management challenges &o&...

MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES& OPPORTUNITIES& OPPORTUNITIES

BRIEF HISTORY OF THE “CITY OF TREES”BRIEF HISTORY OF THE CITY OF TREES

● 1790: Pierre L’Enfant – designs the city around trees; shortly thereafter fired

● 1800: Thomas Jefferson – plants trees responding to tree loss from development

● 1870: Alexander “Boss” Shepherd plants 60,000 trees; “City of Trees,” coined

● 1900: McMillan Commission & the national mall; American elms planted

h h f d f h d l● 1912: Yoshino Cherries gifted from Japan – the Tidal Basin

● 1960’s: DC’s “Tree Division;” Hans Johannsen; cutting-edge tree database

● 1990’s: The Committee of 100 advocates for more focus on trees

2000: Mayor Anthony Williams increases budgets signs tree protection bill● 2000: Mayor Anthony Williams increases budgets, signs tree protection bill

● 2001: The Urban Forestry Administration gets its start; focus shifts

● 2002: Casey Trees founded

● 2005: DDOE created to “establish tree policy” for the District● 2005: DDOE created to establish tree policy for the District

● 2013: Mayor Vincent C. Gray reaffirms the 40% tree canopy goal (set by the Fenty Administration); sets planting targets – 8600 t/yr until 2023.

TRENDS – DC’S TREE CANOPY

1950 = 50% 2006 = 38% 2011 = 36%

TOWNES ATSHERIDANSTATION

(SE)(SE)


1950 = 50% 2006 = 38% 2011 = 36%

SAINTELIZABETH’S


1950 = 50% 2006 = 38% 2011 = 36%

FT. LINCOLNCOSTCO

WE’RE WINNING SOME BATTLES BUT LOSING THE WAR

60.0%

Year 1 Year 2

30 0%

40.0%

50.0%

10 0%

20.0%

30.0%

Tree

Co

ver

0.0%

10.0%

CITATION: Nowak & Greenfeld; Urban Forestry & Greening

WE’RE WINNING SOME BATTLES BUT LOSING THE WAR

CITATION: Nowak; Urban Forestry & Greening

CHALLENGES & OPPORTUNITIESHOW DO WE FIGHT A SMARTER BATTLE?

1. INVENTORY THE URBAN FOREST (EXTENT & CONDITION)2. SET CANOPY GOAL(S), TO PROVIDE A MARKER – AN ASPIRATION3 ENGAGE STRATEGIES: LEGISLATION; STREETSCAPE STANDARDS;3. ENGAGE STRATEGIES: LEGISLATION; STREETSCAPE STANDARDS;

STORMWATER PERMIT REQUIREMENTS; ZONING REGS; PLANTINGPROGRAMS; PARTNERSHIPS, ADVOCACY

4. REPORT PROGRESS CONSISTENTLY: (PRINT ELECTRONIC4. REPORT PROGRESS CONSISTENTLY: (PRINT, ELECTRONIC, LOCAL/REGIONAL/NATIONAL)

5. ASSESS/MODIFY STRATEGIES AS NEEDED TO IMPROVE IMPACT6. REPEAT (STEPS 1, 3, 4 & 5)( , , )

INVENTORIESINVENTORIES

• KNOW WHERE YOU ARE (INVENTORY) TO DECIDE WHERE YOU WANT TOGO (CANOPY GOALS/COMPOSITION, ETC).( , )

• MOST JURISDICTIONS LACK RESOURCES FOR REGULAR CANOPYASSESSMENTS, BUT COSTS ARE DROPPING QUICKLY.

• THERE ARE NO URBAN FOREST INVENTORY STANDARDS. • WE NEED TO MIND OUR DATA OR WE WILL LOSE OUR CONSTITUENT

BASE. AN EXTREME CASE:

INVENTORIESINVENTORIES

MEASURING DC’S CANOPY:MEASURING DC’S CANOPY:

• SATELLITE IMAGES FROM 2000 WERE IMPACTFUL, BUT AT 30M RESOLUTIONWERE INADEQUATE TO GUIDE MANAGEMENT DECISIONS. COST: $100K+.WERE INADEQUATE TO GUIDE MANAGEMENT DECISIONS. COST: $100K .

• IN 2005 CT FOUND 35% TREE CANOPY (1M RESOLUTION). COST: $75K.• IN 2006 THE FS FOUND 36% TREE CANOPY. COST: $60K.• IN 2011 CT, THROUGH UVM & FS NORTHERN RESEARCH STATION,

2006 (38% 36%)CONDUCTED ANOTHER ANALYSIS: THE 2006 DATA WAS WRONG (38% NOT 36%); THE 2011 DATA SHOWED 36% - A 2% DECLINE IN 5 YEARS. COST: $15K.

• IN 2011 THE FS FUNDED AN INDEPENDENT STUDY OF DC’S CANOPY WHICHFOUND 38% CANOPY - OR A 2% INCREASE OVERALL. COST: $160K.$

• IN 2012 THE FS AND UVM ANALYZED THESE CONFLICTING RESULTS AND FOUNDTHAT THE INDEPENDENT STUDY OVERESTIMATED CANOPY.

THE RESULT…..?

INVENTORIES

OPPORTUNITIES

• ESTABLISH NATIONAL URBAN FOREST INVENTORY STANDARDS• ESTABLISH NATIONAL URBAN FOREST INVENTORY STANDARDS

• CREATE A NATIONAL INVENTORY CLEARINGHOUSE TO FACILITATEEFFORTS AND RAISE GENERAL AWARENESSEFFORTS AND RAISE GENERAL AWARENESS

• ASSESS AND REPORT URBAN CANOPY CHANGE DATA FOR ALL MAJOR US CITIES ON A 10 YEAR CYCLE

CANOPY GOALSCANOPY GOALS

• HAVING THE TOOLS TO TRACK TREE CANOPY, AND SET GOALS, IS A HUGEADVANCEMENT WHICH IS BECOMING MORE AFFORDABLE.

• MOST JURISDICTIONS DON’T WANT CANOPY GOALS• MOST JURISDICTIONS DON T WANT CANOPY GOALS.• THOSE THAT DO DON’T COMMUNICATE THEM OFTEN ENOUGH.• WHAT SHOULD THE GOAL BE? “MORE IS BETTER” IS NOT A RATIONALE

THAT WILL STICK. POLICY MAKERS SEEK BALANCE OF COMPETINGPRIORITIES….WHAT ARE OUR REASONS FOR THE TARGETS WE SET?

CANOPY GOAL SETTING

Healthy

over

y

y

ress

Rec

oSt

10 40 60Unhealthy

Percent Canopy CoverCITATION: Dr. William Sullivan; University of IL

CANOPY GOALSCANOPY GOALS

MORE INFORMATION NEEDED

• FUND RESEARCH STUDIES TO VALIDATE/REFINE BENEFITS ANALYSISSTUDIES THAT LINK CANOPY GOALS TO VARIOUS SOCIAL, HEALTH ANDENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORSENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS

• PROVIDE GUIDANCE TO JURISDICTIONS WORKING TO ESTABLISH THEIRTREE CANOPY GOALSTREE CANOPY GOALS

ENGAGE STRATEGIESENGAGE STRATEGIES

• TREE PROTECTION LAWS & REGULATIONS FORM THE FOUNDATION FORCANOPY GOAL ATTAINMENT. THEY SHIFT THE CULTURE’SUNDERSTANDING OF WHAT IS, AND IS NOT, ACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOR.

• CITIES ARE ASSEMBLAGES OF DIFFERENT PEOPLE AND LAND TYPES. CREATING AND MAINTAINING CONNECTIONS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ANDCREATING AND MAINTAINING CONNECTIONS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ANDDIFFICULT ASPECT OF OUR WORK.

• EACH SECTOR PLAYS A SUPPORTING ROLE. LOCAL GOVERNMENTS CANFUND AND MANAGE; NGO’S CAN PUBLICIZE AND ADVOCATE; FEDERALFUND AND MANAGE; NGO S CAN PUBLICIZE AND ADVOCATE; FEDERALAGENCIES CAN GUIDE PROGRESS AND PROVIDE RESOURCES, ETC…

DC GOV’TDDOT/UFA/ NGO’S

WASHINGTON DC36% TREE CANOPY/ /

STATE FORESTER

NGO S36% TREE CANOPY40% TREE CANOPY GOAL

DC GOV’T DGS

FEDERALGSA

DC LANDS

PRIVATE LANDS

FEDERAL LANDS

FEDERALNPSDC GOV’T

DCOP

DC GOV’T DDOE

THREE DISTINCT LAND TYPES; THREE STATE & TWO FEDERAL AGENCIES; MULTIPLE NGO’s

ENGAGE STRATEGIESENGAGE STRATEGIES

OPPORTUNITY

• SYNTHESIZE INFORMATION ON TREE PROTECTION LAWS, THEIR IMPACT, , ,AND HOW TO GET THEM PASSED

• STRENGTHEN FEDERAL , STATE AND LOCAL INVESTMENTS INFACILITATING LINKAGES BETWEEN AND WITHIN LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, NGO’S AND INTEREST GROUPS

REPORTING PROGRESSREPORTING PROGRESS

• REPORTING IS EASIER THEN EVER THROUGH E-MEDIA• REPORTING PROGRESS IS CONTROVERSIAL• REPORTING PROGRESS IS CONTROVERSIAL• NATIONAL REPORTING LACKS CONSISTENCY TO BE USEFUL

OPPORTUNITIES• PUBLISH A NATIONAL REGISTRY OF URBAN AREA CANOPY AND

IMPERVIOUS SURFACE LEVELS; CANOPY GOALS; PROGRESSTOWARD MEETING GOALS

• PUBLISH A NATIONAL REPORT CARD BASED ON EASILY VERIFIABLEMETRICS

EXAMPLE – STATE DATA TRACKINGCITY CANOPY HISTORY IMPERVIOUS SURFACE CANOPY CANOPY

1990 2000 2010 1990 2000 2010 GOAL POTENTIAL

BALTIMORE 34 35 32 40 43 43 40 48

HYATTSVILLE 45 45 45 28 32 35 50 67

ROCKVILLE 44 44 44 36 36 38 50 60

SILVER SPRING 43 45 50 40 43 43 N/A 60

TAKOMA PARK 50 48 47 27 27 30 50 65TAKOMA PARK 50 48 47 27 27 30 50 65

CITY PLANTING TARGETS TREES PLANTED TOTAL TOTAL

1990 2000 2010 1990 2000 2010 GOAL PLANTED1990 2000 2010 1990 2000 2010 GOAL PLANTED

BALTIMORE 3,000 3,000 3,000 2,000 4,000 2,000 9,000 8,000

HYATTSVILLE N/A N/A N/A 300 N/A 350 ‐ 650

ROCKVILLE 300 300 500 400 400 400 1,100 1,200 , ,

SILVER SPRING ‐ ‐ 2,000 ‐ ‐ 2,000 2,000 2,000

TAKOMA PARK 300 300 450 400 400 400 1,050 1,200

EXAMPLE – NATIONAL DATA TRACKINGSTATE CITY CANOPY HISTORY IMPERVIOUS SURFACE CANOPY CANOPY

1990 2000 2010 1990 2000 2010 GOAL POTENTIAL

NY NEW YORK 27 25 23 59 62 65 30 37NY NEW YORK 27 25 23 59 62 65 30 37

NY ALBANY 46 46 43 48 48 48 50 73

NY SYRACUSE 45 43 47 40 40 40 50 71

NJ NEWARK 17 17 15 58 60 62 N/A 35

NJ MORRISTOWN 60 60 58 29 30 33 55 72

DC WASHINGTON 40 38 36 38 40 41 40 62

STATE CITY PLANTING TARGETS TREES PLANTED TOTAL TOTAL

1990 2000 2010 1990 2000 2010 GOAL PLANTED

NY NEW YORK 20,000 20,000 20,000 15,000 17,000 22,000 60,000 54,000

NY ALBANY 5,000 5,000 5,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 15,000 3,000

NY SYRACUSE 3,000 3,000 3,000 5,000 5,000 ‐ 9,000 10,000

NJ NEWARK ‐ ‐ 5,000 ‐ ‐ 2,000 5,000 2,000 , , , ,NJ MORRISTOWN 300 300 500 400 400 400 1,100 1,200

DC WASHINGTON 2,000 4,000 8,600 2,000 3,000 10,000 14,600 15,000

SUMMARY….SUMMARY….FILLING GAPS – MEETING LOCAL & NATIONAL NEED

•• SET NATIONAL STANDARDS SET NATIONAL STANDARDS – URBAN CANOPY ASSESSMENTS•• CREATE & PUBLISH STATE/NATIONAL REGISTRIES CREATE & PUBLISH STATE/NATIONAL REGISTRIES – URBAN

CANOPY & IMPERVIOUS PERCENTAGES; GOALS; GOAL ATTAINMENTCANOPY & IMPERVIOUS PERCENTAGES; GOALS; GOAL ATTAINMENT•• TARGET RESEARCH TO ESTABLISH GUIDELINES TARGET RESEARCH TO ESTABLISH GUIDELINES – WHAT

SHOULD CANOPY GOALS BE AND WHY?•• CONDUCT NATIONWIDE CANOPY ASSESSEMENTSCONDUCT NATIONWIDE CANOPY ASSESSEMENTS – FORCONDUCT NATIONWIDE CANOPY ASSESSEMENTS CONDUCT NATIONWIDE CANOPY ASSESSEMENTS FOR

MAJOR US CITIES TO ASSIST LOCAL EFFORTS, INSPIRE OTHERS•• FACILITATE LINKAGES FACILITATE LINKAGES – BETWEEN GOVERNMENTAL AND NON-

GOVERNMENTAL PARTNERS WHO HAVE ESTABLISHED GOALS, CONDUCTED INVENTORIES – TO TAKE THEM TO THE NEXT LEVEL

TRENDS – DC’S TREE CANOPYPLANTING TARGET = 8600 T/YR

2009 = 6,000 2011 = 13,6002010 = 8,600 2012 = 8,000??

LANGDONPARK

TRENDS – DC’S TREE CANOPYPLANTING TARGET = 8600 T/YR

2009 = 6,000 2011 = 13,6002010 = 8,600 2012 = 8,000??

LANGDONPPARK

THANK YOU

MARK BUSCAINOCASEY TREESWASHINGTON, DC

management challenges &o&...

Documents