Assessing Street Tree Populations with iTree Tools

Communicating STRATUM results

Who is client? What do they want to know? What do you want to tell them?

Report functions Use in client reporting Use beyond client reporting

Know the client and client’s needs

Remember the “Prior to data collection” section…? Identify the client Identify the assignment

STRATUM has a LOT of reporting options; providing all may not be helpful What did the client ask you to find out? What else did you find out?

Know the client and client’s needs

Examples of clients and needs Client: Mayor

Assignment: Quantification of ecosystem services Client: City forestry department

Assignment: Report on present tree condition and maintenance needs

Client: NGO Assignment: Report on stocking levels and

enhancement opportunities for planting projects What you report on should be based on your client

and their needs (!)

Example of “canned” reporting options

Custom analysis

Custom analysis example

You want to plant large trees wherever possible (AVPSL) in order to maximize ecosystem services BUT…

You want to minimize costs for maintenance and conflict to maximize cost : benefit, so…

Custom query: Sp Code = AVPSL AND WIRE CONFLICT => 2; in results, count and/or replace AVPSL with AVPSM or AVPSS

Disclose methods, filters

“GIS Desktop project of the study area was created in Arc Map and exported to a Windows Mobile handheld device. The mobile GIS was used in concert with a Garmin 76C GPS unit to locate study segments in the field. Data on trees were recorded using the iTREE software and data on segments were recorded using Arc Pad mobile GIS”

“Street tree stocking was estimated based on biophysical possibility with allowance for a tree every 30’…”

“Utility conflict was defined as any tree part touching any overhead line…”

Hyattsville example

Assignment The purposes of this report are to:

Describe the current street tree population generally; Identify current stocking levels of and planting opportunities for

street trees; Report on the costs for and benefits provided by Hyattsville’s

street trees, including quantification of the ecosystem services provided by those trees;

Identify green and gray infrastructure conflicts; Make recommendations on management of the assessed trees;

and, Provide detailed information for the parties (DNR and

Hyattsville) to use in communicating with partners and constituents regarding management decisions related to the trees.

Hyattsville overview

The City of Hyattsville is a municipality in Prince George’s County, MD

Situated inside the Capital Beltway

Land area of 6.4 km2 (2.5 sq mi)

Population of 14,733

Plot scheme/density

100 selected 5 discarded Data collected on 95 plots

For communities with less than 50,000 persons, sample size is 6% of total street miles

We sampled approx. 18% of segments and approx. 17% of road miles

Plot scheme spatial distribution

Planting

Typical site: planting strip (75.5%) in a single or multi-family residential (88.5%) neighborhood

The total number of potential planting sites: 7,700 Total street trees: 2,900

Stocking level is 38% To put it another way, there is room for approximately 2.6 times

the number of street trees in Hyattsville presently Total opportunity: 4,800 potential plantings sites

Over 83% of planting sites have a tree lawn wide enough to accommodate a large tree. However, > 55% of these have OHW. In most such cases, smaller scale trees are more appropriate in order to avoid maintenance conflicts

Total sites planted v. unplanted by ward

Tree management

Only 0.3% of all sites had a stump present No maintenance or routine maintenance recommended for over

80% of trees No critical safety concerns were observed Only 3.8% of trees had immediate management needs

Most common: sycamore (26.7%) and callery pear (26.7%) The treatment recommended for majority of trees: no treatment

(37.95%) Cleaning most frequently recommended treatment (30%),

followed by reduction (18.21%) which was recommended primarily to alleviate conflicts with overhead utilities. Raising (2.05%) for vehicular and pedestrian clearance was not a significant issue and again points to the effectiveness of the tree management program

Terms and conditions (!)

This document is a work for hire produced by the author for the Department of Natural Resources (“the Department”). The field inspections were made throughout the summer of 2007. All references (pictorial and text) are true and accurate representations of conditions found on the sites on those dates.

The tree condition data reported were created based on cursory observation. No detailed tree risk assessments were performed. The intent of this report is to provide a “snapshot” of the entire population rather than to provide specific information regarding any of the individual trees reported on. The Department will make all raw data available to the client in the event that they want to perform follow up assessments on any of the trees included in the survey.

The conclusions and recommendations are based on the author’s experience and education as a qualified professional, and are not intended as a predictor of future conditions. This work is intended as a tool to assist the tree owner in making an educated tree management decision rather than to dictate a management action.

Gray infrastructure conflicts

No sidewalk heaving: 80% Low (13.9%), medium (4.4%), and high (1.5%) heaving

occurred related to the remaining trees Species associated with the most severe heaving were pin oak,

southern red oak, and silver maple No OHW found on 54% of sites

On 21.5% of sites, lines were present but were not in conflict with the tree

On 24.1% of sites, conflicts were observed Three species most commonly in conflict were callery pear,

willow oak, and red maple Likely at least partially attributable to the fact that they among

the most prevalent species found on Hyattsville’s roadsides

Species characteristics summary

Ecosystem services

Benefits Total ($)Standard Error Total $/tree

Standard Error Per Tree $/capita

Standard Error Per Capita

Energy 44,944 (±4,553) 15.38 (±1.56) 2.96 (±.3) CO2 8,428 (±854) 2.88 (±.29) 0.55 (±.06) Air Quality 2,706 (±274) 0.93 (±.09) 0.18 (±.02) Stormwater 104,818 (±10,618) 35.87 (±3.63) 6.90 (±.7) Aesthetic/Other 120,493 (±12,206) 41.24 (±4.18) 7.93 (±.8)Total Benefits 281,389 (±28,358) 96.30 (±9.71) 18.53 (±1.87)Cost Planting 15,000 5.13 0.99 Contract Pruning 60,000 20.53 3.95 Pest Management 0 0.00 0.00 Irrigation 0 0.00 0.00 Removal 100,000 34.22 6.59 Administration 5,000 1.71 0.33 Inspection/Service 30,000 10.27 1.98 Infrastructure Repairs 50,000 17.11 3.29 Litter Clean-up 50,000 17.11 3.29 Liability/Claims 1,000 0.34 0.07 Other Costs 0 0.00 0.00 Total Costs 311,000 106.43 20.48

Net Benefits - 29,611 (±28,358) - 10.13 (±9.71) - 1.95 (±1.87)Benefit-cost ratio 0.904788 (±.09)

Ecosystem services (cont.)

The cost: benefit ratio is 0.90. Does not compare favorably with the ratios found in other US cities such as: NYC (5.06) Fort Collins, CO (2.18) Glendale, AZ (2.41) Charlotte, NC (3.25)

Disparity is likely due to the following: Differences in energy costs in the other cities Species selection differences High per tree maintenance $$ in Hyattsville Low overall tree population in Hyattsville

Recommendations

Expand tree planting program, beginning with identification and prioritization of candidate sites Maintain or increase diversity at the species, genus, and

family levels Plant the largest tree possible at a given site in order to

maximize benefits; however, do not create grey infrastructure conflicts (cost: benefit ratio)

Cease planting callery pear cultivars and plum. Consult technical resources to identify suitable alternate species

Continue to manage for safety Maintain current custom of minimizing critical concerns via

rapid response Maintain current custom of grinding stumps shortly after

removal

Use beyond client reporting

Chesapeake Bay UTC goal SWM report

Urban Forest Effect on Runoff Generation( LAI = 5.0, Connected Impervious Area = 21% )

-16

-14

-12

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

0 20 40 60 80 Tree%

Ru

no

ff D

ecer

ase

(%)

Total Runoff

Overland Flow

Base Flow

Use beyond client reporting

Clean Air Act compliance Baltimore and

Washington, DC have included trees in SIP for ozone non-attainment under EPA 8-hour standard in 2007

Air quality (ozone) report

Use beyond client reporting

GHG strategies RGGI Other carbon

accounting / climate change initiatives

Energy, carbon reports

Use beyond client reporting

Communicating STRATUM resultsMaryland Department of Natural

Resources