southwestern urban forests – air quality & beyond: a multi-state i-tree eco project case study
Post on 06-Dec-2014
293 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
An i-Tree ECO Multi-State Project
CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT, IMPLEMENTATION, RESULTS and LESSONS LEARNED
Alix Rogstad, Oscar Mestas, Richard Adkins and Vince Mikulanis
STATE PERSPECTIVE:CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT
Oscar Mestas
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
In the beginning… Sending
i-Tree Eco Blast!
Hmmm i-Tree Eco? Why did I just think of that… I need to talk to Lance.
2009
Lance Davisson
Well traveled road with several detours
LouiseWakem
Arizona State Forestry
Nick KuhnAlbuquerque
JohnGiedraitis
Texas A&M Forest Service
New Mexico Arizona Texas
Oscar MestasEl Paso
Farmington Las Cruces Glendale
PeteSmith
Texas A&M Forest Service
AlixRogstad
Arizona State Forestry
Kelly Washburn
AndrewFrederick
Les Finley
& Craig
Fenske
Las Cruces
Les Finley
RichardAdkins
Phoenix
Richard Lofstrom,
Asst. Park Superintendent
Albuquerque
Convincing 13 SE Region 8 State Foresters to agree to spend money in far West Texas was a challenge.
Project Area
Project Area
El Paso
Las Cruces
330 mi
350mi
230m
i
Albuquerque
Phoenix
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
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.
CONTRACTOR PERSPECTIVE:IMPLEMENTATION
Vince Mikulanis
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.
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
Implementation• Main and local project kick-off
– Pilot Data Collection• Timing – coordination among project areas• Daily
location updates
• Weeklyprogressreports
Implementation
• Web form• Mobile hotspot• Paper maps• Data management
Quality Control
• Data collection handbook
• Subjective data• Consistent core group
of inventory foresters• Hot/Cold checks• Volunteers
LOCAL PERSPECTIVE: RESULTS & DATA USE
Richard Adkins
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?
• Tree and Shade Master Plan– Urban Forest Resource Analysis– Urban Tree Canopy Assessment– Cool Urban Spaces Project– Southwest Forests Air Quality
Urban Forestry projects in Phoenix, AZ
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)
Key Findings (Summary) Phoenix, AZ El Paso, TX Las Cruces, NM Albuquerque, NMNumber 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 SpeciesVelvet 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
FINAL THOUGHTS: LESSONS LEARNED & FUTURE GOALS
Alix Rogstad
• Big projects CAN be successful!
• Requires:– Creative visioning– Leadership– Good organization– Patience– Adaptability– Sense of humor
Lessons Learned
Lessons Learned
• Flexibility is keywith multi-year projects– Funding is slow;
contracts take time– On-the-ground
situation changes– Mid-stride
adjustments
Lessons Learned
• “Right Team in the Right Place”– Experience with
project mgmt (State-State; internal contracting; etc.)
– Knowledge of thelocal vegetation
– Cultural sensitivities
– Volunteers
Lessons Learned
• Consistency in data collection– Decide early
how “% missing” will be recorded
– Cultivated & Natural
• 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
Lessons Learned
Lessons Learned
• i-Tree products have limitations in the SW– Account for all
veg types (grass; cultivated will look different)
– Improve spp sampling methodology
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
Our Many Thanks:
• Lance Davisson• Dana Karcher• Kelly Washburn• Matthew Thomas• Cindy Salazar• Dolores Ibarra
• Cori Dolan• Susanne Kaplan• John Richardson• Kyle McCatty• Glen Buettner• Victor Soudani
USDA-Forest Service, S&PFR3 and R8
top related