Southwestern Urban Forests – Air Quality & Beyond: A Multi-State i-Tree Eco Project Case Study

An i-Tree ECO Multi-State Project

CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT, IMPLEMENTATION, RESULTS and LESSONS LEARNED

Alix Rogstad, Oscar Mestas, Richard Adkins and Vince Mikulanis

STATE PERSPECTIVE:CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT

Oscar Mestas

Project Partners

• USDA Forest Service, State & Private Forestry (funder)

• New Mexico State Forestry• Arizona State Forestry• Texas A&M Forest Service• City of Phoenix• City of El Paso• City of Las Cruces• City of Albuquerque• Davey Resource Group

In the beginning… Sending

i-Tree Eco Blast!

Hmmm i-Tree Eco? Why did I just think of that… I need to talk to Lance.

2009

Lance Davisson

Well traveled road with several detours

LouiseWakem

Arizona State Forestry

Nick KuhnAlbuquerque

JohnGiedraitis

Texas A&M Forest Service

New Mexico Arizona Texas

Oscar MestasEl Paso

Farmington Las Cruces Glendale

PeteSmith

Texas A&M Forest Service

AlixRogstad

Arizona State Forestry

Kelly Washburn

AndrewFrederick

Les Finley

& Craig

Fenske

Las Cruces

Les Finley

RichardAdkins

Phoenix

Richard Lofstrom,

Asst. Park Superintendent

Albuquerque

Convincing 13 SE Region 8 State Foresters to agree to spend money in far West Texas was a challenge.

Project Area

Project Area

El Paso

Las Cruces

330 mi

350mi

230m

i

Albuquerque

Phoenix

Southwestern Forests - Air Quality and Beyond

• Multi-state, multi-region collaboration (NM, TX, AZ)• Assessment of urban forest ecosystem services

– identify and quantify the current value of urban trees– develop strategies to impact air quality and community health

Project Goals

• Produce community forest assessments in four targeted municipalities.

• Develop goals and strategies for air quality mitigation.

• Create tools, outreach materials and partnership forums to increase awareness.

CONTRACTOR PERSPECTIVE:IMPLEMENTATION

Vince Mikulanis

Logistics

• Gather aerial imagery, land base, and parcel data.

• Generate plot centers using i-eco software.

• Create a buffer to capture all parcels for plot.

Logistics

• Mailing list generated• Notification letters

– Address verification – up to 25% return rate

– Multiple languages– Two week lead time– 800# “hotline” and e-mail

for questions• Door hangers

Implementation• Main and local project kick-off

– Pilot Data Collection• Timing – coordination among project areas• Daily

location updates

• Weeklyprogressreports

Implementation

• Web form• Mobile hotspot• Paper maps• Data management

Quality Control

• Data collection handbook

• Subjective data• Consistent core group

of inventory foresters• Hot/Cold checks• Volunteers

LOCAL PERSPECTIVE: RESULTS & DATA USE

Richard Adkins

What is Urban Forest Sustainability in the Desert Southwest?

• A keystone for urban living

• A component of green infrastructure

• A process rather than a goal

• A myth?

• Tree and Shade Master Plan– Urban Forest Resource Analysis– Urban Tree Canopy Assessment– Cool Urban Spaces Project– Southwest Forests Air Quality

Urban Forestry projects in Phoenix, AZ

What is the Value of a Healthy Urban Forest? STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS: Open to the Public Re: SOUTHWEST URBAN FORESTS – AIR QUALITY & BEYOND

Project Summary Multi-state project to conduct urban forestry ecosystem services assessments in partnering communities, utilizing the i-Tree Eco tool to collect data that will assist communities to develop local and regional air quality planning goals. The project focuses on improving environmental health and community livability in four communities located at-risk of not meeting federal air quality standards.

Arizona Project Timeline Stakeholder Meetings:

From 6 pm to 7 pm

April 29 – Goelet Beuf Community Center (3435 W. Pinnacle Peak Rd)

April 30 – Cesar Chavez Public Library (3635 W. Baseline Rd)

May 1 – Paradise Valley Community Center (17402 N 40th St)

May 2 – Washington Activity Center (2240 W Citrus Way)

Partners: AZ State Forestry, New Mexico EMNRD Forestry Division, Texas A&M University Forest Service, Davey Resource Group and paid for by funds provided from the USDA Forest Service.

Partnering Communities: City of Phoenix, City of Albuquerque, City of Las Cruces, City of El Paso

Questions: City of Phoenix: Richard Adkins ([email protected]: 602.495.3762)

Key Findings (Summary) Phoenix, AZ El Paso, TX Las Cruces, NM Albuquerque, NMNumber of Trees (est.) 3,357,000 1,504,000 320,000 1,846,000

Size Land Area 519 sq. mi (1344 sq. km) 332,160 acres 256 sq. mi (663 sq. km)

163,840 acres 47 sq. mi (122 sq. km) 30,080 acres 181 sq. mi (469 sq. km)

115,840 acres

Tree Cover 9.7% - 13.6 trees/acre 5.9% - 14.9 trees/acre 4.5% - 11.4 trees/acre 14.3% - 21.8 trees/acre

Most Common SpeciesVelvet mesquite 9.6% California palm 7.4%

Sweet acacia 6.7%

Italian cypress 24% Afghan pine 10.6%

Mexican fan palm 6.5%

Italian cypress 19.4% Desert willow 14.7%

Afghan pine 9.9%

Siberian elm 16.8% Desert olive 6.5%

Desert willow 6.2%

Percentage of trees less than 6in DBH 44.10% 53.40% 65.10% 56.20%

Pollution Removal 1,880 tons/year ($7.89 Million/year) 403 tons/year

($294 thousand/year) 126 tons/year ($339 thousand/year) 493 tons/year

($1.44 million/year)

Carbon Storage 339,000 tons ($24.1 Million) 105,000 tons

($7.46 million) 21,700 tons ($1.55 million) 302,000 tons

($21.5 million)

Carbon Sequestration 36,300 tons/year ($2.59 million/year) 8,460 tons/year

($602 thousand/year) 1,800 tons/year ($128 thousand/year) 12,900 tons/year

($921 thousand/year)

Oxygen Production 90,100 tons/year ($0 /year) 16,300 tons/year

($0/year) 3,690 tons/year ($0/year) 28,400 tons/year

($0/year)

Building Energy Savings $22.2 million/year $3.02 million/year $651 thousand/year $4.35 million/year

Avoided Carbon Emissions $2.87 million/year $431 thousand/year $87.3 thousand/year $589 thousand/year

Structural Values (replacement value) $4.23 billion $1.7 billion $280 million $2.62 billion

FINAL THOUGHTS: LESSONS LEARNED & FUTURE GOALS

Alix Rogstad

• Big projects CAN be successful!

• Requires:– Creative visioning– Leadership– Good organization– Patience– Adaptability– Sense of humor

Lessons Learned

Lessons Learned

• Flexibility is keywith multi-year projects– Funding is slow;

contracts take time– On-the-ground

situation changes– Mid-stride

adjustments

Lessons Learned

• “Right Team in the Right Place”– Experience with

project mgmt (State-State; internal contracting; etc.)

– Knowledge of thelocal vegetation

– Cultural sensitivities

– Volunteers

Lessons Learned

• Consistency in data collection– Decide early

how “% missing” will be recorded

– Cultivated & Natural

• Sample size– Take into account

multiple parameters (veg variability, community size, etc.)

• “Randomized” plots– Pre-determine how

choices are made in the field to sample or not

Lessons Learned

Lessons Learned

• i-Tree products have limitations in the SW– Account for all

veg types (grass; cultivated will look different)

– Improve spp sampling methodology

Future Goals• Complete data analysis• Quantify urban tree benefits• Disseminate information to public and

elected leadership• Use information to further Urban Tree

Canopy goals• Develop regional standards to improve air

quality• Repeat in other SW ecotypes• Revisit plots in 10 years for comparison

Our Many Thanks:

• Lance Davisson• Dana Karcher• Kelly Washburn• Matthew Thomas• Cindy Salazar• Dolores Ibarra

• Cori Dolan• Susanne Kaplan• John Richardson• Kyle McCatty• Glen Buettner• Victor Soudani

USDA-Forest Service, S&PFR3 and R8