Urban Forestry Master Plan
•
4 likes•952 views
How to take your urban forestry program to the next level with an Urban Forest Master Plan. Explores the differences between a Management and Master Plan.
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to Urban Forestry Master Plan
Similar to Urban Forestry Master Plan (20)
More from Josh Behounek
More from Josh Behounek (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Urban Forestry Master Plan
- 1. Urban Forest Master Plans Josh Behounek Davey Webinar Series 11-1-2017
- 2. 11/1/2017 2 Agenda 1. Define a Master Plan 2. Why create a Master Plan 3. Components of a Master Plan
- 3. What is an Urban Forest Master Plan? An Urban Forest Master Plan is a road map, providing detailed information, recommendations and resources needed to effectively and proactively manage and grow a city's tree canopy.
- 4. What is an Urban Forest Master Plan? More importantly it provides a shared vision for the future of the urban forest to inspire and engage stakeholders in the care and protection of trees.
- 5. 11/1/2017 5 Management Plan VS. Master Plan Management Plan Master Plan Tree Population (Data) Public (Streets & Parks) Public & Private People Goals Creation Timeframe Implementation Timeframe Costs
- 6. 11/1/2017 6 Management Plan VS. Master Plan Management Plan Master Plan Tree Population (Data) Public (Streets & Parks) Public & Private People City Staff All Stakeholders Goals Creation Timeframe Implementation Timeframe Costs
- 7. 11/1/2017 7 Management Plan VS. Master Plan Management Plan Master Plan Tree Population (Data) Public (Streets & Parks) Public & Private People City Staff All Stakeholders Goals Proactive Maintenance Shared Vision Creation Timeframe Implementation Timeframe Costs
- 8. 11/1/2017 8 Management Plan VS. Master Plan Management Plan Master Plan Tree Population (Data) Public (Streets & Parks) Public & Private People City Staff All Stakeholders Goals Proactive Maintenance Shared Vision Creation Timeframe 4 – 6 weeks 9 – 12 months Implementation Timeframe Costs
- 9. 11/1/2017 9 Management Plan VS. Master Plan Management Plan Master Plan Tree Population (Data) Public (Streets & Parks) Public & Private People City Staff All Stakeholders Goals Proactive Maintenance Shared Vision Creation Timeframe 4 – 6 weeks 9 – 12 months Implementation Timeframe 5 – 10 years 10 – 20 years Costs
- 10. 11/1/2017 10 Management Plan VS. Master Plan Management Plan Master Plan Tree Population (Data) Public (Streets & Parks) Public & Private People City Staff All Stakeholders Goals Proactive Maintenance Shared Vision Creation Timeframe 4 – 6 weeks 9 – 12 months Implementation Timeframe 5 – 10 years 10 – 20 years Costs $3,000 - $10,000 $25,000 - $150,000
- 11. 11/1/2017 11 Agenda 1. Define a Master Plan 2. Why create a Master Plan – Define reason/driver – Process – Approach 3. Components of a Master Plan
- 12. 11/1/2017 12 Whatever We Call It… • Blueprint • Roadmap • Framework Image Credit: Amazon.com TomTom Navigation Unit Image Credit: Tobermory Press Inc. https://www.ecr.co.za/shows/jane-linley-thomas-show/woman-follows-car-gps-and-ends-lake/
- 13. 11/1/2017 13 So Why Do You Need One? To proactively address growing environmental challenges To practice and model cooperation and efficiency To create clear goals and baseline metrics for the entire urban forest To foster long-term advocates and increase civic participation in the preservation of our urban forest To create a coordinated vision
- 14. Why Pittsburgh needed a plan City Planting Budget Total Annual Street Tree Expenditure Pittsburgh $0 $816,400 New York City $8,160,000 $21,774,576 Minneapolis $223,855 $9,209,041 Charlotte $180,000 $1,819,460 Charleston $109,125 $531,200 The City Utility Companies Non Profits Allegheny County Parks PA DCNR Residents Business Owners
- 15. Desired outcomes • Maximize Benefits • Achieve Sustainability • Minimize Safety Risks • Improve Quality of Life • Protect Resource • Increase efficiency and cooperation
- 16. Trees for the Future Symposium of 50 key stakeholders began planning process • To proactively address growing environmental challenges • To create a coordinated vision • To practice and model efficiency and cooperation • To create baseline metrics and clear goals for the urban forest • To develop long term advocates and increase civic participation
- 17. 11/1/2017 17 It’s All About Process • Public Meetings • Key Stakeholder Meetings • Inventory/Assessment • Analysis • Develop Plan • Implement • Monitor • Update Image Credit: Indy Parks and the Department of Public Works Indy Greenways Full Circle Plan
- 18. The planning process • Steering Committee • Existing reports and data • Public outreach and surveys • State of the Urban Forest report • The audience and layout of the plan • Reviewing other cities urban forest master plans
- 19. Build a Team • Jackson Clark Partners – facilitated master plan benchmark report and public surveys and meetings. • University of Vermont Spatial Analysis Lab – conducted Urban Tree Canopy (UTC) analysis • Davey Resource Group – conducted i- tree ECO and lead plan writing
- 20. Create a Steering Committee • Steering Committee Member Organizations Tree Pittsburgh Pittsburgh Shade Tree Commission City Forester, City of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh Shade Tree Commission Western Pennsylvania Conservancy, TreeVitalize Pittsburgh Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy Department of City Planning, City of Pittsburgh Duquesne Light The Pennsylvania State University Urban Redevelopment Authority of Pittsburgh Western Pennsylvania Conservancy Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Bureau of Forestry Davey Resource Group Allegheny County Sanitary Authority (ALCOSAN) Pennsylvania Environmental Council Remaking Cities Institute, Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh Community Reinvestment Group USDA Forest Service
- 21. 11/1/2017 21 Adaptive Management • Urban Forestry: Planning and Managing Urban Greenspaces • Miller, R. W. 1988. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. • ufmptoolkit.net • Inland Urban Forest Council What Do We Have? What Do We Want? How Do We Get There? How Are We Doing?
- 22. 11/1/2017 22 Criteria & Indicators • Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Urban Forest Planning and Management • Kenney, W. A., et al. 2011. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 37(3): 108 – 117. • The Sustainable Urban Forest, a Step-by-Step Approach • USDA Forest Service and The Davey Tree Expert Company, 2016 Kenney, W. A., et al. 2011. “Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Urban Forest Planning and Management.” Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 37(3): 108 – 117.
- 23. 11/1/2017 23
- 24. 11/1/2017 24
- 25. 11/1/2017 25 Agenda 1. Define a Master Plan 2. Why create a Master Plan 3. Components of a Master Plan – What do we have? – What do we want? – How do we get there? – How are we doing?
- 26. 11/1/2017 26
- 27. 11/1/2017 27
- 28. 11/1/2017 28
- 29. WHAT DO WE HAVE? State of the Urban Forest • Existing reports + data • Benchmarks • Structure, Function, and Value • Public outreach
- 30. 30,538 Street Trees 5,666 Park Trees
- 31. Tree Canopy
- 33. Neighborhood % Tree Canopy % Possible Tree Canopy Neighborhood % Tree Canopy % Possible Tree Canopy Neighborhood % Tree Canopy % Possible Tree Canopy Allegheny Center 29% 38% Esplen 28% 46% Perry North 64% 20% Allegheny West 31% 33% Fairywood 43% 40% Perry South 53% 28% Allentown 41% 29% Fineview 57% 24% Point Breeze 49% 31% Arlington 50% 34% Friendship 25% 31% Point Breeze North 29% 33% Arlington Heights 60% 35% Garfield 43% 28% Polish Hill 35% 28% Banksville 47% 35% Glen Hazel 81% 12% Regent Square 61% 21% Bedford Dwellings 50% 31% Greenfield 28% 38% Ridgemont 61% 26% Beechview 50% 30% Hays 82% 13% Shadyside 31% 28% Beltzhoover 48% 27% Hazelwood 35% 47% Sheraden 47% 29% Bloomfield 18% 36% Highland Park 49% 30% South Oakland 27% 38% Bluff 12% 37% Homewood North 42% 28% South Shore 18% 36% Bon Air 52% 30% Homewood South 18% 41% Southside Flats 12% 42% Brighton Heights 39% 35% Homewood West 30% 36% Southside Slopes 43% 32% Brookline 39% 38% Knoxville 27% 37% Spring Garden 63% 19% California-Kirkbride 30% 37% Larimer 22% 38% Spring Hill-City View 55% 26% Carrick 35% 43% Lincoln Place 48% 37% Squirrel Hill North 46% 29% Central Business District 8% 30% Lincoln-Lemington-Belmar 50% 34% Squirrel Hill South 53% 30% Central Lawrenceville 34% 43% Lower Lawrenceville 15% 40% St. Clair 69% 23% Central Northside 21% 25% Manchester 17% 36% Stanton Heights 49% 30% Central Oakland 20% 33% Marshall-Shadeland 30% 46% Strip District 12% 40% Chartiers City 42% 40% Middle Hill 27% 40% Summer Hill 42% 38% Chateau 5% 47% Morningside 29% 36% Swisshelm Park 58% 28% Crafton Heights 50% 32% Mount Washington 39% 37% Terrace Village 30% 47% Crawford-Roberts 30% 36% Mt. Oliver 42% 33% Troy Hill 30% 34% Duquesne Heights 57% 27% New Homestead 67% 27% Upper Hill 43% 33% East Allegheny 14% 30% North Oakland 26% 33% Upper Lawrenceville 19% 44% East Carnegie 45% 42% North Shore 7% 47% West End 38% 31% East Hills 49% 31% Northview Heights 49% 33% West Oakland 39% 24% East Liberty 19% 39% Oakwood 59% 26% Westwood 46% 35% Elliott 54% 26% Overbrook 41% 39% Windgap 46% 37%
- 40. Total Number of Trees 0 2,000,000 4,000,000 6,000,000 8,000,000 10,000,000 Morgantown, WV Syracuse, NY Minneapolis, MN Woodbridge, NJ Boston, MA Washinton, DC Philadelphia, PA Baltimore, MD Pittsburgh, PA New York, NY Toronto, Canada Atlanta, GA Number of Trees
- 41. Species Diversity 13% 12% 11% 9% 8% 5%5% 3% 2% 2% 30% Number of Trees Black locust Norway maple Black cherry White ash American elm Tree of heaven Boxelder Sugar maple Northern hackberry
- 42. Functional Tree Benefits $262,000 Carbon Sequestration $3.75 million Pollution Removal $3.22 million Energy & Carbon Total $7,232,000
- 43. • Steering Committee • Departments • Public Meetings • Survey • Review/Comment WHAT DO WE WANT? Outreach Campaign
- 44. Outreach Campaign • Public Meetings • Survey • Review/Comment
- 45. 11/1/2017 45 Public Opinion • 1,699 surveys completed • 52% improve quality of life • 10% lower energy bills • 52% hardscape damage • 2% trees cost too much • More trees • Better maintenance • 64% more planting & protection • 37% support 1% fee
- 46. HOW DO WE GET THERE? Vision, Goals + Objectives
- 47. Vision • Over the next 20 years, Pittsburgh’s urban forest will be vital and well-managed asset that is locally valued and nationally recognized for its positive social, environmental, economic and public health impacts on the community and the greater region.
- 50. Cleveland Tree Plan • Goal #1: A Shift in Thinking to Acknowledge Trees as Critical Community Infrastructure • Goal #2: Reverse the Trend of Canopy Loss • Goal #3: Assume Full Stewardship for the Tree Infrastructure • Develop Plan of Action – 9 Actions
- 52. HOW ARE WE DOING? Vision, Goals + Objectives • Monitor • Analyze • Revise
- 53. Roll Out & Implementation • Partnerships! • Urban Forest Working Groups • Allied Non-Profits
- 57. Implementation • Annual State of the Urban Forest • Education campaign • Fundraising • Programs adapted to recommendations • Public Support and Codify
- 58. Thank You! CEU Code PP-17-417 Josh Behounek 573-673-7530 Josh.behounek@davey.com @treesrtheanswr
Editor's Notes
- We’re talking about a long range strategic document that addresses the ENTIRE urban forest. Might seem too nebulous, but good things are happening around the country with plans like this. I like to think of these plans akin to GPS navigation. We could blindly follow it and potentially make a wrong turn into a lake. Or we use it to guide our journey, along with other inputs and research and preparation.
- Based on the share of public trees that makes up the entire UF and the growing access we have to information about the entire resource’s structure and function, it is becoming more necessary for Cities and their partners to take initiative with a long range comprehensive plan.
- Qualify your chart by adding a date
- Mention that these reasons were created by participants at the symposium – important to create buy-in – same with definition of ufmp and uf.
- 2010 hosted meeting to bring together 50 key stakeholders
- Relying only on an even broader municipal comprehensive plan to address the entire urban forest can dilute opportunities to engage the public and all types of potential stewards in the ways the urban forestry master plan process offers.
- M Leff exhibiting at Partners and showcasing the Sustainable Urban Forest guide. Other great ways to evaluate and benchmark your municipal program that could be incorporated in the the UF planning process include the SMA accreditation program and Urban Forestry South’s Urban Forestry Sustainability and Management Review System.
- New tools and processes are continuing to be created and adapted for urban forest planning. Vibrant Cities Lab is a great example of this. American Forests, Forest Service & National Association of Regional councils created this great website/resource to help guide communities through the process of implementing urban forestry in your community. You could use & adapt this in the Master Planning process for sure. Lot’s of great case studies on a variety of important topics like human health, stormwater, crime, etc. and how all of these are affected by urban forests and our management of those urban forests.
- How can you manage something if you don’t know what you have? One of the 1st decisions was to get as much high quality data as possible that would inform and be useful.
- Initial catalyst for most of this project and fair to say Tree Pittsburgh was the original street tree inventory in 2005. Why….inventory found backlog of maintenance (no surprise)….citizen outrage of removals….enter Tree Pittsburgh
- The previous information was already existing. Majority of Urban Forest is on private land. If this is going to be a true “Master Plan” we can’t ignore the majority of the asset. Let’s go private. UTC done by University of Vermont
- So we know the entire forest but we need to go deeper. Pittsburgh is somewhat unique in that there are 90 distinct neighborhoods. If we are going to get anything done we need to go to the neighborhood level. So what is the UTC of the neighborhoods?
- More than ½ of the City’s neighborhoods are below the mean of 42% with nearly 60% of population living in these areas. Hays and Glen Hazel have the highest at 81% and 80% Chateau and North Shore have the lowest at 5% and 6%. While Chateau and Terrace Village have the highest Possible Tree Canopy at 47%.
- The plan process WHAT DO WE HAVE has it’s own process (made possible by iTree) Now we know where everything is and we know where we can be planting but now we don’t know what we should be planting. We don’t know the structure and function of that UTC. 200 random 1/10 th acre plots collecting a ton of information.
- 2,628,000 trees Residential property has the greatest amount of trees 8.6 trees per capita 0.09 street trees per capita (1 for every 11 persons) 73.4 trees/acre Commercial & Government
- Sustainability! 4 of Top 10 street trees maple 34% 9%+ of urban forest is ash EAB Most of urban forest regeneration is natural regeneration and probably not the most desirable species palate out there.
- Let’s talk about some of the Functional benefits. People can really understand this because we all have energy bills and see air pollution.
- What are your goals for the UF? What funding options make sense? What is the best way to communicate UF news to you? What is your vision for Pittsburgh’s UF in 20 years?