take notes from.
4. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
Treasure Valley, ID Rail with Trail
To calculate the ideal potential UTC increase of the Rail with Trail from Nampa to Boise this
study uses the planting regulations of the City of Boise Urban Forestry department provided via
email by the City Forester, Brian Jorgenson (personal communication, December 7, 2017). The
City of Boise classifies trees as Class I. Small, II. Medium, III. Large. Class III trees require spacing
of 40-60ft. on center and should be planted approximately 10 feet from the edge of hard
surfaces, i.e. pathways.
The ROW for the Rail with Trail is 12 feet. This could be problematic depending on the width of
the Rail with Trail pathway which will require further investigation. Assuming a width of
approximately 12 feet as in the example from figure 5 above in the Singapore example, some
creative negotiations may have to take place to meet the 10 foot distance from trail edge
planting recommendation of the City of Boise. For a baseline, this study will assume ideal
planting conditions and zero planting space conflicts. So this equation will assume Class III trees
spaced 60 feet apart on center. Calculating the increase in tree inventory using this admittedly
simplistic and ideal equation is shown below in Figure 5. One creative solution to not meeting
this ideal planting target along the pathway is to plant groves of trees in rest areas or trailheads
where appropriate. This is also discussed later below.
19

1 mile = 5280 feet x 28 miles = 147, 840 feet / 60 feet spacing = 2,464 trees for an ideal fully
planted Rail with Trail.
Figure 5. Calculation for potential tree plantings in Treasure Valley Rail Trail.
As of 2015 the Treasure Valley has approximately 2.4 million existing trees (Idaho Forest Action
Plan 2015). This means that the Rail with Trail ideally planted would only raise the canopy
inventory by 0.1026%. This number puts into perspective the difficulty and importance of not
only having a positive tree replacement rate but also the difficulty increasing the UTC and
ensuring the health and vitality of the existing UTC. This also highlights the challenge for the
need of wide community support of the UF. The graph below in figure 6 illustrates the potential
UF increase for the TV with a rail trail project and how the TV Rail with Trail can provide similar
results achieved by the Atlanta Beltline project.
Unfortunately tree planting data associated with the Singapore PCN was not available (personal
communication, February 19, 2018) but this provides a real life example for the need of a
multidisciplinary approach to managing the urban forest. Having tree inventory data associated
with the Singapore PCN would have been invaluable not only for monetizing the multitude of
benefits provided by the UF but also for supporting case for the use of trees to increase the
popularity of the trail network and the benefits associated with it. This lack of tree inventory
data associated with the Singapore PCN brings up questions on the lack of interdepartmental
cooperation, communication and missed opportunities to share resources to work more
effectively towards regional goals.
Figure 6. Tree plantings for trail projects.
20

As noted earlier with 28 miles of trail it is a real possibility that there will be infrastructure
conflicts and/or lack of infrastructure that can make continuous trailside tree plantings
impossible. This can be due to lack of water available for new tree establishment or other
impediments to the planting of trees. However, planting groves of trees around rest stops is
one way to not only meet or exceed the 2,464 projected new plantings but also a way to
provide a superior trail design—therefore increasing trail use, popularity and economic impact.
This economic impact could be realized through local business patronage by trail users, new
business startups to meet trail associated demands and avoided costs of public health benefits.
The many benefits of the urban forest are becoming more widely recognized and yet the UTC
and funding for UF are in decline nationwide. As stated previously it may be beneficial to tie
these benefits to the experience that the user enjoys from the UF—the adventure, the fresh air,
organized activities, etc. By linking the UF to positive, engaging user experiences it’s possible
that more supporters and stakeholders may be reached. Another strategy is to tie public health
outcomes to urban trees as cited by the Nature Conservancy.
Linking public health outcomes to regional network trails and urban forestry is not a new idea.
In 1999 that the Pennsylvania Environmental Council was funded and eventually became the
Wyoming Valley Wellness Trails Partnership, which developed on a vision, mission and
structure of funding to connect local trail organizations and the healthcare community
(Schasberger 2009). At the beginning of this project there were 36 municipalities involved along
the Susquehanna River in Pennsylvania. The map in figure 7 below looks similar to the Rail with
Trail proposal in the Treasure Valley, albeit on a larger scale. This project’s goal was to connect
93 miles of multi-use trails, with only eight miles completed at the launch of the partnership.
This project seems to echo the Clark and Matheny 1997 approach to UF management which
“integrates the resource (forests and their component trees) with the people who benefit from
them.”
21

Figure 7. Map of project area and associated trails 2008.
A quick summary of lessons learned from this grant funded project relevant to this paper were:
frequent meetings (monthly or even bi-monthly) with partners to “share information and
promote collaboration” (Schasberger 2009). One of the most relevant outcomes of this study is
a focus group finding in 2004 that found “community members more motivated to participate
in outdoor physical activity by messages about fun, adventure, and socializing with friends and
family than messages about health benefits, regardless of age, gender, or place of residence”
(Schasberger 2009). A 2008 public survey also affirmed this finding showing only 42% of
respondents participating in the program to improve their family’s health. Much of this project
was focused on meeting needs of the community so for many of the trail sections
“placemaking” workshops were conducted. Cross promotion of local parks and trails between
similar organizations, match partnership goals and media engagement also increased public
appeal of these projects.
A continuous theme through many of the trail research papers is that of accessibility and
proximity to trails determining the use of trails and their effect on public health. “While the
partnership participated in planning to revitalize urban communities, it emphasized developing
trails in urban, suburban, and rural areas, rather than trying to affect suburban development
patterns to encourage proximity of uses and connectivity” (Schasberger 2009).
The amenity of walkability should not be exclusive to urban environments but should be a
continuous interconnected network that extends to suburban and rural areas. In fact, another
finding in this project area was an independent development not anticipated in the project: the
22

creation of a mixed use development in 2007-2008 that increased downtown office occupancy
by 10%. “Exciting commercial destinations provide a reason for people in nearby urban and
suburban areas to come downtown where they have more opportunities to be pedestrians”
(Schasberger 2009). In a truly interconnected region, people would not have to travel
somewhere else to have the opportunity to be pedestrians. They could use a regional trail
network to bike, walk or jog to explore interesting urban/suburban/rural destinations or
commute without the use of a vehicle.
True walkability and active living will be better achieved with a continuous interconnected trail
system that provides reasonable proximity and accessibility to all neighborhoods, providing
alternative transportation routes and recreation opportunities for the entire city. At the end of
the grant period in 2008 “Parks and trails partners built 22 miles of multi-use trails connecting
at least 12 communities” (Schasberger 2009).
Linking Public Health Funding to Urban Forestry Budgets
In the 2015 Funding Trees for Health report sponsored by the Nature Conservancy, the authors
listed four main barriers to cities fully utilizing all the services trees provide. These barriers to
utilization were listed as 1. Lack of knowledge, 2. Public Concern, 3. Silos to cooperation and 4.
Lack of financial resources.
Part of the problem with many cities is the lack of opportunity to be a part of a “centralized or
coordinated planning structure with other relevant agencies” (Nature Conservancy 2015). This
results in lost opportunities not just for planting urban trees but lost opportunities to combine
efficiencies and multiply their efforts by combining resources. This inability to integrate and
work effectively with other organizations and/or departments is an example of the Silo Effect.
What is needed is a multidisciplinary approach that encourages interdepartmental cooperation.
The authors of “Funding Trees for Health” make the observation that since planting trees
provides health benefits then shouldn’t health agencies be involved in the planning and funding
of urban forestry activities? This question is similar to the one posed earlier in the discussion
about analyzing who benefits and uses the urban forest and how do we link these benefits and
experiences to the people in a way that excites them and makes them want to get involved in
supporting their UF?
A recent study of 27 U.S. cities focused on avoidable annual health related costs associated with
urban tree planting found this could be $13.2 million and avoidable work loss costs could be
$11.9 million annually. These avoidable health care costs could account for almost 12.5% of the
annual cost of tree planting and maintenance (Nature Conservancy 2015).
Educating local lawmakers and residents on the benefits of the UF and experiences or activities
available in the UF is a good first step. Once lawmakers, policy makers, and the public realize
23

the benefits provided by the UF it may make sense to analyze the local/regional planning
structure to break down silos and create opportunities for these departments to combine
resources and work towards a collective impact—that is an impact greater than they could
possibly obtain by their individual efforts. Once lawmakers and citizens can envision and
employ effective collaboration these interdepartmental or multidisciplinary organizations can
look to strategic management plans whether they are regional urban forestry plans or
sustainability visions. Once the ability to reach out across departments and regions is realized
then this efficiency can be plugged into advancing other related regional goals while
accomplishing UF goals at the same time, a type of synergy. In reference to sustainability plans
and other regional visions, “The frame of analysis for such plans is larger than one narrow issue
(urban forestry), thus providing a good place to make linkages between the actions of different
departments” (Nature Conservancy 2015). This means finding areas where different agencies
may share similar goals and work together toward broader regional goals.
St. Luke’s in Boise could be an ideal starting point for grants tying public health outcomes to
urban tree planting goals. St. Luke’s already collaborates with a number of local
organizations—some that may also be amenable to increasing the urban forest through a
regional trail network such as Boise Green Bike, and Boise Urban Garden School (BUGS).
5. DISCUSSION/RECOMMENDATIONS/CONCLUSION
Discussion
Just as a picture tells a thousand words so do maps. In figure 8 below, fragmentation of the
Treasure Valley trail network is noticeable. If this were a green infrastructure network it would
be given an ailing bill of health due to a lack of connections. Just as a GI network requires large
hubs for habitat and numerous continuous (when appropriate) connections providing greater
range for healthy wildlife populations, it could be argued that an urban region requires similar
hub areas interconnected with each other to increase the health and range of the human
population as well as wildlife.
The Atlanta BeltLine and Singapore PCN highlight two different success stories and provide a
roadmap for other regions to follow. The Atlanta Beltline shows the economic benefit of a
regional trail network. It is noteworthy that the Beltline describes itself as “inherently
sustainable,” the 22 mile loop having originated from an existing rail corridor which shows the
utility of using undervalued land for greenway projects. The Atlanta Beltline could be the
subject of an entire paper in itself (in fact it originates from a Master’s degree thesis) but one
last major highlight that directly relates to linking public health outcomes to development of
opportunities for healthy, active lifestyles is an investment of $500,000 by Kaiser Permanente
of Georgia (KPGA) in organizations “developing and implementing unique, health-related
24

programming in communities along the Atlanta BeltLine Westside Trail corridor” (Atlanta
Beltline Partnership 2016). Following this example, St. Luke’s in Boise could make similar
investments in organizations that create health related programs relating to a regional trail
network throughout the Treasure Valley.
Figure 8. COMPASS map showing fragmentation of existing pathways.
The Singapore PCN highlights a successful strategy of using under-utilized and low value land
for trail network creation such as irrigation and drainage ROW’s. The Singapore network should
be celebrated for its success and popularity especially given the constrictive parameters within
which planners are forced to create parks and greenspace. In the case of Singapore, necessity
breeds creativity, highlighted in the intentional use of undervalued land of low economic
potential to make a park connector proposal palatable to decision makers (Tan 2006). A
recommendation of a Singapore Recreational Sub-committee was that “Parks and open spaces
should be planned as part of a network system so as to optimize the use of limited land
resources. Major parks and open spaces would be linked with green corridors derived from
green buffers zones” (Tan 2006). These connections linking parks and greenspaces “provide a
green matrix of connected linear park space, making the parklands in Singapore more
accessible to the public” (Tan 2006). Linking traditional parks through greenways or linear parks
was described as a way to increase the total amount of park space throughout the city.
25

Recommendations
As this paper has discussed, successful projects such as the Atlanta Beltline and Singapore PCN
and many others employ collaboration and inclusion with multiple agencies, groups and the
public which are imperative factors to the success of these projects. In this light, Boise LIV
campaign and Energize our Neighborhoods (EON) are important community organizations
focused on neighborhood scale issues that could foster regional collaborations. These two
successful initiatives could work with similar organizations in neighboring cities or possibly lead
or join regional partnerships to accomplish neighborhood scale goals within the context of a
regional vision of creating vibrant, sustainable communities throughout the Treasure Valley.
Completing large regional trail networks takes an incredible amount of time and planning but
can be broken into smaller sections spearheaded by multiple departments, agencies and
volunteer groups (Schasberger 2009). Observations from researching this paper and the
proposed Treasure Valley Rail with Trail lead to a conclusion that no single organization is
spearheading the effort for this continuous rail with trail or any other regional trail networks
throughout the Treasure Valley.
However, there are organizations poised for this purpose such as the Treasure Valley Canopy
Network, COMPASS, Rails to Trails Conservancy, St. Luke’s and EON. These are regional and
national organizations that could start collaborations with local and regional leaders to cast a
vision and educate and promote the need for regional trails and more support for the UF. By
tying these trails and UF increase to public health outcomes and positive, adventurous user
experiences on the trails and in the urban forests—a UF/Regional Trails Network partnership
could gain fresh, new and enthusiastic support that could lead to better funding for these vital
pieces of infrastructure.
A working group or partnership similar to the Wyoming Valley Wellness Trails Partnership
discussed earlier could be a good starting point to organizing and developing a plan for this rail
trail as well as other large scale regional trail networks that focus specifically on growing the UF
and trail network to drive multiple outcomes and serve multiple purposes—including the public
health increases due to higher physical activity levels and the health benefits associated with a
higher UTC and the potential positive effect at the neighborhood level. This could be a great
example of different organizations with similar yet different goals combining their individual
organization's strengths and resources to attain large goals making a collective impact.
For example, if the UTC was either strengthened or increased in conjunction with regional trail
planning and a public health campaign promoted by St. Luke’s the result could be a likely
decrease in vehicle traffic and emissions combined with a greater or more vibrant UTC and a
popular regional trail network. All these effects would accomplish the goals of all the
organizations involved: greater public health and awareness, a larger, healthier urban forest
26

and a popular interconnected regional trail network. All of these benefits in fact can be seen as
a somewhat interdependent continuous cycle of: benefits→ popularity→ investment.
Overall challenges for any key partner will be integrating into a working group that readily
shares information and works together on multiple levels. This may require culture change
throughout departments and organizations. It may also require investment in new
infrastructure or departmental organization methods that allow interdepartmental and regional
communication and cooperation between multiple agencies and city departments. It will be
important to identify strengths and weaknesses of each partner to leverage their individual
resources and capabilities in the most strategic and efficient way possible.
An example of the impact this proposed partnership could have both locally and regionally can
be shown by asking “If money was no object to begin trail connections and tree plantings,
where would the partnership begin and who would be the partners?” Since the City of Meridian
is planning to build the first segment of this Rail with Trail it would make sense to begin with
the City of Meridian and capitalize on the momentum that comes with starting a new, popular
project. Plans could be made to extend segments both to the west and east of the downtown
Meridian project and even branches off of the main Rail Trail to connect local parks in Nampa,
Meridian and Boise to the main trail.
The partners could be the cities and organizations listed below and at a minimum would include
the cities of Nampa, Meridian and Boise. By inviting public and community input on concerns
and desires for areas to be connected the trail network could be tailored to the local
neighborhoods it would directly benefit. It will be especially important to look at current
infrastructure projects such as new roads, or road widening projects and become involved in
planning for trails and street trees in tandem with these new projects. This is just one scenario
of how this regional trail network can serve local needs and concerns in a regional context. This
example should emphasize the collective impact possible through the coordination and
cooperation of multiple agencies, organizations and city departments.
Table 1 below can be an initial exploration into who could be key partners in a Treasure Valley
Regional Trail Action Committee. This committee, much like others discussed previously could
become a functioning partnership that through committee meetings and public input from
town halls and charrettes can create a mission, vision and goals for the organization.
KEY PARTNERS CHALLENGES OPPORTUNITIES
Treasure Valley Canopy
Network
-Funding for urban forestry planning
-Public outreach
-Marketing the UF and Trail Networks
-Increase regional UTC
-Increase awareness and benefits of the UF
-Develop new partnerships with organizations that have
similar goals
27

Rails to Trails Conservancy -Funding
-Volunteers for trail
labor/development/promotion
-Increase trail awareness and successful projects to add
to portfolio
-Create friends of trail groups for sustained support of
Rail with Trail after initial development
-Gain a foothold and increased partnerships in the
region to create more trails
Union Pacific Railroad -Public Safety in ROW
-Safety and access to equipment and rail line
-Increase public support
-Increase in positive public relations
-Possible leverage in other business areas
COMPASS -Traffic forecasts for the Treasure Valley are only
increasing
-Budget for road development
-Reduce vehicle demand and peak traffic
-Increase demand and use of multi-use pathways and
alternative transportation routes
St. Luke’s Hospital -Healthcare costs
-Outreach, event planning to increase public
involvement in outdoor activity
-Using events to increase support and use of trails and
planting of the urban forest
-Increase in preemptive and proactive personal health
management
-More venues to promote healthy living education and activities
-Student activities--tree planting, trail bike events, etc.
City of Meridian -Funding
-Public outreach and marketing of trails
-ROW cooperation with Union Pacific and Nampa
Meridian Irrigation District
-Coordination with City of Meridian and City of Nampa
-Trail development among established infrastructure
and irrigation of newly planted trees.
-Increase in trail connectivity equals an increase in community
connectivity
-Increase in economic activity near trail nodes can equal greater
revenue for business and the city
-Increase trail use can increase demand for parks and trails
increasing support for parks budget
-Likely possibility of increasing UTC health, percentage and
awareness associated with regional interconnected trail
networks.
City of Boise -Funding
connectivity
networks.
City of Nampa -Funding
connectivity
networks.
Ada County -Funding
-Planning
-Increase in park use demand for more parks/trails could lead to
public support for increase in park budget to support higher
demand
-Increase in budget could help to plant more trees or better
maintain current inventory in county lines
networks.
28

Canyon County -Funding
-Planning
-Increase in park use demand for more parks/trails could lead to
public support for increase in park budget to support higher
demand
-Increase in budget could help to plant more trees or better
maintain current inventory in county lines
networks.
Energize our Neighborhoods -Funding
-Coordination with neighboring cities
-Educating or creating neighborhood support for
increased urban trees and trails
-Casting a vision of why this should matter to the
specific
neighborhood and how it will benefit them specifically.
-Promoting the increase of trails and urban trees is offering
even more community benefits.
-EON could play a crucial role in gaining neighborhood support
for trail segments that would benefit these neighborhoods.
-EON could collaborate with similar organizations in
neighboring
cities to make incremental yet regional gains.
Table 1. Key partners and possible challenges and opportunities they may face.
The next steps would include identifying a key partner organization that is in the best position
to take the lead and approach the other key partners in the above table. The City of Meridian
would be a good starting point to help lead this proposed partnership since they are the only
city in the TV with a solid plan to build this project in 2018 or 2019. The partnership would
need to develop a mission and vision statement and start a marketing, branding and
community outreach campaign to build public support for regional interconnected trails and
trees.
In the future, as segments of this regional network are completed and become more used and
more popular with the public it is likely that more stakeholders and more organizations will
want to get involved or become involved in this regional trails partnership. As this happens it
will be important to continue to advance the goals of the organization (aligned with community
input) while continuing to seek out fresh support and opportunities for symbiotic partnerships
that continue to work towards local and regional visions. Looking forward, churches and other
faith based organizations that support lower income, minority and immigrant populations can
become important partners for supporting the creation of trails, increasing green space and
access to it in the areas they serve.
Conclusion
Famous business author Jim Collins coined the term Big Hairy Audacious Goals (BHAG) in the
1990’s. A BHAG is a goal that it so large, “so clear and compelling and serves as a unifying focal
point of effort—often creating immense team spirit. It has a clear finish line, so the organization
can know when it has achieved the goal; people like to shoot for finish lines. A BHAG engages
people—it reaches out and grabs them in the gut. It is tangible, energizing, highly focused.
People “get it” right away; it takes little or no explanation” (Collins 2018).
This is how regional trail networks should be viewed—a goal that while large and daunting is
compelling and makes sense to people right away. The fact is, that Atlanta, Singapore and many
29

other cities do “get it” and have been working to complete regional trail networks for many
years now much to the delight and benefit of the communities they serve. The Treasure Valley,
having a Rail with Trail project in its infancy is well poised to learn from and follow the
successful examples of the Atlanta Beltline, Singapore PCN and countless others.
30

REFERENCES
Adaptation Clearinghouse. (2016). Retrieved from
http://www.adaptationclearinghouse.org/resources/case-study-of-the-atlanta-beltline-adaptation-aspects.html
Akpinar, Abdullah. (2016) Factors influencing the use of urban greenways: A case study of Aydın, Turkey. Urban
Forestry & Urban Greening, Volume 16, 123–131. Retrieved from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S161886671600025X
Atlanta Beltline Partners. (2016). Partners Report. Retrieved from
https://beltlineorg-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/ABP-partners-Report-2016.pdf
Atlanta Beltline Project. (2018). Retrieved from https://beltline.org/about/the-atlanta-beltline-project/
Benedict, Mark A., & McMahon, Edward T. (2006). Green Infrastructure: Linking Landscapes and
Communities. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Berg, S. (2017, January 14). A bike path paralleling railroad tracks could one day link Nampa, Meridian and
Boise. Idaho Statesman. Retrieved from: http://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/article126693569.html
Berland, Adam, & Shiflett, Sheri, A., Shuster, William, D., & Garmestani, Ahjond, S., & Goddard,
Haynes, C., & Herrmann, Dustin, L., et al. (2017). The role of trees in urban stormwater management. Landscape
and Urban Planning, Volume 162, 167-177.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169204617300464
City of Atlanta Department of Planning and Community Development Arborist Division. (2014).
http://www.atlantaga.gov/Home/ShowDocument?id=14722
City of Boise. Energize Our Neighborhoods. (2018) https://energize.cityofboise.org/about/
City of Boise. LIV. (2018) https://www.livboise.org/
Clark, James., & Matheny, Nelda, P., & Cross, Genni, & Wake, Victoria. (1997 January). A Model of Urban Forest
Sustainability. Journal of Arboriculture. 23 (1). Retrieved from
http://www.dnr.wa.gov/Publications/rp_urban_ecasustainability_model_clark.pdf
Collins, Jim. BHAG. Web. 23 January 2018 http://www.jimcollins.com/concepts/bhag.html
Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho. (2015). Products, Services, and Data. Available from
http://www.compassidaho.org/prodserv/mapgis-maps.htm
Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho. (2017, November 28). Products, Services, and Data.
Available from http://www.compassidaho.org/prodserv/CIM2040_2.0/bikeped.html
ESRI, ArcNews Online. (Spring 2009). Singapore Manages Urban Forests Using GIS. Retrieved from
http://www.esri.com/news/arcnews/spring09articles/singapore-manages.html
Fok, Kelvin Wai Kit, & Yi, Winnie Wai. (2018). City re-imagined: Multi-stakeholder study on branding Hong Kong as
a city of greenery. Journal of Environmental Management. 206, 1039-1051.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.11.045
31

Forbes. 2018. Retrieved from:
https://www.forbes.com/pictures/5894edfa31358e590cda1ed2/11-boise-city-id/#3600e79e2118
Georgia Forestry Commission. (2001).
http://www.gatrees.org/resources/publications/GeorgiaModelUrbanForestBook.pdf
Hewett, Phillip. (2007). What’s marketing branding got to do with the Urban Forest. Available from
https://www.treenet.org/resources/whats-marketing-branding-got-to-do-with-urban-forest/
Jorgenson, Brian. City of Boise. City Forester. (2017). Via email.
Leahy, Ian. (2017, January 12). Why We No Longer Recommend a 40 Percent Urban Tree Canopy Goal. Retrieved
from http://www.americanforests.org/blog/no-longer-recommend-40-percent-urban-tree-canopy-goal/
McDonald, Rob, & Aljabar, Lida, & Aubuchon, Craig, & Birnbaum, Howard, G., & Chandler, Chris, & Toorney, Bill, et
al. (September 2017). Funding Trees for Health. The Nature Conservancy. Available from
https://global.nature.org/content/reports?intc=glob_sol.topnav.reports
National Parks Singapore. Annual report 2016-2017. Retrieved from
https://www.nparks.gov.sg/~/media/nparks-real-content/about-us/annual-report/nparks-2016-2017-annual-repor
t-highres.pdf
Ng Sheng Kai, Ivan. Singapore National Parks Board Parks Officer. (2018). Via email.
Palardy, Nathan P., & Boley, Bynum B., & Gaither, Cassandra Johnson. (2018). Residents and urban
greenways: Modeling support for the Atlanta Beltline. Landscape and Urban Planning, Volume 169, 250-259.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.09.006
Rails to Trails Conservancy. Trail-Building Basics. Retrieved 13 January 2018 from
https://www.railstotrails.org/build-trails/trail-building-basics/
Reis, A.C., & Jellum, C. (2012). Rail trails development: a conceptual model for sustainable tourism. Tourism
Planning and Development, 9(2), 133-148. Retrieved 10 January 2018 from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254369381_Rail_Trail_Development_A_Conceptual_Model_for_Sustai
nable_Tourism
Ridge to Rivers. (2018). Available from https://www.ridgetorivers.org/
Schasberger, Michele G., MA, & Hussa, Carol S., BA, & Polgar, Michael F., PhD, & McMonagle, & Julie A, MS., &
Burke, Sharon J., et al. (December 2009). Promoting and Developing a Trail Network Across Suburban, Rural, and
Urban Communities. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Volume 37, Number 6S2.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2009.09.012
Schwartz, Tabatha. Trees Atlanta. (2018). Via email.
Singapore National Parks Board. (2018) Park Connector Network. Retrieved from
https://www.nparks.gov.sg/gardens-parks-and-nature/park-connector-network
Susquehanna Greenway Partnership. Accessed January 23, 2018 from:
http://www.susquehannagreenway.org/planning
Tan, Kiat W. (2006). A Greenway network for singapore. Landscape and Urban Planning, Volume 76,
45-66. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169204604001331
32

Taylor, Paul. (2015). What factors make rail trails successful as tourism attractions? Developing a
conceptual framework from relevant literature. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, Volume 12, 89-98.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2015.11.005.
Treasure Valley Urban Tree Canopy Assessment. (2013). Retrieved 15 October 2017 from
https://parks.cityofboise.org/BoardAgendas/Board2013/130919-ExhibitC-TreasureValleyTreeCanopyAssessmentR
esults.pdf
Trees Atlanta. (2016). Retrieved from
https://treesatlanta.org/wp-content/files_mf/strategicplan_websiteversion.pdf
Wakan, Duanne. Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho. (2017). Via email.
Wolch, Jennifer R., & Byrne, Jason, & Newell, Joshua P. (2014). Urban green space, public health, and
environmental justice: The challenge of making cities ‘just green enough’. Landscape and Urban Planning, Volume
125, 234–244.
33

APPENDICES
Appendice 1. Google Earth .kmz file of proposed Rail with Trail route in Orange, (Courtesy Duane Wakan,
COMPASS, December 2018).
34

Appendice 2. Full size image of 2015 COMPASS map of minority/low income areas in Treasure Valley.
35

Increasing Urban Forest Sustainability and Growth with Regional Trail Networks: Treasure Valley, Idaho

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Increasing Urban Forest Sustainability and Growth with Regional Trail Networks: Treasure Valley, Idaho

Similar to Increasing Urban Forest Sustainability and Growth with Regional Trail Networks: Treasure Valley, Idaho (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Increasing Urban Forest Sustainability and Growth with Regional Trail Networks: Treasure Valley, Idaho