|
|
|
|
 |
Previous Citizen Forester Articles (prior to 2007)
Prevention of Hazardous Tree Defects, Part II – By Gary R. Johnson, Richard J. Hauer, and Jill D. Pokorny (Following is an adaptation of the second half of an article by the authors cited above. The first half of this article was presented in the November edition of the Citizen Forester and can be viewed on the DCR web site at http://www.mass.gov/dcr/stewardship/forestry/urban/citForester.htm IntroductionIn part one of this article, the authors presented long term methods for reducing the occurrence of tree hazards. By taking steps to design a species-diverse, uneven – aged forest, match tree species to site conditions, and purchase high quality nursery stock, the authors contend that community foresters can reduce the incidence of tree hazards and the costs associated with mitigation of those hazards. In this second half of the article, the authors review proper tree planting and pruning guidelines and protection of trees from construction damage as further steps to reduce the formation of tree hazards. By observing proper planting technique, maintaining tree structure with appropriate pruning and protecting trees during construction activities, community foresters can have a positive impact throughout the life span of shade trees. Proper Tree Planting TechniquesTrees can be purchased as bare root, containerized, or balled and burlapped specimens. Basic planting methods are the same for all specimen types, but handling and special considerations apply, depending on the size and the type of tree. (A checklist of basic planting guidelines for all three types, and planting guidelines for special situations is provided in the article). Basic Planting Guidelines for All Tree Types: Match the tree species to site conditions. Base this on the soil type, soil pH, surface and sub-soil drainage, growing space, exposure factors (e.g. sun, wind, ice and snow, and de-icing salts), and the tree’s cold hardiness. Prepare the site by removing the sod. Loosen the soil by tilling or spading an area three to five times wider in diameter than the width of the root system, and only to the depth of the root system. Dig a hole in the center of this circle that is 1 to 2 feet larger in diameter than the root ball and deep enough so the root collar is at the soil surface when the tree is planted. The root collar is the base of the stem where the primary roots first begin to branch away from the stem. The root collar may be buried in balled and burlapped, container grown, or tree spade dug trees because of the way the trees are dug in the nursery. If you find the root collar is buried to 3 inches deep in the root ball, dig the planting hole 3 inches shallower than the depth of the root ball. Maintain undisturbed (not loosened) soil beneath the root ball to prevent the tree from settling. Carefully place the tree in the center of the hole and gently remove any excess soil to expose the root collar flare. Double-check that the root collar (base of the stem where the primary roots first begin to branch away from the stem) is at soil surface or slightly above (e.g. 1 to 2 inches). Planting trees at the proper depth, and not too deeply, is a critical step that can help to prevent the development of stem girdling roots and premature tree failure. Stem girdling roots can compress and kill trunk tissue, and cause trees to decline 10 to 20 years after planting or suddenly fail during storms by snapping off at the stem/root compression area. Backfill around the roots with the soil that was removed. Lightly pack or water the soil during this process to eliminate air pockets. Backfill the planting hole to the height of the root collar, but no higher. Mulch with 4 to 6 inches of coarse wood chips or shredded bark. Pull the mulch back away from the trunk to prevent direct contact with the root collar and trunk. Be sure to avoid creating a mulch volcano by applying the mulch too deeply and placing it right up to the stem. Water is very important to a newly planted tree. Newly transplanted trees will benefit from daily watering for the first 1 to 2 weeks, applying approximately 1 to 3 inches of water per caliper inch at each watering. Thereafter, water trees every 2 to 3 days for the next 2 to 3 months and then weekly until established. Remember, roots need oxygen, too! Adjust the watering schedule accordingly for rain or very dry conditions. Important “Don’t Forget” items and Planting Guidelines for SpecialSituationsThe planting guidelines given above are general in nature and apply in the great majority of planting situations. The complete article includes subsequent sections on specific “don’t’ forget to” procedures and issues that often arise during tree planting. Some of these items include steps for handling girdling roots and the special moisture needs of bare root stock. In addition, planting suggestions for dealing with heavy and/ or poorly drained soils, proper staking methodologies and many other topics are covered in these sections. Proper Tree Pruning TechniquesSound arboricultural practices will prevent development of many hazardous tree defects. Investing community resources in proper tree pruning techniques is one of the most effective tree risk management strategies. Early formative pruning and ongoing maintenance pruning will prevent the development or eliminate many tree defects that are leading causes of tree failure. Early and regular tree pruning will also reduce the costs of subsequent pruning, tree removal, and replanting. Industry standards for pruning trees are published by the American National Standards Institute in The American National Standard for Tree Care Operations – Trees, Shrubs and other Woody Plant Maintenance – Standard Practices: ANSI A300 – 1995 (ANSI 1995). These industry standards can help communities develop pruning specifications and safety regulations. Community tree care managers who write contracts and bidding specifications for tree maintenance work projects should be familiar with them. The complete article includes discussion sections related to the following pruning related topics:
Construction activities impact trees and can create or exacerbate hazardous situations. Protecting tree health and mitigating high-risk situations on a construction site is a matter of recognizing the potential impacts of construction activities, and identifying hazardous trees or defects that exist on the site. Avoiding or minimizing construction damage is a critical step in preventing the development of many hazardous tree defects, and eliminates the costs of treating construction damaged trees. Advanced planning and simple mitigation steps can minimize the risks associated with trees during and after construction. These include:
Each of these topics is addressed in detail in the complete article. The section dealing with street trees includes a comprehensive list of suggestions for avoiding or mitigating the construction effects that often have such serious negative impacts upon shade trees on our streets. ConclusionIn the urban and community setting, the actions of human beings may have become the primary influence on the health of the ecosystem and its many elements, including trees. While it is impossible to avoid the development of all tree hazards, it should be clear from this and the previous related article that humans can use our influence to greatly reduce the incidence of hazard tree defects. With thoughtful planning and proper species selection, consideration of site limitations, careful planting, prudent pruning and maintenance and effective protection, our urban and community forests will offer even greater benefits with much reduced costs, risks and liabilities. Harvesting Urban Timber: An Option for Municipal Forest Managers (Following is an article adapted from “Recycling Municipal Trees: A Guide for Marketing Sawlogs from Street Tree Removals in Municipalities” by Edward T. Cesa, Edward Lempicki and J. Howard Knotts – see full citation below) IntroductionMany municipalities and local governments are currently experiencing budgeting problems in meeting community needs. Street tree management and maintenance budgets are among those becoming strained. As a result, the quality of our street trees cannot help but suffer as economic considerations continue to reduce tree management budgets. Presently, much of the wood generated from street tree removals brings little economic return to tree management budgets. Because of this, most tree management and maintenance programs are being run as a cost burden to municipal budgets. Although most tree management crews are hardworking and efficient, the products rendered from street tree removals are usually low-value, which returns little money to municipal coffers. In fact, in New Jersey (for example), it is estimated that more than 50 percent of an average municipality’s tree management budget is spent on the cost of tree removals alone. Tree mortality from natural occurrences like insects, diseases, and storms plus a myriad of man made circumstances such as roadway widening, right-of-way maintenance, and utility construction activities, take a huge toll on street trees. This results in a continuing need for tree maintenance on a municipal level. Much of this harvested wood, if produced and marketed effectively, can generate income for municipalities to help support tree management and maintenance programs. An alternative to disposing of removed trees by cutting them into fire wood or chipping them is to consider the potential marketability of sawmill-size logs from municipal tree removals. Advantages of merchandising salable sawlogs include: 1. potential income generated from selling logs or developing barter arrangements 2. reduction in labor cost by reducing the amount of time work crews need to process logs into firewood 3. reduction in amount of woody material going to landfills 4. reduction in landfill costs for disposal of material 5. reduction in volume of firewood material that must be stored in municipal maintenance yards until it is sold 6. conservation of forestland resources by generating sawlogs from street trees that must be removed anyway (note: approximately 3 to 4 billion board feet of potential lumber are thrown away every year as green waste1 – this is about equal to one quarter of the hardwood lumber harvested from traditional forestry operations that the U.S. consumes annually2). There must be a better way for street tree management than maximum cost – minimum return systems. The removal work itself must be done, but there is a potential opportunity for changing this cost-burden scenario into one that is more cost efficient. Instead of sawing a good log into firewood, leave it “as is” – a readily marketable commodity. As a simple illustration of commodity value, the dollar return potential of selling the log for lumber products exceeds the return potential of selling the log for firewood by at least two to four times. A strategy of “recycling” municipal trees that includes harvesting saw logs involves the implementation of a carefully designed process. This process includes: 1. Identifying one or more sawmills in your area that may be interested in purchasing your material 2. Learning what their sawlog requirements are and deciding whether your street tree logs fit these requirements 3. Locating and removing metal and other foreign material in the logs 4. Storing sawlogs until a salable quantity is accumulated 5. Being flexible and persistent enough to try this concept
The MarketThe concept of utilizing street trees in sawmills is not new. Some sawmills have been sawing products from street trees for many years because they have found a unique niche for using street tree sawlogs. From street tree logs, sawmills can manufacture products such as pallets and pallet stock, landscape ties, truck bed sotck, fencing, heavy timbers, construction lumber, posts , bridges and park benches. Furniture grade lumber can also be produced from these logs which can then be used to make products such as mantels and decorative moldings. Sawmills are the market and opportunity to which street tree logs can be merchandised. Some of the wood generated from municipal trees holds special potential for unique and figurative characteristics. One example is spalted wood, which results when logs are invaded by certain fungi. The fungi produce a highly unique coloration and pattern in the wood that is very appealing and special. The retail price for some of these figurative woods can be as much as four times the retail price for standard lumber used to produce the same product. Crafters seek these types of wood because of the many special effects they give their finished products. Generally, the mills using street trees are not typical high-production operations. They are smaller in size and may have different markets and product lines compared to standard production – oriented sawmills. Products and SpecificationsStreet trees that are at least 12 inches in diameter at breast height (4.5 feet from the ground) and have a log of at least six feet in length have sawlog potential. Normally, the most valuable part of the tree is the first eight to sixteen feet closest to the ground. This is where the greatest volume of wood is located. It is also where the most valuable wood is found. A sawmill’s raw material requirements are directly influenced by its markets. Consequently, the demand and price for your potential sawlogs depends on this relationship. Knowing what a sawmill requires is an important first step for successfully merchandising sawlogs. For example, persimmon is listed as “fair” in species desirability because most sawmills do not have a high demand for these sawlogs. However, in Tennessee there is a large market for persimmon, which centers around its use in manufacturing golf club heads. You must keep in mind that special markets dictate higher values for particular species, depending on local market conditions. (The take home message here is – get to know your local miller and establish a relationship based upon mutual understanding of the needs of all parties involved). Metal and Other Foreign Material in Street TreesOne of the primary reasons why demand for street tree sawlogs has been low in the past is because of metal and other foreign material sometimes found in the logs. The reputation of these logs having metal in them (i.e. nails, wire, spikes or even car parts) is common among sawmillers. Metal can become a serious problem during log sawing because it dulls and/or damages saw blades and sawmill equipment. It can also be a safety hazard for workers in a mill because of flying debris when a blade hits large metal objects. The best way to correct this problem is to scan logs for metal before they go through the sawing process. Standard metal detectors are normally adequate. When metal is discovered, it must be removed. If large quantities of metal are detected in a log, it should not be sold as a sawlog. If a metal-laden log is shipped as part of a load to a sawmill, it will probably be the last load you ever see to the particular mill. Normally, the most metal is located within the first four to six feet of a street tree. This is the section of the tree which people use for hanging signs and securing fencing for yards or pastures. This is also the section that children llike to pound nails into. Consequently, butt logs (the first log cut closest to the ground is called the butt log) need to be screened more carefully than logs which come from higher up in the tree. Typical metal detection techniques include a visual inspection of the log surface for metal objects like wire and protruding nails, as well as any discoloration which normally appears as a black/blue stain on the end of the log. Following a through visual inspection, a careful scan with a metal detector is needed. Following these steps, metal can be detected and removed or logs can be pulled from the shipment if they are loaded with foreign material. The problem of metal and other materials in street tree logs is serious, but it is not insurmountable if care is taken to ensure the quality of the logs being shipped to the mill. (Detailed techniques for removing metal and debris from street tree logs are given in the complete booklet) ConclusionBeing Persistent“ I look at a log and see revenue, someone in the tree service business looks at the same log and sees disposal costs,” – Stubby Warmbold, Founder of CitiLog This quote summarizes the opportunities inherent in harvesting street trees for lumber; both the opportunity for increasing revenue and the opportunities currently lost because street trees (and indeed most other urban trees) are viewed in one particular way. With a change in the way we see these trees, a carefully managed procedure to ensure that high quality and safe timber is being delivered to a local mill and the persistence to keep at it, lumber from urban trees can be a much needed input to municipal tree budgets. (check out the case studies in the complete booklet – they are impressive). Prevention of Hazardous Tree Defects – By Gary R. Johnson, Richard J. Hauer, and Jill D. Pokorny
(The following is an adaptation of the first half of an article by the authors cited above – an adaptation of part two of this article will be presented in a later edition of the Citizen Forester) IntroductionThe fundamental goal of tree risk management is to prevent development of hazardous tree defects and reduce the risks hazardous trees pose to public safety. Development of many hazardous defects in trees can be prevented through effective planning, and the implementation of sound arboricultural practices. Post-storm tree damage surveys document that appropriate species composition, and proper planting and maintenance practices can help prevent the formation of many structural defects that predispose trees to branch and stem failures.(Dempsey 1994, Johnson 1999). This chapter discusses how communities can prevent development of many hazardous tree defects through effective streetscape planning and design. Designing a species-diverse, uneven – aged forest, matching tree species to site conditions, purchasing high quality nursery stock, implementing proper planting and pruning techniques, and protecting trees from construction damage help to promote healthy trees and reduce development of hazardous tree defects. Designing a Species – Diverse, Uneven – Aged Urban ForestWhen many of our older cities were established, there were initially few large trees present. Tree planting programs lined the streets of many communities with avenues of even – aged trees all of the same species. While these planting programs eventually resulted in aesthetically beautiful tree-lined boulevards, this practice led to problems that eventually convinced arborists that this practice should be avoided. The vulnerability of an urban forest to insect and disease outbreaks is much higher where a single species of tree dominates the landscape. This problem was dramatically illustrated during the Dutch Elm disease epidemic that altered forever the character of so many eastern city streets. As many of the avenue trees planted in the early 20th century are rapidly approaching the end of their normal lifespan in an urban setting, urban forest managers have an opportunity to develop a well-designed, species-diverse, uneven-aged management system……. Even in those communities where trees are somewhat haphazardly replanted as they die, the results will be an unavoidable shift from an even-aged management system towards a more sustainable species-diverse, uneven-aged management system. Matching Tree Species to Site ConditionsTree species vary in their nutritional, water, and light requirements, and in their resistance to environmental and chemical extremes. Match tree species to each site by considering both the silvical characteristics (requirements) of the tree, and the conditions of the site. The Silvics Manual of North America, volumes 1 (conifers) and 2 (hardwoods) are excellent sources of information on plant/site requirements (Burns and Honkala 1990). Site Characteristics that Affect Tree Species SelectionWhen choosing a species to fit a site, consider soil and light conditions; exposure to sun, wind, ice, snow, and de-icing salt; space limitations (both above and below ground) and human use of the site. Soil conditions, especially in urban areas, often drive species selection. In addition to the site factors listed above, trees in areas that are converted from woodland to urban use through new construction require specific consideration. (Site characteristics to be considered in species selection are listed and described in full in the complete article – including recommended management strategies for each characteristic; for purposes of saving space, they are listed here briefly). 1. Soil pH 2. Soil Compaction 3. Soil Drainage 4. Low Light Situations 5. Exposure to Sun and Wind 6. Susceptibility to Ice, Snow, and Wind Damage 7. De-icing Salt Damage 8. Human Use of the Area 9. Space Limitations Urbanization of WoodlandsForest trees that have been in relatively protected and undisturbed environments for all of their lives become very vulnerable to exposure when these forests are urbanized, that is, when residential or commercial subdivisions are built in or around the forests. Suddenly, the trees that were once protected from wind and sun are exposed, in particular those that have now become residents of the forest edge. Typically, these trees are tall and slender, with very high canopies and very shallow root systems, and are more prone to windthrow. Roots of the new edge trees are commonly lost during development of wooded areas, either directly through cutting, or indirectly through exposure, loss of soil moisture, and subsequent death of the shallow network of supportive, fine roots. As a result, they become less stable and more vulnerable to winds and windthrow. In addition, they produce more dead wood in the canopies as a result of defensive dieback in reaction to the root loss and death. So even if they are able to remain vertical despite the increasing wind loads, they often produce a significant amount of deadwood high in the canopies that presents a threat to people and structures below. A few simple steps can help to alleviate the stresses that exposure of these trees causes: 1. Protect the roots of trees during construction – with physical barriers and written policies 2. Cover the soil under newly exposed trees with organic mulch 3. Irrigate trees during and after construction activities 4. Under-plant the newly exposed soil areas under trees with shrubs and small trees to reduce the amount of sunlight and drying wind that reach the forest floor. 5. Do not “clean up” the forest floor by removing natural leaf litter and other detritus that serves to protect the soils of the remaining tree covered area. Purchasing High Quality Nursery StockJust as it is important to select the right trees for the right places, it is equally as important that the trees selected for planting are of high quality. Planting unthrifty planting stock is money wasted, and sets the stage for future tree health problems and unsuccessful streetscape designs. Communities that invest in high quality trees and proper planting and maintenance practices will enjoy the benefits of a tree resource that increases in aesthetic and economic value, possesses fewer hazardous defects, and lives longer. Industry standards for nursery stock have been established by the American Association of Nurserymen and are published in the American Standard for Nursery Stock, ANSI Z60.1 (ANSI 1996). Here are some tree quality characteristics that communities should look for when purchasing nursery stock for tree planting operations: 1. Single, straight trunk that is free of branches below 6 to 8 feet (for trees to be planted within a few feet of a sidewalk or street) 2. A strong form with well spaced, firmly attached branches 3. A trunk free of stem defects such as mechanical wounds, flush cut pruning wounds, cankers, insect injuries, or cracks. 4. Adequate root ball/container/root spread size in relation to tree caliper (see American Standard for Nursery Stock, ANSI Z60.1). Consider rejecting trees with the following problems: 1. Trees with double or multiple leaders 2. Trees with weak branch unions (e.g. narrow, V-shaped) and included bark in branch unions 3. Trees with defects on the main stem – (wounds, cankers, insect damage, cracks) 4. Trees with serious root related problems – (girdling roots, crushed/damaged roots) ConclusionBy taking steps to design a species-diverse, uneven – aged forest, match tree species to site conditions, and purchase high quality nursery stock, community foresters can reduce the incidence of tree hazards and the costs associated with mitigation of those hazards. As the old saying so correctly admonishes, “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” In part two of this series about preventing tree hazards, we will look at implementing proper planting and pruning techniques, and protecting trees from construction damage.
Trees as Biotechnology to Improve the Environment – Dr. David Nowak, USDA Forest Service (The following article is adapted from “Institutionalizing urban forestry as a `biotechnology` to improve environmental quality” by Dr. Nowak, 2006.) Urbanization concentrates people, materials and energy into relatively small geographical areas to facilitate the functioning of society. Urbanization often degrades local and regional environmental quality as natural landscapes are replaced with anthropogenic materials. Byproducts of urbanization (eg., heat combustion, and chemical emissions) affect the health of the local and regional landscapes, as well as the health of the people who reside, visit and/or work in and around urban areas.
In the lower 48 United States, percent of land classified as urban increased from 2.5% in 1990 to 3.1% in 2000 (44,834 km2), an area about the size of Vermont and New Hampshire combined. Patterns of urban expansion reveal that increased growth rates are likely in the future (Nowak et. al., 2005 a,b). Urban land is projected to increase from 3.1 % in 2000 to 8.1 % in 2050, an area (392,000 km') greater than the size of Montana. By 2050, four states (Rhode Island, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Connecticut) are projected to be more than half urban land (Nowak and Walton, 200 5).
Urban vegetation, through its natural functioning, can improve environmental quality and human health in and around urban areas. These benefits include improvements in air and water quality, building energy conservation, cooler air temperatures, reduction in ultraviolet radiation, and many other environmental and social benefits (Nowak and Dwyer. 2000). Properly designed and managed, urban vegetation can be used as a natural "biotechnology" to reduce some of the adverse environmental and health effects associated with urbanization. With the extent of urbanization expanding across the landscape, there is an urgent need to incorporate the effects of urban vegetation on reducing the adverse effects of urbanization into long-term planning, policies, and regulations to improve environmental quality and human health.
MethodsTo incorporate the effects of urban trees in meeting environmental standards, the impacts of trees on the environment need to be quantified. The urban forest functions that appear to be most critical to environmental quality and associated regulations are tree effects on air and water quality, and carbon sequestration. To quantify these urban forest effects in various cities, the Urban Forest Effects (UFORE) model was used. The UFORE model uses standardized field data from randomly located urban forest plots and local hourly air pollution and meteorological data to quantify urban forest structure, functions, and values (e.g., Nowak et al., 2000, 2001, 2002a, b, 2005a, b; Nowak and Crane, 2000, 2002). The model currently quantifies: (a) urban forest structure by land use type (e.g., species composition, tree density, tree health, leaf area, leaf and tree biomass, species diversity, etc.); (b) hourly amount of pollution removed by the urban forest, its value, and its associated percent air quality improvement throughout a year. Pollution removal is calculated for ozone, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide and particulate matter (< 10 um); (c) hourly urban forest volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions and the relative impact of tree species on net ozone and carbon monoxide formation throughout the year; (d) total carbon stored and net carbon annually sequestered by the urban forest, including its value to society; and (e) effects of trees on building energy use and consequent effects on carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.
To date, urban forest structural data (e.g., tree species composition, number of trees, trees size, health) have been or are being collected and analyzed with the UFORE model for about 30 cities, with about one-third of the analyses occurring in cities outside of the United States - e.g,, Beijing, China (Uang et al., 2005); Fuenlabrada, Spain (Lozano, 2004); Santiago, Chile (Escobedo et al., 2004); and Toronto, Ontario, Canada (Kenney et al., 2001). From this basic field data, leaf area and leaf biomass estimates are made and combined with local meteorological and pollution data to estimate hourly air pollution removal, total carbon storage, and annual carbon sequestration.
Results - urban forest effectsAir quality
Urban vegetation can directly and indirectly affect local and regional air quality by removing air pollution and altering the urban atmospheric environment. Factors that affect pollution removal by trees include the amount of healthy leaf-surface area, concentrations of local pollutants, and local meteorology. In the US, urban forests are estimated to remove about 711,000 metric tons ($3.8 billion value) of air pollution per year (Nowak et al., 2006). Computer simulations using the UFORE model with local field data reveal that pollution removal by urban trees in selected cities range from 8 metric tons per year in the developed portion of Fuenlabrada, Spain, to over 1500 metric tons per year in Atlanta and New York. Amount of pollution removed was typically greatest for ozone, followed by particulate matter less than 10 um, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and carbon monoxide. Annual value of pollution removal, based on national median externality values for each pollutant (Murray et al., 1994), ranged from $48,000 in Fuenlabrada to $8.3 million in Atlanta.
Average annual pollution removal per square meter of canopy cover was 10.4 g, but ranged between 6.6 g/m2 in Syracuse to 27.5g/m2 in Beijing, China. Excluding Beijing, which has a relatively high pollution concentration, the average is 9.3g/m2. The average annual dollar value of pollution removed per hectare of tree cover was $552 ($508 excluding Beijing), but ranged between $378/ha cover in Syracuse to $1223/ha cover in Beijing. Increasing tree cover in urban areas will lead to greater pollution removal, as well as reduced air temperatures that can help improve urban air quality.
Carbon sequestrationTrees can reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), the dominant greenhouse gas, by directly storing carbon (C) from CO2 as they grow. In addition, urban trees can also reduce C02 emissions from power plants by reducing building energy use by lowering temperatures and shading buildings during the summer, and by blocking winds in winter (Heisler, 1986). Healthy trees sequester carbon each year; large, healthy trees sequester about 93 kg C/yr as compared to 1 kg C/yr for small trees. Net annual sequestration by trees in the Chicago area (140,600 t C) equals the amount of carbon emitted from transportation in the Chicago area in about 1 week (Nowak, 1994).
Urban trees in the coterminous United States currently store 700 million metric tons of carbon (335 million t C to 980 million t C; $14,300 million value) with a gross carbon sequestration rate of 22.8 million t C/yr. The estimated carbon storage by urban trees in United States is equivalent to the amount of carbon emitted from US population in about 5.5 months. National annual carbon sequestration by urban trees is equivalent to US population emissions over a 5-day period (Nowak and Crane, 2002).
Stream flows and water quality
To determine the effects of urban trees on water quality, it is important to accurately quantify the effects of trees on stream flows. Urban trees affect stream flow by intercepting rainfall, transpiring water, affecting evapotranspiration of surrounding areas, and by affecting soil infiltration rates. In addition, urban trees also affect water quality by intercepting atmospheric pollutants, reducing runoff, which indirectly affects water quality, and by increasing infiltration rates in pervious areas. As trees have a relatively large impact on runoff during small frequent storm events and the most water quality control benefit is derived from the treatment of small frequent storms (Department of Irrigation and Drainage, 2000), the potential impact of urban trees on water quality is likely to be significant. To quantify the effects of urban tree and impervious surfaces on stream flow, a simulation was conducted using the UFORE-Hydro model (Wang et al., in review a, b) on the Dead Run watershed (14.3 km2) in the Baltimore, Maryland region. In the watershed, current tree cover is 13.2% with an impervious cover of 29%. Increasing tree cover in the watershed to 71 % (keeping total impervious cover at 29%) is estimated to reduce total runoff in the watershed by about 5% for the simulation period of the year 2000. Increasing impervious area from 29% to 75% (keeping tree cover at 13.2%) increased total runoff by about 50%. These results are annual effects, and variation in tree effects will occur during each season of the year. These types of data can be used to simulate the effects of changes in urban tree and impervious cover on water quality in future simulations for cities.
Urban forests and environmental programs inthe United States
In the United States, there are several environmental programs or protocols where urban trees could make a contribution to improving environmental quality: State Implementation Plans (SIPS) of the Clean Air Act; Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) and Stormwater Program for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems of the Clean Water Act; and the Kyoto Protocols aimed at reducing greenhouse gases. The United States, although a signatory to the protocol, has neither ratified nor withdrawn from the protocol (UNFCCC, 2006a; Wikipedia, 2006).
State implementation plans
The Clean Air Act requires attainment of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) (US EPA, 2006a) for criteria air pollutants that cause human health impacts (e.g., ozone). Each non-attainment state must develop a state implementation plan (SIP) to attain the NAAQS by the applicable attainment deadlines. In September, 2004, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a guidance document titled "Incorporating Emerging and Voluntary Measures in a State Implementation Plan (SIP)" ((US EPA, 2006b). This EPA guidance details how new measures, which may include ""strategic tree planting," can be incorporated in SIPS as a means to help meet air quality standards set by the EPA. Due to the new ozone standards (US EPA, 2006c)many urban areas are designated as non-attainment areas for the ozone clean air standard, and are required to reach attainment typically by 2007-2010 (but up to 2021 for Los Angeles).
As many of the standard strategies to meet clean air standards may not be sufficient to reach attainment, new and emerging strategies (e.g., tree planting, increasing surface albedo) may provide a means to help an area reach compliance with the new clean air standard for ozone. "In light of the increasing incremental cost associated with stationary source emission reductions and the difficulty of identifying additional stationary sources of emission reduction, EPA believes that it needs to encourage innovative approaches to generating emissions reductions" (US EPA, 2006b). This new emerging and voluntary measures document opens the door for urban tree programs to get credit within environmental regulations set to improve air quality (Nowak, 2005). Though this document specifically mentions trees, other environmental quality programs also have the potential to incorporate trees, though current documentation may not specifically mention trees.
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Stormwater Program for MunicipalSeparate Storm Sewer Systems
A TMDL specifies the maximum amount of a pollutant that a waterbody can receive and still meet water quality standards, and allocates pollutant loadings among point and non-point pollutant sources. A TMDL is the sum of the allowable loads of a single pollutant from all contributing point and non-point sources. The Clean Water Act, section 303, establishes the water quality standards and TMDL programs. States should describe plans for implementing load allocations for non-point sources, including reasonable assurances that load allocations will be achieved, using incentive based, non-regulatory or regulatory approaches (US EPA, 2006d).
Storm water run-off is a leading source of water pollution and can harm surface waters such as rivers, lakes, and streams which, in turn, causes or contributes to non-attainment of water quality standards. Residential and commercial development substantially increases impervious surfaces where pollutants settle, thereby increasing runoff from city streets, driveways, parking lots, and sidewalks (US EPA, 2006e). The Stormwater Program for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems is designed to reduce the amount of sediment and pollution that enters surface and ground water from storm sewer systems.
Stormwater discharges associated with Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems are regulated through the use of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits (US EPA, 2006f). Through this permit, the owner or operator is required to develop a stormwater pollution prevention program that incorporates best management practices (US EPA, 2006e).
As trees can reduce stormwater flow and consequently improve water quality, urban forests have the potential to impact TMDLs and be incorporated in best management practices to reduce sediment and pollution from storm sewer systems. Though trees have the potential to improve water quality, the magnitude of their effect must still be quantified to determine if the effects are significant enough to warrant inclusion in these programs and to identify what types/designs of tree programs are most appropriate for optimal effects on water quality in particular instances.
Kyoto protocol
The average temperature of the earth's surface has risen by 0.6 "C since the late 1800s and is expected to increase by another 1.4-5.8 "C by the year 2100. Major contributors of carbon dioxide, a dominant greenhouse gas, are fossil fuel emissions and deforestation. Over a decade ago, most countries joined an international treaty - the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change - to begin to consider what can be done to reduce global warming. In 1997, governments agreed to an addition to the treaty, called the Kyoto Protocol, which has more powerful (and legally binding) measures. The Protocol entered into force on February 16, 2005 (UNFCCC, 2006b). As urban trees can both directly sequester carbon dioxide, a dominant greenhouse gas, and reduce carbon emissions from power plants, they have the potential to help reduce greenhouse gases and be incorporated with Kyoto Protocols.
Conclusion
Urban forests can improve environmental quality in urban areas. The types and magnitude of these improvements need to be accurately quantified. If vegetation effects are demonstrated to improve environmental quality, then programs/regulations designed to improve environmental quality can and should consider incorporating urban vegetation as a means to meeting established quality goals. Establishment of urban forestry programs to meet environmental quality standards can be a cost-effective "biotechnological" means to meet multiple standards (e.g., air and water quality, greenhouse gas emission reduction) as trees provide multiple benefits for a singular cost.
Note: The Kyoto Protocol is an international scale agreement that may seem irrelevant to local urban forest managers. However, many cities in the US and around the globe are in the process of adopting greenhouse gas emission control and management strategies for local implementation. As this article points out, urban forestry should be considered as a tactical measure in the development of these local strategic plans.
- Eric Seaborn, Program Coordinator
“….the Earth…where a thin blanket of air, a thinner film of water, and the thinnest veneer of soil combine to support a web of life of wondrous diversity in continuous change.” - Jack Eddy 1
Let’s get one thing straight right off the bat. Soil is not dirt. Soil is a complex material comprised of mineral and organic matter, water, air and, many would include, organisms that supports the growth of plant life and, by extension, almost all life as we know it. Dirt is the “stuff you get under your fingernails and on your pants when you work,” as a college professor of mine used to say.
As “tree people” we can never over estimate the importance of healthy soil and its vital contribution to healthy trees and forests. In fact, most of the forestry and arboricultural text books that I have read state quite clearly that, “the relationship between tree root systems and the characteristics of the soils in which they grow has a greater influence on tree health than any other single factor,” 2 or words to that effect. Soil provides critical inputs for tree growth including moisture and oxygen, nutrients, and a medium in which the tree finds stability for growth. Anything that impairs the ability of a soil to deliver these vital growth factors can lead to serious decline or even death of the tree.
An idealized healthy soil contains about 45% mineral matter, the result of perhaps millions of years of breaking down (weathering) of underlying rock, 5% organic material including organisms and their remains, and 50% pore spaces that contain both air and water. The mineral matter in the soil determines the soil texture, meaning the relative fineness or coarseness of the soil.3 Texture is the result of the relative amounts of sand, silt, and clay found in the soil and plays a key role in determining the ability of the soil to hold water and to provide oxygen to trees. This idealized composition of soil is likely more common to the open forest and meadow of undisturbed “natural” areas. As we shall discuss later, the situation in urban settings is often radically different.
I suspect most people can grasp the idea that the mineral component of the soil provides key nutrients for plant growth and that the breakdown of organic matter also provides enriching nutrient inputs. Less intuitive is the fact that the soil under your feet is one half pore space. But, the porosity of the soil is an important characteristic determining the ability of the soil to support tree growth. In simplistic terms, there are two kinds of pore spaces in soils – macropores, that ideally function to provide air to tree roots and help water percolate throughout the soil and micropores, that hold soil moisture that can then be accessed by the tree roots. Pore space and the clumping together of soil matter into clusters (aggregates ) determines the soils structure, which, like texture, helps to determine the water and air holding capacity of the soil and has a major effect upon root growth. Soil structure, particularly formation of aggregates, is heavily influenced by the amount and quality of organic matter contained in the soil. Roots growing in soils that have good structure will find water accessible in micropores and adequate air in the macropores and will be able to grow into the spaces between the aggregates as the tree matures. Again, in urban settings, the scenario is often very different.
Another key factor affecting soil health is its relative acidity or alkalinity, or pH. On the pH scale, a measurement of 7 means that the soil is chemically neutral, less than 7 becomes progressively more acidic and more than 7 becomes more basic. The pH of the soil is important because at different pH levels, essential nutrients can become bound in chemical compounds that make them unavailable to plants. Different species of trees have different pH tolerances, but generally, a range of 6.0 to 6.5 is favorable to most plant growth.4
The Reality of Urban Soils
Unfortunately for us as urban and community foresters, the idealized soils described thus far are often not to be found where we do our work. In the “natural” forest, it is Mother Nature who plays the dominant role in determining soil health through her processes of weathering, organic matter accumulation and decomposition, pH buffering and biological activity. In our communities and urban centers, we are often the principle actor influencing soil health.
Let’s consider just three of the ways that humans can have a negative impact on urban soils.
1. Compaction – when soils are compacted by construction equipment, road resurfacing projects, or even pedestrian traffic, those all important pore spaces are crushed. This reduces the ability of the soil to hold water and air and can make it extremely difficult for tree roots to penetrate the soil interface for growth. Soils comprised of a variety of particle sizes, such as loams, may be more vulnerable to compaction because the smaller particles fill in large pore spaces between coarse particles.5
2. Lack of Organic Material – Urban top soils are often removed for construction projects and, if they are returned, the organic content of the fill is often deficient. Organic material supports the development of healthy soil structure by providing glue like substances that bind soil into aggregates. Lack of organic matter interferes with soil structure, leading to a compacted soil that inhibits root growth. Further, lack of organic matter decreases the activity of beneficial soil organisms and can lead to nutrient deficits as soil nutrients that would be replaced by the breakdown of organics are not restored to the soil.6
3. Contamination - Urban soils are often disturbed many times over the years for construction projects, road resurfacing work and utility maintenance. In many of the projects, materials that can change the chemical activity (pH) of the soil or interfere with the soil structure are introduced into the soil regime. Materials commonly mixed into urban soils include sand, gravel and tarry/oily substances from road projects, concrete and cement as construction debris and hyrdrocarbons (gas and oils) as road surface runoff. Other contaminants might include glass, metals, trash and substances discarded by individuals directly into tree pits and open soil surfaces. All of these materials can degrade the health of the soil and interfere with tree growth and vitality.
Now, think of the typical urban setting around a typical urban tree. That tree is likely growing in a soil from which the organic layer that would be found at the top of the soil in a “natural” setting is minimal or non existent. How common is it for leaves and other natural organic litter to be left under urban trees? Think of the impact this lack of organic material will have on the structure of the soil. That tree is probably planted in a site that has seen at least one and probably several construction projects over the years. The top soil was probably removed to facilitate these projects and, if it was restored at all, what are the likely impacts to structure of removal and mixing? Do you think it probable that the aggregates and pore spaces of the soil survived the construction process? Further, think of the types of activities that commonly affect soils in most construction projects; re-grading, unintentional compaction from movement of heavy equipment or intentional compaction to lay down impervious surfaces, soil removal, the addition to the soil of debris that can affect pH ….. you get the point.
And, even if there has not been construction, think of the impact of things like tiny little tree pits and their tiny amount of soil, heavy foot traffic under the tree, trash and waste thrown on the soil and even little Fido’s daily salute. Can we really expect the soils to be in good shape? Can we really expect, given what we know about the intimacy of soil/tree relations, that our urban trees will thrive? I think we might if we take a few common sense steps.
A Few Good Ideas
In conclusion, let’s all try to expand our vision to see that the line that separates the tree from the soil is much more blurry than might be perceived at first blush. In effect, the healthy trees that we all admire and work to protect are the upward extension of the healthy soils that lie under them. They are the thin layer of soil reaching up to touch the thin layer of atmosphere and water that together bring life to this our one and only Earth.
Notes:
1. “A Fragile Seem of Dark Blue Light,” in Proceedings of the Global Change Research Forum. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1086, 1993, p.15
2. Arborist’s Certification Study Guide, International Society of Arboriculture, 2001
3. Arborist’s Certification Study Guide, International Society of Arboriculture, 2001
4. Arborist’s Certification Study Guide, International Society of Arboriculture, 2001
5. Arborist’s Certification Study Guide, International Society of Arboriculture, 2001
6. Soil Science Simplified, Helmut Kohnke, Waveland Press, 1994 Protecting and Promoting Urban Forestry through Ordinance One of the more valuable, yet often under-used, tools we have in urban forestry is the ordinance. Ordinances can protect canopy, formalize and standardize procedures, raise awareness, and even raise revenues through permits, fees and fines. While we are lucky in our state to have Massachusetts General Law (MGL) Chapter 87, the Shade Tree Law, which provides some protections for public street trees and outlines a process for removal decisions, a local ordinance can add breadth, depth, and “teeth” to Chapter 87. Although the process of writing and passing an ordinance can be time consuming, a number of Massachusetts communities have successfully developed ordinances, and these can serve as models for you. What an ordinance can do: Some existing Massachusetts tree ordinances are available on our web site at http://www.mass.gov/dcr/stewardship/forestry/urban/urbanFAQs.htm#ordinance and they contain a variety of provisions, including:
Don’t forget sub-division regulations: In addition to ordinances, Massachusetts sub-division regulations allow planning boards to pass regulations that govern the development of new sub-divisions. Tree Wardens and advocates should work with their planning boards to pass or enhance tree related provisions. These regulations can be used to:
Some suggestions: Here are some suggestions for developing and passing an ordinance in your community:
Sample ordinances and sub-division regulations from some Massachusetts communities. www.mass.gov/dcr/stewardship/forestry/urban/urbanFAQs.htm#ordinance Guidelines for Developing and Evaluating Tree Ordinances from the ISA.www.isa-arbor.com/publications/ordinance.aspx. A Guide To Developing A Community Tree Preservation Ordinance, from the Minnesota Shade Tree Advisory Committee. http://www.mnstac.org/RFC/preservationordguide.htm Georgia Forestry Commission’s sample ordinance: Conservation Design Resource Manual: Language and Guidelines for Updating Local Ordinances: http://www.urbanforestrysouth.org/Resources/Library/TTResource.2005-06-08.2338/view.
People Have to Know Each Other - Sherri Brokopp, Urban Ecology Institute
“That’s the thing - people have to know each other. They can’t be strangers. That way when something comes up, we know what to do. We can deal with it together.” With these words, an Urban Ecology Institute (UEI) volunteer reminds us that our work goes far beyond tree planting. Community plantings are an incredibly powerful tool for community building. As urban forestry professionals, we have the opportunity to use the urban environment as a catalyst to improve the ecological health and functioning of our cities, and simultaneously strengthen social ties as a way of addressing a whole host of related urban challenges. In 2005, UEI’s community planting and stewardship program, CityRoots, partnered with nine neighborhood groups and over 140 residents in Dorchester, Roxbury, Chelsea, East Boston, and Lynn to transform overgrown vacant lots, underutilized parks, and barren streetscapes into beautiful, cared-for community spaces. The stories that emerge from these community efforts are inspirational. As residents of Boston’s most underserved communities, many of our partners are constantly facing the overwhelming pressures of living in the urban environment. They sometimes face random violence. They worry about their children, that they will become victims of violence, or join a gang and participate in it themselves. They’re surrounded by drug dealers, and are woken up at all hours of the night by the sound of police sirens. It’s too loud. It’s too hot in the summer. The buses never come when they’re supposed to. Just living, can be a challenge. And yet, in the face of all these trials, residents are coming together to work toward their vision for the community. Our community partners see trees and open space as critical components of the safer, stronger, more beautiful neighborhoods they want to build for their families and neighbors. Through their work with CityRoots, which works with each group over the course of the summer to design and implement a planting project, they improve the look, feel and condition of their physical environment. By working with their neighbors, residents also build the social ties and personal connections that create true community, and through this, they are better able to work collaboratively for positive change. Here are a few of their stories. The Boston’s Hope neighborhood in Dorchester worked diligently all season to transform a vacant lot into a beautiful community garden and park space. Last October they harvested tomatoes, corn, and greens from their garden for a fall festival at their site. Sharing food that was grow by their own labor, binds neighbors to one another. Teens from the BOLD program developed an outreach campaign to encourage residents of Dorchester’s Spencer-Whitfield neighborhood to plant trees in their front yards. There are a number of older residents in the neighborhood, and some reacted to the teens with hostility and suspicion at first. But the teens persisted. In the end, they planted with five residents. As the season wore on, the teens developed strong relationships with their older neighbors. One afternoon everyone was talking together on the front porch of a house at which they had planted a tree. As the conversation was drawing to a close, one of the teens said “We need to spend more time together talking about all these good things, instead of just complaining all the time.” The Jeffries Point Crew in East Boston planted six trees in a waterside park. Several of the women in this group had been in East Boston all their lives, and shared stories about how they used to play in that park as children, and how their children had done the same. As they grew up, they watched the park decline. At one point, a trash barge was permanently stationed just off the park, close enough that children could easily swim to it. Replanting this park with trees – restoring it to the way they remembered it – was an exercise in healing for these women. And by telling their stories, they were able to link the other participants to the history of their neighborhood. During one of our planting days, someone walked by a group of high school students who were planting a tree and said, “Who cares about all these stupid trees. When are we going to start taking care of people?” In a city facing as many challenges as Boston, this is certainly an understandable sentiment. But we know that healthy trees and strong communities go hand in hand. Just ask any CityRoots participant. Speaking to her Forester, one young woman said, “It’s funny. I walk by these houses all the time and I never knew who lived in them. You know Bill who was here working last week? I walk by his house everyday on my way to school. Now, when I see him and his wife out in the yard, I know who they are.”
Using an Easement as a Tool for Private Tree Protection - Hugh Kelleher, Chair, Newburyport Tree Committee In 2005, the Newburyport Tree Committee was contacted by homeowner Claudette Moore who was selling her family’s impressive property located on High Street. A massive copper beech stood in Claudette’s backyard, and she wanted to ensure that no one ever cut down that tree. Not long before, she had seen a developer purchase a nearby home, and then remove another specimen beech in order to build a second home on the property. How could a homeowner who loved a tree on her property make sure that it was permanently protected? Was there a way to ensure that, even after Claudette’s property was sold, the historic copper beech would not fall to some future developer’s chain saw? Claudette herself had done preliminary research, and learned that in the State of Washington, easements had been used to protect individual trees. Working with the Tree Committee’s volunteer lawyer Anne Dawley, a standard easement was drawn up. One important question was: Who would hold the easement? The Tree Committee was an official city body, and if the Tree Committee were to take possession of an easement, many political issues might be raised. The mayor and city council might need to get involved and grant official approvals. Instead, the Committee immediately created a non-profit group. Those of us on the Tree Committee had been planning, since in our inception in 2001, to create just such an entity in order to solicit funds and carry out activities that could be officially independent of, but work in partnership with, our city government. The need for a legal entity spurred us to get the paperwork done quickly. Within weeks, our non-profit Friends of Newburyport Trees (FONT, Inc.) was established with Tree Committee member Ed Taylor as our first President. Attorney Anne Dawley then drew up an easement. Keep in mind that an easement to protect a tree (or small group of trees) is not to be confused with a “conservation easement.” Conservation easements are typically used to protect parcels of land. Here, the goal was simply to protect a single tree. This easement is essentially the same type that one property owner might grant a neighbor who wishes to use a pathway across the property. The easement means that the primary land owner still controls the property, but it grants certain rights to the easement holder. In this case, it is the responsibility of the property owner to maintain the tree, and periodic visits to inspect the tree may be arranged by FONT. However, the easement does not grant the public – or even representatives of FONT – the right to use the property. The sole purpose is to protect the tree. When the tree declines, is damaged or becomes a hazard, the owners have the right to remove it. However, they must give 28 days notice to FONT, who would then inspect the tree. The easement specifically states that pruning and restoration alternatives are preferable to removal. It would be up to FONT, as the easement holder, to legally enforce those provisions if ever there were a dispute. No surveying or sophisticated documentation was required. The tree was described in the easement, and a simple hand drawing of the area at the base of the tree was added. The easement must be renewed every thirty years. In an interesting twist, the documentation was not quite ready when the property was sold. But the new owners had purchased the property in part because of their own appreciation of the beautiful copper beech. They enthusiastically signed the easement, and it now is part of the deed registered with Essex County. We believe that this model can be replicated and used to protect special trees across our commonwealth. We have posted copy of the easement at www.mass.gov/dcr/stewardship/forestry/urban/urbanFAQs.htm#ordinance. Feel free to copy it, and use it. We should point out that, like all innovative legal approaches, an easement to protect a tree has not been tested in the courts. However, since it uses exactly the same type of format that has been in effect for generations, we believe that it would stand up to any legal test. We hope this approach will be used to protect a number of other trees in Newburyport and many other communities in the coming years.
The History of Town Tree Management A case study of Lexington. - excerpted from a paper by Karen Longeteig “If you want to understand today, you have to search yesterday.” ~Pearl Buck Lexington’s history of tree management probably mirrors many other small towns in New England. It is a repeating cycle that we can still learn from today. At times, trees received a lot of attention, but much of the time, they received rather little. While the problems concerning Lexington’s trees are nearly universal – street widening, labor shortages during the wars, the fight against Dutch Elm Disease, the hurricanes of 1938 and 1954, pesticide spraying, and budget cuts after Proposition 2 ½ – others were unique to Lexington’s growth as a bedroom community and as the guardians of American ‘sacred space’ on the town’s Battle Green and other historic structures. The earliest records reported only sporadically on trees. Street trees were not systematically planted in colonial times. But by the early 1800s, East Lexington benefactors Stephen and Eli Robbins planted elms along Massachusetts Avenue. Town records for 1887 contain accounts of the bitter opposition to the loss of trees in front of Robbins-Stone property, in East Lexington, when Massachusetts Avenue was ‘adjusted’. Lexington’s Battle Green, with its important history, had been landscaped and planted with trees since about 1875. It has consistently received careful attention since then, no matter what happened to trees in the rest of the town. The administrative structure of those caring for trees has changed many times over the years. Systematic reports have been kept since 1901. From 1913 to 1930 the “Moth Department” or “Insect Suppression Department” seemed to take priority over the Shade Tree Department. Later on, both came under the umbrella of the DPW, and “trees” as a subject matter was sometimes omitted from Town Annual Reports. Today, the Forestry Division has become part of “Parks, Trees, and Cemeteries,” all headed by the Superintendent of Public Grounds who is also the Tree Warden. In 2001, the town passed a new tree by-law establishing a formally appointed Tree Committee, whose role is to advise the Warden and the Selectmen on tree matters. In the early 1900s, trees began to suffer the indignities of increasing urbanization – wounds inflicted by delivery wagons, being “charged” with electricity from un-insulated wires, or poisoning by natural gas escaping from underground mains. Large trees were constantly lost to street widening, curb and sidewalk construction, or the “application of oily substances.” A schoolchild was killed in 1919 by a falling limb, and the tree department spent much of the next two years frantically pruning. The first known instance of an inventory was in 1920 when the Lexington Field and Garden Club funded a survey showing that 191 new trees were needed to fill vacancies, and that 70 old trees needed removal. The estimate of the number of Lexington’s trees has greatly varied over the years since then. In 1913, the guess was 4,000. In 1935, the department reported spraying a total of 47,573 trees. In 1969, the estimate was 10,000, but the very next year they reported 40,000, a number which continued to be used for several years. By 1992, the guess was back to 9,000 or 10,000 trees. The Tree Committee today has ambitions to provide a firm number in four or five years, although the precise number is less important than efforts to map tree sites and conditions. Our love affair with elms is no different than any other New England town. Wardens in the early days seemed to be quite expressive about the aesthetic value of their trees. “Lexington owes much of its beauty as an old New England town to the massive elms that border many of its streets,” and further that it was important to “exercise the forethought that a century ago provided these trees for us to enjoy.” Trees planted in the year 1922 included 48 “mostly elms” inter-planted between older elms on Massachusetts Avenue and Muzzey Street to continue “our elm-arched streets.” By 1933, the town took official and uneasy notice of the new elm disease. The Tree Warden suggested further study of Dutch Elm Disease (DED) “which is becoming quite prevalent throughout certain sections of the country, and we must guard against it as eighty per cent of our street trees are elms.” He recommended planting 200 Lindens, evidently as a precaution to diversify tree types. During the Depression, Lexington benefited from several US Government-funded work programs. Some concentrated on insects, taking measures against gypsy moth and tent caterpillars. Contests were held for schoolchildren to collect tent caterpillar clusters, and one year over 55,000 were collected. In 1938, Works Progress Administration projects included a Tree Census – its whereabouts unfortunately not now known. In 1935, the federal ERA paid for a survey of all the elms. None were infected with DED although some of the vector insects, Elm Bark Beetles, were found. In what amounted to a numerical survey of town trees, the warden reported that they sprayed 4,777 elms and 42,796 other species of trees. This number is far higher than earlier reported tree count estimates. A cynic would say that perhaps the government reimbursed the town by the tree – so the town was either generous in its estimate, or took the trouble to actually count existing trees. The hurricane of 1938 added greatly to the Department’s work, as it destroyed 1,500 public trees and injured 17,000 which “now must be repaired.” In replanting, the Tree Warden said he would continue to plant Elms, which despite all pests was the “world’s greatest shade tree.” However, the hurricane decimated New England’s elms. The elm beetle then bred profusely in the dead and dying wood, and hastened the spread of DED. The Town fought its losing battle against Dutch Elm Disease from the first warnings in the late 1930s to the resigned attitude of the late 1990s. In 1946, DED was confirmed in Quincy, only 25 miles from Lexington. By 1947 the Town had a new chemical arrow in its quiver, and began spraying DDT aerially. In 1948, the warden reported, “We have 5,000 elm street trees and 2,000 elms in parks, cemeteries, and schools. DED is only 10 miles from Lexington. Things don’t look too bright.” By 1949 the wait was over; DED appeared in Lexington where it destroyed 17 trees that year. Five years later, there was “such a substantial increase in DED that much of our time was spent sampling and removing.” How many elms were lost over the years, completely altering the appearance of the town? The town’s Annual Reports contain some gaps in the quality and quantity of information; nevertheless the Tree Department usually reported how many elms, specifically, were removed. From 1949 to 1999 it was reported that 1,067 public elms and 971 private elms went down. The actual number removed is undoubtedly higher, due to missing data from reports. In 1982 the warden estimated that there were fewer than 600 left. The technical details of planting have often been a concern of the Tree Warden. He recommended off-berm (setback) planting as early as 1935. In 1946, the recommendation was made to put utilities underground in new subdivisions, so wires wouldn’t be such a problem. However, this was inconsistently done at best. In 1957, Tree Warden Paul Mazerall began 22 years of service through the worst of the elms’ decline. His tenure also coincided with the rapid “build-out”, following WWII, of remaining farmland. Lexington became a bedroom community for Cambridge and Boston, with the population increasing from around 10,000 to over 30,000. With the construction of new streets and subdivisions, there was a great call for new trees. Mr. Mazerall ran a town tree nursery from which hundreds of public shade trees were provided for new streets. He reported in an interview in 2005 that the Tree Wardens in those days had their own budget and authority to use it. He preferred to plant most trees off-berm. In that way, the homeowner would take care of the tree. He noted that he planted mixed varieties on the same street, as he didn’t want to lose them all at once. At the beginning of his employment he planted sugar maples, but found their survival to be poor at street side. The best survival record was held by the Norway Maple, but eventually he “shied away” from it as he saw it volunteering in woods and roadsides. One disturbing theme that emerged throughout Lexington’s history is the wholesale applications of poisonous sprays. As early as 1908, and continuing for nearly 40 years, the town spent sums of $6,000 to $8,000 per year in spraying Arsenate of Lead (lead hydrogen arsenate), and other insecticides, two to three times per growing season. The Lexington Tree Warden in 1952 had observed that “while spraying is beneficial, it also destroys predators such as the ladybug”. In 1963, a year after publication of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, Warden Mazerall reacted rapidly and reported that “the entire Spraying Program was re-evaluated due to information from the UMass Field Station and the Department of Public Health in regard to the effects of spraying on wild life.” In 30 years over the entire US, 1.35 billion pounds of DDT was applied, much of it in the fight to save elms. In 1980, Proposition 2 ½ – a statewide law setting a limit on raising property taxes to less than 2.5% in any one year – was passed and began to affect municipal funding and functioning. In the 1990s, its effects became noticeable in the reduction of tree planting funds as well as in staffing. The Tree Warden began seeking state grants and private donations to support tree planting. In 2000, the division was cut by one full-time employee (from 6), then in 2003 another was cut, bringing the division down to 4 people, who faced the same workload of caring for 130 miles of town streets, plus parks and cemeteries. The town tree nursery was abandoned. To raise public awareness in the 1980s and early 1990s, the town and the Lions Club gave away thousands of tree seedlings, often evergreens, to grade school children for planting at homes. The town applied for and received “Tree City USA” status in 1984 and kept it thereafter. Today’s issues are in many ways similar to some of those of the past. But a new issue in Lexington – mansionization – has been of increasing concern as the cause of tree loss. Otherwise, an accurate tree inventory, the technical aspects of planting, and the dangers of new insects and diseases are all still on the horizon. Hopefully, by gazing occasionally into the past, we can gain perspective on our direction for the future
Planting Trees: The Future Lies in Our Hands - By Jeremiah Woolley, MCA, University of Massachusetts Trees play an important role in our daily lives by providing us with oxygen, beauty, and shade, along with contributing to the green landscape of Massachusetts in which we live. Trees in our communities are also proven to reduce energy costs, decrease air pollution, buffer sound, and increase property values. However, when it comes to planting trees and shrubs in our community landscapes, many fundamental steps are overlooked more often than not. Taking the appropriate steps when engaging in the "simple act of planting a tree," will ensure the longevity and health of our community forests for generations to come.
Steps to proper tree planting
2. Selecting the appropriate species
You should then use this information to determine which species will fit into your location. If the plants requirements match the location, the species is the right choice. 3. Selecting Planting Stock 4. Finding the Root Flare 5. The Planting Hole 6. Tree Preparation and Planting Use the same process for balled and burlapped stock except the wire, twine, and burlap should be completely removed from the ball before backfilling. This will reduce the chances of circling or girdling roots. 7. Care after Planting Taking the appropriate steps when selecting a tree species and planting it, as outlined above, will ensure the longevity and health of the tree for generations to come. Following these few guidelines you will help to make sure that the right tree is planted in the right place, and that the maximum amount of benefits will be provided by the tree as it matures in the landscape. New England's Tree Wardens: Survey on Attitudes and Behaviors - by Robert Ricard, Extension Educator Massachusetts Tree Wardens were the first mandated urban forestry professionals in the United States. Massachusetts first enabled municipalities to appoint Tree Wardens in 1896 then required their appointment in 1899. Since that time the five other New England states have passed similar legislation. As a consequence, Tree Wardens have been practicing urban and community forestry professionally for more than a century. This is dramatic in that many countries have developed an interest in ways to conserve, protect, and manage urban trees only in the last decade or so. Unfortunately, New England Tree Wardens have received little recognition or study, and little is known about Tree Wardens' attitudes of urban forestry or how they acquire new knowledge and learn about urban forestry practices. Knowing who takes care of the urban forest and how they accomplish their work can help outreach educators and policy makers devise strategies and policies to improve the urban resource manager's skills, knowledge, and professionalism. In 2004, the University of Connecticut Cooperative Extension System (commissioned by the Northeast Center for Urban and Community Forestry, USDA Forest Service) conducted a survey of New England Tree Wardens to learn:
Overview of Results: Across New England, only 17% of respondents identified themselves as full time Tree Wardens. However, in Massachusetts, the percentage of full time Tree Wardens was higher at 29%. In terms of priority tasks, Tree Wardens recognize the need to protect the public from tree risk and the results indicate that, in general, Tree Wardens spent most of their time on tree risk assessment and tree removals. However, only 35% indicated that they had a comprehensive risk tree assessment program. Tree Wardens also reported that they recognize the need to replace trees once removed. However, political and municipal budgetary constraints are a fact of life for Tree Wardens. In an attempt to change and address these constraints, some responding Tree Wardens indicated that they do work to educate the public about urban forestry, and more Tree Wardens indicate that they understand the need for public education and would engage in this activity more if they had the time and resources. The level of education of Tree Wardens was uniformly dispersed across the New England states. Nearly all Tree Wardens had at least a high school education with a majority having college degrees. It is interesting to note that one distinctive difference between states is that Tree Wardens in Vermont identified themselves professionally as foresters 83% of the time. In the other states, professional backgrounds range widely and include arborists, foresters, public works directors, engineers, nurserymen, landscape architects, and volunteers. Tree Wardens are also willing to acquire new knowledge in a variety of ways. They do generally have access to the Internet and some, but only 45%, said they use it to acquire urban forestry information. Many Tree Wardens also attend annual educational events, mostly because they want to learn new urban forestry information, but also to meet, interact and share with other Tree Wardens. In Massachusetts, 43% of Tree Wardens attended at least six educational events between 2000 and 2005, and only 13% did not attend any events. These training events tend to be sponsored by a wide range of organizations and institutions. Across New England Tree Wardens report that they prefer to obtain much of their information from other Tree Wardens, however, they also learn from their Tree Warden Association, the Cooperative Extension Service and their state forestry agency. Differences between the states largely reflect differences in population density. Tree Wardens working in the more populated areas of New England tend to be more engaged in urban forestry practices such as tree removals and tree risk assessment. They are also more likely be involved in a tree related law suits and the assessment of fines for tree related violations of local or state laws.
Do New England Tree Wardens practice urban forestry differently from comparable municipal tree managers elsewhere? In short, New England's Tree Wardens report that they are genuinely proud of their roles, that they prioritize their responsibilities with risk tree tasks at the top, and that they seek educational opportunities. These findings bode well for New England's public trees and communities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------- Concord Public Works: Construction and Tree Protection; Standard Operating Procedures Need:
Unlike manmade infrastructure, trees, once damaged, cannot be repaired or replaced, only re-grown. Unfortunately, construction damage to trees is not always obvious or immediately evident. So to avoid costly losses, trees need carefully planned and appropriate protection during municipal or private construction in the public way.
Public Shade Trees
Protection Coordination:
Guidelines:
B. Bark Protection:
C. Protection against changes in grade:
D. Protection of Tree Canopy:
E. SOP Review:
Beyond the Monoculture: Designing and planting more diverse streetscapes Are you tired of street after street of tar-spotted Norway maples? Do you get nervous parking in a downtown lined with nothing but Bradford pears? Have you noticed that every business district these days seems to be dominated by honey locust? Urban foresters have known about the dangers and disadvantages of planting too many of the same species at least since Dutch elm disease ravaged our streets in the 1930's and 40's. And yet, far too often, we continue to plant too many of the same kinds of trees, often in row after row, along our streets and within commercial developments.
Here are some ideas to consider and promote when designing and planting streetscapes for the future.
Growing Space and Diversity:
The second most important rule to consider when planting your community forest is diversity. Diversity minimizes the potential risks associated with monocultures and increases the benefits of the urban forest. A diverse community forest is a goal to be achieved on the broad scale, but diversity is also important to consider when designing an individual streetscape.
Maximizing Growing Space and Diversity within a Streetscape:
Community Tree Wardens: Qualified by Training and Experience Since the 1890's, every town in Massachusetts has been required to elect or appoint a community Tree Warden. The position of Tree Warden is an honorable and skilled role in the community, for this is the sole person charged by state law with the "care and control" of all trees along the public way and on other public properties. Most Massachusetts communities understand the enormous value of community trees and ecosystems, and have taken role of Tree Warden seriously, appointing well trained and qualified individuals and even creating and funding a position of City Forester. Unfortunately, in some communities the importance of the Tree Warden position has waned, and whether as a result of budget considerations or interest, has been designated to already over-burdened public officials who are not trained or qualified in arboriculture or urban forestry, and who may or may not devote sufficient care to our urban forest assets. To address this, the Massachusetts Legislature added to state law, in the 1990's requiring that, at least in communities over 10,000, Tree Wardens must be "qualified by training and experience in the field of arboriculture." Unfortunately, not all Massachusetts communities are currently adhering to this law. Specific guidelines on Tree Warden qualifications, developed by the Massachusetts Tree Wardens and Foresters Association, state that community Tree Wardens should: Both the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) and the Massachusetts Arborists Association (MAA) offer arborist certifications. The MAA certification test is given twice a year and they offer an educational training course, Tree School, every other year. The ISA certification test is offered by the New England Chapter every spring and fall, and the University of Massachusetts runs Green School every other year with a track in landscape management. In addition to state law requiring qualified Tree Wardens, the Massachusetts Urban and Community Forestry Program will begin phasing in a requirement that communities over 10,000 meet the above qualifications if they wish to participate in our grant and awards programs. Massachusetts urban and community forests are vital assets that both deserve and require technical and skilled management. Massachusetts General Laws recognize the value and importance of both the urban forest and the Tree Warden. It's time all Massachusetts communities did so too. Treescaping: Managing wooded roadsides for the future community trees Many Massachusetts communities, both urban and rural, have wooded roadsides that require a different approach to community tree management than do more designed streetscapes. Treescaping is the management of these roadside trees to select the best future community trees and build a canopy of large healthy trees over the road. Treescaping can be visualized as the thinning of carrots in the garden, only on a larger scale. Some carrots are pulled so that the remaining plants can grow bigger and better. Similarly, Tree Wardens and road crews may need to remove some trees along the wooded roadside so that the remaining ones can develop large, healthy crowns. Treescaping is best carried out after hazard trees have been pruned or removed. Treescaping is accomplished in stages by selecting the future trees to retain and then cutting the competing trees. When treescaping, spend your energy and knowledge selecting the "leave" trees (rather than the "remove" trees). Flag them in green, then cut only the two trees that compete most with the selected "leave" tree. It may take two or three years of treescaping to get the roadside into shape. The "leave" trees are gradually released and will develop larger, healthier crowns, and they will be less likely to develop structural defects and become hazard trees thus reducing a community's future costs. Road crews often look at trees as problems or liabilities. However, roadside trees have a myriad of benefits such as living snow fences, stream bank and roadside erosion control, visual screens, and sound barriers. In addition, the shade produced by roadside trees can extend the life of road surfaces by 10-15 years and this deferred maintenance can result in significant savings to communities. All these possible benefits should be considered when engaging in roadside tree management. Ultimately, treescaping will build a roadside community forest of large, healthy, structurally-sound trees, making roads safer, less expensive and more attractive.
Selecting Trees Structure: You should select "leave: trees that are structurally sound (both the individuals and the species). You will not want to select a leave tree that already has a cavity, one that is leaning or one that has co-dominant trunks (unless you can effectively prune one). In addition, you should avoid selecting species that are known as problem street trees such as willow or silver maple. Longevity: Short-lived species such as pin cherry and grey birch may be poor choices to retain as roadside trees. It makes little sense to select a "leave" tree that will die of natural causes in a few years. Spacing: Spacing of residual trees when treescaping will vary depending on species and size. Select a "leave" tree about every 20 feet if trees are less than 6 inches in diameter. For long-lived large species like sugar maples, mature trees will probably be 40 to 50 feet apart. Salt Tolerance: Road salt is a fact of life on paved roads. You should retain trees that are tolerant of roadside salt. The following are relatively tolerant: ash, paper birch, apple, poplars, and black locust. Of moderate salt tolerance are: oaks, spruce, elm, hickory, and yellow birch. A Final Note: Please remember that in Massachusetts, General Law Chapter 87 dictates that a public tree can only be removed on the authority of the Tree Warden and only after a duly advertised public hearing. Low Impact Development: Working with, rather than against, our natural systems What is Low Impact Development? Low impact Development (LID) is an approach to environmentally friendly land use planning and development. It includes a suite of landscaping and design techniques that attempt to maintain the natural, pre-developed, ability of a site to cycle and conserve air, water, soil and nutrients. LID techniques use design and vegetation to capture water on site, filter it, and let it soak into the ground where it can recharge the local water table rather than being lost as surface runoff and causing flooding. These same techniques also conserve soil and nutrients which are often lost in traditional development. An important LID principle includes the idea that stormwater is not merely a waste product to be disposed of, but rather is a resource to be managed and conserved. Trees and other vegetation play a vital role in LID. Where should LID be used? LID can be applied to new development, urban retrofits, and redevelopment / revitalization projects at many scales. At a small scale, LID techniques can be used to better handle rainfall for a single family lot through rain barrels and rain gardens. At a larger scale, proper site design in combination with many landscaping and infiltration techniques distributed through out a subdivision cumulatively improve runoff management, reduce temperatures and improve air quality. Conventional Development vs. LID: Conventional development techniques often clear all trees and valuable topsoil from a site and re-grade it so that all water ends up in one large detention basin. Resulting problems include loss of recharge, increased water and air temperatures, decreased water quality and higher runoff volumes. The LID approach protects the natural ability of the site to capture precipitation, keep it clean and allow it to recharge the local water table. This is achieved by applying a suite of tools including:
What are the benefits of LID?
Stormwater Management: LID techniques can help us reduce runoff and non-point source pollution. Urban runoff and discharges from storm water outfalls are the single largest source responsible for water quality problems, in the Commonwealth's rivers, lakes, ponds, and marine waters. Aesthetically Pleasing: LID practices are often more cost effective and aesthetically pleasing than traditional, structural storm-water conveyance systems and large paved areas. Lower Maintenance: LID measures reduce municipal infrastructure and are therefore lower in maintenance than conventional, structural storm-water controls. (EPA Low Impact Development, a Literature Review, 2000). Many LID techniques can be maintained using traditional landscaping practices. Cost Effective: LID techniques require less constructed infrastructure, increase the value of properties, reduce irrigation costs and often increase the number of units which can be developed on a site.
The Law of the Trees: The legal dimensions of community tree management In 1899, the Massachusetts Legislature recognized the vital role that community trees play in protecting our local environments and economies. In that year, they created the position of community Tree Warden and endowed this individual with the noble charge of “the care and control of public shade trees.” Today, the legacy of this foresight is embodied in Massachusetts General Law (MGL), Chapter 87, Shade Tree Law. We are lucky here in Massachusetts, for some places have no laws protecting community trees, and they can be planted on a whim or removed at will. But under MGL Chapter 87, no one may plant or prune a public tree without permission of the Tree Warden (this includes cutting roots). And no one, including the Tree Warden, may remove a public tree without a duly advertised and posted public hearing. These provisions recognize, not only the value of trees as a part of community infrastructure, but also the need for our community forest to be managed by someone who is qualified by training and experience to act as a steward this vital resource. Balancing Trees, Roads and Safety Chapter 87 also recognizes the needs of roads. It gives the care and control of trees on State Highways to the Massachusetts Highway Department, and it allows trees to be removed for road widening if so ordered by the proper officers. However, in the 1970s the Legislature recognized that in some cases roads were trumping trees and valuable community assets were being lost to road reconstruction. To combat this, they passed MGL Chapter 40 Section 15C the Scenic Roads Act. This law allows a community to return to a balanced approach. A community can designate any or all of its roads (other than state numbered routes) as Scenic Roads. Under Chapter 40, no public trees can be trimmed, cut or removed for the purposes of road repair, maintenance, reconstruction or paving without the prior written consent of the Planning Board. Not Always Crystal Clear Be Proactive in Overcoming Uncertainty:
Growing Greener:
Tree City USA – Growth Awards Over the next few weeks, nearly 80 Massachusetts communities will submit their applications for Tree City USA, the national award that recognizes a basic community commitment to urban forestry. But once your community becomes a Tree City USA, you have the opportunity to go further. Each year about half dozen communities throughout the state demonstrate significant growth in their urban and community forestry programs and are specially recognized by the National Arbor Day Foundation (NADF) with the Tree City USA – Growth Award. To get the Growth Award, you need to demonstrate an increase in your program’s budget over the prior year, as well as significant additional programming in one or more areas. (A total of at least 10 documented points are required to qualify. For categories and point details see www.arborday.org/programs/TreeCityGrowthAwd.cfm.) Points are awarded for additional programming in the following broad categories: For some inspiration and/or perspective on ideas you may have, here are several Massachusetts examples of Growth Award activities. Remember, Growth Award applications are separate from regular Tree City, but also due to the Massachusetts DCR Urban and Community Forestry Program by December 31. Lawrence developed a new landscaping ordinance (Partnerships - B8 - 5 points), in addition to conducting a community-wide tree event (Education/Public Relations – A5 – 4 points), and a park planting (Tree Planting/Maintenance – D1 – 4 points) for a total application of 13 points. Cambridge significantly updated their website (Education/Public Relations – A6 – 5 points), implemented a new recycling program (Tree Planting/Maintenance – D3 – 6 points), and developed new specifications for street tree pruning (Tree Planting/Maintenance – D5 – 8 points) garnering a total of 19 points. Worcester established a new partnership with their utility (Partnerships – B2 – 5 points), distributed new program literature (Education/Public Relations – A2 – 2 points), and formalized coordination between city engineering and forestry departments (Partnerships – B7 – 6 points) for a total score of 13 points. Hingham provided a new training opportunity for their tree workers (Education/Public Relations – A8 – 6 points) and established a new recycling program (Tree Planting/Maintenance – D3 – 6 points) for a total of 12 points. Marshfield updated a prior planting publication (Education/Public Relations – A1 – 2 points), conducted a community wide tree event (Education/Public Relations – A5 – 4 points), established a new project, “Tree Waters” (Partnerships – B1 – 4 points) and implemented a new aggressive tree pruning regimen (Tree Planting/Maintenance – D5 – 8 points) earning a total of 18 points. Some cautions: Growth Awards are intended to recognize significant growth. They are not intended to be annual awards or as recognitions for well-established and well-funded programs. Annual programs, even if extraordinary, will not alone qualify for the award. Please document each category / point selection you are applying for – no need to document in excess, but you do need to document the timing, type of program and any products you produced. Do not over apply for points. All well-documented points will be accepted. Each April, the DCR hosts a full day Tree City USA Forum where all successful applicants to receive their award, share lunch with other recipients and hear a nationally recognized speaker. Growth Award recipients receive a special plaque and “Growth Award” stickers for their Tree City USA road signs. Massachusetts has the highest percentage of Tree City USA’s in New England – so join in the recognition for your municipality and the commitment for community trees.
Building with Trees: Protecting Our Community Forest during Construction Just as roads perform a necessary transportation function, wires conduct electricity and pipes move water, roadside trees provide a host of community benefits. Community trees help reduce stormwater flows, mitigate flooding, filter the air, reduce heating and cooling costs, add value to our properties, create community character and beautify the landscape -- strengthening the social and economic vitality of our neighborhoods, towns and cities. Unlike other forms of community infrastructure, as living things, once damaged, trees cannot be repaired or replaced, only re-grown. Unfortunately, construction damage to trees is not always obvious or immediately evident. So to avoid costly losses, trees need carefully planned and appropriate protection during any kind of municipal or private construction. Here are a few suggestions. Community trees are under the control of the Tree Warden. The importance of roots and bark Some guidelines for protecting trees Protect roots: Protect the bark: Protect against changes in grade:
Exotic Invasives Threaten our Urban Forests Historically, exotic insects and diseases have been a far greater threat to our forest resources than native insects. One only has to think of the majestic chestnut trees, now extinct because of the Chestnut Blight or the devastation of the American elm because of Dutch Elm Disease. Probably the most famous insect is the Gypsy Moth which has had more money spent on it for research and control than any other forest pest in Sudden Oak Death is caused by the pathogen Phytophthora ramorum. This pathogen threatens our oak woodlands, urban forests, and nursery industry. First discovered in 2000 in California, it has now spread to 13 California counties as well as one county in southwestern Oregon. This disease kills many western oak species. In the Eastern U.S., the northern red oak and pin oak have proven to be susceptible in laboratory tests. Other plants, which can carry the disease, are certain species of rhododendrons, mountain laurel, and viburnum. During 2004, Massachusetts’ nurseries and homeowners received plants from several California nurseries whose stock has now been confirmed to be infested. Through efforts of the U.S.D.A. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service all nurseries receiving stock from those California were identified along with 200 homeowners that received plants directly from the nurseries. All of these Massachusetts nurseries were surveyed by the MA Department of Agricultural Resources’ Nursery Inspectors and had their perimeters surveyed by the MA Department of Conservation and Recreation. Many plants exhibiting foliar symptoms were collected for laboratory analysis but none were found to contain the Sudden Oak Death pathogen. This fall it was discovered that a couple of discount stores in western MA received plant material from an Oregon nursery with infected plants. Unfortunately in this case most of the susceptible plants had been sold before they could be inspected. This latter case does not mean that Sudden Oak Death is present in the natural environment of Massachusetts. There is a great difference between the presence of the pathogen Phytophthora ramorum and Sudden Oak Death disease, but is certainly has created a situation that needs considerable attention. Early detection and identification of infected plants will be the key to containing this disease. Homeowners and nurseries that purchased plant material (rhododendrons, mountain laurel, and viburnum) that originated in California or Oregon are asked to inspect their plants for irregular, necrotic leaf lesions, instead of distinct leaf spots. A leaf infection can develop down the petiole into the twigs sometimes causing a blight where stem and associated leaves wilt, become necrotic, and die. Symptoms on oak can best be characterized by cankers on the truck. These cankers have red-brown to black discoloration and seep dark black to red or amber sap (for photographs see the image library at www.suddenoakdeath.org). Anyone possessing susceptible plants (rhododendrons, mountain laurel, and viburnum) that exhibit foliar symptoms or red/pin oak that have bleeding cankers are asked to report there location to either the Massachusetts Department of Conservation, Forest Health Program at (413) 256-1601 or the Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources at (617) 626-1800. A color information bulletin is also available by contacting the Department of Conservation and Recreation, Forest Health Program at the above number.
Forests in Massachusetts: Forest Fire Control and Forestry If I asked you to create a picture of the forests in the Commonwealth, you might, being a person interested in urban and community forestry, begin by drawing a downtown cityscape complete with tree-lined boulevards and pocket parks. You might then proceed to draw the surrounding suburban areas where streets are lined with mature trees, parks are numerous and private yards feature magnificent specimen trees. You would probably then continue your artistry by depicting tracts of forest that stretch for long distances, only to be interrupted by the occasional road, cluster of homes or farms in a bucolic landscape that uniquely and famously characterizes much of rural Massachusetts. You might create such an image in response to my request, but, in fact, such an image already exists. It graces the cover of our five year plan for the state’s Urban and Community Forestry Program (email me for a copy), and it wonderfully depicts the continuum of community forests, from inner city Boston to the forested slopes of the Berkshires, in which we and our partners work. Of course, this continuum depicts far more than the forests for which we (in the urban and community forestry realm) toil. This image is also a fair representation of the continuum of forestry programs that comprise the Department of Conservation and Recreation’s (DCR) Forest Fire Control and Forestry. The Bureau serves land-owners, forestry businesses, forest workers, communities and the general public. We promote the sustainable use, stewardship and management of our vital public, private and community forest resources. We also protect our forests and rural communities from the threat of wildfires. We accomplish our mission through the work of seven programs: The activities of each forestry program in the bureau are quickly summarized below and a link to each program’s section of the bureau web page is included in the program title. Please read on, visit the web pages and learn what the Bureau of Forest Fire Control and Forestry is doing for you and the generations of Massachusetts citizens to come. Urban and Community Forestry – As you may know, the Bureau's Urban and Community Forestry Program offers technical assistance and grants to assist communities in managing and sustaining a healthy and productive urban and community forest, aiming to improve the quality of life in Massachusetts. Management Forestry – The Management Forestry Program is responsible for the planning and implementation of all natural resource management activities on the State's 285,000-acre forest and parks system, which have just become Green Certified. This would be a good place to start if you are interested in learning more about the management of these lands for both forest products and the public's enjoyment. Forest Health – The Forest Health Program monitors and assesses factors that influence the health of Massachusetts's forests. This would be a good place to start if you are interested in learning about common insect and diseases that threaten trees and forests in Massachusetts. Utilization and Marketing – The Forest Products Utilization and Marketing Program assists landowners, foresters, timber harvesters, sawmills, manufactures, a long with recyclers in the promotion and expansion of the forest products industry in the Commonwealth and the Northeast Region. This would be a good place to start to learn more about the wood industries and wood based initiatives. Forestry Legacy – The Forest Legacy Program is a partnership between the participating states and the USDA Forest Service to identify and help protect environmentally important forests from conversion to non-forest uses. The main tool used for protecting these important forests is conservation easements. The Federal government may fund up to 75% of program costs, with at least 25% coming from private, state or local sources. Forest Fire Control – Since 1911, the Massachusetts Forest Fire Control has been providing aid, assistance and advice to the Commonwealth's cities and towns in the prevention, detection and suppression of forest fires. Under the DCR, Forest Fire Control has been merged with the Forestry to create a new public entity capable of delivering the full range of forestry and fire control services. This web site details these and other services that the Bureau provides as it works towards the protection of 3.5 million acres of state, public and private wooded lands, and over 100,000 acres of municipal drinking water reservoirs that lie within Massachusetts. The portrait of the forest in Massachusetts includes 3.2 million acres of privately owned forestland and 285,000 acres of state forests and parks. Add to this impressive image, municipal watershed lands that cover 245,000 acres and the community forests and trees of 351 municipalities. The picture of the state’s forestlands is complete. Forest Fire Control and Forestry serves all of these public, private and community landowners and stakeholders, protecting and serving the forest, for which they care, from downtown Boston to the Berkshires.
Bringing Back Balance: Managing Invasive Species in the Urban and Community Forest Woodlands, waterways, vacant lots and even our front yards are the front lines of nature’s struggle for life and balance. In all our ecosystems, urban or rural, natural or managed, plant and animal species compete with each other for available space, food and water. When in balance, numerous species successfully compete with each other finding their own niches and resulting in a diverse assemblage. Unfortunately, in today’s global environment we often find ourselves living in ecosystems out of balance. As a result of changing environmental conditions and our own actions and natural migration, single species often introduced from other countries, are invading natural and managed areas, thriving without their natural predators, winning the battles for space, and out-competing and displacing native species. In this way, invasive species diminish wildlife habitat, threaten native species, hinder the natural function of native forests and reduce the overall diversity and vitality of our urban and community forest ecosystems. These invaders can be found to varying numbers in all towns across the state. More and more we are realizing that the issue of invasive species is as important in vacant lots in Roxbury as it is in the field edges of Egremont. The Tree of Heaven (Ailanthus altissima), Black Locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) and, of course, some varieties of Norway Maple (Acer plantanoides) are some of the most notable invasive tree species in our communities. Shrubs and vines that are invading woodland areas include Glossy and Common Buckthorn (Rhamnus frangula and cathartica), Oriental Bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculatus) and Japanese Barberry (Berberis thunbergii). Some species taking over wetlands and waterways include Purple-Loosetrife (Lythrum salicaria), Japanese Knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum) and Water-Milfoil (Myriophyllum heterophyllum and spicatum). These invaders, many are introduced or inadvertently brought from Asia, can out compete local species, restrict natural regeneration, change soil conditions, impact wildlife habitats and lead to reduced overall bio-diversity and ecosystem function. In the urban and community forest, we also have to plan for and manage invasive insects and diseases in addition to plants. Our history with the Chestnut Blight and Dutch Elm Disease has shown that invaders can wipe out a single species in a very short time. Today, new insects on the horizon include the Hemlock Woolly Adelgid (Adelges tsugae), which is attacking our hemlocks, the Asian Longhorned Beetle (Anoplophora glabripennis) which feeds on a variety of species but most notably maples, and the Emerald Ash Borer (Agrilus planipennis) which has wiped out millions of ash trees. Fortunately, these latter two bugs have not yet reached Massachusetts, but chances are, someday they will. Sudden Oak Death (Phytophthora ramorum) is a new disease, which may have recently been transported from California to the East Coast. If any of these invaders become rampant in Massachusetts, they could wipe out one or more of our dominant native species and change our forests forever. What should be done? The next step is educating others. Maybe you could be part of a local committee that could produce a flier or host a workshop on local invasive plants. Perhaps your neighbors would be interested in learning about the plants on their property or band together to control/eradicate invasives in your neighborhood. Or maybe the local newspaper would like to run a story on "aliens taking over." Taking action against invasives may seem like an insurmountable challenge. But as individuals, we have to start by making a difference where we can. It has taken most invasive species decades to get their foothold, and it may take us at least that long to loosen their grip. Start with the decisions you make. Then move on to the actions you take. Here are some tips:
Managing Invasive Species in the Urban and Community Forest ~ written in response to last months article on invasive In general, it is true that invasive species are a threat to native biodiversity and threaten the stability of our local ecosystems. I believe it is important to do a risk assessment and evaluate a number of scientific questions before embarking on an all out effort to rid our landscapes of all of these species. Some non-native species pose bigger threats than others, some non-native species provide considerable benefits under some circumstances, and the cost and practicalities for removing all non-native species everywhere simply cannot be achieved. I would like to temper the recommendations for what should be done. We should focus on species that show a clear tendency to invade and dominant landscapes and which offer no (or very minor) ecological benefit. For examples, I place Japanese Knotweed, Hemlock Woolly Adelgid, and Water Milfoil in this category. Other species, however, such as Oriental Bittersweet, Norway Maple, and Multiflora Rose certainly can dominate ecosystems in harmful ways but in some circumstances offer considerable benefit for some native species and in certain landscapes. A tempered approach to managing these species seems more appropriate. Multiflora Rose and Bittersweet have become important food sources for a number of bird species (as clearly evidenced by the fact that birds have become the major vector for their spread). There are no native species that can adequately substitute as a food source in, for example, the coastal landscape, where human development pressures have wiped out the vast majority of native habitats. We can certainly manage these non-native species in ways to minimize some of their negative impacts, such as strangulation of native trees, but I argue that our goal should not be elimination. Certainly, it is valuable to maintain large tracts of intact native habitats as free of nonnative species as possible. The Australians, for example, have recognized the impossibility of eliminating invasive species from their entire landscape and have worked instead to focus on the protection of specific important breeding habitats and examples of important native landscapes. I agree that for these areas we do need to remove all non-native species to the extent that we are able. In urban landscapes, in particular, however, it seems that pollution and other stressors are very inhospitable for native trees and other species. We now have Norway Maple and Tree of Heaven that thrive in this habitat due to their resistance to these stressors. We are very unlikely to be able to remove these stressors in the near term, but it still seems that urban dwellers do deserve some shade and greenery where native species cannot survive as well. Again, as these species invade large intact protected landscapes, we should look to contain their spread, but we should be denuding our urban landscapes of these species when we have no adequate substitute. We still understand relatively little about the science of invasive species and the role of human disturbance in aiding the spread of non-native species. I advocate for a science-based approach to managing these species that is targeted to specific habitats under specific conditions. Simply, our resources are limited and we need to focus efforts where it makes the most sense scientifically, otherwise we lose credibility as scientists and as resource managers. As citizens, we can work with experts to protect areas where controls make the most sense and which offer the greatest benefits.
Community Forest Assessment Systems in Massachusetts Last fall, we hosted a GIS/Inventory workshop at the Doyle Conservation Center in Leominster. We wanted to provide a networking opportunity for communities currently in the midst of developing a GIS-based tree inventory system, while providing an opportunity for others to learn about how these municipalities are progressing, what the stumbling blocks are and how not to reinvent the wheel. Since then, the USDA Forest Service, our primary funding source, has announced that it is beginning to base its funding allocation on how many of our municipalities have programs that can be described as “managing” or “developing”. One of the primary criteria for a “managing” community is having an active management plan that is based on an inventory or resource assessment. This funding allocation and its definitions is still a work in progress, but nonetheless, our funding allocation will be based on how many communities are pro-actively managing their urban forest resource. The simple reason for this shift is that Congress needs to be able to justify its expenditures in urban forestry – that real sustainable change is happening on the ground. You are all a part of creating change on the ground. That is why we are redirecting some of our Planning & Education grant funding this spring toward supporting communities that are requesting support for inventories, surveys, and management plans. Priority funding will go toward those projects which result in a significant and sustained enhancement in the community’s capacity for urban and community forestry management. Please see our grant announcement below. In supporting requests for inventories, survey, and management plans, we hope to reduce duplication of effort and increase the integrity of the data collection and management. Below are brief summaries of current inventory programs throughout the state. All of these communities participated in our workshop last fall. Springfield
Branding the Urban Forest
Funding and Sustaining Your Urban and Community Forestry Program Nationally, very few municipal urban and community forestry programs are “sustainably funded.” Ideally, the benefits of urban forestry are obvious to all and are represented by a stable and sufficient local budget appropriation. Unfortunately, in Massachusetts, especially with proposition 2½ and reductions in state tax rates and local aide, this situation is rare. Local forestry budgets often take a back seat to the growing costs of education, health, and safety. Attaining stable and full funding for your urban forestry program can be a daunting challenge in today’s climate, but one that with effort, can be achieved and will help protect your urban forest resource for decades to come. Whether you are a tree warden, tree committee member, citizen advocate, or municipal leader, there are steps you can take to move your program toward sustainable funding – and away from the whims of annual budget cuts and fluctuations. DCR’s Urban and Community Forestry Program recommends that communities assess their current funding resources, and then work to move along the following progression: Do you have: At the heart of sustainable funding is a sufficient local budget appropriation. Securing and sustaining this requires the backbone of the community. Successful communities: This third strategy, making the budgetary case based on a systematic assessment of your urban forest resource, can be important for reaching the higher levels of the funding continuum. Just imagine being able to go to your community’s finance committee with the numbers at your finger tips that show the value of the urban forest, the needs for maintaining it, and the costs of not doing so. While this article does not focus on issues of assessing your local urban forestry resource, DCR’s Urban and Community Forestry staff can help you determine how best to do this. In setting your final budget goals, consider your basics needs, but also go beyond this to ask whether there is adequate funding to meet the legal requirements of enforcing local ordinances and by-laws, conduct cyclical pruning (every 5-7 years) and hazard tree surveys, continually updating inventories and management plans, train staff and provide public outreach. Also assess the past, current and future management of your program – has the resource been managed well in the past? Is there now a backlog of maintenance due to budget cuts? Are you worried that leadership changes in the future could reduce funding? (See PA Fact Sheet #5 below.) Every community can creatively address local needs, but initial creativity does not necessarily lead to sustainable funding. Be creative in gaining the attention of your community and potential funders, but also be directed in seeking long-term, stable funding (see PA Fact Sheet #1 below). The fact sheets and other publications below are an excellent resource for thinking “outside the box” in growing funding for your program.
Natural Disaster Planning for Communities and Tree Care Firms A storm is coming. Are you ready for it? For citizens, communities and tree care firms, natural disaster planning is critical for success before, during, and after a storm event. Those involved in community forestry must recognize that as trees grow and mature, their needs change. Newly planted, young trees must be cared for to ensure good form and strength. Older, mature trees must be maintained to ensure health and productivity, and reduce hazards. Proper planning takes these different needs into account, anticipates unforeseen events, and insures a community’s readiness. Several types of community forestry plans may be useful in the event of a natural disaster. These plans include:
Planning for a Community: For most communities, it’s not a question of “if” a storm will occur, but “when.” Communities that are prepared for storm events will respond more effectively and will likely recover more rapidly. Planning allows a community to anticipate needs, prioritize activities, and identify the appropriate use of staff and equipment. Planning will vary among communities, depending their size, budget, staff, and available equipment.
Planning Keys to Success for a Community: Planning for a Tree Care Firm: Tree care companies will vary in their ability to plan for and respond to natural disasters. The role they play will depend on the type of work they normally perform, staffing, and equipment available. A tree care firm must recognize that a natural disaster can be a real opportunity or a burden. A firm may be overwhelmed by the amount of work they may be requested to do after a natural disaster, or they may see disaster clean up as an opportunity to profit. For a professional tree care company to be effective after disasters, it is critical that they are prepared to respond to storm damage in a timely manner, with trained staff and appropriate equipment. This preparation enables them to provide the necessary emergency assistance that clients will expect and depend on.
Some Recommended Community Preparation Activities:
Urban Fruit is Urban Forestry When most people think of an orchard, they imagine acres of trees, row after row, usually of one type of fruit. In this age of imports and exports we often forget that not all orchards are not multi-acre rural sites with hundreds of trees. There could be one in your own backyard, even in the middle of the city. A few plum or pear trees in a park becomes an orchard that provides refreshing treats in mid to late summer for passers-by. A schoolyard with a few apple trees is an orchard that offers students a healthy alternative snack in the fall. For the homeowner, two apple trees in the back yard is a family orchard. Even a self-pollinating peach tree on the side of a house will probably meet all of a family’s peach needs. Tired of looking at the chain-linked fence between you and your neighbor, why not have it become a grape trellis? Many fruit trees are hardy enough so that even someone with the smallest green thumb can feel a sense of accomplishment. Fruit and nut bearing trees afford the same benefits as other urban trees. They provide beauty, shade in the summer, a nearby relief to carbon-based pollution, and proximity to nature. An important added benefit is the food they give. As an orchardist, you can derive the same satisfaction as gardeners who grow their own food, usually with less work. Growing fruit is relatively inexpensive and easy, and you will be providing security for yourself and your neighbors by removing the middlemen and eating locally grown produce. Instead of eating apples trucked in from Idaho or shipped from New Zealand, you will be making a step towards sustainability. Although your fruit may not be as shiny as that on the supermarket shelf, you can take pleasure in knowing that it is chemical free and organically grown. One note of caution when growing any sort of food in an urban area is that you should test your soils beforehand. While there is no evidence that soil contaminants make their way into the fruit itself, we don’t advocate growing any sort of food in soil that may be polluted. Since 1990 the EarthWorks projects has planted more than 800 fruit and nut bearing trees, shrubs, and vines in 60 urban orchards in Greater Boston. These sites vary in size from a few grape vines to nearly 100 trees and are located in schoolyards, parks, historic house museums, community centers, church yards, vacant lots, and other publicly accessible open spaces. Over time, EarthWorks has created a variety of educational programs to use urban orchards as outdoor classrooms. Through educational programs and “tours of the orchards,” Boston residents learn about natural food growing, harvesting, plant life cycles, and ecosystems. They learn to appreciate how orchards and natural areas help moderate the city climate, benefit wildlife, and clean the air, water and soil. EarthWorks also provides education for the hundreds of volunteers in its annual tree planting programs in hopes of fostering a connection with nature and strengthening environmental sensitivity and ethics. For all kinds of information on what, when, and where to plant, as well as how to care for your small orchard, visit the urban orchards website and download the new EarthWorks horticultural manual, at www.urbanorchards.earthworksboston.org/.
The Social and Economic Benefits of Trees Adding More Green Can Make Life More Manageable For more information about these and other social scientific studies, visit www.herl.uiuc.edu. Economic Benefits of Trees in Communities
For more information about the benefits of community trees visit www.cfr.washington.edu/research.envmind/index.html
The Eight Habits of Highly Effective Urban and Community Forest Management There was a time, when we thought about Urban Forestry in terms of single street tree management. In recent years, however, most urban forestry professionals have grown to recognize that those individual trees grow within the context of an urban and community forest ecosystem, and that the management of this resource requires a community approach if not even an ecosystem approach. But what does this mean in practice? One way to think about this broader approach is to divide urban and community forestry into following eight areas of management (as if there was not already enough to worry about with planting and maintenance). Mature Tree Care: In most communities, the most pressing urban forestry management need is around the removal of dead and hazardous trees, and the maintenance of existing trees. This is where many of the risks to public safety lie. This is where the bulk of financial resources are spent. It is also the place where money well spent today, can result in much more saved tomorrow. Growing the Community Forest: Designing for, selecting and planting the right trees in the right places is what excites a lot us about this field. It is how we ensure that our children’s communities will be as beautiful and healthy as they can be. It is how we propagate the resource. And it is distressing that in recent years in most Massachusetts communities, planting has lagged far behind removals. Conserving Canopy: If we only concern ourselves with maintaining and planting, we may forget about the overall state of the “canopy” of our communities. Are we losing canopy to land clearing or private development? Are ornamentals replacing large shade trees? Is the quality or health of our overall canopy declining? Without concerted attention to “canopy,” we may well miss the forest for the trees. The above three themes are the ones we might think of as the “tree centered” aspects of urban forest management. But they cannot be effectively pursued without also focusing on the following five “supporting” aspects. Community Capacity: Who has the responsibility for urban forestry in our communities? What equipment, skills, knowledge and training do our communities have? And how can this capacity best be enhanced? Effective Guidelines and Policies: Effective urban and community forestry requires clear policies and guidelines that help us meet our goals. Does you community follow State law? Do you have an ordinance and management guidelines? Are trees and canopy integrated into your sub-division and zoning bylaws? Managing through Partnerships: Public trees are not always managed by a single department or agency, nor do they exist in isolation from private trees, commercial trees or institutional trees. The management landscape can be a complex web overlapping jurisdictions. Utility agencies, large institutions, parks departments, landscape companies, conservation commissions and private owners are all partners in management of the urban and community forest. Through good communications and relations, we can often find efficient and effective ways to share costs and work together toward combined goals. Raising Education and Awareness: At the heart of urban and community forestry management is the need for adequate public support and knowledge. Educating our leaders; raising public awareness; teaching about forestry needs, benefits and practices; this is how we ultimately build the long-term support for effective and sustainable urban and community forestry. Finally Funding: Although there may be ways to share costs and do more with less, effective urban forestry requires consistent, adequate and diverse funding. Does your community have support for a sufficient public budget? Do you also bring in other public and private grants? Do you attract private cash and in-kind donations. In this era of diminishing tax resources, all of these sources are vital to realizing our goals. So how do we begin to think about these Eight Habits of Urban and Community Forest Management? Here are a few steps to get started.
Air Quality, Public Health and the Role of Urban Forests Can urban and community forestry play a role in improving air quality? The following is adapted from Dr. David Nowak's article "The Effects of Urban Trees on Air Quality," (see www.fs.fed.us/ne/syracuse/gif/trees.pdf for the full article). The Role of the Urban Forest: The urban and community forest can directly and indirectly, positively and negatively, affect local and regional air quality. But what specific roles do trees play? The four main ways that urban trees affect air quality are: T emperature reduction and other microclimatic effects Temperature Reduction : Urban trees and tree canopy generally contribute to cooler summer temperatures. Decreased air temperatures can reduce pollution emission and ozone formation. Evapo -transpiration (the process through which trees cool themselves by giving off water) and tree canopies affect local air temperature, heat absorption, wind speed, relative humidity, turbulence, albedo (how reflective the earth's surface is) and the height at which air mixes. These changes can reduce temperature and pollution concentrations in urban areas. Maximum mid-day air temperature reductions due to trees range from 0.04°C to 0.2°C per percent canopy cover increase. Reduced air temperatures due to trees can improve air quality because the emission of many pollutants and ozone-forming chemicals are temperature dependent. Removal of Air Pollutants : Trees remove gaseous air pollution and particulates, which contribute to poor air quality and health problems. Gaseous pollution is primarily removed by uptake via leaf stomata. Trees also remove pollution by intercepting airborne particles. Some particles can be absorbed into the tree, though most particles that are retained on the plant surface. A 1994 study showed that trees in New York City removed an estimated 1,821 metric tons of air pollution at an estimated value to society of $9.5 million. Pollution removal rates were fairly similar among different cities ( New York : 13.7 g/m 2 /yr; Baltimore : 12.2 g/m 2 /yr; Atlanta : 10.6 g/m 2 /yr). Large healthy trees greater than 77 cm in diameter remove approximately 70 times more air pollution annually (1.4 kg/yr) than small healthy trees less than 8 cm in diameter (0.02 kg/yr). In urban areas with 100% tree cover (i.e., contiguous forest stands), short-term improvements in air quality can be as high as 15% for ozone, 14% for sulfur dioxide, 13% for particulate matter, 8% for nitrogen dioxide, and 0.05% for carbon monoxide. Emission of Volatile Organic Compounds ( VOCs ) : On the negative side of the equation, trees do emit volatile organic compounds ( VOC's ) which contribute to the formation of ozone and carbon monoxide. However, because VOC emissions are temperature dependent and trees generally lower air temperatures, increased tree cover can lower overall VOC emissions and, consequently, ozone levels in urban areas. VOC emission rates also vary by species. Urban forest management can also lead to pollution emission through the use of fossil fuels for planting, management and maintenance activities. Various types of equipment, from vehicles to chain saws to chippers use fossil fuels and emit carbon dioxide (approximately 0.7 kg/l of gasoline, including manufacturing emissions) and other chemicals such as VOC's , carbon monoxide, nitrogen and sulfur oxides, and particulate matter. Energy Effects on Buildings : Finally, trees reduce building energy use by lowering temperatures and shading buildings during the summer, and blocking winds in winter. Proper tree placement near buildings is critical to achieve maximum building energy conservation benefits. Combined Effects : The cumulative and interactive effects of trees on meteorology, pollution removal, and emissions determine the overall impact of trees on air pollution. A model simulation of a 20 percent loss in the Atlanta area forest due to urbanization led to a 14 percent increase in ozone concentrations for a modeled day. A model simulation of California 's South Coast Air Basin suggests that the air quality impacts of increased urban tree cover may be locally positive or negative with respect to ozone. Modeling the effects of increased urban tree cover on ozone concentrations from Washington , DC to central Massachusetts reveals that urban trees generally reduce ozone concentrations in cities, but tend to slightly increase average ozone concentrations in the overall modeling domain. Urban Forest Management : What can be done through urban forest management strategies to help improve air quality?
The Bay State 's Treasure of Big Trees The image many people have of New England past is a landscape uniformly covered with big trees. Their current image is a landscape devoid of big trees. In fact, neither image is entirely accurate. The landscape of the past did have more large trees than we have today, but they were by no means uniformly distributed across the countryside, and today, we have a surprising population of big trees. The great American sycamores of Massachusetts are cases in point. The well-known Sunderland sycamore measures 24.6 feet in circumference and is 112 feet tall. A few miles distant, the Hatfield sycamore reaches 23.7 feet in circumference and is a surprising 116.5 feet tall. Approaching from either direction, that tree looks every inch of that height, but curiously doesn't seem so large until you get up close. There are other great sycamores in Massachusetts too, six have been measured over 20 feet in circumference and three more over 18 feet. Massachusetts ' big tree inventory is not limited to sycamores. Large eastern cottonwoods that line our waterways have matured and now provide us with their beautiful, craggy profiles. Many measure 10-14 feet in circumference and reach heights of 100-115 feet. So far, we have nine cottonwoods measured at over 120 feet in height in Massachusetts and ten over 14 feet in circumference. The total population of large cottonwoods is considerably more. Whether it be large sycamores, tall cottonwoods, or any other special, old, or historic tree in your neighborhood, big heritage trees have returned to Massachusetts urban and community forests. We now have a second chance to observe and enjoy inspiring images of trees with great spreading limbs and lofty crowns. Unfortunately, because of our fast-paced lives, we often fail to notice the beauty and needs of our great tree treasures. And even more disturbingly, left to fend for themselves, we may lose many of our large trees to development, carelessness and oversight. We need to become tree-conscious and educate ourselves and our leaders about where our big trees fit into the broader scheme of forests, parks, and front yards. Fortunately we have several organizations in Massachusetts to do that. Today the Eastern Native Tree Society has an extensive database of large and/or tall trees in Massachusetts that can help identify special trees that are superlatives by one dimension or another. From the great 163.5-foot tall Jake Swamp white pine in Mohawk Trail State Forest to the 21-foot circumference historic old "buttonwood" on the campus of the Deerfield Academy in Old Deerfield, a new big tree day has dawned. Let's not let the sun set on it without our ever having really known the big tree citizens. Let's find, publicize, and protect them for not only posterity, but for our current-day enjoyment and enlightenment. There are more of them out there than you think.
Beyond Arbor Day: Youth, Adult and Leader Education, a Key Element of Urban Forest Management Around the Commonwealth, some communities, large and small, are beginning to recognize that urban forest education and awareness requires more than just a once-a-year celebration, it requires directed, ongoing programs that educate youth, adults and public leaders about the benefits, needs and opportunities of urban and community trees and forests. Here are some examples. Building Youth Leadership, Stewarding Trees: Boston 4-H Urban Stewards The Boston 4-H Urban Stewards are a group of 13-14 year old youth and their 4-H and UMass Extension leaders, who work in partnership with the Mission Hill Main Streets organization and the Boston Parks Department Urban Forestry Program. The program is a hands-on, community-based, tree stewardship program in which youth learn about trees, tree maintenance and advocacy as they work with professionals who care for Boston 's community forest. In 2003, the youth assessed tree health and maintenance needs of public street trees in the Mission Hill Neighborhood, catalyzed neighborhood volunteers to become involved in tree care and created a "Guide to the Trees of Mission Hill" with color photos, maps and quotes (available at www.cityofboston.gov/parks/streettrees/pdfs/urban.pdf ). The youth leaders learned about urban forestry, digital photography, communication skills and leadership development. The program helped forge youth-adult partnerships and conveyed the valuable lesson that caring for trees becomes care of the community. The Boston Parks Department hopes to expand this youth-driven model to reach additional neighborhoods in the coming year. Inspiring Community Action: Springfield 's Neighborhood Steward Training During 2001 and 2002, the Springfield Forestry and Planning Departments launched a training program for adults from the City's eight "enterprise" neighborhoods. The Planning Department worked with local community associations to recruit interested residents who were willing to attend four training sessions on urban tree issues and then commit to organizing tree plantings and maintenance projects back in their own neighborhoods. Over 40 adults received ten hours of instruction in tree planting, physiology and maintenance, as well as training in community forestry organizing. These new stewards then organized the planting of over 200 trees in their communities. Now, these residents are not only ensuring better care for their own neighborhood trees, but are also advocating for urban forestry at the city level. Raising General Awareness: The World of the Web Some Massachusetts ' communities are making use of the web to raise general resident awareness of urban forestry issues and provide specific information. The City of Melrose Tree Committee has developed a web site that shares information on the committee, tree care, tree selection and the results of their community tree survey, www.melrosetree.org/index.html . The City of Boston Parks Department, Urban Forestry Program web site provides information on the Department, tree care, upcoming tree hearings, and their memorial tree program. This site also recruits residents interested in organizing neighborhood tree inventories and tree plantings, www.ci.boston.ma.us/parks/streettrees/default.asp . Maybe Trees Should Vote: Educating our Community Leaders Finally, a strong community education program should also include ongoing strategies for educating our community leaders about community forestry issues. Be they City Councilors, Selectmen and women, planning board members or highway superintendents, many individuals in every community, both professionals and volunteers, work with or around community tree issues everyday, but most are not fully aware of the needs and benefits of community trees or the best management practices for stewarding trees. One-on-one outreach, power-point presentations at board meetings, simple brochures and fact sheets can all be effective ways to communicate the needs and benefits of trees. To give you some ideas, the DCR Urban Forestry Program does have a number of fact sheets at our web site on various community tree issues including "Why Invest in City / Town Trees" at www.state.ma.us/dem/programs/forestry/urban/WhyInvest-0301.pdf .
If a Tree Falls in the Urban Forest... Establishing a Municipal Tree Risk Management Program Large, old trees are often the ones that provide the most benefits to the urban and community forest. Unfortunately, there is always some risk associated with maintaining large-diameter, over-mature trees in public use areas, as well as in trees that may not have been properly managed in the past. Every community should have a process for assessing, monitoring, and mitigating high-risk public trees. Physical harm and financial loss are the two types of risk associated with trees that a community needs to consider. Municipalities minimize these risks by managing the urban forest resource to reduce the likelihood of harm. In the very rare instance of litigation occurring from a tree or limb failure, a community would have to demonstrate that they have implemented a "reasonable" risk management program. What is reasonable is a function of the resources available to a community. In other words, the level of care given to the trees in one community may not be reasonable for another because of limited staff, equipment, and budget. In order to demonstrate a "reasonable" risk management program, two broad goals are required. 1) Establishing a program, and 2) clearly documenting the program. The first goal addresses the risk of physical harm. The second goal allows a community to defend their program if litigation occurs. Both goals are realized by implementing policies at a micro-scale and a macro-scale. The micro-scale refers to the community's policies toward individual trees. Macro-scale refers to policies regarding the management of the total urban and community forest. More specifically: Goal 1: Should be to design and implement a program that identifies and mitigates the highest risk public trees in the community. At the micro-scale, this might involve promoting activities that increase your knowledge, skills, and experience evaluating individual trees for risk. Examples of specific activities include hazard tree assessment trainings for all staff that work with trees; requiring your Tree Warden to become a Certified Arborist; conducting ongoing "tailgate" trainings on topics like insect and diseases, hazard assessments, and tool safety; and evaluating, with staff present, any major tree part failures. At the Macro-scale, working toward this goal would involve taking the steps to manage the risk for all of the trees in your urban and community forest. These steps are: Goal 2: Should be to articulate and fully document the specific program that has been developed. At the Micro-scale, document that your staff has been trained and are fully qualified to assess trees for risk and to make recommendations on how to best mitigate that risk. At the Macro-scale, document the outcomes from each of the five steps taken in achieving Goal 1. All of your documentation should reside in a Tree Risk Management manual. A manual allows easy access to this documentation and policy for staff, community leaders and the public, and forms the basis for articulating your community's tree risk program. Your program's overall focus will be to identify those features of the urban and community forest that pose the highest risk to the public, and then concentrate the available resources on mitigating those risks. A long-term risk reduction program defines a level of care that is appropriate within your community's available resources. When implemented, you will have established a defensible tree risk management program. Your community will be managing the urban forest to reduce the potential of harm occurring, and when properly managed and documented, your community's overall risk will be diminished. Growing Our Future with Urban and Community Forestry Planning and Education Grants! The green in our budgets may be shrinking, but the green of our community trees and forests keeps on growing and needs our attention. We know that a dollar saved now on community tree management, can easily become five lost down the line in hazard tree mitigation, stormwater damage, and even a reduced tax base (see http://www.state.ma.us/dem/programs/forestry/urban/urbanFAQs.htm#invest for details on how this can be). There is not a neighborhood, city, or town in the Commonwealth that could not be doing more to grow its community forestry program. However, Massachusetts Urban and Community Forestry Planning and Education Grants. But what are these grants, what can they fund, and how do they help? (Get the full application packet at http://www.state.ma.us/dem/programs/forestry/urban/urbanGrants.htm ). Each year, every state receives funding from the USDA Forest Service for Urban and Community Forestry. In Massachusetts , we use most of these dollars for our one-to-one matching Planning and Education Grants directly to communities. This year, we have also received additional dollars specifically targeted toward planning and education projects in "inner-city" communities. The Urban Forestry Planning and Education Grants are meant to help Massachusetts ' towns, cities, and neighborhoods build their capacity for community forest management (see http://www.state.ma.us/dem/programs/forestry/urban/urbanFAQs.htm#strong for rating your community's capacity). Ideally, these grants help move each municipality along the continuum from a community just beginning to address public trees with a few projects, to those that have fully funded and sustained urban forest ecosystem management programs that integrate policy, education, maintenance, planning, and planting. For more ideas on what a thriving community forestry program might entail, check out the Five-Year Plan for Urban and Community Forestry in Massachusetts at http://www.state.ma.us/dem/programs/forestry/urban/urbanPlan.htm . Some Examples of Past Planning and Education Projects Rochester used one of these grants to develop a roadside planting plan and an educational brochure for citizens. In Holyoke , the non-profit organization Nuestras Raices ("Our Roots") trained teens to inventory trees and open spaces along the route of a proposed Canal Walk. These teens then presented their findings and recommendations to the City's Planning Department, which will incorporate them into the redevelopment design. And in the Berkshires, Egremont formed a Tree Committee, developed educational information to raise citizen awareness of community tree issues, and is completing a "heritage tree survey" and management plan. Where You Can Start Every community is at its own starting point, brings its own strengths, and has its own needs for the next step in developing a holistic urban and community forestry program. Now is as good a time as any to take that step. Talk to your colleagues; reach out to other city departments, non-profits, and citizen groups; and develop a proposal for growing your urban and community forestry program. For all potential projects, we encourage you to email or call DCR Urban Forestry staff with a brief description of your ideas, partners, and rough budget so that we can assist you in developing your project and grant proposal. Together, we look forward to Growing the Future of Urban and Community Forestry in Massachusetts . Wat'er Trees Got to Do with It? Most people are aware of the value of trees in the urban environment: noise protection, heat reduction, soil stabilization, oxygen production, carbon dioxide sequestration, habitat creation, and of course, the most obvious, aesthetic beauty that can increase property values by 7 to20%. Yet, how many of us fully aware of the value of trees for Stormwater Management. Trees Can Help Communities Manage Stormwater Since the Clean Water Act of 1975, stormwater management has evolved to address more than quick drainage and flood prevention. The quality of the stormwater runoff from our streets, parking lots, and lawns; and the process of groundwater recharge -- both of which can be seriously affected when vegetated areas are replaced with developed areas-- are now key components addressed in Stormwater Management Plans. The use of trees within development and re-development plans is beginning to be recognized as a key factor in improving overall stormwater management. Some of the ways that tree help manage stormwater include: Low impact development designs, as promoted by the Low Impact Development Center ( www.lowimpactdevelopment.org ) in Maryland , include trees, "rain gardens," and even green roofs for assisting in stormwater management. These low impact designs can greatly reduce pollutant loads as well as stormwater infrastructure costs for development. The use of trees for stormwater management is a great benefit for both urban areas as well as more suburban/rural residential communities where impacts from subdivisions are occurring. What Communities Can Do Some of the methods your community can use to promote the use of trees within development plans and specifically for improving stormwater management include: For managing stormwater and creating more beautiful spaces, the thoughtful use of trees can be both efficient and beneficial. The Once and Future Giant of Eastern Forests In 1904 the forests of Massachusetts and, for that matter, the entire eastern United States from Maine to Georgia and west to the Mississippi , looked quite different. There have been enormous changes in terms of population, industry, and agriculture since then, but in 1904 something was found that eventually lay waste to our forests. At the Bronx Zoological Park , an imported fungus was found killing an American chestnut tree. From that initial observation, the chestnut blight fungus spread swiftly, and within 50 years the blight had virtually eliminated an estimated 4 billion American chestnut trees. For many people, it was hard to believe that a tree that comprised 25 percent of the forest was gone. It was a tree, that when mature, could be 600 years old and average up to five feet in diameter and up to 100 feet tall. Instead, what stood in the wake of the blight fungus were haunting carcasses of massive trees. The devastation of chestnut blight has been called one of the worst environmental disasters that hit our country in the twentieth century. The devastation spurred the passage of the first Plant Quarantine Act in 1912. The loss of the American chestnut affected all kinds of wildlife. Turkey , bear and deer depended on the abundant and nutritious chestnut. The nuts were also an important food and cash resource for many Appalachian families, and the tree itself provided timber for home construction, musical instruments, furniture, fencing, telephone poles and more. In fact, chestnut was one of the best timber trees because it was a straight-grained hardwood, lighter in weight and easier to work than oak, and as rot-resistant as redwood. Fortunately, the American chestnut tree is a tenacious tree that continually sends up shoots from the root-crown collar which is unaffected by the blight. While these shoots also succumb to blight, a few manage to reach the flowering stage. The American Chestnut Foundation (TACF), a non-profit with the mission to restore the America chestnut to eastern forests, works with these flowering shoots to breed a blight resistant American chestnut trees. The stems are bred to Chinese chestnut trees (Castanea mollissima) that have a high level of blight resistance. The Chinese chestnut trees sold in nurseries today can be healthy producers of good nuts and provide a genetic source for blight resistance, but they cannot replace the native chestnut. By starting with a 50/50 American-Chinese hybrid and breeding back to a pure American chestnut with each generation, TACF is hoping to develop a tree that is an American chestnut that has the blight resistance of its Asian parent. With luck, the first line of blight resistant American chestnuts may be available for the public by 2011. New England today, many of other native trees are facing attacks from different exotic organisms and environmental factors. The Hemlocks are struggling with the woolly adelgid. Asian longhorned beetle is at the door. And many ash and sugar maple are showing signs of general decline. Our community forests are changing, and we manage this change with careful community forestry. Yet through the work of groups like The American Chestnut Foundation, some of the giants of the past may soon be making a come-back as renewed components of the community forests of the future. Urban Forestry Plays a Critical Role in Governor Romney's Environmental Vision Governor Mitt Romney's vision recognizes that improving overall quality of life is vital to Massachusetts . The Governor also knows that economic development, affordable housing, transportation, and environmental improvement cannot be pursued in isolation from one another, but must be integrated. His environmental vision accordingly calls for action in five key areas. In Urban and Community Forestry, we have long recognized that the quality of the community environment is inextricably linked to the economy, housing, and transportation. Trees and forests play a vital role in community economic revitalization, neighborhood stability, environmental health, and overall quality of life. Specifically, trees and urban forestry are critical components for realizing Governor Romney's five-point environmental vision. Community-based tree planting and management is clearly an important part of creating and maintaining well-used and attractive parks. Trees can also significantly contribute to Brownfield redevelopment both through bio-remediation (the use of trees to remove pollutants from contaminated sites) and as a central part of attractive and productive landscapes on redeveloped sites. In some communities, Brownfields are even being redeveloped as urban tree nurseries and urban forestry training sites that contribute to the growing green economy. Trees and forests play a crucial role in maintaining water quality and reducing stormwater flows in every community. In a recent article in The New York Times , former Chief of the USDA Forest Service Mike Dombeck stated that, although often forgotten, clean water is our nation's most important forest product. As we all know, trees -- especially urban forests -- are excellent at improving air quality. Trees can help reduce ground-level ozone, reduce urban temperatures, store carbon, and filter particulates that can cause so many health problems in our cities. Finally, active urban forestry, especially in our densest urban neighborhoods, can help stabilize these neighborhoods, increase property values, and improve overall quality of life. This, in turn, will encourage more residents to stay in our central cities and help combat the sprawl which, in itself, has contributed to poorer air quality, declining water quality, Brownfields, and unsafe parks. Getting to Root of the Problem As a practicing commercial arborist and landscape contractor I often find myself in the fortunate position of being able to give attention to trees when they most need it - at planting time. Among the other hats I wear is that of Chair of a Community Tree Board called the Sheffield Tree Project. As a part of this group, I was able to attend the "Community Forestry at its Best" conference last fall at the Arbor Day Farm in Nebraska City , Nebraska . Among the speakers at the conference was Dr. Gary Johnson from the University of Minnesota , who spoke passionately and compellingly about the issues of Stem Encircling Roots on nursery stock. Upon returning from Nebraska , I went about applying this new information to my everyday projects. Using probing techniques described by Dr. Johnson, we checked an allee of Tilia cordata (little-leafed linden) that we had planted the year before. We found that the trees had been planted between 4 and 9 inches about the first main order roots, and stem encircling roots abounded. Later in the fall, the Sheffield Tree Project undertook a small community planting of eight Acer rubrum 'Northwood' (Northwood red maples). I told the volunteers that I expected to have them home for lunch. Instead, we spend about an hour per tree removing 4-5 inches of extra soil from over the root flare. The news is this: The standard methods of planting, transplanting, cultivating, spade-digging, and re-planting all seem to be contributing factors in this epidemic. Whips are planted deep - ironically in the name of stability. Tilling between planted rows in the nursery often results in soil being thrown on top of the root system. Machine-digging of nursery stock can also compress the root ball and raise the soil up further around the trunk. And the final planter, be it a contractor or volunteer, can add insult to injury by planting too deeply and over-mulching. These conditions can alter root growth quickly and radically. The original main order roots grow poorly. Encircling roots being to grow and can begin to girdle the tree and weaken it at the base. It now becomes our responsibility to inspect root flares, correct grade, and decide how this issue will affect long-term success of our planting programs. A few suggestions: Use bare-root materials. This will save of shipping and eliminate poor root structure issues entirely. Inspect plant material at the nursery. You can probe the root-ball and if you can't find the main order roots, then reject the stock. Make your local nursery aware of this issue and of your concerns.
Signs of Spring Have you been watching the maples? I always feel such lightness when I catch that first glimpse of the sugars sprouting taps and buckets in that ancient annual ritual between people and community trees. It assures me that spring is finally on the way, and the stuff of life is pulsing through the veins of the forest once more. Looking up in March, I see the silver maples have already swelled their buds, red and beadlike, displayed in an almost Seussian arrangement -- opposite clusters in pyramidal form along gently curving branches. And what a marvelous time of year it is to look up. The sheets of winter are gone, but the clothes of summer have yet to be donned. Each tree clearly bears its own form and structure against the backdrop of the spring sky. It’s a time of year to delve into that arboreal architecture, to see how a weakened tree may be dying back to conserve its energy, or how the winter winds may have taken their toll. It’s a time to see whether our previous pruning was in concert with the tree’s natural design, or opposed to it. It’s a time of year just to take pleasure in the varied artistic forms that the community forest exhibits. But look now, for soon other beauties will be upon us. Even as I write, flowering is beginning, red maples first covering themselves in deep crimson as if embarrassed that the vernal sun has caught them without their leaves on. Sometimes in late March I’ll go driving along the highway just to view the first brilliant green, like a cascading waterfall, flowing off the tops of the weeping willows and running into the wetlands where they grow. I keep a close eye on the apples too, first to put forth leaves, and always wonder at that transformation from bud to leaf. How is it that each year fuzzy and scaly nodules turn into broad sheets of green solar panel – palm-shaped, feather-like, ovate or needled? And after that, each stem elongates to lay the groundwork for that structure that caught my eye just a few weeks before. Before long, the changes will come in stunning and rapid succession. The showy pink cherries, the biennial crabs, the more subtle amelanchier, and the snow-white pears all vie for the attention of the pollinators and propagators, both insect and human. Soon it will be the time of year when we wish we’d planted more. When we start digging, buying and transplanting. Before we know it, June will be here, and we’ll have to water. But for now, I am content to just observe the signs of spring. The Eight Habits of Highly Effective Urban and Community Forest Management There was a time, when we thought about Urban Forestry in terms of single street tree management. In recent years, however, most urban forestry professionals have grown to recognize that those individual trees grow within the context of an urban and community forest ecosystem, and that the management of this resource requires a community approach if not even an ecosystem approach. But what does this mean in practice? One way to think about this broader approach is to divide urban and community forestry into following eight areas of management (as if there was not already enough to worry about with planting and maintenance). Mature Tree Care: In most communities, the most pressing urban forestry management need is around the removal of dead and hazardous trees, and the maintenance of existing trees. This is where many of the risks to public safety lie. This is where the bulk of financial resources are spent. It is also the place where money well spent today, can result in much more saved tomorrow. Growing the CommunityForest: Designing for, selecting and planting the right trees in the right places is what excites a lot us about this field. It is how we ensure that our children’s communities will be as beautiful and healthy as they can be. It is how we propagate the resource. And it is distressing that in recent years in most Massachusetts communities, planting has lagged far behind removals. Conserving Canopy: If we only concern ourselves with maintaining and planting, we may forget about the overall state of the “canopy” of our communities. Are we losing canopy to land clearing or private development? Are ornamentals replacing large shade trees? Is the quality or health of our overall canopy declining? Without concerted attention to “canopy,” we may well miss the forest for the trees. The above three themes are the ones we might think of as the “tree centered” aspects of urban forest management. But they cannot be effectively pursued without also focusing on the following five “supporting” aspects. Community Capacity: Who has the responsibility for urban forestry in our communities? What equipment, skills, knowledge and training do our communities have? And how can this capacity best be enhanced? Effective Guidelines and Policies: Effective urban and community forestry requires clear policies and guidelines that help us meet our goals. Does you community follow State law? Do you have an ordinance and management guidelines? Are trees and canopy integrated into your sub-division and zoning bylaws? Managing through Partnerships: Public trees are not always managed by a single department or agency, nor do they exist in isolation from private trees, commercial trees or institutional trees. The management landscape can be a complex web overlapping jurisdictions. Utility agencies, large institutions, parks departments, landscape companies, conservation commissions and private owners are all partners in management of the urban and community forest. Through good communications and relations, we can often find efficient and effective ways to share costs and work together toward combined goals. Raising Education and Awareness: At the heart of urban and community forestry management is the need for adequate public support and knowledge. Educating our leaders; raising public awareness; teaching about forestry needs, benefits and practices; this is how we ultimately build the long-term support for effective and sustainable urban and community forestry. Finally Funding: Although there may be ways to share costs and do more with less, effective urban forestry requires consistent, adequate and diverse funding. Does your community have support for a sufficient public budget? Do you also bring in other public and private grants? Do you attract private cash and in-kind donations. In this era of diminishing tax resources, all of these sources are vital to realizing our goals. So how do we begin to think about these Eight Habits of Urban and Community Forest Management? Here are a few steps to get started.
Community Greening for Urban Revitalization In the United States and around the world Urban Forestry is typically thought of as only a minor part of the equation for a "healthy" or "livable" city. It is often defined as the management of single street and park trees by municipal professionals primarily for the purposes of beautification. More recently, the environmental movement has begun to recognize and promote the environmental benefits that urban forestry can provide. Improvements to air quality, water quality, heat impacts and wildlife habitat have all been documented and quantified. Yet, Urban Forestry can and should be about much more than just beauty or environmental improvement. Urban Community Forestry or Community "Greening" can be a catalyst, a tool, a way of addressing the full range of urban social issues from dumping to education to apathy to crime, both indirectly and directly. The Social Benefits of Urban Community Greening In most U.S. cities, one of the biggest issues facing some neighborhoods is that of vacant lands and the illegal dumping. Many large eastern cities have lost up to 40% of their population in recent decades, and the number of housing units in these cities has also decreased dramatically. The result is a large number of vacant lots. These lots usually become dumped upon, trashed, and a blight rather than a benefit to the community. As we all know, neglect begets neglect, and without being addressed vacancy can spread, and abandoned lands often become the most visible sign of neighborhood deterioration. Community Greening can be a valuable strategy for addressing this issue by turning "abandoned" property into "community owned" property through adoption (both formal or informal) by local residents for their use as community gardens, parks, cultural gardens or tree nurseries. Groundwork Lawrence is working toward this strategy in Lawrence, Massachusetts through their Adopt-a-Space program. Community Greening then becomes an effective and sustainable urban sanitation and revitalization strategy, because it reduces dumping year after year, and helps change people's fundamental attitudes toward trash, vacant lands, neighborhood investment and community responsibility. Greening is also an efficient strategy. In Sacramento, California, for example, researchers compared community gardens to city managed parks. They found that the community garden was 20 times cheaper to create and 27 times cheaper to maintain. Perhaps it’s time for solid waste departments to consider greening in their arsenal. A Forum for Environmental and Science-Based Education Urban Community Forestry can also be an effective forum for addressing a variety of educational issues. In cities around the country, nonprofits, community groups and schools are creating programs that use the local urban environment as a teaching tool. As an example, the Urban Ecology Institute in Boston engages public school students in their Field Studies program where they combine the scientific process with the relevancy of the backyard. Their program is built upon the educational process of inquiry, and framed around the question: What is the Health of Boston's Urban Ecosystem? This kind of urban neighborhood-based environmental education is effective because it combines: Creating Training and Employment Opportunities In addition to environmental education, urban Community Greening can provide a variety of training and employment opportunities. These employment skills are not just about planting trees, but they include a variety of unskilled, skilled and professional areas such as landscaping and construction , basic job readiness, arboricultural and horticultural skills, entrepreneurial opportunities from market gardening to landscape businesses, and professional experience from community organizing to environmental science. For example, Nuestras Raices, a non-profit organization in Holyoke, is connecting community gardeners to market gardens to farmers markets to enhance economic opportunities for residents. The UMass 4-H Urban Stewards program in Boston provides youth with tree climbing, leadership development and other basic job and life skills. And the Eagle Eye Institute in Somerville uses hands-on training programs to create an opening into career and leadership development. From industry professionals, young adults learn marketable skills that provide career bridges into the green industry. Greening to Combat Crime Community Greening can even be used as a way to help address issues of crime and safety in urban neighborhoods. A recent study in two Chicago housing projects, showed that the mere presences of trees may play a psychological role in reducing domestic violence. After all, temperatures and tempers are related. In the Mission District of San Francisco, residents documented a 28% drop in crime after the first year of their garden project. And in Baltimore, the Parks & People Foundation has directly used greening as that catalyst to help communities organize around fighting crime. On one block, a tree planting lead to a block watch and then a group called "pooches on patrol." On another block, neighbors organized a “night time tree planting” to demonstrate to would be criminals that this was a community that cared. Projects like these use urban Community Greening to turn mean streets into green streets and lots of fear into community-owned safe places of pride. What Makes Community Greening Better? Clearly Community Greening has many benefits, but is it better than any other community-based strategy? What's different about Community Greening as compared to Community Policing, Community Clean-ups, or Block Parties? So to all those working in the urban environment, be it in housing, economic development, education, sanitation, health or safety, it is time to embrace Urban Community Greening as more than just a minor, interesting beautification strategy, and start making a real commitment to Community-Based Urban Greening as a vital part of any urban revitalization effort. (This article was adapted from one written for Community Resources, inc. in 1996. For the full article and citations, see www.communityresources.org/greenpresent.html.)
Integrating Urban Forest Management and Historic Landscape Preservation Once focused primarily on saving and restoring buildings, the historic preservation movement has more recently embraced historic landscapes, seeking to protect and preserve the settings for important buildings as well as landscapes that are significant in their own right. A wide range of landscapes are being recognized and restored, including town commons, farms, parks, burial grounds, gardens, industrial sites and recreational sites. Some were designed by noted landscape architects, while others evolved organically over time. In almost all cases, trees and other vegetation contribute significantly to the landscape’s character. Your community’s urban forest probably encompasses historic landscapes. Trees may line the streets running through a historic district. The town common may be dotted with mature elms, maples or oaks. Evergreens may offer shade in your burial grounds. Ornamental trees and shrubs may be part of the design at a former estate now owned by the community. Without trees, the character and significance of these historic landscapes would be greatly diminished. Maintaining and caring for the urban forest is therefore an integral part of historic landscape preservation. Landscape Preservation Challenges Preserving historic landscapes presents particular challenges. Landscapes are not static resources and cannot be frozen in time – change is inevitable. This is particularly apparent with vegetation. Trees, shrubs and other plant material grow and eventually die. When it comes time to replace them, complex questions may arise. For example, the mature trees on your town common may be diseased or declining. Replacing them in-kind is often the best approach. But what if the trees were planted in the early-1900s, and there is a desire to restore the landscape to its nineteenth-century, more barren appearance? What if the existing trees are all of the same variety, creating a monoculture that is prone to disease? Is it appropriate to substitute other species and, if so, what factors should be considered when choosing another type of tree? There are countless other scenarios that bring up similar issues. The National Park Service has created preservation standards for all types of historic resources, including landscapes. Used by preservation professionals and stewards of historic sites, these standards provide guidance for any work being undertaken at a historic property. For more information, see The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes (cr.nps.gov/hps/hli/introguid.htm). The DCR’s Historic Landscape Preservation Technical Bulletins Although the Secretary’s Standards and other publications provide valuable guidance for landscape preservation projects, there are few resources addressing the day-to-day maintenance of historic landscapes. Therefore, in cooperation with the DCR Urban and Community Forestry Program, DCR’s Historic Landscape Preservation Initiative is developing a series of Technical Bulletins addressing issues related to the preservation, maintenance and management of historic landscapes. Aimed at municipal staff, maintenance crews, Friends Groups and other landscape stewards, the bulletins will emphasize current best practices and offer practical strategies for those “in the field.” Each Technical Bulletin will address a particular aspect of landscape preservation with two to four pages of text, illustrations and advice about where to find additional information. Many of the topics will be of assistance and interest to caretakers of trees. We Need Your Help! DCR has created a survey to help us gauge interest in the Technical Bulletins and refine their scope – please follow the link, download the survey and take a few minutes to complete it and return it to us. Your participation will help insure that the Technical Bulletins are a useful reference for all those who care for and about historic landscapes in Massachusetts. Thank you in advance for your time – and keep an eye out for the DCR’s Historic Landscape Preservation Technical Bulletins! |
