This document summarizes an i-Tree ECO multi-state project involving New Mexico, Texas, and Arizona to assess urban forest ecosystem services and develop air quality goals. The project involved collecting field data using i-Tree ECO in four cities - Phoenix, El Paso, Las Cruces, and Albuquerque. Key findings from the assessments showed the number of trees, tree cover percentages, most common species, pollution removal benefits, carbon storage and sequestration, and structural values of the urban forests. Lessons learned included the importance of flexibility, consistency in data collection, appropriate sample sizes, and limitations of i-Tree products in the Southwest region. Future goals are to complete data analysis, disseminate information

1. An i-Tree ECO
Multi-State Project
CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT, IMPLEMENTATION,
RESULTS and LESSONS LEARNED
Alix Rogstad, Oscar Mestas, Richard Adkins and Vince Mikulanis

2. Oscar Mestas
STATE PERSPECTIVE:
CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT

3. Project Partners
• USDA Forest Service, State & Private
Forestry (funder)
• New Mexico State Forestry
• Arizona State Forestry
• Texas A&M Forest Service
• City of Phoenix
• City of El Paso
• City of Las Cruces
• City of Albuquerque
• Davey Resource Group

4. In the beginning…
Sending
i-Tree Eco
Blast!
2009

5. Well traveled road with
several detours
Arizona
Andrew
Frederick
Texas
Louise
Alix
Rogstad
Wakem
New Mexico
Pete
John
Smith
Giedraitis
Arizona State
Forestry
Texas A&M
Forest
Service
Kelly Davisson
LanceWashburn
Les
Finley
Les
&
Finley
Craig
Fenske
Richard
Lofstrom,
Asst. Park
Superintendent
Nick Kuhn
Albuquerque
Albuquerque
Farmington
Las Cruces
Las Cruces
Richard
Adkins
Glendale
Phoenix
Oscar Mestas
El Paso

6. Project Area
Convincing 13 SE Region 8 State Foresters to agree
to spend money in far West Texas was a challenge.

7. Project Area
Albuquerque
Phoenix
Las Cruces
El Paso

8. Southwestern Forests Air Quality and Beyond
• Multi-state, multi-region collaboration (NM, TX, AZ)
• Assessment of urban forest ecosystem services
– identify and quantify the current value of urban trees
– develop strategies to impact air quality and community health

9. Project Goals
• Produce community forest assessments
in four targeted municipalities.
• Develop goals and strategies for air
quality mitigation.
• Create tools, outreach materials and
partnership forums to increase
awareness.

10. Vince Mikulanis
CONTRACTOR PERSPECTIVE:
IMPLEMENTATION

11. Logistics
• Gather aerial
imagery, land base, and
parcel data.
• Generate plot centers
using i-eco software.
• Create a buffer to
capture all parcels for
plot.

12. Logistics
• Mailing list generated
• Notification letters
– Address verification – up
to 25% return rate
– Multiple languages
– Two week lead time
– 800# “hotline” and e-mail
for questions
• Door hangers

13. Implementation
• Main and local project kick-off
– Pilot Data Collection
• Timing – coordination among project areas
• Daily
location
updates
• Weekly
progress
reports

14. Implementation
•
•
•
•
Web form
Mobile hotspot
Paper maps
Data management

15. Quality Control
• Data collection
handbook
• Subjective data
• Consistent core group
of inventory foresters
• Hot/Cold checks
• Volunteers

16. Richard Adkins
LOCAL PERSPECTIVE:
RESULTS & DATA USE

18. What is Urban Forest
Sustainability in the
Desert Southwest?
• A keystone for urban living
• A component of green infrastructure
• A process rather than a goal
• A myth?

20. Urban Forestry projects in
Phoenix, AZ
• Tree and Shade Master Plan
– Urban Forest Resource Analysis
– Urban Tree Canopy Assessment
– Cool Urban Spaces Project
– Southwest Forests Air Quality

21. What is the Value of a Healthy Urban Forest?
STAKEHOLDER
MEETINGS:
Open to the Public
Re: SOUTHWEST URBAN
FORESTS – AIR QUALITY &
BEYOND
Project Summary
Multi-state project to conduct
urban forestry ecosystem
services assessments in
partnering communities,
utilizing the i-Tree Eco tool
to collect data that will assist
communities to develop local and regional air quality planning goals. The project
focuses on improving environmental health and community livability in four
communities located at-risk of not meeting federal air quality standards.
Arizona Project Timeline
Stakeholder Meetings:
From 6 pm to 7 pm
April 29 – Goelet Beuf Community Center
(3435 W. Pinnacle Peak Rd)
April 30 – Cesar Chavez Public Library
(3635 W. Baseline Rd)
May 1 – Paradise Valley Community Center
(17402 N 40th St)
May 2 – Washington Activity Center
(2240 W Citrus Way)
Partners: AZ State Forestry, New Mexico EMNRD Forestry Division, Texas A&M
University Forest Service, Davey Resource Group and paid for by funds provided from
the USDA Forest Service.
Partnering Communities: City of Phoenix, City of Albuquerque, City of Las
Cruces, City of El Paso
Questions:
City of Phoenix: Richard Adkins (Richard.Adkins@phoenix.gov: 602.495.3762)

23. Key Findings (Summary)
Phoenix, AZ
El Paso, TX
Las Cruces, NM
Albuquerque, NM
Number of Trees (est.)
3,357,000
1,504,000
320,000
1,846,000
Size Land Area
519 sq. mi (1344 sq. km)
332,160 acres
256 sq. mi (663 sq. km)
163,840 acres
47 sq. mi (122 sq. km)
30,080 acres
181 sq. mi (469 sq. km)
115,840 acres
Tree Cover
9.7% - 13.6 trees/acre
5.9% - 14.9 trees/acre
4.5% - 11.4 trees/acre
14.3% - 21.8 trees/acre
Most Common Species
Velvet mesquite 9.6%
California palm 7.4%
Sweet acacia 6.7%
Italian cypress 24%
Afghan pine 10.6%
Mexican fan palm 6.5%
Italian cypress 19.4%
Desert willow 14.7%
Afghan pine 9.9%
Siberian elm 16.8%
Desert olive 6.5%
Desert willow 6.2%
Percentage of trees less than 6in DBH
44.10%
53.40%
65.10%
56.20%
Pollution Removal
1,880 tons/year
($7.89 Million/year)
403 tons/year
($294 thousand/year)
126 tons/year
($339 thousand/year)
493 tons/year
($1.44 million/year)
Carbon Storage
339,000 tons
($24.1 Million)
105,000 tons
($7.46 million)
21,700 tons
($1.55 million)
302,000 tons
($21.5 million)
Carbon Sequestration
36,300 tons/year
($2.59 million/year)
8,460 tons/year
($602 thousand/year)
1,800 tons/year
($128 thousand/year)
12,900 tons/year
($921 thousand/year)
Oxygen Production
90,100 tons/year
($0 /year)
16,300 tons/year
($0/year)
3,690 tons/year
($0/year)
28,400 tons/year
($0/year)
Building Energy Savings
$22.2 million/year
$3.02 million/year
$651 thousand/year
$4.35 million/year
Avoided Carbon Emissions
$2.87 million/year
$431 thousand/year
$87.3 thousand/year
$589 thousand/year
Structural Values (replacement value)
$4.23 billion
$1.7 billion
$280 million
$2.62 billion

27. Alix Rogstad
FINAL THOUGHTS: LESSONS
LEARNED & FUTURE GOALS

28. Lessons
Learned
• Big projects CAN
be successful!
• Requires:
– Creative visioning
– Leadership
– Good organization
– Patience
– Adaptability
– Sense of humor

29. Lessons
Learned
• Flexibility is key
with multi-year
projects
– Funding is slow;
contracts take time
– On-the-ground
situation changes
– Mid-stride
adjustments

30. Lessons Learned
• “Right Team in the Right Place”
– Experience with
project mgmt
(State-State; internal
contracting; etc.)
– Knowledge of the
local vegetation
– Cultural
sensitivities
– Volunteers

31. Lessons Learned
• Consistency in
data collection
– Decide early
how “%
missing” will be
recorded
– Cultivated &
Natural

33. Lessons
Learned
• Sample size
– Take into account
multiple parameters
(veg variability,
community size, etc.)
• “Randomized” plots
– Pre-determine how
choices are made in
the field to sample or
not

34. Lessons
Learned
• i-Tree products
have limitations
in the SW
– Account for all
veg types
(grass; cultivated will
look different)
– Improve spp
sampling
methodology

35. Future Goals
• Complete data analysis
• Quantify urban tree benefits
• Disseminate information to public and
elected leadership
• Use information to further Urban Tree
Canopy goals
• Develop regional standards to improve air
quality
• Repeat in other SW ecotypes
• Revisit plots in 10 years for comparison

36. Our Many Thanks:
•
•
•
•
•
•
USDA-Forest Service, S&PF
R3 and R8
• Cori Dolan
Lance Davisson
• Susanne Kaplan
Dana Karcher
• John Richardson
Kelly Washburn
• Kyle McCatty
Matthew Thomas
• Glen Buettner
Cindy Salazar
• Victor Soudani
Dolores Ibarra