Welcome to the 2017 TREE Fund Webinar Series Municipal Forestry - - PDF document

1

Municipal Forestry Baseline, Trends, and Dashboard

featuring Dr. Richard Hauer, U. of Wisconsin – Stevens Point

Welcome to the 2017 TREE Fund Webinar Series

• J. Eric Smith

TREE Fund President and CEO

Many Partners and Supports Universities, Non-profits, Government, Industry

• Dr. Kielbaso, Ken Ottman, and Colleagues

Started Collecting Data Since 1974

1974 >>>> 1993 >>>> 1986 >>>> 1980 >>>>

Municipal Tree Care & Management in the U.S. A 2014 U&CF Forestry Census of Tree Activities

(http://bit.ly/MuniTree)

109 Questions

2

United States and Scale (Regional Level) United States Census Bureau Definitions What’s Your Urban Forest Like? Many Challenges to Growing the Urban Forest

343 525 1,697

200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 1974 1980 2014 Mean Street Tree Value Year Nominal Dollars

Value of Money Nominal (historic) and Real (adjusted) Values

CPI Adjustment 1974 to 2014 = 4.80 1986 to 2014 = 2.16 343 525 1,697 1,648 1,134 1,697

200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 1974 1980 2014 Mean Street Tree Value Year Nominal Dollars Real Dollars

N=41 N=86

Value of Money

CPI Adjustment 1974 to 2014 = 4.80 1986 to 2014 = 2.16

Nominal (historic) and Real (adjusted) Values Conduct Tree Activities Percentage of Who Said Yes

86.0

20 40 60 80 100

Total, all cities Over 1,000,000 500,000 - 1,000,000 250,000 - 500,000 100,000 - 249,999 50,000 - 99,999 25,000 - 49,999 10,000 - 24,999 5,000 - 9,999 2,500 - 4,999

Percent Population

What’s in your Wallet? Training and Credentials

3

Baseline Indicator: What’s in your Wallet? Training and Credentials Community Tree Management Statements

Strength with Agree and Disagree with Statement

How Many Decision Making Levels From the Field to the Highest Level

4.1

2 4 6 8

Total, all cities Over 1,000,000 500,000 - 1,000,000 250,000 - 500,000 100,000 - 249,999 50,000 - 99,999 25,000 - 49,999 10,000 - 24,999 5,000 - 9,999 2,500 - 4,999

Number of Decision Making Steps Population 2.0 2.6 2.3 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.2 3.7 2.7 1 2 3 4 Number of Departments Population Group

Municipal Department Responsible Public Trees

# of Departments Associated With Tree Management

Municipal Department Responsible Public Trees

# of Departments Associated With Tree Management

1 2 3 4 5

Agreement Population

Departments Operate Common Goals & Objectives

n=627

SA D SD A N

56 50 39 55 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1974 1980 1986 1993 2014 Percent Northeast Midwest South West Total, all cities

Systematic Management % of Communities Rated as Systematic

4

Baseline Indicators: Pruning Cycle Current, Desired, & Time Off Cycle Just What are You Worth? Compensation is Part of This Answer Positions and Pay (Annual Earnings $’s) What is the National Mean for All Occupations?

71,219 64,809 56,058 52,483 47,837 44,874 40,567 39,236 36,558 23,160 47,230

20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000

Forestry Manager/City Forester Other Urban Forestry Specialist/Inspect. Working Foreman (Crew Chief) Arborist (pruning/trimming) Equipment Operator Truck Driver Clerical Support Office Laborer Seasonal Worker National All Occupations (BLS)

Annual Earnings ($'s) Position

20.10 19.42 15.91 20.47 19.44 5 10 15 20 25 Midwest Northeast South West Total Average Pay ($) Region Arborist 23.82 26.17 16.53 22.71 22.36 5 10 15 20 25 30 Midwest Northeast South West Total Average Pay ($) Region Working Forman 28.38 30.58 24.25 30.69 28.24 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Midwest Northeast South West Total Average Pay ($) Region Forestry Manager / City Forester

Positions and Starting Pay (Annual Base $’s) Some Region Examples?

22.28 25.05 18.38 25.06 22.59 5 10 15 20 25 30 Midwest Northeast South West Total Average Pay ($) Region Urban Forestry Specilalist/Inspector

Just How Many Municipal Forestry Jobs First time this has been estimated?

32,588 ( 5,864) Full-Time Equivalents 49,362 ( 9,675) Total Employees

Municipal Budgets How Much is Needed?

How much money is needed? What’s the best comparison method? What’s the context?

5

Municipal Budgets Percent Tree Budget of Municipal Budget Municipal Budgets Per Capita Tree Budget

Effect of EAB on Municipal Budgets EAB Management Works, Like it or not EAB will costs $

Solid line: direct measurements Dotted line: inferred from dendrochronology data confirming EAB‐induced ash mortality from 1994 ‐ 2004

EAB‐Induced Ash Mortality SE Michigan The outcome of doing nothing (Image by Dan Herms) Net Benefit of EAB Management EAB Management Works, If you like it or not EAB will costs $

Municipal Budgets Effect of EAB on Budget

0.46 0.57 0.52 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 No EAB in State EAB in State All Places

Tree Budget as % of Total Budget

No EAB in State EAB in State All Places

6

Municipal Budgets Effect of EAB

7.88 9.40 8.76 2 4 6 8 10 12 No EAB in State EAB in State All Places Per Capita Tree Budget ($) No EAB in State EAB in State All Places

Where Does the Money Go?

The Big Three (Planting, Pruning, Removal) & More

Figure 5. Percent allocation of tree care budget by activity area. (n=268)

Where Does the Money Go?

The Big Three (Planting, Pruning, Removal) by Region

15 16 15 12 14 21 16 24 36 24 28 34 18 14 23 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Midwest Northeast South West Total Percent Region Planting Pruning Removal

Who Does the Work? Allocation percentage total work

City Staff 54% Contractor 41% Volunteer 5%

68 73 88 92 93 90 95 91 100 88 20 40 60 80 100 Percent Using Contractors Population

Who Does the Work? How Common are Contractors Hired?

7

Who Does the Work? A Short Form Story

21.2 23.0 22.5 21.1 39.1 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 1974 1980 1986 1993 2014 Percent Year Percent of Budget Spent on Contracting

Cost to Remove Urban Trees and Stumps

368 108 556 174 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Tree Removal Stump Removal Cost Per Tree ($) City Staff Contractor

Results from 2014 Municipal Tree Care and Management (n=48 to 121)

Cost for Activity Per Tree Should I Contract or Should I In-house Yup, Depends, What’s Your Question

139 175 368 108 62 36 265 168 423 556 174 120 195 791 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 Cost ($) Tree Activity

2014 Costs

In-house Contract 100 129 293 109 32 175 247 488 109 49 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 Triming Planting Tree Removal Stump Removal Spraying Cost ($) Tree Activity

1980 Costs (In 2014 Real $'s)

In-house Contract 97 136 289 102 28 194 287 473 121 37 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 Triming Planting Tree Removal Stump Removal Spraying Cost ($) Tree Activity

1986 Costs (In 2014 Real $'s)

In-house Contract

Who Does the Work? A Volunteer Story

270 159 158 368 631 1,090 3,087 2,607 12,538 852 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 Mean Volunteers Hours Population 26.2 7.0 8.4 9.5 9.1 7.4 8.0 3.7 4.8 9.8 5 10 15 20 25 Time Per Person Population 34 31 38 211 119 252 324 526 4,069 205 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 Number of Volunteers Population 52 60 61 57 71 75 91 82 100 65 20 40 60 80 100 Percent Using Volunteers Population

Who Does the Work? A Volunteer Story

 345,466 (195,754 SEM) people volunteered  1,484,204 (665,460) hours with tree activities  714 (320 SEM) FTE’s (2080 hour base year)  $35 million volunteer impact ($23.56 per hour)

Likely Reason Volunteers Included A Volunteer Story Variable Estimate P value Odds Ratio Tree Board 0.6492 0.045 1.91 Outreach 0.7689 0.008 2.16 Strategic Plan 0.5761 0.046 1.78 Total Employment 0.044 0.018 1.04 Adequate Budget

• 0.6736

0.016 0.51 Percapita Spending

• 1.2482

<0.0001 0.29

8

Likely Reason Volunteers Included A Volunteer Story

Table 3. The comparison of community sustainability index scores in locations without volunteer and those with volunteers. Without Volunteers With Volunteers Index Score Mean (SEM) Mean (SEM) F-statistic P-value Resource Management 20.99 (0.44) 21.91 (0.28) 3.364 0.067 Community Framework 14.60 (0.37) 16.35 (0.23) 17.652 0.000 Vegetation Resource 7.13 (0.16) 7.81 (0.13) 6.376 0.012 Composite Score 42.72 (0.50) 46.07 (0.43) 13.952 0.000

Why Do We Write Standards? The Concept of Tree Pruning is Complex Standards of Work and Practice

Commonality of Incorporation into Tree Management Procedures 20 40 60 80 100 Percent Population

ANSI A300 ANSI Z133.1 Have Not Heard of These Standards

9

Standards of Work and Practice Use with Hiring Contractors

20 40 60 80 100 Percent Population

Require use of ANSI Z60.1 standards Require use of ANSI Z133.1 standards Require use of ANSI A300 standards Hiring preference given to ISA Certified Arborists Hiring preference given to TCIA Accredited companies

Municipal Forestry Disposal of Removed Trees Results from a 2014 National Survey

83.5 48.5 31.1 13.5 12.0 8.6 7.2 5.6 5.3

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Mulch Firewood Landfilled Processed into lumber Biofuel for energy Made into furniture/flooring/art Other Sale of round wood (e.g., sawlogs, pulp, veneer) Burned in open

Percent A community may do one or more of these options (n=643)

Tree Diversity and Scale (Landscape Level) Landscape Level to Local Level Tree Diversity and Scale (Landscape Level) The entire U.S. urban forest is diverse

All Regions

Species % Freq Acer platanoides

5.3

Fraxinus pennsylvanica

3.2

Gleditsia triacanthos

3.0

Acer saccharinum

2.8

Acer rubrum

2.8

Quercus virginiana

1.2

Acer saccharum

1.2

Pyrus calleryana

0.8

Liquidambar styraciflua

0.7

Tilia cordata

0.7

Platanus x acerifolia

0.7

Celtis occidentalis

0.7

Ulmus pumila

0.6

Lagerstroemia indica

0.6

Quercus palustris

0.5

115 Species 71 Genera 32 Families

Tree Diversity and Scale (Regional Level) Okay maybe a few minor diversity concerns

South Region Species % Freq Quercus virginiana 8.1 Acer rubrum 4.2 Sabal palmetto 3.3 Lagerstroemia indica 2.7 Acer saccharum 2.0 Celtis occidentalis 2.0 Pyrus calleryana 1.7 Ulmus crassifolia 1.7 Quercus phellos 1.3 Acer saccharinum 1.0 Midwest Region Species % Freq Acer platanoides 4.9 Acer saccharinum 4.7 Fraxinus pennsylvanica 4.3 Gleditsia triacanthos 4.2 Acer rubrum 2.5 Acer saccharum 1.1 Tilia cordata 0.7 Celtis occidentalis 0.7 Quercus palustris 0.7 Fraxinus americana 0.6 Northeast Region Species % Freq Acer platanoides 16.5 Gleditsia triacanthos 4.4 Acer rubrum 4.0 Acer saccharum 2.9 Tilia cordata 2.6 Platanus x acerifolia 2.3 Pyrus calleryana 2.1 Quercus rubra 1.4 Fraxinus pennsylvanica 1.4 Acer saccharinum 0.9 West Region Species % Freq Acer platanoides 3.8 Fraxinus pennsylvanica 3.1 Liquidambar styraciflua 2.2 Ulmus pumila 1.9 Acer rubrum 1.9 Platanus x acerifolia 1.9 Pistacia chinensis 1.5 Magnolia grandiflora 1.5 Gleditsia triacanthos 1.3 Lagerstroemia indica 0.9

Tree Diversity and Scale (Local Level) Diversity if a city has this tree species (% of total)

Midwest Region

Species Places (n) % Freq SEM Acer platanoides 34 14.2 1.6 Fraxinus pennsylvanica 31 13.8 1.6 Acer saccharinum 37 12.6 1.8 Acer rubrum 25 9.8 1.3 Quercus palustris 7 9.3 2.0 Gleditsia triacanthos 48 8.7 0.6 Ulmus americana 7 7.9 2.1 Picea pungens 7 7.9 1.4 Acer x freemanii 7 6.9 1.6 Pyrus calleryana 6 6.7 1.1 Acer saccharum 17 6.6 0.7 Fraxinus americana 9 6.6 0.7 Tilia cordata 11 6.6 1.0 Celtis occidentalis 12 5.6 1.0 Quercus rubra 5 4.2 0.5

10

Tree Diversity and Scale (Local Scale) Dominance by the top 6 species in a community

61.3 23.7 13.4 8.5 6.3 5.1 4.3 20 40 60 80 100 Total top six Most common Second most common Third most common Fourth most common Fifth most common Sixth most common Percent of Total Tree Population

Tree Inventory What Data is Collected

98 89 88 77 70 55 51 15 6

20 40 60 80 100

Tree species Tree diameter Tree condition Tree planting locations Tree removal Insect/disease problems Tree risk assessment Other Potential debris volume

Percent Activity

Tree Inventory What They are Used For

20 40 60 80 100

Identifying tree planting locations Selection of tree species for planting Removal of trees exceeding acceptable risk rating Scheduling tree pruning Communicating tree benefits to community Tree pruning for height clearance (street/sidewalk) Policy and ordinance development Assessing canopy cover change between time periods

Percent Activity

Urban Forestry Program Models Tree City USA USDA-FS CARS SMA Accredited UF Programs Clark & Matheny 1997 Model Kenney et al. 2011 Updated Model

Tree City USA Standards

• Tree Board or Department
• Tree Care Ordinance
• Budget  $2 Per Capita Annually
• Arbor Day Observance & Proclamation

Meet these four Standards and your in

3.16 1 2 3 4 Standards Meet Population Group

Tree City USA Standards All Four Standards

• Arbor Day Observance & Proclamation
• Budget  $2 Per Capita Annually
• Tree Board or Department
• Tree Car Ordinance

Meet these four Standards and your in

11

Tree City USA Standards All Four Compared Meet these four Standards and your in

20 40 60 80 100 Percent Population Group Department Ordinance Budget Arbor Day

Community Accomplishment Reporting System (CARS)

Meet these four Elements and your in

Our Results: 47.9%

Clark & Matheny Model

A total of 20 Indicators to evaluate urban forestry

Urban Forest Resource Sustainability

Canopy Cover: achieve climate appropriate tree cover, community-wide Age distribution: Provide uneven age distribution Species Mix: Provide for species diversity

Vegetation Resource (Ecology) Resource Management (Economic) Community Framework (Sociology)

Native vegetation: Preserve and manage biodiversity Public Agency Cooperation: City departments

• perate with common goals and objectives (G&O)

Regional Cooperation : Provide for cooperation and interaction among groups General Awareness of Trees as a Community Resource: Public understands the value of trees Citizen – Government interaction: All constituencies interact to benefit the urban forest Private Landowner Involvement: Large private landowners embrace city wide G&O’s Green Industry Cooperation : Green industry

• perates with a high professional standards

Neighborhood action : At the neighborhood level, citizens understand and participate UFM City-wide management plan: Develop and implement management plan for trees Recycling : Closed system for tree waste Citizen Safety : Public safety with respect to trees Funding: Develop and maintain adequate funding to implement city-wide management plan Species and Site Selection: Guidelines and specification for species selection and use Standards for Tree Care: Adopt and adhere to professional standards Protection of Existing Trees: Conserve existing resources, planted and natural Assessment Tools: Methods to collect routine information to manage community forest Staffing: Employ and train adequate staff to implement city-wide management plan

Clark & Matheny Model

A total of 20 Indicators to evaluate urban forestry

Points >>> 1 2 3 4

16.5 17.6 20.1 22.0 22.3 23.6 25.2 21.9 24.8 21.6 22.4 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 Index Score (9 to 36) Population Group

Resource Management

16.1 15.2 16.9 15.6 16.3 15.2 14.6 14.2 14.3 15.8 17.9 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 Index Score (7 to 28) Population Group

Community Framework

5.7 6.2 6.7 7.5 7.7 8.6 9.7 8.8 9.8 7.6 8.5 4 7 10 13 16 Index Score (4 to 16) Population Group

Vegetation Resource

38.3 39.0 43.7 45.1 46.3 47.3 49.5 44.9 48.9 45.0 48.8 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68 72 76 80 Index Score (4 to 16) Population Group

Overall Sustainability Index

Clark & Matheny Model

A total of 20 Indicators to evaluate urban forestry

Clark & Matheny Model

A total of 20 Indicators to evaluate urban forestry

3.34 3.08 2.63 2.46 2.19 2.10 2.06 1.94 1.80 1 2 3 4 Staffing Species and site selection Assessment tools Recycling Protection existing trees Funding Standards for tree care Citywide tree management plan Citizen safety Ranking Indicator

Resource Management

2.61 2.51 2.41 2.33 2.13 1.97 1.85 1 2 3 4 Awareness of Trees as a… Green Industry Cooperation Regional cooperation Public Agency Cooperation Neighborhood Action Private/Institutional Landholders Citizen-Government-Business… Ranking Indicator

Community Framework

2.12 1.81 1.77 1 2 3 4 Canopy cover Age distribution Species distribution Ranking Indicator

Vegetation Resource

12

Our Gas Gauge on Sunday Gary and Rich’s Big Adventure It’s the Economy, Stupid Whether 1992 or 2016 or the future What’s Your Urban Forest Like? Many Challenges to Growing the Urban Forest

Stop and Enjoy the Day

Healthy trees are rooted in research!

Learn more at treefund.org

Special thanks to webinar host Alabama Cooperative Extension System (ACES)