Boise Forestry 2015_Appendix C

Appendix C -­‐ Stakeholder Strategic Planning Outputs Table of Contents 1. Community Forestry Stakeholder Team 2. Sustainable Urban Forest Matrix - Goals & Strategies 3. Stakeholder Identified Priorities 4. Sustainable Urban Forest Matrix Navigator 5. Sustainable Urban Forest Matrix 6. Sustainable Urban Forest Matrix Outputs & Strategies

2015 Boise Community Forest Management Plan -­‐ Stakeholder Team

Name

Title

Neighborhood Associations

2/26 Work 3/12 Work 3/19 Work 04/02 Work 04/16 6/4 Meeting Name

Session Session Session Session (29 Meeting (14 attendees) (35 (24 (24 attendees) (24 attendees) attendees) attendees) attendees) Neighborhood Associations X X X X X X Mark Baltes

Mark Baltes

NENA

Andy Brunelle

EENA

X

X

X

Fred Fritchman

X

X

X

Lynn Lockhart

South Boise Village Neighborhood Association Morris Hill NA

X

X(Lindsay)

Ronnie Marler

West Bench Neighborhood Association

X

X

Sue Pisani

Vista NA

X

X (Mildred & Virginia)

X

Fred Fritchman

X (Lynn, Mildred & Lindsay) X

X

Andy Brunelle

Lynn Lockhart

X

Ronnie Marler

X

Sue Pisani

Maintenance/Tree Services Kevin Allen

Procare, Inc

X

Joshua Chaves

Chavco Tree & Landscape Services

X

Terri Ham

Idaho Tree Preservation Inc.

X

Zeke Willard

Idaho Tree Preservation Inc.

X X

X

X

X

Maintenance/Tree Services Kevin Allen

X

Joshua Chaves

X

Terri Ham Zeke Willard

Landscape Architects/Design Kathy Robert Kim Siegenthaler Bruce Taylor

Dragonfly Designs Inc. Jensen Belts Associates, Landscape Architects Jensen Belts Associates, Landscape Architects

X X

X X

X X

X X

X

X

Landscape Architects/Design Kathy Robert Kim Siegenthaler Bruce Taylor

Nursery/Green Industry

Nursery/Green Industry

Ann Bates

INLA

X

Ann Bates

Seneca Hull

Franz Witte Nursery

X

Seneca Hull Ada County Highway District Jason Korn

Ada County Highway District Jason Korn

ACHD, Stormwater

X

Rich Shaw

ACHD, Maintenance

X

CCDC/DBA Geoff Hundt

DBA

X

Doug Woodruff

CCDC

X

Utilities Patti Best

Idaho Power

X

X X

X

X

X

X

Rich Shaw

X

X

X

CCDC/DBA Geoff Hundt Doug Woodruff

X

X

X

X

US Green Building Council

Utilities Patti Best US Green Building Council Kris Wilson

Kris Wilson

USGBC

City of Boise staff Shelly Alder

BPR Commissioner

Scott Beecham

PDS, Comprehensive Planning

X

Eden Belanger

BPR, Park Operations Manager

X

X

Thomas Chandler

BPR Commissioner

X

X

Elaine Clegg

City Council Member

Debbie Cook

BPR, Forestry Specialist, Certified Arborist

X

X

X

X

X

X

Debbie Cook

Megan Durrell

Public Works, Water Quality

X

X

X

X

X

X

Megan Durrell

Tom Governale

BPR, Resources Supt

X

X

X

X

X

X

Tom Governale

Brian Jorgenson

BPR, City Forester

X

X

X

X

X

X

Brian Jorgenson

Josh Leonard

Legal Dept, Attorney III

Dennis Matlock

BPR, Forestry Specialist, Certified Arborist

Sarah Millar

Legal Dept, Attorney

Toby Norton

BPR, Design Manager

X

X

City of Boise staff Shelly Alder X X

X

X

Scott Beecham

X

Eden Belanger

X

Thomas Chandler X

Elaine Clegg

X X

X

Josh Leonard X

Dennis Matlock

X

Sarah Millar X (Jennifer

X (Jennifer

X (Jennifer

Tomlinson)

Tomlinson)

Tomlinson)

Toby Norton

Matt Perkins

BPR, Nursery Specialist

X

X

X

X

X

X

Matt Perkins

Brenda Reynolds

BPR, Customer Service Representative

X

X

X

X

X

X

Brenda Reynolds

Ryan Rodgers

BPR, Forestry Specialist, Certified Arborist

X

X

X

X

X

X

Ryan Rodgers

Amy Stahl

BPR, Community Relations Manager

X

Josh Wilson

PDS, Design Review Analyst

X

X

Consultant Team Lance Davisson

Project Manager

X

X

X

X

X

Tim Maguire

GIS analysis & project support

X

X

X

X

X

Elizabeth Walker

Strategic Planning

X

X

X

X

Amy Stahl X

Josh Wilson X

Consultant Team Lance Davisson Tim Maguire

X

Elizabeth Walker

Boise's Sustainable Urban Forest Matrix -­‐ Goals & Strategies This section explains the criteria in the three categories of a sustainable urban forestry program, states Boise’s goal for each, and offers some suggested strategies. The criteria with an asterisk (*) are the identified priorities for the program, and therefore, have strategies that can be done in the near future to progress toward those goals.

A. VEGETATIVE RESOURCE The criteria in this category relate to the composition and condition of the urban forest. The performance indicators range in the level of diversity and known health of the trees across the community. These are generally used as performance benchmarks to assess the effectiveness of resource management and the community framework, the other categories. In general, the major strategies to achieve diversity and health goals are:

•

•

•

For age diversity, planned regeneration and good management and preservation of the highly valued mature trees in the community.

For species suitability and distribution, use of a diverse and appropriate species list for all community plantings.

For a healthier and safer tree population, responsive management to address public hazards and optimize the urban forest’s role in community benefits.

1. Relative Canopy Cover*

Objective

Achieve climate-­‐appropriate degree of tree canopy cover, community wide.

The two common ways to consider canopy cover is average cover and relative cover. Many communities have measured the overall amount of coverage provided by trees throughout their jurisdiction through tools such as GIS, LIDAR or aerial/satellite imagery. The relative canopy cover refers to the amount of tree canopy cover compared to the amount of potential space (Figure XX potential planting locations in Boise), whether it is already occupied by canopy or not. Community forestry experts are realizing that this measurement is a better goal to focus on for resource measurement, especially if the average overall canopy cover is at a healthy level.

Available planting spaces are areas where a tree can be planted, as in open ground available to plant. This can be in passive areas of parks, planting strips along streets, even landscape islands in parking lots. Technically, this can be anywhere where there is no impervious surface (roads, rooftops, etc.), but certain land uses, such as ball fields and golf courses would not be reasonable areas to include in the potential.

According to the 2013 Urban Tree Canopy Assessment (Treasure Valley) report, Boise has 16% existing canopy cover and approximately 35% remaining available planting space (PPA), to total 51% of the city area. When you compare the existing canopy to the potential space (16 % existing canopy / 51% total potential canopy), the canopy is currently about 31% of the potential.

Boise’s Goal: The existing tree cover equals to 25-­‐50% of the available planting space (potential). Quantitatively, Boise is in this range; slowly increasing canopy cover through

strategic tree planting strategies and measuring progress with a UTC assessment in 10 years would be a suitable goal.

Key Strategies: 1. Develop neighborhood level tree canopy goals in collaboration with Neighborhood Associations 2. Develop plans and secure funding for strategic public (parks, streetscapes, right of way) and private (residential and commercial) tree planting 3. Measure Urban Tree Canopy (UTC) in 10 years to measure progress since last measurement (2011)

2. Age Distribution of Trees

Objective

Provide for even-­‐aged distribution city-­‐wide as well as at the neighborhood level

On a community level, the general measurement for age of trees is based on size. The larger the tree, the older it most likely is. The diameter classes referred to on the spectrum are size ranges in diameter to grossly categorize young, growing, mature, and over-­‐mature trees in the community. Consideration of species’ growth rate and mature size are factors to further determine how well the size ranges correlate with age of the population. Age diversity is key to avoiding mass age-­‐related mortality and to ensure perpetual renewal of the urban forest.

Without performing extensive analysis of the existing population with inventory data from the City of Boise, the conclusion of the 2013 Treasure Valley Urban Tree Canopy (UTC) Assessment report (p. 50) mentions, “The Treasure Valley’s urban forest is relatively young: half of all trees are 6” or less in diameter.” Based on interviews with city staff, they feel the current inventory system provides an accurate assessment of tree species, but is not up-­‐to-­‐date for tree age or size.

Boise’s Goal: No diameter class represents more than 50% of the tree population.

Key Strategies: 1. Update tree inventory with current diameter classes and GIS locations. (to be completed during transition to city’s new asset management system – currently in-­‐process) 2. Develop plans for tree planting and pro-­‐active replacement of large, aging tree populations to achieve diverse age distribution city-­‐wide.

3. Species Suitability*

Objective Establish a tree population suitable for the urban environment and adapted to the regional environment.

Boise Community Forestry Strategic Management Plan – July 2015 DRAFT

Page 2

Diversity of species and the appropriateness of those species in the area are important factors to consider for a healthy urban forest. Tree selection is best based on how well the species grows in the area and has minimal maintenance issues, like drought tolerance and resistance to pests and disease.

Based on the number of species listed in the public tree inventory, there is a sense that the tree selection for suitability is rather high in Boise.

Boise’s Goal: More than 75% of trees are of species considered suitable for the area.

Key Strategies: 1. Update city’s recommended tree species list while always seeking new varieties to diversify the urban forest 2. Implement diversified tree species recommendations for streets, parks and city property plantings 3. Collaborate with local nursery and landscape industry to develop species, stock quality, and planting specifications that meet community forestry goals (increase species diversity, etc.)

4. Species Distribution*

Objective Establish a genetically diverse tree population city-­‐wide and a the neighborhood level.

Diversity of the species in the population, particularly in the built environment is equally critical. Too often, a small palette of trees is used in most landscape designs and in street improvements. The lack of diversity can create a situation in which a pest or disease can wipe out a significant portion of the population. The constant threat of pests and diseases heading our way cannot be ignored but rather can be alleviated through a diverse array of tree species in the community.

Based on the public tree inventory summary provided by Community Forestry Staff, the top two genera are Maple (19.4%) and Ash (11.7%).

Boise’s Goal: No genus represents more than 10% of the public tree population city wide

Key Strategies: 1. Update city’s recommended tree species list while always seeking new varieties to diversify the urban forest 2. Implement diversified tree species recommendations for streets, parks and city property plantings 3. Reduce plantings of species with current insect and disease risk (emerald ash borer, etc.) and species that currently represent greater than 20% of total tree population (maple, ash, etc.)

5. Condition of Publicly-­‐Managed Trees*

Objective Boise Community Forestry Strategic Management Plan – July 2015 DRAFT

Page 3

Gain a detailed understanding of the condition and risk potential of all publicly-­‐managed trees.

Understanding the condition of trees helps in prioritizing the management of the urban forest. Part of a tree inventory is rating the condition of a tree from excellent to very poor (or dead). Whether it is a sample plot inventory, such as in a park, or a complete tree inventory in the rights-­‐of-­‐way, assessing the condition of the trees will impact the decisions made about the City’s maintenance work plan.

Along with condition, a necessary assessment of a tree is its risk of failure and likelihood to cause harm or damage. There is an industry rating system for such tree risk assessments that is commonly used as part of a tree inventory.

Based on the screen shot of Community Forestry’s ACRT inventory program, hazard tree ratings are not included. City staff has five arborists who are qualified through the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Tree Risk Assessment Qualification (TRAQ) Program. Field assessments are completed on field-­‐identified potential risk trees at which point an assessment is documented and follow-­‐up work scheduled.

Boise’s Goal: Complete tree inventory which includes a formalized risk assessment protocol

Key Strategies: 1. Develop a formalized tree risk assessment protocol 2. Add a risk assessment component to the city’s new asset management system

6. Publicly-­‐Owned Natural Areas

Objective Detailed understanding of the ecological structure and function of all publicly owned natural areas.

Some communities have documented the ecological benefits of some of its natural areas with vegetation studies. Stewardship/management plans can be developed from these studies in order to maximize the ecosystem benefits through restoration, conservation, and monitoring.

For the region, the subject areas that could be considered as publicly-­‐owned natural areas are the sensitive area riparian corridors and Boise River Greenbelt which are referred to in the Foothills Management Plan (2000) and the open space reserve management planning process.

Boise’s Goal: The ecological structure and function of publicly-­‐owned natural areas are documented through an Urban Tree Canopy Analysis and included in the city-­‐wide GIS.

Key Strategies: 1. Quantify structure and function of the riparian zone along the Boise River (Reference Boise River Riparian Stewardship Plan)

Boise Community Forestry Strategic Management Plan – July 2015 DRAFT

Page 4

2. Leverage local and regional assessments and share data between city departments in order to raise awareness about ecosystem services, ecological structure and function of natural areas throughout the city.

7. Native Vegetation

Objective

Preservation and enhancement of local natural biodiversity

The local, natural biodiversity found in the city needs to be preserved and enhanced to support native ecosystems. The appropriate publicly-­‐managed places with the most potential are in open spaces, reserves, and passive parklands. The appropriate actions include restoration plantings and invasive species eradication. High use and developed areas have least potential for native vegetation success.

Native vegetation for the Boise area is dominated by grass and sagebrush. The only native trees are found in riparian areas near water sources and would consist of cottonwood, willow and similar species.

Native species conservation is an important consideration for the Boise Foothills and Open Space Reserves, but would not be appropriate for Boise’s urbanized areas. In these open space reserves, invasive species control is an important consideration in management.

Boise’s Goal: The use of native species is encouraged on a project-­‐appropriate basis in actively managed areas. Invasive species are recognized and discouraged and aggressive eradication efforts are in place.

Key Strategies: 1. Develop and implement strategies with partners to identify, inventory and reduce populations of invasive or undesirable species from riparian and upland natural areas.

2. Develop and implement a collaborative plan for establishment of native plants in riparian corridors.

B. RESOURCE MANAGEMENT The criteria in resource management speak to the significant components of a city urban forestry program – staff, funding, resources, planning, policy, and operations.

1. Tree Inventory*

Objective

Develop a comprehensive inventory of the tree resource to direct its management.

This includes: age distribution, species mix, tree condition, risk assessment.

As mentioned in the Vegetative Resource section, understanding the needs and composition of the urban forest requires comprehensive information about the tree resource to direct its management.

Performing a tree inventory is the most common tool with which to collect important data such as species, size, condition, risk level, and location. Usually this is done along the rights-­‐of-­‐way and in landscaped park and other public areas. For private property, sample plots are assessed to get a snapshot of the condition and composition of that sector of the urban forest. Capturing all these data in Boise Community Forestry Strategic Management Plan – July 2015 DRAFT

Page 5

the City’s GIS mapping is particularly useful to visualize the resource in relation to other aspects of the community.

According to staff, the public tree inventory was originally completed 20-­‐30 years ago with a software called Tree Manager (originally sold by ACRT) and is updated regularly by field staff during inspections and management. The inventory is estimated to be a 90% complete inventory of public trees and includes data for: species, diameter, condition, location, past maintenance history, next expected maintenance, service requests (both internal and external customer initiated). As of early 2015, the City is transitioning to a new enterprise management system called VueWorks (which will enable full integration of the inventory into the city’s GIS system).

The city has a private property sample-­‐based assessment done with i-­‐Tree Eco program (refer to 2013 Treasure Valley UTC Assessment).

Boise’s Goal: Complete inventory of publicly owned trees and sample-­‐based inventory of privately owned trees included in city-­‐wide GIS.

Key Strategies: 1. Update tree inventory with current diameter classes, condition ratings, and GIS locations. (GIS locations will be completed during transition to City’s new asset management system, currently in-­‐process).

2. Quantify structure and function of the riparian zone along the Boise River (Reference Boise River Riparian Stewardship Plan).

3. Expand current inventory of parks and right of way trees, incorporating all publicly owned properties including all city-­‐owned or managed properties and newly annexed areas of the city.

2. Canopy Cover Assessment

Objective

High resolution assessments of the existing and potential canopy cover for the entire community

Mapping the urban tree cover using satellite imagery is another way to analyze different characteristics of the urban forest. Canopy cover can be compared to impervious surface to determine the proportions, especially as it relates to stormwater mitigation. The amount of possible planting area for more tree canopy can also be obtained with this tool.

Some communities perform urban tree canopy assessment that discusses these different aspects of the canopy cover. The relative canopy cover calculation in the Vegetative Resource section could come from that kind of study. The key objective to this tool is to have high resolution assessments of the existing and potential canopy cover for the entire community.

Boise is meeting the optimal level with current tools, mapping, and assessments. The 2013 Treasure Valley Urban Tree Canopy (UTC) Assessment provides an extensive assessment of Boise UTC and

Boise Community Forestry Strategic Management Plan – July 2015 DRAFT

Page 6

Ecosystem Services provided based on 2011 imagery; in addition this assessment provides mapping and tools to inform planning and policy decisions.

Boise’s Goal: Mapped urban tree cover using aerial photographs or satellite imagery included in city-­‐ wide GIS.

Key Strategies: 1. Develop plans to update city or valley-­‐wide urban tree canopy assessment by 2021 2. Expand current inventory of parks and right of way trees, incorporating all publicly owned properties including all city-­‐owned or managed properties and newly annexed areas of the city.

3. City-­‐wide Management Plan

Objective Develop and implement a comprehensive urban forest management plan community-­‐wide.

A comprehensive urban forest management plan provides a specific road map for annual work and budget for public tree management that is aligned with the vision, mission, and goals of an urban forestry program. The strategies and priorities in this strategic plan are supported by the community and are a solid foundation for such a plan.

In addition to the 2006 Urban Forestry Management Plan, there are several other relevant plans that address the community forest – Boise River Management Plan (2014), Boise Foothills/Open Space Management Plan (2000), CCDC Trees in Downtown Boise, Parks & Recreation Department Comprehensive Plan (2011), Blueprint Boise (2011), Treasure Valley Urban Tree Canopy (UTC) Assessment (2013), etc. These plans reference desired conditions, policies and practices for the community forest and also introduce concepts such as sustainability and recognition of the variety of social and environmental benefits of the community forest.

Boise’s Goal: Strategic multi-­‐tiered plan for publicly and privately managed forest resources accepted and implemented with adaptive management mechanisms.

Key Strategies: 1. Review and assess Community Forestry Management Plan strategies on an annual basis to determine progress and identify any roadblocks to progress (i.e. budgetary, personnel, etc.)

2. Align Community Forestry Management Plan strategies to ensure synergy with other City planning efforts.

4. Municipal-­‐wide Funding*

Objective Develop and maintain adequate funding to implement a city-­‐wide urban forest management plan

Without funding, a management program cannot be successful. These days, cities must be creative in developing and maintaining adequate funding to execute needed work identified in the management Boise Community Forestry Strategic Management Plan – July 2015 DRAFT

Page 7

plan. In the Pacific Northwest, urban forestry can be linked effectively to stormwater management for a city (Vancouver, WA), and therefore, funding could be garnered from other departments that have similar goals.

The Community Forestry Unit’s budget supports a core staff of six and a field crew of six (plus 2 seasonal) who’s primary responsibilities are tree planting and maintenance in order to meet their primary mission. Since 2006, this budget has been diversified to include contracts for tree planting and maintenance, which has been very successful. In addition, staff execute successful outreach and education programs for the general public. In addition to these core program areas, staff is involved as available in discussions for community planning, stormwater management, city sustainability discussions, etc.

Boise’s Goal: Funding to provide for a measurable increase in urban forest benefits Key Strategies: 1. Based on annual review and assessment of Community Forestry Plan implementation progress, develop plans for enhanced staffing and funding to maintain and enhance Community Forestry’s service to the community.

2. Collaborate with partners on mutually beneficial funding enhancements, including base-­‐level municipal funding, public/private partnership funding sources and key project funding opportunities.

5. City Staffing*

Objective Retain adequate qualified staff to implement a city-­‐wide urban forestry plan

Along with funding, staffing resource is just as critical for the success of an urban forestry program. The key objective is to employ and train adequate staff to implement the program and plan.

The Community Forestry Unit’s budget supports a core staff of six and a field crew of six (plus 2 seasonals) whose primary responsibilities are tree planting and maintenance in order to meet their primary mission. Since 2006, this budget has been diversified to include contracts for tree planting and maintenance, which has been very successful. Staff executes successful outreach and education programs for the general public. In addition to these core program areas, staff is involved as available in discussions for community planning, stormwater management, city sustainability discussions, etc.

Boise’s Goal: Multi-­‐disciplinary team within the urban forestry program, in collaboration with

other city departments and with other cooperating agencies Key Strategies: 1. Establish a formal multi-­‐disciplinary team consisting of key personnel from the City and other agencies to identify and address collaborations toward a sustainable and healthy community.

This team will develop efficient and effective systems for sharing information, project and program collaborations, policy development and efficient use of public and private resources.

Boise Community Forestry Strategic Management Plan – July 2015 DRAFT

Page 8

2. Enhance staffing and municipal funding to maintain and enhance Community Forestry’s service to the community.

6. Tree Establishment, Planning and Implementation*

Objective

Urban forest renewal is ensured through a comprehensive tree establishment program driven by canopy cover, species diversity, and species distribution objectives.

Part of a resource management plan includes a planting or establishment program. Maintaining any resource requires renewal to ensure perpetuity and optimal benefits. The key objective is to ensure urban forest renewal through planning and implementation, and such a program is best driven by canopy cover, species diversity, and species distribution objectives.

The current average replacement to removal ratio is 1.6 replaced for every 1 removed. Using data from the 2013 Treasure Valley UTC Assessment, in 2014 the City began the NeighborWoods Program, a strategic tree planting program focused on planting in low canopy neighborhoods in locations that maximize public and private benefit. Growth of this program will provide a foundation for improved tree establishment priorities city-­‐wide.

Boise’s Goal: Tree establishment is directed by needs derived from a tree inventory and is sufficient to meet canopy cover objectives Key Strategies: 1. Prioritize tree planting areas through the use of the 2013 Treasure Valley UTC Assessment 2. Establish goals for tree canopy and planting in collaboration with Neighborhood Associations and Homeowner Associations.

3. Contribute to streetscape design standards that balance tree canopy goals with business and community goals (i.e. signage, transportation, walkability, bikeability, stormwater, etc.)

7. Maintenance of publicly-­‐managed trees*

Objective

All publicly-­‐owned, highly-­‐managed trees are maintained to maximize current and future benefits. Tree health and condition ensure maximum longevity.

Some trees require regular maintenance in order to survive in the urban setting. Trees in the Right-­‐of-­‐ Way are the likely candidates for this level of management. The key objective is that these types of trees are maintained to maximize current and future benefits. Tree health and condition ensure maximum longevity.

City staff currently has a 7-­‐year pruning cycle plan for mature trees (refer to Community Forestry District Map [8 districts] and pruning schedule). Structural pruning of young trees is completed by volunteer Tree Stewards (in 2014, the Tree Stewards pruned approximately 1,000 young trees; for perspective, it is estimated that Boise’s urban forest has approximately 40,000 total trees).

Boise Community Forestry Strategic Management Plan – July 2015 DRAFT

Page 9

Boise’s Goal: All mature publicly-­‐owned trees are consistently maintained on a 6-­‐year cycle. Young trees are structurally pruned, on a limited basis, by the Tree Steward Volunteer Program led by Boise City Forestry Staff. Additional key maintenance considerations include: irrigation, insect / disease management, etc.

Key Strategies: 1. Develop and implement a comprehensive plan and funding for planting, maintaining and irrigating downtown street trees.

2. Incorporate contract pruning of more juvenile and middle-­‐aged trees throughout the city.

3. Combine efforts with ACHD to prune trees ahead of road maintenance projects such as chip sealing.

8. Tree Risk Management

Objective All publicly-­‐owned trees are managed with safety as a high priority.

Trees near people and structures have a certain level of risk to cause damage or injury. Assessing the level of risk involves evaluating the tree for defects that could increase its probability of failure and determining the size of the part likely to fail. Considering these factors with proximity to valuable targets, we can assess risks with the trees, and determine best ways to manage or minimize the risk. The key objective is that all publicly-­‐managed trees near targets are managed with safety as a high priority.

City staff has five arborists who are qualified through the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Tree Risk Assessment Qualification (TRAQ) Program. Field assessments are completed on field identified potential risk trees at which point an assessment is documented and follow-­‐up work scheduled.

Boise’s Goal: A complete tree inventory which includes a formalized risk assessment protocol. Pro-­‐active risk abatement program is in effect, eliminating hazards within a maximum of one month from confirmation of hazard potential.

Key Strategies: 1. Establish and formalize a tree risk and assessment policy and protocol for Community Forestry.

2. Create a public outreach program to educate contractors and landowners about risk trees and whom they should contact.

9. Tree Protection Policy Development and Enforcement*

Objective The benefits derived from large-­‐stature/mature trees and growing canopy are ensured by the enforcement of municipal-­‐wide policies.

Much of the urban forest resides on private property. The benefits derived from large and mature trees are tremendous, and the ability to have them safely retained community-­‐wide is important. Municipal Boise Community Forestry Strategic Management Plan – July 2015 DRAFT

Page 10

policies around tree protection and management, especially during development can be effective to that end, and must be consistently enforced.

Boise’s Tree Ordinance was last amended in 2000 and addresses tree protection policy and enforcement. Improved enforcement is desired. Community Forestry was also instrumental in development and implementation of Boise’s landscape ordinance, which was drafted into law in 2009.

Effective enforcement of this ordinance could be improved.

Boise’s Goal: Integrated municipal-­‐wide policies that ensure the protection of trees on public and private land are consistently enforced and supported by significant deterrents or incentives; an increased awareness of the value of tree protection among residents, business owners, and public agencies.

Key Strategies: 1. Collaborate with Planning and Development Services (PDS), Capital City Development Corporation (CCDC), and Downtown Boise Association (DBA) to establish tree protection policies for existing and new developments.

2. Establish policies for mitigation of trees removed from parks and/or new developments.

3. Update Tree Ordinance to ensure a greater level of accountability for licensed tree services.

10. Publicly-­‐owned Natural Areas Management Planning and Implementation

Objective The ecological structure and function of all publicly-­‐owned natural areas are protected and, where appropriate, enhanced.

Properly managing the forested open space and natural areas of the community requires appropriate planning and implementation. A stewardship plan, which connotes a community engagement in the process, is developed to support action that protects and where needed, enhances the ecological structure and function of this part of the urban forest. These plans often include invasive eradication and urban forest renewal with appropriate native vegetation, along with community participation in the stewardship.

The Foothills Management Plan (2000) will be updated soon and the open space reserve management planning process is currently underway.

Boise’s Goal: Stewardship plan in effect for each publicly owned natural area focused on sustaining the ecological structure and function of the feature.

Key Strategies: 1. Quantify structure and function of the riparian zone along the Boise River (Reference Boise River Riparian Stewardship Plan).

2. Develop and implement strategies with partners to identify, inventory and reduce invasive or undesirable species from riparian and upland natural areas.

Boise Community Forestry Strategic Management Plan – July 2015 DRAFT

Page 11

C. COMMUNITY FRAMEWORK

This category offers all aspects and possible community relationships that impact the sustainability of the urban forest. The criteria stress the importance of cooperation and deep understanding of the value of the urban forestry for a successful program.

1. Public Agency Cooperation*

Objective Share with all city departments and agencies common goals and objectives.

The key objective is to ensure all city departments and local agencies understand common goals and objectives around the proper management of the urban forest.

Through involvement in the Treasure Valley Canopy Network, City staff has seen great progress with development of informal teams both within the city and with partner agencies that are resulting in improved implementation of urban forest strategies. This progress includes: Green Stormwater Infrastructure (GSI) strategies, collaborative development of downtown streetscape standards, etc.

Staff sees this category as a key objective to continue developing through collaboration with partners into the future. There is great desire and opportunity among partners to develop collaborative strategies that result in a city-­‐wide system of functional landscapes that return ecosystem and community benefits.

Boise’s Goal: Municipal policy implemented by formal interdepartmental/interagency teams

working on community projects.

Key Strategies: 1. Establish a formal multi-­‐disciplinary team consisting of key personnel from the City and other agencies to identify and address collaborations toward a sustainable and healthy community.

Key initial priorities include: (a) develop plans for improved planting and maintenance of downtown street trees; (b) develop standards and creative solutions to sustainable downtown streetscapes and unique developments (i.e. Central Addition LIV District, West End, etc.)

2. Share with all city departments and agencies common goals and objectives.

3. Collaborate with PDS and commercial partners to review development ordinances – balancing community forestry strategies with development priorities and seeking creative solutions.

2. Involvement of Large Institutional Landholders

Objective Private landholders embrace city-­‐wide goals and objectives through specific resource management plans.

Boise Community Forestry Strategic Management Plan – July 2015 DRAFT

Page 12

Large landholders in the community have a potential to impact the urban forest depending on how they manage their forested lands. Schools, golf clubs, college campuses, even exclusive communities need to embrace city-­‐wide goals and objectives for the urban forest, and ideally develop resource management plans.

City staff has periodic communication with three identified large institutional landholders (Boise State University, Saint Luke’s Hospital, and Boise Public Schools). Community Forestry outreach and education tools are made available for these landholders to use in raising awareness and managing their urban forest resource.

Boise’s Goal: Clear goals for tree resource by landholders; Incentives for planting /preservation of private trees.

Key Strategies: 1. Identify and engage institutional landholders. Establish tree planting and maintenance goals.

3. Green Industry Cooperation*

Objective The green industry operates with high professional standards and commits to city-­‐wide goals and objectives.

Nurseries, landscapers, and arborists have great influence on the public perception of proper tree selection and care. The key objective is the green industry operates with high professional standards and commits to city-­‐wide goals and objectives.

Idaho has a very successful green industry conference that is hosted in Boise each year in January / February by Idaho Nursery and Landscape Association (INLA). Boise City staff is a key partner in developing the conference agenda and provides volunteer assistance at the conference.

Boise’s Goal: Specific cooperative arrangements in-­‐place for consumer education. Key priorities include: planting and long-­‐term care

Key Strategies: 1. Collaborate with the nursery industry to address community forestry priorities, including: develop targeted educational and outreach material for planting and long-­‐term care of trees, enhance species varieties for community forest diversity.

2. Develop standards and specifications for community projects in collaboration with landscape design industry (for example: structural soil installations, streetscapes, public and private projects.

3. Enhance current Boise Community Forestry licensed tree care company list and practice.

Develop a higher qualification standard with more frequent monitoring and enforcement standards.

Boise Community Forestry Strategic Management Plan – July 2015 DRAFT

Page 13

4. Neighborhood Action*

Objective At the neighborhood level, citizens understand and cooperate in urban forest management.

The key objective is citizens understand and cooperate or participate in urban forest management, ideally at the neighborhood level. The most effective way to achieve this is to engage the neighborhood associations with the program through education, advocacy and active stewardship.

Community Forestry staff has been involved in several neighborhood level planning initiatives in the Vista, North End and West Bench in the past. Using enhanced data and tools from the 2013 Treasure Valley UTC Assessment (NeighborWoods Program – launched in 2014) and with municipal leadership’s enhanced vision for sustainability (LIV Boise and Energize our Neighborhoods), community forestry staff sees great opportunity to improve neighborhood action in the future.

Boise’s Goal: Neighborhood Associations are encouraged and cooperating.

Key Strategies: 1. Create a strategy for outreach and education about tree care and canopy benefits to Neighborhood Associations and Homeowners Associations.

2. Work with Neighborhood and Homeowners Associations to establish specifications for tree maintenance that are accessible and affordable to residents as needed.

3. Identify potential tree planting locations (especially along arterial and collector level streets) and seek funding with Neighborhoods to develop and plant trees in these areas.

5. Citizen-­‐Municipal-­‐Business Interaction*

Objective All constituencies in the community interact for the benefit of the urban forest.

The key objective is all constituencies in the community interact for the benefit of the urban forest. This can be accomplished through advisory citizen boards or other venues whether informal or formal depending on what works with the community.

In downtown, Community Forestry staff has been a key partner alongside Capitol City Development Corporation (CCDC) and Downtown Boise Association (DBA) in development of several planning tools and resources over the last ten years, including: Downtown Boise Streetscape Standards (2007), Trees in Downtown Boise, and Downtown Walkability Analysis (2013). There is a desire among all partners to improve implementation of these tools and resources into a comprehensive and effective strategy for planning and maintaining the downtown community forest resource.

Boise’s Goal: Formal interaction with plans encouraged by community partners.

Boise Community Forestry Strategic Management Plan – July 2015 DRAFT

Page 14

Key Strategies: 1. In collaboration with partners, develop templates, standards and specifications for operations and maintenance of green stormwater infrastructure.

2. Partner with PDS, CCDC, ACHD and DBA to develop and implement a funding plan of maintenance of downtown trees (to include irrigation, establishment, protection and pruning.

3. Develop a strategy with business owners, neighborhood associations and PDS to pro-­‐actively plan for growth of tree canopy and business / signage visibility.

6. General Awareness of Trees as a Community Resource*

Objective The general public understands the role of the urban forest.

The most effective way to get the general public understanding the role of the urban forest is through education and participation. A successful outcome is public support of a comprehensive city urban forestry program and City Council approval for adequate funding of a program.

City leadership and departments have been developing a very progressive sustainability agenda that recognizes the environmental, social, and economic services provided by trees. Parks and Recreation and Community Forestry staff sees great opportunity, combining data from the 2013 Treasure Valley UTC Assessment and information from the city’s sustainability initiatives (LIV Boise), to raise the general public’s awareness of the community forest as a vital community resource.

Boise’s Goal: Promote urban forests as vital to the community's environment and social and economic well-­‐being.

Key Strategies:

1. Link with the City’s LIV initiative to establish the urban tree canopy as a vital means for enhanced sustainability in the City.

2. Collaborate with partners to expand public outreach efforts about importance of the urban forest in functional landscapes.

3. Implement innovative campaigns (print, social, radio, etc.) for promoting the benefits of the community forest.

7. Regional Cooperation

Objective Provide for cooperation and interaction among neighboring communities and regional groups.

The effectiveness of a program can be enhanced when a city provides for cooperation and interaction both regionally and within the community. Shared knowledge and tools increase the capacity for a program and contribute to the overall health and success of the community forest.

Boise Community Forestry Strategic Management Plan – July 2015 DRAFT

Page 15

Boise’s Community Forestry Unit is a founding member of the Treasure Valley Canopy Network (www.tvcanopy.net), a regional collaborative of professionals focused on raising awareness of urban forest benefits and supporting local and regional strategic urban forest management strategies.

Boise’s Goal: Regional planning coordination and/or management planning efforts

Key Strategies: 1. Coordinate with neighboring communities to establish a common voice in efforts to expand and protect our community forests. Current efforts are already under way through the Treasure Valley Canopy Network.

2. Incorporate tree canopy performance measures into the Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho (COMPASS) dashboard.

Key priorities as identified by the Stakeholder Team:

Vegetative Resource • • • •

Relative Canopy Cover: Achieve climate-­‐appropriate degree of tree cover, community-­‐wide Species Suitability: Establish a tree population suitable for the urban environment and adapted to the regional environment.

Species Distribution: Establish a genetically diverse tree population city-­‐wide and at the neighborhood level.

Condition of publicly-­‐managed Trees: Gain a detailed understanding of the condition and risk potential of all publicly-­‐managed trees

Resource Management • • • •

•

•

Tree Inventory: Compile a comprehensive inventory of the tree resource to direct its management Municipality-­‐wide Funding: Develop and maintain adequate funding to implement a city-­‐wide urban forest management plan City Staffing: Employ and train adequate staff to implement city-­‐wide urban forestry plan Tree Establishment: Urban forest renewal is ensured through a comprehensive tree establishment program driven by canopy cover, species diversity and distribution objectives Tree Maintenance: All publicly-­‐owned, highly-­‐managed trees are maintained to maximize current and future benefits. Tree health and condition ensure maximum longevity.

Tree Protection: The benefits derived from large-­‐stature/mature trees and growing canopy are ensured by the enforcement of municipal wide policies.

Boise Community Forestry Strategic Management Plan – July 2015 DRAFT

Page 16

Community Framework • • • • •

Agency Cooperation: Ensure all city departments and agencies cooperate with common goals and objectives.

Green Industry Cooperation: The green industry operates with high professional standards and commits to city-­‐wide goals and objectives.

Neighborhood Action: At the neighborhood level, citizens understand and cooperate in urban forest management.

Community Interaction: All constituencies in the community interact for the benefit of the urban forest.

General Awareness: The general public understands the role of the urban forest: the urban forest is recognized as vital to the community’s environmental, social and economic well-­‐being.

Boise Community Forestry Strategic Management Plan – July 2015 DRAFT

Page 17

Stakeholder Identified Key Priorities

With the work with City staff and the Stakeholder Team, the identified key objectives for the Boise Community Forestry Strategic Management Plan are as follows:

Vegetative Resource • • • •

Relative Canopy Cover: Achieve climate-­‐appropriate degree of tree cover, community-­‐wide Species Suitability: Establish a tree population suitable for the urban environment and adapted to the regional environment.

Species Distribution: Establish a genetically diverse tree population city-­‐wide and at the neighborhood level.

Condition of publicly-­‐managed Trees: Gain a detailed understanding of the condition and risk potential of all publicly-­‐managed trees

VOTES

>?

>A

>E

>D

@ C

/0

!"

#$ %&' "

"(1 ()$* +, &2% -() .&3 +' 4% ". &+ *( 6, + 5 (% ") ." &" "2 2 7+ ( 6 2 4& ," *1 % ) $ &%& &" 3& +* 2(1 #&% (+ & :4 2% 5(, .

3# & 43 34 &)# #&) %&+ -(+ #-( * ; 8 *" $ *$ 1( *$ 09 9 %4 . <$ $# ($. %&' "$ "(= 2( "0 "% $% &+ *

B

Resource Management • • • •

•

•

Tree Inventory: Compile a comprehensive inventory of the tree resource to direct its management Municipality-­‐wide Funding: Develop and maintain adequate funding to implement a city-­‐wide urban forest management plan City Staffing: Employ and train adequate staff to implement city-­‐wide urban forestry plan Tree Establishment: Urban forest renewal is ensured through a comprehensive tree establishment program driven by canopy cover, species diversity and distribution objectives Tree Maintenance: All publicly-­‐owned, highly-­‐managed trees are maintained to maximize current and future benefits. Tree health and condition ensure maximum longevity.

Tree Protection: The benefits derived from large-­‐stature/mature trees and growing canopy are ensured by the enforcement of municipal wide policies.

VOTES

?F ?@

?E

?E

?E

C B D

A

+, +% &)- !" (* 12 *$.) ##$% %3 '# &' # # " 6 $0, $,// &() 7& &, #/ "* %.% 4# /0 -, 0 # !"

512 #& &( ## $ %3 ($# 6 /( #$ 5,& ,% ,9 87 &( #& 5%/: +%( &3% ,& 0# *$/ &4 .# &( (, 8 !" $)8$- ;$-5 8%&4 # # 7 ,& $"% 95% &%& >7 / 95 !"# =$0 .$-, << %.1 #$ " )2 -" ,&, =<<< ) 4 &# (# #0 3$ .(% &, )& #&( (7 $", )5 5$, %.* "# ,< <<

?

Community Framework Agency Cooperation: Ensure all city departments and agencies cooperate with common goals and objectives.

Green Industry Cooperation: The green industry operates with high professional standards and commits to city-­‐wide goals and objectives.

Neighborhood Action: At the neighborhood level, citizens understand and cooperate in urban forest management.

Community Interaction: All constituencies in the community interact for the benefit of the urban forest.

General Awareness: The general public understands the role of the urban forest: the urban forest is recognized as vital to the community’s environmental, social and economic well-­‐being.

• • • • •

VOTES

AB BF BE BD

BD E

!" #$ %&' 1+ () 2*+ $2* &, 3 '&*+ -.

0'8/ */ 4'$ ** (0 (/ +' %)* %+ + 5" '$( +5 90 /, 67 '&77 :* ;% 0%< % . ) */ 6# *+ (0 =3 -/ %6 "+ + -5 >? %&% ' . ( (/ ($% &0 *+ %0, *9 + =# 9'"9 %+ 4 '0 *9 /* @* 777 *9 )%'(9 '(' +( 777 $'& -.* /( 0%+

C

Boise’s Sustainable Urban Forest Matrix Navigator Criteria Descriptors & Current Condition/Strategies February 26, 2015

A. VEGETATIVE RESOURCE The criteria in this category relate to the composition and condition of the urban forest. The performance indicators range in the level of diversity and known health of the trees across the community. These are generally used as performance benchmarks to assess the effectiveness of resource management and the community framework, the other categories. In general, the major strategies to achieve diversity and health goals are:

• For age diversity, planned regeneration and good management and preservation of the highly valued mature trees in the community.

• For species suitability and distribution, use of a diverse and appropriate species list for all community plantings.

• For a healthier and safer tree population, responsive management to address public hazards and optimize the urban forest’s role in community benefits.

1. Canopy Cover

The two common ways to consider canopy cover is average cover and relative cover. Many communities have measured the overall amount of coverage provided by trees throughout their jurisdiction through tools such as GIS, LIDAR or aerial/satellite imagery. The relative canopy cover refers to the amount of tree canopy cover compared to the amount of potential space, whether it is already occupied by canopy or not. Community forestry experts are realizing that this measurement is a better goal to focus on for resource measurement, especially if the average overall canopy cover is at a healthy level.

Available planting spaces are areas where a tree can be planted, as in open ground available to plant. This can be in passive areas of parks, planting strips along streets, even landscape islands in parking lots. Technically, this can be anywhere where there is no impervious surface (roads, rooftops, etc.), but certain land uses, such as ball fields and golf courses would not be reasonable areas to include in the potential.

Boise ’15: According to the 2013 Urban Tree Canopy Assessment (Treasure Valley) report, Boise has 16% existing canopy cover and approximately 35% remaining available planting space (PPA), to total 51% of the city area. When you compare the existing canopy to the potential space (16 % existing canopy / 51% total potential canopy), the canopy is currently about 31% of the potential.

1

2. Age Distribution of Trees

On a community level, the general measurement for age of trees is based on size. The larger the tree, the older it most likely is. The diameter classes referred to on the spectrum are size ranges in diameter to grossly categorize young, growing, mature, and over-­‐mature trees in the community.

Consideration of species’ growth rate and mature size are factors to further determine how well the size ranges correlate with age of the population. Age diversity is key to avoiding mass age-­‐related mortality and to ensure perpetual renewal of the urban forest.

Boise ’15: Without performing extensive analysis of the existing population with inventory data from the City of Boise, the conclusion of the 2013 Treasure Valley Urban Tree Canopy (UTC) Assessment report (p. 50) mentions, “The Treasure Valley’s urban forest is relatively young: half of all trees are 6” or less in diameter.” Based on interviews with city staff, they feel the current inventory system provides an accurate assessment of tree species, but is not up-­‐to-­‐date for tree age or size.

3. Species Suitability

Diversity of species and the appropriateness of those species in the area are important factors to consider for a healthy urban forest. Tree selection is best based on how well the species grows in the area and has minimal maintenance issues, like drought tolerance and resistance to pests and disease.

Boise ’15: Based on the number of species listed in the public tree inventory, there is a sense that the tree selection for suitability is rather high in Boise.

4. Species Distribution

Diversity of the species in the population, particularly in the built environment is equally critical.

Too often, a small palette of trees is used in most landscape designs and in street improvements.

The lack of diversity can create a situation in which a pest or disease can wipe out a significant portion of the population. The constant threat of pests and diseases heading our way cannot be ignored but rather can be alleviated through a diverse array of tree species in the community.

Boise ’15: Based on the public tree inventory summary provided by Community Forestry Staff, the top two genera are Acer (19.4%) and Fraxinus (11.7%).

2

5. Condition of Publicly-­‐Managed Trees

Understanding the condition of trees helps in prioritizing the management of the urban forest. Part of a tree inventory is rating the condition of a tree from excellent to very poor (or dead). Whether it is a sample plot inventory, such as in a park, or a complete tree inventory in the rights-­‐of-­‐way, assessing the condition of the trees will impact the decisions made about the City’s maintenance work plan.

Along with condition, a necessary assessment of a tree is its risk of failure and likelihood to cause harm or damage. There is an industry rating system for such tree risk assessments that is commonly used as part of a tree inventory.

Boise ’15: Based on the screen shot of Community Forestry’s ACRT inventory program, hazard tree ratings are not included. City staff has five arborists who are qualified through the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Tree Risk Assessment Qualification (TRAQ) Program. Field assessments are completed on field-­‐identified potential risk trees at which point an assessment is documented and follow-­‐up work scheduled.

6. Publicly-­‐Owned Natural Areas The objective for this criterion is a detailed understanding of the ecological structure and function of all publicly-­‐owned natural areas. Some communities have documented the ecological benefits of some of its natural areas with vegetation studies. Stewardship/management plans can be developed from these studies in order to maximize the ecosystem benefits through restoration, conservation, and monitoring.

Boise ’15: For the region, the subject areas that could be considered as publicly-­‐owned natural areas are the sensitive area riparian corridors and Boise River Greenbelt which are referred to in the Foothills Management Plan (2000) and the open space reserve management planning process.

7. Native Vegetation

The local, natural biodiversity found in the city needs to be preserved and enhanced to support native ecosystems. The appropriate publicly-­‐managed places with the most potential are in open spaces, reserves, and passive parklands. The appropriate actions include restoration plantings and invasive species eradication. High use and developed areas have least potential for native vegetation success.

Boise ’15: Native vegetation for the Boise area is dominated by grass and sagebrush. The only native trees are found in riparian areas near water sources and would consist of cottonwood, willow and similar species. Native species conservation is an important consideration for the Boise Foothills and Open Space Reserves, but would not be appropriate for Boise’s urbanized areas. In these open space reserves, invasive species control is an important consideration in management.

3

B. RESOURCE MANAGEMENT The criteria in resource management speak to the significant components of a city urban forestry program – staff, funding, resources, planning, policy, and operations.

1. Tree Inventory

As mentioned in the Vegetative Resource section, understanding the needs and composition of the urban forest requires comprehensive information about the tree resource to direct its management.

Performing a tree inventory is the most common tool with which to collect important data such as species, size, condition, risk level, and location. Usually this is done along the rights-­‐of-­‐way and in landscaped park and other public areas. For private property, sample plots are assessed to get a snapshot of the condition and composition of that sector of the urban forest. Capturing all these data in the City’s GIS mapping is particularly useful to visualize the resource in relation to other aspects of the community.

Boise ’15: According to staff, the public tree inventory was originally completed 20-­‐30 years ago with a software called Tree Manager (originally sold by ACRT) and is updated regularly by field staff during inspections and management. The inventory is estimated to be a 90% complete inventory of public trees and includes data for: species, diameter, condition, location, past maintenance history, next expected maintenance, service requests (both internal and external customer initiated). As of early 2015, the City is transitioning to a new enterprise management system called VueWorks (which will enable full integration of the inventory into the city’s GIS system).

The city has a private property sample-­‐based assessment has been done with i-­‐Tree Eco program (refer to 2013 Treasure Valley UTC Assessment).

2. Canopy Cover Assessment

Mapping the urban tree cover using satellite imagery is another way to analyze different characteristics of the urban forest. Canopy cover can be compared to impervious surface to determine the proportions, especially as it relates to stormwater mitigation. The amount of possible planting area for more tree canopy can also be obtained with this tool.

Some communities perform urban tree canopy assessment that discusses these different aspects of the canopy cover. The relative canopy cover calculation in the Vegetative Resource section could come from that kind of study. The key objective to this tool is to have high resolution assessments of the existing and potential canopy cover for the entire community.

Boise ’15: Meeting the optimal level with current tools, mapping, and assessments. The 2013 Treasure Valley Urban Tree Canopy (UTC) Assessment provides an extensive assessment of Boise UTC and Ecosystem Services provided based on 2011 imagery; in addition this assessment provides mapping and tools to inform planning and policy decisions.

4

3. City-­‐wide Management Plan

A comprehensive urban forest management plan provides a specific road map for annual work and budget for public tree management that is aligned with the vision, mission, and goals of an urban forestry program. The strategies and priorities in this strategic plan are supported by the community and are a solid foundation for such a plan.

Boise ’15: In addition to the 2006 Urban Forestry Management Plan, there are several other relevant plans that address the community forest – Boise River Management Plan (2014), Boise Foothills/Open Space Management Plan (2000), CCDC Trees in Downtown Boise, Parks & Recreation Department Comprehensive Plan (2011), Blueprint Boise (2011), Treasure Valley Urban Tree Canopy (UTC) Assessment (2013), etc. These plans reference desired conditions, policies and practices for the community forest and also introduce concepts such as sustainability and recognition of the variety of social and environmental benefits of the community forest.

4. Municipal-­‐wide Funding

Without funding, a management program cannot be successful. These days, cities must be creative in developing and maintaining adequate funding to execute needed work identified in the management plan. In the Pacific Northwest, urban forestry can be linked effectively to stormwater management for a city (Vancouver, WA), and therefore, funding could be garnered from other departments that have similar goals.

Boise ’15: The Community Forestry Unit’s budget supports a core staff of six and a field crew of six (plus 2 seasonals) who’s primary responsibilities are tree planting and maintenance in order to meet their primary mission. Since 2006, this budget has been diversified to include contracts for tree planting and maintenance, which has been very successful. In addition, staff execute successful outreach and education programs for the general public. In addition to these core program areas, staff is involved as available in discussions for community planning, stormwater management, city sustainability discussions, etc.

5. City Staffing

Along with funding, staffing resource is just as critical for the success of an urban forestry program.

The key objective is to employ and train adequate staff to implement the program and plan.

Boise ’15: The Community Forestry Unit’s budget supports a core staff of six and a field crew of six (plus 2 seasonals) who’s primary responsibilities are tree planting and maintenance in order to meet their primary mission. Since 2006, this budget has been diversified to include contracts for tree planting and maintenance, which has been very successful. Staff execute successful outreach and education programs for the general public. In addition to these core program areas, staff is involved as available in discussions for community planning, stormwater management, city sustainability discussions, etc.

5

2006 Priority Strategies: •

Provide opportunity and additional money for staff to attend training needed to keep certifications current.

6. Tree Establishment

Part of a resource management plan includes a planting or establishment program. Maintaining any resource requires renewal to ensure perpetuity and optimal benefits. The key objective is to ensure urban forest renewal through planning and implementation, and such a program is best driven by canopy cover, species diversity, and species distribution objectives.

Boise ’15: The current average replacement : removal ratio is 1.6 replaced : 1 removed. Using data from the 2013 Treasure Valley UTC Assessment, in 2014 the City began the Neighborwoods Program, a strategic tree planting program focused on planting in low canopy neighborhoods in locations that maximize public and private benefit. Growth of this program will provide a foundation for improved tree establishment priorities city-­‐wide.

2006 Priority Strategies: • •

• • • •

Increase the required 1:1 ratio for tree replacement : removal and encourage additional tree planting in ROW. Continue with and expand on Park property tree replacement and new planting to maximize tree canopy coverage.

Partner with local nurseries for contract growing Require all new and reinvestment development provide a minimum 8-­‐foot wide irrigated space for right-­‐of-­‐way (ROW) tree planting Develop incentives for planting Class III trees in parkway planting sites When replacing Class III trees in parkways narrower than 8 feet, offer a narrowed list of Class II trees for consideration.

7. Maintenance of publicly-­‐managed trees

Some trees require regular maintenance in order to survive in the urban setting. Trees in the Right-­‐ of-­‐Way are the likely candidates for this level of management. The key objective is that these types of trees are maintained to maximize current and future benefits. Tree health and condition ensure maximum longevity.

Boise ’15: City staff currently has a 7-­‐year pruning cycle plan for mature trees (refer to Community Forestry District Map [8 districts] and pruning schedule). Structural pruning of young trees is completed by volunteer Tree Stewards (in 2014, the Tree Stewards pruned approximately 1,000 young trees; for perspective, it is estimated that Boise’s urban forest has approximately 40,000 total trees).

2006 Priority Strategies: 6

• • •

Determine best practices for the coexistence of grasses and trees.

Provide control of Elm Leaf Beetle to meet the threshold for treatment of no more than 25% infestation in a tree.

Develop a tree pruning plan with ACHD for their 9 year street resurfacing cycle.

8. Tree Risk Management

Trees near people and structures have a certain level of risk to cause damage or injury. Assessing the level of risk involves evaluating the tree for defects that could increase its probability of failure and determining the size of the part likely to fail. Considering these factors with proximity to valuable targets, we can assess risks with the trees, and determine best ways to manage or minimize the risk. The key objective is that all publicly-­‐managed trees near targets are managed with safety as a high priority.

Boise ’15: City staff has five arborists who are qualified through the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Tree Risk Assessment Qualification (TRAQ) Program. Field assessments are completed on field identified potential risk trees at which point an assessment is documented and follow-­‐up work scheduled.

2006 Priority Strategies: •

Fund contract services to respond to hazardous tree removal.

9. Tree Protection Policy Development and Enforcement

Much of the urban forest resides on private property. The benefits derived from large and mature trees are tremendous, and the ability to have them safely retained community-­‐wide is important.

Municipal policies around tree protection and management, especially during development can be effective to that end, and must be consistently enforced.

Boise ’15: Boise’s Tree Ordinance was last amended in 2000 and addresses tree protection policy and enforcement. Improved enforcement is desired. Community Forestry was also instrumental in development and implementation of Boise’s landscape ordinance, which was drafted into law in 2009. Effective enforcement of this ordinance could be improved.

2006 Priority Strategies: •

Develop, implement and enforce a Boise City Landscape Ordinance.

10. Publicly-­‐owned Natural Areas Management, Planning and Implementation

Properly managing the forested open space and natural areas of the community requires appropriate planning and implementation. A stewardship plan, which connotes a community 7

engagement in the process, is developed to support action that protects and where needed, enhances the ecological structure and function of this part of the urban forest. These plans often include invasive eradication and urban forest renewal with appropriate native vegetation, along with community participation in the stewardship.

Boise ’15: The Foothills Management Plan (2000) will be updated soon and the open space reserve management planning process is currently underway.

8

C. COMMUNITY FRAMEWORK

This category offers all aspects and possible community relationships that impact the sustainability of the urban forest. The criteria stress the importance of cooperation and deep understanding of the value of the urban forestry for a successful program.

1. Public Agency Cooperation

The key objective is to ensure all city departments and local agencies cooperate with common goals and objectives around the proper management of the urban forest.

Boise ’15: Through involvement in the Treasure Valley Canopy Network, City staff has seen great progress with development of informal teams both within the city and with partner agencies that are resulting in improved implementation of urban forest strategies. This progress includes: Green Stormwater Infrastructure (GSI) strategies, collaborative development of downtown streetscape standards, etc. Staff sees this category as a key objective to continue developing through collaboration with partners into the future. There is great desire and opportunity among partners to develop collaborative strategies that result in a city-­‐wide system of functional landscapes that return ecosystem and community benefits.

2006 Priority Strategies: • •

•

Create a process with Boise PDS in which Community Forestry is notified of impending development projects at the earliest opportunity Create a formal agreement with ACHD to cover tree maintenance, tree planting, tree replacement and infrastructure conflicts caused by trees.

Coordinate alternative sidewalk replacement material / design plans.

2. Involvement of Large Institutional Landholders

Large landholders in the community have a potential to impact the urban forest depending on how they manage their forested lands. Schools, golf clubs, college campuses, even exclusive communities need to embrace city-­‐wide goals and objectives for the urban forest, and ideally develop resource management plans.

Boise ’15: City staff has periodic communication with three identified large institutional landholders (Boise State University, Saint Luke’s Hospital, and Boise Public Schools). Community Forestry outreach and education tools are made available for these landholders to use in raising awareness and managing their urban forest resource.

9

3. Green Industry Cooperation

Nurseries, landscapers, and arborists have great influence on the public perception of proper tree selection and care. The key objective is the green industry operates with high professional standards and commits to city-­‐wide goals and objectives.

Boise ’15: Idaho has a very successful green industry conference that is hosted in Boise each year in January / February by Idaho Nursery and Landscape Association (INLA). Boise City staff is a key partner in developing the conference agenda and provides volunteer assistance at the conference.

2006 Priority Strategies: •

Provide additional educational classes to various groups and professionals.

4. Neighborhood Action

The key objective is citizens understand and cooperate or participate in urban forest management, ideally at the neighborhood level. The most effective way to achieve this is to engage the neighborhood associations with the program through education, advocacy and active stewardship.

Boise ’15: Community Forestry staff has been involved in several neighborhood level planning initiatives in the Vista, North End and West Bench in the past. Using enhanced data and tools from the 2013 Treasure Valley UTC Assessment (Neighborwoods Program – launched in 2014) and with municipal leadership’s enhanced vision for sustainability (LIV Boise and Energize our Neighborhoods), community forestry staff sees great opportunity to improve neighborhood action in the future.

2006 Priority Strategies: • •

Work with the North End and East End Neighborhood Associations to develop Neighborhood specific planting plans, Work with Boise City Planning and Development Services (PDS), developers and neighborhoods to create “street planting” along private property behind public ROW

10

5. Citizen-­‐Municipal-­‐Business Interaction

The key objective is all constituencies in the community interact for the benefit of the urban forest.

This can be accomplished through advisory citizen boards or other venues whether informal or formal depending on what works with the community.

Boise ’15: In downtown, Community Forestry staff has been a key partner alongside Capitol City Development Corporation (CCDC) and Downtown Boise Association (DBA) in development of several planning tools and resources over the last 10 years, including: Downtown Boise Streetscape Standards (2007), Trees in Downtown Boise, and Downtown Walkability Analysis (2013). There is a desire among all partners to improve implementation of these tools and resources into a comprehensive and effective strategy for planning and maintaining the downtown community forest resource.

2006 Priority Strategies: • • •

Work with Capital City Development Corporation (CCDC) and Downtown Business Association (DBA) and property owners/tenants to create a downtown core tree planting plan.

In cooperation with CCDC and DBA, create a comprehensive maintenance strategy for the downtown tree plan Create a comprehensive education strategy aimed at downtown property owners, tenants and developers.

6. General Awareness of Trees as a Community Resource

The most effective way to get the general public understanding the role of the urban forest is through education and participation. A successful outcome is public support of a comprehensive city urban forestry program and City Council approval for adequate funding of a program.

Boise ’15: City leadership and departments have been developing a very progressive sustainability agenda that recognizes the environmental, social and economic services provided by trees. Parks and Recreation and Community Forestry staff sees great opportunity, combining data from the 2013 Treasure Valley UTC Assessment and information from the city’s sustainability initiatives (LIV Boise), to raise the general public’s awareness of the community forest as a vital community resource.

2006 Priority Strategies: • •

Expand Tree Steward Program Hire 1 additional staff or convert 1 existing staff member to oversee educational outreach programs.

11

7. Regional Cooperation

The effectiveness of a program can be enhanced when a city provides for cooperation and interaction among neighboring communities and regional groups.

Boise ’15: Boise’s Community Forestry Unit is a founding member of the Treasure Valley Canopy Network (www.tvcanopy.net), a regional collaborative of professionals focused on raising awareness of urban forest benefits and supporting local and regional strategic urban forest management strategies.

12

City of Boise Sustainable Urban Forestry Matrix

Vegetative Resource Criteria and Indicators Criteria

1. Relative Canopy Cover

2. Age distribution of trees in the community

3. Species suitability

4. Species distribution

5. Condition of Publicly-­‐ managed Trees (including ROW trees)

V

Key Objective

current status

desired future condition

Page 1

Performance Indicator Spectrum è

èè

èèè

èèèè

19

The existing canopy Achieve climate-­‐appropriate degree cover equals 0-­‐25% of of tree cover, community-­‐wide the potential.

The existing canopy cover equals 25-­‐50% of the potential. [Boise ~ 31%]

The existing canopy cover equals 50-­‐75% of the potential.

The existing canopy cover equals 75-­‐100% of the potential.

7

Any relative diameter class (size range Provide for uneven-­‐aged equating to age) distribution city-­‐wide as well as at represents more than the neighborhood level.

75% of the tree population.

Any diameter class represents between 50% and 75% of the tree population.

No diameter class represents more than 50% of the tree population.

25% of the tree population is in each of four diameter classes.

12

Establish a tree population suitable for the urban environment and adapted to the regional environment.

50% to 75% of trees are of species considered suitable for the area.

More than 75% of trees are of species considered suitable for the area.

All trees are of species considered suitable for the area.

13

Fewer than 5 Establish a genetically diverse tree species/genera population city-­‐wide and at the dominate the entire neighborhood level. tree population city-­‐ wide.

No genus represents more than 20% of the public tree population city-­‐wide.

(Maple 19.4%, Ash 11.7%)

No genus represents more than 10% of the public tree population city-­‐wide.

No genus represents more than 10% of the entire tree population at the neighborhood level.

Sample-­‐based inventory indicating tree condition and risk level is in place.

Complete tree inventory which includes detailed tree condition ratings.

Complete tree inventory which includes a formalized risk assessment protocol.

14

Less than 50% of trees are of species considered suitable for the area.

No tree maintenance or risk assessment.

Detailed understanding of the Request based/reactive condition and risk potential of all system. The condition publicly-­‐managed trees of the urban forest is unknown

City of Boise Sustainable Urban Forestry Matrix

Vegetative Resource Criteria and Indicators Criteria

6. Publicly-­‐ owned natural areas (e.g. riparian corridors, Boise River greenbelts)

7. Native vegetation

V

5

0

Key Objective

current status

Page 2

Performance Indicator Spectrum è

Detailed understanding of the No information about ecological structure and function of publicly-­‐owned natural all publicly-­‐owned natural areas. areas.

Preservation and enhancement of No program of local natural biodiversity integration

V = Group priority votes (poll)

desired future condition

èè

èèè

èèèè

Publicly-­‐owned natural areas identified in a “natural areas survey” or similar document [parks, open space plan].

The level and type of public use and vegetation cover and condition in publicly-­‐owned natural areas are documented.

The ecological structure and function of publicly-­‐ owned natural areas are documented through an Urban Tree Canopy Analysis and included in the city-­‐wide GIS

Voluntary use of native species on publicly and privately-­‐ owned lands; invasive species are recognized.

The use of native species is encouraged on a project-­‐ appropriate basis in actively managed areas. Invasive species are recognized and aggressive eradication efforts are in-­‐place.

The use of native species is required on a project-­‐ appropriate basis in all public and private managed areas; invasive species are aggressively eradicated.

City of Boise Sustainable Urban Forestry Matrix

Resource Management Criteria and Indicators Criteria

V

Key Objective

current status

desired future condition

Page 1

Performance Indicator Spectrum è

èè

èèè

èèèè

Complete or sample-­‐based inventory of publicly-­‐ owned trees

Complete inventory of publicly-­‐ owned trees AND sample-­‐based inventory of privately-­‐owned trees (i-­‐Tree Eco).

Complete inventory of publicly-­‐owned trees AND sample-­‐based inventory of privately-­‐owned trees included in city-­‐ wide GIS

1. Tree Inventory

14

Comprehensive inventory of the tree resource to direct its management.

This includes: age distribution, No inventory species mix, tree condition, risk assessment.

2. Canopy Cover Assessment

3

High resolution assessments of the No inventory/ existing and potential canopy cover assessment for the entire community.

Visual assessment

Sampling of tree cover using aerial photographs or satellite imagery; I-­‐Tree;

Mapped urban tree cover using aerial photographs or satellite imagery included in city-­‐wide GIS

8

Develop and implement a comprehensive urban forest No plan management plan community-­‐wide.

Existing plan provides operational direction; needs update and expansion.

Comprehensive plan for publicly-­‐ managed forest resources accepted and implemented with adaptive management mechanisms.

Strategic multi-­‐tiered plan for publicly and privately-­‐managed forest resources accepted and implemented with adaptive management mechanisms.

Funding for some proactive management to improve the public portion of urban forest.

Funding to provide for a measurable increase in urban forest benefits.

Adequate private and public funding to sustain maximum urban forest benefits.

3. City-­‐wide management plan

4. Municipal-­‐wide funding

9

Develop and maintain adequate Funding for only funding to implement a city-­‐wide emergency reactive urban forest management plan management

City of Boise Sustainable Urban Forestry Matrix

Resource Management Criteria and Indicators Criteria

5. City staffing

6. Tree establishment, planning and implementation

7. Maintenance of publicly-­‐owned, highly-­‐managed trees (not open space)

8. Tree Risk Management

V

current status

desired future condition Performance Indicator Spectrum

Key Objective

è

èè

Coordination of tree establishment occurs on an annual basis with minimal budget.

Tree establishment is directed by needs derived from a tree inventory or strategy

Tree establishment is directed by needs derived from a tree inventory and is sufficient to meet canopy cover objectives (see Vegetative Resource Matrix, Criteria 1. Relative Canopy Cover)

Publicly-­‐owned trees are maintained on a request/reactive basis.

Plan in place to systematically maintain all public trees, but not fully implemented.

All mature publicly-­‐owned trees are consistently maintained on a 6-­‐year cycle; young trees are structurally pruned as needed.

Request-­‐based/reactive risk assessment program system with documentation; Responsive abatement once notified.

Complete tree inventory which includes a formalized risk assessment protocol; pro-­‐active risk abatement program is in effect eliminating hazards within a maximum of one month from confirmation of hazard potential

Complete tree inventory which includes detailed tree failure risk ratings; risk abatement program is in effect eliminating hazards within a maximum of one week from confirmation of hazard potential.

10

10

Urban Forest renewal is ensured through a comprehensive tree Tree establishment is establishment program driven by ad hoc (no plan or canopy cover, species diversity, and budget) species distribution objectives

15

All publicly-­‐owned, highly-­‐managed trees are maintained to maximize No maintenance of current and future benefits. Tree publicly-­‐owned trees health and condition ensure maximum longevity.

All publicly-­‐owned trees are managed with safety as a high priority.

èèèè Multi-­‐disciplinary team within the urban forestry program, with other city departments and with other cooperating agencies.

Minimal trained and certified program staff ; limited funding for training

No tree risk assessment/ remediation program. Request-­‐ based reactive system. The risk of the urban forest is unknown.

èèè Certified arborists and professional foresters on staff with regular professional development.

Employ and train adequate staff to implement city-­‐wide urban forestry No staff. plan

1

Page 2

City of Boise Sustainable Urban Forestry Matrix

Resource Management Criteria and Indicators Criteria

9. Tree protection policy development and enforcement

10. Publicly-­‐owned natural areas management planning and implementation

V

10

6

Key Objective

current status

Performance Indicator Spectrum è

The benefits derived from large-­‐ stature/mature trees and growing No tree protection canopy are ensured by the policy enforcement of municipal wide policies.

The ecological structure and function of all publicly-­‐owned natural areas are protected and, where appropriate, enhanced.

V = Group priority votes (poll)

Page 3

desired future condition

No stewardship plans or implementation in effect.

èè

èèè

èèèè

Policies in place to protect public trees.

Policies in place to protect public and private trees with enforcement desired or not consistent.

Integrated municipal wide policies that ensure the protection of trees on public and private land are consistently enforced and supported by significant deterrents or incentives; an increased awareness of the value of tree protection among residents and business owners and public agencies.

Reactionary stewardship in effect to facilitate public use (e.g. hazard abatement, trail maintenance, etc.)

Stewardship plan in effect for each publicly-­‐owned natural area to facilitate public use (e.g. hazard abatement, trail maintenance, etc.)

Stewardship plan in effect for each publicly-­‐owned natural area focused on sustaining the ecological structure and function of the feature.

City of Boise Sustainable Urban Forestry Matrix

Community Framework Criteria and Indicators Criteria 1. Public agency cooperation (inter-­‐ departmental and inter-­‐ agency) 2. Involvement of large institutional land holders (ex. hospitals, campuses)

3. Green industry cooperation

4. Neighborhood action

V

21

3

10

15

Key Objective

current status

Page 1

desired future condition Performance Indicator Spectrum

è

èè

èèè

èèèè

Ensure all city departments Limited and agencies cooperate with communication or conflicting goals common goals and among departments objectives. and/or agencies.

Common goals but limited coordination or cooperation among departments and/or agencies.

Informal teams among departments and/or agencies are functioning and implementing common goals on a project-­‐specific basis.

Municipal policy implemented by formal interdepartmental/ interagency teams working on community projects.

Large private landholders embrace city-­‐wide goals and No awareness of objectives through specific issues resource management plans.

Periodic correspondence; Educational materials and advice available to landholders.

Clear goals for tree resource by landholders. Incentives for planting/preservation of private trees.

Landholders develop comprehensive tree management plans (including funding).

General cooperation among nurseries, tree care companies, etc.

Specific cooperative arrangements in-­‐place for consumer education. Key priorities include: planting and long-­‐term care.

Shared vision and goals including the use of professional standards.

Neighborhood associations are established and are occassionally engaged.

City-­‐wide coverage and interaction.

Neighborhood Associations organized and cooperating.

The green industry operates with high professional standards and commits to city-­‐wide goals and objectives.

No cooperation among segments of the green industry (nurseries, tree care companies, etc.) No adherence to industry standards.

At the neighborhood level, citizens understand and No action cooperate in urban forest management.

City of Boise Sustainable Urban Forestry Matrix

Community Framework Criteria and Indicators Criteria 5. Citizen-­‐ municipality-­‐ business interaction 6. General awareness of trees as a community resource 7. Regional cooperation (within the Treasure Valley)

V

Key Objective

current status

desired future condition

Page 2

Performance Indicator Spectrum è

èè

èèè

èèèè

10

All constituencies in the Conflicting goals community interact for the among constituencies benefit of the urban forest.

Limited interaction among constituencies.

Informal and/or general cooperation.

Formal interaction with plans embraced by community partners.

18

The general public Trees not seen as an understands the role of the asset, a drain on budgets. urban forest.

Trees seen as important to the community.

Trees acknowledged as providing environmental, social and economic services.

Urban forest recognized as vital to the community's environmental, social and economic well-­‐being.

Communities share similar policy vehicles.

Regional planning is in effect

Regional planning, coordination and /or management planning efforts

5

Provide for cooperation and interaction among Communities neighboring communities and independent. regional groups.

V = Group priority votes (poll)

Boise Community Forestry Sustainable Urban Forest Matrix Outputs 2015 FINAL – 6/10/2015

VEGETATIVE RESOURCE

Priority criteria votes identified during 3/12 work session:

19

12

13

14

7 5

Re l

at i Ag ve c an e di op st y rib co ut ve io r n Sp o f t ec re ie es s Co Sp su nd it a ec iti ie bi on s lit d y

Pu of p ist r i bl bu ub ic tio lic ly ly o m n w ne an d na ag . . tu N r al at a iv re e as Ve

ge ta tio n

0

1. Relative canopy cover • Key Objective: Achieve climate-­‐appropriate degree of tree canopy cover, community-­‐wide • Current Condition: èè The city’s existing urban tree canopy cover is 16% CONTEXT: Existing canopy cover equals ~31 % of the potential.

FOR REFERENCE: (Boise: current = 16% average overall; identified potential is about half (51%) of total area) • Goal (desired future condition): èè Attain city-­‐wide urban tree canopy cover between 16-­‐25%, maximizing the potential available planting space. CONTEXT: A relative canopy cover goal of between 25-­‐ 50% of the potential was identified. FOR REFERENCE: Partners feel

1

that slowly increasing canopy cover through strategic tree planting strategies and measuring progress with a UTC assessment in 10 years would be a suitable goal.

•

•

•

Key Strategies: 1. Develop neighborhood level tree canopy goals in collaboration with Neighborhood Associations 2. Develop plans and secure funding for strategic public (parks, streetscapes, right of way) and private (residential and commercial) tree planting 3. Assess Urban Tree Canopy (UTC) in 10 years to measure progress since last measurement (2011) Strategies Brainstorm: i. Develop Neighborhood level desired tree canopy goals ii. Focus planting efforts on newly annexed communities that have low levels of canopy cover. iii. Develop private property tree canopy enhancement strategies that get the city to their desired goal Comments from 4/16 & 6/4 Brainstorm sessions i. For annual work plans -­‐ provide breakdown of public (parks, streetscapes, etc) and private tree planting goals to inform leadership on strategic investments of funding ii. While increasing canopy and expanding plantings ensure we are planting the right tree in the right place – no blocking stop signs etc. iii. Develop metrics for right of way (ROW) and parks planting goals that are measurable. While we cannot control private property, we can show these public property planting goals are being met.

2. Age distribution of trees in the community • Key Objective: Provide for even-­‐aged distribution city-­‐wide as well as at the neighborhood level • Current Condition: èè Any diameter class represents between 50% and 75% of the tree population • **Goal (desired future condition): èèèNo diameter class represents more than 50% of the tree population.

• Key Strategies: 1. Update tree inventory with current diameter classes and GIS locations. (to be completed during transition to city’s new asset management system – currently in-­‐process) 2. Develop plans for tree planting and pro-­‐active replacement of large, aging tree populations to achieve diverse age distribution city-­‐wide.

• Strategies Brainstorm:

2

i. Update tree inventory to reflect current diameter classes within the urban forest. Make sure the inventory and software allow GIS locations and queries for within neighborhoood associations, and other jurisdicitional boundaries. This will be key to understanding the age distribution of trees in Boise.

NOTE: This topic was mentioned several times. A new asset management software is being implemented in the city and provides a key opportunity to improve the inventory which is key to making sound decisions about the urban forest resource. ii. Find a way to sample private property 3. Species suitability • Key Objective: Establish a tree population suitable for the urban environment and adapted to the regional environment • Current Condition: èèè More than 75% of trees are of species considered suitable for the area • Goal (desired future condition): èèè More than 75% of trees are of species considered suitable for the area • Key Strategies: 1. Update City’s recommended tree species list while always seeking new varieties to diversify the urban forest 2. Implement diversified tree species recommendations for streets, parks and city property plantings 3. Collaborate with local nursery and landscape industry to develop species, stock quality, and planting specifications that meet Community Forestry goals (increase species diversity, etc.)

• Strategies Brainstorm: i. Continue to diversify species and varieties of new plantings to build a resilient and diverse urban forest resource • Comments from 4/16 & 6/4 brainstorm sessions i. Update tree inventory data ii. Evaluate and incorporate quality of nursery stock, municipal tree specifications and enforcement of these specifications 4. Species distribution • Key Objective: Establish a genetically diverse tree population city-­‐ wide and at the neighborhood level • Current Condition: èè No genus represents more than 20% of the public tree population city-­‐wide.

• Goal (desired future condition): èèè No genus represents more than 10% of the public tree population city wide • Key Strategies:

3

•

•

1. Update City’s recommended tree species list while always seeking new varieties to diversify the urban forest 2. Implement diversified tree species recommendations for neighborhoods, streets, parks and city property plantings 3. Reduce plantings of species with current insect and disease risk (emerald ash borer, etc.) and species that currently represent greater than 20% of total tree population (maple, ash, etc.)

Strategies Brainstorm: i. Encourage more diversity of species in future planting plans ii. Identify new pest/disease threats, such as Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) and how it will impact tree population iii. Limit the planting of current high percentage species (Maple for sure and Ash) iv. Is Boise a suitable climate to plant trees from other locations that are threatened by extinction? Can we dedicate some planting resources to grow globally threatened trees locally?

Comments from 4/16 & 6/4 Brainstorm sessions i. Update inventory ii. Use updated GIS location in inventory to implement enhanced neighborhood level tree diversity goals

5. Condition of publicly managed trees (including ROW trees) • Key Objective: Detailed understanding of the condition and risk potential of all publicly-­‐managed trees • Current Condition: èèè City has a tree inventory which includes tree condition ratings • **Goal (desired future condition): èèèè City has a complete tree inventory and formalized tree condition and risk assessment protocol • Key Strategies: 1. Develop a formalized tree condition and tree risk assessment protocol 2. Add risk assessment component to the city’s new asset management system • Strategies Brainstorm: i. Regularly update tree data to current conditions ii. Add risk rating component to inventory iii. Add risk assessment component to the city’s new asset management software. Now is the time to do it, while evolving to the new assessment management system. Trees are assets! iv. Stratify or prioritize risk assessment by criteria; species, age and condition (fair to lower), or target (ROW, Park, Parking lot

4

•

etc.). Silver maples/cottonwoods would be a good place to start v. Use the currently effective practice of hazard assessment and response to develop and document a formal policy.

Comments from 4/16 & 6/4 Brainstorm sessions i. Do not lose the tree condition assessment if we are adding the risk assessment ii. Formalize risk assessment in protocol

6. Publicly-­‐owned natural areas (riparian corridors in foothills and Boise River Greenbelt) • Key Objective: Detailed understanding of the ecological structure and function of all publicly owned natural areas.

• Current Condition: èè Publicly-­‐owned natural areas identified in a “natural areas survey” or similar document (parks, open space plan) • Goal (desired future condition): èèèè The ecological structure and function of publicly-­‐owned natural areas are documented and included in the city-­‐wide GIS system.

• Key Strategies: 1. Quantify structure and function of the riparian zone along the Boise River (Reference Boise River Riparian Stewardship Plan).

2. Leverage local and regional assessments and share data between city departments in order to raise awareness about ecosystem services, ecological structure and function of natural areas throughout the City.

• Strategies Brainstorm: i. Apply i-­‐Tree Eco assessment on Boise River Greenbelt ii. Incorporate data from other planning efforts (Boise River Management Plan, Open Space Planning documents) to develop a better understanding of the ecological structure and function of natural areas. iii. Use the ecological function data to inform community of the essential benefits that these natural areas provide.

7. Native vegetation • Key Objective: Preservation and enhancement of local natural biodiversity • Current Condition: èèè The use of native species is encouraged on a project-­‐appropriate basis in actively managed areas. Invasive species are recognized and discouraged; some planned eradication efforts are in-­‐place.

• Goal (desired future condition): èèè The use of native species is encouraged on a project-­‐appropriate basis in actively managed areas.

Invasive species are recognized and discouraged and aggressive

5

•

•

•

eradication efforts are in place. NOTE: Boise is located in a semi-­‐arid desert climate, which means there are no native trees to the upland system. Native trees species do exist in riparian areas (Cottonwood, willow, etc.).

Key Strategies: 1. Develop and implement strategies with partners to identify, inventory and reduce population of invasive or undesirable species from riparian and upland natural areas.

2. Develop and implement a collaborative plan for establishment of native plants in riparian corridors.

Strategies Brainstorm: i. Park stewardship activity -­‐ ramp-­‐up invasive removal efforts ii. Maintain and enhance native species establishment in riparian areas within open space and within the Boise Greeenbelt iii. Continue and expand aggressive eradication of invasive species.

Comments from 4/16 & 6/4 Brainstorm sessions i. When talking about urban forest we are looking at the whole vegetative resource and structure including shrubs and grasses.

** This goal is based on the best available tree inventory data at the time of this plan.

The city has identified updates to their current inventory system as a top priority in order to better evaluate this criteria in the future.

6

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

Priority criteria votes identified during work session:

15 14

10

10

10

9 8 6

3

Ci

Tr ty ee -­‐w in id ve e nt m or an y ag em en t p M la ai n nt C en ity an st ce af o fin f p g ub lic Tr p ee ar k. p .. ro te ct io n po lic y

1

1. Tree Inventory • Key Objective: Comprehensive inventory of the tree resource to direct its management. This includes: age distribution, species mix, tree condition, risk assessment.

• Current Condition: èèè Complete inventory of publicly-­‐owned trees AND sample-­‐based inventory of privately-­‐owned trees (Treasure Valley i-­‐Tree Eco, 2013).

• Goal (desired future condition): èèèè Complete inventory of publicly owned trees and sample-­‐based inventory of privately owned trees included in city-­‐wide GIS • Key Strategies: 7

•

•

1. Update tree inventory with current diameter classes, condition ratings, and GIS locations. (GIS locations will be completed during transition to city’s new asset management system – currently in-­‐process) 2. Quantify structure and function of the riparian zone along the Boise River (Reference Boise River Riparian Stewardship Plan).

3. Expand current inventory of parks and ROW trees, incorporating all publicly owned properties including all city-­‐owned or managed properties and newly annexed areas of the city.

Strategies Brainstorm: i. Incorporate tree inventory in city’s new asset management software. ii. Find a way to sample private property.

Comments from 4/16 & 6/4 Brainstorm sessions i. Already under way while moving towards the city-­‐wide enterprise asset management system. ii. The city’s new asset management system will provide current GIS locations of trees, but will not update diameter classes.

Staff will need to develop a plan and timeline for updating diameter class data for the complete inventory.

2. Canopy Cover Assessment • Key Objective: High resolution assessments of the existing and potential canopy cover for the entire community • Current Condition: èèèè Mapped urban tree cover using aerial photographs or satellite imagery included in city-­‐wide GIS. • Goal (desired future condition): èèèè Mapped urban tree cover using aerial photographs or satellite imagery included in city-­‐wide GIS. • Key Strategies: 1. Develop plans to update city or valley-­‐wide urban tree canopy assessment by 2021.

2. Expand current inventory of parks and ROW trees, incorporating all publicly owned properties including all city-­‐owned or managed properties and newly annexed areas of the city.

• Strategies Brainstorm: i. Include newly annexed areas in tree inventory and add to the urban tree canopy assessment ii. Update city-­‐wide iTree analysis and urban tree canopy analysis in 5 years – 10 years.

• Comments from 4/16 & 6/4 Brainstorm sessions

8

i. Hope that a repeat UTC assessment for Boise occurs in next 5 years.

3. City-­‐wide Management Plan • Key Objective: Develop and implement a comprehensive urban forest management plan community-­‐wide.

• Current Condition: èè Existing plan provides operational direction; needs update and expansion.

• Goal (desired future condition): èèèè Strategic multi-­‐tiered plan for publicly and privately managed forest resources accepted and implemented with adaptive management mechanisms.

• Key Strategies: 1. Review and assess Forestry Management Plan strategies on an annual basis to determine progress and identify any roadblocks to progress (i.e. budgetary, personnel, etc.)

2. Align Community Forestry Management Plan strategies to ensure synergy with other City planning efforts.

• Strategies Brainstorm: i. Set program performance measures that can link to increased benefits – regular (annual) progress review, enough funding? ii. Acknowledge and formalize communications and multi-­‐ disciplinary teams in the program management plan.

• Comments from 4/16 & 6/4 Brainstorm sessions i. This is what we are doing now – involved all stakeholders ii. Consider designating an interagency “ambassador” to work with other agencies.

4. Municipal-­‐wide Funding • Key Objective: Develop and maintain adequate funding to implement a city-­‐wide urban forest management plan • Current Condition: èè Funding for some proactive management to improve the public portion of the urban forest.

• Goal (desired future condition): èèè Funding to provide for a measurable increase in urban forest benefits • Key Strategies: 1. Based on annual review and assessment of plan implementation progress, develop plans for enhanced staffing and funding to maintain and enhance Community Forestry’s level of service.

2. Collaborate with partners on mutually beneficial funding enhancements, including base-­‐level municipal funding, public/private partnership funding sources and key project funding opportunities.

9

•

•

Strategies Brainstorm: i. Can community forestry seek grant funding to supplement city-­‐council mandated funding? -­‐-­‐ Tom says yes, but council approval would be needed ii. Add additional staff to maintain levels of service and care when new areas are annexed into the city (e.g. southwest). This could include increased maintenance impact fees for new parks.

Comments from 4/16 & 6/4 Brainstorm sessions i. Use current tools and resources (2013 Treasure Valley Urban Tree canopy Assessment, etc.) to inform and educate the public, decision-­‐makers, etc. as part of these annual funding reviews. ii. What shows that we met this goal? Amount of money allocated to the budget for enhancements?

5. City Staffing • Key Objective: Employ and train adequate staff to implement a city-­‐ wide urban forestry plan • Current Condition: èèè Certified arborists and professional foresters on staff with regular professional development.

• Goal (desired future condition): èèèè Multi-­‐disciplinary team within the urban forestry program, in collaboration with other city departments and with other cooperating agencies • Key Strategies: 1. Establish a formal multi-­‐disciplinary team consisting of key personnel from the City and other agencies to identify and address collaborations toward a sustainable and healthy community. This team will develop efficient and effective systems for sharing of information, project and program collaborations, policy development and efficient use of public and private resources.

2. Enhance staffing and municipal funding to maintain Community Forestry’s level of service.

• Strategies Brainstorm: i. Continue the ongoing communication between city departments to ensure multi-­‐disciplinary teams are working together effectively. ii. Analyze additional workload and staff needs with pending annexation.

• Comments from 4/16 & 6/4 Brainstorm sessions i. Formalize arrangements in management plan. Existing relations already in place.

10

ii. City funding additional sustainability personnel should help in the team approach to ensure sustainability initiatives involve Community Forestry. iii. Within this team how do we improve communication and educate about data and resources available within our existing network? iv. Look at the “ambassador” model. Can we find funding to designate a position or collaborate on a position with other departments, agencies?

6. Tree establishment, planning and implementation • Key Objective: Urban Forest renewal is ensured through a comprehensive tree establishment program driven by canopy cover, species diversity, and species distribution objectives.

• Current Condition: èè Coordination of tree establishment occurs on an annual basis with minimal budget • Goal (desired future condition): èèèè Tree establishment is directed by needs derived from a tree inventory and is sufficient to meet canopy cover objectives.

• Key Strategies: 1. Prioritize tree planting areas through the use of the 2013 Treasure Valley UTC Assessment.

2. Establish goals for tree canopy and planting in collaboration with Neighborhood Associations and Homeowners Associations.

3. Contribute to streetscape design standards that balance tree canopy goals with business and community goals (signage, transportation, walkability, bikeability, etc.).

• Strategies Brainstorm: i. Be more strategic with plantings on public and private land ii. Use potential planting location data from 2013 Treasure Valley Urban Tree Canopy (UTC) Assessment to determine strategic planting locations city-­‐wide iii. Ensure diversity of trees balances allergens through planting less female trees where and when applicable iv. Plant largest (Class II and Class III) species when and where applicable v. Develop incentives for planting on private land vi. In streetscape design, collaborative teams work together on balancing tree canopy with additional needs / uses (including: signage, seating, bike racks, sidewalks, etc).

• Comments from 4/16 & 6/4 Brainstorm sessions i. Acknowledge, Formalize, get kudos and expand!

11

7. Maintenance of publicly-­‐owned, highly-­‐managed trees (not open space) • Key Objective: All publicly-­‐owned, highly-­‐managed trees are maintained to maximize current and future benefits. Tree health and condition ensure maximum longevity.

• Current Condition: èèè Plan in-­‐place to systematically maintain all public trees, but not fully implemented.

• Goal (desired future condition): èèèè All mature publicly-­‐owned trees are consistently pruned on a 6-­‐year cycle, young trees are structurally pruned as needed and a comprehensive downtown street tree plan is implemented.

• Key Strategies: 1. Develop and implement a comprehensive plan and funding for planting, maintaining and irrigating downtown street trees.

2. Incorporate contract pruning of more juvenile and middle-­‐aged trees throughout the city.

3. Combine efforts with ACHD to prune trees ahead of road maintenance projects such as chip sealing and street sweeping.

• Strategies Brainstorm: i. Develop and implement a comprehensive plan and funding for irrigating our downtown street trees 1. Work with Downtown Business Association (DBA), Capital City Development Corporation (CCDC) and private business owners to systematically turn on and off irrigation systems 2. Could DBA be the funder for irrigation through dues paid by business owners?

3. Create separate waterline for city trees funded by the city ii. Ensure there is a mechanism for future care of trees, functional landscapes, etc. when CCDC jurisdiction is sunsetted iii. Continue contracting for pruning small to medium sized trees iv. Increase awareness about care of public R/W trees (landowner responsibility) v. Pro-­‐actively implement tree replacement planning in neighborhoods with large and aging tree canopy. Need enhanced inventory, develop pro-­‐active plans and funding / resource requests.

• Comments from 4/16 & 6/4 Brainstorm sessions i. Formalize and have a protocol ii. With cycle Community Forestry has been able to focus on younger trees, but still primarily working with larger trees. iii. Ownership and watering of ROW trees was brought up again.

In order to ensure proper maintenance of ROW trees, we need

12

to improve outreach and awareness to educate homeowners of their responsibilities in caring for these trees.

8. Tree Risk Management • Key Objective: All publicly-­‐owned trees are managed with safety as a high priority.

• Current Condition: èè Request-­‐based/reactive risk assessment program system with documentation. Responsive abatement once notified.

• Goal (desired future condition): èèè Complete tree inventory which includes a formalized risk assessment protocol. Pro-­‐active risk abatement program is in effect, eliminating hazards within a maximum of one month from confirmation of hazard potential.

• Key Strategies: 1. Establish and formalize a tree risk and assessment policy and protocol for Community Forestry.

2. Create a public outreach program to educate contractors and landowners about risk trees and whom they should contact.

• Strategies Brainstorm: i. Continue with the city’s current condition assessment process and risk assessment process, using this to identify and mitigate/remove hazard trees. ii. Establish a fomalized risk assessment policy and protocol for the Forestry Unit iii. During routine pruning, identify trees in-­‐need of risk assessment. iv. Educate public, contractors and land owners to recognize high risk trees and ensure they know who to contact • Comments from 4/16 & 6/4 Brainstorm sessions i. Will never get away from reactive tree assessment but moving towards a proactive assessment is what the city if working striving for. ii. Thoughtful (strategic) replacement when removing problematic trees – don’t wipe out blocks of even age trees because one is at risk.

9. Tree Protection policy development and enforcement • Key Objective: The benefits derived from large-­‐stature/mature trees and growing canopy are ensured by the enforcement of municipal wide policies.

• Current Condition: èèè Policies in-­‐place to protect public and private trees with enforcement desired or not consistent.

• Goal (desired future condition): èèèè Integrated municipal wide policies that ensure the protection of trees on public and private land

13

•

•

•

are consistently enforced and supported by significant deterrents or incentives; an increased awareness of the value of tree protection among residents, business owners and public agencies.

Key Strategies: 1. Collaborate with PDS, CCDC and DBA to establish tree protection policies for existing and new developments.

2. Establish policies for mitigation of trees removed from parks and/or new developments.

3. Update Tree Ordinance to ensure a greater level of accountability for licensed tree services.

Strategies Brainstorm: i. Establish a comprehensive irrigation strategy for downtown trees ii. Educate and raise awareness of tree development and enforcement iii. Promote tree planting classes for the general public and inform the public about qualified private contractors iv. Include mitigation plan for removal of large trees v. Policies for tree protection should consider solar access considerations vi. Support for tree care over long term in landscape ordinance vii. Develop mitigation requirements for tree loss on private land viii. Work together with multi-­‐disciplinary teams to develop policies and practices ensuring long-­‐term maintenance of trees and landscapes (Operations & Maintenance (O&M) plans and practices for Green Stormwater Infrastructure (GSI) in streetscapes, etc; Planning and Development Services practices and policies, etc).

Comments from 4/16 & 6/4 Brainstorm sessions i. Business owners and visibility – work with them to figure out ways to advertise that works with the canopy. Monument v.

Marquee. ii. Business owners, city and Public works need to think outside the box to ensure that all amenities are met within the small space between the business and road. iii. Educate to realize the amenities of trees and incentives for planting (Stormwater, Energy Efficiency, O and M). iv. Improve education of homeowners, developers, business, etc. on the value of tree protection and replacement. Make this part of a coordinated education and outreach strategy. v. Make sure we measure development of our educational and outreach strategies and results of these efforts.

10. Publicly-­‐owned natural areas management planning and implementation

14

• • •

•

•

Key Objective: The ecological structure and function of all publicly-­‐ owned natural areas are protected and, where appropriate, enhanced.

Current Condition: èè Reactionary stewardship in effect to facilitate public use (e.g. hazard abatement, trail maintenance, etc.).

Goal (desired future condition): èèèè Stewardship plan in effect for each publicly owned natural area focused on sustaining the ecological structure and function of the feature.

Key Strategies: 1. Quantify structure and function of the riparian zone along the Boise River (Reference Boise River Riparian Stewardship Plan).

2. Develop and implement strategies with partners to identify, inventory and reduce invasive or undesirable species from riparian and upland natural areas.

Strategies Brainstorm: i. Align forestry activities with existing planning mechanisms, including: Boise River Management Plan, Open Space Reserves and Foothills management planning, etc.

15

COMMUNITY FRAMEWORK

Priority criteria votes identified during work session:

21 18 15 10

10 5

Pu bl In ic vo ag lv em enc y c en oo t o pe Gr f la ra ee rg tio n e in n l a du nd st ho ry ... c o Ci Ne o tiz i p gh en er bo at -­‐m r io Aw ho un n od ici ar pa en a ct lit es io y s o -­‐b n us f t re in es es a ...

Re s a gi co on al ... c o op er at io n

3

1. Public agency cooperation (inter-­‐departmental and inter-­‐agency) • Key Objective: Ensure all city departments and agencies cooperate with common goals and objectives.

• Current Condition: èèè Informal teams among departments and/or agencies are functioning and implementing common goals on a project-­‐specific basis.

• Goal (desired future condition): èèèè Municipal policy implemented by formal interdepartmental/interagency teams working on community projects.

• Key Strategies: 1. Establish a formal multi-­‐disciplinary team consisting of key personnel from the City and other agencies to

16

•

•

identify and address collaborations toward a sustainable and healthy community. Key initial priorities: a) develop plans for improved planting and maintenance of downtown trees. b) develop standards and creative solutions to sustainable downtown streetscapes and unique developments (i.e. Central Addition LIV District, West End, etc.)

2. Develop a formalized agreement with ACHD to establish maintenance duties and specifications for ROW trees.

3. Collaborate with PDS and commercial partners to review development ordinances – balancing urban forest canopy strategies with development priorities and seeking creative solutions.

Strategies Brainstorm: i. Consider the multi-­‐agency ambassador role in this effort ii. Develop a holistic approach to street tree irrigation and maintenance in the downtown core iii. Educate other agencies/departments on the work/capacity of Community Forestry and their ability to assist other agencies/departments with their work. iv. Ensure long-­‐term understanding of the importance of trees in our city to all departments and agencies. Educate! v. Work to create a common vision for trees within the city departments and cooperating agencies. Educate! vi. Teams to work on access to alleys. vii. Incorporate Community Forestry early in development project process -­‐ prior to site review. viii. Allow Community Forestry to see final development project plans and include a rationale for why community forestry recommendations were not accepted. ix. Look for ways to incorporate wider planting space or building setbacks into development projects. x. Look into incentive programs (GSI) for incorporating more green space into site development; seek opportunities for creative site-­‐design in development xi. Communicate and partner with Neighborhood Associations and Homeowners Associations on key tree considerations during design-­‐review process and additional opportunities as they arise. xii. Ensure transportation projects incorporate streetscape design that: enhances planting space, preserves existing trees (where possible), and considers appropriate species.

Comments from 4/16 & 6/4 Brainstorm sessions

17

i. Expand scope beyond municipal to include community/private non-­‐profits to be included. ii. All public agencies included. iii. Looking at ways to incorporate more planting space within the allowable area (bulb out etc.). iv. Driving too fast, analyzing the land-­‐use within the urban fabric to increase visibility of businesses. v. Partnering on all transportation projects to ensure trees are protected and incorporated in the design inclusive of proper species. vi. How do we measure strategies? Some are generic and there should be a way to measure a project. How can we be sure we moved from one box in the matrix to the next? We have to be able to demonstrate to city leadership that our strategies are measurable and moving towards our goal. vii. Cite that our metrics are tied to the assessments and repeating the UTC. viii. Some strategies aren’t measurable (i.e. agency cooperation). ix. This plan is a tool (living document) to reach goals but that some strategies are not measurable. x. Proactively work with NA’s to ensure potential plantings sites are planted. xi. Include HOAs in Strategy #10. Although NA’s are public and HOAs are private. ROWs in HOAs.

2. Involvement of large institutional landholders (ex. Hospitals, campuses (university/corporate), etc.)

• Key Objective: Private landholders embrace city-­‐wide goals and objectives through specific resource management plans.

• Current Condition: èè Periodic correspondence; educational materials and advice available to landholders.

• Goal (desired future condition): èèè Clear goals for tree resource by landholders. Incentives for planting /preservation of private trees.

• Key Strategies: 1. Identify and engage institutional landholders. Establish tree planting and maintenance goals.

• Strategies Brainstorm: i. Look at Hewlett Packard (HP) tree management plan as a template for other large corporate campuses in the city. ii. Work to get Boise State University (BSU) to Arbor Day’s Tree Campus status iii. Reach out to state/federal government and institutions to ensure tree care for larger landholders in Boise iv. Engage Boise School district for tree care and management

18

•

v. Engage Albertson’s, Walgreens, and Rite Aid (private organizations) for tree care and management Comments from 4/16 & 6/4 Brainstorm sessions i. The Mall (Boise Town Center) should be incorporated in the discussion ii. How do we measure success for this criteria?

3. Green Industry cooperation • Key Objective: The green industry operates with high professional standards and commits to city-­‐wide goals and objectives.

• Current Condition: èè General cooperation among nurseries, tree care companies, etc.

• Goal (desired future condition): èèè Specific cooperative arrangements in-­‐place for consumer education. Key priorities include: planting and long-­‐term care • Key Strategies: 1. Collaborate with nursery industry to address community forestry priorities, including: develop targeted educational and outreach material for planting/long term care over the life span of trees, enhance variety of species for diversity.

2. Develop standards and specifications for community projects in collaboration with landscape design industry (for example: silva cell installations, streetscapes, public and private (commercial and residential) projects) 3. Enhance current Boise Community Forestry licensed tree care company list and practice. Develop a higher qualification standard with more frequent monitoring and enforcement of standards.

• Strategies Brainstorm: i. Foster proactive relationship between community forestry and the nursery industry for tree care and management ii. Enhance current Boise Community Forestry licensed tree care company list and practice. Identify tree care companies that are using poor pruning practices (topping) and make sure they are known to all agencies. iii. Develop targeted educational and outreach material for planting/long term life span for trees for distribution at nurseries and public areas. iv. Work together with landscape design industry to develop standards and specifications for community projects (for example: silva cell installations, streetscapes, public and private (commercial and residential) projects) • Comments from 4/16 & 6/4 Brainstorm sessions

19

i. Consider designating an interagency “ambassador” to work with other agencies, industry, etc. ii. Include architects and private designers in the discussion. iii. Have city provide specs to private designers and architects to incorporate into their designs.

4. Neighborhood Action • Key Objective: At the neighborhood level, citizens understand and cooperate in urban forest management.

• Current Condition: èè Neighborhood associations are established and are occasionally engaged.

• Goal (desired future condition): èèèè Neighborhood Associations organized and cooperating • Key Strategies: 1. Create a strategy for outreach and education about tree care and canopy benefits to Neighborhood Associations and Homeowners Associations.

2. Work with Neighborhood and Homeowners Associations to establish specifications for tree maintenance that are accessible and affordable to residents as needed.

3. Identify potential tree planting locations (especially along arterial and collector level streets) and seek funding with Neighborhoods to develop and plant trees in these areas.

• Strategies Brainstorm: i. Continue to develop planting opportunities (priority in right-­‐ of-­‐way (ROW)) within neighborhoods that lack the tree planting areas found in the cities older neighborhoods (North End and East End). ii. One on one and neighborhood interaction is paramount outreach strategy to expanding our urban forest.

1. Using tree stewards to work with HOAs and neighborhood associations for pruning and help with managing the urban forest (neighborhood captains) 2. Neighborhoods collaborate with Forestry on urban forest management iii. Encourage neighborhoods to take ownership over their areas (Vista Neighborhood encouraging “nodes” along Vista BLVD) iv. Promote nextdoor.com as an outreach connection to neighborhood associations v. Develop a plan for providing tree care for elderly or disadvantaged communities 1. Coordinate with “rake up” and Paint Boise

20

•

vi. Enhance understanding between agencies/nurseries/neighborhoods so that resources available are known to all entities. vii. Identify gaps in potential street trees and look for funding for neighborhoods to plant in these areas (ex. asphalt and bronco motors) viii. Key Boise Community Forestry links provided on the city Planning and Development Services (PDS) web-­‐page and cross-­‐referenced on Neighborhood association websites ix. Develop a neighborhood level analysis framework modeled after the downtown CCDC-­‐DBA system. x. Work with residential (neighborhoods) and commercial areas to ensure long term health of trees Comments from 4/16 & 6/4 Brainstorm sessions i. Invigorate rake-­‐up Boise ii. Consider designating an interagency “ambassador” to work with other agencies, industry, public, etc. Measure accomplishments of this ambassador position. iii. Work with top priority neighborhood associations to assist with their existing planning efforts. Use what is developed as templates, standards, specifications that can be used to work with other neighborhood associations.

5. Citizen-­‐municipality-­‐business interaction • Key Objective: All constituencies in the community interact for the benefit of the urban forest • Current Condition: èèè Informal and/or general cooperation.

• Goal (desired future condition): èèèè Formal interaction with plans embraced by community partners • Key Strategies: 1. In collaboration with partners, develop templates, standards and specifications for operations and maintenance of green stormwater infrastructure.

2. Partner with PDS, CCDC, ACHD and DBA to develop and implement a funding plan for maintenance of downtown trees (to include irrigation, establishment, protection and pruning).

3. Develop a strategy with business owners, neighborhood associations and PDS to pro-­‐actively plan for growth of tree canopy and business/signage visibility.

• Strategies Brainstorm: i. Develop a holistic approach to street tree irrigation and maintenance in the downtown core. ii. Develop planting spaces that provide greater root area than the typical small planting beds

21

•

iii. Develop a plan for paying for maintenance/care of downtown street trees. iv. Assist DBA with contact list of downtown building owners for who is caring for which street trees. v. Get irrigation controls out of buildings so they can get serviced if and when needed. vi. Work with City and ACHD for inspections, operations and maintenance for green stormwater infrastructure. This could provide a model policy and practice for operations and maintenance of all functional landscapes within the city. vii. Work with residential (neighborhoods) and commercial areas to ensure long term health of trees Comments from 4/16 & 6/4 Brainstorm sessions i. Maybe add designers here, but seems to fit well in Green industry ii. Consider designating an interagency “ambassador” to work with other agencies, industry, public, business, etc. Measure accomplishments of this ambassador position. iii. Standards and specifications for green stormwater infrastructure (O&M) can provide a model policy and practice for operations and maintenance of all functional landscapes within the city.

6. General awareness of trees as a community resource • Key Objective: The general public understands the role of the urban forest • Current Condition: èè Trees seen as important to the community • Goal (desired future condition): èèèè Urban forest recognized as vital to the community’s environmental, social and economic well-­‐ being.

• Key Strategies: 1. Link with Boise’s LIV efforts to establish the urban tree canopy as a vital means for enhanced sustainability in the city.

2. Collaborate with partners to expand public outreach efforts about importance of the urban forest in functional landscapes.

3. Implement innovative campaigns (print, social, radio, etc.) for promoting the benefits of the urban forest.

• Strategies Brainstorm: i. Develop a holistic approach to street tree irrigation and maintenance in the downtown core ii. Promote the importance of trees to addressing impacts of climate change

22

•

iii. Educate public on importance of large trees and that most of the environmental services from trees come from large trees. iv. Educate the public on xeriscape and its effect on trees. We want low water usage yards but want to maintain trees. v. Prepare for conflict with solar energy. vi. Incentivize planting trees! vii. Sales pitch for trees and forestry for all HOAs that link to the education materials produced. A one-­‐stop shop (website) for educational material on trees. Central Resource Hub! viii. Link with city’s LIV Boise efforts, participate in Sustainability metric development, etc.

Comments from 4/16 & 6/4 Brainstorm sessions i. Key factor in growing sustainability initiative ii. Find ways to expand our outreach partners to include city departments, partner agencies, homeowners associations and industry.

7. Regional cooperation (within the Treasure Valley) • Key Objective: Provide for cooperation and interaction among neighboring communities and regional groups.

• Current Condition: èèè Regional planning is in effect • Goal (desired future condition): èèèè Regional planning coordination and/or management planning efforts • Key Strategies: 1. Coordinate with neighboring communities to establish a common voice in efforts to expand and protect our urban forests. Current efforts are already underway through the Treasure Valley Canopy Network.

2. Incorporate tree canopy performance measure into COMPASS dashboard. (Measurement across the two counties – easily measurable).

3.

• Strategies Brainstorm: i. Look for opportunity to work Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) to beautify our freeway entry-­‐ways into the city 1. Enhance gateways into Boise. Once off the highways ensure that trees are incorporated in the landscape.

2. If trees aren’t possible use public art.

3. Locate trees on steetscapes as appropriate to protect site lines.

4. Trees may not be feasible on highways because of site lines.

• Comments from 4/16 & 6/4 Brainstorm sessions i. Metropolitan planning association to see if they have trees incorporated

23

ii. Incorporate tree canopy performance measure into COMPASS dashboard. (measurement across the two counties – easily measurable). iii. Gernika, Spain sister city we should present them with a tree.

ADDITIONAL POTENTIAL STRATEGIES MENTIONED:

** Other strategy mentioned, which may be suitable for the Community Framework criteria: Diplomacy – Does Boise have a sister city in another state/country? If so, could we partner with them to reciprocally plant trees that are native to our respective regions with a plaque indicating the tree is to honor our Sister City?

24